Enhance

Yeah this is, unfortunately, a routine disappointment now. I figured it wouldn't be a quick fix in year one under Rhule but that doesn't make it hurt any less. This is the tried and true winning formula if they can stick with it, though. Play good defense, avoid special teams mistakes, and wear down the opposing defense enough to where in the 3rd/4th quarter they're a bit gassed and the run game becomes more fruitful. It may not be pretty in the first three quarters but it'll help lead to wins and that's ultimately all that matters.

I'm leaning this direction, as well. Maybe (and I mean, maybe) Sims has a higher ceiling or 'wow' factor that stood out during the spring, summer and fall camp, but he had two games to show that and didn't. Haarberg got one shot to show his capabilities and did.

Given that wins don't come easy for this program, I give zero F's about this type of win happening against NIU. Beating them, and beating them soundly, is a huge victory that goes beyond just notching a win in the win column. Really happy for the team. Other thoughts: - I think Haarberg gave the team a good problem. Sims deserves a fair opportunity this week, but Haarberg did just about everything that offense needs to be successful and support that defense. - I was impressed with the o-line later in the second half but I wish they'd have a more consistent ground game early when they actually need it and the game is within 1-2 scores.

Dude's making plenty of money alleady and this didn't need its own thread. But GBR!

I agree. To clarify, I wasn't exclusively directing that at Rhule and his staff. Poor coaching, poor player development, and poor talent evaluation have been some ongoing challenges in the program that they're trying to rectify. So, I was speaking a bit more in general terms about why Nebraska hasn't been very good for awhile. It has much more to do with those things than it does pressure from fans or the former players.

I very much agree. And to be honest, I was more speaking in general terms from the last 8-10 years or so. I actually think this team overall isn't as bad as the record suggests or as some of their play has suggested. Yeah you are what your record says you are at the end of the day, but the defense looks pretty good, the offense has done some good things, the o-line hasn't been awful. There's a bowl "team" there right now, IMO. It's just being masked by fumbles and frankly piss poor quarterbacking. I know Sims looked alright against CU but at the end of the day you can't have 7 turnovers in 7 quarters as a starting QB. It's a dense cloud over everything.

Eh, I think that stuff is a fun punching bag, but the problems that actually matter have been more fundamental: poor coaching, poor player development, and poor identification of player talent. Basically what you're alluding too is too much unnecessary outside pressure and I almost lump that in with 'curse' talk (which, the latter is pure nonsense). I'm sure Nebraska players feel the pressure to do well, so not discrediting that element. But then I think of what it's like at Clemson, Alabama, or Texas. Those places have just as much passion as Nebraska, and their people are nowhere near as nice or tolerant about failure as we have been. There's a lot more pressure to do well and win at Alabama than there is at Nebraska. These Huskers could literally win 6 games and be Gods. The fix to Nebraska's ailments are in the routines and structures that all good football programs are built upon, and those have largely been lost.

Agreed. This harkens back to my comment in this thread (or another) where I questioned the veracity of those who think Satt's playbook is too big or too complicated. It's certainly possible they're over-complicating things offensive, but it's tough to know when a QB is staring down receivers, making inaccurate throws, and not even getting the snap correctly from the center... along with some other procedural errors. Doesn't really matter what kind playbook or offense they run in those scenarios.

Unfortunately for Sims, he's put himself in a lose/lose situation. If he performs well against La Tech and NIU, the narrative will largely focus around the fact that those are non-power 5 schools that he should do well against. And if he plays poorly, well, then that's just what everyone expected. In the long run, it's definitely preferable he have good games so they can feel some measure of confidence in his performance from here out.

This is partially the year-over-year pessimism in me speaking, but I would be surprised if Sims turns it around in a meaningful way at this point. I think he could shine in a couple of games from here out, but I think we're seeing who he is as a player. And it honestly begs the question of whether or not this was identified in practice. I have a hard time believing what he's done through the first couple of games is a 100% surprise. If it is surprise, he's a real Houdini from the practice field to game field. If it isn't a surprise, then the coaches are just trying to weather a storm as best they can without completely submarining a player in front of the fans. I also don't know how much of Sims starting is stubbornness vs. perceived need. Fair or not, QB's do tend to be treated differently and held to a different standard. Like, if he really is the best option back there, it mortifies me what they think of Purdy and Haarberg.

