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.

Here, I'll provide context clues for you: These guys (Williams, Benn, and Fayson) may have been good at one time (previous years), but right now (the 2009 season) they are licking (licking) the bottom of the barrel (You know, the bottom of a barrel, meaning, they aren't playing well). Saying somebody isn't playing well does not mean they aren't good, it means they aren't playing well. All great players have bad games, if they didn't football wouldn't be as fun. Regardless of what you may have inferred, I am not saying Mizzou hasn't faced some talent. I'm saying you are putting them (including the other cupcake teams) on a pedestal they are undeserving of at this point in the season. I'm personally not putting our cupcake teams any where other than where they belong. The broad point I am trying to get through is that our cupcake non-cons are so similar that it is futile to argue over which better. I will find 1,000,000 reasons as to why I think you are wrong, and you will attempt to do the same to me. There is nothing wrong with using non-con as a gauging, but it appears at times you are taking it to levels it is unworthy of. IF you were right, maybe not playing well has something to do with who they've played and who is around them. I think it's funny you admit that we've faced some talent, but then go on to say that our "cupcakes" are basically indistinguishable. Your sole claim to fame is that Arkansas State made a game against a Big 10 team look somewhat close with a late score. This is the same team that lost at home to Troy mind you. The same Troy that BG beat on the road. Oh yeah, powerhouses. So I ask you again. Which of your cupcakes is a mid level BCS conference team? Which of them has a player capable of leading a BCS conference in total yards, or has a first round draft pick, or the equivalent of the top unit in a BCS conference at any position? Which of your cupcakes is capable of putting up 773 yards on anyone? The fact is that Nevada and Illinois are way better than anyone you've beaten, and BG is about as good. The "pedestal" I'm putting them on is simply defending them from the "cupcake" charge you seem to want to throw around. They are obviously not cupcakes, and both were good enough to teach us about ourselves.

And around and around the circle we go... The simple point I'm making is that none of these players you are revering have produced anything worth bragging about thus far in the season. Juice's numbers are bad and so are Benn's and Fayson's. It is rather irrelevant that Benn is on a mock 2010 draft board. If he continues on his current pace, he will be a late round draft pick at best. It is laughable to even consider this tandem is a forced to be reckoned with at this time in the season, considering their production. That said, you are only as good as your team will let you be, and considering Illinois is bad at a lot of positions, this makes these guys look bad. But, you misread my post. I said that Benn was not in the top categories in the Big 10. I did not say he wasn't good. I said, and I quote, "these guys aren't having big impacts in any way shape or form." You may take that as me calling them bad, but you are mistaken. I am saying these guys are not performing in a way that gives credence to any of your opinions on them. These guys may have been good at one time, but right now they are licking the bottom of the barrel. I'm finished discussing our cupcakes with you, because there is just no logical way to converse with you about this topic. You say "I did not say he wan't good" and then go on to say "these guys may have been good at one time, but right now they are licking the bottom of the barrel." Which is it? The fact is that Mizzou has faced some talent and some playmakers and done pretty well.

Who are you even talking about? Juice Williams? Who did he (or whoever you are talking about) put up 773 yards on? A bottom feeder? And since we are going to get personal... What reality am I refusing to accept, exactly? Your reality? The numbers obviously don't support that. The reality, friend, is that Williams numbers are atrocious, yet when confronted with the facts you don't accept it or even consider it. Apparently because he faced Missouri, he's good. Who are Benn and Fayson? Is Benn the guy who is only in the top 15 (in the Big 10 mind you) in longest receptions, and isn't sniffing the top 15 in any other category? Is Fayson the guy who is has 11 catches for 119 yards through four games, and isn't in the top 25 in ANY category? The same guy who has 1 touchdown catch in four games? So far, these guys aren't having big impacts in any way shape or form. How can you be taken seriously, when you never directly confront the facts when somebody shows them to you? Some of your thoughts are bordering on plain ignorance. You are dipping and diving around my posts and coming up with things that have little if anything to do with what I'm talking about. I'm not trying to be rude or insulting, but those are Juice's numbers through four games. How can you say he has anything to brag about, or that Mizzou has anything to brag about? Juice has faced 3 top 25 offenses in 4 games, and two of them are in the top 6. The fact remains, he is a very dangerous player, and led the Big 10 in total offense last year. Those a facts. We've got 3.5 years of evidence to know just how good Juice is, and the answer is: pretty good. But you want to throw all of that away because of 4 games this year? At least that's got some kind of flimsy argument behind it though. When you say Benn isn't a top receiver, you just lose all credibility on the subject. The top 3 links that come up on Google for 2010 mock draft all show him as a first rounder. 2 of them have him the second WR taken in the draft, and the most credible, Sports Illustrated, has him listed as a top 10 pick. So yeah, he's not one of the top 15 receivers in the Big 10. Whatever. Fayson won't be coming out this year, but he's a sure draft pick when he does. CollegeFootballNews called this the best WR corps in the Big Ten and one of the best in the country. As for "whatever" team put up 773 yards. Umm, it was Nevada. I told you they were clicking and better than their record, and said as evidence watch the Mizzou game tape, but nobody wanted to listen to me. They saw 0-3 and looked no further. Not that it matters, but they did it against 2-2 UNLV, which has dropped 2 games by a combined 5 points, including to Oregon State. I'm not trying to say they're a good team, only that they're not Florida Atlantic either. And like I said, it doesn't matter. 773 yards is beyond recognition. That's about 100 yards better than the next best ass whooping any top 5 team has laid on even an FCS squad. Are any of your opponents capable of doing that?

