HuskerJen

The sky is falling! The sky is falling! The sky is falling! Seriously though...I'm just going to sit back and wait and see how everything works out because to this point, Bo Pelini-and the rest of the coaches, haven't given me any legitimate reason to doubt what they're doing. To the point about Anterio Sloan: His decommittment should not come as a surprise. I mean, if you can't get a recruit to come and visit then you're not signing him despite having a verbal committment. And, I don't take his decommitting personally, if he doesn't want to be here then okay.

Last season, every time the opposing team launched the ball deep downfield, an unsettling terror always gripped me-almost to the point where I couldn't breathe until after the play was over. Now is it unfair to blame the SS and FS? Maybe. But in a cover 2 scheme, if a CB or LB makes a mistake it's usually a big gain that the defense can recover from. If a SS or FS makes a mistake it's usually a TD.

The part in red...While it's true that Nebraska did run some power I and they did run some option under TO, that was NOT Nebraska's offense exclusively.

Did anyone else scratch their head in confusion when Desoto went for 2 at the end of the game? By kicking the extra point that would brought them to within two. In the situation they were in going for two made absolutely no sense.

Edit: Never mind...KU doesn't play Baylor this year.

I think you can add questions about both our SS and FS spots. The two safties are the key. And honestly, RB is probably the one position on the team that I'm the least concerned about.

Well I would classify Nebraska in the improving category as well. There are two ways to look at the scenario: 1) Nebraska didn't beat anybody special last year and they lost big to OU and MU. Or, 2) They came ooooh so close to beating both the Tech's last season-which would've been huge. Now I get the fact that in '09 Nebraska is breaking in a new, and unproven, QB and there are questions at WR, LB and both S spots. However, the Huskers aren't as far behind OU and UT as some people think. Furthermore, based on the way the 'Skers played against the Tech's I'd say they are at least equal to TT and OSU. Just my .02.

I’m sure the police would be diligent no matter who these kids were. But since the guy that got shot is a cop’s kid, you can be sure that no stone will go unturned. I hope they find who did this. And don't bring him in alive.

That was funny. I'm not cheering or glad he's dead, because that would be tasteless and crass, however, I do not, and I will not, mourn or miss him.

I'm not saying you're wrong because you do make a good case here... However, let's take into consideration the quality of coaching Wistrom and Suh had during their respective college careers. All things considered, Suh is a great player. I mean, if Suh had Charlie McBribe coaching him during his career we just might be saying that he's the best ever. Even Jason Peter thinks that Suh is the best he's ever seen.

Sorry knapplc, I just get so fed up with the constant perpetuation of the "Gerald McCoy is the best" myth. McCoy had about half the stats last season that Suh had and no TD's. McCoy has two things going for him right now: 1) he was ranked as the #1 DT coming out of high school and 2) he plays for OU. So other than baseless hype, yes McCoy is the "best" DT in CFB. /End of rant.

I agree...as long as they're not flaming or trolling. And Hokieluv, from what I can tell, is a class act all the way.

The Heisman trophy has become a joke. It rarely goes to the best player in college football. Instead it usually goes to the the player with the gaudiest statistics. Put Sam Bradford at Iowa State, Tim Tebow at Duke, Colt McCoy at Syracuse and ask yourself this question: If these guys were on those teams, without the awesome supporting cast they have on their respective teams, would they do as well as they did last season? No chance in hell. Now reverse the question: Would N. Suh do just as well on another team? More than likely yes.

Okie State is an up and coming program, we would and will be in the future hard pressed to win games against them. to deny that is not facing reality, they are recruiting, coaching and playing well. You know Hunter, based on your mostly negative/pessimistic posts, sometimes I imagine you as one who constantly has a dark, ominous storm cloud over your head which is always pouring down rain. It's still Oklahoma State. The Cowboys are the type of team that only plays well when they can sneak up on people. When they're the favorite and expected to win that's when they fail-their entire history in the Big 8 and 12 proves that. To deny that is not facing reality. Furthermore, Nebraska is on the way back up; they almost beat Texas Tech last year and the Red Raiders had two of the best offensive players in the nation. This season the Huskers get both OU and TT in Lincoln and they should go 1-1 at the minimum.

