74Hunter

Those 6 straight runs were so we could pass it with the wind. At some point, don't you expect your QB to not make freshman mistakes...AS A JUNIOR? Maybe the 2 "quarterback gurus" drawing 6 and 7 figure incomes could actually coach up their 3rd year starter.

I figured Langsdork was about to go bombs away. Those 6 straight runs were probably killing him

Nice call, Langsahan

That'll work

I'll take that. Careful on the sideline hits though

Time management, tho

Dang

80 was pretty decent around midnight, fwiw.

It's probably that whole moving goalposts thing. Sorry that "life" sometimes gets in the way of a game played by young men.

Sounds like a statement made by one who doesn't have to drive on a sheet of ice. Is going to a football game worth risking your life?

Not sure where you're coming from, but in the Omaha area, the roads are just wet, not really icy yet.

I haven't read every post, but what he did was dumb.Should've said something like "the police are investigating an incident that occurred at my residence. Since the investigation is ongoing, I cannot further comment on it. I can tell you that at this time I am not being accused of any wrongdoing ( if true). I really don't care how this affects the team, this is much bigger than any football game. How would that be any better than what he actually said? ("From what were hearing, everything was consensual.") : Um, it's quite a bit better actually. His opinion on whether she was raped or not is irrelevant if he didn't witness it so he should have kept his mouth shut. His opinion on it comes from the word of some of his buddies. Saying he can't comment on it is way better than saying from what he heard this woman, who went to the hospital and caused 5 cops to come to his house, wasn't really raped. So, if the statement that Tommy heard turned out to be false, do you think he could be sued for defamation or something? I just don't see how he could get into trouble for that statement. In what other possible way could that get him into trouble? Sure, you and I would have handled it differently. But we're not 22 year old college students. Tommy apparently felt he had to say something, and I just don't think what he said is that big of a deal. He's 22, not 18. You should know by then if accused ad something of this level to lawyer up.The university should be telling the kids the same thing. If you get in trouble, don't talk to the police or press. Call us or your lawyer first even if you think you've done nothing wrong. You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. (I'm talking about the brief statement Tommy made. Not the crime itself.) What Tommy said wasn't that big of a deal. Did you have a lawyer at age 22? I didn't. In fact, I still have never engaged a criminal lawyer. Then again, I've never committed any crime. Or at least I've never committed any crime worse than taking too many free baloney bite samples from the local butcher. lol Off topic, but I'd be shocked if any poster hadn't committed a crime ( even if inadvertently), I know I have done plenty. Speeding, public urination, spitting on a public sidewalk, not coming to be 3 second stop before turning, jaywalking, etc.But anyway, back to the topic. Its not about defamation, it's about looking really, really bad. Stating that the police said "they should be fine" can be interpreted that the police are going to sweep this under the rug, saying that it was consensual is hearsay. How much time do you think Tommy had before he made his comments? Do you think he had well thought out and prepared statements to give or do you think what he said was more on the fly, being pressured by the press to comment on the situation? I'm betting on the latter.Doesn't matter. Then a simple "no comment" would suffice. It doesn't take an experienced attorney to do that for you, it's common sense. And again we're back to the sh#tstorm that would ensue around this situation about Tommy being guilty because of no comment. Tommy looks much more innocent from an outsiders perspective by commenting on the situation, which if he's innocent, I'm sure that's what he wants. When you are innocent you typically have the mentality of "nothing to hide". As already stated in this thread, if Tommy ends up being guilty then he's a moron for his comments.True. But Imo, it was still a poor statement to make.

