huskertim

NU TEs are not as big as the OU, USC or old CU TEs. They don't need to be as big, they need to catch the ball.

To state the obvious, the TE's are exceptional this year and anyone who remembers Watson''s offenses at CU knows what he can do with good TEs. Obviously, this helps with the lack of experience at WR. Though I do think this is a talented group at WR, I need to see someone step up and own this position already.

IMO, they'll get them after fall camp. I don't think Pellini wants to turn this into a silly mind game. Rather, I think he had to establish what expectations were going to be last year. Everything I'm reading seems to indicate that the players "get it" so I would be supprised if things didn't go as they always did pre BC.

BTW, I actually think you might have a punchers chance against Ou at home. They come to KU after whats sure to be a fight in Dallas while KU comes back from a likely win in Boulder with a lot of confidence. It could happen. I wish good luck to you 10/24. Not so much 11/14

Personally, I'm 50/50 on the KU game, primarily because it's in Lawence and the team could mistake all the red in the stands for those stange red jerseys KU pulls out on occasion. BTW, it seems to me that the "toughest" games on your schedule would have been the ones you lost. If memory serves, didn't you go 0-5 in those "toughest' games. Really, when comparing Ws to Ls last year, your claim to fame is a W over Mu who, by that time, had thourghly imploded. Maybe you should consider how many Ws you had over the team that you claim to be better than. JMO

Well, if that's the case, it seems to be working.

Wow, couldn't have missed the mark by more. I love me some Ice Cream but I don't really watch sports other than football, I'm not that much of a remote hog, and I can't agree with the self centered or high maintenance bit. But then again, I guess I could be kind of biased on this one. Jeez, I hope I'm not in denial...I think I might need a shink...or at least a hug.

bump

As soon as I realized what it was, I never considered acetemetaphine safe. In regards to pot, the government is just a propoganda machine that will say anything to get people to stop using anything they consider bad becasue of their personal prejudices. There are health benefits to using it and there is little evidence to suggest that it is dangerous. Benefits "Though the medicinal value of cannabis has been debated, it does have several well-documented beneficial effects. Cannabis is indicated for treating and preventing nausea and vomiting, for treatment of glaucoma due to its lower of intraocular pressure, as well as a general analgesic. Individual studies also have been conducted indicating cannabis to a gamut of conditions running from multiple sclerosis to depression. Extracts of cannabis have also been created and sold as prescription drugs in the United States, primarily for the treatment of pain and nausea." Debate on health effects "The smoking of cannabis is the most harmful method of consumption, since the inhalation of smoke from organic materials such as cannabis, tobacco, and rolling papers can cause various health problems.[26] In comparison, study on cannabis vaporizing found that subjects were "only 40% as likely to report respiratory symptoms as users who do not vaporize, even when age, sex, cigarette use, and amount of cannabis consumed are controlled."[27] Another study found vaporizers to be "a safe and effective cannabinoid delivery system."[28][29] Comparison of physical harm and dependence regarding various drugs (the British medical journal The Lancet).[30]A 2007 study by the Canadian government found cannabis smoke contained more toxic substances than tobacco smoke.[31] The study determined that marijuana smoke contained 20 times more ammonia, and five times more hydrogen cyanide and nitrogen oxides than tobacco smoke. In spite of this, recent studies have been unable to demonstrate a direct link between lung cancer and frequent direct inhalation of marijuana smoke. While many researchers have failed to find a correlation,[32][33] some researchers still conclude that cannabis smoke poses a higher risk of lung cancer than tobacco.[34] Some studies have even shown that the non-intoxicating ingredient cannabidiol found in marijuana may be useful in treating breast cancer.[35] Cannabis use has been assessed by several studies to be correlated with the development of anxiety, psychosis, and depression,[36][37] however, no causal mechanism has been proven, and the meaning of the correlation and its direction is a subject of debate that has not been resolved in the scientific community. Some studies assess that the causality is more likely to involve a path from Cannabis use to psychotic symptoms rather than a path from psychotic symptoms to cannabis use,[38] while others assess the opposite direction of the causality, or hold cannabis to only form parts of a "causal constellation", while not inflicting mental health problems that would not have occurred in the absence of the cannabis use.[39][40] Though cannabis use has at times been associated with stroke, there is no firmly established link, and potential mechanisms are unknown.[41] Similarly, there is no established relationship between cannabis use and heart disease, including exacerbation of cases of existing heart disease.[42] Though some fMRI studies have shown changes in neurological function in long term heavy cannabis users, no long term behavioral effects after abstinence have been linked to these changes." http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Cannabis_(drug) In regards to the government's position, they can pick and use any statistics they want to prove their point. Even though information gathered in this manner is usually inaccurate, that won't stop them. Many drugs have negative side-effects but that does not stop people from using them, and pot's side-effects are harmless in moderation. Me thinks you missed the point, while ironically demonstrating it. My rather obvious point is, that we are willing to accept the governments assesment on what is or isn't dangerous for us, unless it contradicts what we believe. Govt says pot bad, you say pot good. Govt says tylenol bad you say tylenol bad. See what I mean? Which facts do you choose to believe? If the govt is conspireing against pot (as you seem to believe), how come they couldn't be conspireing against tylenol. BTW, I have made my pro-pot postion abundantly clear, so you can stop trying the snake oil sales pitch.

