Guy Chamberlin

Another way to look at it: It was the first game of the year after an extremely problematic camp. The coaches scaled the offense down to what worked best in practice. Apparently the Huskers still did not execute to the coaches' satisfaction. And Nebraska won 43-10, thanks to dominating line play on both sides of the ball. If you have to get your first game jitters and rust out of the way, that wasn't a bad way to go.

Alabama and Ohio State have had excellent runs for a decade or so. They likely have the two best coaches, and that has helped fill their rosters with the best recruits, the best talents. After that, you'll find teams with all the advantages we supposedly yearn for, who still manage to put together disappointing seasons: USC, UCLA, Tennessee, South Carolina, Florida, Michigan, Texas, etc. Clemson might drop back off the NC map as soon as it loses its star quarterback. Oregon could easily slide, regardless of Phil Knight's money. Alabama and Ohio State will come back down to earth, because it always happens. A program can catch fire with the right coach creating the right culture in the right program. There is enough talent out there to go around, though you gotta be more clever about it as an underdog. The money is more overt of course in professional sports, but the Yankees, Red Sox and Dodgers have spent gazillions on top talent, only to get outplayed by teams with better clubhouse chemistry.

If I'm reading between the lines of Saturday's game and the quotes from summer camp, I think the coaching staff is frustrated by Tommy's lack of progress in the passing game. I don't think they've been trying to pound a square peg in a round hole with Tommy. I think they have a guy who is tauntingly close to being dominant and dangerous in all phases, but the light still hasn't gone off and maybe it never will. That still leaves Tommy with a lot of weapons, but perhaps trimming down the decision making is the way to go. Riley seemed almost Bo-like in his post game interview with Damon Benning. Short and irritated. Given the chance to go "nice" in a 33 point opening win on an emotional day, Riley seemed genuinely pissed that the team was still making the kind of mistakes they won't get away with against better teams.

Given DPE's fumble on his only called play, I'm wondering if he's dealing with a case of the yips right now. Wonder too if he's been tentative in practice. The coaches seem to be lowering expectations for him. He was considered such a huge asset coming into last year.

Hey, not too bad on my part

Let's get ready for the likelihood that the plays that worked against Fresno State won't work as well against better teams.

Tre Bryant will make the most of his 5 carries and 1 reception, firing up a healthy RB debate.

What is the point of this post? I am 47 years old, just because I disagree with you doesn't mean you need to make it personal! When I disagree, I make a comment about the post, some of those that are not happy with how I post actually make comments that degrade the poster.. ironic if you ask me. Sorry. I'm just genuinely vexed and disappointed by the number of Americans who don't see through Donald Trump and/or discredited conservative bromides. Always hoping they're not old enough to vote.

Well that first debate should be entertaining. Not that it won't be scripted.

You officially have zero credibility. Or you're just trolling. Either way... done. Wow...2000......you really went there? Maybe you can explain? I know all about the VW situation, I have two of them. Short version? Volkswagen fukt up.

I think we can all agree that businesses can significantly increase their profit margins by hiring children, polluting at will, and privatizing wealth at taxpayer risk. The whole Democracy thing is about deciding the kind of world we want to live in. America has actually thrived under a combination of free-enterprise and federal regulation. You'd think most people wouldn't feel sorry for billionaires, but that kind of money can buy the opinion of some of our less-discerning citizens.

Just for fun, go back and see how wrong the conservative braniacs in the Project for a New American Century were about virtually everything. And they are light years ahead of Alex Jones and the Heritage Foundation. You know what weak-kneed, Capitalist-hating tree-huggers bought into the Global Warming hoax? The Pentagon. Looking at the available facts from a global security standpoint, they consider it the biggest threat to the way of life we supposedly want to defend.

People also forget that Andrew Luck was a bit of a badass in his Stanford days, willing to take off in open field, put his shoulder into a defender and truck him. I think he backed off a bit when he realized how many millions of dollars his shoulder was worth.

Stanford's offense is built around recruiting huge and smart offensive linemen, then passing and running at whatever ratio works against the defensive alignment. That offensive line has been making a lot of guys look good. There's a lot of leftover West Coast Offense at Stanford, which doesn't mean pass-first as some tend to think, but uses a variety of low-risk, high efficiency plays that wear a defense down. Quarterbacks definitely don't need a strong arm, but they need to be savvy decision makers.

