The Big Nebrowski

If I was an NFL coach, and I had a good-to-great QB (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Big Ben, etc.), I'd go for 2 most of the time. Askin' for trouble there. They've done studies, especially in the pros, you take the PAT or FG nearly 100% of the time. Odds are not in your fav going for 2 or going for 4th down(when you can kick the FG). Pts are precious in the NFL. you just know everything don't you. Analytics have shown going for 2 is becoming more and more rewarding since they've moved back the PAT.Go ahead, if you want to get fired as an HC just do that. And while you're at it, go for onsides kicks everytime too. Pro kickers can kick it from 60 with their eyes closed, you take the point. that's funny because kickers are missing an all time high number and percentage of extra points. I'm not saying go for 2 every time and I definitely never said anything about onside kicks but there are alot of scenarios where going for 2 going to be more advantageous than trying for 1as yet, I haven't seen any pro coaches going in that direction. If the kicker misses too many in a season, he gets fired and they bring in the next guy, which is still the better option that going for 2 when you don't have to.After a long successful scoring drive for 6, if you miss the 2, well, it's a downer psychologically, where getting the easy 1 feels better, you don't get the downer. Same thing w driving the field to FG range. If you go for it on 4th and don't get it, its a big downer, bad momentum shift. You take the 3, even if you are 3 TDs down and plenty of time in the game. Bielema was singing the praises of analytics after he won a game this year. Next week he gets his butt kicked by Aub and no word about analytics. Analytics aren't everything. just because coaches aren't doing it yet doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. No one sailed very far out back in the 1400s because they were sure the earth was flat, didn't make them right. PATs aren't gimmies and I would say there is probably at least one time in every game a team would be better off going for 2 A PAT is a higher % play than a 2 pt try, EVERY time. It's like a layup vs a 3 pt try.Coaches aren't going to mess around w unnecessary 2 pters because they want to keep their jobs. In the NFL, games are usually decided by 1-3 pts, so you take the PAT and FG at every chance because if you don't get those points, you prlly lose the game, and everybody's making their living off of it, and you get more $ if you win. Fans hate losing too, especially when bad choices are made by coaches. If they want to make the game more exciting for the fans, then just do away w the PAT altogether. And, I'm sure everybody's seen those games where they botch a 4th down try instead of taking a FG and end up losing the game by 2. That's the type of stuff that gets coaches fired. I'D go for 2 every time in the NFL and I'd never get fired. I'm thinking it's the higher percentage way to go. think "NBA 3 point revolution" the extra point is so valuable it's worth a lower percentage. If you go for 2 every time and make it 60% of the time you are scoring more than if you kick the PAT every time and hit every single oneHow many NBA players shoot 60% from the arc over the course of a season? I'm thinkin' NONE, but maybe Curry has done it, I don't follow the game that much anymore. A layup, on the other hand, is prlly more in the 90% thing, but who wants to take the time and effort to get a dumb ol' boring layup anymore when you can just run down the floor and jack up 3s all game? There's debate on whether or not the "3 rev" has improved the game. The old timers say "no" of course. I don't think you can convert 2 pointers @ 60% in FB, maybe more like 30% at best, but that would go down the more teams try it and are therefore better defended against it. Disagree.Maybe you could bring in Mr. Helfrich in the loop here to help you develop your position. OR's whole thing was that they were so "awesome" that they were gonna score 2s everytime and put the pressure on you and bury you as fast as possible and take you out of your game, etc. Well, it sounded good on paper anyway...

I'm a Pats fan and I have NEVER seen Belichik NOT take the PAT and he almost always goes for the FG if within range. He only goes for 2 late in games when he logically has to. He may be a bit more inclined to go for a 4th and short in the middle of the field because they are the Pats and "cuz Brady", but he isn't stupid about it.I'm not necessarily talking about going for 2 for Bilicheck. I am thinking of him going for it on 4th down more often than other coaches. He knows the value of getting a TD vs. a FG. He is just more aggressive than other coaches in the NFL. It helps that he has the most job security in all of football, but he is also a smart guy who understands the math behind a lot of the choices he makes. For example, years ago he went for it on 4th down from his own 30 against Indy and Peyton Manning. His reasoning was to keep the ball, because Manning was going to lead the Colts to a TD no matter where he took over the possession. I like that in a coach. Your e.g. there is a very exceptional situation, very uncommon. But you are right, because he has Brady the risk factor goes down because he'll prlly make the play. So he does go for 4th more than most teams can.

