AllNRed

Why do you say it's a big IF......Ameer has shown he's just as capable to be a star back as any on this team. And he did it as a sophomore. If he holds on to the ball, I wouldn't be surprised to see him get up into the 1400 mark by the end of the season being the feature back. 1400 is pretty high if Cross/Newby/Taylor become more involved in the offense than previous back ups (Heard/Green/Robinson/Abduallah (Fr)/Cross (Fr)). But I don't doubt he can break the 1000 mark. He's slightly faster than Burkhead, has the same drive/will, and is just as elusive. WHEN he has a big year, he will stay for his senior season

Next years draft eligible players are Taylor Martinez, Quincy Eunuwa, Ciante Evans, Jamal Turner, Kenny Bell, Andrew Green, Stanley Jean-Baptiste, Cole Pensick, Jason Ankrah, Josh Mitchell, Ameer Abdullah, Harvey Jackson, Corey Cooper, Zaire Anderson, & Mo Seisay. In my opinion, each of those guys will or will have a chance to play a very consistent role in the success of our play next year. Of those guys, I think Z.Anderson, J.Turner, A.Abdullah, K.Bell, SJB, C.Evans, definitely have want it takes to be draft in at least one of the 7 rounds. All I think could possibly get a FA contract or at least get to a mini camp/practice squad. I don't see any of the Jrs. opting to go early though. This staff has done a pretty good job of keeping our upperclassmen around to serve a strong presence as a Sr.

I agree. But Pat won't leave his boy D'Antonie unless it's for a HC job. I can see him becoming a HC at Miami (Ohio) or something. I don't think Don Treadwell will be there too much longer.

This is how I see it also. Yes, they could luck up and find a 2* recruit who becomes as important to their production on either side of the ball like Le'Veon Bell or Darqueze Dennard, but the odds of that continuously happening isn't worth the bet.

Coulda woulda shoulda. Their D might be better this year, but their O will be worse than last year when they were abysmal. I don't understand how the defense might be better this year, honestly. They lose 8 players from their two deep. 4 of those players were consistent starters the past two seasons, including their star DE William Gholston. Michigan St will be rebuilding this year, IMO. They'll be reloading, not rebuilding. They've got something going on over there on defense. Kinda like Wiscy's offensive line. They just plug a new body in when someone graduates. I wouldn't necessarily put MSU in the "reloading" category just yet. Since 2010 MSU's recruiting classes were a lot more talented on the offensive side than defense. A loss of offensive players like QB Kirk Cousins, TE Garrett Celek, WR B.J. Cunningham, RB Edwin Baker, WR Keshawn Martin, & RB Le'Veon Bell over the past two draft classes will put MSU in a deep hole on offense. They haven't had a bunch of star studders on defense in their recruiting classes. Losing guys to the NFL over the last 4 seasons like CB Jeremy Ware, CB Chris Rucker, LB Greg Jones, FS Trent Robinson, DT Jerel Worthy, & DE William Gholston. None of these guys were drafted before the 6th round with the exceptions of Worth/Gholston. Their head coach a defensive minded coach so I think they will still be sound on that side of the ball at least, but you still have to have talent to be playing at the level they have the past couple of seasons.

IMO, Trevor Roach should have gotten the nod over Fisher/Whaley. Roach looked good in his minimal amount of time he stepped in to relieve L.David a couple seasons ago. He was a sure tackler and had decent speed, yet we went with S.Fisher/A.Whaley whom seem to sometimes be afraid of breaking a nail while tackling. Will Compton did his best to replace the legend known as L.David. His experience and leadership was the core of our defense. But the talent needed an upgrade overall. We have a strong and athletic group of LBs coming in. I think with experience, maturity, and understanding they may be the strength of our defense in the coming years. Our DBs aren't too shabby either. If we can take care of the depth issue in the trenches, we may get a chance to see why Pelini's mind is so respected as a defensive guru once again.

