84HuskerLaw

Most athletic endeavors can be improved by lots of practice. No matter how bad you are, you can improve with proper instruction. For the 'natural' the motions, footwork, coordination, etc. is already there but, even the best athlete who has never thrown a football before will not be great without some practice. Being a great QB is very difficult, period. Otherwise, there would not be such a battle to find the very few who can be truly excellent at the position. Even in the wishbone and Osbone and other running focused schemes, it requires ball handling skils. The best athlete on the team is not necessarily the best passing QB but you certainly want one of your very best athletes on the team playing QB in a wishbone or other option running attack. An option attack without a great runner handling the QB spot will be much easier to defend of course. Take out the QB as a dangerous running threat and the man advantages of the option is all but lost. But a great thrower who can place the ball in the right location is equally as threatening to the defense as the great runner. For the passing game proponents, they would surely argue that a great arm / thrower is worth his weight in gold. The NFL where they certainly put their money on the line to field the best possible team, passing is deemed critical to success; hence we've basically never seen a true wishbone offense utilized successfully in the pros. I always thought it should have been tried but injuries and so on to the QB (the wishbone magician!) are the foremost reason given.

This is exactly the problem with trying to discuss or debate basic ideas and notions with liberals. They don't listen and refuse to accept the facts which are plain to see if one would simply open one's mind to them. So, who is the liberal that you're referring to in this discussion? me? because my arguments are decidedly conservative, not progressive. Or are you just making a general blanket statement? Certainy not you, CM! While I don't agree with some of the ideas you present, you are generally on point and make good logical arguments. I think it is fairly obvious who the liberals are and who they aren't.

Fortunately he still had his other left eye!

This is exactly the problem with trying to discuss or debate basic ideas and notions with liberals. They don't listen and refuse to accept the facts which are plain to see if one would simply open one's mind to them.

I think Armstrong could run Osborne's offense quite well and he is just as athletic as Frazier (bigger, stronger and faster really). Stronger arm but Tommy F seemed to avoid some of the bad plays in the passing game, although in fairness to Armstrong, he was not ever put in the difficult situations as much. I think Frazier could run about any offense but he was very well suited to the "Osbone". I would love to see Armstrong run the good old wishbone. He'd be scary good in that too.

I hardly think my point of playing younger guys is all that much in question. Back in day, there were several games a year when nearly all the players suited up got into the games for a few plays and the 2s and 3s say at least a solid quarter of action. By the soph and certainly junior seasons, the guys had logged a pretty substantial number of plays etc. In recent seasons, we hardly know who the second and third string Off linemen are as they never play. We rarely see much from the thirds and fourths in the secondary, unless a rash of injuries or off field things come up. We often debate who should be 3rd or 4th in the RB spot but rarely is the Number 2 FB even identified. We have a bunch of WRs who play. But seemingly that is the only position where we have retained and built up depth - not a coincidence in my view btw - that they freely substitute and play guys.

Yeah. 84HuskerLaw suggests we've been "seeing this for years" but I can't remember a single Iowa season finale where I wanted the team to admit defeat and play the young, unproven guys. Also, it's called Senior Day for a reason. Yes, its called senior day as the seniors are recognized before the game as a point of honoring their time in the program. There is certainly no rule that says they play no matter how poorly. I didn't say at Nebraska necessarily although it started a decade or so ago. The 'mediocrity' we've been enduring since Frank's final years is a direct result of not playing younger players in a desperate attempt to win those magical 9 games so the HC ritually keeps his job. It only took about 6 seasons to go from the best program in the country to one many on this board argue became 'untouchable' by the best coaches who wouldn't want to go to Nebraska because of the alleged pressure to win - not mentioning the extraordinary work effort required to recruit the best from all over. In fairness to Frank and Company, after 9/11 attacks, recruiting became very difficult as travel by air went from being inexpensive and very convenient from Lincoln to a 'pain in the a ss' no doubt. Air travel still stinks in my view and without direct flights, it is not something many would want to have to do at the volume of Nebraska coaches. Now, with the private plane assist, I am sure it is much handier for our coaches to get all over in search of players.

