Guy Chamberlin

For the record, Pat Haden running out on the field, forgetting that he was a member of the Football Playoff Committee got a lot of press. The Navy clip demonstrates that networks show ANY confrontation between coach and ref, as they should.

Well Pereira — whose sole purpose on TV is literal interpretation of the rulebook — is noting that Pelini was making the wrong argument with the refs. The roughing call was bullsh#t, but the interception didn't negate the call. If Pelini is taking a risk by going on the field and getting in a ref's face, he shouldn't waste it on the wrong argument. The perception that Pelini has approached or crossed the line with refs isn't new or unfounded. The big change is that this team decided to double-down instead of falling apart. There will be other sh**ty calls this season. The only revenge is shaking them off and winning in spite of them. For those who didn't watch the coverage on ESPN2, Brock Huard spent the fourth quarter mocking Miami; if you want to talk trash, you better stop the other team from walking all over you. And Nebraska is running through Miami at will. That's how I like this team to respond.

Is McNeese State's defensive line that much better than Miami? Or did our offensive line eat its Wheaties? Much has been made about Beck committing to Abdullah this game, but in the two previous games Abdullah had plenty of carries but far less penetration. Against McNeese, you could see that our OL wasn't getting any push. A third and one was never a gimme. Against Miami Beck seemed to spread out the point of attack a bit for Abdullah, but it still required an offensive line that could get push, the kind where the qb or rb could essentially fall forward for two yards. That's the part that reminded me of vintage Nebraska. So was that execution and attitude, a change of scheme, or is the Miami D simply not as good as McNeese State?

Again, same thing is going on in the NFL. Players have been alerted to the new rules, but when the game is being played in real time it's hard to tell the flagged players what they were supposed to do differently. Players hate it. Coaches hate it. Announcers hate it. Third down sacks turn into automatic first downs. A lot of these plays are potential game-changers. Couple weeks ago Pete Carroll called in a rugby player to teach the Seahawks rugby tackling. Because rugby is played without helmets - and played hard - it's good tackling technique given the new rules. Pretty good technique anyway.

We need a team and a fanbase that believes Michigan State just might be afraid of us.

They do this with every coach in every sport. When there's a questionable call and the crowd is booing, you cut to the coach on the sideline for his reaction. Every time. Why wouldn't you? They show Nick Saban going ballistic, too, which is why we all think Nick Saban is a hothead. They always showed Tom Osborne after bad or questionable plays, because his reaction -- a squint and a frown-- was part of the story. They don't put television cameras on people being utterly boring because....why would they? Actually they did. There were plenty of shots of Bo Pelini on the sideline going about his business in a calm, deliberate, gum-chewing manner. Bo Pelini gets angrier than the average coach. It's not a conspiracy. It is who he is. He looks like the exact same guy he's always been. I admire his off-field PR efforts, but in-game he looks like the same Pelini he's always been. Not sure of this "different Bo" of whom you speak. I didn't mind Bo arguing myself. It's what you do in that situation. But these days if you watch football every Thursday, Saturday, Sunday and Monday, you're going to see a dozen roughing the passer or illegal targeting calls that seem just plain wrong, and even the network commentators are mystified. Some coaches yell at the refs, some just shake their heads. Most don't come that far out on the field. Bo still needs to be careful. So please...not more "this is the media's fault" schtick.

Nebraska could also recruit for a system not used by most other programs, which let RBs shine, got OL into the NFL, and let run/pass high school quarterbacks play quarterback instead of moving them to DB like the other top recruiting schools intended to do. (seems that approach worked more recently to lure Ameer Abdullah from Auburn) We could also promise that players would be on national TV two or three times a year. Lost our advantage there.

It's not exactly appropriate, but it would be pretty cool to get 90,000 people singing "Bohemian Rhapsody"

No idea what to expect. My gut feelings have been notoriously wrong the past few years.

The next year Danny Wuerffel didn't look too happy either. By the second quarter he had a look of genuine terror everytime he dropped back.

A must-win game. Close score acceptable. Beatdown preferred. At some point expectations have to be met. This is 90% mental.