I haven't read every post, but what he did was dumb.Should've said something like "the police are investigating an incident that occurred at my residence. Since the investigation is ongoing, I cannot further comment on it. I can tell you that at this time I am not being accused of any wrongdoing ( if true). I really don't care how this affects the team, this is much bigger than any football game. How would that be any better than what he actually said? ("From what were hearing, everything was consensual.") : Um, it's quite a bit better actually. His opinion on whether she was raped or not is irrelevant if he didn't witness it so he should have kept his mouth shut. His opinion on it comes from the word of some of his buddies. Saying he can't comment on it is way better than saying from what he heard this woman, who went to the hospital and caused 5 cops to come to his house, wasn't really raped. So, if the statement that Tommy heard turned out to be false, do you think he could be sued for defamation or something? I just don't see how he could get into trouble for that statement. In what other possible way could that get him into trouble? Sure, you and I would have handled it differently. But we're not 22 year old college students. Tommy apparently felt he had to say something, and I just don't think what he said is that big of a deal. He's 22, not 18. You should know by then if accused ad something of this level to lawyer up.The university should be telling the kids the same thing. If you get in trouble, don't talk to the police or press. Call us or your lawyer first even if you think you've done nothing wrong. You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. (I'm talking about the brief statement Tommy made. Not the crime itself.) What Tommy said wasn't that big of a deal. Did you have a lawyer at age 22? I didn't. In fact, I still have never engaged a criminal lawyer. Then again, I've never committed any crime. Or at least I've never committed any crime worse than taking too many free baloney bite samples from the local butcher. lol Off topic, but I'd be shocked if any poster hadn't committed a crime ( even if inadvertently), I know I have done plenty. Speeding, public urination, spitting on a public sidewalk, not coming to be 3 second stop before turning, jaywalking, etc. But anyway, back to the topic. Its not about defamation, it's about looking really, really bad. Stating that the police said "they should be fine" can be interpreted that the police are going to sweep this under the rug, saying that it was consensual is hearsay. How much time do you think Tommy had before he made his comments? Do you think he had well thought out and prepared statements to give or do you think what he said was more on the fly, being pressured by the press to comment on the situation? I'm betting on the latter. Doesn't matter. Then a simple "no comment" would suffice. It doesn't take an experienced attorney to do that for you, it's common sense.

It could have happened while she was asleep, then she woke up and figured out what happened. Or since they were at a party alcohol may have been involved. I never buy that as an excuse. If you choose to drink then you need to understand that the things you do while under the influence may or may not be agreeable to you when you sober up, but it was YOUR decision to drink so you get to live with the consequences of your actions. (When I use the word you in this post, I don't necessarily mean you Moiraine.)Elf, just no. Maybe the way she was dressed, "she was just asking for it" too? No. If she says yes while drunk, or even because she was drunk, when she sobers up it doesn't become rape. And no I was not implying that by drinking that she was "asking for it". *Edit* I've heard some information within the last 12 hours that leads me to believe this. That's all I'm saying. You said "it was YOUR decision to drink so you get to live with the consequences of your actions". This is disgusting to hear, and honestly, if that is how you feel, I am ashamed for you.You are now saying that agreeing to sex while drunk gives the women no legal rights. However, consent cannot be given by someone who is mentally incapable or physically helpless, including as a result of alcohol. You want consequences for actions, well don't sleep with someone who is drunk; otherwise, you can live with the consequences when they sober up. I was going to say that I think that in the state of Nebraska having sex with an inebriated person ( drugs or booze) is considered to be sexual assault. I could have misunderstood that however. If that is correct, I'm not so sure that i know too many people who haven't engaged in sex either while inebriated or with someone that was. Not that it makes it right.