If I was an NFL coach, and I had a good-to-great QB (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Big Ben, etc.), I'd go for 2 most of the time. Askin' for trouble there. They've done studies, especially in the pros, you take the PAT or FG nearly 100% of the time. Odds are not in your fav going for 2 or going for 4th down(when you can kick the FG). Pts are precious in the NFL. you just know everything don't you. Analytics have shown going for 2 is becoming more and more rewarding since they've moved back the PAT.Go ahead, if you want to get fired as an HC just do that. And while you're at it, go for onsides kicks everytime too. Pro kickers can kick it from 60 with their eyes closed, you take the point. that's funny because kickers are missing an all time high number and percentage of extra points. I'm not saying go for 2 every time and I definitely never said anything about onside kicks but there are alot of scenarios where going for 2 going to be more advantageous than trying for 1as yet, I haven't seen any pro coaches going in that direction. If the kicker misses too many in a season, he gets fired and they bring in the next guy, which is still the better option that going for 2 when you don't have to.After a long successful scoring drive for 6, if you miss the 2, well, it's a downer psychologically, where getting the easy 1 feels better, you don't get the downer. Same thing w driving the field to FG range. If you go for it on 4th and don't get it, its a big downer, bad momentum shift. You take the 3, even if you are 3 TDs down and plenty of time in the game. Bielema was singing the praises of analytics after he won a game this year. Next week he gets his butt kicked by Aub and no word about analytics. Analytics aren't everything. just because coaches aren't doing it yet doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. No one sailed very far out back in the 1400s because they were sure the earth was flat, didn't make them right. PATs aren't gimmies and I would say there is probably at least one time in every game a team would be better off going for 2 A PAT is a higher % play than a 2 pt try, EVERY time. It's like a layup vs a 3 pt try.Coaches aren't going to mess around w unnecessary 2 pters because they want to keep their jobs. In the NFL, games are usually decided by 1-3 pts, so you take the PAT and FG at every chance because if you don't get those points, you prlly lose the game, and everybody's making their living off of it, and you get more $ if you win. Fans hate losing too, especially when bad choices are made by coaches. If they want to make the game more exciting for the fans, then just do away w the PAT altogether. And, I'm sure everybody's seen those games where they botch a 4th down try instead of taking a FG and end up losing the game by 2. That's the type of stuff that gets coaches fired. I'D go for 2 every time in the NFL and I'd never get fired. I'm thinking it's the higher percentage way to go. think "NBA 3 point revolution" the extra point is so valuable it's worth a lower percentage. If you go for 2 every time and make it 60% of the time you are scoring more than if you kick the PAT every time and hit every single oneHow many NBA players shoot 60% from the arc over the course of a season? I'm thinkin' NONE, but maybe Curry has done it, I don't follow the game that much anymore. A layup, on the other hand, is prlly more in the 90% thing, but who wants to take the time and effort to get a dumb ol' boring layup anymore when you can just run down the floor and jack up 3s all game? There's debate on whether or not the "3 rev" has improved the game. The old timers say "no" of course. I don't think you can convert 2 pointers @ 60% in FB, maybe more like 30% at best, but that would go down the more teams try it and are therefore better defended against it.

1 pt is always worth 1 pt and 0 pts is always worth no points. The likelihood of you getting the no points on a failed 2 pointer is far greater than missing a PAT. You take the point. But if you're the coach, do whatever you want, see how it works out. So if you are up by 1 point in a game you are going to kick the PAT to go up by 2 rather than trying to go up by 3? Can I ask you why?In this case, the only time you'd go for the 2 is if its late and you wanna go up by 3 because you don't think you will get another possession and the other team has time to possibly get FG. So, you try to at least ensure the worst case scenario is sending it into OT. Of course, if they drive the field and get the 6 w time running out, well, you've lost.