Coulda woulda shoulda. Their D might be better this year, but their O will be worse than last year when they were abysmal. I don't understand how the defense might be better this year, honestly. They lose 8 players from their two deep. 4 of those players were consistent starters the past two seasons, including their star DE William Gholston. Michigan St will be rebuilding this year, IMO.

I stand in this crowd also, only because I don't think the university did much to warrant a year band. It may be ignorance on my part, but the actions of a few players whom aren't on the team any more and a coach who resigned shortly after didn't raise a major flag in my head. I understand the USC situation. I understand the Auburn situation. I understand the Penn St situation. I understand the Oregon situation. The little that I know about OSU doesn't warrant a year bad of the program, IMO. If it's something deeper than my understanding, then really, is a year band really a punishment for a program like that?

An outsider, if they took time would look at the season and wonder to themselves, what did they have to celebrate about before the CCG. They had a bunch of heartbreak losses and their victories were over teams that didn't accomplish much of anything this season. The CCG performance was a perfect storm for Wisconsin. Regardless of how you look at it, the way Nebraska won the games during it's 6 game win out challenge streak takes a toll on any team. We already lacked the depth in the trenches on defense accompanied with not having the talent/speed we benefited from in previous years on every level of the defense. Moving a 260 lb DE to the middle to battle for 4 quarters with a O-line two deep where the smallest guy is 295 lbs is a open door for disaster. The "Wrecking Ball" formation could have been ran every play from scrimmage and we had no way of counter attacking it. Once Baker went down, I knew we had a major issue on our hands because I knew there wasn't quality depth behind him. But other than that one victory, what in their season can they hang their hat on? I guess if their fan base wants that type of season, go for it. But I'd like to think that Nebraska looks down on a season where the only "good" win is in a game that in any other season they wouldn't have been allowed to compete in. If Nebraska went week to week with the results of Wisconsin this year, the boards would have resemble the Great Depression then transform to the King Riots. Our only losses was to UCLA on the road and OSU on the road. Yes the showing in Columbus was less than stellar and our defense looked very amateur in Pasadena, they still only count for 2 losses. How many outsiders and fans had us finishing the 2012 season with 1 conference loss at the beginning of the season. On top of that, we did it with one of the worse defensive units of Pelini's era, when it comes to athletes. Imagine if we had a Crick, a Dennard, and/or a David this season.

I get what you are saying and I actually agree for the most part. I guess my thing is, the "luck" cliche is being thrown at this team as if they didn't put themselves in the position to benefit from a lucky bounce or two. As if this team was totally incapable of accomplishing anything without some weird magically odd rotation of the planets altered the atmosphere causing all these abnormal situations to happen just for Huskers. So, if that's your perception of luck, I agree. As I was growing up, I always heard from my coaches "you create your own luck". Do what you need to do to win the games you can't and possibly something will allow you to do what you aren't suppose to. The Huskers put themselves in the position to win every game this year through their own actions. Did they get a few calls to help them out through the season, yes, but they received an equal amount of calls to put them behind the eight ball at times also. The Huskers had no "lucky" advantage over any team they faced. That's all I'm trying say.

Go get 'em Superman.

