huskerfan333157

Sure we can run some 3-4, but i hope we dont do it all that often. Im just worried about the fact we have no depth at lb AND our lb's seem to be injury prone. Plus, our personnel strength would be 4-3 this year and not the 3-4. Seems like most coaches will do some 3-4 packages when they run a 4-3 base defense, so we will surely see some 3-4 but not very often

our overall talent does lend itself better to the 4-3 and that will be our base set... that said we did run some 3-4 against Missouri last year with Cam as the outside linebacker and it was quite effective. Don't be shocked to see it some again this year (as well as some more Peso (with Cassidy sliding down from saftey to take Hagg's old spot and Courtney Osborne/PJ Smith coming in to man the other saftey spot - expecially against Michigan and Northwestern) and don't be shocked to see some of the 50 defense with 3 DT's, 2 DE's and 2 LB's as well against certain teams - namely Wisconsin and possibly Penn State. Something tells me Cam going from the DE to OLB spot and Crick moving from DT and DE on the fly is going to be featured a lot this season in certain games. Especially if one of the young DB's can prove capable of being left alone in man coverage across the field from Fonz consistently - Evans proved capable at times last year but wasn't consistent enough - if he can lock that down we'll be fine. Our biggest issue next year is at center. We're very undersized there and there's not much depth.. If we have to play a Freshman at C with two new starting guards we could be in trouble. We didnt run the 3-4, look at druski's post...I cant believe you actually think we ran the 3-4 against Missouri, that is comical..you really think we would run a 3-4 defense against missouri? lol..wowwwwwwwwwwwwww Was it a typical pro style 3-4 with a nose two ends and four linebackers? No. Of course not. But that doesn't change the fact that we had 3 guys with their hand in the dirt, four guys behind them who's first step was typically towards the QB and four guys behind them looking to backpedal first. Is Cam a 3-4 hybrid linebacker/end like a Demarcus Ware or a Bryan Orakpo? No, but was still playing the Jack position when he's standing up nonetheless and will probably be used at times in that role this year - though depending on whether they bring Cassidy down, bring in another safety and take out a linebacker or go with 3 linebackers it could resemble more of the prototypical 3-4 or be basically what we did last year against Missouri. You can call it the 3-4 the hybrid peso, the jolly rancher or anything else you want to call it - the QB still sees the same look, we just use players with different skill-sets depending on the matchup. Just like the Peso is still a 4-3 look, it's just used with guys a little more suited to play the pass than the run. once again, did you look at druski's links? Did it even mention the 3-4 in it? No, it was dime. But I guess you think the nickle and the 4-2-5 are the same defense. Every type of defense has a name, you dont say "it is the 3-4" when its not, its called using proper terminology. It was hybrid dime defense, mainly dime 3-2-6 hybrid (if you look at how they were set up its more of a 3-2-6 hybrid than a 3-4).

Come on down off your high horse there fella. That's not at all what I was saying, and I think you know it. The only thing that matters in terminology (in all terminology, not just football) is that the people involved in the discussion are talking about the same thing. I could call the defense we ran with Cam standing up against Mizzou the "Snarky" defense, and that's just as good as any other term as long as we both know what I'm talking about. The point of this thread and much of the discussion is about the defensive front depth and how we might use it. Call it what you will. If you really don't like the terms being used, you could suggest another term for what the poster is describing. Or you can jump all over the guy and be an a$$, which isn't going to win you any support and generally makes you look like an idiot who's trying to sound smart. I actually used the PROPER terminology, did you even see the links that druski posted? Im guessing you didnt take the time to actually look at them? In those links, it specifically says its a hybrid DIME defense. People keep saying we ran the "3-4" against missouri when its clearly WRONG. So its ok to that we used the wrong terminology or state a total different defense than what was actually used? So thats pretty much us being ignorant and not using the proper facts. If you talk about something, you need to know all the facts behind it! So if people keep talking about characteristics of a soda but what im drinking is pepsi but its actually a sprite then its ok to call the pepsi a sprite because the generalizations are the same.

