RedDenver

I agree with your premise (But let's wait until these players have actually played before deciding) but not your example (Chris Williams). Chris Williams' departure had a lot to do with his blown knee. Pelini didn't whiff on recruiting Chris Williams. Oh yeah, nice topic EZ. I'd judge a player as a "whiff" if they don't contribute to the program. I'm not saying anything bad about Pelini or Williams, but CW will not contribute and therefore is a recruiting "whiff".

I see what you're saying and we do seem to have some recruiting momentum right now. But let's wait until these players have actually played before deciding how good our recruiting was. Case in point: Chris Williams.

Keith Williams was at practice and gave interviews to the media afterward on Tue. No mention of an injury of any kind.

Ding ding ding!!! This whole discussion of splitting OSU-UM reminds me almost exactly of the same discussions about OU-NU when the B12 was formed. If winning the regular season game doesn't really mean much (split divisions means it's just another W or L in the conference), then the importance of the game is dramatically reduced. The OU-UT game retains much of it's meaning and importance because it often determines who wins the B12 south.

Lots of speculation that the "clearer" QB picture is between the 2nd and 3rd guy, and that the battle is down to 2 guys for the top spot. This is very speculative, so take it for what it's worth.

The only source quoted in this article is a former chancellor from over a decade ago. I doubt the credibility of this article's premise.

Considering the ban on guests and media at practices, I find this hard to believe.

The basic argument from the media is that the fans will not tolerate delays in reporting the news. I call BS. Is there really anybody who would have minded waiting until Wed. to find out about the injuries on Tue.? And it's not like there's really that much news coming out of practices anyways. Maybe the sports journalists should spend more than 30 minutes writing an article and put some real thought and effort into it. That goes for the editors and their bosses as well.

I hope you're right. I've read a few good comments coming out of fall camp about QE. We certainly could use somebody to pick up the slack behind Paul and Kinney. And how do you have 1900 posts in less than a year? Good grief, man, how much time do you put into this board?

Alright, I get what you're saying. I still don't agree. I'm saying that the only looks of Quincy we've seen are on his high school highlights video, which wouldn't include any play where he looks bad - like not looking the ball into his hands. I just don't agree that limited collection of high school plays can be compared equally to an entire body of work from a player starting on a BCS-level college team. JMHO.

Apples and oranges. How Niles and Brandon play against BCS conference opponents is not even remotely comparable to whatever high school competition Quincy was playing against. Either that or you're looking into the future to tell us how Quincy will play against CU or others. I know we all want these recruits to be superstars but comparing a kid who hasn't even seen the field yet to our most explosive playmaker (arguably) isn't a credible comparison.

Actually LP, Clinton Childs, and Damon Benning were all ahead of Green. Green did get some PT early in the season during blowouts, which was fortunate because LP got suspended and then first Childs and then Benning were injured. That being said, Chase Rome is in a different position. I'd like to see him redshirt unless he's ubergood or injuries happen.

People need to remember that Carl Pelini has pretty well indicated that Chase is 5th in line right now. This is much ado about nothing.

I thought this was going to be about Ricky Henry. Alex Henery is know doubt one of the best ever at NU. We'll definitely miss him next season.

Probably will say more in a few days/weeks. Right now, I'll just let this thing go as the coaching staff wants it to. But if you remember my hard stance on TMart, it still stands. Feel even more strongly about my opinions than I did back when he signed. Dang it, now I've got to look through his recruiting thread.

Man, you nailed that one! He wishes!

I've heard that Compton and Whaley have a slight edge right now with Fisher really close behind. Heard Martin looks good but is behind those 3. There's somebody else in the mix too, but the name escapes me right now.

Taylor didn't early enroll, did he? And he was working with receivers last year, rather than at QB fulltime the way Green has been from day 1. Green came here early, and as a quarterback; Taylor, as a guy who had a cursory 'shot' at it before depth problems took over. As for playmaker, I didn't actually say anything about that. He's an athlete and we'll see if he can be a playmaker. I wasn't directing my play-maker comment at you specifically. Sorry if that wasn't clear. That is a good point about Martinez working with the WR's last year. So that gives Green about a 1 year head start on Martinez and a few games worth of experience. That's a decent but not insurmountable lead in experience. I'm sure Martinez benefited from learning the playbook as a WR and working with the offense though.

Did you watch the Spring Game? Martinez showed stuff we haven't seen here in a while. Yes, I was at the Spring Game. Martinez looked to have a quick first step and made some decent throws. But that was a glorified practice against a mixed set of depth chart defenders. I'd hardly call that enough to label the guy as a play-maker and even further from labeling him as "needing" to be on the field. That's all I'm saying. He could be the greatest QB ever to set foot in Memorial Stadium, but there's not any convincing evidence of that just yet.

zoogies is most likely basing that off of TMart's Spring Game, which was pretty impressive. And I'm sure he knows all about the long list of Spring Game stars who have fallen by the wayside during the season, but it's still a fair point. Maybe - but saying we "need" to get him on the field as a play-maker when he hasn't taken a single snap is WAY premature IMO. (Not directed at any particular poster but the tone of this thread in general.)

The reports from back when we joined the BigTen were that NU is immediately a full member of the BigTen Conference, but NOT a full equity member of the BigTen Network. The BigTen Network is a business venture between all the BigTen schools and Fox Sports, and NU will be vested over a period of years. I suspect that is what is being thrown around. The BigTen guaranteed NU would make at least as much as they did in the B12, so we're not losing anything.

How do you figure? Green and Martinez arrived at NU only a few months apart. And how is Martinez already a play-maker? The guy hasn't taken a single snap yet.

no one's disagreeing with the "reps" part - it's the part where the #1 WR spot is wide open. That is one of 5-6 positions that is fairly solidified going into fall...regardless of the "compete for your spot every day" thing Bo preaches. I took the earlier discussion to mean a #1 WR spot is up for grabs, not the #1 WR - if that makes sense.

That's a good point. I'll also mention that we didn't run the play clock all the way down once in FG range. We left 8-12 seconds instead of using up the clock a couple of times. That would have made a big difference.

Touche. I didn't think the UT backers would be able to spin that article so ineffectively. "• Contrary to what was widely reported, Texas' plans to start its own network was not a deal breaker in the school's plan to jump to the Pac-10. "[inviting Texas] wouldn't have gotten that far if it was about a few dollars here or there or a TV right here or there," Scott said." Yeah, I'm REALLY putting a spin on it. Since June everyone on here was saying Texas' "greed" over video rights killed the Pac 16. Now the commish says that wasn't the case. You completely missed the point. I'm pointing out that you conveniently ignored all the negative issues about UT in that article and seemed to pull out the only part that wasn't a negative. It wasn't a positive either though.