HuskerExpat

Over the last 50 years we have 26 more wins than Ohio State. We also have more national championships. I guess I would say they overtake us as a more successful dynasty when they surpass us in those two stats over a 50 year period. A dynasty isn't success over just 15 or 20 years. A fair number of teams have done that. Alabama and us are about the only teams that qualify in the modern era of college football. If things keep going as they are it won't be long until Ohio State overtakes us, but they're not there yet.

Totally understand your point and agree to some extent, but Miami was unranked that year with a true freshman QB's first road game in a big time atmosphere. This year we have already beat a ranked opponent and have a very good chance to be 6-0 when we go to Indiana (which I thought before the season could be a trap game, but looks to be a little softer than I had expected). We're certainly haven't done enough to prove "we're back," but we have a very good chance to have our best start to the season since 2001. That's the reason to be encouraged.

Tanner Lee is starting in 2017. Don't get your hopes up with POB. That is the problem. If POB is not the starter next year, we are unable to get next year's starter any playing time this year. IMO, this is a bad situation. It is also a bad situation for this year, because RF is our only option if TA goes down. And if TA and RF go down then what Bush or pull a red shirt? If TA and RF go down then the only option is POB and Darlington would likely move back to QB to back him up. Bush is no longer with the program.

I don't really care if it's a close win, provided it's close because both teams played well or there were some bad breaks for Nebraska. If it's close because we tried to work certain passing packages into the game plan for the sake of passing and not for the sake of winning, that would be frustrating to me. My biggest concern with this staff last year was that they failed to "manufacture" wins against teams that were of equal or lesser talent. Too many games were closer (and eventually ended up as losses) than they should have been simply because we seemed more worried about a play calling profile than about hammering out an "ugly" win. Obviously even a close loss to this NW team would be an awful step back and more evidence that Riley coached teams simply aren't consistent from game to game or season to season - which would be something we'd have to evaluate to determine if that's ultimately acceptable or a change would need to be made sooner than later. CM, I understand that you think NU needs to focus on being a running team. I actually think that NU needs to attack Northwestern threw the air early, which will open up the running lanes later in the game. Northwestern really sells out to stop the run, especially with its LB's. NU should use play action passes and RPO's to hit Carter and the slot receivers behind the LB's. If NU is successful doing this, this will loosen up the LB's and then NU can turn to the run game. I agree. Northwestern has three of their top four CBs and a starting safety out for the game. That is where we hurt them early and often.

Thanks, Bo. Rare thing to witness here - I agree with cm. We're on a good upswing, but we've got a long ways to go. The only part of this impressive by historical Nebraska standards was the MSU win, everything else is what we should be doing. Oregon still has sexy name recognition, but there's a good chance they don't finish ranked. UCLA was a lot like us vs Washington - they didn't want it nearly as much as we did and saw it as beneath them, to their detriment. Wins over Fresno and Wyoming are what they are, and the loss to Iowa...wait, I'm confused. Was Iowa a top 5 team or not? We can't credit them as that when it makes it sound good to us, and then talk about how they weren't that good when it makes them sound bad. One or the other, please. I'm excited and pleased and happy about where we're at. But it's entirely too premature to have any kind of discussion about being 'back' or having turned a corner. It definitely doesn't establish we've reached the promise land, but it does show we're headed in the right direction; we beat a ranked non conference opponent. Neither of the last two coaches did that, ever. Think about that for a minute. If that's not evidence that we're closer to where we want to go, then I'm not sure what is... Wow. Letting that stat sink in is both exciting and depressing. For sure.

Thanks, Bo. Rare thing to witness here - I agree with cm. We're on a good upswing, but we've got a long ways to go. The only part of this impressive by historical Nebraska standards was the MSU win, everything else is what we should be doing. Oregon still has sexy name recognition, but there's a good chance they don't finish ranked. UCLA was a lot like us vs Washington - they didn't want it nearly as much as we did and saw it as beneath them, to their detriment. Wins over Fresno and Wyoming are what they are, and the loss to Iowa...wait, I'm confused. Was Iowa a top 5 team or not? We can't credit them as that when it makes it sound good to us, and then talk about how they weren't that good when it makes them sound bad. One or the other, please. I'm excited and pleased and happy about where we're at. But it's entirely too premature to have any kind of discussion about being 'back' or having turned a corner. It definitely doesn't establish we've reached the promise land, but it does show we're headed in the right direction; we beat a ranked non conference opponent. Neither of the last two coaches did that, ever. Think about that for a minute. If that's not evidence that we're closer to where we want to go, then I'm not sure what is...

Not to nitpick, but why wasn't he voted captain then? A few weeks ago, I read somewhere the rules about voting for captains changed this year. Something like players could only vote for one person for captain. Since that's the case, most players' first and only choice will be for someone who is a leader and is in their position group. Thus on offense, the two position groups with the greatest numbers are most likely going to be captains. That's how we get an OL and WR for captain. Probably if players voted for two players for captain, the second choice goes to someone outside of their position group; to a senior QB, perhaps.

Is Brandon Reilly confirmed out?

Agreed. Hold them something like 65% of their average number of 20+ yard plays per game.

Sounds like you just acknowledged your argument crumbled to pieces in the face of facts

And for further reference, while MSU held Furman to 87 yards rushing, The Citadel held Furman to 70 yards rushing. So there's that.