Exactly! Heck, this is probably a game or so too late by then really. Good grief, a bunch of folks on here wanted to take radical action and spend many millions of dollars firing and hiring new coaches in this scenario. I am simply saying we need to be planning and building a program and team. This is not a social encounter group experience. We are a football program and trying to win and rebuild the program into a national power with respect and admiration across the country. To do so, you don't just blame the coaches for the failings of the seniors. You give the entire team a fair chance to contribute and do their part to help the program. I just feel the focus is not on giving the seniors a swan song but rather to have the entire team be successful. I have seen a few coaches who even take the step of literally starting all the seniors, whether or not they are worthy of starting roles, in the last game of the year. This is maybe fine so long as you are talking about a play or two and there is no exceedingly high risk of a disasterous outcome (giving up a TD on the first snap because this senior from the bench has no clue or is not close to being ready to actually play). I don't agree with going this far but I have known some who argue that if you are not a starter by your senior year, you should be encouraged to quit the team. The idea is that you better be getting better and contributing to the team and program in some ways, whether on or off the field. Many a walk on has been a valuable contributor to the program, even if he or they failed to earn a letter or become a major starting player. But, to play a senior because he is a senior and has put in the time and effort is unfair to the other members of the team who may be worthy of playing time but are being denied because a senior gets the time. Not right.

We are also the only Big Ten team to have a losing record to Indiana. Obviously it's hard to gain a lead when you haven't played them in forever. And what is our record vs Indiana? I recall kicking their butts back in the day when the numbskull on ESPN was their coach.

Riley will play the best guy, every game, as his neck is on the line. LOL his neck is on the line. Maybe your line. Even if this year flubs again, he's got another 2 before his neck is on the line. Whether Riley is going to be fired or not, the AD should tell him to play the young guys. Period. end of discussion. Seniors can and should play if the team is competing for championships / upper half of the bowls, etc. but once the losing season becomes apparent, then you double down on the 'backups to the future' program. So, at what point should your genius plan kick in? After the first loss because we probably won't be in the NC hunt? After the second....third??? When? I believe I said when the losing season becomes apparent. I think you can figure that out without a calculator can't you!

Riley will play the best guy, every game, as his neck is on the line. LOL his neck is on the line. Maybe your line. Even if this year flubs again, he's got another 2 before his neck is on the line. Whether Riley is going to be fired or not, the AD should tell him to play the young guys. Period. end of discussion. Seniors can and should play if the team is competing for championships / upper half of the bowls, etc. but once the losing season becomes apparent, then you double down on the 'backups to the future' program. I agree that we should look for ways to get young players meaningful experience. Did you mean not to play seniors at all, or just to get young guys in the game? I mean we should basically swap the roles the seniors play with the backups. Let the seniors (formerly starters) play the mop up roles at the ends of games in the losing seasons. I've watched some many times as the teams who are mired in mediocrity or worse continue the same pattern of bringing in new recruits, redshirting them, letting be backups until they are juniors and seniors and then they get the playing time as 'they've earned it" and because they are the 'experienced' and have 'paid their dues' etc. To me the rule is 'the best guys play' UNLESS the team continues to not win and they are seniors. Then, they've had their chances and just didn't get it done. At that point, you move on to the younger guys with a chance to get better and to get it done. That's how you build up the program. Thisis a never ending cycle of watching the younger guys 'wait their turns' and sit around as the next class of seniors who patiently waited their turns like good little soldiers marching to die! To say "if I was a under classman on the team and saw the starters benched because they weren't getting the job done (losing repeatedly) I'd quit the team and transfer rather than get out there and work to win or get better so the next year you maybe could win!' is part of the problem. This notion that you're entitled to have something given to you without earning it by being successful is BS. That is the mentality at the core of many of country's problems today. You seem like a nice guy, but I'm glad you're not running the team. Really? Why? If you disagree with my points about playing seniors who are losing to the bitter end and keeping our backups on the bench until they are seniors just because they are seniors, please explain. We've been watching this for years.