Don't take this as me acting like an expert by any stretch. You may even think I'm a freak for this. But, I DVR just about every game and will rewatch it as many as three times. If it's an 11:00 or 2:30 game, many times late Saturday I will quickly watch it again fast forwarding through all the crap. Usually takes about an hour. I will watch key plays several times looking to see what worked and what didn't. Then, if I have questions about the offense or defense, I will fast forward through it just watching that side of the ball and sometimes just watching a player or group that I want to see what they are doing. My question is, how can you make sweeping judgements on how a player is doing when you sort of have watched the games and couldn't really see them even the first time? Great question. I guess in the limited time I've been able to watch and the circumstances involved, I've seen him clearly hit defenders in the hands a few tines and had a few more questionable balls that would have been swatted or picked had we played more talented teams. I've probably missed a few too due to the circumstances, so let's not act like ball security isn't still an issue, we've been lucky. As another poster pointed out, for this offense to be lethal you need a 65% passer. When I'm watching the game, I normally follow the ball. Quite frankly I wish I had the time and resources to sit down and watch the game 2 or 3 times and break things down but hell I don't even have the time to watch most games once, unfortunately. So Guy, if you want to raise the funds to get me high def TV and DVR, that'd be great. I'll gladly accept,even if they'd be under utilized. I'm not really interested in if you have HD TV or not. But, I find it interesting that you keep admitting that you really don't watch the games but then you claim you know what all of our problems are. In fairness to Hunter, this phenomenon pretty much drives the Internet. The poltical boards are even worse.

The creation of the 65% passer in recent years in both the NFL and NCAA is largely due to the West Coast offense, in which short, high percentage passes are used in place of running plays. Even then, the top metric for a high QB rating is yards per attempt and the biggest negative is interceptions. Tommy is doing all right three games into a career as undisputed starting quarterback. I will absolutely guarantee you that Tommy Armstrong sh#ts the bed one of these games. Things that were going right will not go right. There will be interceptions. Fumbles. The offense will fall out of rhythm, or be forced out of its comfort zone. Tommy will share this experience with every other quarterback who has ever played the game. How he recovers in that game and over the season will determine his leadership creds. For my money, he handled adversity pretty well as a freshman.

It's true. Nebraska and Miami come into this game in near identical situations. A good chance neither will be relevant at the end of the season. But this is still a battle for relevance. The only other angle out there is that Nebraska vs. Miami remains one of the last chances for a Big 10 team to beat a name brand from a Big 5 conference. My take? This is a must-win game for Nebraska. 7 years into the Bo Pelini era, it's also a must-win game for Bo Pelini.

Osborne didn't have to throw a Freshman quarterback into a part-time starting role mid-season when his four year starter got injured very often, so it's hard to determine what he was willing to overlook, if by "overlook" you mean not yanking the quarterback out at the first sign of trouble, with no better option available. Osborne certainly stuck with quarterbacks who threw more interceptions per attempt than Freshman Tommy Armstrong did last year, not to mention lower completion percentages, fewer yards per carry and fewer wins per start. This year Tommy appears to be doing better. Actually, Tommy Armstrong is doing everything we used to love in a quarterback, while nearly eliminating his turnovers. Again, it's a bit mystifying why we're not supposed to enjoy Tommy Armstrong too much. If you're saying Tom Osborne would have started Cody Green, Zac Lee or Ron Kellogg III over Taylor Martinez.....I think he might have started Lee in 2010. I don't know if he would have maintained that stance, or if that would have been better for Nebraska football.

1) I honestly don't know how from tv shots you can see his head or eyes move through his progressions. Unless you've got a different view than I do, or maybe your tv has better definition than mine, I'm not sure you can make that distinction. 2) Oh,and if you don't know the differences from the Osbone and Solich offenses and Becks offense in regards to passing, then I highly over estimated your knowledge of football. 1) Tommy drops back to pass. You see him looking downfield. Then he turns his head and body and throws the ball to his secondary receiver. Sometimes his third. It's actually hard NOT to notice. The announcers notice, too, and sometimes mention it. If you, on the other hand, CAN'T make that distinction, how can you assert that Tommy doesn't move through his progressions? 2) Osborne and Solich passed less than Beck. Which was good, because Frazier, Frost, Crouch weren't very good passers. But those teams were always measured by their passing efficiency as it served a run-first offense. In which case 50% could be considered acceptable, but only because we were winning a lot of games for a lot of other reasons. And so Frazier, Frost and Crouch didn't take as much shite as you're inclined to give Armstrong here. In Beck's offense, which passes more than Osborne's, but still runs more than it passes, it's still a matter of efficiency, and 55% with 9.0 yards per attempt makes Nebraska a legitimate dual threat offense. It's cause for optimism, not hand-wringing. If you don't think Tom Osborne and Frank Solich would have started Tommy Armstrong over 75% of their quarterbacks, you may want to revisit your Husker history. 1. I guess you're able to see something that I'm not, or you're watching for it and I'm not. In my defense I had to watch the first quarter and a half of FAU game on a tv 2 houses away, and the rest of it through a crowded party. The second game was at a bar where the best tv was about 20 feet away, and last game was (what little I caught) was on a grainy stream in the middle of a wedding reception. Hopefully I'll be able to actually catch this week's game where I can see it better. 2). The 52% is a big reason why we've had so much feast or famine this year, so many 3 and outs.of you don't see that as s problem, then I don't know what to say. As for who Tommy would start over.... Frazier...nope Berriinger....nope Steve Taylor...nope Crouch....nope Gill....nope Gdowski....nope McCant....doubtful Frost.....doubtful Newcombe....doubtful Lord....doubtful Sundberg....toss up Clayton. ....toss up Grant.....toss up Joseph...toss up Christo.....probably It looks like again, we're not going to agree, so I'll leave it with this: I'm trying to figure out where over the last 3 years in what bizzaro world a 52% passer who has a habit of hitting the defenders right in their hands is good or very good, yet a 63% passer sucked. I watched every quarterback of the Osborne/Solich era play. I can guarantee you that Tommy Armstrong would not have sat on the bench while 75% of them started. Tom Osborne would have drooled over Tommy's skill set. Probably still does. Solich would have benched Lord immediately if Armstrong was an option. The qualities you don't like in Armstrong were far more evident in several of the QBs you list here, and many of them clearly lacked Armstrong's raw talent. I think we all need to chip in and buy you an HD TV.

