Enhance

internet high five mutigerfan

Probably the most intelligent thing I've read so far. I posted something similar a few pages back, but my example was little bit more dramatic and far-fetched lol. But still, the fact of the matter is we really have nothing to work with ehre and probably will never have anything to work with.

Interesting read. Hopefully either Helu or Castille make themselves talented enough to be a first or second round guy.

Slauson and Murtha were just steady guys. In the grand scheme of things, their technique and their ability to produce on field really was simply average to above average. Murtha's body is also seemingly a glass house.

You may want to go see a doctor about that green with envy condition. Sorry.. I've said the same thing every year since they've been doing this. No one knows who will get hurt in fall practice, who will quit, who will get booted for DUI's... Truth be told, I put Missouri and Nebraska in the same "Big Question Mark" category. Neither team even has a starting QB yet, both have to replace their receiving corps, both lost O-lineman, LB's etc. Long way to August. We actually didn't lose any linebackers of substance to my recollection, besides Glenn, who is easily replaceable. ....Am I forgetting someone? Wortman, but he was just a steady guy who played because we were redshirting all those young guys and he "technically" had the most experience. We also didn't lose our most productive quarterback, WR, and TE in school history, like Missouri did. Our missing pieces are easier to replace, especially considering we didn't lose as many starters.

I agree. Naturally, this could not have been covered up by Bo, TO, and Athletic Department. We all know TO. Do his values really make any of you think he'd be involved in a cover up? Plus what about the girl and her family? They could have pressed charges, but maybe they just decided to drop them? Maybe both parties went their separate ways because there was no evidence to pursue Glenn with, other than word of mouth? Or maybe nothing happened at all with a girl and it was something way less series? Had to quote that one more time, considering that you are absolutely right.

that is definitely a strange saying my friend.

Notre dame makes me want to punch babies.

I agree with this for the most part, but more specifically I think it is a 50/50 deal. They judge the talent and then look at their needs, and then make a choice off of what they need and then take the best available player at the position. They go hand in hand. You need one to have the other.

There are a couple of threads about Green floating around on here, so if you can find one of those (probably on the first couple of pages) you'll see what a lot of the posters on here think about him. Personally, and I think this sums up the majority of the opinions on this board, the chances of Green playing are unlikely. STARTING, literally impossible. Lee has an advantage over Green in almost every aspect as of right now, and that most likely won't change any time soon. Green needs to learn the playbook and preserve his redshirt so that we can use him for four full years of playing time, instead of wasting a year with him playing back up to Lee. It's also very possible that Washington is named the 2nd string guy, considering he had a very good spring.

I don't know where you came up with that, because they absolutely draft on talent. Most the time, they just don't grade it right. I tend to agree with Mike Leach on this one when he states the NFL has a terrible record when it comes to grading talent. Same goes for Rivals, Scout and any other talent grading agency, "get rich quick" schemes at their finest. Leach disappointed for Harrell, Crabtree Think of how many top draft picks have been absolute busts. Then compare the number of superstars who have come from free agency or late round picks. The latter list far outweighs the number of superstars coming from those selected in the early rounds. If teams were picking for needs or based on a particular offensive/defensive system this wouldn't be the case. They just have a problem drooling at over-hyped talent, that's all. This was said with no offense aimed at Cody Glenn, because I think he is talented and will do well at LB in the NFL. As far as Harrell is concerned, I understand what the pro scouts were thinking. 1) He is unfamiliar with under center snaps. If you want to be a good quarterback in the NFL, you need to be experienced in taking snaps from under center. Harrell took the large majority of his snaps from the shotgun, therefore there isn't a whole lot for the scouts to look at. 2) The spread offense passing game differs greatly from the pro passing game as far as routes/reads go. 3) Arm strength with spread quarterbacks is always questionable, considering they don't take a lot of shots downfield. Now, it is probably questionable to some as why Freeman was taken when Harrell obviously had the better year statistically. Freeman has all of the physical tools required to play at the pro level, which means they can focus solely on what he needs to work on fundamentally. He is technically the safer choice in pro scout eyes. Now, I'm not saying I completely agree with their assessments, but that is how they looked at the situation.

Ganz didn’t go to the combine.

Was he still "technically" considered a player on NU's roster even during spring? The reason I ask is this. All the football players (and other sports athletes) are given a little I.D badge that they hang from their backpacks, and Witt has been walking around campus with his still attached (even through spring drills and after). If he is still technically considered part of the football team (up until this official transfer), then I could see him hanging onto it. But if he knew he was leaving/was officially removed from the roster, seems a little crazy to keep it attached like he is actually part of the team still.

