Decoy73

19 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

 

 

 

 

Well that’s pretty good to hear. If DiNardo had maintained his original stance of us being  overrated, I’d probably be launching my phone across the room right now. 

2 hours ago, runningblind said:

I took this topic as who continues to play after 4 games, and who takes a redshirt year.

Yes. Take it like this. Hopefully we blow some teams out so the entire roster gets a minimum of 4 games. 

I'm talking true freshmen, transfers w/ a red shirt year left, or maybe a walk-on who has impressed, etc.  I get that we don't know much yet, but from what we've gathered from practice reports and the media, who sounds like they're simply too good to redshirt this year?  I'll start with a couple:

Wan'Dale:  Obvious choice

Garrett Nelson:  His motor and attitude must not be wasted on a redshirt IMO.  I could see him becoming a special teams force this season.

8 hours ago, FTW said:

Like SF said, they haven't earned anything yet. TBH, I'm kind of getting tired of the talk from media and players. This team has to earn their stripes. We accomplished nothing in year 1 except establishing a culture. It's just time to start backing up the talk and not putting guys up on pedestals that haven't done squat.

 

Not that it isn't great to have expectations, but we were 4-8 last year. To get back to being a blue blood program, you've got to win games. It's that simple. Until then, I take everything everyone says about our program with a grain of salt. My biggest concern is depth. The top programs have that, we don't just yet and I can't see us skating by on that. It may cost us 2-3 games this year.

This post pretty much sums up why I think realistically our ceiling is 8 or maybe 9 wins.  Anything more than that is possible, but would require some really good breaks along the way (no significant injuries or penalty issues, etc.).  

Just finished watching it.  Great talk.  Frost never fails to impress me.  This reminds me of how fortunate we are to have him as our coach.

19 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

Watch it again. The CB won that battle. He basically shoved the WR into the ball carrier and almost tackled him with the opposing player. The ball carrier maybe should have cut up but it's hard to know without seeing the rest of the field.

You are correct.  At first glance I was expecting a good block and cut by JD to the open field, but as it turns out it was probably meant to showcase good defense.

Nice video. Not sure about that last play though.  Should have ended the clip just before the receiver ran into his blocker (who had just made a good block).  

46 minutes ago, HuskermanMike said:

Why do people say this? Every team in America has somebody they have to replace with a new guy. Alex either shows up and plays well and that helps the defense or he doesn't and that could hinder the defense. If he is good enough to play and is the best available, I will believe he is ready. I believe he is just a tad a bit ahead of Tannor right now. Both of those guys will see significant snaps, but what has Caleb Tannor or any other OLB done that makes you worried for a senior to figure it out and step up? This position is wide open and we need someone to consistently step up and take it. I trust Alex has turned a corner and is getting coached up well enough to be good for us this year. 

We say these things because it’s the most anticipated time of the season and none of us knows squat.  Until we see an actual game, all we can do now is hope and speculate. 

3 hours ago, Apsu said:

 

I disagree, an 8-4 record would be a disappointment to me.
Just curious; which four losses would be acceptable to you?

No loss is acceptable, but I can get over a loss to any non-division foe easier than i can stomach another one at the hands of Wisconsin , NW or Iowa. I’m just trying to temper my expectations. I picked 8-4 last season and we all know how that turned out.  I strongly feel that 9 or more wins in year 2 in the B1G would be a tremendous accomplishment given how low we’ve been for so long.  

59 minutes ago, brophog said:

 

Given what Riley’s collapse was, I certainly read it somewhat similar to that. To me, his comments on Riley entering 2017 given what 2016 was in terms of performance is not prescient . If it was, the things set in motion after Northern Illinois, when everything is really still there to play for, never would have happened. 

Yep.  I was off on my MR seasons.  I guess It's my brain trying to forget them.  

55 minutes ago, H2h said:

He said that in year 2. Year 3 he said it was the best Nebraska practice he had seen, either staff. He was way off both years.

You are correct.  My bad.  In any case, I hope he's wrong about us being "overrated".  

57 minutes ago, brophog said:

 

He did not use anything near that strong of language. And to be fair, it’s not really his job to do so. He has to walk the line between opinion and generating excitement. He can’t say he thinks Riley is fires game 3, even if he actually thinks that.

 

https://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/football/nebraska-picked-third-in-big-ten-west-division-by-conference/article_b1f8ade1-5d42-53f0-a2fc-cd4916434e15.html

 

The point everyone really should pay attention to in regards to this year’s comments is when he says he hasn’t really looked at the teams yet. In general, I think he’s one of the more inciteful of his type, but that’s after he does his camp tour. These comments aren’t ready for print.

What strong language?  IIRC he stated a successful season for NU  would be to make a bowl game. This is in year 3 of a coaches tenure and MR finally having his QB in T.Lee. That’s was pretty damning. I’m not saying he came out and predicted his firing. 

3 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

Geez Gerry, tell us how you really feel: https://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/gerry-dinardo-thinks-nebraska-is-overrated-but-it-s-only/article_ac59a85c-8a7f-575b-a867-16ff54454662.html

 

I actually think this is a pretty good interpretation of where things are at until we see this team on the field. However, he mentions we need to wait until Scott has top 20 talent on the team, but I think our 4 year recruiting average is right at 20. So, by his logic there we should be ready to compete now.