Not to worry, Joe sits at the kids table when the grown ups need to tall.

BTW, congrats to the new Justice, may she serve the country with grace, dignity, and humility before the law.

Well . . . sort of. More accurately, Sotomayor was following precedent, and leaving the Supreme Court to enact the sweeping changes that Ricci will likely bring. There is no shame in having a decision overturned. It happens even to the best of judges as the law evolves. Whereas this is true, I would hope that a canidate for the SC would have a demonstrated ability to decide a case based soley on merrit rather than prevailing precedence. I'm very oppose to activist judges but I also don't want bad law upheld to appease a concensus. Isn't that a bit contradictory? It seems that you are saying that you don't want a so called activist judge, but you also don't want the judge to follow precedent. What exactly are you looking for? Not at all. The supreme court sets precedent, it does not make law. I do not consider it activist to challange the interpetation of a law when the specifics of a case clearly indicate that the written laws' intent is not being served by that interpetation. Correct me if I'm wrong here, but shouldn't one being considered to make these precedents in the future have a demonstrated capacity for weighing decisions based on the law as written by the legislature as opposed to simply proceesing the case in a robotic obedience to form? Perhaps I am being a bit idealistic to think that a person being elevated to the highest position of authoity in their chosen profession should have demonstrated some form of exceptonal performace in thier career. At very least, an informed decension or explanation of support would seem appropriate given the weight of the matter.

Ya know, this post seems kind of fishy to me, I suppose I'd better do my patriot duty and foward it to the though police, er my thoughtful friends at the white house make that presidential mansion.

Mac or PC? PC, I'm way to cheap to hang with the MAC crowd Pencil or pen? Pen Triple option or spread? Triple Option Cats or dogs? Dogs. Loyal, all forgiving, and always ready to enjoy life. I could learn a thing or two from my dog. Shotgun or rifle? Shotgun MOre boom=more fun Baylor Bear or Mike the Tiger (LSU)? who? Outdoors or indoors? For what? I love to get out and do stuff, sadly, my family is very indoors. Billiards or darts? I like darts better because I suck at both and the painful humiliation of losing at pool is far more obvious. Coors Light or Miller Light? Yes please. I prefer Miller. Hook'em Horns or Boomer Sooner? Sooners, just too much tradition and respect from all those years together in the big 8.

Thanks.

AAAARRRRRGGGGHHHHH!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! @*&^%&$#%&@^@^&$#* ETC.

I'm sorry to interupt this A/C thread with a take on racism but, to answer the question, no, I do not think calling the C in C racist was overboard. Clearly, he made his assumptions about the incident knowing only that his black friend had been arressted by a white cop, and llittle more. Seems to me his statement was reflexive rather than considered. That would seem a far better barometer of his motivations that a prepared speech. The real problem, as I see it, is that this validates a wide spread ideal in the black community that the cops are inherantly racist and thus ferments futhers racial division and distrust. Good job Mr Gates, you got what you wanted.

Yeah I know, what a loser!! The page errored on me and I wanted to make sure it got reloaded, sorry!! I sorta suspected it was really something like that.. Off topic, and showing my ignorance here. What's the bump thing about?

Really? I don't think Tommie did so well as a coach. He was an incredible athlete . . . but that doesn't necessarily translate to being a great teacher. Also I don't know how useful his knowledge would be with our current offensive philosophy. No, Tommie was not a good coach, but so far as skills go, even in this offense, I'd take him over virtually any other player in the country. Contrary to many people's belief, TF could throw the ball and a trend toward spread option would probably only have further complimented his abilities. Besides, Tommie didn't just win with his legs or his arm, Tommie won with his heart. He may have been a jerk sometimes, but he knew how to win, and his teammates believed he would. ??? I didn't disparage his physical skills did I? I didn't think so, I took it to mean you just didn't think his abilities where best suited to the new offensive schemes. I understand the point, but think that with his overall talent he would have been just as effective today.