our overall talent does lend itself better to the 4-3 and that will be our base set... that said we did run some 3-4 against Missouri last year with Cam as the outside linebacker and it was quite effective. Don't be shocked to see it some again this year (as well as some more Peso (with Cassidy sliding down from saftey to take Hagg's old spot and Courtney Osborne/PJ Smith coming in to man the other saftey spot - expecially against Michigan and Northwestern) and don't be shocked to see some of the 50 defense with 3 DT's, 2 DE's and 2 LB's as well against certain teams - namely Wisconsin and possibly Penn State. Something tells me Cam going from the DE to OLB spot and Crick moving from DT and DE on the fly is going to be featured a lot this season in certain games. Especially if one of the young DB's can prove capable of being left alone in man coverage across the field from Fonz consistently - Evans proved capable at times last year but wasn't consistent enough - if he can lock that down we'll be fine. Our biggest issue next year is at center. We're very undersized there and there's not much depth.. If we have to play a Freshman at C with two new starting guards we could be in trouble. We didnt run the 3-4, look at druski's post...I cant believe you actually think we ran the 3-4 against Missouri, that is comical..you really think we would run a 3-4 defense against missouri? lol..wowwwwwwwwwwwwww You're just splitting hairs over terminology here. The poster is saying we're likely to see something similar to the defense used against Mizzou, and he calls it the 3-4. You call it the hybrid nickel or whatever. Same defense either way. OK, so that means the nickel and 3-4 are the same difference. Since its only "terminology" i might as well call 3-2-6 the same as the 3-4. Who cares, its only terminology, right? I guess if a qb gets the terminology wrong in the huddle then it would not make a difference since its "only terminology." Terminology actually matters in football, but according to you a 4-3, 3-4, dime, dime 3-2-6, nickel, 335, 425 are one in the same, since its "only terminology."

our overall talent does lend itself better to the 4-3 and that will be our base set... that said we did run some 3-4 against Missouri last year with Cam as the outside linebacker and it was quite effective. Don't be shocked to see it some again this year (as well as some more Peso (with Cassidy sliding down from saftey to take Hagg's old spot and Courtney Osborne/PJ Smith coming in to man the other saftey spot - expecially against Michigan and Northwestern) and don't be shocked to see some of the 50 defense with 3 DT's, 2 DE's and 2 LB's as well against certain teams - namely Wisconsin and possibly Penn State. Something tells me Cam going from the DE to OLB spot and Crick moving from DT and DE on the fly is going to be featured a lot this season in certain games. Especially if one of the young DB's can prove capable of being left alone in man coverage across the field from Fonz consistently - Evans proved capable at times last year but wasn't consistent enough - if he can lock that down we'll be fine. Our biggest issue next year is at center. We're very undersized there and there's not much depth.. If we have to play a Freshman at C with two new starting guards we could be in trouble. We didnt run the 3-4, look at druski's post...I cant believe you actually think we ran the 3-4 against Missouri, that is comical..you really think we would run a 3-4 defense against missouri? lol..wowwwwwwwwwwwwww

Best D in the country? Best D we have ever had? What type of kool aid are some of you drinking because it seems to be working better than drugs. Anyways, our fronst 7 wasnt that great last year, it was mediocre at best outside of David. We lose Allen, Prince, Gomes and hagg. We might be a good defense (only because of pelini) but we wont be a great nor will we be top 8 defense next year. Also, the 3-4? Really? I dont think we should run a 3-4, considering our DT's are the strong point of our D this year. By running the 3-4 we negate all that talent we have there..which isnt very smart. Camstache at outside lb? I dont think he is quick enough to be that type of hybrid player. Also, what happens if a few of our lbs get hurt (as they usually do)? We do NOT have the depth at lb to play the 3-4 very often this year. I prefer sticking with the 4-3, keeping our d-line fresh with substitutions and get penetration that way. In my opinion, the 4-3 would work TONS better with the talent we have this year.

I do believe the 40's time are inflated. I do not think we are as fast as those 40 times but we should still be a pretty fast team. We were a fast team last year but it didnt seem to make a difference, although I do blame that on watson. I think Beck will be an amazing OC and we should be able to put up good amount of points in the big 10.

I find it funny that people who think like this will then go and claim that the 1995 team is the greatest team ever, but then claim that same offense could not work today. It's personel thats the problem not scheme and if Nebraska had the same caliber of players that the 1995 team had they could still win a NC running that kind of offense. Nebraska would find it easier putting together a great offensive line,fb, rb, TE, and mobile qb. Trying to find a great pocket passing qb and NFL type receivers that willing to come to Nebraska puts Nebraska at a disavantage competing against the likes of the SEC, Texas and USC's of the world. You did not comprehend anything i wrote. I said that offense wont work NOW because of the michaels vicks, steve mcnair's and the vince young's being able to play in the nfl. you really think we could have gotten frazier if he knew he would have a chance to be an nfl qb? No, we wouldnt have. So im obviously saying we wouldnt ever get the recruits like we did then for the system to be ran properly.

