DocNice

Totally a bull call. The hands to the face was questionable as well. So was the helmet to helmet on Ebner. Ebner made a perfect form tackle. Sometimes helmets hit. Lots of bad calls in that game.

The reason I'm not sold is that Suh knocked it loose. Did he not know he knocked it loose? Did he not feel Gabbert lunge for it? I've played enough to know that you usually know when the ball is loose, especially when you knock it free. No, I think he was sending a message. Some people think that's part of the game. I don't. But this is much ado about nothing. I apologize for making it an issue.

I just watched it again. I could go either way I suppose. But I do think it was a pivotal play.

Respect to MU defense...they were much better than I thought. Thanks, though I do think NU's got some soul searching to do on their passing game. You just can't allow teams to stack the box like that against you. Or at least you gotta make them pay. Maybe the rain had something to do with it too.

Well, your secondary certainly played much better than I expected. I don't know how much credit I'm willing to give just yet for being an elite squad. I think the credit really goes to your defensive line for getting pressure with 4 down linemen, allowing you to drop 7 into coverage. I mean, when we had 5 pro receivers on the field at the same time with a Heisman finalist QB, we could overcome that. With 2 all conference level receivers and a good but young QB with a bad plant foot, well, that's what happens with 7 in coverage. I still like our receivers and still think we have one of the best units in the conference, but there's only so much you can do.

Well, I could be speaking from emotion. If he didn't know the ball was gone, then it wasn't dirty. I just thought he did.

In the end it's about who makes plays. You made them. I wouldn't worry about the Offensive line. I told you guys we have some really good talent there, and I also said the strength of our run defense was the perimeter. You kept running into our strength. You did a lot better at the end punching it right at us, and that might be a little bit of the coaches fault for not calling a beter game.

Obviously I'm disappointed in our finish. But that was an excellent defensive job by the Huskers, and the offense had just enough juice to pull it out. I think the rain was an issue for both teams with dropped balls, and didn't really favor either one in the end. The game honestly went about as I expected. I thought NU would run a little better, but I also thought Mizzou was a bit underrated there. I knew the exterior run defense was solid due to our speed, and NU didn't try to go up the gut enough. Mizzou played aggressive and it eventually bit them on the long pass, but overall played great. The second TD was just a jump ball. Could have been an interception as easily as a TD, so I can't blame them there. And you just can't give your opponent the ball on the 10 yard line. Disappointed in the inability to get it back and the end though. Nebraska, honestly, played terrible on offense until the final quarter, though Mizozu's defense had something to do with that. Lee finally got some swagger, but he's got some serious growing to do. His receivers did him no favors (you need to recruit there big time) but he was off target and rattled most of the game. Hopefully he can grow from this, because this is 2 consecutive road games where he's struggled. That's enough in a defensive battle, but not in a high-scoring match. I didn't like the officiating at all. Some of those holds were very questionable, although they called it consistently, and we didn't adjust. Both the calls on Suh were tough, and the personal foul on Ebner was bull as well. Sometimes helmets collide. It's football. And dragging a player down by the jersey is not a horsecollar. I just hate when officials make it about them. In the end, it didn't really favor one team other than to make it low scoring. Mizzou had a bunch of drives killed by penalties, especially early. The hold at the end was just a killer though. Mizzou was able to run a little bit on the 4 man front, but not as well as they should have. That was really a key in the game. The other key, and in my mind, the main key, was the injury to Gabbert. After that, NU didn't really have to respect Gabbert on the keeper and made the run defense way easier. I know he got the TD on it and kept it a couple of times, but they knew Gabbert couldn't get big yards that way. And more importantly, he couldn't plant properly. He was actually throwing off his front foot, which is a testament to his arm strength, but you could see it in his passes. They were low, off target and a little late. NU played tight defense, but we did have some windows that we couldn't capitalize on that I think Gabbert would normally hit. He was 5 of 8 before that play, with 2 of the incompletions coming on 2nd/3rd and 25 after the penalty, and he had rushed for a first down. I'm personally not real happy with Suh on that one. I like Suh, I've never thought of him as dirty. But I read an article earlier today about how he's working with a former player on bringing attitude, and how it wasn't a dirty play when he tweaked Tyrod Taylor because he was just sending a message. Bullcrap. A dirty play is a dirty play no matter how you justify it, and I remember thinking that well before this play. The extracurricular he gave Gabbert was entirely unnecessary and unrelated to the play, and possibly changed the outcome of the game. The only possible defense for that is he didn't think Gabbert had lost the ball, but I don't believe that for a second. He took a defenseless player and bent him over backwards with his legs behind him simply to send a message. That's not physical. That's not intimidating. That's dirty. Even when you get away with it. Anyway, I don't want to focus too much on that. Injuries happen and you move on. But I do think it had an effect. Nebraska's D was dominant, and even without that, we were going to put up 30, but we would have scored more. On the flip side, Nebraska is lucky its mistakes didn't take them out of the game. Special teams in particular was just awful. Credit the defense for getting those big stops. They hung in there and were opportunistic, setting up the offense with good field position. I think your defense was impressive today, but I also think that this race isn't over, and we've got a very good shot at beating you next year as well. Coming in, I though this was going to be a good game, but I thought Mizzou was better. I'm not sure this game entirely changed my mind, but I did get a healthy dose of respect for NU, especially the defense, and ultimately the matchups ended up in NU's favor. I can tell this is a game that's going to be a hot one for years and I'll be glad when Suh is playing on Sundays and not eating up our offensive line.

