The poly connection is huge

ive worked with poly kids 

they are extremely family and poly community oriented- very tight group

the families would go to church together ,then have weekly communal meals . The older kids watched over the younger ones , parents didn’t even have to shush or keep an eye on their younger kids 

unique culture

kids respect authority, work really hard and respect  their parents 

a real step back in time

doubtful we get many poly kids without an anchor here

viola a native Samoan here from California with 7 children and he can lights out coach 

great get by coach frost 

there is a reason harbaugh did a camp in Samoa 

highest density d1 demographic out there 

a samoan is 56 times more likely to play in the nfl than a non Samoan and for some reason many of them are pretty big dudes 

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.forbes.com/sites/leighsteinberg/2015/05/21/how-can-tiny-samoa-dominate-the-nfl/amp/

9 hours ago, brophog said:

 

The beauty of frosts offense is Jones or wandale can line up in the backfield then shift or motion  out and the defense won’t be able to sub in a different personell package 

or or they can line up in empty and shift or motion to a one back set

with mo Washington lined up in the backfield he is a real bear to cover then you shift or motion jones or wandale into the backfield and now you’re in s 2 back set - defenses heads are spinning like tops 

we even saw it last year with a bigger back like ozigbo of all people lined up in the slot or motioned or shifted out to get to an empty set

While ozigbo caught the ball much better than I expected, these 2 should be much better threats 

with frosts false pulls, key breaker plays and speedy versatile players 

this offense is just a nightmare to prepare for once they add tempo and depth

if wandale and Jones can hack it at rb

they are really going to cause issues for the defenses they play

jones came  in with high expectations of playing the duck r position and even possibly getting some early playing time

lets hope he’s over being knicked up last year and is one of the under the radar surprises of this season 

https://hailvarsity.com/s/3626/huskers-looking-at-a-number-of-options-for-duck-r-position

23 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Who is this?

https://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/the-next-dave-rimington-scott-frost-clearly-excited-about-cameron/article_74b8c84f-2733-56f6-9573-557b5527812c.html

greg austin

and the Omaha world herald 

do they count? 

9 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Who is this?

https://www.omaha.com/huskers/football/the-next-dave-rimington-scott-frost-clearly-excited-about-cameron/article_74b8c84f-2733-56f6-9573-557b5527812c.html

My gooodness

in real life facts- he has been injured and missed multiple games in each of his last 4 seasons 

injuries in same area of the body 

the facts are the facts no matter how much any of us wish they weren’t true

facts don’t have feelings or intent-they are facts 

for the vast majority of football players that means they are injury prone and will not have a significant career

i hope he makes it

i hope he makes it

i hope he makes it 

but for those calling him the next Dave rimington need to tap the brakes 

he has to make it through a full football season first 

3 hours ago, knapplc said:

 

Not everyone's family has their best interest at heart.

 

You have to ask yourself what kind of family member would tell Sean Callahan private information about their relative's serious injury?  I saw a player in a boot last season and months later I won't tell this board their name, and I'm not even related to the guy. A stranger shouldn't care more about someone's privacy than their family members.

I’m doubtful most football players relatives think about that 

someone asks you a question about your cousins health And you answer it, dont think twice about it 

what is the big deal about being all 007  about off season injuries ?? 

you’re either  injured or you aren’t, why so secretive ? 

he has never even played a single down of football here 

Last year had us on 6 wins

this year 9

south Alabama 95 %

colorado 80 %

northern Illinois 85%

illinois 95 %

ohio state 35%

northwestern 55%

minnesota 60%

indiana 85%

purdue 45 %

wisconsin 40%

maryland 85%

iowa 55 %

we beat 

south Alabama, Colorado, northern Illinois, Illinois, Indiana and maryland

we win 2 of these 3

minnesota , northwestern and Iowa 

we win 1 of these 3

purdue, Wisconsin, Ohio state 

Unfortunately this thread and others have devolved into shaming and name calling instead of a back and forth based on facts

i don’t recall calling anyone a name or insinuated someone was stupid because of their opinions

if I said anything of the like or inferred it,  please accept my apologies 

ive always found like landlord pointed out earlier when the conversation gets nasty no one is opening or changing their minds

ive spent far too much of my last week with this and my family and other interests deserve more attention 

best of luck to all the fellas that participated 

Interestimg

over the last 50 years

mass shootings have on average killed about 22 people per year

but this somehow is an epidemic of mass proportions that demands a national debate and immediate action 

with many demanding the banning of assault style weapons

some even calling for a total gun ban

to think that some of the hysteria surrounding these rare events isnt  politically motivated is very naive 

 both sides fan their own pet flames and it’s sickening 

17 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

One conclusion that over the entirety of police shootings the data doesn't show racial bias.

 

A conclusion that also did not determine whether certain specific shootings are free of racial bias.