Well, the stats directly support the part I quoted from you. The quote in question did not mention Furman at all, therefore I brought in the entire non-con. And I'm confused by your whole discussion on points. Of the 52 season points? I assume you mean the 52 points you scored against Furman, because MU has given up more than 52 points total thus far. But even if that is what you are talking about, that is not what I was discussing in my post at all. I was discussing defensive numbers and 1st team vs. 2nd team defense. So I didn't really "leave" points off my analysis, because offense wasn't part of my analysis in any way. Sorry, I meant 62. If your entire post is about your starter allowing, on average, maybe a TD more than your starters allowed against the supposed "cupcakes" of our respective schedules, I'll take that, because our "cupcakes" are a bit better IMHO. Our "cupcakes" include a mid-level BCS conference team and a team that just posted close to 800 yards of offense yesterday. The only human poll I know that ranks every team agrees with me. Unless of course you equate stopping Florida Atlantic to stopping Juice Williams, Arrellious Benn and Jared Fayson. Or perhaps I missed the game where your best cupcake, Arkansas State, posted 500 yards rushing? Our "best" cupcake almost beat a pretty good Iowa team yesterday, in a game that came down to the final minutes. A team we beat 38-9, which says something. And is this the same Juice Williams that has been sacked 10 times, thrown 4 interceptions, 1 touchdown pass, and is completing just around 57% of his passes? The same Juice Williams that only generates 129.8 yards of offense per game? Sounds like a world-beater... And those two guys are WR's right? At least they are according to the Illinois website. These two guys aren't even listed in the top 25 WR's in the Big 10 according to rivals... Let's not even start with who's cupcakes are worse. Just look at Bowling Green..they are 1-4, lost to Marshall by a touchdown ( a team VaTech made look like a high school team ) and got absolutely trounced by Boise State, and yet MU only beat them by 10 during a very close game. There are a million reasons as to why we could go back and forth between who's non-con and cupcakes were worse. The argument is too circular. No, it's pretty much you just refusing to accept reality. Tell me, which player have you faced that led a BCS conference in total offense? Which team have you beaten capable of putting up 773 yards? And if you don't even know who Benn and Fayson are, how can you be taken seriously? Benn is in the conversation as the best receiver in the country, and Fayson is a Florida transfer that Urban Meyer says he wishes would have stayed, because he had a chance to be their top target. He'd be the best receiver on about 100 teams.

Well, the stats directly support the part I quoted from you. The quote in question did not mention Furman at all, therefore I brought in the entire non-con. And I'm confused by your whole discussion on points. Of the 52 season points? I assume you mean the 52 points you scored against Furman, because MU has given up more than 52 points total thus far. But even if that is what you are talking about, that is not what I was discussing in my post at all. I was discussing defensive numbers and 1st team vs. 2nd team defense. So I didn't really "leave" points off my analysis, because offense wasn't part of my analysis in any way. Sorry, I meant 62. If your entire post is about your starter allowing, on average, maybe a TD more than your starters allowed against the supposed "cupcakes" of our respective schedules, I'll take that, because our "cupcakes" are a bit better IMHO. Our "cupcakes" include a mid-level BCS conference team and a team that just posted close to 800 yards of offense yesterday. The only human poll I know that ranks every team agrees with me. Unless of course you equate stopping Florida Atlantic to stopping Juice Williams, Arrellious Benn and Jared Fayson. Or perhaps I missed the game where your best cupcake, Arkansas State, posted 500 yards rushing?