I am sorry but so many of the discussions on this board that get into economics and politics are nonsensical really. It is downright scary sometimes to read some of the comments and statements of 'fact' offered by people. The media today spew such stupidity and unfounded crap coupled with an educational system that is filled with economic morons. This crap gets spread around and people are so fundamentally misinformed about basic economics and the markets and so on that we get Bernie Sanders and Hillary Clinton competing to win the Presidency following Obama. It is no wonder we have an overall economy that is near comatose and has been on the equivalent of economic 'life support' by the FED and government money printers and manipulators for 7 years running. There is nothing further needed to be stated about the dire straits of the economy than to point out that the Fed Funds rates near or even below zero percent is and long term mortgage rates in the 4% range! These are without question depression level numbers. In many ways the economy is actually in worse shape that in the 1930s Great Depression era and but for adding another 11 trillion to the declared 'national debt' over t he same 7 years we would be seeing the worst poverty and starvation crisis in modern world history. We have literally 50 million people living in poverty off the public dole with virtually NO HOPE of improving their lot and another 100 million barely about the poverty line and living in fear of losing their low paying jobs, etc. Instead of Obama's promised hope and change, we've lost all hope and fear and supplanted the optimism that most (not all sadly) Americans had before Obama was elected. You will see a clear and precipitous drop in employment, optimism, etc that coincides exactly with the rise of Obama. The deep recession that followed his nomination and the bursting of the Clinton housing bubble brought on by the lunacy of the liberal home mortgage funding mechanisms he and a handful of key Dems in the Congress and Senate. The FED has been propping up the stock market by direct investing and timing of intervention in the daily publicly traded stock markets and of course the crazy monetary policy (zero percent interest). Until we get back to more normal interest levels, etc we will never get back on a path to improved economic conditions and eventually improvement in the jobs markets. It is not how many low wage jobs have been added to the naiton's employment numbers that are meaningful. It is the big numbers of manufacturing and skilled worker jobs that have disappeared. We barely have more total employed today that we did 8 years ago and the amount of money being earned by those workers has actually fallen despite nearly 30% inflation over the same period. The economy is horrible. Period. No matter what kind of BS spin and false information the Obama people put out there. When normal interest rates ultimately return, the nation will be paying nearly 1 trillion per year in just interest on the current debt! This is not being included in the budget right now because the government has driven rates to zero and therefore is not accounting for interest as a cost of the government. This can't last in any real economic world.

Riley will play the best guy, every game, as his neck is on the line. LOL his neck is on the line. Maybe your line. Even if this year flubs again, he's got another 2 before his neck is on the line. Whether Riley is going to be fired or not, the AD should tell him to play the young guys. Period. end of discussion. Seniors can and should play if the team is competing for championships / upper half of the bowls, etc. but once the losing season becomes apparent, then you double down on the 'backups to the future' program. I agree that we should look for ways to get young players meaningful experience. Did you mean not to play seniors at all, or just to get young guys in the game? I mean we should basically swap the roles the seniors play with the backups. Let the seniors (formerly starters) play the mop up roles at the ends of games in the losing seasons. I've watched some many times as the teams who are mired in mediocrity or worse continue the same pattern of bringing in new recruits, redshirting them, letting be backups until they are juniors and seniors and then they get the playing time as 'they've earned it" and because they are the 'experienced' and have 'paid their dues' etc. To me the rule is 'the best guys play' UNLESS the team continues to not win and they are seniors. Then, they've had their chances and just didn't get it done. At that point, you move on to the younger guys with a chance to get better and to get it done. That's how you build up the program. Thisis a never ending cycle of watching the younger guys 'wait their turns' and sit around as the next class of seniors who patiently waited their turns like good little soldiers marching to die! To say "if I was a under classman on the team and saw the starters benched because they weren't getting the job done (losing repeatedly) I'd quit the team and transfer rather than get out there and work to win or get better so the next year you maybe could win!' is part of the problem. This notion that you're entitled to have something given to you without earning it by being successful is BS. That is the mentality at the core of many of country's problems today.