I'm a Pats fan and I have NEVER seen Belichik NOT take the PAT and he almost always goes for the FG if within range. He only goes for 2 late in games when he logically has to. He may be a bit more inclined to go for a 4th and short in the middle of the field because they are the Pats and "cuz Brady", but he isn't stupid about it.

1 pt is always worth 1 pt and 0 pts is always worth no points. The likelihood of you getting the no points on a failed 2 pointer is far greater than missing a PAT. You take the point. But if you're the coach, do whatever you want, see how it works out.

If I was an NFL coach, and I had a good-to-great QB (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Big Ben, etc.), I'd go for 2 most of the time. Askin' for trouble there. They've done studies, especially in the pros, you take the PAT or FG nearly 100% of the time. Odds are not in your fav going for 2 or going for 4th down(when you can kick the FG). Pts are precious in the NFL. you just know everything don't you. Analytics have shown going for 2 is becoming more and more rewarding since they've moved back the PAT.Go ahead, if you want to get fired as an HC just do that. And while you're at it, go for onsides kicks everytime too. Pro kickers can kick it from 60 with their eyes closed, you take the point. that's funny because kickers are missing an all time high number and percentage of extra points. I'm not saying go for 2 every time and I definitely never said anything about onside kicks but there are alot of scenarios where going for 2 going to be more advantageous than trying for 1as yet, I haven't seen any pro coaches going in that direction. If the kicker misses too many in a season, he gets fired and they bring in the next guy, which is still the better option that going for 2 when you don't have to. After a long successful scoring drive for 6, if you miss the 2, well, it's a downer psychologically, where getting the easy 1 feels better, you don't get the downer. Same thing w driving the field to FG range. If you go for it on 4th and don't get it, its a big downer, bad momentum shift. You take the 3, even if you are 3 TDs down and plenty of time in the game. Bielema was singing the praises of analytics after he won a game this year. Next week he gets his butt kicked by Aub and no word about analytics. Analytics aren't everything. just because coaches aren't doing it yet doesn't mean it shouldn't be done. No one sailed very far out back in the 1400s because they were sure the earth was flat, didn't make them right. PATs aren't gimmies and I would say there is probably at least one time in every game a team would be better off going for 2 A PAT is a higher % play than a 2 pt try, EVERY time. It's like a layup vs a 3 pt try. Coaches aren't going to mess around w unnecessary 2 pters because they want to keep their jobs. In the NFL, games are usually decided by 1-3 pts, so you take the PAT and FG at every chance because if you don't get those points, you prlly lose the game, and everybody's making their living off of it, and you get more $ if you win. Fans hate losing too, especially when bad choices are made by coaches. If they want to make the game more exciting for the fans, then just do away w the PAT altogether. And, I'm sure everybody's seen those games where they botch a 4th down try instead of taking a FG and end up losing the game by 2. That's the type of stuff that gets coaches fired.

MR had said at least a few times this last season that he "gets it" and wants to pound the rock. But that just wasn't happening so well this season. First, we don't have an Ameer Abdullah and if you go back and look @ his "tape" he was on another level than the guys we have now. He left a big hole, on the order of ~700 extra O yds per. Newby had a respectable year, nearly 900 yds, has talent and speed, but just can't make a lot happen on his own: namely, can't break tackles. Zig got hurt and Bryant looks good w hopefully some upside, but I'd be surprised if he gets to Ameer's level. This is why I am worried that we kind of whiffed @ RB in the '17 class. No big disrepect to Bradly, but we're going to have to do a lot better than that. the obsession with carrying around 5 QB'S instead of focusing on a damn good RB makes no sense to me.......but to Lang's all is probably well..........ugh!You're absolutely right about that, sir, especially when 4 outta the 5 QBs nvr see the field. This is NEBRASKA, it's the LAND, the earth, the ground and those in your face winds of November! Last time we had a stable of thoroughbred backs was the '95 team of the century and it was a thing of beauty to see back after back run roughshod over those STUPID Gators and their whiney ol' Ball Coach. Now that's what I'm talkin' about! I hate to say it, but last time I was real excited about an RB was Omaha's own Ahman Green and that kid was kickin' ass and takin' names right outta the shoot, givin' the #2 back in Husker history, LP(RIP) a run for his $. Aw, the good ol' days. Since then, well Ameer was a joy to watch his last 2 yrs and Rex and Roy were pretty good too. We're just starvin' for the next GREAT NU RB, starving! I fully expect Ozigbo to be pretty damn good in 2017. Put me down for Ziggy having 1,000 next season. My guess is Tre will clearly establish himself as the starter and be the 1000 yd guy. Zigbo #2, ground and pound guy, and under 1000. Wilbon prlly in the 3 spot.