Also, to say that Wisconsin's offense, "isn't effective..." Where in the world does that come from. It's not my favorite offense, it's not what I want to see Nebraska do, and it's not close to what Nebraska was doing back in the 90's... But to say it's not effective is just plain wrong. Wisconsin won the Big 10 conference this year, and were probably one of the best 5 teams in college football. While we were playing a freshman QB with turf toe on one leg and a busted ankle on the other, Wisconsin was putting up 80 points (literally) against Big 10 competition. They put up 80 against indiana..i dont think they know what a defense is there? Of course it could work with the right personell (which is was druski was stating) but it never wins championships. When has that type of offense won a major bowl game or NC? I dont think it has in the past decade while the offense that Beck is wanting to run has been proven to win NC's.

Solution: Change your college favorite football team to Wisconsin then. Seriuosly, right now, change your team to rooting for Wisconsin. I mean, really? It's posts like this that make me shake my head at times. "They do it why can't we do it?!" Yeah, you want to know something else? Other teams WIN BCS Bowl Games and Conference Championships. That is what we should REALLY be saying "They can do it, why can't we do it?!" So let me get this straight: You would probably rather watch ups "line up under center and pound the football" rather than do something that WORKS?! You're telling me you would take image over substance? You have got to be kidding me. Tell me something. Did you stop watching when we switched to the West Coast Offense in 2004? I'm not saying Wisconsin's doesn't work, but that's not our style, we have to go with what we are recruiting for. I am behind Bo 110%, he has a vision and that vision is going to be seen-through by him, because that is what we are going for, you can't put a round peg through a square hole, that is what we did on offense for the last two years and frankly, I'm sick of THAT philosophy, and am excited for some change and a breath of fresh air finally. I too, have wishes of a few changes for our uniforms, field, sound system, stadium, and yes, I even want to see different types of plays in our offensive playbook and defensive playbook. However, I am not going to whine and complain and not watch when things aren't "exactly" how I want them if I were coaching the team. I'm not saying you are threatening not to watch, I know some people might, but it's childish to hear crap like this. It sounds like it will just absolutely kill you if you had to watch our quarterbacks and receivers and backs look to the sideline for an audible or a hot read. This is the philosophy Bo has wanted since he stated it in December 2007, and here we are, February, almost March, 2011 and we are finally making that transition. The defense has been fixed, now it's time to see through the rest of the plan. If you don't like it, go watch some other worthless college football program. News flash: This isn't the 1990's anymore where we are 5 deep at running back with a mobile quarterback that can make throws with an offensive line that weak Big 8 teams don't see every week, and we don't have a huge edge in weightlifting either anymore. Our weightlifting program is good, don't get me wrong, but other teams have caught up. So what do you do when you don't have an edge at something anymore? You tweak it. I don't care what offense we run, I just want it to work and score more points than the other team. I don't give a crap about image. Give me something that works. If we have to line up in Maryland-I and pound it up the middle for the whole season, fine, go ahead. I'm also fine lining up in 4 and 5 Wide sets on every down if we need to move the ball effectively. Hell, if we have to run Mickey Mouse trick plays all season long to score points on offense, so be it. Something that works! Now I know what you're saying "But Wisconsin's offense does work!" True, it does for them. However, they recruit for that system. We have been recruiting for a Spread Option offense since Bo got here. So we just can't "line up and pound the football" with smaller backs that we have now and in-coming. Granted we should run between the tackles more from under center, but that's a play-calling issue, and sticking to what works, not a philosophy issue like a "Power Running Game" as opposed to a "Balanced" "Spread Option" "Air Raid" "Spread" philosophy style. Not sure if you have been reading, but Tim Beck, the new offensive coordinator, has stated he is still committing to running the ball effectively. You can have "power running" with a Spread Option set. It's all about the blocking schemes. For those that miss the option, the Spread Option offense is just as fun to watch, if not more fun depending on the plays that are drawn up, and just as hard to defend and cover, even if we have to "look to the sidelines for the play". Again, not sure if you've been paying attention or not, but the defense does the same, they look for audibles from the defensive staff to change something up. That's what the linebackers and safeties do. You know they do some motion with their hands, arms, or touch a part of their uniform, to change up the play? AFTER looking towards the sideline for a tweak. Next play result: We get off the field. I've heard more than once people don't want this offense because of the "stupid" look to the sideline for play crap. Guess what guys? It works. Apparently this will be up-tempo, like Oregon's base, and we are still committed to running the ball as well, and running it between the tackles, which is what you're insinuating you want, so that will be what you get, just in a different style. I'm sorry, but with Wisconsin's strategy of 75-25 or 80-20 run, I think you HAVE to keep the defenses honest in this day and age. Just like an 80-20 pass to run ratio. Just like Georgia Tech. It looks pretty, but they aren't effective, nor very deep with their personell. You can play the pass almost every down against teams that sling it around. You need a good effective run game to mix with a wide open passing game, just like you need a good passing game with a pound it out running game. Again though, times have changed and I think you need a GREAT defense, which is what we have, and on offense you have to be balanced, unpredictable, attacking, "multiple", adjust to the defense, take what you want, do what you need, and score some ******* points, so at the end of the play we can hear "There Is No Place Like Nebraska" blared by the band as we watch our team celebrate in the end-zone, watching the balloons fly in Memorial, or watching the other fans cry on TV as we just took what we wanted and making a name for ourselves on the road, and take this thing back to the level we used to be at and make everyone envious of everything that we have, what we want to have, and more. Oh yeah, what a great point. Thank God we don't "pound the ball" (something that worked for DECADES, winning BIG, with NCs to boot) because now we do something that WORKS!! 2009 & 2010.....now THAT is what WORKS!! Fluffball baby, since 2004.....look how far it's taken us...it's the only way! You really think the offense we ran in the 90s an early 00's will work nowadays? Sorry, it DOES NOT WORK anymore. Name one team thats had a lot of success with it? Also, if pounding the ball is your philosophy, you will NOT get the great qbs nor will you get any good WR's to keep the defense honest. Please name one team in the last decade that won a national championship while running the ball the majority of the time? Alabama had great balance so they dont count. If you run the ball the majority of the time, it is VERY easy to stop. Sorry, the power running game died when mike vick, mcnabb, etc went into the nfl an made fast qb's think they could start in the NFL. I cant think of one team that has had success strictly power running the ball and success..success meaning winning a bcs game (sorry wisconsin lost to tcu, tcu didnt have problems stopping the run and ga tech got their butts kicked by iowa in the bolw game a few years ago). As druski stated, you need good balance to win NC's, you cant be pass heavy (unless youre mike leach but he is to offense what bo is to defense)and you can not be strictly power run.

