HuskerNBigD

Definitely tipped by #96.

41 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

 

Yes he's missing those throws, but it's mental not an inability to do it. He has no trust in his OL and honestly outside for JD, Mo and Wandale idk if he trusts his WR. Everything we've seen this year is mental and he's gotta fight through it. He can make every play he's missed we saw that last year. Also, even with his struggles this year he's still played better than sever long term starting Husker QBs in the past.

You keep reiterating this point on multiple threads, but at a certain point you've got to at least put some of the blame on Martinez. It's bush league to just deflect all it towards the offensive line. He has been inconsistent in his passing all season long. Sans the first game, the whole high-snap thing hasnt really been an issue. What I mean by that is that there is one or two a game, but this isn't some scapegoat that everyone was using for South Alabama.

He looks off. I'm not sure if its the weight he put on, or what, but something is different. His touch isn't there at all. He left J.D. out to dry all last game and he was throwing to ghosts this game. I'm not ready to give up on him, I think he's got spectacular talent and potential, but I wonder if he's overthinking things a bit too much. Similar to Mund at A&M, these guys are dual-threat and when they spend too much time in the pocket running through progressions, they lose half of what makes them special.

8 minutes ago, cheekygeek said:

I think this talk against Martinez is silly. Do we forget the yardage he was responsible for only the week before? Everything starts with mismatches on the line and getting a clean snap on a regular basis would work wonders for QB play as well.

 

QB play is a SYMPTOM against a quality line, not the disease.

Martinez looks noticeably different this year. You can still have gaudy numbers and not look great. He has no touch on his passes - he left Spielman out to dry so many times in that Illinois game, I was surprise to see #10 be able to walk by the end. 

You could argue that QB yardage is a benefactor of excellent WR play, not the cause of it. 

12 hours ago, teachercd said:

"Herbstreit?  More like O Street, amirght?"

O Street > Herbstreit

20 hours ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Oh, I think this is a 'big game' for Ohio State.  We are still Nebraska and some Buckeye fans wouold no doubt want to make trip to Lincoln just so they can see what REAL college football is all about!     

 

 

 

I wish I had your optimism / outlook on life.

58 minutes ago, Landlord said:

How's this for arbitrary stats. 18 years before/including Black Friday (and the ensuing cruel joke of playing in the BCS National Championship that year for some reason), compared to 18 years since Black Friday :

 

15 top 10 finishes

11 Conference Championships

3 National Championships

17 Major Bowl Appearances

8 Major Bowl Wins

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

0 Top 10 finishes

0 Conference Championships

0 National Championships

0 Major Bowl Appearances

0 Major Bowl Wins

 

me no likey.

37 minutes ago, roadrat said:

First year coach but Colorado has a veteran offense. Their QB has a lot more more weapons to pick from than we do right now

That’s utter B.S.

4 minutes ago, knapplc said:

No Isaac Armstrong today.

 

 

Armstrong or Pickering?

54 minutes ago, Landlord said:

 

 

 

As always, nobody ever has any actual evidence.

Exactly. Not that hard to snap a photo of the object in question.

Here’s how I see this weekend going.

We win: no complaint.

We lose: the way buff fans treated our fans is really the bigger story...

28 minutes ago, Bigred_inSD said:

I still remember  ESPN featuring  Jacked up for big hits, now you get suspended for it. 

 

I understand player safety and not wanting mush for brains but at the same time these are big, fast, strong humans.

Hell ESPN was advertising it as recently as yesterday.

https://www.facebook.com/CFBonESPN/videos/1132722936910863/

19 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

The sell off in Q4 very well could be the main reason why the YTD is so good.  Meaning, there isn't anything causing the rise in the stock market other than correcting the sell off.

 

Not sure what you're getting at with the bolded.  The S&P averaged around a 13% gain over those 4 years.

OR, NOT AND/THROUGH. What was the return of the S&P in 2011 or 2015? Meaning those two years the market essentially traded flat or in a range similar in magnitude to the time period you were just criticizing. 

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Possibly.  If you take out the totally unrealistic last half of 2017, I could see somewhat of a bull trend line still.

 

My issue with the term is that if you look at the last 15 months, we basically have been trading between 23,500 and 26,500.  It broke out the bottom at the end of last year, That was troublesome, but has come back. Now, we will see if it breaks out the top, stays there and continues to grow.

I mean, over the last 10 years the trend is definitely there. And, just to clarify, I'm using the term bull market here to suggest it going up - not the technical 20% up from a bear bottom definition (that ended last year at 3400+ days). I'd argue that the sell-off we saw during Q4 was a bit pre-mature and exacerbated by quants and tax-loss harvesting. I also understand what you're saying about a trading range, but that argument could be had for other periods in this bull market. Just look at the S&P for 2011 or 2015.

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

I too have some concerns in the 12-18 month time frame. 

 

Would you say we are still in a bull market considering the last 15 months?  

Growth is going to be the name of the game, but I'm not quite sure how much higher we can go. Wage inflation is what I'd really like to see tick up, but at full employment and the lowest weekly jobless claims in 49 years, I'm not sure what else can be done.

As for the bull market term, when looking over the last 10 years, I'd argue that it is still an appropriate term to use. Granted Q4 was quite bumpy, but from a trend standpoint its hard to argue.

1 minute ago, funhusker said:

Exactly.  Hope it keeps going since it still is yet to match where it was last September...