We're in on much better, and much more "much better" prospects than we have been in the past. Based on rankings anyway. So, yes, they are proving it wrong. What is the Michigan draw then? Im curious. Just because theyve outrecruited us in the past doesnt necessarily mean the draw is better. That could be a simple coach thing. What I'm asking is what does Michigan have to offer that Nebraska doesnt? Right now way more national cred and a better coach. What cred? Michigans been as much garbage as nebraska has the last decade. even last year, they didnt do anything more than Bo ever did. If im not mistaken, this weekend we have two of, if not THE two, top overall prospects in the country here for OV's. The point remains. This staff is proving (not that they have proved. It's still in process) that we can compete with the likes of Ohio St, Michigan, Bama, USC etc for top notch talent. If you polled most college coaches or analysts in the country, Michigan would certainly be considered the superior job to Nebraska. I don't think there's anything wrong with admitting that. For starters, they have superior in-state talent and a much larger population. Nebraska is roughly 2 million people - Michigan has almost 10 million people. They have also been on the national scene more recently than Nebraska. Some can guffaw and make fun of their most recent BCS win a few years back, but they at least have a BCS win in the last handful of years. Nebraska doesn't. Furthermore, I don't have the exact numbers, but I'd wager they devote comparable funding to the football program as Nebraska, facilities are likely on par, they have a bigger fan base and they're a bigger university. They're either equal to or greater than Nebraska in most categories, Count. Michigan is also by far the more respected academic institution, not that far behind the Stanfords and Ivy Leagues by some accounts. If you can deliver the big time football -- and Michigan does -- then having a Michigan degree adds icing on the cake for players and their parents, and more status for coaches and their wives.

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about? First of all, you misunderstood my post. Again. It's not saying something *to* a woman (as opposed to a man) that might cause a reaction. It's speaking in frank, matter of fact terms *about* a woman (as you would speak about a man) that causes a thin skinned response in some who are supposedly advocates of equal gender rights. So here's an example for you. I made a post recently defending the actions of Tom Osborne in regards to his treatment of Lawrence Phillips. Several posters—three posters in particular—jumped all over me in regards to my post. One poster went so far as to suggest that I’m the type of fellow who would say that rape victim asked for it because of what she was wearing. (btw, That comment is absolutely untrue and I was extremely upset by it.) The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post. You need professional help. NOTE: This post of StPaul's is not intended to carry on a conversation or make a point relevant to the thread. It's just flaming. This is his 5th warning in the past year. StPaulHusker is on vacation from HB for a while. Carry on. You brought it over from another thread, NUance. And even as you strive to clarify your position, you invite legitimate criticism. I may have been one of the posters on the Phillips thread you mention here. I continue to find you on very shaky ground with your assertions. If holding your feet to the fire is flaming, toss me in with StPaul. Thin-skinned moderation and personally-driven banishments can be a real buzzkill. Apparently the HB posters who reported StPaulHusker's four other infractions this past year felt that he was being a buzzkill as well. That's a terrible apology for your actions. Try again. Yeah, that would have been a poor apology. If it had been an apology. The point I was making was that this was SPH's fifth infraction. Within a year. That's quite a few infractions, wouldn't you say? His vacation was deserved. So let's just leave it at that. That would depend on who was defining and administering infractions, wouldn't you say? Post #80 got 7 reputation points today, so it's not just me. I think at least some introspection is in order, NUance.

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about? First of all, you misunderstood my post. Again. It's not saying something *to* a woman (as opposed to a man) that might cause a reaction. It's speaking in frank, matter of fact terms *about* a woman (as you would speak about a man) that causes a thin skinned response in some who are supposedly advocates of equal gender rights. So here's an example for you. I made a post recently defending the actions of Tom Osborne in regards to his treatment of Lawrence Phillips. Several posters—three posters in particular—jumped all over me in regards to my post. One poster went so far as to suggest that I’m the type of fellow who would say that rape victim asked for it because of what she was wearing. (btw, That comment is absolutely untrue and I was extremely upset by it.) The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post. You need professional help. NOTE: This post of StPaul's is not intended to carry on a conversation or make a point relevant to the thread. It's just flaming. This is his 5th warning in the past year. StPaulHusker is on vacation from HB for a while. Carry on. You brought it over from another thread, NUance. And even as you strive to clarify your position, you invite legitimate criticism. I may have been one of the posters on the Phillips thread you mention here. I continue to find you on very shaky ground with your assertions. If holding your feet to the fire is flaming, toss me in with StPaul. Thin-skinned moderation and personally-driven banishments can be a real buzzkill. Apparently the HB posters who reported StPaulHusker's four other infractions this past year felt that he was being a buzzkill as well. That's a terrible apology for your actions. Try again.