It's something to think about. Not a bad suggestion. I see the positive intent behind a Vent thread, but I think it potentially creates a new problem without really solving the original, the new problem being that we'd have to become the arbiters of 'what's a thread that should go in the vent thread' vs. 'what's worthy of staying as it's own thread.' We do that already to some degree but this would sort of heighten that response. Also, just to be honest, I'm personally not a fan of mega-threads which is what something like that would sort of morph into.

In general, I agree. The backup QB is always the most attractive player on the team unless you have a Heisman caliber QB. To adjust what I posted earlier, I'm lamenting less the backups not playing, but more the poor execution of the starter and what that suggests about the QB room. It's incredible to see that a QB who has has helped produce 17 points and 7 turnovers in seven quarters of football is truly their best option at QB. And if that's true (which, apparently it is, given the fact that Rhule said he would be the starter sans whatever is going on with his injury) then that's an unfortunate indictment of what is in the current QB room. The only real reason you'd keep Sims as a starter based on what he's done so far is because you think he still gives you the best chance to win, and that's just a really tough pill to swallow based on his performance so far.

I don't know, IMO, we're kind of a wash here. We've certainly had some quarterbacks that would fall into the 'running QB' category that we asked to throw (Taylor Martinez, Armstrong, Sims) but then we also had guys like Tanner Lee, Casey Thompson, and Adrian Martinez, all QB's that started for other college programs and were certainly perceived as at a minimum dual-threat (Martinez) or in Lee and Thompson's case they were definitely more valued as passers. Our track record for getting them to the NFL as QB's is poor although AM did make a roster this past season. While the bolded is true, I view dual-threats as threats with both their arms and legs in the simplest term, which is what those guys are and was the crux of your original post. I think we if we start trying to define what makes someone a runner vs. a dual-threat vs. a 'mobile pocket passer' then that goes a bit outside the scope of what I was responding to. Edit - somehow part of my post got deleted. I agree, but I also think we've had quite a few QB's that gave our linemen opportunities to shine, and I think most scouts are probably savvy enough to isolate good individual o-line play down to the o-linemen vs. holding them accountable for something stupid the QB did.

At this point, I find it hard to justify keeping Sims as a starter with how many turnovers he has had and his apparent discomfort in the passing game and making good decisions with the football. I completely understand why someone like Grant with a fumbling problem might get benched faster than a starting QB with a turnover problem (fair or not, QB's are just treated different). But, it's so incredibly hard to believe that between Purdy and Haarberg, one of them couldn't at least hand the ball off and make a few important throws while avoiding turning the ball over. I didn't get to watch all of the Colorado game, but of the bits I caught of the first half, Nebraska looked like the better team on the lines of scrimmage. Maybe that was just bias of the 10-15 plays I got to see, but it looked like Nebraska had an advantage there to exploit if they just. don't. turn. the. ball. over. And if Sims really is better than those two despite being a lock for one turnover per quarter, what an absolute dumpster fire of a QB room. It's so bad that's it's almost unbelievable that they could be any worse.

Really good post overall but I wanted to comment on this specific part because, IMO, I think right now is probably one of the best times to be a dual-threat quarterback because of the actual or perceived success of several current NFL quarterbacks considered "dual-threat" (or, at the very least, more mobile and non-traditional pocket passers). Guys like Josh Allen, Jalen Hurts, Justin Fields, Patrick Mahomes, and Daniel Jones. Now, Jones and Fields aren't guys you'd willingly pick to lead your franchise if you could pick from several other NFL QBs, but they're still starters in the NFL. So, I think in a vacuum, running a dual-threat QB in a college-specific offense isn't necessarily curtailing much. There are a lot of programs around the country that have done this and produced all-conference QB's or even an NFL QB... teams which, on paper, have less recruited talent than Nebraska. I think the bigger problem is Nebraska can't sustain success and can't develop a QB. If I'm a good high school QB, I would have a very hard time choosing Nebraska over frankly 40-50 other programs that have at least shown me something interesting the last near decade.

