The Dude

Thanks knapplc!

What did he say? He said Suh isn't dirty, he's on the line but isn't over the line. Says he plays on the line in the name of changing the culture in Detroit and should just keep doing what he's doing. Unless, of course, it costs his team a game or him a game (suspension). Talked about Suh having icon status in Detroit along the lines of Robocop, Axl Foley, Marshall Mathers, ect. lol Said he's changing how people view the Lions, they've been a joke for a long time, but now they have a defense that people fear, a defense that pushes around the Patriots and makes Tom Brady rush his throws and knocks him off his game. And so on and so forth. Basically Rome has a man crush on Ndamukong Suh. Edit: my favorite part is about how he kept saying Suh isn't dirty. Dirty is going at guys knees, trying to hurt people away from the play, ect. Suh's just a guy who plays until the whistle and sometimes through the whistle in the name of changing the culture on his team.

The only thing I read from OWH is Sam's stuff. Overall I'd say LJS.

Did anyone here Jim Rome's rant on Suh a little bit ago? It was awesome.

What's a "proper" throwing motion? It's generally understood that you want to have a quick release in the NFL because a slow developing throwing motion can get you in trouble with NFL secondaries. Which is why Tebow's throwing motion was scrutinized by scouts. Not because it decreased his accuracy. Tebow has always thrown that way, that's what he's most comfortable with, so that's obviously how he's going to be most accurate. A more accurate analogy would be wanting a really fast car and not really caring about the color. That has more to do with footwork than throwing motion. Which is something that is a big issue with Taylor. Even if he sets his feet properly he's still going to have the same awkward looking throwing motion, i.e. cocking his head back which gives him the appearance of a shot putter.

The Canadian Dollar Bill Formation.

I'd say there's about a less than 1% chance a SDSU happens in this game. SDSU knew what play we were going to run over and over again, and were well enough coached to stop it.

Want to see the freshman RBs more than Rex. Let him knock some rust off, but keep him fresh for conference play. Want to see Crick get a good head start on his mission to own the Nebraska sack record.

14th and Superior is going to be a gigantic clusterf#%k, especially on game day. Make no mistake.

As long as it doesn't take forever to develop (like Tebow's), there's really nothing wrong with an awkward throwing motion in college football. Even Tebow had success as a passer with a horribly slow throwing motion. Taylor's throwing motion is considerably more efficient than Tebow's. I'm much more concerned about where the ball ends up than how it looks when he throws it.

I don't know what keeps feeding this misconcption that the Big Ten has bigger linemen than every other place in the country, but it's flat out not true. If every Big Ten school had Wisconsin's fat fatties it would be true, but they don't.

That would be so rad.

It was implied that I meant outside of city limits.

Did he introduce himself as The Pineapple?

I've been looking for some decent spots to go dove hunting around Lincoln. If you have some land and would consider letting a guy hunt on your land, please send me a PM. Also wondering if anyone knows of any decent public land that doesn't get too crowded. Not going to take a deer this year, just planning on hunting dove and pheasant. Thanks in advance for any info.