I'm responsible for putting my opinion on here in 99% of the posts that I make. I just don't understand when some post facts people still want to tell them they are wrong. What is football speed? Anyone have any good material on what football speed is? I understand the theory, but I've never seen anything relevant that explains it. How is it measured? How do you know someone has it or doesn't have it? Why is football speed different from baseball speed, track speed, bobsled speed....? How does a hit from someone that is 240 lbs indicate how fast you are? Where is the data some people put pads on and get faster/slower more so then others? What characteristics do you look for to decide whether someone will be faster/slower in pads? Why hasn't the combine figured this out and had players try out in pads? Isn't the NFL about money...Why would they risk doing assessments when players don't have pads on? Why has the NFL not caught on to football speed? Let me now transition back to my opinion. I don't think many of you have even seen Robinson play. To say football you have to cut and explode from your cut and be able to change direction....so Martinez is faster means to me you aren't familiar with Robinson. I'm not going to make the statement that Robinson is faster because of a highlight video, but I sure as hell am not going to say Martinez is faster because of the Sun Belt Conference, K-State and Washington Part I. http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=m_Ac8PAQutw Great post and I could not have said it better mysel.

I feel sorry for people who can't comprehend that football speed (pads, helmets, cleated shoes, etc) is a total different animal that clocked sprinter speed. Like a football player gets in his sprinter stance & blocks and runs straight ahead on the snap of the ball. lol! How many football plays has a runner going perfectly straight for 60 meters? One in a thousand (if even that)? How many sprinters have to change direction several times in their sprint? How many sprinters have to take vicious hits from 240 lb lbs & 200 lb secondary guys? The average skinny sprinter would last about "one" play on the field and then the stretcher takes him away. Sorry, but I don't see many qbs on the football field using a sprinter's stance or sprinter blocks. Great football players make much, much more $$$ than sprinters can even dream of and a large portion of them simply don't care about track. I feel sorry for people who cant comprehend the question. The question is WHO WINS IN A FOOT RACE. I dont know about you but a foot race is when they are standing side by side and running straight ahead. Therefore, what you just said has no relevance to the question. Also, lets say the question is "who is the fastest on the football field" it sure seems to me that Robinson is faster in pads than martinez. Also, some of the most important aspect of a sprinter is acceleration and long strides, which is necessary on the football field as well. The better acceleration and the longer strides you have the faster you'll be (even in pads). Let me guess, acceleration isnt needed in football tho? Watching both run in pads, Robinson still looks tons faster. With that being said, the question is "WHO WOULD WIN IN A FOOT RACE." P.S. foot race noun a race run on foot; "she broke the record for the half-mile run" Therefore, I dont see how "foot race" means "a race running in pads and not going straigh ahead...Also, I dont see how pads automatically make robinson slower which would make martinez faster? The pads would make both robinson AND martinez go a tad bit slower.

