default_28

Just now, teachercd said:

1.  I really like this post and I agree.  

2.  Is that "Joey" from the hit band Zit Remedy?  

It is, but only because Snake wouldn't agree calling the band Joey and the Joybuzzers. Which is way better.

9 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Yes, it's probably a crazy opinion to a lot of people, but I would take Tommie over Brook, regardless of system.

 

This is an unpopular opinion, but I think the romanticism and mythology of Berringer's "greatness" at NU gets overblown with Nebraska fans.  He was definitely a great young man who was a role model to a lot of Nebraska kids, and it's tragic that his life was taken way too soon.  But, IMO, he was just a "good" QB, and isn't in the same league as Frazier, and there are a lot of NU QB's I would put ahead of him.

I don't necessarily agree with your opinion of Berringer as a qb, but I do agree with your view of him being romanticized. It's a situation where his on field accomplishments are maybe remembered a bit greater than reality due to his death, yet if he had been able to play in the NFL and prospered we may view him as the best qb ever to play at Nebraska. His potential being left in perpetuity has both increased and possibly decreased his greatness as a quarterback. 

I like that Nebraska is an adidas program. The only thing I would like more is if Puma wanted to do our gear and apparel. 

8 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Why?

 

So...if Danny Woodhead would have walked on and became the starter....to you....he still would have been the weakest link on the team.

Ummm....you can have the same opinion out of HS.  But, if the kid excels in Lincoln and beats out the scholarship players, it's obvious the coaches have changed their minds.....many times then giving the kid a scholarship.

So, the coaches can change their minds.  The bigger question is....why can't you?

 

 

As to why, the same statistics that show that stars actually do correlate to success. Five stars pan out at a higher rate than 4 stars, and in general scholarship players are more talented than walk-ons. THERE CAN BE EXCEPTIONS. But the all walk-on team was posted in this thread and it's not as good as our current team IMO.

Danny Woodhead was a great player that had a nice NFL career, he wouldn't have been the worst player on the team, but I would still feel like we could have been stronger at running back if he was the starter.

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I'm assuming you worded this wrong.

 

To the rest of your post.

 

If a kid grows up in Cozad Nebraska without exposure to recruiting services and camps, is asked to walk-on and beats out players....because he is actually damn good.  I don't give a flying rip if he's a walk-on and it has absolutely no part of if I'm upset that he's beating out scholarship players.  Why would it???  He's playing at a high level and playing for the Huskers.  I don't understand your logic.....just because other schools didn't offer him out of HS???  I'm just damn happy we found him and have him on our team.

 

You seem to be assuming the walk-on is more than likely going to be the weakest link on the team.

That is exactly what I'm assuming. We're not the only school that scouts Nebraska, and the kids that are in state and elite get recognized. Is it possible for a kid to be a late bloomer or to slip through the cracks? Of course, but that should be the exception not the rule. You're making it about an individual position battle, and saying its no concern. I'm talking about the team as a whole and what it means for us on an institutional level if too much of our talent is dependent upon uncovering these hidden gems.

To be clear, if a kid from Cozad is more talented than the other players than he should play and good on him. I'm not going to root against him just because he wasn't highly recruited or from the south, but if our coaches didn't think he was as good as players they did offer scholarships to, why is it hard to believe that I might come to that same conclusion.

20 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Let's be clear.  The original question in the OP didn't have anything to do with numbers of walk-ons starting.  It had to do with what position would you be upset that a walk-on was starting.  Very different discussion.

 

So, let's stick with reality and that's anywhere from maybe 2-4 walk-ons starting.  I have absolutely zero problem with that if those are the best players at the position and they are playing at a high level...no matter what position that is.

 

Now, as to the question of "success".  Sitting here right now, if we started 4 walk-ons next year and they compete at a level needed for the team to go win 10 games next year, I would be very happy.  If we are starting 4 walk-ons 5 years from now and we still haven't won a conference title, I would be disappointed.  But, I wouldn't automatically blame the walk-ons  That's ludicrous and not fair to them.  If the scholarship players can't beat them out, that's on THEM....not the walk-ons.  AND....there are 18 other starters (scholarship players)  that play a major roll in not winning championships too.

 

 

I'm trying to imply that I would be blaming Joe Walkon for not winning enough games, just that at some point if your scholarship players are routinely getting beat out by guys that didn't get a good enough offer to play somewhere else it's a problem. I agree with the points you've made about us having had successful walk-ons at every position, and that there are 18 other guys on the field. That's the reason that I brought up the number of walk-ons to begin with, if forced to start a WO at any position even QB you can overcome that with superior talent at the other positions. If its more than a couple though.....

