druski_2k5

Take this with a grain of salt. I planned on eating at Buffalo Wild Wings for lunch after class, love that place. I parked on the top floor of the P Street parking garage to put my book-bag and my laptop in my car before I headed down for lunch. I noticed they were going through starting lineups on offense. I was specifically looking for #3 #5 or #17 to show up, but I was a little too late as they went to the defense. I figured maybe I missed it, or I was too late, or they never put it up. I was thinking the later. After I was done eating, I went back to my car, I looked over to my left at the jumbo-tron again. I noticed they were going through starting line-ups like usual for a second time today. I made sure I stayed until I saw the defense again, just to see if anything had been changed or added and right before the Blackshirts showed up, I saw #3 Taylor Martinez appear. Again, not guaranteeing anything, take it for what it's worth, take it with a grain of salt, but this is strictly what I saw. I only had one beer to for my meal. I will support the staffs decision to start whoever until they prove otherwise they are not worthy of a start.

I've been following this thread since Post 1, I thought Lee would/should start but my gut feeling now says Martinez will start. I also have this to say about the whole annoyance of this topic and leading up until Saturday, we should support whoever is out there until things prove otherwise. With that being said: GOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOO!!!!!!! BIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIG!!!!!!! REEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEEED!!!!!!!

I agree with Manhattan. I don't like the split. The divisions look good, but I don't like the split. Geographically would have been the best way to go, but the Big XII should have found a way to keep Nebraska-Oklahoma the day after Thanksgiving just like the SEC does with their cross-over games. Maybe that seems hypocritical because we could have played Oklahoma in back to back games, but there was never an opportunity for that. Could have kept Nebraska-Oklahoma at end of October or beginning of November for a cross-over game or even a divisional game if Oklahoma was put in the North and Oklahoma State in the south, even though Stillwater is north of Norman, they are very close together still, and kept the Red-River Rivalry in the same spot it's always been. Oh well, that is a moot point now. Besides, wasn't there always a chance to play Oklahoma twice in a possible bowl game or National Championship game anyway in the Big 8? I'm too young to remember, the only Big 8 I remember is Nebraska dominating, nothing prior to that was I alive for. And Nebraska-Oklahoma was not called "The Game", so us playing each other twice would not seem as bad as Michigan and Ohio State do because of the name of the rivalry. It is singular. It doesn't scream September either.

You leave Kordell alone! Kordell Stewart is my all-time favorite Buff. Every year Kordell would come into the game talking about how they were going to beat the Huskers, and every year he would crumble like a house of cards once the Blackshirts got after him. I do so very much miss Kordell. I wish I had a video of all of his highlights against the Huskers, like the time he threw three picks on 8/28 passing in 1993, or when he only managed one TD in 1994, or when he came in for mop-up duty for the battered and bruised Detmer in the 1992 Nightmare in Nebraska game. This I will agree with.