Also, Denard competed against the best SPRINTERS, who have trained their WHOLE LIFE. Thats like saying any fast football player can beat a world class sprinter, that is the same logic people are using..this is amazing..i can tell most of you havent ran sprints in track..

Robinson would whoop martinez in short distance. Robinson WON the 60 meter dash(this would equate to 65 yards) in his first college track meet. If you have ever done sprints, especially the 60 meter, you would know that is ALL about burst and acceleration. If Martinez was even comparable to Robinson then Martinez would be in track. I cant believe we are having this disussion...I feel sorry for the people that voted for Martinez. Martinez is fast but Robinson is a track star.

Measured by...? No 40 times in college are accurate. I remember reading a couple of years ago that Helu was timed running a mid 4.2 in spring ball. We all know that's not true. I voted Martinez. Watching highlights of them both, Robinson is lightyears ahead of Martinez in "wiggle", but Martinez is a touch faster in long speed. So you discount the 40 speed yet you think highlights are more accurate? Are you kidding me? That makes no sense at all

Just one more writer's opinion. That still doesn't say that he is rated higher than Peterson by anyone or why he is more polished and NFL ready! Once again, its only ONE guy. Look at how many people/sites have Peterson getting drafted before Prince..Also, "the best cbs" Peterson is 1 and amuksmara is 2. In fact, all the links used by the mod is arguing with ALL had peterson as the number 1 rated cb.. ONCE AGAIN I linked an article that stated that SEVERAL NFL SCOUTS have Prince slotted AHEAD of Peterson, which was my point. And since your continual ranting is that Mayock and Kiper and folks of the like are not the same as an NFL Scout, I will provide a link (AGAIN) that reports what NFL SCOUTS think. This, eventhough the only link you have provided saying Prince showed sloppy technique is from a talking head like Mayock and Kiper. He has also has them ranked 9th and 11th, which is CHASMS apart. Since you seem to have difficulties flipping to page 1, or recalling this, here is the link I provided which very succinctly proved my point. This point wasn't which CB will be better in the pros, it was who is better at CB RIGHT NOW. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1263300 I don't expect you to change your opinion, but for the love of God can you at least acknowledge the obvious fact that some NFL SCOUTS and personnel experts happen to agree with the point that I have made? Sheesh. Oh, and just because I am mod does not mean I am immune to having an opinion. You started this off by saying "this makes me giggle..." I usually don't devote much time into digging into these posts and threads anymore because my priorities are a little different now, but I applaud you for pissing me off to the point where I found ample information to prove my point. I can respect someone with a differing opinion who defends that opinion, but it makes it hard to respect someone who can't acknowledge obvious points just for the sake of arguing. Take it for what it is, I'm done. I acknowledged that SOME experts might rank prince over peterson, but the majority would take peterson. I just stated that in your links, the person or website ranked peterson as the number 1 corner in the draft and prince as the number 2. Its only a silly argument, you dont have to get mad over such a silly thing. Arguments consists of dissecting ones argument and making a nice rebuttal. Thats what ive been doing and the majority of your links have ranked pesterson as the best cornerback. Altho, I must say, our arguments have been fun and friendly, we havent made any pesonal attacks towards each other . It was fun while it lasted!

Just one more writer's opinion. That still doesn't say that he is rated higher than Peterson by anyone or why he is more polished and NFL ready! Once again, its only ONE guy. Look at how many people/sites have Peterson getting drafted before Prince..Also, "the best cbs" Peterson is 1 and amuksmara is 2. In fact, all the links used by the mod is arguing with ALL had peterson as the number 1 rated cb..

SEC has 6 qbs in the top 25 in passer rating while the Big XII only has two. So the qbs still play better than Big XII qbs AND they face better competition. Keep cherry picking stats. I can do it too. In 08 (Prince's first year at CB), the big 12 had 10 in the top 35. Almost 1/3. That's insane. Once again, I have been talking about their careers, not 1 season. You have to look at stats in context. Last year, there were a large amount of higher scoring games than usual in the SEC, which one can attribute to a down year in defense. We were talkin about LAST YEAR. Cherry picking stats? Hm, QB rating is one of the best qb stats to use and that pretty much crushed your argument about big XII qbs being better than SEC QB's. You laughed at me saying SEC qbs were better so i brought in actual stats then you skew your argument to make yourself look better. BTW, SEC Qbs still had a qb rating than Big XII qbs in Princes junior year as well. Big XII qbs had a better rating than SEC qbs in prince's frosh. and soph years. You can laugh all you want, but i provide stats that proved my argument about the last year and the year before. Also, I was talking about LAST YEAR. Thats when you laughed when i said SEC QB's were better than the Big XII qbs..now youre saying you werent talking about last year?