Afraid I have to call on the Cosgrove part. Players, pundits, and fans have long chronicled his failures both to coach games and teach fundamentals in practice. He had zero success in the Big 10 and even less success in this conference (a conference which, by the way, was down compared to what Bo had to face defensively). As to the "something he had going for him," that thing isn't a thing; it's a man. And that man isn't a man; it's a beast. Adam Carriker. Coz inherited some talent up front. He certainly never developed any of his own. He had Suh for heaven's sake, perhaps one of the top 10 picks in the NFL draft next season, and look what he did with him. Granted, we had a hurricane of poor fitness training, poor coaching, and poor strategy, so to point to anyone as THE PROBLEM would be useless, but Cosgrove to me is synonymous with bad defense. But anyway, this is an oooold topic. I'd rather focus on the future of our defense which is bright. Oh, and to skersfan: I agree, you can't fault a person who gives it everything they got. Callahan was dedicated, no question, but I'll believe 'til the day I die that he simply did not understand the college game. He approached the whole thing from the wrong angle, and the results testify to that pretty loudly. I didn't mean to come off as I thought he was a good coach, cause I don't, I'm just simply saying he was able to produce something of significance in 2006. Plus, it wasn't all Carriker. Defensive Sack Statistics from the 2006 Season: Carriker - 7.0 Moore - 6.0 Dagunduro - 3.5 Suh - 3.5 Cryer - 2.5 Ruud - 2.0 Granted some of those sacks may have come thanks to Carriker being double teamed or setting up plays for other guys, that is still impressive as a whole for a defensive unit. Carriker can't be responsible for all those sacks whether directly or indirectly.

BigWillie, Cosgrove isn't that terrible of a coach either, tbh. He was in 2007, which is obvious, but in his 3rd year here (2006) Nebraska led the nation in sacks. He had something going for him for awhile until things melted down. Also, and this isn't really directed at you BigWillie but just in general, even though Callahan may have been a good coach who produced "consistent offense", he is still the head coach. This means he is still responsible for the team as a whole and how they perform week in and week out. Callahan went 0-24 in games they were down at halftime in. Pelini is 2-2 in his first year, which says a lot.

I'm sorry I just wish some would give me a little benefit of the doubt after cody himself admitted he lied. Brasky, while I haven't posted on this particular thread yet, I have read all the posts. I will say that I give you the benefit of the doubt, and you are getting a pretty bad rap over what's going on. While I'm not sure if I believe it 100%, nobody has found any evidence that shows you aren't telling the truth. Yet NOBODY has found ANY evidence to say that he is telling the truth. All he has is his notion that we should just take his word for it, and then we should choose to believe him or not. My problem about this though is that if somebody has an "inside scoop" on what is going on with the Husker program, I would want them to freely share on the message board without fear of being attacked. If they are lying, we can lay the smack-down all we want. Yes, there are a lot of losers on the message board who post phony information for whatever reason, but there are some good guys (and gals of course) so I'm just saying we should be careful before we pass judgement. That's all You are absolutely right. My biggest problem is that yes, brasky may have the inside scoop, but how can we trust him or his sources if we don't know who they are? All this seems to be is speculation. The evidence says it wasn't tickets but it was a violation of team rules, short of that we have no other cold hard fact about what happened/what was said. I don't want to pass judgement, I just want people to understand we shouldn't believe what we are told. It's unfair to Glenn and the fan base to speculate.

This topic got posted twice on accident by me. So can a mod delete the other one, please?

LINK

Maybe when the truth comes out we can open up another discussion on this thread, but until then I think this should be closed. We have the people on one side who think that there is something deep (like stat rape) and then the others who think they are jumping to conclusions with no hard evidence at hand. I think it's best we close this until we have all the facts, which may never come out. Otherwise this will continue to be a back and forth argument that lasts forever.

I'm sorry I just wish some would give me a little benefit of the doubt after cody himself admitted he lied. Brasky, while I haven't posted on this particular thread yet, I have read all the posts. I will say that I give you the benefit of the doubt, and you are getting a pretty bad rap over what's going on. While I'm not sure if I believe it 100%, nobody has found any evidence that shows you aren't telling the truth. Yet NOBODY has found ANY evidence to say that he is telling the truth. All he has is his notion that we should just take his word for it, and then we should choose to believe him or not.