Probably a wise choice. Season 1 was quite good. The books are really enjoyable (just finished them last summer). Season 3 was hot garbage. Given the direction it went, I imagine the rest of the series is going to be a loss and not worth watching.

Made it through the first five released episodes of The Witcher season 3. So far, not a huge fan of this season. The first two episodes had really awkward pace and writing. Episodes 3-5 have been better but still sort of forgettable. It's also really sad/disappointing to watch from the standpoint that Henry Cavill won't be coming back.

Oh I hear you. I think Race-Based admissions is well-intentioned, and that we are long over-due to try and fix the socio-economic issues that plague minorities in America and ultimately lead to policy choices like Race-Based admissions. But, if the solution (even a bandage solution) to those problems is to reward some people for uncontrollably being one skin color and punish others for uncontrollably being another... can't get behind that. It probably shouldn't have even been a serious policy in the first place, particularly since it spawned use of concerning positions like you mentioned i.e. "now you know what it's like." In my life, most of the time that I've heard that statement or something similar, it's because someone wanted to punish me... not make the situation better. All that said, I do understand the irony you're getting at here, particularly for Republicans. Many of them are celebrating this decision but will do very little actually address the root problem that led to policies like Race-Based admissions.

I agree it was the correct call but I doubt you're surprised by the lack of unanimity. Race-based admissions has a lot of support across this country because it has helped produce some incredibly successful people. IMO the problem with it is that it's a bandage solution to much deeper problems, which is poverty, opportunity inequity, poor family structures in some minority communities, etc. We should be addressing those problems, not rewarding some kids because of their skin color and simultaneously punishing others because of it. I'm glad this was struck down. It never felt right to me back when I was applying for colleges. I remember being really worried I wouldn't make it into some places because of something like this. I got lucky, but I know others haven't.

There was probably more advanced tech in the Challenger Deep's controls than the $40 Amazon controller Stockton Rush was using. I hear the point you're making, but the technology and principals required to dive thousands of meters and come back alive have been around for decades. Probably stands to reason that that's why most modern submersibles look more like a spaceship than they do a fleshlight.

Seems like most of the legitimate deep sea submersibles look more like Cameron's than they do Ocean Gate's. Not that it necessarily means anything, though. The prevailing theory at the moment is Ocean Gate's carbon fiber hull weakened over its many uses. Bunch of fancy switches and cramped spaces probably wouldn't have changed that.

Based on everything I've read so far, it sounds like this is the most plausible explanation i.e. carbon fiber fatigue. The developer allegedly had some sort of 'acoustic' monitoring system they claimed would measure the sub's hull and give them pre-emptive warnings of fatigue or structural integrities. It's very possible they ran into this during the last dive, causing their ascent.

Now the questions/debates are going to circle around "who should pay for it." Should taxpayers be held culpable for the tens of millions of dollars this search likely cost to try and rescue five private citizens who went deep sea exploring in an uncertified submersible? There were also privately owned resources used in the search and they're almost assuredly going to send their bills to various government agencies.

Sounds like a guy who thinks things should go the way he wants them to “just because.” And it’s all for naught anyways now - the ROV found the submersible’s debris field 1600 feet from the bow of the Titanic and they effectively confirmed the implosion happened during the descent. Those unlucky souls have been gone since Sunday. Must’ve been terrifying but I hope it was over quick.

Based on an interview I heard earlier today, I'm 97% certain these people died a few hours after their voyage embarked. The sub apparently has two communication tools available to it that would only stop working under two conditions: 1) total loss of power or 2) a hull breach/implosion. They both stopped working a little less than two hours into the trip. The more I've learned about this sub, the dumber it sounds. Incredibly cramped/uncomfortable confines, piloted by PS3 controller, 18 deadbolts that trap the people inside from the outside, one view port that they apparently wouldn't be able to see the wreck out of anyways, materials that experts say were not up to the standard of other submersibles that travel to those depths... Like, come on.