SEC has 6 qbs in the top 25 in passer rating while the Big XII only has two. So the qbs still play better than Big XII qbs AND they face better competition.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA....... You obviously havent watched football outside of the big XII. Big XII was weak this year compared to the talent in the SEC I live in Florida and I am quite exposed to SEC football. In fact, I see more ACC and SEC than Big 12 by far. The Big 12 may have been "weak" but over the past 3 years, the big 12 has much better WR's and especially QB's. You also don't see the variety of offenses in the SEC like you do the Big 12, especially in regards to passing, and the spread. CB's also have a much harder time covering in the Big 12 because they're aren't allowed to be as physical with WR's as in the SEC. Hm, lets see here Cam Newton, Ryan Mallet, Greg Mcelroy, Stephen Garcia and Jeremiah Masoli..or Blainne Gabbert, Landry Jones, Weeden, and Tennehill? Yeahh im going with the SEC batch on this one. Also, if you live in florida and if you are "quite exposed to SEC football" you would see that the SEC has bigger, physical and faster WRs than the Big XII. McElroy? Masoli? Garcia? HAHAHAHAHA...... McElroy hands the ball off. Masoli was terribad in a conference that plays defense. Garcia was benched like 3 times last year by his own coach. Mallett is good, as is Newton (and the Tebowchild).But that list pales in comparison to: Blaine Gabbert, Landry Jones,Brandon Weeden, Colt McCoy, Sam Bradford, etc.... And FYI, I'm not just talking about last year, I'm talking about over the players a careers. Prince has faced better QB's and WR's. You also completely ignored my comments pointing out the differences in offensive styles. And then there's also the difference in officiating styles, which greatly hinders (or helps) a defense. So, if you "watched football outside of the big XII" you would note the differences in play styles. I suggest you stop with the media hype of the SEC speed garbage. Southern "speed" is the biggest myth in football. Yet mcelroy, asoli and gracia are better then most of the big xii qbs besides gabbert and landry jones...that speed is realy overrated, how many NC's has the SEC won in a row? oh yeah..5. I hate SEC as much anyone on this board, but im not going to be a HOMER in my views. I find it funny that ppl complain about texas fans as being homers when our fanbase is just as bad...

AHAHAHAHAHAHA....... You obviously havent watched football outside of the big XII. Big XII was weak this year compared to the talent in the SEC I live in Florida and I am quite exposed to SEC football. In fact, I see more ACC and SEC than Big 12 by far. The Big 12 may have been "weak" but over the past 3 years, the big 12 has much better WR's and especially QB's. You also don't see the variety of offenses in the SEC like you do the Big 12, especially in regards to passing, and the spread. CB's also have a much harder time covering in the Big 12 because they're aren't allowed to be as physical with WR's as in the SEC. Hm, lets see here Cam Newton, Ryan Mallet, Greg Mcelroy, Stephen Garcia and Jeremiah Masoli..or Blainne Gabbert, Landry Jones, Weeden, and Tennehill? Yeahh im going with the SEC batch on this one. Also, if you live in florida and if you are "quite exposed to SEC football" you would see that the SEC has bigger, physical and faster WRs than the Big XII.

What about the link I provided from NFLDRAFTSCOUT.COM that stated that some teams have Prince slotted AHEAD of Peterson? An NFL Team is not going to share their big board with the public, so a link to this cannot be provided, but if this is being reported by a reputable source, then there has to be some of this sentiment amongst league personnel reps. Pretty sure that completely proved my point, which was that Prince is rated higher by some teams because he is more technically sound and polished AT THIS TIME. Peterson is the better athlete and future prospect. End of story. I still have yet to see anyone say prince is more technically sound and polished as Peterson. Peterson is a better corner in man coverage (your links even state this) so prince ant be that much more technically sound...Please tell me one source that specifically states Prince is more technically sound and polished than peterson? Also, I feel that how a player does in man to man is more important than zone, which is why i wouldgo with peterson anyday of the week. Scouts have stated that Peterson is a great man to man corner while prince isnt. I would think you are Petersons Butt Buddy from you pumping lead into him. Some husker fans are going to have Prince's back regardless of sources or insider information. Let it be, this is an opinion board, a Nebraska opinion board, get the hint. Resorting to personal attacks on a message board, very nice. I wish I could be like you, bub. Of course, me and DJR are bantering back and forth and we are both bringing up good points. Its nice to debate with someone who can bring their game. Of course, you dont exactly have to read the debate so i dont understand why youre chiming in. Although, just proved that Husker fans can be as big of homers as Texas fans...