 

A conclusion that also did determine plenty of racial bias in all other forms of treatment.

 

A conclusion that also noted,

 

 

 

 

 

In other words, there's a big problem that needs addressing and needs conversation, not denial.

Interesting 

the study showed blacks were 20 percent less likely to be shot than whites 

since blacks were 17 percent more likely to be more aggressively handled in non shooting incidents And that is a big problem for you 

less than 1 in 5 experiences for blacks was deemed worse than that of their white counterparts 

is the 20 percent figure for shooting bias

towards whites a big problem for whites since 17 percent was a big problem for blacks??  

You guys will have to spin like Tasmanian devils to get out from under this one

black Harvard tenured guy 

in depth study hands on 

On 2/25/2019 at 6:31 PM, knapplc said:

Again, please disregard the statistics being spewed by the Trumpian "college."

 

It's the same as if we gathered data from Black Lives Matter and presented it as factual. It's biased, it's wrong, disregard it.

 

Here's an unbiased look. Also, here's an explanation for why such research is very difficult - until 2016, police didn't have to report these statistics.

 

 

 

 

Here are the same conclusions that there are no race bias in police shootings from a study done by a black professor from Harvard 

Published in the New York times

he is the youngest tenured professor at Harvard and winner of the prestigious Clark medal 

is that a good enough source?

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.amp.html

On 2/25/2019 at 2:40 PM, knapplc said:

Hillsdale U is Trump propaganda.  Doubt everything you read from that source.

How about Harvard? 

Harvard study shows no bias in police shootings by race:

https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.nytimes.com/2016/07/12/upshot/surprising-new-evidence-shows-bias-in-police-use-of-force-but-not-in-shootings.amp.html

1 hour ago, Frott Scost said:

 

Yes, I am serious. Once again, ill ask the question. How many MASS SHOOTINGS have been carried out with handguns in the US starting with Columbine? 

 

When I have kids Id like them to be able to go to school to learn (even about history) and not have to worry about them getting killed. And id like to go on a date with my wife and not have to worry about the place getting shot up by a nut with an AR-15. Im not even calling for a total ban on them. Just stricter regulations for purchasing them. And if youre a law abiding citizen trying to purchase an AR-15 or other long rifle, you should have no problem getting through the process. Just may take longer than it does now. 

When you go to movies 

that’s what you think about? 

 ok there are 330,000,000 people in the us

how many got shot in movie theatres last 2 years 50? 

so you have a one in what 14 million chance of being shot there this year  and that’s keeping you up nights? 

You should worry more about the drive there and back than the movie itself 

that’s the danderous part 

Really ? 

You need to to go to Marcus theatres the ones with the loungers and c$%ktails 

The problem is who is in charge of determining who gets a gun and who doesn’t 

there’s no way any governmental office like that or the irs could ever be politicized or corrupted ? 

Happened under Nixon and obama for starters 

that never happens here or could never happen again right ? 

Most on the left are looking for a ban on assault style weapons not additional vetting 

17 minutes ago, deedsker said:

I don’t know about you, but I don’t have a jungle in my backyard that I know better than the invading force.

I’m not sure there are many jungles in Syria but that hasn’t seemed to stop a tiny poorly equipped force from creating quite a problem for a much larger and better equipped one 

1 minute ago, commando said:

you seem to be arguing for all guns to be banned since assault style weapons are only a small % of the problem?

I was just pointing out if guns are the problem

why in the world are those on the left going after the type of guns that shot just 1 yes one percent of the victims 

18 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

And gosh darn it....don’t protest if it offends or inconveniences me. 

 

I really don’t have a problem with the NFL teams not hiring him. 

 

But....that’s not where that all started. It started with people from the right being offended and outraged that a football player dare to not stand for the anthem. After all, he must hate America, the military and anyone who sacrifices for this nation.

 

but, dad gummit....don’t take my guns away because I’ll need them to shoot the police and military. 

I’m glad someone here is in charge of who can and cannot be offended or have feelings about an issue 

red neck football fan- you aren’t allowed to be offended because someone here is in charge of that

you Cant be offended at being called a red neck or being offended because Ck Takes a knee during the anthem and wears cops are pigs socks

you aren’t allowed to have those feelings 

mr millennial someone calls you the dreaded snowflake term or you get offended at the myriad of things that offends many millenialx these days

the man in charge says.............,

yes you are allowed to have those feelings, you are allowed to be offended 

congrats Johnny 

im glad someone here is taking that task on 

personally I could care less. What ck does or doesn’t do 

1 hour ago, Frott Scost said:

 

Because assault style weapons are used in mass shootings. Name one mass shooting in the US that the perpetrator used a handgun? This is why the issue of gun control came up in the first place. It isnt because this gang member shot that gangmember. Its mass shootings. Schools, concerts, clubs, movie theatres. And if you dont care about fixing that issue than there is something seriously wrong with you. 