In a word, no. I am sick and tired of people saying Bo is a mean guy or just being mean to be mean or needs to show more respect. His attitude is what MOST of us wanted back in 2003 AND 2007, and then complained that Solich and Callahan didn't show enough emotion or looked like they didn't care as much as they should and that their teams weren't tough. You can't have it both ways. Do not lie. Do you really want to go back to that? If you think Bo needs to be a little nicer, go watch 2004-2007 tapes and tell me how much you like your mediocre "Media Savvy Coach" I wanted Bo to be the head coach in 2003, because of his passion and fire. He is a Nebraska guy because he was on the staff that year and understood what it means to be here. He understands Nebraska and he gets his players to play to their best and beyond, and his players respect him, unlike Mike Leach or Mark Mangino. His attitude has turned our program around when it was at it's absolute worse in November 2007 and nothing current looked like it could save us. Sure, there were/are some doubters that didn't like the move basically based on his attitude, and they have fair arguments, but don't be hypocrites. If you want to know more, ask legitimate questions about scheme, learn the game, not just "How do you feel about so and so", go ask the position coaches if you don't like Bo's responses, don't go calling parents to check up on their son when they don't even know anything about it. Seriously, Bo is sick and tired of the same questions over and over and over and you would be too. After a loss, what should he say? "Yeah we played very well, loved the fact we came up short, but give credit to X, they are a heckuva football team, hats off to them, they played tremendous, we aren't there yet, but they made all the plays and we didn't make enough plays and that's on the players to execute, we didn't execute, but we sure coached out there today I tell you." Or how about "It's too complicated for you to understand". "Geez don't you people have anything better to do, go play in the Sandhills, I'm going to read a real paper like the New York Times". Or how about "A crusty old ****." Bo has not throat slashed the refs either. Granted that wasn't directed at media, but it's known for being said somewhere. Would you really want that back? I mean really? Mediocrity to bad levels, with good media skills? Or Top 10 back to national prominence with an in your face attitude us against the world and we're going to kick your ass attitude and I'm the first one going into battle for you guys? Family comes first. Besides, the media ALWAYS asks stupid questions, stupid questions deserve stupid answers. The heck do you want him to say after a loss? After a win? Ask about the game, scheme, ANYTHING except how he may feel about something SO obvious. Bo is emotional, his emotions have our guys playing on a high level, guys have different ways of doing things. Pete Carroll is all cuddly, Mack Brown is a country boy, Billy C is all professional when he's winning but an idiot when he loses, Bo Pelini is hard love no matter a win or a loss, Tom Osborne was soft spoken and has a big heart, Turner Gill seems to incorporate religion and no swearing to work, and Nick Saban and Lane Kiffin are well just snakes. But you catch my drift. He's not dropping F bombs or flipping the reporters off, or even just cursing at them, he is answering very honestly and that's how he feels and if he comes off being not classy then that's your problem. Go root for another team if you're so worked up over a coaches attitude that it makes you question him as a great coach in general. He is getting better at it. If we were losing, I'm sure he might change his styles, but it's working, we are winning, we are moving up. I'm not saying winning is the end all either. Osborne said it best that it's not about winning or the final score, but how you get there, and they are very different from each other and Osborne says Bo reminds him of the Bobfather. Bo understands that and that's always been the motto around here. Winning is very important, but shaping them into grown men is always priority number 1A here, with winning being 1B. His toughness turned us around when nothing else would. Nothing will satisfy Bo. Even if we go 14-0 and shut everyone out 100 to 00, he will still give the same answers and always want more. That's what the best do, they are never satisfied and they want more and different people have different approaches to success. Some players respond, some don't. Our players, past and present, state they would run through a brick wall for Coach Pelini, and so would I.

Hate the new look, although it's minor changes, I don't like them. I will continue to say it until I am blue in the face: 2001 uniforms. Very balanced and clean look. Patches on left and right side, Nebraska on top of the numbers, no stripes on the pants, tall red socks for home and tall white socks for the road. http://cache3.asset-cache.net/xc/71021628.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=516B9ACD38651731C65F67258944B09E1502D5B361855B321241C252CACE714AE30A760B0D811297 http://cache4.asset-cache.net/xc/645529.jpg?v=1&c=NewsMaker&k=2&d=77BFBA49EF878921F7C3FC3F69D929FD55E4CD167D7334724BC82AA1608AFB13826BB724DEA4C56D Nothing else comes close.

Race shouldn't matter, but because they are talking about it, how is Vince Young not on this list and Kordell Stewart is?

The problem I think most of us see with this is that it's incredibly difficult to have that on a yearly basis. It would be a highly complex offense to learn and therefore you might struggle to get your best athletes on the field immediately, which is something Osborne was always able to do. I also get a little tired of hearing people say you have to be "multiple" in order to keep the defense guessing. Just because you run the ball most of the time doesn't mean you're not keeping the defense off-balance. There's a huge diversity of blocking schemes and running plays and playaction passes that Osborne used to constantly keep defenses honest. Point well taken, and I agree with what you said about Osborne, but if I were running the show, I would make SURE the BEST athletes got on the field, in some way shape or form. Which is why we have to get Mike McNeill more involved, get Robinson involved, and even have Martinez on the field in some capacity. I know we got speed, and size on the sideline. If it takes "dumbing down the playbook" to get them on the field, then that's what I would do, or at least simplify it. Our quarterback needs to be balanced or a mobile one, as much as I loved Zac Taylor, the way we are going is mobile quarterbacks, because it's just another weapon the defense has to account for, to create a mismatch obviously. I agree things need to be more simple and shortened, it amazes me how simple some of our playbooks were when I saw the 1997 and 2001 playbooks, simply astonishing. Having multiple formations with fewer plays, instead of multiple formations with multiple plays, may solve some of the problem where guys aren't seeing the field. And I would totally be against having a guy need to know "the whole playbook" before entering, but make sure everyone feels comfortable with what they got or what we can run if it came down to simplifying or dumbing it down. I believe Pelini also said he wanted to go to a Spread Option attack, and I know Osborne said recently if he were still coaching that is what he would run, something that West Virginia or Florida runs, with a few traditional sets I'm sure too.

