NoLongerN

I was more annoyed by no mic again on the questions and some background interview being done on other players. The content was fine on what he said. It was all the other stuff that felt like a "fail".

Ya, especially with being meeting the AAU requirement. Love to have the Tarheels.

Admo, I enjoyed your share and thoughts. I am especially thankful to see the heart and belief that you are expressing. I'm seeing all these changes stated as improvements and making us better. That may be the case in the longer term, but does it transfer over to the degree that we would like in this season, that is the part where I lose my own belief. I'm fully necognizing that I have a negative impression. I've been told for three years that "this is a really good team", "we are just a player away", "we have a few mistakes to clean up" ... and now another big overhaul that will be the difference. If I take your argument and add it your changes, which then takes out the negatives in my mind, then easily, there is no reason at all to go at least 8-4. One could say that we lose to OU, Michigan, Wisky and Iowa perhaps [but I would think we would beat either Wisky or Iowa. For me, with all the changes you are explaining, it really isn't even possible to finish worse than 9-3. This brings me then to the "what if's" ... ... we lose to Minni also? ... we get tripped up by Purdue or Illinois? If we end up 6-6 or 5-7, we would lose to all the expected teams [OU, Michigan, Wisky and Iowa] ... and a few that we know are bottom dwellers and out-recruit [and we made all these changes to improve] and still, we hit that 6-6 or 5-7 mark ... then what happens? For me, it feels like we will still give Scott another year ... because we are "just so close" [the, "we are one player away" syndrome]. ... Below, I adopted page 30 from the Big Book of AA. For me, this will apply if we go anything less than 6-6 [that is a very, very low bar for 5 years and an the schedule] and keep Scott. If we go 6-6, will we be willing to admit we need to leave Scott behind? No person likes to think Scott is not the answer to the problems at Nebraska. Thus, I'm not surprised that our football program has been characterized by countless vain attempts [5 years] to prove we could play football like Scott's National Championship team or other successful teams/coaches here. The idea that somehow, someday he will "get this fixed" ["we are one player away"] and create a winning environment will still be the great obsession of the Red Kool-aid drinkers; and that he is still the answer. The persistence of this illusion for me has been astonishing ... and will continue to puzzle me. Will some within the fanbase pursue it into the gates of insanity [or are we already there]? I think we will find out. My hope is that we learn that we had to fully concede to our innermost football IQ, that we are clueless as a fan base. This is the first step in restoring the program. The delusion that Nebraska is like other programs, or presently may be, has to be smashed.

Ya, Herring, Green and now Heard. The wish to establish a pipeline will now have to materialize through development more. We can't seem to attract the 4* talent in the OL [ar least this cycle].

This season reminds me of T-ball. You can't ask for a better set-up. I suppose there will be some arguments made about "if only", but again, it's a T-ball schedule. You can't ask for an easier schedule to go 10-2 or 9-3. Going 6-6 will affirm everything from this skeptic, yet, I believe he will be retained if he hits that [perhaps less].

If we are 5-1 or 6-0 going into Purdue, will that mean we are "good" in others mind?

Ya, this is interesting, the two services I looked at had UCF around 33% with UNC next at 16-17%. My guess would be the services are lagging behind. Geez, now UCF is totally out. :-) With a week to go, hopefully we can see a few predictions come our way. Hopeful now.

Yes. With Mavric on this. Benhart has to be a bright spot and the one who reverses his trajectory. If he is despensible, I don't know what that means. Perhaps they think we have brought in the better options and it is best to leave him in the dust.

Looks like we are nothing more than a hat here. A small % believe he is coming here. Looks like UCF as the lead, then UNC.

Plus, if ND chooses the B1G, they still would get three [3] games to schedule. They could have a nice full, national schedule if they like.

I will be disappointed to miss on this kid. Between talent and being in our radius, we need him in the mix. Then, land Coleman.

I love this and think it's wonderful!

