Jump to content


Enhance

Admin
  • Posts

    15,908
  • Joined

  • Last visited

  • Days Won

    25

Everything posted by Enhance

  1. I hope they release more details after the investigation concludes. My guess is the schools became suspicious during the game based on how Michigan was lining up pre-snap and/or reacting post-snap. Might've even found some corroborating evidence after the game during film review. Although, I do find it interesting that the Yahoo Sport's article used the phrase that the opponents "became aware" that Michigan knew their play signs. That could mean there was some kind of whistleblower.
  2. My understanding of the rule Michigan is accused of violating is specifically in reference to NCAA Bylaw 11.6.1, stating "Off-campus, in-person scouting of future opponents (in the same season) is prohibited." So, they effectively are accused of going above and beyond what would be considered the current normal and acceptable opponent scouting standards. As to why this rule is in place? I found this article from the Detroit Free Press. I don't know enough about the rule to really be for or against it, but my stance on these things is usually... regardless of whether a rule is "good" or "bad"... teams should follow it. That, or don't get caught breaking it.
  3. Here’s what I think: Not everything good about Deion needs to be dunked on constantly. Not everything bad needs to be paraded. But so long as everyone is posting within the Board Guidelines, we’re probably not going to police the tone or direction the conversations go. And if that’s an issue for some people then they probably need to stop reading the thread. At this point I’d say “carry on” and if anyone has concerns they can DM me or report posts they think violate board rules.
  4. Fun fact: nobody is forcing anyone to read and post in this thread. If anyone here doesn’t like the posts or opinions shared in this thread, then I encourage them to visit other threads.
  5. I don't necessarily think the narrative around Coleman is hinged upon accepting the coaches are always right. I think it's more about setting the tone of how we want to think about or critique it. There's been quite a lot of insinuation (and maybe this is just me thinking there's insinuation ) that the coaches somehow aren't doing their jobs good enough because they're putting some young guys in. I just think it's a slippery slope. Plus, we don't really know if any of these young guys are part of the Nebraska future with how the transfer portal is, and there are other guys on the roster who have also earned snaps. I think it's fair to ask the questions and posit for more playing time but not if it comes with the suggestion that there's some disservice happening towards the young guys or towards the future. I think the latter goes a bit overboard.
  6. @admo Nice post overall. IMO there isn't anything inherently wrong about getting younger guys experience. I think it's mostly a good thing so long as you're not compromising your chance to win games. Only the coaches could give a sufficient answer as to why it took injuries to see more of the young guys offensively. Tough to speculate as a fan. But one thing we can say for certain is that, by whatever evaluation metrics they were using offensively, they didn't feel confident in what they had with some of the younger players. We can only really take their word for it. And ultimately, there is a line to be drawn. I said this in the Malachi Coleman thread recently, but I tend to believe that most players are getting the snaps they've earned. Playing a young guy 'because they're the future' isn't really a good enough reason in and of itself, not when you have good players who have also earned their snaps and playing time. Also, in modern day college football... you have to somewhat limit how far into the future you want to think. With the transfer portal and NIL, there's really no saying any of the "future guys" are in fact "future guys." You have to find that sweet spot between playing to win and building your depth/culture. For example, it would sure look silly if they started giving a young guy tons of snaps to improve them for the future only to see them enter the portal in January.
  7. You have to play and ultimately beat the best if you want to be the best. In the unlikely chance Nebraska were to win the West, playing Michigan or whomever wins the east should be considered a welcome opportunity. Another chance to play against stiffer competition and see what it takes to get better.
  8. I think it's a pretty big disservice to other players who have earned snaps (and might actually be better right now... WHAT DID HE REALLY JUST SAY THAT!?!?) to play the younger guy just because of his recruiting hype and the hypothetical future benefits of getting him more snaps now. Like, screw those other players, right gang? I tend to think most players earn the snaps they're getting and that the coaches are playing the guys they feel are best for their team and the team's goals. Rhule's trying to make a pretty garbo program believe in itself and develop a winning culture. This isn't like the NFL where you can tank a season and get top draft picks. They have to play the players they think are going to help them win, all while raising the talent floor of the program. I think it's pretty unfair to suggest that's not happening right now, or that Rhule is somehow hurting this program's development and Coleman's development by not giving him more snaps.
  9. That's exactly the kind of thinking that got you fired, Scott.
  10. IMO the culprits are usually the same: confusion, nerves, lack of focus, and a lack of repetitions between center/QB. Some combination therein. Tough to say exactly what's going on but that's why we usually don't see a lot of snap issues between upperclassmen QB's/centers that have been playing together a long time. Usually, the less experienced one part of the equation is, the higher likelihood of mistakes.
  11. I don't have much of an issue with McGuire, either. He also seems to have done decently well on the recruiting trail so far with the commitments from Isaiah McMorris, Jacory Barney and Dae'vonn Hall (assuming they haven't decommited). It's really tough to know what to think of that position group given the turnover they've had alongside the offensive line/QB challenges. It's all just a bit of a hodgepodge, Frankenstein effort right now.
  12. Haaberg appears to be floating in completion percentage ranges similar to what he was in high school - he finished seasons with 52.9%, 56.7%, and 54.8% completion percentages. Currently completing 52.1% of his passes. So, he could still improve, and he doesn't have the strongest tools around him, but his accuracy is following the trends he showcased as a younger player. I do continue to have this itching feeling that, assuming Sims is healthy after the bye week, we'll start to see more of a two QB system.