I just don't understand the logic that hard fought losses are better than come back victories. Wisconsin did not have a better season than Nebraska. NON-CONFERENCE SCHEDULE NU 3-1 UW 3-1 Sept 1. NU beats So Miss 49-20 UW beats N. Iowa 26-21 -Both teams weren't that great. But Wisconsin had to play well into the 4th for their victory Sept 8. NU losses to UCLA 36-30 UW losses to Oregon St 10-7 -Nebraska was exposed on defense as far as speed & Bo didn't help much by not making adjustments because of it. We lose a to the PAC-12 runner up on the road -Wisconsin struggles to move the ball against Oregon St who had a pretty good defense. The Badger defense saved this game from the score showing how terrible the offense was playing. They finished with just 207 total yards. Sept 15 NU beats Ark St 42-13 UW beats Utah St 16-14 -Both these two teams are nothing to write about. I would say Utah St is a tougher match up hands down due to their defense. Hard fought match up into the 4th again. Sept 22 NU beats Idaho St 73-7 UW beats UTEP 37-26 -Nebraska face an opponent that, IMO, our scout team would have probably beat. -Wisconisn's O-line is starting to finally show some life, allowing the offense to eclipse 400 yards in the game. Defense took a step back a few times with blown coverages. UP TO THIS POINT, THE FAN BASE IS PRETTY EVEN ON HOW EACH SHOULD VIEW THEIR TEAMS CONFERENCE SCHEDULE NU 7-1 UW 4-4 Sept 29 NU beats UW 30-27 -I love this game from start to finish. We didn't look good early but was able to get through it and pull out a victory, while Wisconsin crumbled late in the game. Oct 6 NU loses to OSU 63-38 UW beats Illinois 31-14 -We get blown out by the best team in the conference. Not sure how it was on this board, but another board I am a member on, they were looking to impeach Bo....very few were optimistic about the loss.....some were creative enough to do so though. -Wisconsin beats the one of the worst teams in the conference. Oct 13 NU.....bye UW beats Purdue 38-14 -The bye week only adds to the amount of time for fans to dwell on such a bad loss. Bo challenges his players in the press conference to win out the rest of the games to still have a chance to accomplish their goal. Winning the CCG -Wisconsin beats yet another of the bottom feeders in the conference. Oct 20 NU beats NwU 29-28 UW beats Minn 38-13 -Nebraska fights back to beat a well coached Northwestern squad who's only 3 losses in the season were to teams ranked hire than them in the conference (PSU/NU/MU) -UW defeats yet another program that finishes near/at the bottom of their division Oct 27 NU beats UM 23-9 UW loses to MSU 16-13 OT -Nebraska plays a complete game. Shutting down one of the most dangerous athletes in the league for an entire half only to not have to deal with in the 2nd half due to injury and smother his replacement. -Wisconsin plays Sparty hard and comes up short. Nov 3 NU beats MSU 28-24 UW....bye -Nebraska battles Sparty, coming from behind yet again. -Badger boards aren't too happy with how the season is going, feeling like many changes need to be made at the end of the season. Nov 10 NU beats PSU 32-23 UW beats Ind 62-14 -Nebraska pulls off a win verses a motivated PSU team. -Wisconsin beats up the worst team in the league. Helps to ease fans nerves but concerns and complaints still run through their message boards. Nov 17 NU beats Minn 38-14 UW loses to OSU 21-14 OT -Nebraska beats the worst team in our division... No big surprise, but holding on to the challenge of the coach -Wisconsin fights hard but comes up short against the best team in the league. Nothing to hang their head about, but definitely not a reason to beat you chest about. Nov 24 NU beats Iowa 13-7 UW loses to PSU 24-21 OT -Nebraska facing a weather condition that takes away from the strength of it's offense (ability to mix pass/rush attack), but still fights through it and win close game again one of the worse teams in the league -Wisconsin fights hard and loses to another division foe. Only thing that keeps their head up is the fact that those two teams are ineligible of making it to the CCG AT THIS POINT NEBRASKA STANDS AT 10-2; WISCONSIN 7-4.........Where's the argument for the better season at this point........hmmmmmm. POST SEASON NU 0-2 UW1-1 NU gets embarrassed in the CCG 70-31 -Left a bad taste in all husker fans mouth. Two terrible losses in a season. NU loses to UGA 45-31 UW loses to Stan 20-14 -Nebraska plays a team that was 4 yards from being in the national title game, well for 3 quarters. The obvious depth in talent weight in on us in the 4th quarter. -Wisconsin battles another good team well but continues something they did the entire year, came up short against good competition. Wisconsin's only significant win was over a team that beat them earlier in the year in a game that was given to them by default because the other 4 teams that were better than them in conference were ineligible to play in the CCG. -Michigan & Northwestern didn't win the division over Nebraska -Penn St on a 4 year band -Ohio St on a 1 year band