I don't get to see too much local coverage due to living in California. But the national press has been pretty admiring of Gabbert, and I've already seen him high on draft charts. Plus, the stats are impressive. Top 10 in yardage, total offense and passer rating means he's not just all pro potential and no college impact like Josh Freeman. But I think one thing that separates Gabbert from Lee are the measurables. I'll take your word for it that Lee has a monster arm like Gabbert, but 6-5 240 is pretty nice compared to 6-2 210. But of course that matters more at the next level. But also, Gabbert is really fast. 4.5 40 yard dash. It's pretty common for defenders to take the wrong angle on him. Most of that speed is straight ahead, he's not a slasher or juker so much. But he beat Jacory Harris in the 40 yard dash at the elite 11 camp, and most consider him a great running QB.

This is Nebraska's yards per half and points allowed in the first four games. Vs. FAU: 1st Half: FAU had 231 yards. Second Half: 197 Points Allowed: 3 Vs. ASU 1st Half: ASU had 153 yards. Second Half: 156 Points Allowed: 9 Vs. VaTech 1st Half: VaTech had 125 yards. Second Half: 145 Points Allowed: 16 Vs. ULL: 1st Half: ULL had 173 yards. Second Half: 78 Points Allowed: 0 This is Missouri's yards per half and points allowed in the first four games. Vs. ILL: 1st Half: ILL had 171 yards. Second Half: 185 Points Allowed: 9 Vs. BG: 1st Half: BG had 142 yards. Second Half: 139 Points Allowed: 20 Vs. Furman 1st Half: Furman had 121 yards. Second Half: 246 Points Allowed: 12 Vs. Nevada 1st Half: Nevada had 161 yards. Second Half: 208 Points Allowed: 21 What does all this information show us? First, yards don't mean anything. As you can see our teams gave up comparable amounts of yards, but Missouri's defense bend and broke, while Nebraska's did not. Second, the notion that you gave up all of your yards to the second teamers was just debunked, considering you had two games where the amounts of yards given up in both halves were nearly identical. If anything, these numbers prove that Missouri's second teamers are not as good as Nebraska's, meaning we have more depth. Third, they prove your entire post was speculation. Numbers provided by Huskers.com and mutigers.com. That's an incomplete analysis at best. First, I specifically referenced, Furman, and those stats directly support my assertion. And you left points off your half by half analysis. Of the 52 season points, 25 of them, or nearly half, we scored after the game's outcome was clearly decided. Unlike OU, which like to pour it on until the final tick to impress voters, Mizzou plays their backups so they can get better.

That offensive line is just plain not good. It will still be a tough game, but definitely winnable. Looks like the South draw just got easier for you.

Is that the same Furman that passed for 300 yards against Missouri? Is that like giving up 358 yards to Florida Atlantic, one of the Bottom 10 teams in the country according to ESPN? At least "one of the bottom ten teams in the country" is actually FBS division. And that was 358 TOTAL offensive yards. Mizzou gave up over 400 yards to Furman... an FCS team. Of course, all of those yards and points came against our backups. FAU got yards and points against your first team. Oh yeah, cupcake smack.

"I don't see where all the excitement is." - in referring to Zac Lee. Where is all the excitement for Gabbert? His 4 wins against bottom of the barrel football teams? We may have lost to VaTech, but at least we played somebody and gauged how good we really are. How does Missouri know how good they are? You are never done testing yourself. But it's safe to say that Gabbert is a pretty good QB. We've tested ourselves enough to know that. Well I think it's irrefutable that Gabbert is and will be a good QB, but I don't know how this guy can have an opinion like this. I mean I look at it this way. Gabbert has had great numbers against poor defenses. Lee had great numbers against poor defenses, and bad numbers against a good defense with a broken thumb for the second half. So what do we know? Gabbert can get it done against bad teams, and so can Lee. Lee had trouble with a great defense, and Gabbert...well we don't know. I think it's safe to say both are great QB's. Zac Lee's troubles weren't all his own fault. Against VaTech, 1 interception was an up for grabs end of game pass and many of his incompletions came to receivers dropping balls. I expect Lee to step it up in Columbia, with a tougher road game already under his belt despite the loss. Hey, I've got nothing against Lee. I fully expect that he'll play better against Mizzou than he did against VT. I don't think he'll carve us up at will, but he'll play better. I do think that Gabbert is better, but I admit that's only a partially formed opinion based on stats, hype, Lee and Gabbert's games so far, and a little bit of homer vision.