Independent college football analysts seem impressed by Tommy Armstrong and the Nebraska offense. They are well aware of his youth and liabilities, but the arrow is pointing upward. Until proven otherwise, I see no reason not to enjoy this.

Surely you all remember Nebraska's stirring defeat of Miami in the 1962 Gotham Bowl, Bob Devaney's first bowl game. That secured bragging rights for all eternity.

It also struck me that when your defense can keep the game close, it allows your offense to find and keep its rhythm.

Dammitt. I wasn't going to watch. And then I watched. I have work to do here, people. You know what jumped out at me, something I'd half-forgotten? It wasn't that Nebraska ran so many play-action fakes. It's that they sold them so well. Frazier and later Frost, really took pride in their acting ability and slight-of-hand. That's why the announcers, camera-man, Miami defense and me were busy watching Frazier hand the ball to the trailing running back while the fullback was already 10 yards downfield.

I like it. Probably should be sung drunk.

I appreciate your honesty.

1) I honestly don't know how from tv shots you can see his head or eyes move through his progressions. Unless you've got a different view than I do, or maybe your tv has better definition than mine, I'm not sure you can make that distinction. 2) Oh,and if you don't know the differences from the Osbone and Solich offenses and Becks offense in regards to passing, then I highly over estimated your knowledge of football. 1) Tommy drops back to pass. You see him looking downfield. Then he turns his head and body and throws the ball to his secondary receiver. Sometimes his third. It's actually hard NOT to notice. The announcers notice, too, and sometimes mention it. If you, on the other hand, CAN'T make that distinction, how can you assert that Tommy doesn't move through his progressions? 2) Osborne and Solich passed less than Beck. Which was good, because Frazier, Frost, Crouch weren't very good passers. But those teams were always measured by their passing efficiency as it served a run-first offense. In which case 50% could be considered acceptable, but only because we were winning a lot of games for a lot of other reasons. And so Frazier, Frost and Crouch didn't take as much shite as you're inclined to give Armstrong here. In Beck's offense, which passes more than Osborne's, but still runs more than it passes, it's still a matter of efficiency, and 55% with 9.0 yards per attempt makes Nebraska a legitimate dual threat offense. It's cause for optimism, not hand-wringing. If you don't think Tom Osborne and Frank Solich would have started Tommy Armstrong over 75% of their quarterbacks, you may want to revisit your Husker history.

Let's clear up one thing. Tommy checks down on receivers. Unless he sees his primary receiver getting separation, which often happens. It's a good thing. It's why he's the primary receiver. Also a sign the pass protection is working. Sometimes Tommy even looks off a receiver as strategy. He completes those second look passes least as often as he misses a wide-open receiver. Honestly don't know what games you guys are watching. The comparison to Frazier, Frost and Crouch's completion percentage is perfectly relevant. We all want that percentage to go up, but to declare it a failure in this particular "system" is ludicrous.

Again, apples and orangutans. They played in totally different systems and 50% won't cut when the coach wants a 50/50 run/pass ratio. Frazier and Frost won MNCs. Crouch won the Big 12, the Heisman, and played in a national championship game. Armstrong lost us the chance to win a weak division with his play against MSU. Wow. Where was I wrong? Beginning, middle and end.