What about the link I provided from NFLDRAFTSCOUT.COM that stated that some teams have Prince slotted AHEAD of Peterson? An NFL Team is not going to share their big board with the public, so a link to this cannot be provided, but if this is being reported by a reputable source, then there has to be some of this sentiment amongst league personnel reps. Pretty sure that completely proved my point, which was that Prince is rated higher by some teams because he is more technically sound and polished AT THIS TIME. Peterson is the better athlete and future prospect. End of story. I still have yet to see anyone say prince is more technically sound and polished as Peterson. Peterson is a better corner in man coverage (your links even state this) so prince ant be that much more technically sound...Please tell me one source that specifically states Prince is more technically sound and polished than peterson? Also, I feel that how a player does in man to man is more important than zone, which is why i wouldgo with peterson anyday of the week. Scouts have stated that Peterson is a great man to man corner while prince isnt.

AHAHAHAHAHAHA....... You obviously havent watched football outside of the big XII. Big XII was weak this year compared to the talent in the SEC

This made me giggle, how is prince more polished when peterson has been playing the cb position longer? Remember prince was CONVERTED to corner while cb is Peterson's NATURAL position. More polished means more experience and understands the position better, obviously peterson woul get the nod in that aspect. Peterson is faster than amukamara and its not even close. Have you even watched Peterson play at all? Peterson is a better coverage corner than prince and can be play better jam coverage. Just curious, how often have you watched Peterson play and tell me how his technique isnt as good a prince's? Also, Prince might be playing safety in the NFL considering scouts question his explosiveness, speed and ability to make plays on ball. But what do the nfl scouts know? Also, Peterson had made more plays on the ball than prince as well. Thread. Over. Watched Peterson plenty this year and he was thrown at a hell of a lot more than Prince. Peterson gave up more catches, more yards, and more TD's than Prince. Fact. He also had more picks too. He is a big time playmaker with tons of athletic skill, but his freakish athletic skills allow him to compensate for his sloppy technique and recover and make plays. Like I said in my first post, Prince is more polished, Peterson has more athletic ability. Like I said again, Prince is the better technician at corner, Peterson is the better athlete. Teams don't draft the best player now, they draft the best potential, which is why Peterson grades out higher. I have seen this from many draft experts and scouts. I would rather have a known commodity than a wildcard athlete. Vernon Gholston anyone? Seriously, this board has resorted to +1'ing this crap? Now THAT makes me giggle. http://thenationalfootballreport.com/2011/02/14/2011-nfl-draft-profile-patrick-peterson/ http://www.ninersnation.com/2011/1/19/1945174/2011-nfl-draft-56-underclassmen-declare-as-early-entrants http://www.saintsreport.com/forums/showthread.php?p=3692641 http://cdsdraft.com/profile.php?id=5041 /le sigh..Ok, here we go. Please link me those stats. I find it funny you somehow know the stats to an IMMESSURABLE stat. For instance, how can you say it was peterson's fault if they were playin zone coverage and Julio Jones (or whoever the other number one wr on the other team)caught a ball in another person's zone? So, please link me the stats to the bolded part in your post. please give me a link to where it says how many catches, touchdownds, yards that SPECIFICALLY Peterson and Prince gave up. Also, i spefically asked how Prines technique was better then Peterson's? I aso laugh that you ignore my link, which said Amukamara has sloppy technique yet you give other links saying Peterson's technique is sloppy. Also, your links are one person's opinion who IS NOT an nfl scout. Yes, because bloggers more knowledgeable than NFL scouts, yet they somehow ditched the nfl scouting gig to write blogs? Has fantastic hips and shows the ability to run with elite competition. Also, your links have stated peterson is BETTER man to man corner, and in the nfl you NEED to be a great man on man cb. So your links, in a way, prove my point. Your links, when you compare the two, have stated Peterson is a better man to man corner..so his technique must not be that bad if they would still prefer Peterson in man coverage. Also, your links still have Peterson listed has better CORNERBACK than Amukamara, which shows that the "technique" wouldnt make that much of a difference. Also, Peterson has played against better competition than Amukmara..did you see what prince did against Blackmon? In the nfl you have to be a decent jam cb, which is something Amukamara lacks. Also, Peterson doesnt get beat s much in man to man as amukamara sine peterson is better at staying in the hip pocket of the WR. Which NFL scouts have said Amukamara is a better cornerback than Peterson at this specific moment