Guy Chamberlin

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.

Absolutely. We got used to beating the Big 8 on sheer strength. Then when we played those Florida teams (or Oklahoma or Georgia Tech) we got burned by teams who were just as strong and a lot faster. Starting in 1990, Osborne started recruiting for defensive speed.

I don't think anyone really knows how Nebraskan fortunes would have changed for better or worse had Frank Solich been retained. Hard to imagine the Huskers getting back to the unprecedented run Frank inherited, so some downfall is in order. But it's hard to imagine Frank posting Callahan numbers either. Most coaches have some roller coaster to their careers and 15 years of Frank Solich would likely have had at least as many ups as we've had with the three subsequent coaches. I think Husker football just hit the reality that every other football dynasty has had to live with. But for those who think the Solich firing was pure Pederson agenda, keep in mind how many Husker fans considered that 7-7 season something no Nebraska team should abide.

I wouldn't read too much in our most experienced running back, who averaged 5.2 yards a carry along with excellent ball security, getting the starting nod for the first game of his Senior year. I believe Devine Ozigbo is a Mike Riley recruit and I don't think Mike is going to withhold Ozigbo as part of his nefarious plan to undermine the rushing game. There were plenty of years in the Husker past where a platoon of RBs competed for playing time, although the season typically ended with a single featured back. That could just as easily be Tre Bryant as Newby or Ozigbo.

The biggest changes Osborne made in his run to glory were on defense. Defense, turnovers, penalties and even special teams have had a bigger impact on Nebraska's success than individual play calling. Actually, 3rd and 4th down efficiency have been among Nebraska's best offensive categories in recent years.

Team Feit. There is nothing in Barfknecht's premise that is supported in any meaningful way.

I'd like to think I know the player backing up Jordan Westerkamp, especially if he's a Junior. But I've never heard of Gabe Rahn.

If you go by All-Conference, All-Americans and Lombardi and Outland Award winners than yeah, Osborne had a pretty good run with dominating offensive lines. It also showed in their dominating run offense, which was not achieved simply by running the ball a lot, but by recruiting specifically for a rushing offense. Nebraska was a destination for offensive linemen. But it hardly happened overnight. Really not sure what you're disagreeing with here. And "average defense?" Don't know about that, either. Nebraska's defense made a huge difference during our 40 year run of excellence. I'm not sure what teams you are choosing to remember, but great Nebraska defenses gave up only 8.0 points a game while the lesser Nebraska defenses still gave up only 14 points a game. Compare that to the 26+ ppg Nebraska defenses have given up in recent years and you can appreciate the difference that makes in the offense you run and the games you don't win.

Good points all. There was only one marquee hiring in college football last year. It was Jim Harbaugh, and Michigan was his only college destination. For all his faults -- the dude manages to irritate a lot of people -- Harbaugh's been a winner everywhere he goes. To say you would have preferred Harbaugh over Riley is as obvious as it is pointless. But to make this about niceness vs. toughness really misses the point, too. Tom Osborne and Bob Devaney couldn't have been more different personally, but they recruited and coached toughness because.....wait, why wouldn't you coach toughness? It's football. You would have thought a Bo Pelini team would reflect their coach's toughness and occasional rage, but his teams had some of the biggest meltdowns on the field, and the most lifeless sideline demeanor I've ever seen on a Nebraska team. Being a bad ass means nothing without technique and teamwork. It's easier to be a badass when things are going your way. Let's get everybody on the same page first.

I have yet to find anyone who wants to keep losing to Purdue and Illinois. Osborne's offense -- like most other offenses -- benefitted from consistently superior offensive lines. When you announce your intention to run, that line better be among the best in the nation. Saying "pound the rock!" is always easier said than done. The best teams in college football today still run the ball plenty and will do so as much as they can, but since good defenses stop the run first, these teams still pass the ball around 30 times a game. It's good football. And we might not be fretting about the offense at all if the Nebraska defense was giving up 12 points a game as opposed to 27. Osborne's offense looked a lot better when Osborne's defense kept getting them the ball back.

This worked very well for Osborne at least 7 games a year, when Nebraska could physically dominate lesser teams who already knew they had to stack the box. I'm sure a few couldn't have stopped Nebraska even if they had our playbook. We simply aren't that team any more, and college football has changed a bit. A lot of teams play "stop-the-run-first" defense, and it shows. I think some people remember the "too cute" plays -- perhaps passing on a third and two, or on first down, or on three consecutive plays -- but they don't remember the running plays that got stuffed. There were plenty of games between Watson, Beck, Langsdorf and even Osborne where defenses made the proper adjustments, and the running plays that worked in the first quarter weren't working in the second. Between going "too cute" and going "too conservative" you are guaranteed to be second guessed. Some of those cute plays actually worked pretty well. Winning cures everything.

So when you say "he would keep calling the same plays until the opposing teams could stop it" you simply mean he continued to run the ball instead of passing it. Because a fullback counter, a short side sweep and a triple option are very different plays. Although of course Tom Osborne always spread a few passes throughout the game to keep defenses honest. Probably more passes than some choose to remember. I honestly don't know why some people think the forward pass is some kind of gadget play. It's just as much a part of football as anything.

I have no idea what you're talking about.