Remember the cloud that descended on Nebraska football in 2004, the year Bill Callahan took over for Frank Solich? Here is Michigan's record since 2004 under four different coaches. I'm counting two seasons that would have been acceptable to Husker fans in 2004, and even those 11-2 years would have generated grumbling in some quarters. If you were to ask a fan or player if they would rather be Michigan or Nebraska over the last dozen years, the answer isn't all that clear. 9-3 7-5 11-2 9-4 3-9 5-7 7-6 11-2 8-5 7-6 5-7 10-3

Help me out Nuance - what would be an ex of something you'd say to a man that when you've said it to a woman that found they're think skinned about? First of all, you misunderstood my post. Again. It's not saying something *to* a woman (as opposed to a man) that might cause a reaction. It's speaking in frank, matter of fact terms *about* a woman (as you would speak about a man) that causes a thin skinned response in some who are supposedly advocates of equal gender rights. So here's an example for you. I made a post recently defending the actions of Tom Osborne in regards to his treatment of Lawrence Phillips. Several posters—three posters in particular—jumped all over me in regards to my post. One poster went so far as to suggest that I’m the type of fellow who would say that rape victim asked for it because of what she was wearing. (btw, That comment is absolutely untrue and I was extremely upset by it.) The thing is, if LP had instead gotten in an off-the-field fight with a male teammate, I sincerely doubt if those three posters would have gotten all bent out of shape and responded in that manner to my post. You need professional help. NOTE: This post of StPaul's is not intended to carry on a conversation or make a point relevant to the thread. It's just flaming. This is his 5th warning in the past year. StPaulHusker is on vacation from HB for a while. Carry on. You brought it over from another thread, NUance. And even as you strive to clarify your position, you invite legitimate criticism. I may have been one of the posters on the Phillips thread you mention here. I continue to find you on very shaky ground with your assertions. If holding your feet to the fire is flaming, toss me in with StPaul. Thin-skinned moderation and personally-driven banishments can be a real buzzkill.

It's an interesting subject -- or was -- since it's been debated since the dawn of time, approx. 6,000 years ago. I know the transgender issue was just one example offered in the OP, but it's a fair one. The subject is pretty new to most of us, and the research is rushing to catch up, but it's only a generation removed from how homosexuality was viewed in both science and the social norm. The psychiatric community considered homosexuality an abnormal and treatable medical condition for years. Smart guys with big degrees used to blame it on over-protective mothers and weak father figures. As it shakes out, homosexuality occurs in roughly 8% of the population, whether they like it or not, a figure that appears consistent throughout cultures and likely across human history. Anecdotal evidence of dog-humping aside, it also appears that homosexuality is rife in the animal kingdom. This one's on God. There appears to be no tragic shortfall in procreation. Natural? Normal? Who knows? The occurrence of homosexuality appears to be as frequent and random as left-handedness. Is that all there is to it? Maybe. I think the new awareness of gender fluidity is a lot like this. Just because we're not all familiar or comfortable with it doesn't mean it's not a "fact." The point being, we don't have the right to define someone else's normal. Especially when it doesn't hurt us a bit. As for the War on Science out there: honestly, if you want to dismiss what the experts say on global warming, human sexuality, evolution and any other ideological leaning, I encourage you to boycott planes, automobiles, smartphones, Viagra and dialysis machines because they were also created by people who knew a lot more about the subject than you do.

Toughness can be coached, I suppose. Maybe it's part of a culture, but if you choose to play football it's kinda built into the game itself. I'm just wondering how Bo Pelini could be the coach of one of the baddest ass defenses in Nebraska history in 2009, then three years later be overseeing one of the most fragile defenses in Nebraska history. Same coach. Same culture. Same game. Different players? Somehow that championship level defense was comprised of players willing to come to Nebraska.

I've never considered Coach Power T the least bit trollish. He's certainly nicer to the Husker program than several of the Born & Raised. Just thought he had a thing for ducks.

Same with texting while driving. Get caught looking at your phone, go to jail. Dead is dead. Yeah, I'll take an experienced driver with a .08 over the people convinced they can continue to have a text conversation behind the wheel. Why should a person take either one? We don't have a choice, so it's moot. But if we did, I'd take the former. I'm also concerned that there are far more people rationalizing their smartphone distractions -- and many of them would never dream of driving drunk.

His thoughts on the depth chart are fine, all he is trying to do with tweeting out that pictures of the depth chart is stir a pot. I look at all of the walk-on talent as a positive. Depending on the walk-on program to fill a large number of holes in the depth chart is an indictment on the program's abilities to recruit and develop talent. It is an indictment on the previous staff to recruit and develop talent. The jury is still out on this staff, but looks very positive. Uh, huh... ok RADAR.... Whoa.

Same with texting while driving. Get caught looking at your phone, go to jail. Dead is dead. Yeah, I'll take an experienced driver with a .08 over the people convinced they can continue to have a text conversation behind the wheel.