Jump to content

Radioactive Man

Members
  • Content Count

    110
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

20 Excellent

About Radioactive Man

  • Rank
    Preferred Walk-On
  1. My concern would be that one of the consistent messages this staff gives kids is that they will stick with the kid if the kids sticks with them. It's what has helped them hold onto kids when you see other programs have kids flipping left and right. If Aho announced before the staff okayed the announcement, then that's on the kid. But it's a bad precedent to set to have them commit to a kid and then back off. The biggest thing you hear from prospects is that this staff is up-front and honest. Pulling offers after announcing is the opposite of that.
  2. Mills makes the Oline look bad. The guy has absolutely no vision and consistently runs straight into the backs of his own Oline. When Washington and Wandale get the ball, there are suddenly holes they find. It’s not that the Oline is blocking differently. It’s that Mills rarely sees the hole. There should be no reason Wandale who is half the size has that much more success running between the tackles than Mills does.
  3. Lee not only makes some poor decisions, he is terribly inconsistent with his accuracy. Dline is stout against the run. But cannot generate pressure for the life of them. Lamar Jackson looked pretty bad a several plays. Theres a reason Tre Bryant became the feature back. Morgan has some fantastic ability but also has a tendancy to drop some very catchable passes. Someone needs to get the Offense to understand that when down by 2 TDs with less than 4 min on the clock they need to play with some urgency. They consistently let the play clock run to under 5 seconds before snapping the ball even though they were down by 14. Hopefully the team can build off this but a 7-5 season looks to be the mostly likely outcome.
  4. That TD should help calm the Huskers down. More importantly, maybe it'll calm the jokers around here down. Good lord, we aren't even out of the first quarter yet and down by a TD. Of course that means the staff needs to be fired.
  5. Like I said, the line being drawn is strange. They post on twitter, a social media platform, specifically designed for interaction with other people. So pasting a publicly posted tweet to a message board of people who then obsessively discuss the content of the tweet is fine. Saying "congrats" or "welcome" on the social media platform that the same high school kid posted to, knowing it's a social media platform, is over the line. You are vastly over simplifying the issue. If it stopped at "congrats" or "welcome" great. But it doesn't. Fans go way over board especially when a player picks another school and some fans get nasty. It also goes on before someone commits and fans constantly contact recruits THINKING they are some how part of the recruiting process to Nebraska. Meanwhile, Nebraska was towards the top of the list that recruits say has fans that are the most annoying on Twitter. I get that. At some point it becomes obsessive and harmful to the recruiting process. But scroll up a few posts. Very specifically, when asked if it's okay to say "congrats!' or "welcome" when a guy commits, the response was it makes you a " creepy wierd borderline stalker crazy old fan." which was then echoed by multiple other posters. That's a weird line we draw that obsessing over the recruit on a message board is okay but saying congrats to them on a public social media platform is stalking. It's because where does it stop? It easily gets out of hand and you have absolutely no clue if the player likes what you are tweeting him or not. Believe it or not, there are times when players get turned off by some fans tweeting them. So, it's best to just don't do it. You're right there's definitely a line. It's like pornography. You know it when you see it. But honestly, in this day and age there are plenty of ways for recruits to make announcements that don't involve direct interaction with fans like Twitter does. If you announce on Twitter expect some responses. Every high school kid knows that. You want to announce into the void with no response post a Youtube video and disable comments. I don't think any recruit would think it's weird creepy and stalkerish to get a "Welcome!" from a fan after announcing on Twitter, especially since the fans play a big role in getting players to sign. There's a reason so many recruits were wowed by the Spring game and it wasn't because the coaches suddenly were that much better or the level of play was so good. It was the 76,000 paying fans in the stands for a freaking spring game.
  6. Like I said, the line being drawn is strange. They post on twitter, a social media platform, specifically designed for interaction with other people. So pasting a publicly posted tweet to a message board of people who then obsessively discuss the content of the tweet is fine. Saying "congrats" or "welcome" on the social media platform that the same high school kid posted to, knowing it's a social media platform, is over the line. You are vastly over simplifying the issue. If it stopped at "congrats" or "welcome" great. But it doesn't. Fans go way over board especially when a player picks another school and some fans get nasty. It also goes on before someone commits and fans constantly contact recruits THINKING they are some how part of the recruiting process to Nebraska. Meanwhile, Nebraska was towards the top of the list that recruits say has fans that are the most annoying on Twitter. I get that. At some point it becomes obsessive and harmful to the recruiting process. But scroll up a few posts. Very specifically, when asked if it's okay to say "congrats!' or "welcome" when a guy commits, the response was it makes you a " creepy wierd borderline stalker crazy old fan." which was then echoed by multiple other posters. That's a weird line we draw that obsessing over the recruit on a message board is okay but saying congrats to them on a public social media platform is stalking.