You mean the record high?

10 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

It's a nice start.  Hopefully we can go on a run like 2009 - 2015.

I think we're going to lose steam as soon as the latter part of this year. We're 10 years into a bull market and I just don't see a ton of growth outside the U.S. - China of course but Europe is a mess right now. However,  I don't think it'll be nearly as bad as '08-'09.

1 hour ago, knapplc said:

 

That Dan Wolken tweet is a laugh riot.

 

"In over his head."  Oof.

 

 

Dan Wolken is a turd.

Just now, Moiraine said:

 

 

He time traveled. One would think he would have found something better to do with such powers at his fingertips, but he was probably really mad about this class and who knows what goes on in the mind of an angry white male.

uh, not me. No way, I mean, ok maybe me.

Best start to the year since '98 and best quarterly figure since '09

How in the heck did you originally post this July 19, 2018?

On 3/30/2019 at 10:39 AM, Nebfanatic said:

Has Smullett admitted to fraud? Maybe he really wasn't lying all along? I mean why is the assumtion that he is lying when fraud charges were dropped. Sure, he could have done the crime and got the charges dropped anyway, but considering he hasn't admitted to the crime, and he isn't being charged for the crime, why do we assume he did the crime?

Well, for one, there was mounting evidence from the cameras of capturing the brothers purchasing the props, to their attorney looking to strike a deal, to Smollett seemingly now not caring about whether the perps are caught. Add that to the fact that it seems highly unlikely two racists would be out on one of the coldest nights in Chicago's history and are able to identify a particular black man from across the street, with just a little bit of logic you could see how this whole situation doesn't pass the sniff test.

The original article was so fascinating. I got about half way though on Friday and need to pick it up again.

2 minutes ago, funhusker said:

This situation is weird and definitely in need of clarification.  But is it really the worth the use of federal resources and especially the time of the POTUS?  

 

The mayor of Chicago and Chicago Police Dept are dismayed by this.  Am I to understand that they can't get answers?

Playing devil's advocate (and really just throwing this out there, because I have no clue whether the city could get any answers now that the case has been sealed), what if the federal government and POTUS are the only way to get answers / clarification?

Granted, we then have to ask ourselves whether this case warrants additional resources. Honestly, I think the guy should be prosecuted given his theatrics and intentional race-baiting, but I'm not exactly sure what that'll prove. People are already dug in on their sides, whether they support him or not, and I don't believe any sort of conviction would sway individuals one way or another. What concerns me is this case allows for others to believe you can side skirt any ramifications of trying to create hoopla around a hate crime, producing more copycat like acts. That has the potential to not only divide this country further, as some will claim it is real and others will call it another Smollett farce. We will have to rely on the fact that there are some normal human beings who can objective apply a sniff test to each individual case. However, in a world that continues to be more and more polarized by political parties or acts, I fear the number of able individuals continues to dwindle.

I think it is completely ridiculous that his attorneys are claiming he's 100% innocent and demanding an apology.

16 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Where are you hearing that from?

 

yes, it should be released just like the mueller report. 

The far right that wants to hang their hat on this event and claim scoreboard. 

1 hour ago, BlitzFirst said:

 

 

Yep.  Oh, there was "evidence" that was reported by the media I suppose...but in a court of law an indictment comes after a grand jury (which isn't all that grand...6 people minimum to 12 max).  Indictments come after presentation of evidence IN STRICT CONFIDENCE between grand jury members and the prosecution...no one else. The judge doesn't even see the evidence.  If the 6 to 12 individuals say 'yeah, that's enough to accuse this person' then it goes to trial. 

 

If the judge, prosecutor and defense lawyer finally have a trial (after all pretrial motions, etc)...they can go through the indictments and determine which ones will stay and which ones will go based on the evidence at hand.  For example, defense lawyers can get specific ones thrown out due (both before and during a trial) to inadmissible evidence (2nd hand knowledge, no eyewitnesses, etc).  Once this is determined, the prosecution then can determine whether to continue to prosecute, to offer a deal for reduced sentence and admission of guilt, or to dismiss the charges if they don't think they will be able to prove them in a court of law.

 

So, the prosecutor determined they would not win in a court of law and dismissed all charges.  This means either the judge determined that the grand jury indictments weren't up to snuff and dismissed some of the charges...or the defense lawyer was able to get some that the prosecution COULD  prove thrown out and perhaps those indictments were needed to prove other indictments and thus dominos of indictments may have fallen, or a combination of all of these or even related reasons (I'm sure everyone can think of some)

 

Bottom line, no conviction means there was only an accusation and there wasn't evidence in place that allowed for a conviction of these crimes.

 

It's important to also note that the prosecution has a sworn oath to prosecute ANY crime that they can prove to serve the public interest.  In other words, if they can prove it...they "should act with integrity and balanced judgment to increase public safety both by pursuing appropriate criminal charges of appropriate severity, and by exercising discretion to not pursue criminal charges in appropriate circumstances. The prosecutor should seek to protect the innocent and convict the guilty"

 

I have no dog in the fight...I don't care if he was guilt or innocent.  I don't watch Empire.  

 

I only think trial in the court of public opinion is an affront to our justice system.

I don’t have a dog in the fight either, but I believe you have to be pretty ignorant to overlook the fact they have the two brothers on camera buying the red hat and rope.