Archy1221

2 hours ago, Stone Cold said:

Pocket falls apart qb doesnt get the time he needs on his reads or a hole to be made.  Its in the lines, its always been the lines.  Its been the lines for 10 f#&%ing years yet here we are asking what the problem is again.  Its the lines, its the lines, its the lines.  Fix the lines you fix half the problems.  That will allow us to win more than 4 games per year which will allow us to keep the people frost recruits because we dont look like f#&%ing jokes on saturdays thereby giving them the opportunity to be able to play on sundays one day which will make other people see that and then recruiting gets better you win more games yada yada yada

I don’t disagree with how important the lines are, but if you don’t fix the most important position in sports then everything else is just moot.  The team can win 7-9 games with great lines, but this style of offense is dependent on a star quarterback.  The QB needs to play at a top 10-15 QB in the country in order to effectively get the offense moving and be a contender for conference championships.  
 

otherwise change the offense to an I formation and dominate line of scrimmage with a game manager at QB.  That can work too as shown by Wisconsin. 

This study from someone associated with Johns Hopkins is saying no increase in overall deaths in the US this year.  
 

https://web.archive.org/web/20201126223119/https://www.jhunewsletter.com/article/2020/11/a-closer-look-at-u-s-deaths-due-to-covid-19

1 hour ago, uberism said:

Entitled. They get told how awesome they are and think they should be handed playing time without earning it. It's been this way with Miami kids for decades. The old saying goes. "you don't want to be a Miami kid's first commitment, you want to be their last." Over the last decade it now has transitioned to "if they stay" and it's like that for many programs. Louisville had the same issue and basically went elsewhere to recruit. Iowa had the same issue. 

 

It's not just a Nebraska problem, it's a Miami culture problem. 

Maybe we need to evaluate what these players are being told or promised in order to come here.  If they are told they have the ability to compete for PT right away and feel they are not given a chance once here, or feel they are playing behind lesser starters that could turn into an issue.   
 

Hopefully the right expectations are being said during the recruiting process, but I highly doubt it with this much turnover.  

4 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Exactly.

 

Husker fans: "You have to let the talent play!!!"

 

Also Husker fans: "How can Frost not have his culture installed by year three?"

Why do they have to be mutually exclusive?  

Just now, FrantzHardySwag said:

Either way it's a Frost problem. If Frost is running off talented kids, that's problem. If Frost is bringing in talented kids that don't want to put in the work, and are bad teammates - guess what, that's a Frost problem too. Hard for me to give Frost a pass because he built a roster of apparently talented d******ds who don't want to work, so he has to play walk-ons who aren't good enough to win games in the B1G. 

 

Well said.  In college football the head coach is also the GM so it all boils up to him.  

1 hour ago, Farms said:

Frost said both QB’s completed 81% in practice. That tells me they are being setup for success in practice too much. Do we ever go good on good?

When you go against your own team that gets no pressure in games either, then I don’t see why they wouldn’t be 80%.  Hell every QB does good against our defense. 

1 minute ago, WyoHusker56 said:

Frost should be further along now than he is. However this program was always more than a three year restart. It was a dumpster fire in 2017 and is slightly less of one now. It was a 5 year rebuild best case.  We flushed the easy restart down the toilet with the Riley hire. You get a new coach now it's gonna be 5+ more at a minimum and that's assuming you can find a decent coach who would take over after we fire the guy who has had more leniency than anyone. Very few coaches who could have success here would take the job if any. We hitched our wagon to Frost in 2018 and our only choice is hoping he gets us where we want to be. 

Agreed.  He needs his 2 more years, but Moos needs to step in a make Frost hire a well established D coordinator and take play calling duties away from Frost.  Otherwise I have no problem starting over because I will just be a waste of 2 more years without changes.  

9 minutes ago, Bigred_inSD said:

Especially in a year when it doesnt count against eligibility  these young guys should have got a lot of action to get them ready.  Frost's ego is killing the team, costing wins and players.  

This is the thing I will never understand.  The team record sucks and it’s a free year.  Let the younger more talented kids work out the kinks.   Nebraska  would be better off it this year never even took place at this point 

9 minutes ago, Farms said:

While I agree with what you're saying, my point is it's just a lot harder to do when you don't have the talent that Frost is accustomed to having.. Maybe he needs to pick his battles a little bit I'm not sure.  He may be fired before his culture ever sets in at this rate.. 

it shouldn’t take 3+ years to develop a culture.  Frost is the issue at this point until notes otherwise. 

Just now, Canadian Fan said:

 

I don't understand the deep safety in this situation who on obvious run plays at the snap backpeddles another 5 yards ensuring he has ZERO ability to get into the play.

It happens every play of every game no matter the situation or down and distance.  

This is why it sucks to have a “bend but don’t break” defense.  Can never stop someone at the end of the game because they aren’t used to doing it during the rest of the game.  Pathetic.  

That was a clear offensive pick 

20 hours ago, teachercd said:

As an anti-gun person, I am totally for this.

 

I would go as far as to say that if you carry in public that the police should be called on you immediately.  If everything checks out, great.  Go back to playing wild wild west.  If one thing is out of order, anything at all, you lose your gun.  I mean anything.    Taillight out, expired plates, anything. 

My issue with this would be if the state has open carry laws and the person is open carrying in accordance with the law, then the person would be presumed guilty of something in your scenario which goes against our system. 
 

similar to what some protests are about in regards to policing within the AA community.  Stopped and presumed guilty of something 

O-line is getting manhandled. 

I can’t believe how efficient every QB we play is.  

2 minutes ago, B.B. Hemingway said:

Adrian does enough to flip the field and special teams gives it right back.

Ya offense, rather AM scrambling, did ok at lest getting a few first downs. 