I went 50-60, I think we played awful last year and still almost pulled it off. I'm not sold on Tyrod Taylor, I think he still makes too many poor decisions throwing the ball. I think losing Macho Harris hurts the hokies in their defensive backfield and in the lockerroom. I am pretty sure the blackshirts will be better this year but a very young LB corp does worry me, more in the running game than in the passing game. I would favor the huskers strongly if I was sure of Lee, at this point we just don't know how he'll pan out. Should be a great game, wish I could be there. PS> I would have gone 50/50 had it been an option.

Had Tommie done a better job as RB coach at Baylor, he wouldn't have ended up at Doane. I agree though, he could possibly be put to good use by the AD a in fund raising capacity and propably with recruiting as well.

I agree we don't have the right atheltes to run the option like we once did. Too many people underestimate the complexity of option football, it's not just the QB who has to be praticed in the option, but the whole offense, timing is crucial to success. Having said that, I don't believe the option is gone all together, zone read/QB read options are an effective part of the spread offenses we are seeing throughout the Big 12 and you will see them incorperated here as well.

I've always thought that one of the biggest benefits to the walk on program was that it provided a better practice scenario. More players with experience, more fresh legs and live arms means the team can go harder in practice and not be quite as worried about injury and fatigue. I've heard Crouch say before that Wednesday pratices were usually much harder than the games on Saturday. Yes, the ones played the ones on Wednesday but they had great depth in practice like they do in the game. Bottom line is, better practice = better play on Saturday.

Really? I don't think Tommie did so well as a coach. He was an incredible athlete . . . but that doesn't necessarily translate to being a great teacher. Also I don't know how useful his knowledge would be with our current offensive philosophy. No, Tommie was not a good coach, but so far as skills go, even in this offense, I'd take him over virtually any other player in the country. Contrary to many people's belief, TF could throw the ball and a trend toward spread option would probably only have further complimented his abilities. Besides, Tommie didn't just win with his legs or his arm, Tommie won with his heart. He may have been a jerk sometimes, but he knew how to win, and his teammates believed he would.

Is that so? Maybe you need to look up the definition of anarchy, because it's you who's twisting the definition in a more self serving way. From answers.com dictionary: From American Heritage Dictionary 4th Edition at Dictionary.com Anarchy n., pl. -chies. 1. Absence of any form of political authority. 2. Political disorder and confusion. (notice political) 3. Absence of any cohesive principle, such as a common standard or purpose. [New Latin anarchia, from Greek anarkhiā, from anarkhos, without a ruler : an-, without; see a–1 + arkhos, ruler; see –arch.] From Princeton Wordnet: Anarchy - Noun S: (n) anarchy, lawlessness (a state of lawlessness and disorder (usually resulting from a failure of government)) From Wikipedia "No rulership or enforced authority." [1] "Absence of government; a state of lawlessness due to the absence or inefficiency of the supreme power; political disorder."[2] "A social state in which there is no governing person or group of persons, but each individual has absolute liberty (without the implication of disorder)."[3] "Absence or non-recognition of authority and order in any given sphere From Merriam-Webster Main Entry: an·ar·chy Pronunciation: \ˈa-nər-kē, -ˌnär-\ Function: noun Etymology: Medieval Latin anarchia, from Greek, from anarchos having no ruler, from an- + archos ruler — more at arch- Date: 1539 1 a: absence of government b: a state of lawlessness or political disorder due to the absence of governmental authority c: a utopian society of individuals who enjoy complete freedom without government 2 a: absence or denial of any authority or established order b: absence of order : disorder <not manicured plots but a wild anarchy of nature — Israel Shenker> 3: anarchism Did you honestly just post these without reading them, the only one that approaches the authors hackneyed definition is wiki clause 3,Not the most reliable source, whereas all others support my claim. Wherein do your read Anarchy is a FUNCTIONING society? Wherein do you read persons operating together in HARMONY? How does one come to "reached agreements" without some tacit goverence even within the dynamic of couple much less a society? I submit that a group of individuals acting in concert is to a degree a society and that the organs by which agreements are made and instituted are in themselves a form of governence. To be governed isn't by definition to by ruled nor is to govern to rule.