in time? Please link me to a scout that says "prince amukamara is a better cb than Peterson?" Most of the links you posted ARE NOT nfl scouts opinions, they are more like one person's opinion. I have yet to see a reference to an NFL scout in ANY of your links.. One last point i would like to make. If Prince has such a better technique then Peterson then WHY is peterson a better man to man cb? Technique is more important in man coverage than zone coverage. P.S., i find it funny that you are complaining about people +1 a post that disagrees with you, very mature mr. Mod. Also, I would like to hear how Prince's technique is better than Peterson's or are you going to ignore that question? Mayock and Kiper echo what I have stated thus far. You provided one link that proved your point, I provided 4 that prove my point. My PERSONAL opinion was that Prince was the better corner RIGHT NOW, because that is what this poll is reflecting. WHO IS THE BEST CORNER, RIGHT NOW. I have stated that Peterson has the better upside because of his freakish ability, but Prince is the best pure technician in the draft (something Kiper stated word for word). It's like arguing what you think is better, a Ferrarri or an Aston Martin. I think Prince is the best at this position at this point in time. Peterson is the better athlete and could be a shutdown NFL corner when he gets some more polish. I never once said that Prince is the better PROSPECT, I said he is the better CORNER RIGHT NOW. As far as Peterson's technique, from what I have seen is that he solely relies upon his athletic ability and playmaking ability and may not be as technically sound. Prince is a little more fluid but not as explosive. Most assessments I have read echo this sentiment as well. As far as the statistics of "thrown at, completed, yards, TDs" it was posted in one of the last games of the year, possibly the Holiday Bowl, comparing the 2 Corners. Prince was not challenged as much, gave up less catches, yards and TDs. I applaud someone who can locate this and post. Also, I did not complain about someone +1'ing that post, I said it made me giggle. You took my original post and made it into something that it wasn't and someone agreed with you. I thought it was humorous. Mayock and Kiper ARE NOT nfl scouts. Once again, I go by nfl scouts, not the "wannabe" NFL Scouts. IF they were so good at scouting, they would have a job witih a professional team, but do they? No they dont. As of right now, Kiper still thinks Peterson is the cornerback, which is why peterson is higher than Amukamara on his draft board. Please give me an actual link where Kiper or anyone else has said Amukamara is the better cb right now (word for word.) Your 4 links didnt prove your point because they all listed Peterson as the better cb than prince, which is why peterson was the number 1 cb. All your links state Peterson is a great man to man cb while prince isnt so good in man to man. Yep, Peterson's technique is so much worse than prince, thats why Peterson is the better man to man cb. (even scous an your links have stated the to man comparison. If you use stats to back up on argument, please show a table an a link. Anyone can make up stats and then say "i seen at awhile ago" but most stats are made up, hence why i wanted a link. Taken from his latest mock draft having Prince going 9th to the Cowboys: http://thelandryhat.com/2011/01/20/mel-kipers-first-mock-draft-prince-amukamara-to-cowboys/ I wish I could find the stat info in a consolidated "official" source, but I cannot. What I could find was that Prince relinquished 18 catches on 54 pass attempts, compared to 23 out of 48 against Peterson (not sure where the LSU fans got the Peterson stats). Didn't recall the pass attempts number being that high, but could have been. http://www.cornnation.com/2011/1/18/1941462/2011-nfl-draft-prince-amukamara-needs-some-husker-love-too http://www.tigerdroppings.com/rant/p/23511581/Patrick-Peterson-or-Prince-Amukamara.aspx According to Rob Rang of NFLDraftScout.com, some teams like Prince MORE than Peterson. This could be because of the style of defense that that particular team plays, their current personnel needs, or just their own analysis of game film. I don't know. Sounds awful similar to what I have said. http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/draft/players/1263300 To recap, the stats from this season that I could find (thrown at #'s not CONFIRMED) Prince: 18/54 11 PBU 0 INT PP: 23/48 6 PBU 4 INT Nothing I post is going to sway your opinion, but this is ample evidence to support my opinion and the point I made. I find it funny how your links have prince's ranking as second in cbs while Peterson is first.. Yes, Kiper has prince going at 9 but he also has peterson going on at 7. Peterson was also up against better wrs and qbs. Therefore, if you look at the numbers, they put up identical numbers (this is IF the lsu fans are even corret) while Peterson played superior competition. Dont get me wrong, prince is a good cb but Peterson is just a tad bit better. Also, your links dont prove the points you made because they even have prince second best at his psition, behind Peterson!