  7. Like I said, the line being drawn is strange. They post on twitter, a social media platform, specifically designed for interaction with other people. So pasting a publicly posted tweet to a message board of people who then obsessively discuss the content of the tweet is fine. Saying "congrats" or "welcome" on the social media platform that the same high school kid posted to, knowing it's a social media platform, is over the line.
  8. The line being drawn here is strange to say the least. It's not okay for an old man to tweet a high school kids "Welcome" or "Congrats!", because stalking. It is okay for an old may to follow a high school kid's twitter account religiously, immediately cut and paste their tweets onto anonymous message boards, and then talk about it with other old men for pages on end because not stalking.
  9. This Stop. The kids had grade issues. Move on.This
  10. Don't forget about the helmet to helmet that got called on Stafford as well. Stafford tackled the guy with his chest and got the PF as well.
  11. Yes, it was PI. He tried to box out Bell. Even if he did have his head turned to see the ball (which he did) that's PI. Much more than any of the 3 against us. I'll have to disagree on this. Having your off hand wrapped around a guy's waist before the ball gets there is clearly PI. I honestly think there might be a problem with the technique they're teaching the DBs. Having your head turn towards the ball and reaching for the ball, not trying to hold the guy's hands down is a very, very iffy call. I thought it was a terrible call, but personally was okay with it not because I'm a Husker fan, but because it was countered the completely BS late hit penalty on Stafford. That gave MSU an additional 4 points. Even without the PI call that went our way if it wasn't for that call, we would have been winning the game anyway. You're SUPPOSED to have your off hand wrapped so that way if the receiver catches the ball, the DB can still make the tackle. The DB just can't put any kind of force on the receiver when he does it. If he does, then it's PI. The one against Ciante was questionable, but the other 2 IMO were BS calls. Correct. This is the technique as it's taught. You are supposed to time it better because you can't do it before the ball gets there but one hand tries to knock the ball away while the other makes the tackle. If it's the technique taught, then it's a problem with the coaching. I found this article this morning which also says the same thing I've been saying. http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1395634-nebraskas-win-over-michigan-state-the-good-the-bad-and-the-ugly It's automatic PI if your off hand is wrapped around the guy's waist as you reach for the ball. The fact that it looked the same way on each play seems to indicate the technique being taught is bad. There's clearly something off with how these guys are being taught which is indicated by the repeated penalties this team takes.
  12. Yes, it was PI. He tried to box out Bell. Even if he did have his head turned to see the ball (which he did) that's PI. Much more than any of the 3 against us. I'll have to disagree on this. Having your off hand wrapped around a guy's waist before the ball gets there is clearly PI. I honestly think there might be a problem with the technique they're teaching the DBs. Having your head turn towards the ball and reaching for the ball, not trying to hold the guy's hands down is a very, very iffy call. I thought it was a terrible call, but personally was okay with it not because I'm a Husker fan, but because it was countered the completely BS late hit penalty on Stafford. That gave MSU an additional 4 points. Even without the PI call that went our way if it wasn't for that call, we would have been winning the game anyway. You're SUPPOSED to have your off hand wrapped so that way if the receiver catches the ball, the DB can still make the tackle. The DB just can't put any kind of force on the receiver when he does it. If he does, then it's PI. The one against Ciante was questionable, but the other 2 IMO were BS calls. I don't think that's right. Here's an explanation of PI for what it's worth. http://cmainsports.org/index_htm_files/PASS%20INTERFERENCE%20and%20HOLDING%20explained.pdf Off hand wrapped around the waist while the other is used to defend the pass is PI. I think the distinction is when the off hand wraps the waist. Before or after the ball arrives. In both PIs against NU, the DB clearly had the waist wrapped before the ball got there. Personally, I think the difference with holding Bell's arms on the other call was that the defender seemed to have position. So if he's turned and is reaching for the ball, and Bell tries to raise his arms through the defenders arms, it shouldn't be PI on the defense. It clearly looked like Bell couldn't raise his arms, but when I saw it, it looked like Bell was the one trying to raise his arms through the DBs arm and not the DB hold Bell's arms down. Like I said, I was okay with it given the horrific Stafford call, but the initial PIs on NU looked legit.
  13. Yes, it was PI. He tried to box out Bell. Even if he did have his head turned to see the ball (which he did) that's PI. Much more than any of the 3 against us. I'll have to disagree on this. Having your off hand wrapped around a guy's waist before the ball gets there is clearly PI. I honestly think there might be a problem with the technique they're teaching the DBs. Having your head turn towards the ball and reaching for the ball, not trying to hold the guy's hands down is a very, very iffy call. I thought it was a terrible call, but personally was okay with it not because I'm a Husker fan, but because it was countered the completely BS late hit penalty on Stafford. That gave MSU an additional 4 points. Even without the PI call that went our way if it wasn't for that call, we would have been winning the game anyway.
×
×
  • Create New...