I haven't read every post, but what he did was dumb. Should've said something like "the police are investigating an incident that occurred at my residence. Since the investigation is ongoing, I cannot further comment on it. I can tell you that at this time I am not being accused of any wrongdoing ( if true). I really don't care how this affects the team, this is much bigger than any football game. How would that be any better than what he actually said? ("From what were hearing, everything was consensual.") : Um, it's quite a bit better actually. His opinion on whether she was raped or not is irrelevant if he didn't witness it so he should have kept his mouth shut. His opinion on it comes from the word of some of his buddies. Saying he can't comment on it is way better than saying from what he heard this woman, who went to the hospital and caused 5 cops to come to his house, wasn't really raped. So, if the statement that Tommy heard turned out to be false, do you think he could be sued for defamation or something? I just don't see how he could get into trouble for that statement. In what other possible way could that get him into trouble? Sure, you and I would have handled it differently. But we're not 22 year old college students. Tommy apparently felt he had to say something, and I just don't think what he said is that big of a deal. He's 22, not 18. You should know by then if accused ad something of this level to lawyer up. The university should be telling the kids the same thing. If you get in trouble, don't talk to the police or press. Call us or your lawyer first even if you think you've done nothing wrong. You guys are making a mountain out of a mole hill. (I'm talking about the brief statement Tommy made. Not the crime itself.) What Tommy said wasn't that big of a deal. Did you have a lawyer at age 22? I didn't. In fact, I still have never engaged a criminal lawyer. Then again, I've never committed any crime. Or at least I've never committed any crime worse than taking too many free baloney bite samples from the local butcher. lol Off topic, but I'd be shocked if any poster hadn't committed a crime ( even if inadvertently), I know I have done plenty. Speeding, public urination, spitting on a public sidewalk, not coming to be 3 second stop before turning, jaywalking, etc. But anyway, back to the topic. Its not about defamation, it's about looking really, really bad. Stating that the police said "they should be fine" can be interpreted that the police are going to sweep this under the rug, saying that it was consensual is hearsay.

I haven't read every post, but what he did was dumb. Should've said something like "the police are investigating an incident that occurred at my residence. Since the investigation is ongoing, I cannot further comment on it. I can tell you that at this time I am not being accused of any wrongdoing ( if true). I really don't care how this affects the team, this is much bigger than any football game.

Fortunately for the rest of us, nothing in this post is at all accurate.

Wait...what am I missing here? Riley beat a Top 10 team in Michigan State... It's a little confusing. Michigan Dad posted how many games were played each year against top 10 teams and how many were won. LoMS posted the respective coaches actual records. The only stat that means anything is zero. Zero championships in US football. So we should have hired someone who'd already won a national championship. Got it. That'd be great. A conference championship or two would be ok. Heck, even a single lone division championship would be a better resume.

Big miss. I posted Nates quote where, in plain simple English he states the buy in is regarding the "3 game season." Fact. People are entitled to their own opinions, not their own facts. If I wanted to do as others have done and twist his words to fit a narrative, I would have said, "Nate said that the team decided to buy in to the 3 game season since the coaching staff bungled the first 3/4 of the season due to their own ineptitude." At last my narrative would have been grounded in fact and likely more true than the narrative that the team just started to buy in to the coaches. 5 and 6, at a place where any idiot ( not my narrative) can easily win 9 games. Hip, hip, hooray. Please stop with the narratives. I've stated numerous times that I like Mike, but that doesn't mean anything. I'd like to win the powerball, but it doesn't mean it will happen. Just like I'd like for Riley to be a good coach, but it's not going to make him one. I have no hate for him or the staff, it's not personal. Unlike many people, I'm able to put my personal feelings aside and base my opinion solely on facts. Other than their (Rileys) sub .500 career record and the clown show that we've seen in Lincoln for the majority of this season.

Wait...what am I missing here? Riley beat a Top 10 team in Michigan State... It's a little confusing. Michigan Dad posted how many games were played each year against top 10 teams and how many were won. LoMS posted the respective coaches actual records. The only stat that means anything is zero. Zero championships in US football.