Fair enough. I just find it hard to believe that this staff would throw out the stuff they have been about him if it wasn’t showing up on the field. I still don't think Marlowe and Cooper will see the field though. Don't get me wrong, I do sincerely hope that '09 is Paul's breakout season. As for Marlowe and Cooper not seeing the field...that's certainly possible. However, I think between the two of these kids, Marlowe could see the field first as a punt returner. Cooper has the speed, hands and height to be great but playing baseball and missing spring practice really does hurt him.

Huh? An average back behind an outstanding line looks like an average back. An outstanding back behind an average line looks like an outstanding back. Yes, a steady O line is a big part of any running game, but to say that because you have a good line a coach can put anyone with cleats on back there and get the same results as his number one guy is just wrong. I took it to mean, "If you have a crap O-line, it doesn't matter much who you have back there. If there are no holes, there are no holes. If you get lit up in the backfield, chances are you're usually not going to get away. If you have a great O-line, you'll obviously do even better with a great RB, but you can have a middle of the pack RB and still maintain something of a running game behind a great O-line." Obviously if you put the towelboy in, you're not going to get much in the way of results no matter what. But let's face it, most I-A RB's are not towelboys. The part in blue is exactly what I meant. And, Virginia Tech does pretty much reload along the OL.

Okay, I had a good chuckle...

It's a post about gambling. I would say it doesn't belong on this part of the forum but then jjmus and others would say, "Well, there is a mention of "Nebraska" in it so it belongs here...dur dur dur."

The health of the offensive line has a far greater impact on a team's running game than which RB totes the rock-usually.

The part in red...Based on what I've read from you thus far that sounds like a full time job.

AndyDufresne, Great posts! I agree and disagree with you all at once. I certainly agree that to be successful in college football a team needs to recruit the best players. The current schools dujour: USC, Oklahoma, Texas and Florida all recruit some of the best talent in the nation. It's no coincidence that those schools all are smack in the middle of, or very proximal to, the most fertile recruiting hotbeds this nation has to offer. Combine great talent with superior and established coaching staffs, which those schools have, and over time you will see sustained top level success. Where I disagree with you is on the number of elite recruits a given school needs. Certain people think a team needs to be 3 deep with 4 and 5 's just to have talent. I think that a school merely needs to have difference makers at a few positions. For ease and convenience I'll talk about Nebraska under Tom Osborne. Even during the glory years, '90's, there were times when the opposing team, recruiting wise, was flat out better across the board than Nebraska, to wit Florida, Tennessee, Miami, etc. And yet, Nebraska beat all those teams to win national championships. Basically on offense you need a difference maker at QB, RB and have maybe one go-to WR. On defense, you need a top notch DT, LB and one DB-preferably a CB who can lock down the other team's best WR. Then, as long as the other players are solid and the team is solid in the kicking game, that team should be able to notch 9-10 wins consistently. That's the way the Huskers did it under TO and that's the way it can still be done. Plus, these recruiting rankings don't consider: 1) what type of offense or defense the player's team ran in high school and 2) does that player "fit" with the college he's going to. For example, Marlon Lucky versus Roy Helu. In high school Lucky's team ran a more traditional I-formation based offense while Helu's squad was more of a shotgun spread set. At Nebraska, Lucky seemed to run the best when he was in the I and struggled when in the shotgun. Helu on the other hand, thrived while in the shotgun and eventually supplanted Lucky as the starter once OCSW made the decision to move to a more shotgun spread type of offense. In conclusion, stars do matter absolutely. But, stars only get a team so far. I'll take a three star kid who will bust his arse on every play and put forth maximum effort in to the off-season program before I'll take a lazy, coast on talent, five star.

Good stuff.

but switch Gilleylen and Kinnie. Nah, I think he's got it right. X- Paul Brooks Cooper Z-Holt Gilleylen Osborne Y-Kinnie Henry The "Y" spot are the TE's in this offense so unless Kinnie and Henry have moved to TE there's no way they'll be in those positions. Under Tom Osborne the WR's were SE = split end, FL = flanker and TE = (obviously) tight end. Under the former head coach, and now Shawn Watson, the SE = X, Y = TE and FL = Z.

After a bad joke like that I think I need the blue pill...