Bear1979

how come your newcomers can improve your team, but ridiculous that our will help us? Because Nebraska is better, that's why!! The reason Nebraska will improve is because the majority of our newcomers are more talented, faster, and more well-coached than the guys they are replacing. Most of the guys lost were not what we would consider stars. Regardless, the team ended up pretty well last year, tying for 1st in the North and beating Clemson in their bowl game. It is only logical to say that if a team plays well and replaces a few ok players with players who are better, the team will improve. By the way, nobody said your newcomers wouldn't improve your team. It has only been said that they still won't be as good as Nebraska. Kansas is banking on the returning stars, who still only managed to snag 3rd place in North last year, to lead the team to a championship. If that's the case, where is the improvement coming from? I haven't heard you mention anybody besides Reesing and your receivers as reasons for your optimism. Where is the improvement on your defense and where is it on your O-line? Even if your newcomers are an improvement, do you really believe it'll be enough to surpass the improvements made by Nebraska? The jayhawk has a point. You can't simply say that all the 8 new replacements on offense are immediately going to be better than the players that left. Especially your receivers replacements. I've tried to make this arguement in the past, and it's not that simple. Not all players are going to develop to perfection. Examples: Oklahoma: Rhett Bomar vs Sam Bradford. Bomar was the #1 QB recruit in the nation. Bradford was not even closely considered as such a high recruit. Bradford developed, Bomar didn't. Baylor's #2 NFL draft pick, Jason Smith, and our other tackle from last year, Dan Gay, are both now in the NFL. Both were just 2 star recruits. We just replaced them both with 4 star recruits. Does that mean our O-line will be better? Not immediately, I don't care who's developing the players. You just don't find those kind of players everyday no matter what caliber star they are. Kansas and Nebraska will both be good next year. From the outside looking in....neither team can boast to be better than the other yet. Both have questions....just different one's. Kansas does have one big plus that Nebraska doesn't though....a stud at QB with proven experience. This is a horrible example to cite for your case. First of all Bomar was a 2004 recruit and Brafford was a 2006 recruit. In 2006 Bomar was in line to be the starter until he got caught in that whole Car Dealership paying him scandal. Brafford was just barely on campus. Had Bomar stayed out of trouble, he most likely would be the stud at OU over Brafford in 2007. Don't forget that Bomar leaving caused OU to put in a Sr. WR back into the QB position that year. It wasn't until 2007 that Brafford as a RFr. got the starting nod. Instead Bomar got in trouble and left and his development was stunted because of that. It doesn't matter who was at the school at what time. The measurement here between Bomar and Bradford is that Bomar didn't amount to half as much as Bradford has. Bomar was a bigger recruit than Bradford. It doesn't matter that Bomar left the school either. Bomar left just before his junior season. Bradfor is just starting his junior season. I'm just stating that there is huge uncertainty in new players taking the field until they show they can play on game day. My second example is a great example. No one in their right mind will say the talent stepping in for Baylor's Jason Smith at Tackle is better. It doesn't matter how many stars the new replacement has. The same goes for Swift's, Lucky's, and maybe even Ganz's replacements. That's why I say the previous arguement is purely personal belief and not fact. If the coaches say there doesn't seem to be a problem with the replacement players, then that puts my mind at ease somewhat. But 8 replacements on offense? They can't all be prodigies and wunderkins as the other poster above is implying. Again, I know Nebraska will be bowl bound and ya'll are headed in the right direction...I'm just questioning the offense and the offense alone next year.

how come your newcomers can improve your team, but ridiculous that our will help us? Because Nebraska is better, that's why!! The reason Nebraska will improve is because the majority of our newcomers are more talented, faster, and more well-coached than the guys they are replacing. Most of the guys lost were not what we would consider stars. Regardless, the team ended up pretty well last year, tying for 1st in the North and beating Clemson in their bowl game. It is only logical to say that if a team plays well and replaces a few ok players with players who are better, the team will improve. By the way, nobody said your newcomers wouldn't improve your team. It has only been said that they still won't be as good as Nebraska. Kansas is banking on the returning stars, who still only managed to snag 3rd place in North last year, to lead the team to a championship. If that's the case, where is the improvement coming from? I haven't heard you mention anybody besides Reesing and your receivers as reasons for your optimism. Where is the improvement on your defense and where is it on your O-line? Even if your newcomers are an improvement, do you really believe it'll be enough to surpass the improvements made by Nebraska? The jayhawk has a point. You can't simply say that all the 8 new replacements on offense are immediately going to be better than the players that left. Especially your receivers replacements. I've tried to make this arguement in the past, and it's not that simple. Not all players are going to develop to perfection. Examples: Oklahoma: Rhett Bomar vs Sam Bradford. Bomar was the #1 QB recruit in the nation. Bradford was not even closely considered as such a high recruit. Bradford developed, Bomar didn't. Baylor's #2 NFL draft pick, Jason Smith, and our other tackle from last year, Dan Gay, are both now in the NFL. Both were just 2 star recruits. We just replaced them both with 4 star recruits. Does that mean our O-line will be better? Not immediately, I don't care who's developing the players. You just don't find those kind of players everyday no matter what caliber star they are. Kansas and Nebraska will both be good next year. From the outside looking in....neither team can boast to be better than the other yet. Both have questions....just different one's. Kansas does have one big plus that Nebraska doesn't though....a stud at QB with proven experience.