I'm sure that some of it was true, but people are blowing Nate's comments again, just like they did with the "high school defense comments" in fall camp. Like I said above, it's a myriad of issues that have lead to where we're at. Missed tackles and blown assignments are on the players. Throwing the ball 50 times with a backup QB on the road, against the worst rush D in conference, is on the coaches. Getting guys like Davie and Rose-Ivey back helps the depth. And Cavanaugh finally doing some shuffling on the offensive line to provide a spark has helped the run game. It's going to take the players playing well, and the coaches maximizing the talent we have now, to win games. Yeah, Nate's comments were taken out of context and twisted by some to take all of the blame off of the staff and throw players under the bus. There are many reasons why we're on this 2 game "winning streak," as you correctly pointed out. There was no "taking out of context" it just doesn't fit your narrative of the coaches are bad, yet we find out how wrong you are from the players themselves. Stop the spin, it is not working.That's exactly what certain posters are doing. It's funny that in Shatels column on 11/15, Josh Banderas said, "You know, we loved coach Bo (Pelini). But there were no hard feelings. The players, we all bought into coach Riley and his staff." Narrative and spin indeed, but not from me. Nor am I wrong. You are good for a laugh, the players all bought in after a couple were kicked to the curb and one was called out in a national publication. We all got to see what finally buying in will do for you in the last 2 games. Link to where Gerry stated that the players didn't buy into the staff this year, because Banderas is stating that they did? Or are you calling Bando a liar? As an fyi, the statement by Gerry that people are twisting to fit their own narrative, he was referencing buying into the 3 game season: "...Gerry said of when the 3 game season plan originated. 'When you see something in everybody's eyes, you knew everybody was going to buy in and things were going to start clicking.'" Neither player said that the team didn't buy into the staff. Neither. Not at all.

This. Nothing would surprise me. I'd love to see us win, we have more talent than Iowa. It'd be great if the staff would get out of its own way and put the talent in position to win.

This is incorrect. Some one had posted the actual numbers (forgive me for not having them) and to the best of my recollection, since 2011 or 12 the team had been averaging around 6 penalties per game. https://www.teamrankings.com/college-football/stat/penalty-yards-per-game?date=2012-01-09Year - PPG - YPG 2015 - 7.2 - 63.3 2014 - 5.9 - 52.5 2013 - 6.1 - 53.6 2012 - 6.9 - 57.2 2011 - 7.9 - 54.6 2010 - 7.1 - 72.8 NU has mostly sat in the 90's and 100's for ranking over this time frame. So in total we are up about 1 penalty/game compared to the Pelini era. If we only look at the last 7 games, we're averaging about 5.3 penalties/game, which is down a penalty/game from the Pelini era. Not really fair to pick out the begining games. Most teams take more penalties at the begining of the season. If the trend continues at the start of next season, then I will buy into it is getting better. Thanks for posting that. And no, I'm not saying that 6 per game is good. Less is better.

I'm sure that some of it was true, but people are blowing Nate's comments again, just like they did with the "high school defense comments" in fall camp. Like I said above, it's a myriad of issues that have lead to where we're at. Missed tackles and blown assignments are on the players. Throwing the ball 50 times with a backup QB on the road, against the worst rush D in conference, is on the coaches. Getting guys like Davie and Rose-Ivey back helps the depth. And Cavanaugh finally doing some shuffling on the offensive line to provide a spark has helped the run game. It's going to take the players playing well, and the coaches maximizing the talent we have now, to win games. Yeah, Nate's comments were taken out of context and twisted by some to take all of the blame off of the staff and throw players under the bus. There are many reasons why we're on this 2 game "winning streak," as you correctly pointed out. There was no "taking out of context" it just doesn't fit your narrative of the coaches are bad, yet we find out how wrong you are from the players themselves. Stop the spin, it is not working. That's exactly what certain posters are doing. It's funny that in Shatels column on 11/15, Josh Banderas said, "You know, we loved coach Bo (Pelini). But there were no hard feelings. The players, we all bought into coach Riley and his staff." Narrative and spin indeed, but not from me. Nor am I wrong.

I'm sure that some of it was true, but people are blowing Nate's comments again, just like they did with the "high school defense comments" in fall camp. Like I said above, it's a myriad of issues that have lead to where we're at. Missed tackles and blown assignments are on the players. Throwing the ball 50 times with a backup QB on the road, against the worst rush D in conference, is on the coaches. Getting guys like Davie and Rose-Ivey back helps the depth. And Cavanaugh finally doing some shuffling on the offensive line to provide a spark has helped the run game. It's going to take the players playing well, and the coaches maximizing the talent we have now, to win games. Yeah, Nate's comments were taken out of context and twisted by some to take all of the blame off of the staff and throw players under the bus. There are many reasons why we're on this 2 game "winning streak," as you correctly pointed out.