I really don't think you have an understanding at all on the underlying cause of outcomes or what "luck" means in this discussion. It is absolutely false to say that luck played no part in any of the victories you listed, and it would be just as wrong to say that luck played no part in any of our losses. You can't control everything that happens in a game, and are going to be susceptible to random events. Part of the allure of sports is that success is measured in short, choppy intervals. When you have ONE GAME there is going to be a team that has to win and one that has to lose, but that does not mean the same thing would happen 100% of the time. Any (inevitable) deviation from that is luck. You even mentioned several specifics that fit this exact definition. Do you really think the Northwestern kicker could NEVER make that kick? Do you think the refs are always going to give us the pass interference calls? Or that they would always have ruled the Penn State player didn't break the plane? Just because a certain outcome happened does not mean it was 100% because of something you did. And if you can't control absolutely everything that goes in to deciding an outcome, what else would you call that other than luck? Are you saying that something that wouldn't happen 100% of the time should be considered luck? Luck is success or failure apparently brought by chance rather than through one's own actions. So......Northwestern's kicker missing the FG.....that was brought by his own actions, would he miss it 100% of the time, NO, but it's not luck that he missed, just like it's not luck if he would have made it. No you can't control everything that happens in a game, but you can control your own actions and how well you execute. Kicking a FG is a job that the kicker is required to do, thus they practice it repeatedly. When that player is called upon to make a FG, his success is base on what he can control, thus takes away the luck factor no matter if he misses it or makes it.

I agree with everything in this post except the perception about the Michigan game. There's nothing lucky about DR being injured as that's part of the game. Before he went out, he still had under 100 yards of total production for the entire first have. That game NU showed up ready to play and had a decent game plan that seemed to be working, keeping DR from running circles around us similar to Braxton Miller's showing a few weeks prior. DR, who was the source of their production was being kept in pocket only gaining 6 yards hear and there and throwing bombs down field out of desperation. DR being injured was the result of two teams playing football. It's not NU's fault that their back QB had been playing WR thus wasn't ready to slide over to replace DR. And it's not NU's fault that their 3rd option at QB, who replaced DR, wasn't half as athletic as DR, thus the defensive scheme became that much easier for the blackshirts. I don't see that as luck at all.

Wow. That is a pretty amazing statement. What do you back that one up with? Jordan did get away with a lot of palming, carry the ball, traveling and favorable calls. For some players they changed the games rules to stop them and for others they let them slide. Didn't Jordan himself say that there were more talented players after losing a game of 1 on 1 onetime? What....Jordan doesn't do anything different with the ball than Lebron James, Kobe Bryant, Dwayne Wade, or any other superstar. Obviously there are calls made in their favor, because they are franchise/superstars in the league, but his talent and accomplishments speak for itself. I would love to see a link about the 1 on 1 comment. Not sure where you saw that he considered someone be better or equal to him. When they made comparisons while he was in the league, it drove him to show how much better than that player he was, see Clyde Drexler/Magic Johnson.......... Even today, someone mentions Lebron James duplicating something MJ did or surpassing, and he goes on record that he could enter the league today if wanted and still dominate.....(I find that hard to believe at age 50, but you can see where is mindset is/was at)

-Not any, as a matter of fact most coaches prefer their players to have some ability to put up stats. Will should be something that is in the entire team. A player can have all the will in the world but without the ability, he WILL fail more times than not. -Frazier did more than WILL the team past Miami. I'm sure Berringer had the WILL to win when he threw the INT.....and i believe Frazier had early struggles in the game also, which is why he was replaced by Berringer in the game. -Frazier didn't OUTPLAY Charlie Ward. That was a very even match up of two of the best dual threat QBs at that time. I know I was hoping for the match up since the beginning of that season. Would have liked a different result in the game though... -Any conversation about past players/games is pointless if you look at it in that light, because it's one person's perception vs another's, but nothing changes, but generate good conversations amongst the fans. If you feel this and the Dayne/Rozier are pointless, why do you participate in the conversation....... -The last line we can agree on. As well as the fact that Frazier was never under appreciated or overrated.

Well, at least it occupied a week of the off season for me.