The only problem I would have running a true option game, would be a pass-run ratio. Let's be honest, you cannot win big games in today's college football world with a 95-5, 90-10, 85-15 RUN to PASS ratio, you just can't. We could get away with running the ball every play almost back then, because no one could touch us in the weight room, and we changed up our defense which in-return brought us National Championships. Defense wins championships and with that I think you could run any offense, but I just can't see a RUN to PASS ratio like the ones I listed above, I think you need to be able to do both. I would be all in favor of keeping our current "style" of offense [Ace, I-Form, Shotgun, Wildcat [that pains me to say it] Pro, Flexbone multiplicity of formations] but have the THREAT to run the OPTION as well has have a POWER RUNNING game out of ANY and EVERY formation, WITH the decent threat of a downward pass. What made our passing solid during those years, was the fact we RAN so well it SET UP the play-action pass. It would take a little bit of time to get the pitches down and some of the blocking formations, but if we kept it a little limited, sprinkled it in for every formation but didn't rely on running the option the entire game, I think it could be do-able. You definitely need to work with the running backs for a power game between and outside the tackles and not just hope your quarterback can outrun the defense like Crouch did most of the time, and yes, I shudder to think how things could have been for Solich without him. For example, On first down you could come out in a Maryland I formation and run straight at them. Then on 2nd and 4 come out in an Ace Trips formation and run a 5 step drop passing play, and then on 3rd down or if you convert 1st down on the pass play, come out in a 5 WR set and run a motion option with the slot receiver. Then on the next play you could line up in a Shotgun formation with 2 running backs and throw some Playaction Zone Read , with the slot going underneath, the X receiver on a fly route, and the Y receiver on a post route, if nothing is open take off and run, and then after that, run the Wildcat formation, after that line up in I-Form Twins WR set and run an Option to the weak side away from the wide receivers unless it's zone, then you motion one of the receivers over to help chip the corner-back. The bottom line I think is Multiplicity with Balance. The effective ability to keep the defense guessing, while having a solid passing attack and a brutal running game. A good RUN to PASS ratio to me would be 65-35, 60-40, or 55-45, and this would have the ability to use ball control when ahead, and to be able to pass when needed to or when behind.

The defensive call was Cover 2 zone. West did his job, he was covering his area, watching Tyrod's eyes, as a defender does in zone coverage. Sometimes a defender will knock a receiver off his route, but I'm not sure how far off West was playing if it was man-up or he was giving him 5 yards of room and had could not chip him, as he was watching Tyrod mostly. Now Sanders is right by saying O'Hanlon didn't get deep enough, as it appeared we were playing a tight Cover 2 Zone, as opposed to normal or deep in regards to the safeties. Give credit to Sanders for sticking with O'Hanlon and training him up to where he eventually got too and never gave up in the guy as many Husker fans, myself included, wanted to throw him under the bus, when it was his effort that kept us in the game, until the touchdown in the end. I completely grilled O'Hanlon on that play, and for most of 2008, and while criticizm may have been deserving in 2008, I kind of felt bad about it after his career was over. I felt bad after the Virginia Tech game because we still had a chance to win the game BECAUSE of O'Hanlon's effort to catch the receiver. We shouldn't have gave Tyrod all the time in the pocket down by the goal-line when he therw that touchdown pass on 3rd down, he scrambled around for his life, some of our linemen were standing around in contain/spy, waiting on Tyrod to advance the ball past the line of scrimmage, and he threw a strike in the back of the endzone. As Suh stated in the article, he had a chance to go after him, but he may have been winded, heck our whole defense may have been tired and emotionally down after that play, but that's where the heart and mental toughness have to kick in, and it definitely did after the Texas Tech and Iowa State debacles. You gotta give Matt credit though, that was his last mistake the entire year, he played balls out the rest of the way. I believe Pelini also came out and stated they should have ran a different play. As he took the blame for it, unlike the previous coaches who would blame players, I'm pretty sure I remember reading that Pelini said that was the wrong play to run in that situation. In my opinion we probably should have been running Cover 3 or at least Cover 2 Man from the Dime packaage and emphasizing the safeties both getting deep, and if the receiver beats his man, at least there is help over the top of deep safeties and not shallow safeties, as it appeared we were playing tight and short. All in all it was a great effort, and it was Dillard's coming out party that set up the rest of the season for some great defensive play down the stretch. Personally, I think we got hosed on the Menelik Holt "touchdown catch ruled incompletion". I believe this was ruled as he "didn't have control" but, sighs, what could have been. http://www.huskerextra.com/content/articles/2009/09/19/football/doc4ab5926b84b95115148414.jpg But what's done is done, can't worry about 2009, just look forward to this year. I hope Virginia Tech absolutely destroys Boise State though.