Odd you'd make that claim. He's listed as the starter on the MSU official webpage. http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/msu/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2016-17/misc_non_event/Game2NotreDameDepthChart.pdf In case you doubt it, here is what the MSU 247 writer said about KW after going up against a freshman dominated FCS line in the first game: Kevin Williams, the allegedly Big 10 starting quality DT from Nebraska, was repeatedly turned and made a non-factor http://michiganstate.247sports.com/Board/93/Contents/36-hours-Later-Furman-Post-Game-Thoughts-47204855 We're not worse off for him transferring. I don't normally listen to tom and dirk's write ups about individual player performance. I'm even less inclined to care about a recruitnik fake journalist's assessments. OL and DL are some of the hardest positions to evaluate from TV coverage. Without endzone views and a play sheet, it's almost impossible to know what responsibilities should be executed and whether they were successful. So, let's look at the stats sheet. The way that the recruitnik wrote it, you'd think that MSU had been gashes on the ground. In reality? They ran for 87 yards on 33 carries, with a long of 14 yards. Their 170 pound true freshman RB ran for 83 yards on 20 carries (4.2 yard per carry) behind an offensive line that featured 4 freshman. If that is not concerning to you, so be it, but the MSU board was in a panic about their DL.

What about Lamar? I haven't seen anything about him so I'm assuming he's been practicing. He's practicing. Brian Stewart tweeted video of him in a drill yesterday. Looks fine.

Odd you'd make that claim. He's listed as the starter on the MSU official webpage. http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/msu/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2016-17/misc_non_event/Game2NotreDameDepthChart.pdf My point is that he is not starter quality. So he's not starter quality at the unranked team, but starter quality for the #12 ranked team. Got it. LOL Yeah, preseason rankings are worth so much.

Odd you'd make that claim. He's listed as the starter on the MSU official webpage. http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/msu/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2016-17/misc_non_event/Game2NotreDameDepthChart.pdf In case you doubt it, here is what the MSU 247 writer said about KW after going up against a freshman dominated FCS line in the first game: Kevin Williams, the allegedly Big 10 starting quality DT from Nebraska, was repeatedly turned and made a non-factor http://michiganstate.247sports.com/Board/93/Contents/36-hours-Later-Furman-Post-Game-Thoughts-47204855 We're not worse off for him transferring.

Odd you'd make that claim. He's listed as the starter on the MSU official webpage. http://grfx.cstv.com/photos/schools/msu/sports/m-footbl/auto_pdf/2016-17/misc_non_event/Game2NotreDameDepthChart.pdf My point is that he is not starter quality.

Dude is not a starter. The only reason he's getting playing time at MSU is because of how incredibly thin they are on the DL. Go take a look at the MSU 247 board. They think Malik McDowell is solid and the rest of their DL is horrible, including KW. We're not missing anything with him transferring.

Sorry, I just disagree. I don't think that standing has a direct correlation/causation with louder noise, but what it does is create an environment where A) people see that others around them are visibly showing their excitement which doesn't make people nervous about being an outlier screaming, and B) people are more prone towards or willing to become excited. This isn't some weird tangential thought just cooked up by people around here - people get more excited when they're standing, which has side effects. Reasonable people can disagree. No problem with that at all. For me, I think it is a stretch to suggest that fans will be more nervous about screaming while sitting. Similarly suggesting that sitting makes one less prone to become excited when the team makes a good play also seems far fetched. The very fact that sometimes the phrase "jumping out of their seats" (or "brought them to their feet") is sometimes used would suggest exactly the opposite. But like I said, reasonable people can disagree. But even if I agreed with you about the qualitative differences between sitting and standing, I wouldn't agree that the difference is worth disenfranchising a whole class of fans who simply cannot stand for that long. Many of those fans who physically can't stand for that long have done far more for the program in terms of dollars and support than any student jumping up and down on their seat ever will.

Is it fair to say that those people advocating to never sit can't answer the bolded question? Think about 5-10 moments in your life where you were more excited and energized than you've ever been. How many of them were you sitting down for? Sure, our squad gets a TD or a sack and everyone jumps up and screams. Clearly, that is to be expected. But everyone making noise to make it more difficult for the opposing team is not about excitement. To deliberatively make noise (as opposed to the spontaneous screaming from excitement after a TD) it makes no difference whether one is sitting or standing. Again, I'm tall, healthy and relatively young. I say this not for me but for those fans who have trouble standing for an entire game. It's not right to exclude them or make their experience miserable.

Is it fair to say that those people advocating to never sit can't answer the bolded question?

A lot of chatter that we're landing him. Switching my vote from Okie Lite to us.

I never really understand this. Is there a difference between the amount of noise a fan can make sitting vs. standing? I'm tall and healthy so there are no adverse effects to me. But there are many long time ticket holders who have trouble standing who have contributed far more to the program (money, support, etc) than any 20 something who is standing on his/her seat.

He is going to be good. Possibly very good. He got better as the game went along and this was his first game. He has the size to go up against anyone and be a force on blitzes and stopping the run as well. Can't wait to see how he develops.

I agree 100%. I think they, like many of us fans, our just dumbfounded that the light hasn't gone off for Tommy. He seems to have all the skills necessary but can't seem to put it together into being a slightly better than average passer. If he could, we'd be dominant, maybe win 10 or dare i say even 11 games. Probably 9-4 or 8-5 if he can't (perhaps even 7-6).

According to Riley's comments recently, it was not "the plan" to run as much as they did. Assuming he's being completely truthful, it sounds like it was more of "you go with what's working" than anything else. I'm fine with that. Edit (for source material): "I didn't really think it was going to be like that necessarily," said Riley of Nebraska's offense being that run-heavy in the season-opening 43-10 win over Fresno State. "We of course want to run the ball. Got to be a good part of the recipe for what we do all the time." http://journalstar.com/sports/huskers/football/yays-and-nays-after-a-running-start-riley-knows-more/article_ba4e5277-bf77-5bdf-a0fe-4e2bd681f982.html