MR had said at least a few times this last season that he "gets it" and wants to pound the rock. But that just wasn't happening so well this season. First, we don't have an Ameer Abdullah and if you go back and look @ his "tape" he was on another level than the guys we have now. He left a big hole, on the order of ~700 extra O yds per.Newby had a respectable year, nearly 900 yds, has talent and speed, but just can't make a lot happen on his own: namely, can't break tackles. Zig got hurt and Bryant looks good w hopefully some upside, but I'd be surprised if he gets to Ameer's level. This is why I am worried that we kind of whiffed @ RB in the '17 class. No big disrepect to Bradly, but we're going to have to do a lot better than that. the obsession with carrying around 5 QB'S instead of focusing on a damn good RB makes no sense to me.......but to Lang's all is probably well..........ugh!You're absolutely right about that, sir, especially when 4 outta the 5 QBs nvr see the field.This is NEBRASKA, it's the LAND, the earth, the ground and those in your face winds of November! Last time we had a stable of thoroughbred backs was the '95 team of the century and it was a thing of beauty to see back after back run roughshod over those STUPID Gators and their whiney ol' Ball Coach. Now that's what I'm talkin' about! I hate to say it, but last time I was real excited about an RB was Omaha's own Ahman Green and that kid was kickin' ass and takin' names right outta the shoot, givin' the #2 back in Husker history, LP(RIP) a run for his $. Aw, the good ol' days. Since then, well Ameer was a joy to watch his last 2 yrs and Rex and Roy were pretty good too. We're just starvin' for the next GREAT NU RB, starving! Did we have a good QB in '95 or was it just the RBs that were great? I forgot... We carry 5 QBs so we dont get into the same mess weve been in the last couple years. No depth behind the starter. We saw how well we did when Martinez and Armstrong went down. Even with Abdullah and Burkhead and Helu. Those guys are NFL RBs and we were still an average team. Why? Because the QB position was average. And we are recruiting some top talent backs in '18. Just because we missed on them in '17 doesnt mean we werent recruiting them. 1) '95? Both, and Frazier was as good a rusher as the RBs. 2) Ideally, you have 3-4 deep @ both positions with guys that can come in and play now w/o drop off--like, say, Bama. But few teams have that luxury and we certainly haven't had that for many moons. I'm ok w having the QBs, my point is that we're thin @ RB. 3) I hope we get them, the more the better.

If I was an NFL coach, and I had a good-to-great QB (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Big Ben, etc.), I'd go for 2 most of the time. Askin' for trouble there. They've done studies, especially in the pros, you take the PAT or FG nearly 100% of the time. Odds are not in your fav going for 2 or going for 4th down(when you can kick the FG). Pts are precious in the NFL.you just know everything don't you. Analytics have shown going for 2 is becoming more and more rewarding since they've moved back the PAT.Go ahead, if you want to get fired as an HC just do that. And while you're at it, go for onsides kicks everytime too. 2 pt convo is a low % play. Why? Because the D doesn't have much field to cover. Pro kickers can kick it from 60 with their eyes closed, that's why they make the big $--you take the point. "go for the onside kick every time" ..... You seem to have the analytics hammered down, so you should know that converting a two-point play is much more likely to be successful then an onside kick. "Pro kickers can kick it from 60 with their eyes close" ..... no they cant...... I was being facetious in the 1st eg and using hyperbole in the 2nd, to make my...point.