Plausible, but still not likely at all. You keep saying we can "choose to believe you or not", but considering you have nothing to back up your story other than severe speculation and what you think people are hinting towards, it is very hard to believe you. The simple fact of the matter is that I could say I think he got suspended because he flew to the moon during practice to grab a couple of moon rocks, and the lack of information (that you seem to think supports your claim) supports mine just as much. Either way, the Redskins confirmed that it involved something with tickets, and some people really think they would lie to cover up something else? Right. And our athletic confirmed it had nothing to do with tickets. The same people that reported cody was suspended for tickets also said he missed the big 12 championship game because of it. Obvisouly those people didn't do much research into the situation. Ok, so given it has nothing to do with tickets, my other point still stands. I could say he went to the moon during practice to pick up a couple of moon rocks, and the evidence (which you seem to think supports your claim) equally supports mine, which goes to show we literally know nothing about the situation. Because, I mean, missing practice would be a violation of team rules.

I believe he is saying that Billy C was a good coach and a good recruiter he just surrounded himself with some jokers. Then he wouldn’t get rid of those jokers and it cost him his job. I also believe he listed players that Callahan brought in that have a chance to make in the NFL thus saying that he brought in decent talent when he was here and was standing up for him as a recruiter instead of saying how crappy he was like what was being said in this thread. Maybe I’m wrong but that is the way I took his post. So then with this part of the post: Do you give Billy C. credit for Daniel Bullocks, Adam Carriker, Stew Bradley, Chris Patrick, Bo Ruud, Cory Ross, LeKevin Smith, Titus Adams and any other guy that Solich brought in but played at least 2 years under Callahan? I was just wondering because they would fall under this same kind of scenario. Also who gets credit for Cody Glenn, Murtha, Slauson, Lucky, Swift, Peterson, Steinkuhler, Potter, and “The Golden Boy” Ganz? Does Callahan because he coached them for 3-4 years or does it go to Bo? As far as Suh goes does he count half since he played 2 years for each of them? This is all so confusing to me. I think credit should be given to which coach the player blossomed under, and not so much how long like I said before. I mean, we can all flat out agree that Pelini is a better HC compared to Callahan, but Callahan still had some players blossom under his tenure (like Carriker). Suh didn't truly blossom till Pelini came along, so I think it is fair to give the credit to Pelini.

I'm not sure what you are saying here. If you are saying what I think you are saying, then I must disagree. Just because they are his recruits doesn't mean he should be credited for them getting to the NFL, especially if they are Juniors. If they don't opt for the draft early, and stay for their senior season, that will be 3 full years with Pelini, and at most 2 if they were lucky enough to redshirt (one if they played their Freshman year, since last year they were all sophomores). 3>2, therefore Pelini should get credit. And if Suh dominates next year, that should be thanks to Pelini too, because Cosgrove was nowhere near as good as the Pelini's.

Have you ever liked somebody who kicked your butt? I know that I still dislike a kid from my childhood. I am sure a cumlative 100pt beating contributed greatly to Jens dislike. DA*N that Tommy Fraiser!! Not even close, but thanks for trying to play the game. No, I think many (not just Huskers) dislike Mr. Daniel because of his antics. He's Mister Everything when things are going his way, but completely loses his cool and acts childish when they aren't. Then we have that whole spitting allegation, which really didn't win him any respect from anyone. If it did indeed happen, it made him sound like a tattle-tale, at the very least. There have been a whole slew of teams that have kicked Husker arse. I don't dislike any of those teams' players for the simple fact their team kicked in my team's teeth. But, I have disliked a few players for cocky and pompous attitudes. It's always nice to see karma in action, though. I was only joking Got Carl. I fully understand why people dont like him. Scott Frost, Lawerence Phillips, Sam Keller.... (sometimes its easier to like them when their on your team) LOL. I don't think Sam Keller counts FRO, he's a Callahan guy Here we go, I'll give you my description of those four guys. Chase Daniel: d-bag Lawrence Phillips: @$$hole Sam Keller: biggest tool in the toolbox Scott Frost: he's actually a family friend so maybe I'm biased, but I think he's a very genuine, nice guy who is very humble All in all though, I think you have to be a little pompous and cocky if you wanna be a good football player, but that's just my 2/100 of a dollar. Maybe we can just all agree they were all a little bit d-baggy.