1 minute ago, Hayseed said:

It would be nice if somebody would get open.

The announcers are saying people are breaking open just not seeing them.  

How many opportunities to fail can Cam get?  Frost says he can’t play the younger more talented receivers cause they make mistakes, yet Cam has multiple bad snaps a game and continues to start games?  No wonder the Florida kids leave the program.  

6 minutes ago, HANC said:

Delancey should be gone for his remarks during game. He can retract tweet but it is obviously what he thinks. 

Or maybe coach’s should clearly let players know where they are on the depth chart, why they are there, what they need to do or show in order to move up.  And when a player does get a chance and performs like Fleming did against NW, give them another opportunity instead trotting out the same less talented players week after week and continue to lose. 

15 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

Here's a thought: maybe we should hold the lenders to account instead of only talking about the borrowers. Every single one of those car or house or credit card debts can only happen if some lender allows it to happen. We've protected those lenders over and over again and indeed given them free (or nearly free) money to lend. But when there's talk of bailing out the borrowers, then the fiscal responsibility argument comes out.

 

And yes, I'd be fine with debating if and how to forgive some or all of the loans of regular Americans. However, the government doesn't hold those loans like it does for student loans, which is why student loans would be so easy for the government to forgive.

Another thought to add onto your first paragraph.  Let’s hold the educational institutions to account for taking all this loan money.  How about we hold them accountable instead of making Joe and Jane, who never went to college, pay for the mistakes of those that did.  
 

Government should have never take. Over the student loan industry IMO but that is probably a seperate discussion. 

2 minutes ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

Spare you?  I'm trying to converse with you.  I asked that you not bring non-relevant facts into a debate.  I called you nothing, insinuated nothing.

 

If you can't handle that, you shouldn't even discuss things on the board.

 

 

On the bolded above, Maybe?  That's your reason for bringing up criminal record of people who were gunned down?  Because maybe it's relevant?  Pure garbage argument brother...it has no bearing and you know it.

 

If you want maybes to be part of the argument then maybe Kyle Rittenhouse was brought up by parents who beat him and he played too many violent video games which caused this whole ordeal. 

 

Presupposition used to form WEAK a$$ conclusions is not a good way to make any points.  It's a great way to show how bad of an argument you're waging.

 

Now, once again, I ask that you bring only facts that are relevant to discussions to keep it on point.

 

I never said YOU did.  I said YOU have never called out anyone on this board but me and I have given you examples.  You have rules for me but not anyone else it appears.  
 

As far as the original discussion, MY opinion is that the shooter was justified based on being peaceful until attacked and in the shooters view, in fear for his life.  
 

Others bring up some mass murderer cases to this one and you breeze on by that post, yet it has no relevance for the discussion at hand. You almost tried to justify the post.  Crazy how you have selective amnesia when it comes to relevant posts.  
 

Now I will ask you to have the same rules for everyone or no one.  Please decide.  
 

5 minutes ago, knapplc said:

Huskers official twitter says McCaffrey at QB1, but all the local scribes are saying Martinez is taking 1st team snaps from Jurgens.

 

 

I think after LM last week, AM deserves another shot to start the game.   Neither option is ideal but AM looked more poised. 

20 hours ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

When someone is gunned down, it's poor form to insist that any crimes they committed previously that did not contribute to the death are relevant.

 

You are stating non relevant facts in order to illicit a reaction.  That's trolling and it's against the board rules.

 

Placing labels upon victims of violent crime is really poor form and if you continue to do it, makes me think you are trying to troll people versus having civil discussion.  I want to believe you're here for civil discussion.  Help me out.

 

If you want to continue to debate here and not make it on everyone's ignore list and become invisible, I'd recommend some candor and tact. 

 

But yes, we are in agreement on the overall argument.

Oh please spare me.   I have never once heard you call out anyone on this board when they respond to me in trolling or attacking manner.  
 

calling me Mr. Bunker, insinuating I am a racist, and I hear nothing from you.

And maybe it is relevant that those people had a criminal records because it shows they could be predisposed to violence.  I didn’t see any people with non-violent records attack the shooter. Maybe having a violent record does matter 
 

20 hours ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

Ok, let's take a walk back through this.  You haven't set ANYTHING bout my article I referenced...so let's go from the beginning for perspective.

You said:

 

You were talking about this from the CNBC article:

 

When the actual article they were quoting was from a study published in the American Journal of Health that stated:

 

So, what I posted afterwards should be EYE OPENING for you.  The fact that more than half of Americans (54%) with medical debt have no other debts listed on their credit reports and that among families who experience medical bankruptcy, 20.1% are military families.

 

Just considering the above, over half of those folks filing for bankruptcies referenced in the study DON'T HAVE OTHER DEBT.  So you don't have to presuppose about multiple car loans, no savings, credit card debt, etc.

The AJHP is behind a paywall so I can’t read anything beyond the first page which didn’t say much of anything in specifics. Not saying there isn’t good info later on, I just can’t access it. 
 

as far as your consumer health article goes:

1) it seems to say people have medical collections for many different reasons and just ability to pay.  
2) Credit agencies treat medical debt collections differently than normal consumer debt collections.

3) having the presence of medical debt and no other debt on a credit report (not collections report) tells nothing except the consumer is using credit extended by either the provider or CareCredit to pay for a medical procedure.  No different then using a credit card to pay for new furniture or new appliances.  
A good portion of non-medically necessary procedures are paid for this way: LASIK, Clear Lense Exchange, Cosmetic procedures, etc..doesn’t mean they are all going into bankruptcy.  
4) one thing the AJHP did state on bankruptcy; medical bills or work-related income loss.   So not necessarily the medical bills but then extended loss of income to pay every bill that person had.