Are you serious? 

11,000 murders

400 by long gun

 325,000,000 people

do the math

8 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

 Dude I made a perfectly kind, respectful attempt to engage with you.  This was your response.  YOUR head is in the sand.  I mentioned none of these.  

 

Numerous people have tried to share unbiased sources and sites with you and you're too obtuse to actually respond to comments directly, instead you just blurt out talking points that have nothing to do with the post.  I'm all set.

 

 

 

 

Dude

when you only cite Fox News and Washington examiner as your only examples of biased news 

that just isn’t honest imo

29 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

And gosh darn it....don’t protest if it offends or inconveniences me. 

 

I really don’t have a problem with the NFL teams not hiring him. 

 

But....that’s not where that all started. It started with people from the right being offended and outraged that a football player dare to not stand for the anthem. After all, he must hate America, the military and anyone who sacrifices for this nation.

 

but, dad gummit....don’t take my guns away because I’ll need them to shoot the police and military. 

Do you really think in your heart of hearts that if whites were protesting against black violence against whites in a black neighborhood and blocking roads so people couldn’t work or drop their kids off that those on the other side wouldn’t be pissed ?

Boycott

Peaceful protest fine more power To you 

Stopping  peoile from working or picking their kids up 

not cool 

2 hours ago, NM11046 said:

Do you think there is value in lessening the number of gun related suicides in the US?

 

 

Since almost all suicides by gun are done with handguns why try to ban assault weapons first? 

2 hours ago, NM11046 said:

Do you think there is value in lessening the number of gun related suicides in the US?

 

 

50 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Since most of the major genocides happened before guns were available to the average person, there's no way this is true

 

Ok so the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia where war had been raging since the 1940s didn’t have access to weapons ?

armenians coming home from ww1 had plenty of access to arms

in china they had been fighting against the Japanese since 1930s supplied by us and then civil war. There were arms available 

they were all disarmed in door to door confiscation programs

 we have seen there need not be millions of weapons available in order for a small force to cause major issues and to be a deterrent: 

iraq

syria

afghanistan

19 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

The right believes we need more guns to protect us from the government. 

 

Meanwhile, demonize someone who peacefully protests against government actions they feel are wrong. 

 

They believe everyone should stand at attention and praise the flag no matter what the government is doing. 

 

They believe the military is the most honorable arm of the government and don’t you dare ever disrespect them.....well, unless they get caught. 

 

They believe you should back law enforcement and don’t you dare protest against something they are doing. 

 

And this is the side that at some point is going to take up arms against the military and law enforcement that will be enforcing the government’s laws. 

 

There has been some major mental gymnastics that have gone on in political propaganda for quite some time. 

I’m taking it you don’t have many close friends who are conservative

echo chambers aren’t good

 because the conservatives I know don’t all think alike or believe in all the things you suggest they do no matter how you twist it 

personally I’m totally cool with peaceful protests the left of course most  of them will turn a blind eye when those protests get violent or block my ability to pick up my child from daycare that is closing  or make me late for work 

i could care less if you stand and praise the flag or not

i do however back employers putting boundaries around what an employee can do when they are on the clock representing the employer and doing things that hurts that companies business

if I run an hvac company and my guy wants to wear a swastika and do a Nazi salute before every job- he can do that

just not on my time where it’s going to hurt my business

Not sure why you think we shouldn’t respect the military then hold them accountable when they do something wrong- that seems pretty darn sensible

not everything is black and white like you make it out to be 

24 minutes ago, NM11046 said:

@OTHusker as much as we obviously disagree on what seems to be all political topics, I appreciate you being on P&R and sharing your opinion with us.  We need more balance here, we also need to better understand why the "other side" feels the way they do.  

 

I think the biggest issue we face today is the general public's lack of ability to review of facts and figures and determining what has heft behind it and what is just trying to sway or confirm audience bias.  We are in a dangerous time when publications like The Washington Examiner and infotainment like Fox News is looked at as sources of real and unbiased information.

If you think

cnn

nbc

msnbc

facebook

twitter 

google 

arent biased you have your head in the sand 

havent you read about the lies Dan rather told 

you do know that clintonista popanapolous is with cnn as was Donna brazille and many many many democratic donors, sympathizers and operatives 

its a joke 

my goodness just look at the party affiliation and donations 

I’m against banning “assault” type weapons

if you look at the real facts they make up a tiny tiny fraction of gun deaths 

there Is a lot of slippery slope in what many are suggesting

checking someone’s Facebook page to see if they made a comment or 2 critical of our government as a criteria for gun ownership?

if you think that’s far fetched I guess you didn’t read about how the irs treated conservatives using bare knuckled tactics mayor Daley would have applauded 

you really think this couldn’t be abused?

that regular folks who don’t agree with the government or the party in power could be singled out to not be allowed to own guns?

wow