If I was an NFL coach, and I had a good-to-great QB (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Big Ben, etc.), I'd go for 2 most of the time. Askin' for trouble there. They've done studies, especially in the pros, you take the PAT or FG nearly 100% of the time. Odds are not in your fav going for 2 or going for 4th down(when you can kick the FG). Pts are precious in the NFL. you just know everything don't you. Analytics have shown going for 2 is becoming more and more rewarding since they've moved back the PAT.Go ahead, if you want to get fired as an HC just do that. And while you're at it, go for onsides kicks everytime too. Pro kickers can kick it from 60 with their eyes closed, you take the point. that's funny because kickers are missing an all time high number and percentage of extra points. I'm not saying go for 2 every time and I definitely never said anything about onside kicks but there are alot of scenarios where going for 2 going to be more advantageous than trying for 1As yet, I haven't seen any pro coaches going in that direction. If the kicker misses too many in a season, he gets fired and they bring in the next guy, which is still the better option that going for 2 when you don't have to. After a long successful scoring drive for 6, if you miss the 2, well, it's a downer psychologically, where getting the easy 1 feels better, you don't get the downer. Same thing w driving the field to FG range. If you go for it on 4th and don't get it, its a big downer, bad momentum shift. You take the 3, even if you are 3 TDs down and plenty of time in the game. Bielema was singing the praises of analytics after he won a game this year. Next week he gets his butt kicked by Aub and no word about analytics. Analytics aren't everything.

If I was an NFL coach, and I had a good-to-great QB (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Big Ben, etc.), I'd go for 2 most of the time. Askin' for trouble there. They've done studies, especially in the pros, you take the PAT or FG nearly 100% of the time. Odds are not in your fav going for 2 or going for 4th down(when you can kick the FG). Pts are precious in the NFL. you just know everything don't you. Analytics have shown going for 2 is becoming more and more rewarding since they've moved back the PAT.No, my friend, analytics have not shown that, and I'm not exactly sure what you mean by "rewarding". It's more rewarding to get the PAT 96% of the time(down from 99% since they moved it back) than to get the 2, at best, ~40% of the time--and that's on a good day. It's more rewarding, especially for the bosses, who, for one, don't like paying a kicker big bucks to ride the pine 99% of the time instead of the usual 95% of the time when he actually has to "work". You win more games, everybody makes more scratch, so everybody's happier. Botched 2 pters wreak all kinds of havoc on team psychy, from top to bottom, to the fanbase. Go ahead, if you want to get fired as an HC just do that. And while you're at it, go for onsides kicks everytime too. 2 pt convo is a low % play. Why? Because the D doesn't have much field to cover. Plus, there is higher probability of the D getting the ball and taking it the other way for points than doing so via blocked kick. Pro kickers can kick it from 60 with their eyes closed, that's why they make the big $--you take the point.

If I was an NFL coach, and I had a good-to-great QB (Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Ryan, Big Ben, etc.), I'd go for 2 most of the time. Askin' for trouble there. One of the best ways to get fired if you did that. They've done studies, especially in the pros, you take the PAT or FG nearly 100% of the time. Odds are not in your fav going for 2 or going for 4th down(when you can kick the FG). Pts are precious in the NFL.

In the pros especially, since the games are usually close, I think the deal is that you almost always take the points you can get, like the PAT or FG, don't go for 2 or go for it on 4th down: take the PAT or FG. The only time to go for 2 is late in a game when you basically have to. Almost nvr go for 2 when you are ahead. Don't be a "hero", take the high % pts.