how come your newcomers can improve your team, but ridiculous that our will help us? Great, great question... but I'll be very surprised if you beat 2 of the 3 teams. It's possible this year...but I'll be surprised. My bet would go on KU beating OU and Tech. Texas is too stout this year.

I agree with you. We've never had a QB that end their career on a high note really. This is just my experience w/ JuCo's. Kstate developed some decent QB's in Snyders early years. I can't think of any JuCo QB's that won any NCAA awards, All-American Honors, or have been an NFL starter though. Not that Nebraska needs that out of their QB to be successful. I'm just raising questions about this since Lee is obviously lacking in experience at a higher level of play. But I guess there's always exceptions eventually. From Wikipedia Heupel began his collegiate playing career at Weber State University in Ogden, Utah, and spent one season at Snow College, a junior college located in Ephraim, Utah, before transferring to Oklahoma. He was the Heisman Trophy runner up in 2000. He was also an All-American (2000), the AP Player of the Year, and Walter Camp Award winner in 2000. Heupel led the Sooners to an undefeated regular season and a national championship victory over Florida State in the 2001 Orange Bowl.[1][2] Hey...I said there is always an exception. Heupel and Bishop are the exception, not the rule. Good find though. Heupel was a hell of a player. To my credit, I did mention that Bill Snyder had a couple of successful JuCo QB's in his tenure in my prevous post. knapplc is right...if Lee can perform like Taylor, the Huskers will be just fine.

I hear he had a good spring game from my friends that went. Also that MLB turned Qb supposedly put on a show.

Nearly every QB Baylor has had in the past decade was a 3 or 4 star JuCo transfer (aside from Shawn Bell, and Blake Szymanski). Examples: Dane King, Greg Cicero, Josh Zachry, Michael Machen. They were all God awful and all were 3 and 4 star recruits from successful JuCo's. We were always excited...they were always terrible. Granted, you likely have a much better supporting cast, so I think Lee will be good enough after a few games are under his belt. Here's an interesting article on recent JuCo transfers: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/29534-c...-to-make-impact Summary: It's possible get a star, but don't get your hopes up. One positive Lee has though is that he does come from an NFL pedigree. Yeah I think the biggest difference is that Watson has a history of developing QB's into quality players. I don't think Baylor had anyone of Watson's caliber until just recently on their staff coaching up those players. Agreed. Briles and his son are now the QB coaches, so I'm happy with that.

I agree with you. We've never had a QB that end their career on a high note really. This is just my experience w/ JuCo's. Kstate developed some decent QB's in Snyders early years. I can't think of any JuCo QB's that won any NCAA awards, All-American Honors, or have been an NFL starter though. Not that Nebraska needs that out of their QB to be successful. I'm just raising questions about this since Lee is obviously lacking in experience at a higher level of play. But I guess there's always exceptions eventually.

Nearly every QB Baylor has had in the past decade was a 3 or 4 star JuCo transfer (aside from Shawn Bell, and Blake Szymanski). Examples: Dane King, Greg Cicero, Josh Zachry, Michael Machen. They were all God awful and all were 3 and 4 star recruits from successful JuCo's. We were always excited...they were always terrible. Granted, you likely have a much better supporting cast, so I think Lee will be good enough after a few games are under his belt. Here's an interesting article on recent JuCo transfers: http://bleacherreport.com/articles/29534-c...-to-make-impact Summary: It's possible get a star, but don't get your hopes up. One positive Lee has though is that he does come from an NFL pedigree.