  13. I don't know if I necessarily "learned" this, but I do think what we've seen offensively the last two weeks probably makes the QB conversation a bit more interesting after the bye week. That offensive performance definitely wasn't all on Haarberg, and Sims still makes me incredibly nervous, but I just have this itching feeling that a two-QB system will be coming into play.
  14. You asked another poster if they were "sensitive much" and condescendingly asked another post if they were "thinking something through." That's just a couple of instances of your posts combative and condescending, which is well within my right to point out as an admin. There also was not a single personal attack in anything I said, so don't try to blow smoke on a fire when there isn't one. As for your posts on the topic, yeah, I think they're fanatically ironic. It's a message board, and as you so kindly pointed out, I'm well within my right to share that opinion with you and disagree with you. I'm not sure why that necessitates getting a tutorial on how a message board works. The fact you posted it opens yourself up to contradiction and dissention. Such is life.
  15. You're asking this question after using recruiting rankings, blaming media/hype videos, and the hypothetical belief that he'd be catching passes for Caleb Williams as some of the reasons for why a freshman WR should be more involved? Surely that level of fanatical irony isn't being lost on you, but the fact you're defending your perspective so ardently and combatively suggests it might be.
  16. Admittedly, my confidence isn't exactly high with the offensive staff, but it's difficult to know what to think when they lose their two top running backs, two projected starting WR's before the season starts, and their starting QB to "injury." They had to weather some challenges the defense frankly didn't have to. I also thought before the season that there were more questions/concerns offensively than defensively, and that has held true up to this point. It's a bit of a dumpster fire right now but I also don't know what more to expect based on the current talent/depth situation. I do however feel quite confident at the moment that we're not going to see an overhaul after this season. I just don't get the vibe that Rhule would put this on his coaches when the talent frankly isn't that good, not to mention the fact that the lack of discipline, OL blocking issues and fumbling have been a problem over multiple staff changes. Just sort of my gut feeling at the moment.
  17. I think we've all been lamenting this very thing for a decade now, so the answers aren't really anything new. Pick your poison IMO. The program has struggled with all of them (except maybe missing that "one guy." It seems like their problems have gone deeper than anything one great player could fix). I'm impressed with what Louisville is doing under Brohm in year one. Might have a high ceiling if he ever chooses to leave Louisville. So, I think the straight answer to your question might be the most obvious: Louisville has a good coach, they're decently talented, and they have a good quarterback. You're going to win a lot of games if you can get those three things in a football program. Nebraska hasn't. But, exclusive of Brohm and Louisville, I don't think year one success or year one disappointment is necessarily indicative of much. I've seen coaches struggle early in a tenure only to turn a program around, and I've seen coaches be very successful early and then the program stagnates or gets worse. For Rhule I think the two top priorities are to find a winning QB and continue to raise the talent floor of the program.
  18. Feel bad for Ravi. I enjoyed his contributions on 1620 but had never tuned into the new show. But that's mainly because I've had a harder and harder time listening to DB in recent years. I think he does a fine job but his style and the way he delivers info. just isn't my thing.
  19. Serious answer... They were obviously jokes.
  20. Well reasoned @GSG. This should help clear up the confusion.
  21. I look at state laws much like I do the stadium renovation conversations we've been having recently e.g. improved concourses aren't necessarily going to make or break someone's game attendance, but they're part of the overall package deal. It's rare that any one thing will influence someone's decision to live or not live in a specific state. Income, location, schools, population, cost of living, taxes, laws... I think they all influence a decision, some more than others. Much like what @Lorewarn is saying. I do have a couple of friends who moved out of Nebraska recently (they're in their late 20's) and they did specifically mention some of Nebraska's recent legislative decisions as contributing factors to why they wanted to leave. So, anecdotal, small sample size. But it's definitely a thing. Keep in mind too that Nebraska has always been the victim of bias from different parts of the country. Can't tell you how many times I've met newcomers to Omaha and they've been completely taken aback (in a good way) by their experience. But, if you don't know and have never visited here, it makes a lot sense as to why you may not necessarily want to pack up and come here.
  22. Might depend on the definition or execution of a "reboot." If we're talking a new o-line coach and majority new o-line through portal additions or young guys, the o-line probably isn't getting much better any time soon. IMO it's the hardest position group to develop on a football team because of the high demands on communication and technique. That's not to say you don't make a change necessarily, but I think you just have to be really confident that it's the right thing to do. Raiola can claim partial credit for six O linemen ND sent to the NFL (he was an offensive grad assistant and o-line assistant coach) but none that he can really solely claim. He went to the NFL after ND and then he's only really been here one full season and I don't think any o-linemen were drafted in '23.
  23. I was kind of 'meh' on his retention. He was considered a really strong up and coming coach in 2021 and I think he was also a finalist for Stanford's o-line. And Mickey Joseph was quoted in 2022 as saying he thought the o-line's problems were more related to depth and recruiting than they were Raiola's coaching. And now Raiola is in year two with an entirely different staff and offense, but the same underwhelming players. But yeah, so far the unit hasn't gelled super well. They were pretty bad last year. The eye test seems roughly approximate to where they were last year but IDK what the stats will say come season end. That said I'm expecting most of the staff to stay for next season, even Raiola.
×
×
  • Create New...