I think you're tragically negative. You should look for the good in the team instead of dwelling on the bad things.Might make your fan experience less stressful. Just by the language you use in your posts, it seems like you really have little hope for the Huskers. Have you ever been exposed to HRO? High Reliability Organization. It is the system that allows the most dangerous and risky operations to go long stretches without failure. And one of the basic tenets of HRO goes completely against what you have just advocated. Basically you have to be constantly aware that failure is an option and will occur if you fail to do "x". Being constantly aware of failure, and nagging about doing what it takes to prevent failure is the surest way to prevent it. So you don't overlook shortcomings or be hopeful or wistful. Hope is not a game plan. NU has many hurdles for next year, and any wise person would not overlook, underestimate or belittle a single one if you want success. Well there is another side to that.If a person wants to remain a fan, maybe it is necessary from time to time to rely on hope and ignore some of the failures or problems. If I constantly remained at the lowest level of my outlook for Husker football, I'm not sure I could force myself to be interested any longer. Hope is really the only thing we've had to hold onto for 15+ years. My outlook was at an extremely low point after the tOSU and Iowa games this past season and the bowl game only helped confirm that negative outlook. But we fired our underperforming DC, recruited some pretty talented kids and finally will get to see this offense without allowances being made for a QB that honestly was not good at throwing the ball or going through passing progressions. So, there's a choice there, remain negative until on the field results prove otherwise or get your hopes up and start seeing the sunshine. I chose the later. It may not be well founded or even wise but it is necessary for me to avoid being a real jerk or completely losing interest. Plus, I might add, a fan overlooking, underestimating or belittling anything has absolutely zero effect on the success of the team. We're not coaches or players or directly involved with decisions or preparation. I could say we're going to win all 12, win the CCG and win the playoff and not allow a single point along the way and it wouldn't have any effect at all on what is really going to happen. It might get me committed but it wouldn't make a difference to the teams success. I hear ya cluckin... but sometimes an organization makes it hard on their fans. Take the Chargers for example. Good ol' bolts. First get rid of Brees and keep Phil. OK (who has the super bowl ring NOW). Had a hard time with that one. Then let Shottenheimer go after 14 win season... lost me forever. Now going to LA? Nothing like a big middle digit to your town after 50 years! It is possible for a team to lose fans. Unless you are just Okay with whatever. I just dont understand that.And I dont understand how a team like Nebraska can be run into the dirt like these last few guys have done over the last 15 years. It is like taking a Ferrari and repeatedly driving it into a cinder block wall until it cant even track straight enough to keep up with the Impalas I love your imagery, you have talent, my friend! Bolts, yeah bad, not right. It's all about the bottom line for those money grubbing, prick owners, after they've raped your town for tax subsidies, of course. Well, try bein' a Bears fan, omfg, why, after all these decades, do I bother? Well, I fell in love with Gale Sayers and Butkis, and their classic unis, and just can't quit them no matter how many ways they invent to lose a game. Good news is they probably can't ever leave the Windy City cuz Chi Town Fan would blow up their busses if they tried it.

agree, Ohio State kicked our ass, i think they got 5 5* kids.........we got none. And RB's we have no one out standing here either......we still need better recruiting, to compete. I think I saw a stat on Twitter that 12-13 of our 20 commits were rated 4 star by at least one recruiting service. Lindsay is a 5 star guy, he dropped because he missed most of his Senior year. Nevertheless, ADS already provided the stat that shows you we're recruiting at a much higher level then the Pelini regime. I guess I haven't seen any services that rate our class as you claim. 247, rivals, scout, espn, all--and this is every year--are pretty consistent with each other, give or take a bit. Riley is recruiting about the same as Bo, a handful of 4*s and a surplus of 3*s--that ratio has got to flip. Bama and tOSU consistently get as many or more 5* guys than we get 4*s, and more 4* than we get 3*s, and that's why they and FSU and soon to be USC again, own the thing. LSU's always in there of course and GA went crazy this year finishing @ #3. And MI has been in there too, and better w Harbaugh. It's "2 Americas", and we're in the 2nd one, along with a log jam of other teams. I won't suggest that stars don't mean anything, but look at a prospect's offer list. That will tell you more about how good they are, and their potential going forward (hence the reason I suggested you look at ADS' stat from above). This class is better then any of Bo's, in my opinion. I agree re the offer list, I always check that, but it is usually in direct proportion to the guy's star rating, correct? More stars, more offers, or vice versa, depending on if the coaches or srvces get there 1st. It's a symbiotic thing, but I've found the srvc rankings and final poll rankings are usually in harmony: we recruit @ 25th and we finish @ 25th. Bama recruits @ #1 and finish @ #1, and so forth. Stars are like beans, an accountant could do it. I mean, how hard can it be, the 5* RB, for e.g., is that big fast guy who's got the ball and carrying 1/2 the other team 60 yds on his back to the house! This ain't rocket science.