From what I've seen, JuCo QB's bust waaay more often than not. It doesn't matter how highly rated they were when transferring. There is a reason why he's only thrown 2 passes at Nebraska. He might prove to be good eventually, but he won't be Ganz. I'm just saying Nebraska's defense is gonna carry them to victories more than the offense is gonna with game winning touchdowns next year. IMO, returning starting QB's and O-line's are the most important factors in sustaining success. You have 1 of the 2 working for you next year.

Well what he said was stupid. For someone who comes to this board crying about giving Baylor respect and learning about their team you sure are short sighted. Last year was the 4th bowl game in a row under GP and 5th in 6 years. I think thats just a little better than two good seasons for the first time ever. Maybe just maybe baylor fan we could have our 6th good season in the last 7. I dont know though,you, a Baylor fan, is smack talking, you might know better than the rest of us. But then again what would you know about bowl games and winning seasons.... BTW smart guy, that 2004 team was ranked and absolutly feel apart. So if you said that to imply that team sucked, you have no idea what you are talking about. P.S. 2004 - MU 30 - Baylor 10. I wonder what you would give up in life just to have Baylor go 5-6.... P.S.S. Dont talk smack with your crappy team on my Tigers when I am having a bad day. I might just bite ya. Geez....settle down. You call critcism smack talk? This is just a down year for Mizzou. You lost some great talent. I was a big fan of Chase Daniel since he's from my hometown, but w/out his smarts at QB, and breaking in a new QB along with a slew of other players....how can you be so optimistic? I asked the Huskers the same question! The other big problem w/ Mizzou is them having to break in 2 new coordinators. Mizzou will be back in the North title hunt again, just not next year. I said your team will resemble 2004 b/c it will be competitive, but will likely reach 5 or 6 wins with your schedule. Quit your Baylor bashing. You could possibly eat your words this next season, as you almost did last season. If a way less talented Baylor team nearly beat a more talented Mizzou team last year....then a much more improved Baylor team with 20 returning starters has an even better chance of victory against your 2009 Mizzou Tigers. That is simple logic. Till then I'll just sit back and enjoy this season for once. Put Baylor in the North and our bowl drought wouldn't have lasted 5 year much less 15. We used to call Kansas a guaranteed win until 2007. That changed quickly. Programs shift in power every decade. Baylor should be relevant again for a while like we were in the 80's. What is this ignorance? Let's go to the data... 1998 (@Waco) 28-12 Baylor, your biggest victory over us since the Big 12, by a touchdown. 1999 45-10 KU wins... We whipped you. We were not een very good back then, 2002 (@Waco) 35-32 You did get us, by a whole field goal at home. It does suck to lose to Baylor, but doesnt look like your guys should have just chalked this game up to me... 2003 28-21 KU wins... in a closer game 2006 (@Waco) 36-35 Baylor wins... Now I did not watch this game cause I was out of the country on business, but from what I remember we were whipping you and Meier (our QB then) got hurt and you rallied. Won by a point. Sure fire win? 2007 58-10 KU wins... Of course we destroyed you again in Lawrence, but you did say this was the year we were not easy money... So as you can see, since we have started playing you in the conference, you have won every game in Waco, and then gone to Lawrnece and lost each time. Also please note, you always win a close game, no more than a touchdown, and no matter how bad we have been, we beat you by that or a LOT more. I will grant you the early years of the Big 12 were bad years for us, but how you think they were automatic wins I cannot begin to understand. Your comment is jibber jabber... I guess that was just my perception when I attended Baylor. I was there from 98 to 02, therefore the Kansas game was one of the few games I got excited about b/c it was the only conference game i attended that resulted in a win. Either way....our programs at the time were comparable....both historically as well as our talent level during the 90's. We were both pretty good during the early 90's and both sucked during the late 90's. You just passed us in the overall win column as a program a few years ago. KU has a great program now...I just picked you guys to win the North for God sakes! (see previous post) Give me a little slack here. I'm just stating our mindset at Baylor about 10 years ago, and that's what it was. I'm sure Kansas was relieved to see Baylor on the schedule too these past 10 years. You're telling me Kansas didn't look at Baylor as a likely win either? You know KU fans did!!! P.S- Don't make it sound like our wins were a fluke. In 2006, that was a MIRACULOUS 4th qtr comback. 3 TD's scored in last 5 minutes of the 4th quarter!?!? That was just a good game period.