Hmm, good stuff there, thanks for the info, hadn't heard that before, I didn't think there was an official ruling, just everyone ran off the field.

Loved watching Zac Taylor sling it around though, probably one of the biggest reasons why we had decent seasons in 05 and 06, as well as a few defensive guys that were coached under Bo. Anywho, I was thinking about this game the other day, after the Colorado and Michigan game, I thought Callahan had turned the corner and we were back on our way up, he erased earlier doubts in the year with losses to Kansas, Oklahoma and Missouri, as well as the awful 04 season including where I started questioning him when Dailey ran out of bounds against Southern Miss, a game in which we should have easily won. If it was a Pelini lead defense, I highly doubt the end of that game was as big of a mess as it was. So in regards to that last play, how were we NOT flagged with too many players on the field? Surely there were right? Was that ever discussed or ruled? Obviously since we won and there was not a play after that, everything was "okay" but I just remember standing in awe of what happened, what almost happened, and how I was going to throw something IF that something happened. Thankfully not though. Can anyone sum that up?

Does it make anyone else mad that Pat Forde [who is loathe with a passion] is the one writing this article and happens to take a shot at Nebraska, as he ALWAYS does when talking about us] and ESPN mention at the end of #50 Nebraska/Texas 2009 Big 12 Championship by stating: "Then :01 reappeared on the clock. Texas kicker Hunter Lawrence slid a 46-yard field goal inside the upright. Texas won, 13-12. The Huskers fled for the Big Ten -- can you blame them?" Really ESPN/Forde? Really? I mean, REALLY? Do we HAVE to go over this again? Look, I know Forde is a Missouri graduate, so he is probably just bitter that Nebraska got into the Big Ten and Missouri did not, well at least not yet, as well as how historically we have wins over them in football, but really? We fled for the Big Ten because of this loss? Really? I mean, really? So if Missouri would have got into the Big Ten and Nebraska didn't, would Missouri be "fleeing" to a conference because they "can't compete or win a Big 12 Title?" No, they would be doing what's best for them, the university, and the state. If Texas had got into the Big Ten, they also would be doing what's best for the University, State, and athletics comes last. But when NEBRASKA wants to go to the Big Ten, it's because we "Can't win/compete in the Big 12" and "Has nothing to do with academics or how better off we would be in a stable conference and to better the state". Did we run when Oklahoma kicked our ass for all those years straight in the Big Eight? Did we run when Osborne couldn't beat Oklahoma [Wow that's really odd for me to say, considering I never "remember" seeing Osborne lose to Oklahoma, ever, born in 1987 ] But you get the point. We didn't want out of the Big 12 the first time we lost to Texas did we? We didn't want out when Texas Tech kicked us around 70-10 in 2004 did we? We didn't want out when Kansas got the better of us in 2005 and 2007 did we? And we sure as hell didn't want out after Texas narrowly beat us by that field goal in the Big XII Championship game. This has NOTHING to do with athletics. If anything, we are going to a MORE DIFFICULT conference in terms of football competition, bigger stadiums, a few powerhouse teams, rich of tradition, not sure what the divisions or schedules will look like, NEW RECRUITING GROUNDS, trying to stabilize the old recruiting grounds and keep a NATIONAL recruiting stage. Nothing to do with athletics, but it has everything to do with Academics and what's best for US and the State. Screw ESPN. Let's shut everyone up this year on our way out since we "like to run so much". Hopefully the only running we will be doing is all over the other teams.

This is an amazing idea, Suh is a legend, forever.