My feelings as well. Bush is one of the better athletes on the team. Size, speed, etc. He should be playing. Let him return kick offs and or punts. We have desperate need of someone who can do that. Maybe DPE is back? If Bush is third or arguably be 4th string if POB was worth his scholarship, he should be playing in the mean time. Now, if we lose Tommy or Fyfe, then he returns, maybe. This is why we make a deliberate effort to have no less than 2 QBs ready to go with some game snaps under their belts. We are one injury away from a disaster if Tommy goes down.

Riley will play the best guy, every game, as his neck is on the line. LOL his neck is on the line. Maybe your line. Even if this year flubs again, he's got another 2 before his neck is on the line. Whether Riley is going to be fired or not, the AD should tell him to play the young guys. Period. end of discussion. Seniors can and should play if the team is competing for championships / upper half of the bowls, etc. but once the losing season becomes apparent, then you double down on the 'backups to the future' program. Who plays and who doesn't isn't a decision the AD should be making. Agreed. He should not be making it because he doesn't have to. The HC and assistants should make the RIGHT decisions for the future of the program, not just the future interests of the coach. This is, in my view, at the very root of many of the issues of the program today. Frank wasn't recruiting sufficiently well and then as the cupboard got empty, he found himself going from the three deep to the two deep charts. He quit publishing the accurate heights, weights, speeds, etc. We started hearing the BS about players and their 'injuries' etc. The excuses were aplenty, some more legit than others, etc. Then long time devoted assistants were fired. We all know the story. But the problem develops to a point where desperation to win now and to hell with the future mentality takes control. Like a business, you have to plan and invest and sacrifice in the near term to build for the long term. Far too many are looking at the what have you done for me lately and yet ultimately the great coaches build a program and then maintain it. You do that by making sure the present is brighter than the past and the future is brighter than the present.

Riley will play the best guy, every game, as his neck is on the line. LOL his neck is on the line. Maybe your line. Even if this year flubs again, he's got another 2 before his neck is on the line. Whether Riley is going to be fired or not, the AD should tell him to play the young guys. Period. end of discussion. Seniors can and should play if the team is competing for championships / upper half of the bowls, etc. but once the losing season becomes apparent, then you double down on the 'backups to the future' program.

Amen! I would certainly suggest that guys better get on the Husker train because there are only so many more spots left in this class and once the season begins, and we win our first 4 games, the line will get crowded in a hurry! And guys, that's only about 60 days from now!

Ouch! I could understand all this hostility if we were fans of opposing teams but I don't think that is the case! Or is it? We need a poll or survey of how many on this board actually are sincerely hoping the Huskers win games and play well, no matter who the dam coach and Athletic Director may be! Gee whiz! This is supposed to be fun and enjoyable, not hateful! How about we disagree but in a little less disagreeable way?

Riley will play the best guy, every game, as his neck is on the line. Well, maybe but Riley was a HC at Oregon State for a long time so he obviously looks to the future as well. It is not do or die this fall in my view. He is in the process of building up the program with a longer term plan. If they Ath Dept and SE were thinking one or two seasons and you're gone, I think the contract would have been that way. The objective is to get the Huskers back in the thick of it nationally over the long haul, not focus on a continuation of what we had. You have to build depth and establish a foundation. That means you need to have younger guys getting experience. That is how you 'reload' not rebuild each year. In my opinion of course.

I think that ANY coach on any level including NFL would have considered carefully the Nebraska job when TO retired, had the position been opened up to all comers! I would argue that at that time, Nebraska's was the VERY BEST program in the country! We certainly had top 3 or maybe the most talent of any program on hand. Yes, some top notch coaches would have likely opted not to take the job because of the location or the pressure or the recruiting challenges. But, I would suggest the single biggest reason why some of the top names would have hesitated would have been the legacy of being one of only a small handful of 'option' oriented ground attacks with a fan based that loved that style offense and wanted nothing more than to continue that forever! I, for one, would have preferred we stay with the "Oz bone" and continued to dominate with an offense that few other competitors would even contemplate. But, times changed, Frank let us all down with his disappointing recruiting and less than stellar staff choices, not even mentioning his off the field issues (real or not). I think Nebraska remains one of the top 15 jobs in the country as we are positioned to win the west and compete for a Big Ten title and arguably the Big Ten is the hottest football conference (yes, even more attractive than the SEC in my view). Any top coach would come in with Nebraska's fan base welcoming them with open arms and he'd get plenty of extra time and deference as the hunger for a return to greatness is deep. We've all been through all of this stuff to the point of nausea I'd say. Let's talk of future games and future wins and leave the past in the past.