agree, Ohio State kicked our ass, i think they got 5 5* kids.........we got none. And RB's we have no one out standing here either......we still need better recruiting, to compete. I think I saw a stat on Twitter that 12-13 of our 20 commits were rated 4 star by at least one recruiting service. Lindsay is a 5 star guy, he dropped because he missed most of his Senior year. Nevertheless, ADS already provided the stat that shows you we're recruiting at a much higher level then the Pelini regime. I guess I haven't seen any services that rate our class as you claim. 247, rivals, scout, espn, all--and this is every year--are pretty consistent with each other, give or take a bit. Riley is recruiting about the same as Bo, a handful of 4*s and a surplus of 3*s--that ratio has got to flip. Bama and tOSU consistently get as many or more 5* guys than we get 4*s, and more 4* than we get 3*s, and that's why they and FSU and soon to be USC again, own the thing. LSU's always in there of course and GA went crazy this year finishing @ #3. And MI has been in there too, and better w Harbaugh. It's "2 Americas", and we're in the 2nd one, along with a log jam of other teams.

MR had said at least a few times this last season that he "gets it" and wants to pound the rock. But that just wasn't happening so well this season. First, we don't have an Ameer Abdullah and if you go back and look @ his "tape" he was on another level than the guys we have now. He left a big hole, on the order of ~700 extra O yds per. Newby had a respectable year, nearly 900 yds, has talent and speed, but just can't make a lot happen on his own: namely, can't break tackles. Zig got hurt and Bryant looks good w hopefully some upside, but I'd be surprised if he gets to Ameer's level. This is why I am worried that we kind of whiffed @ RB in the '17 class. No big disrepect to Bradly, but we're going to have to do a lot better than that. the obsession with carrying around 5 QB'S instead of focusing on a damn good RB makes no sense to me.......but to Lang's all is probably well..........ugh!You're absolutely right about that, sir, especially when 4 outta the 5 QBs nvr see the field. This is NEBRASKA, it's the LAND, the earth, the ground and those in your face winds of November! Last time we had a stable of thoroughbred backs was the '95 team of the century and it was a thing of beauty to see back after back run roughshod over those STUPID Gators and their whiney ol' Ball Coach. Now that's what I'm talkin' about! I hate to say it, but last time I was real excited about an RB was Omaha's own Ahman Green and that kid was kickin' ass and takin' names right outta the shoot, givin' the #2 back in Husker history, LP(RIP) a run for his $. Aw, the good ol' days. Since then, well Ameer was a joy to watch his last 2 yrs and Rex and Roy were pretty good too. We're just starvin' for the next GREAT NU RB, starving!

Hmmmm, that's 2 more than me which makes YOU, Sir, an "optimist". Lemme see, I say NIU and Rutgers are the only 2 gimmes. But the good news is I only have one absolute sure thing loss and that is tOSU--and it will be an ugly, Armaggedon style event, so bring some protection--and maybe a Bible. Back to bowl games. You know what, what I want more than anything is to have a bowl game where we don't play another, for the upteenth time, one o' them STUPID, fast, more athletic, STUPID, spoiled Southern teams, whether they be the STUPID SEC or that STUPID USC Trojans, and we don't have the "horses" and get down by 20 early and spend the rest of the time trying to stage some dramatic comeback that falls just short in the end. Dagnabbit, I'm tired of that movie! Just once, for a bowl, I wanna have FUN and play some slow, clearly lesser northen team, like say, oh I dunno, uuhh, well crap, I was going to say WYO but they're already rated above us. Hmmmm, maybe Ohia, or something, but you get the picture. I just wanna no stress, blowout bowl, just once, then we can go back to the "movie".

I think it's difficult, especially for the older fans that were alive in the glory years, to imagine and predict NE winning fewer than 9 games. It's a psychological thing, a conditioning of the BR "Nation": one looks at the schedule and the mind gets tricky and cannot rest until it gerrymanders a way that we will definitely win at least 9 games. The psychology of the "Nation" can live w that. But just for fun, maybe try to look at it like a cold blooded scientist, each game, and say "what one really thinks/observes"--if nothing else, it can be good for the brain, like exercise. OR, just tell me to "FACKOFF!", lol! LOL I would never tell you to do that! Unless you spelled it right Well there are six games that should be a given (for wins). That leaves six more that the Huskers are going to have to bring their "A-game" so to speak. How does it turn out? 3-3? 2-4? etc, etc.. It's tough to say at this point until Spring practices. I would nvr want to be accused of being "profane", there are religious people on this board, hence the spelling. My main deal with nxt year's lineup, is I look @ Purdue and ILL and I just can't help but getting this nagging feeling that, "oh wait, we've struggled with both those teams the last 2 years, and, oh wait again, we went 0.500 with each the last two years.". And that was with TA. This year we have a green QB and so who knows what turrible ugly things could happen? But in the balance, I put us @ 7-5, no really, I think that's doable, lol, and if we're lucky, we'll draw a slow, beatable team in the bowl!

