Hans Gruber

I will also stick with games I saw in person. Most fun: Probably beating Kansas State in 1999. Both teams were really good and Nebraska smoked them. Most satisfying: 2001 Oklahoma Loudest: Either 2001 Oklahoma or 2008 Colorado Most disappointing: Easily the 2010 Big 12 title game loss to Oklahoma. Not the only loss I've seen in person, but damn. Nebraska should have won that game. Best OT: The only overtime game I've seen in person was in 2006 against Kansas, so that wins by default.

The last time I remember there being roughly this much anticipation was heading into Nebraska's first season in the Big 10. Maybe not quite as much as now but in the same ball park. Many, me included, were still all in on Bo. Nebraska returned Taylor Martinez in 2011 (and we didn't know he'd be banged up the whole year.) Also returned Rex Burkhead, Jared Crick, Lavonte David and Alfonzo Dennard. None of us knew at the time Nebraska would essentially be incapable of stopping a decent Big 10 power running attack under Bo.

And in regards to 97 Nebraska vs. 97 Michigan, I feel quite comfortable saying Nebraska would win. Probably not by 50 like someone said, but by 17 or so in a not-as-close-as-the-score-looks kind of game. I think Nebraska would win in a similar fashion to the way Alabama beat LSU in the national title game or how Alabama beat Clemson in the semifinals last year. Michigan had a mediocre-at-best offense and would struggle to score unless Nebraska turned it over a bunch.

To be fair, I think they're looking at it from a story perspective. While 95 was certainly a better team, 94 had the better story. Better story than 97 also. Obviously they're doing 97 now because of the connection with Frost.

I don't think anyone at BTN cares about that kind of stuff. They did one on the 1994 Nebraska team that beat out Penn State for the national title.

I don't disagree with anything you're saying. It's worth noting though that Nebraska's pass rush could be considerably improved this year and still be mediocre at best. And I don't know how good the secondary will be. Any struggles that the secondary or pass rush have could potentially be magnified by the other. Both those spots being question marks gives me some worry. I'm not trying to sound all doom and gloom. I do think Nebraska will be mediocre on defense this year, which is a huge step up from last year. Then they'll be better in the future.

I went with 7-5 and fourth in the west. I think Nebraska loses to Northwestern after getting banged up the week before against Wisconsin. I think they make up for it though by beating Michigan State in Lincoln. Nebraska plays Illinois the week before Michigan State. Michigan State plays Ohio State the week before Nebraska. I also think there are reasons for optimism this year, and much more so in future years. Nebraska still has major questions marks though. How good (or bad) will the secondary be? Will they have/develop a pass rusher? Will they get solid quarterback play from a freshman? Nebraska will probably finish the year looking much better than they do early in the season. Then they'll be really good in 2019 and beyond. This year has some bumps along the road though. Either way, I think this year will be much more fun and enjoyable to watch than recent years. 09/01 - Akron W 09/08 - Colorado W 09/15 - Troy W 09/22 - @ Michigan L 09/29 - Purdue W 10/06 - @ Wisconsin L 10/13 - @ Northwestern L 10/20 - Minnesota W 11/03 - @ Ohio State L 11/10 - Illinois W 11/17 - Michigan State W 11/23 - @ Iowa L West standings 1) Wisconsin 2) Iowa 3) Northwestern 4) Nebraska 5) Purdue 6) Minnesota 7) Illinois

This one is especially funny because I'm 90 percent sure he is a current WWE wrestler that played college football at ... Iowa. Don't know if that was intentional or not from Nick Smith. If it was though, props for twisting the knife.

I think this is the most likely scenario. Also adds depth, which is nice because Williams has been banged up in the past. I was all in on Frost a while ago and he's done nothing to change that opinion. This just helps.

Nice find. Good stuff there.

If it's Mike Honcho, then it comes with a modeling shoot in a print magazine. It does require nudity though ... (For anyone confused, see Talladega Nights)

Here's an example. (And I'm going from memory here, so some of the starters I name may have been backups and there may be guys I'm forgetting). Using the 1997 Nebraska defense, they usually ran a 4-3. Grant Wistrom, Jason Peter and Jason Wiltz started on the D-line along with either Mike Rucker or Chad Kelsay (I don't remember which of those two started). Steve Warren was a backup DT along with either Rucker or Kelsay at DE. That gave Nebraska a good six-man rotation on the defensive line. I believe the three starting linebackers were Jay Foreman, Octavious McFarlin and Tony Ortiz. I think Brian Shaw, Carlos Polk and Eric Johnson were the backups. So they may have substituted a little f=more freely at linebacker. I'm pretty sure the starting secondary was Ralph Brown, Eric Warfield, Mike Brown and Erwin Swinney. I think Joe Walker and Clint Finley were the top backups. That gave Nebraska a starting 11 and then seven backups. It wasn't a full 22 deep they freely substituted, but playing 18 guys still kept guys relatively fresh though. Like I said in the first post though, you need a lot of talented dudes to do that without much drop off.