Hope Helu is ok. Hate to beat a team because of an injury.

Freeman was never top 10 in yardage, passing efficiency or total offense.

Torrential downpour with severe thunderstorms is the latest forecast. This worries me a lot to be honest. Rain tends to reduce the advantage of quickness and speed and favors power.

I must have missed your response to my position by position breakdown, or the head to head matchups. Yep, classic troll tactics.

double post

Again, show where he has been treated poorly. Provide examples. 90% of our interactions with him have been discussion of stats and situations in games. You seem to be saying that because we disagree with what he's saying and provide stats and/or examples of where our opinions differ, that this is somehow bad. Further, his points are erroneous. He intentionally leaves out information, he misquotes or mistakes stats, and he consistently paints every situation in favor of his Tigers, whether the facts warrant them or not. Several of us, me included, have pointed out the errors in his logic or information. We've done it civilly, and without name-calling. For this, you feel the need to publicly apologize for our behavior? You are way off base here. Embarrassingly so. For record, I think I've been treated very well here. I do tend to try to drum up conversation. That means pushing the envelope a little bit. I try to be respectful, but let's be honest, how boring would it be if I just came here and said, "You guys are so awesome, I sure hope Thursday's game is good. Good luck." Seriously, that would be lame. I appreciate the kind words from Travis though and glad that he feels I haven't pushed it too much. However, since Knapplc has gone out of his way to call me out, I hope the rest of the board will be patient enough to allow me to respond. First, what I do at Tigerboard is relevant to Tigerboard. I don't hide my identity or choose another handle. But I don't come here and complain about one of your posters not being respectful enough to Mizzou. Whether what I post there is what I really feel or just me having fun doesn't really matter, but you're welcome to engage me in debate either here or there if I say something you don't like. Second, Knapp, earlier I saw someone post something very nice about you. They said you were only swayed by really solid, logical posts supported by evidence. It sounded like you a wise old spock able to see above the fray. I have to say, I don't think you're quite living up to those standards. That's not to say you don't in general like evidence-based arguments, but IMHO you're not quite the wise old spock. As you mentioned, I'm a mod at Tigerboard. That doesn't give me any kind of credibility. Hell, Nick probably only puts up with me because I'm one of the only people mods that can suffer the politics board and keep it in line. But it does mean I've been at this a while, and I've seen just about every kind of poster and every kind of argument. Particularly on the politics board, you'd better have your ducks in a row or you're going to look stupid. What I'm trying to say is, I feel like I've also got a reputation as someone who is swayed by a logical, evidence-based argument. Where I think you're falling short, IMHO, is this. If someone makes a claim supported by evidence, you can effectively argue your point of view by doing one of two things: 1) Argue directly against the evidence. Example: Arrelius Benn is not a top receiver in the Big Ten. Response: He is projected as the 2nd receiver taken in the draft. Or 2) I can provide evidence that does not directly address your evidence, but instead supports my argument. Example: Illinois is a cupcake. They are 1-3 and they suck. Response, they have the best receiving corps in the Big Ten and the returning leader in Total Offense in the conference. This is not the talent of a cupcake. Now, if I understand your beef with me correctly, you say I "ignore" the evidence that doesn't support me. Well no, I take that into account and provide other evidence that does support me. It's rarely black and white. However, the biggest sin I see in your accusation is that you haven't argued these things directly to me as far as I've seen. If you think I'm misquoting stats, then point that out. If you think I'm taking the best case scenario for the Tigers, say why you think it's not a balanced view. I know I'm a homer, and I've been wrong before, but I also try to set that aside when evaluating the Tigers as best I can even if it's not entirely possible. It was a homer thing to say Nevada was a good team when they started 0-3. But I saw what I saw, and when they put up 773 yards of offense against a mediocre but not bad team, it didn't seem like such a homer opinion to me. So when I say I see "XYX" about our team that's not showing up in the stats, I hope you'll take that into consideration. By the same token, if you say "I know our defensive ends are racking up a ton of sacks, but I really like the pressure they get on the QB" then I would similarly take that into account. Lastly, I don't want to turn this into a personal pissing match. I'll watch for your response, and I'll read it, take it into account even if I find it wrong, and let it go. If you want to talk to me more, register at Tigerboard and we can talk via the board or instant message. I don't want to ruin everyone else's day here because of our beef. P.S. - Knapp, I do feel a little bad that you've taken me the wrong way. Perhaps I've crossed the line and if so, I apologize. I've enjoyed talking with you, and always thought that we just disagreed because we're homers. I think we both agree that each team is capable of beating the other and we both think we have the edge. Ultimately, this is how things should be.