First of all, from what I'm reading, I think people are dissin' too hard on the OL(s), whether Bo's or the current crew. We've had a regular flow of some 4* guys and they have been genrally good, just not good enough against "best" competition--sort of like the team as a whole. Injuries HAVE been an issue. But doesn't matter what team it is, Bama or whoever, a great back is key to the puzzle and MUST make things happen on his own, i.e., must break tackles--it's part of the job description. You can't hang it all on the OL, you will nvr have a "perfect" OL. Skill players gotta make plays and the big time ones make plays when the team needs it.

MR had said at least a few times this last season that he "gets it" and wants to pound the rock. But that just wasn't happening so well this season. First, we don't have an Ameer Abdullah and if you go back and look @ his "tape" he was on another level than the guys we have now. He left a big hole, on the order of ~700 extra O yds per. Newby had a respectable year, nearly 900 yds, has talent and speed, but just can't make a lot happen on his own: namely, can't break tackles. Zig got hurt and Bryant looks good w hopefully some upside, but I'd be surprised if he gets to Ameer's level. This is why I am worried that we kind of whiffed @ RB in the '17 class. No big disrepect to Bradly, but we're going to have to do a lot better than that.

He must have been the best "garbage OC" available for NE to pay him 3/4 mil, OSU pay him 2/3 mil, and TX to pay him 1+ mil per year to call "garbage" plays. I want that job. It certainly is interesting. His counterpart at tOSU Ed Warriner, however, essentially took a demotion and is now the offensive line coach at Minnesota. Meyer appears to have wanted them both gone. Yep, and I think Urb's was in love w Herman--and who wouldn't be? Though, Herman has shown a few chinks in the armour @ Houston this year, they kinda tanked. But I don't think Beck has anything to be ashamed of @tOSU, most teams would love to have their "problems". AND, as far as I can tell, Beck's career has been on a steady ascent, starting in '07 @ 12-1 KU and now as full, play calling, OC @ TX, w Herman, making the even bigger bucks. He's livin' large. Reality is: he has a stellar resume and his peers KNOW IT!

I think it's difficult, especially for the older fans that were alive in the glory years, to imagine and predict NE winning fewer than 9 games. It's a psychological thing, a conditioning of the BR "Nation": one looks at the schedule and the mind gets tricky and cannot rest until it gerrymanders a way that we will definitely win at least 9 games. The psychology of the "Nation" can live w that. But just for fun, maybe try to look at it like a cold blooded scientist, each game, and say "what one really thinks/observes"--if nothing else, it can be good for the brain, like exercise. OR, just tell me to "FACKOFF!", lol!

MR. BigRedN, why, thanks for the kudos, Sir, I very much appreciate it. I think I have noted some of your clear headed, realist posts as well, which are always a breath of fresh air. But don't get me wrong, the koolaid, I get it, I had the disease for decades dating back to Johnny the Jet, who, I repeat, I did see live and in person work his magic in Memorial Stadium more than once. But age caught up with me in a lot of ways and maybe the best thing about bein' old is, if ou been paying attention at all, things GET REAL, the bullsh#t don't stick no more, and that my friend, is what they call "FREEDOM"! I think fans would save themselves a lot of anguish and heartache if, minimally, they would stop thinking we're going to win a CC and Natty anytime in the near future and realize that maybe we aren't that team right now. Just root for 'em and enjoy the game and stop worrying bout championships or losses right now. If we get on a roll, great, but it's just plain crazy to have a heart attack over DONU in this ongoing period of "transition": the "transition" may not end before the Devil knows yer dead and that's no way for a grown man or woman to live. Anyhoo, thanks again, I really appreciate the feedback!