25 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

If we won a national championship with 22 walk-ons, would you be upset we were starting walk-ons?

This has about the same probability as Mav's example of starting 22 walk-ons.

No, as my comment says, I would have no issue with 22 walk-ons if we won the whole thing. Anything short of that though, and I would be disappointed. I'm not anti walk-ons if they're the best we have, but I think that if you're starting large numbers of them in your team then success is a much more specific outcome.

1 minute ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

If the team was successful, no. 

 

But, your example is pretty nonsensical. 

 

 

What qualifies successful?

If the team went 9-3 and won the west with a bunch of walk-ons starting, you wouldn't be disappointed that we didn't have the scholarship talent to win those other 3 games?

Only a title season would make starting a bunch of walk-ons a nonfactor in my opinion. Otherwise you're still left with the what could of been possibilities.

I think it's less about position, and more about quantity. One or two walk-ons starting isn't a concern, 3-4 and maybe you should worry about your player assessment in recruiting. 

Friendly with Paraguay this weekend. The roster is exciting with the new, young faces. Only another 15 months until we play a meaningful game again!! The silver lining for that I guess is that the older players can be phased out without any risk. By the time the Gold cup and Copa America come around, the young guys on this roster could be the core of the team. Tyler Adams, Tim Weah, Shaq Moore, Weston McKinnie, and Antonee Robinson have me especially hopeful. Goalkeeper and Central Defense is still a question mark, and I'm interested to see who will be the number 9 going forward, but we have a ton of really talented midfielders right now.

16 hours ago, RedDenver said:

I'm pretty sure that's a popular opinion. Who doesn't like venison?

Venison is hit or miss for me. Jerky or Slim Jims are great. I don't know how to cook burger or roasts in a way that they don't taste awful. I'm sure if you know what you're doing you can make it taste as good as beef, but I've had enough inedible meals using venison that I don't eat it if I don't have to. Also, I didn't eat it as a kid so maybe that's part of why I don't like the gamey flavor that it can have. Moose and Elk meat, however, are delicious.

22 hours ago, Husker from Kansas said:

And the only way to eat a cheeseburger is with an over easy egg on it!

Interesting phrasing, what is it about a cheeseburger without an egg that makes it inedible? I can understand if you prefer your burger that way, I'm just confused by the idea of rejecting all other cheeseburgers.

22 minutes ago, NUance said:

Inconceivable!

Children of Men

14 minutes ago, GSG said:

 

 

Donatello is the best Ninja Turtle.

Georgia seems to have a higher concentration of top end talent than maybe any other state, so it's likely we'll be offering several kids from there each year. I think it's premature to call it a movement and create a portmanteau at this point. However, we do have three commits from Nebraska so we could create that one. NebRaska? NeBraska? I'm not sure the best way to mash them together.

9 hours ago, Comfortably Numb said:

I absolutely cannot stand soccer. Worst. Sport. Ever.

And just like that all credibility you had attained, gone.

In all honesty though, and soccer is by far my favorite sport, the fact that you think calling it the worst sport ever is an unpopular opinion is encouraging to me.

Unpopular opinion: Eating extremely spicy food isn't impressive, it's just masochism. Anything above 100,000 on the Scoville scale tastes like nothing but scorched earth.

1 hour ago, GSG said:

 

 

 

 

EDIT: I'm actually curious about this @default_28  No hot cocoa? No coffee? No tea? No Hot Toddy's?

I’ll have a frappe sometimes. No hot coffee, no hot chocolate, no hot tea.

Unpopular Opinion: Hot Beverages are the devil's saliva.

Cold beverages are great, tepid is fine, but not hot. I like my mouth skin just fine thank you.

Annabelle the ragdoll and Holly the Irish Setter

On ‎2‎/‎24‎/‎2018 at 6:35 PM, Moiraine said:

Why is everyone talking about food?! Let's get controversial.

 

I don't really like Eric Martin. He was a bully.

We probably have a whole thread on players that we liked or disliked contrary to popular opinion, but I would like more posts like this. I always finding it interesting when people go against the grain on player opinion....

That being said I was really glad when Carlos Polk graduated. I just thought he was too slow and I never understood the praise for him.

I don't think you should stay in the right lane except to pass. If someone comes up behind me I'll get over so they can go by, but I'm usually going a little bit faster than the cars around me so what's it matter if I camp in the left lane for a while.

Anything Muppets or Jim Henson related is creepy and I won't watch it.

Audrey Hepburn > Katherine Hepburn

Great game tonight by the US. One more win 

Well, tonight is a huge one. Here's to hoping for an early goal by the US to keep Panama from bunkering. Last three matches between these sides have ended 1-1. I can't help but be optimistic though.