I think it just depends how much depth you have. Teams like Alabama, Ohio State or Georgia may be able to do that. Or teams like Nebraska or Florida State in the 90s. Maybe not an entire different 11 on defense, but they have the talent and depth to substitute without the quality of the defense dropping dramatically. I don't know if Nebraska has the depth across the board to do that this fall. I think they may be able to rotate guys in the front seven some. That would help keep them fresh. I don't know if they have enough guys in the secondary to do it though. Quite frankly, I'm not sure how many games it will take for Nebraska just to field a solid starting 4-5 defensive backs.

I don't hate calling it the "Duck." Calling it the Husker seems too forced. Personally, I'd like calling it something completely different from either of those. Something like Cowboy, Bandit, Robber, Sheriff, etc. Obviously don't name it something that another conference team uses as a mascot like Badger, Hawkeye or Wolverine.

They (Diaco) were/was so worried about giving up big plays that they tried to prevent them at all costs. So instead of giving up big plays, they just gave up way more medium plays instead. I guess it's like the basketball equivalent of being so worried about guarding the three-point shot that you routinely give up open lay ups and dunks instead.

I listened to it an really enjoyed it. Verduzco sure seems like he loves talking quarterbacks. I don't know how the 247 guys pulled this off. Credit to them and Verduzco for being willing to do it. Can you imagine any other Nebraska football coach in the last 20 years sitting down for a podcast for an entire hour?

Touchdown is to winning as avocado is to _________? If Iowa loses five games, but beats Iowa State, how many years get added to Kirk Ferentz's contract? Which if the following sentences is most likely to be true? A) Jim Harbaugh won't #$&# after a loss on Twitter. B) Maryland will finally have a season where all of its quarterbacks stay healthy. C) Northwestern will sell out every home game. D) Rutgers will win four games True or false Michigan claims fake national titles. Essay Why did Missouri ever think it was going to be asked to join the Big 10?

Haha. That's true. And to be fair, I don't think any of this is specific to Nebraska fans. To some degree, I think most top 40ish fans bases do this.

I think it's best for almost everyone involved (everyone but the players and coaches) to keep relatively low expectations for year one. By 2019, things we'll be different and we can all go crazy. For this fall though, I think just making a bowl game and getting the extra practices should be enough. I'm not saying everyone needs to be happy or excited about that, but at least content/not fuming. I think Nebraska goes 6-6 or 7-5 this fall. We all know how this works in the offseason though. 6-6 predictions in March turn into 7-5 in June. In the middle of fall camp we'll be thinking 9-3. After Nebraska beats Akron by three-plus touchdowns, some will be thinking 10-2 or 11-1. That sets up for a very sobering set of conference games.

Fine. Let me rephrase and clarify. The 2007, 2015 and 2017 defenses were all dreadfully bad in pass coverage. That entails rushing the passer, covering receivers and getting pass breakups or interceptions. The 2007 and 2017 defenses were equally dreadful at stopping the run. The 2015 defense was decent at stopping the run though. Not great, but generally competent. Therefore, I feel like since the 2015 defense wasn't awful at one thing, it was better than the other two. Maybe Mark Banker isn't an average defensive coordinator. Maybe he's below average. He still probably isn't as bad as Cosgrove. Diaco is certainly better than both for his career, but ironically, had the single worst season. Bottom line, I'm glad that Nebraska no longer employs any of the three.

Conspiracy theory: Frost injured his ankle on this trip, requiring surgery. They show everyone going down, but there isn't really anything on them going back up. My guess is he tweaked his ankle on the trek back up and that's why they don't show much of it. He said the surgery was to fix something from his playing days, which is probably true. According to Marty Smith's Twitter account, it looks like the trek occurred on May 21 or 22. Frost tweaks his old injury, then has surgery shortly after. That's why he was on crutches on the state tour in western Nebraska. What does all of this mean? Nothing really. Just something that popped into my head watching the segment.

Diasgree on the terrible offenses, at least in 2015. Sure, in 2016 they didn't play a murders row of offenses. The 2015 team played some pretty good offenses and quarterbacks though. BYU, Miami, Southern Miss, Michigan State and UCLA all had good offenses and quarterbacks. Not necessarily Heisman worthy or future NFL all-pros, but they were all good on offense. And again, I'm not saying Banker was good. The other two were much worse though, at least at Nebraska.

Banker shouldn't be lumped in with Cosgrove and Diaco, at least not to the same degree. Banker wasn't good, but he wasn't all-time terrible either. He was an average defensive coordinator that we look at negatively because he wasn't great. Cosgrove and Diaco had drastically worse defenses. And they were bad week in and week out, at least in 2007 and 2017. Banker at least had games or weeks where things looked decent, giving the illusion that MAYBE things would work out. There wasn't much of that in 2007 or 2017.

Unless he gets fired, I don't think he's leaving FSU for a while. Every other move has been a step up. He's from Florida originally and now he's at (arguably) the top job in his home state. This past year was just the third time FSU has hired a new head coach since 1976. I think he probably kind of liked Oregon, but it's not often the Seminoles have an opening.