It's funny how we got off on a Rozier/Dayne tangent in this thread, when the original premise was a question of whether Dayne should take precedence over Tommie Frazier. Yea it was my fault.. I apologize. I made a comment that, IMO, was harmless but accurate.......next time I'll just keep my comments to myself.

I'm sorry, I just can't agree with you here. Look at who Nebraska had to play in the Orange Bowl vs. who Wisky had to play. Otherwise, thanks for compiling all that; very nice comparison. Fair enough. The whole "'better' bowl victories" thing is all a matter of perspective and depends on how you want to judge it. I can see your point - Nebraska definitely played better teams in those Orange Bowls than Wisconsin did in its Rose Bowls but those Nebraska teams, as a whole, were also much better than those Wisconsin teams. Here's what I mean: Dayne First Season: NR Wisconsin beats NR Utah in Copper Bowl Second Season: NR Wisconsin loses to #11 UGA in Outback Bowl Third Season: #9 Wisconsin beats #6 UCLA in Rose Bowl Fourth Season: #4 Wisconsin beats #22 Stanford in Rose Bowl Rozier Second Season: #4 Nebraska loses to #1 Clemson in Orange Bowl Third Season: #3 Nebraska beats #13 LSU in Orange Bowl Fourth Season: #1 Nebraska loses to #5 Miami in Orange Bowl Rozier's teams outranked his opponents' teams all but once while Dayne's teams were underdogs all but once. A lot of this, like debating most things in sports history (or all history for that matter), is just a matter of perspective and mining data for the bits that support a person's predetermined belief. No great consensus is going to be reached other than just saying that both were great players who had somewhat similar careers at very different schools. Anything past that is just a matter of where you were standing before this discussion even began. Great post.

The numbers are for the career (accomplishments on the field). Personally, I never said that Ron Dayne was a better back than Rozier, I simply stated he had a better career. Some don't know, or understand the difference. Others don't want to understand the difference because unless I say Rozier is the greatest back ever and his career surpasses all who has played before and after him, then I am disrespecting....... So because Rozier's career was shorter, it wasn't as good? Ahman Green only became the premier starter after LP got suspended. So the ball happened to bounce his way otherwise he backs up LP for a whole season. Still don't understand why some stats give Dayne a better career. You have to look at the whole picture. What the hell? Are you serious? Did I say his career wasn't good? And Ahman Green became the permier starter after the 4 backs in front of him on the depth chart were either supsended or injured. As a true freshman, Green was 5th on the depth chart during the first kickoff. Both what does that have to do with what I said........ You don't understand why Dayne's career is better because you don't want to understand it. Let me dumb it down once again. Rozier & Dayne won the same awards by the time they left their programs, with Dayne winning a few more, 2 awards didn't exist when Rozier was playing. Rozier & Dayne both were consensus All Americans Rozier & Dayne were both the #1 RB in the NFL draft their final seasons, though Rozier went USFL first. Only thing separating their career is 1500 yards and 21 TDs. If Rozier scored 21 more TDs than he did, would you say his career is even better. If he ran for 1500 more yards would you say his career was even better. Yes you would. So why is it so much energy is being spent trying to make it seem like another RB who accomplished the same things that Rozier accomplished but ran for more yards and TDs is not a better career. I know this argument would have went this long if Ron Dayne's name was replaced with Rex Burkhead or Marlon Lucky, or Dan Alexander or some other RB who played for NU. No one wants to admit that another back at another school could have had a better career than a Husker who had the best year of all Husker RBs.......I'm not saying he's not a great back. I'm not saying Dayne is a better back.......I simply stated that his career was better and that he deserved to highlight the HOF class as much as anyone else who has. If you'll read my post again you'll see I never said you felt his career wasn't good. And I guess we'll just have to disagree on "better" career since I feel a year less to play might actually...you know...affect the total numbers so it's not an accurate comparison...but keep "dumbing" things down for me... I apologize. Looks like I schemed over the small two letter word in the response. And yes, we'll have to agree to disagree. I really don't understand why it's a big fuss. Everyone is saying that Rozier's career would be BETTER if he had an extra year, yet disagree with Dayne having a better career because he had an extra year.......that makes no sense. Arguing facts.....you know things that actually happened and are documented in the record books with opinions and what if theories do nothing more than just keep the conversation going on forever, but doesn't change what the outcome of history was. What if Rozier got an extra year at Nebraska........ -it would be his 5th year of eligibility as he played one year in JUCO/ can we give Dayne an extra year....... -could he have had a great year, of course, but how do we know he wouldn't have had an injury. (he did sit out for the last quarter of his final game as a husker) Fact is....Rozier/Dayne are great backs. Two of the best in college football history. They accomplished pretty much the exact same things while in uniform at their specific programs. Dayne just so happened to accomplish 1500 total yards and 21 TDs more.....if that doesn't make the career that much better, what's with the argument of "give Rozier another year and he would have that also". When grading a career that look at what the player did while playing, not what he could have done with more time. In that case Barry Sanders would be in the NFL record books instead of Emmit Smith. Not all college backs have a 1000 yard season and even less eclipse 1400-1500 with 21 TDs in a season, so that is still a large gap between the two's career output. I repeat, being that they both left with the same accomplishments as far as awards/champions/etc....the stats is the only thing that sets the career apart...........if I dumb it down any more than that, then it's hard for me to know you understand logic, thus I will just leave the conversation alone and let you continue to believe what you want.