Well what he said was stupid. For someone who comes to this board crying about giving Baylor respect and learning about their team you sure are short sighted. Last year was the 4th bowl game in a row under GP and 5th in 6 years. I think thats just a little better than two good seasons for the first time ever. Maybe just maybe baylor fan we could have our 6th good season in the last 7. I dont know though,you, a Baylor fan, is smack talking, you might know better than the rest of us. But then again what would you know about bowl games and winning seasons.... BTW smart guy, that 2004 team was ranked and absolutly feel apart. So if you said that to imply that team sucked, you have no idea what you are talking about. P.S. 2004 - MU 30 - Baylor 10. I wonder what you would give up in life just to have Baylor go 5-6.... P.S.S. Dont talk smack with your crappy team on my Tigers when I am having a bad day. I might just bite ya. Geez....settle down. You call critcism smack talk? This is just a down year for Mizzou. You lost some great talent. I was a big fan of Chase Daniel since he's from my hometown, but w/out his smarts at QB, and breaking in a new QB along with a slew of other players....how can you be so optimistic? I asked the Huskers the same question! The other big problem w/ Mizzou is them having to break in 2 new coordinators. Mizzou will be back in the North title hunt again, just not next year. I said your team will resemble 2004 b/c it will be competitive, but will likely reach 5 or 6 wins with your schedule. Quit your Baylor bashing. You could possibly eat your words this next season, as you almost did last season. If a way less talented Baylor team nearly beat a more talented Mizzou team last year....then a much more improved Baylor team with 20 returning starters has an even better chance of victory against your 2009 Mizzou Tigers. That is simple logic. Till then I'll just sit back and enjoy this season for once. Put Baylor in the North and our bowl drought wouldn't have lasted 5 year much less 15. We used to call Kansas a guaranteed win until 2007. That changed quickly. Programs shift in power every decade. Baylor should be relevant again for a while like we were in the 80's.

You give Mizzou too much credit. They had 2 good seasons in a row for the first time under Pinkel. They will not have 3. They will lose to Nebraska handily, and very likely to Baylor. This Mizzou team will resemble their 2004 team.

1. Kansas- Reesing and receivers are some of the Big 12's best. 2. Nebraska- Incredible defense on paper; Offense has way too many questions. 3.Colorado- Waaaay underrated. The only reason they didn't go bowling is b/c of massive injuries. Oline is back, best RB tandom is back. No passing game. 4. Mizzou- lost way too much to be a North contender. Bowling? maybe. 5. Iowa State- Good QB and quite a bit of returning starters. Better record, but still a losing one. 6. KState- approaching Baylor talent levels from 2000-2001. 5 wins if their lucky. Likely 3 wins.

I bet USC wants to whip ur arses for stealing there uniforms. Just sayin... USC won't play us because they fear us... We had your Jayhawks beat last year but Mangino looked so sad and confused on the sidelines that we took mercy on him and let you win in order to put off the massive coronary event which is surely due sometime within the next year. We don't have an ambulance big enough to carry the guy to the emergency room and don't really want to be stigmatized by being "The Team That Created the Newest Farm Crisis By Killing It's Biggest Consumer...." This is Iowa after all.... Nebraska won because Chizek thought he was in Auburn already...plus I wanted that wedding proposal thing to come off as a good memory for all of those involved so convinced the team to take it easy on the Huskers. Baylor...what the hell is a Baylor? Some kind of farm implement? A guy who helps criminals out of jail? No...I guess that would be a Ferentz... Still...we'll be mowing the field with Baylor. *looks for bag of weed and rolling papers...get's back to the important things in life* Did a cyclone fan just talk smack? Hahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahahaahahahah. Even I'm staying humble on this board. Neither of our schools has any right to talk until a couple winning seasons present itself.

haha, calm the F down. all I said was Baylor is Baylor. I never said "we'll beat Baylor easily...they suck" In fact, I never said we'd win OR lose against Baylor. I just said Baylor is Baylor. The original question was "who do you want to beat this year" I listed the reason why I want to beat certain teams...others I don't worry so much about. Not that I don't worry so much about beating them because we usually always do, just that if we lose against them I won't get worked up too much about it. We don't have as big of a "rivalry" against ISU/Baylor/KU. I've got no problems with any of those three teams. If we win...great...if we lose...we move on. I'm more interested in beating the other teams I listed. don't assume it was written in arrogance besides...I'm a Nebraska fan. My team is going undefeated this year. Just as most every other fan thinks their team is going undefeated too. We'll have a conference full of undefeated teams!! I'm just so used to the Aggies using that phrase that it sets off a fuse. No doubt Nebraska and Baylor do not have anything close to resembling a rivalry. Good luck next year.