Ha. I was just thinking the same thing, but hard to argue with DiNardo. He essentially predicted our collapse in MR’s last season. This is why we need to lay off the Kool-aid and be very happy with 8 wins. Anything more than that makes HCSF a COTY contender IMO. The future is bright. 

Without NU football there’s no BIG money. There’s no Adidas apparel contract, no nice facilities and other than maybe MBB and VB, likely no other sports.  But the OWH implies Frost and Moos are the villains here because they want a bigger roster to possibly get a competitive advantage.  That’s the problem I have with Cordes and his article.   Look, what Frost wants, Frost gets IMO, if he truly believes it can help us win a conference title someday.  That’s his job!! As far as other sports go, just be glad there’s football. And quit your bitch’in about 20 walk-on spots. 

At 6-5, Chris Hickman looks short next to Benhart. 

50 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

 

 

Obligatory.

Took me a while.

On 7/16/2019 at 7:42 PM, RedDenver said:

I'm going with 8-4 and 2nd in the west despite the urge to predict better. I think we'll be a dangerous team that manages to lose some games we should win.

I’m with you. Unless we’re monumentally better at stopping the run, I don’t see >8 wins. Unfortunately I don’t think our D is there yet. 

2 hours ago, teachercd said:

Why didn't they just call Magic?  That dude seems to have it figured out.

Exactly. Harvest some of his super-antibodies. 

UNMC has and will continue to do some amazing things. 

OU. Hell yeah!  Texas. Hell freaking NO. 

2 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

I knew exactly which law you were referring to and I was referring to the same one. It’s my understanding there are a lot of laws that weren’t federal until something they built up steam at the state level. California has the right idea here and I’m perfectly fine with someone who does revenge porn in Minnesota being prosecuted for it if they move to California.

 

I still fail to see how revenge porn is a first amendment issue.

I said laws like this  (that involve social media, cell phones, etc) APPROACH first amendment issues IMO.  Never said "revenge porn" IS a first amendment issue.  What I'm trying to (and apparently failing) convey is that social media related laws are definitely a gray area that bring up all kinds of questions.  Some of which relate to the first amendment.  I think this law and other similar ones will probably need to be addressed by the Supreme Court someday.  

23 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

My mistake on the plea, but you're still wrong on your main point: this is literally a criminal matter.

 

Thanks for pointing out when I'm wrong.  Just to clarify, I said I didn't think this was a case of "obvious criminal activity" and I gave examples of murder, rape, assault, etc.  Are you equating those with what MO is accused of?  It sure sounds like it.   If you are going to call people out, get your facts straight first.  

14 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

The internet is fairly new. As times change, there are new reasons to add laws. Revenge porn law is directly related to how easily this stuff can get disseminated to hundreds/thousands/millions of people. That wasn't possible to this extent or even close to it 20 years ago. California is just the first state to have one. If other states think it ends up working well in California, I'm sure it will be adopted by more of them.

And that is not at all what I meant by intent. I was talking about the intent of the law, not the intent of people posting videos of naked people. The intent of the law is to punish people who post porn videos of others in order to get revenge on them. IMO, the intent of the law was not to punish people for sending a video back to the person in said video. However if Washington thought it was sexual assault (I don't think he did), then the law should apply here too, imo. And there are cut and dried cases where you can prove guilt if you have access to comments made by the parties posting the videos.

 

If you think posting porn without the subjects' permission is a freedom of speech issue, I don't know that it's worth discussing with you anymore.

Not at all what I said and I need to clarify that I am not referring to the felony charge of child porn possession he is facing.  It is the "revenge porn" law that I have an issue with.  I certainly don't condone "revenge porn" as it is typically interpreted.  However, I think legality issues involving phones and social media, etc should be decided at the federal level. Otherwise as soon as you cross a state line your guilt status has now changed, meanwhile your cell signal is bouncing off towers in the other state.  How do they enforce that?  How can they prove you were in possession of your phone and not someone else?  And will they subpoena the GPS history of your phone to see what state your phone was in at the time?  What if the recipient was in a state that had no such law?   All this for a disorderly conduct misdemeanor?

The first amendment allows for "freedom of speech and expression".  How do people "speak" and "express" themselves nowadays?  For better or for worse it's often thru social media, cell phones, etc.  Therefore I think the these laws should be universal throughout the nation.  That's just the way I feel about it.  If you don't want to discuss it further, that is fine, but please don't make false insinuations.  

14 hours ago, RedDenver said:

 

He's literally been charge with a crime, plead not guilty, and has a court date set.

He has not entered a plea yet.  His court date is June 12 to enter his plea.  Look if Frost wants to boot hime for the Cali thing, he can. I just don't think he will.  Punishing him for it makes little sense to me as well as I"m sure the courts will take care of that. Had he been a member of the team when it happened, then some sort of punishment from the team/Frost would be expected.  I think that is an important factor here, but who knows.  We'll see how this all shakes out.

4 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

The law isn't ridiculous. IMO, cases like this weren't the intent of the law (he sent the video to her, not to other people), but the law should exist. Revenge porn can do a lot of damage to a person and there should be serious consequences for it.

I have a big problem with the reliance on "intent" that this law has. If the law should exist then why isn't it universally adopted by other states?   It's too vague and near impossible to prove guilt without making assumptions.  I think laws like this that approach First Amendment discussions should be determined at the federal level.