I think the PAC12's new rights fees are $300 million, so, they would need to get double the amount without USC and UCLA and then they are still at half the amount. I think that is what its trying to say. My major was co-com-comm-commun-com--communi-communication though. :-)

I'm with Hilltop. If I would guess now I would have us at 4-5, behind Wisky, Iowa, Purdue and Minny. It will be an interesting season as outside OU, we don't really play a name except Michigan. The season is full of bottom-dwellers of the B1G we always speak down too but yet seem to own us. I think the endurance and stamina will come into play as our errors compound with fatigue from the OL and DL's of the B1G schools and leave us on the losing end in a few games we think we should win.

Additionally, on Lenhardt, my thought was he is an edge guy for the class [start at OLB perhaps, yes] and not OLB. Sounds like my thought might be wrong. For me, my statement about "OU owning us" was at that time of committing OU was taking recruits in our 500 mile radius and owning us. It was a "misspoke" moment. I agree with BidRedBuster that we will be fine.

Wanting to see the defense rebuilt, I'd enjoy seeing him at LB. In the end, anything that puts him in his best spot. If he's better at LB, put him there.

This was the guy I was hopeful for as the DE/Edge guy along with Howard. Nice.

So, he is actually 215, so, we will put 50 lbs on him and see how he does. I'm excited for a DE/DL commit. I guess he is a 3 year development guy to get to that weight?

Assuming he is a OLB option [since 225 lb], not a DE option?

I was talking about DL or DE. Ya, I'm sure Mickey will do well in securing his numbers.

Congrats to OU. Wonderful pickup.

Sure would be a bummer to miss on this guy. I don't really see us hitting on any target that is this highly rated. You know any others?

Unfortunately, we look to miss out on our top targets for the OL. Hopefully, the season will show improvement and garner some new looks.

Enjoyed your thoughts @Mavric. I am always appreciating your contribution as admin and your views/thought can and have at times "balanced" out my more "negative" view. So, FYI, I have read your full statement and did not pass over any word. Having expressed that ... I wanted to shift to the fascinating thing I see. Our board overall has guestimated our "winning" over the past five [5] years by a good 3-4 games [since Frost has been here]. Yes, thankfully, as the years pass we see more dialing back of their predictions of what use to be mostly 9-3 or 8-4 at a minimum. There were certainly a good 25% that were 10-2 or 9-3 at the worst type folks. That is all fine ... I have no problem with that view for those years [I just saw it differently]. Here is where I am going ... I have simply found it fascinating how the person who thinks we go 6-6, 5-7 or [God forbid] 4-8, is viewed/considered/judged as "negative" and then of course stupid or incompetent [not imposing the last too on you Mav]. Yet, those folks were not only correct, but still gave a fair shake and a couple more wins. Yet, I don't see those same folks on the board really $itchin' and complaining to the degree as the folks who said that we would go 10-2, 9-3 or 8-4. It's these folks who really turn on both the coach, the team and even the media and fan base and become real "pieces of work". Ya, sure, there are always trool types that show up and are "negative", but I don't see many members here who are "negative" [even if they state we will go 4-8 or 5-7, who then needle the board and say, "See, I was right, I told you we would go 4-8 and we suck on the OL and DL."] We just don't see that. If that does/is occurring and the view is someone like me is doing/being this ... then yes, by all means, provide the rebuke and I think a member like myself will gladly leave or change the speaking of his view for the benefit of the group. But without belittling the point ... the OL has been "horrid" [my word use] to Nebraska standards, whether it is measured by performance, ranking or development. This is judged by the whole of the group and not by one player or one good/decent season a particular player has. I think it's fair to say that both the OL and DL have been labeled "busts" for the Frost era and even on the OL or DL, we are not just "one player away". Yep, that view may be wrong and the board sees it to a different way. Yet, I don't believe it's to state that that person is "negative" then. I am looking forward to seeing what our new OL coach can bring and especially how well we do in the last four games of the season and how the team holds up. Am hopeful for five [5] wins this year and see solid blocking and protection in the OL and a middle push with something off the edge on the pass and some girth in the middle to stop the run. I'll purpose to "man up" myself and stay away from the obvious moving forward and attempt to not speak in a way that sounds "negative" or "frustated", especially as it relates to the OL.