Oh I agree...it's just that I can't stand people who talk smack even when they lose. I mean that would be like me getting into a UFC cage fight with Chuck Liddell, he kicks my butt and then afterwards I spout off about how he's not as tough as I am. ha!...Griffin is hardly you....and the Nebraska defense is hardly Chuck Liddell. I'm pretty sure if there is a player on our team that has a right to say that, it's Griffin. He was the fastest guy on the field. Though that was a little cocky. He was probably just pissed that a close game was lost....again.

Thanks for the welcome. Many Bears see next years Nebraska game in Waco as the most important game of the year. It's very likely that Nebraska will be 6-1 going into Waco, and Baylor will be 5-2 (at the very worst, 4-3) . Your schedule after Baylor is an extremely tough one, as Kstate would be your only "gimme". We'll likely be playing for bowl eligability that weekend, as well as looking for a ranking in the top 25 for the first time in 15 years. That game will be one of the few nationally televised games for Baylor, and it will be drawing a near sell out crowd for the first time in a while. We normally only get close to a sell out for A&M, but almost drew a sell out crowd against NU in 2005. This game is circled big time, which is why I've been crashing your board to get an idea of how good your team might be.

This arrogance is laughable. Nebraska is a very respected program traditionally, and the majority of fans are good people from those that I've met. But if your chalking up a win b/c "Baylor...is Baylor", then you obviously don't look at any other depth chart in the conference than your own. You likely didn't read any preseason predictions, but your own. This is an honest question, and I'm not asking this to be down play your team.... But how is the optimism so high when only 4 return on offense? Defense really didn't matter much last year against the Big 12's high-octane offense, although I think Nebraska will be one of the conferences best in 2009. NU lost their best receiving corp of all-time, they lost an experienced QB. Granted you have 3 returning O-linemen, which will help with the running game considerably, as well as help the development of your QB. Suh is also a manchild, and the defense will be impressive. Doesn't it concern you that your QB has only thrown 2 passes, and he's a junior? I'm not saying he doesn't have the talent. I just don't see Nebraska averaging more than 25 to 28 points a game this year. That would translate into a 6 to 7 win season in the Big 12. I think NU can win the North, but it will be a competitive run. Baylor is ranked higher than CU in half the preseason rankings and mag's out there. Baylor is NOT...old Baylor anymore at all.

1. Your post makes absolutely no sense. There's even MORE competition for the Huskers for "elite" talent in California, Florida, etc, than in Texas. In Texas we're competing against UT and OU. And since most kids in Texas probably dream of playing for Texas, when they're not offered a scholly by the 'whorns they look elsewhere. Which means, it's between Oklahoma and Nebraska. In California we're competing against: USC, Cal, UCLA and a host of other in state schools. In Florida we're competing against: Miami, Florida State, Florida and to a degree UCF, USF. 2. To automatically assume that Baylor is on the way to becoming a Big 12 powerhouse simply because they hired some high school coach, who won a few state titles at the high school level, is absurd to say the least. Name me one coach in Baylor's entire football history who turned that program into a consistent national power. 3. And finally, to say that Nebraska should stop recruiting Texas is so utterly sophomoric I'm not real sure what else I could say. First I will say that the majority of Nebraska fans I have met are some of the best fans in america. Baylor wishes we had the history and tradition of Nebraska football, however the above statement was written without any general knowledge of our current coach, or our overall football history. No doubt, Nebraska has an upper hand in talent at this point, but we have more talent than Colorado. Just pick up any preseason magazine off of the shelf. Nearly all of them have us ranked above Colorado....and in no way is Colorado an automatic win for Nebraska, and vice-versa. Art Briles is a high-school football legend in Texas, so yes he is some high school coach. But he also won a C-USA title while immediately turning around the U of H program; a program that hadn't gone bowling in 12 years. This also included a win over a good Oklahoma State team. What coach has turned Baylor into a consistant national power? Well I wouldn't go as far as to say consistant "national power", but with Grant Teaff from 1974 till the early 90's, we won several SWC championships, and Texas NEVER beat us at home. We've also given Texas the worse beating they've ever recieved at their home 50-7. In recent years...we've sucked. But this team is legit, and Griffin is not the only threat. This team has 4 NFL drafts picks predicted for next year, and they're not even close to the more talented underclassmen. Also....if your competing with UCLA in Cali...then your competing with Baylor in Texas...we're ranked higher than UCLA in most of the rankings for 2009. I think the BU-NU game could go either way. Good luck to both our programs.