That is very much an overly simplistic way of looking at it. Absolutely the defense improved, but it wasn't simply due to a difference in scheme, it was due to a fundamental change in philosophy, from strength sacrificing speed to speed adding strength. We changed everything about that defense from the ground up. In the seven straight bowl games we lost from 1988-1994 we gave up an average of thirty points a game, then dropped that to just 20 points a game in the ensuing four straight wins. That's a pretty big change. But it wasn't just the defense that changed, getting us over the hump - the offense in that time went from pedestrian to high-octane, as evidenced by those same bowl game results. In the seven losses from 88-94 we averaged 22 points per game. In the ensuing four straight wins we averaged 42 points a game. That offensive leap blows anything we did on defense out of the water. So absolutely the defense's changes contributed to our improved performance, but by no means was it the only change, and stats show it may not have even been the biggest change. That offensive leap was largely credited to the defensive leap, according to Osborne. He said it was easy to put up that many points because the offense was constantly starting in great field position. It is a team sport afterall. When Osborne talked about the switch to the 4-3, he gave as much credit to the dime package as the base switch. He also, in the same breath, described fundamental changes to the recruiting philosophy, focusing on speed. You cannot find a quote where Osborne attributed our 90s success to a switch to the 4-3 defense alone, nor do I believe there is a quote out there supporting the notion that our offensive success came from the switch to the 4-3. What you will find is Osborne saying things like: "Once we got the dime package and found we could stop the run with that defense as well, we went to the 4-3 defense in 1992. We recruited people who could cover man-to-man, went to smaller, quicker defensive people up front and made the switch away from the 5-2 defense for the first time in almost 30 years. When you can pressure on defense, get the ball back to your offense, you can do a lot of things with the offense. " Dr. Tom was not solely crediting the 4-3 switch with our success as you seem to be implying (and if that's not what you're implying, forgive my misunderstanding). It was a combination of things, including recruiting speed and better coverage people. All kinds of things. My point is that, no matter how good our defense is, without a good offense we're never going to improve. Nothing earth-shattering about that. And the basis for your offense is your offensive line - again, not breaking any new ground with this thought. I think we agree, I just didn't have time to elaborate on what I was trying to say earlier. Or now, really. Damn HuskerBoard addiction.

It was more so switching to a 4-3 defense that got us over the hump, imho. That is very much an overly simplistic way of looking at it. Absolutely the defense improved, but it wasn't simply due to a difference in scheme, it was due to a fundamental change in philosophy, from strength sacrificing speed to speed adding strength. We changed everything about that defense from the ground up. In the seven straight bowl games we lost from 1988-1994 we gave up an average of thirty points a game, then dropped that to just 20 points a game in the ensuing four straight wins. That's a pretty big change. But it wasn't just the defense that changed, getting us over the hump - the offense in that time went from pedestrian to high-octane, as evidenced by those same bowl game results. In the seven losses from 88-94 we averaged 22 points per game. In the ensuing four straight wins we averaged 42 points a game. That offensive leap blows anything we did on defense out of the water. So absolutely the defense's changes contributed to our improved performance, but by no means was it the only change, and stats show it may not have even been the biggest change. That offensive leap was largely credited to the defensive leap, according to Osborne. He said it was easy to put up that many points because the offense was constantly starting with great field position. It is a team sport afterall.

I believe that's covered in the OP.

I'm not sure what you're talking about here. As has been discussed in length in the Sellout Streak thread, all seats are sold to season-ticket holders, and have been since the early 70s. The fact that people didn't show up doesn't mean the tickets weren't sold, it means the people who bought them didn't come to the game. That has nothing to do with a sellout streak. Since we've been selling the entire stadium to season-ticket holders for the past four decades, I don't know where you're getting the idea that corporate entities had to buy up unused seats to keep the streak going. Can you better explain that? He may be thinking of Notre Dame? This is the first I've heard of this.

It was more so switching to a 4-3 defense that got us over the hump, imho.

I stopped reading right there, I've heard enough. He's batsh¡t insane.

Missouri.

Because it's virtually impossible to stop when ran properly.

http://skeptoid.com/episodes/4085 or just listen: http://c4.libsyn.com/media/17974/skeptoid-4085.mp3?nvb=20100921133320&nva=20100922134320&sid=654c3d6ca9fa2f558276c8bb0a00a8df&l_sid=17974&l_eid=&l_mid=1406413&t=0a5253ca656310a284cce Truthers have had a decade to prove their claims, and have yet to do so. Sooner or later you'll have to admit to yourself that maybe, just maybe, they're full of sh¡t. These conspiracy theories aren't based on facts. They're based on coincidence and paranoia. And they're retarded.

Don't just like it, tell your friends. Spread it, like the herpes.