Newby is not Ameer but on the other hand is not as average as some of the above comments. Most players improve as they mature and of course he will look better as we block better. It is amazing how good running backs look when they are playing behind a solid O line and getting the right play calls. Barry Sanders would not have been one of the best ever if he didn't have some darn good help up front.

Just so I am sure I understand what you mean. Is that statement aimed at me or at BLM? I would agree if you are talking about BLM. +1, BLM seems to be more about getting free stuff for being black than anything else. While there are of course exceptions to every general rule, it is in fact generally true that most people react to the behavior of others similarly. Someone acting irrationally or in a threatening manner will be responded to similarly. There is a large majority of the public that would agree that there are many issues with today's educational system and its shortcomings are contributing greatly to our social and economic decline. A higher percentage of Blacks live in poverty as a result. This is about where the general agreement ends however. This divergence begins when the discussion starts to focus on what is wrong with the education and why and beyond the educational issues come underlying economic realities and government's response and involvement therewith. After many many trillions of dollars spent in the 50 years long 'war on poverty' we have record levels of poverty! Something is fundamentally wrong with the treatment of the disease if, after that many years of 'therapy' for the disease and the end result is it is worse than ever! Focusing on taking personal responsibility for your lot in life and encouraging self sufficiency and independence might well be a better approach than creating more dependency and despair. Desegregration was Court enforced and after almost two generations of integrated 'education' it is apparent that it is the family life at home and not the bricks and mortar of the school buildings that foster learning and ultimately improvement in the economic and social well being of the students who attend the school. Perhaps the better idea would be to quadruple the number of cops in the schools and triple the number 'school arrests' and detentions and expulsions, etc for disruptive and disrespectful students. In an environment of respect and student dedication, schools will be dramatically better. "No child left behind" was lambasted as some horrible notion when in fact, it is exactly the cure for the disease. No child should be allowed to fall behind and simply be discarded which has been the liberal program for many decades. "Social promotion' has been the typical response of the liberal mindset which simply says we don't need to keep score - just give out awards for participation and we all pass.

You know, if that were true, it would be pretty fair considering all of the free gifts and programs targeted specifically towards white folk in our country's history. Such as? I am white and I guess I missed out on those freebie! In fact, I haven't seen many "Free for Whites Only" signs above huge stockpiles of goodies that all of us racist Whiteys want and need and deserve! This one just goes way past reality into the twilight zone between reality and fantasy called liberalism !

I think it really depends on how the early games go for me. If we start out with a couple wins and then follow with about 3 losses, then its time to look to 2017 and we give youth a chance to learn. At that point, the season is basically long term practice for the next year in essence. The conference and any other championships are out of the question. The schedule gets tougher so if we are out of the race for anything meaningful, then its time to get back to the future. POB and Bush need to play a bunch so we don't find ourselves with three consecutive losing seasons! That could easily happen if we find ourselves as we did last year on the bottom side of .500 looking up in October. Watching Tommy's swan song is not acceptable if we are losing. I honestly don't expect this BUT it is certainly possible with a rash of key injuries in the line or something. Turnovers and penalties are the great equalizers.

I am optimistic as you all should know if you bother to read my posts. I know many of you don't as you don't agree with my sentiments on much of anything. I am not concerned about that as I expect that over time the truth will come out and we'll all know who was more right than wrong about many things. I think being mentioned in a poll after finishing last year 6-7 is actually a recognition by the coaches that Nebraska still has some weight and consideration. I suspect we are not yet on anybody's short list for homecoming opponents - maybe a couple at the top but not many. It is also likely that there are about a dozen teams ranked ahead of us in this poll that would be preferred opponents for many teams over the Huskers as easier to defeat. We played top 25 football in the bowl game in my view and also played top 25 grade football for maybe 1/3rd of the other quarters during the year. We will find ourselves ranked respectably by game 5 IF we win those games.