From an overall career stand point, yes. Specifically, the two national titles, Heisman Trophy finalist and career win/loss percentage. Statistically, however, Martinez will end up being the better quarterback than Frazier. Martinez will end his career with more total offensive yards (by far), more individual passing/rushing yards, more rushing and passing touchdowns, more career starts, and possibly more career wins. By the end of 2013, Martinez very well could be in the 'elite' category of Nebraska football players with how many records he has broken and could potentially break. While you're right that Martinez doesn't have Frazier's resume, he is by no means a slouch. A comparison between the two (purely from an athletic and statistical stand point) is more than fair, imho. Of course, when it's all said and done, I will still say Frazier had the better career because of those titles and his overall importance to the Husker program. Very similar to how I believe Rozier had the better career in comparison to Dayne. No argument from me here. My comment wasn't to make Martinez seem like a slouch. Any man who will leave this program with as many finger prints in the record books as Martinez will deserves much praise. The comment was simply on accomplishments with the stats. Frazier wasn't breaking every record but he was winning his games and bring championships back to Lincoln. Stats show the athlete ability of the player but doesn't necessarily suggest they are having a great career without national rewards and/or championships and bowl wins to accompany them. That's why I said that Frazier/Martinez is no comparison. Totally different from Dayne/Rozier. Both put up great stats, both hold/held records at their schools, both helped to bring home championships/bowl wins to the program.

I was pretty old for my age at 21..... Leave QMany alone! You're lucky he even posts for you bastards! He didn't post for me so I'm one of the bastards that missed out on the luck.....

I was pretty old for my age at 21.....

Was a bit thrown off. I thought this thread was about Tommy Armstrong due to the title....I'm okay now though....after reading further down a bit...

When you go by just the "eye test", how I interpret that is you are pretty much looking for the sweet moves on the field with an occasional trucking.....no top 20 would be identical depending on what each fan likes to see in their backs....I'll take a stab at it though. I agree with your #1 pick. 1. Barry Sanders 2. Bo Jackson 3. Hershel Walker 4. Adrian Peterson 5. Lawrence Phillips 6. Mike Rozier 7. Ricky Williams 8. Reggie Bush 9. Ron Dayne 10. Marcus Dupree 11. Tony Dorsett 12. Earl Campbell 13. Ahman Green 14. O.J. Simpson 15. LaDainian Tomlinson 16. Archie Griffin 17. LaMichael James 18. Cedric Benson 19. Billy Sims 20. Darren McFadden Pretty much my top 5 is solidly put in order 6-12 can jumble around a bit. 13-17 have to be in my top 20 but can switch places with each other. 18-20 can be replaced depending on the weather by a few other great backs in history.