I follow Nebraska basketball a little bit, although it's a joke from November to December with how weak our competition is, sure I'd love to see Nebraska do better and be more competitive in Basketball, but it's hard to when the state to the south of you REALLY knows how to play ball and you respect them for how good they are. Football is better thank basketball in my opinion, and I never really caught onto college basketball because of the whole 1 and done rule, the turnover rate is just too high with it's stars to keep it consistent, and Nebraska is never competitive, although I do follow them, at least Kansas keeps the majority of their team from year to year and are a fun group to watch. Course they also care more about basketball than we do, just like we care more about football than they do, I know a ton of Nebraska football fans and Kansas basketball fans, that's just how it is sometimes, and there isn't anything wrong with that, it's just the fact of the situations in smaller populated areas.

It's not a rivalry like Oklahoma-Texas is, and it probably won't be. I heard on the radio some other day that some Texas fans think of us like we think of Colorado. Since we have basically owned them in the Big XII, it's not a rivalry, but Colorado thinks it is because we play them every year and they over a stretch of time, beat us or kept it close, kind of like we do with Texas, but Texas does not see us like a rivalry. Here's my disagreement with that logic: Colorado is determined to beat us every year. We aim for national championships, like Texas does. We strive to be the best. Like Texas does. That is the differences between Nebraska-Colorado, and Nebraska-Texas, although I don't think this game is a rivalry, it's just pure hatred and annoyance of each other. Nebraska and Texas could have been a good rivalry, we bring in All-Americans, have a history, a following, prestigious, and want to be the best. Colorado is just, mediocre and they don't care or have the things like we do to stay on top or to try to get on top. Texas has some good history, Nebraska has even more good history, while Colorado does not, sure they have 1 National Title, but even that one is disputed and they aren't a pretentiously good program from decade to decade. Nebraska is the definition of history and prestige, all teams go through down-trends, and I guarantee you Colorado would take our 2000-2009 seasons over what they had, and this was our worst decade since the 50's and Texas' best ever, so congratulations by catching us in a down-trying to get back-trend. I've never seen a team, university, fans so cocky after one victory that took a superman effort from Vince Young [ironically my NFL teams quarterback] to put them on the map. They get to CHOOSE their recruits and still come up short. They get the best pickings from their own state and still can't be a dominate force, they are just very, very good. While we have been above average in the past few years. Thankfully this will be changing soon.

Wasn't Ray Lewis it was Warren Sapp I feel like an idiot now. Stupid typos, the keys are like...right next to each other. At least he was on the team, just the wrong person.

Ugh, not the dreaded 2007 topic. From what I understood, and this maybe wrong, I've heard stories that Keller was guaranteed the starting quarterback job before he transferred to Nebraska, in a back-room kind of deal, and Callahan promised Keller and his father he would start no matter how summer/fall camp turned out. I also understood, and correct me if I'm wrong or what you've heard, Joe Ganz actually out-performed Keller at camp and the majority of the team wanted him/expected him to be the starter, but Callahan opted to go with Keller due to his "NFL Potential" and the so called "Promised deal", and Joe and the rest of the players were in shock. I've heard stories on how much of a jerk he is off the field and just a party animal, remember when he threw the cup in that parking lot somewhere and got into an altercation with some older female I think it was? I was under the impression he was football smart and obviously had the physical skills, but I never heard that he "didn't care as much as he should" and that football was "just a means to get what he really wanted and it truly wasn't football", that explains a lot now looking back on it. I rag on him and the EA/NCAA lawsuit because I think it's B.S. but I won't get into that here. I will give Sam credit though, I have never PUBLICLY seen him say one bad thing about Nebraska, the University, or the fans. Of course that is all through media, he could be badmouthing Nebraska and everything else behind closed doors as well, you just never know, look at the Tiger Woods fiasco. I'm not comparing Sam and Tiger, but you just don't know someone from just watching them in the public eye. He had nothing but good things to say about Nebraska and I watched him trying to help Joe on the sidelines and he was close with a few teammates. But that was mostly the impression/stories that I got. I was drinking the Kool-Aid when he came here, thinking that he would get revenge on USC because Arizona State SHOULD have beat them in 2005 but Arizona State/Keller had a terrible 2nd half if I remember correctly. But of course, the Kool-Aid was just a fairy tale fantasy that I was living in, which turned into a real-life nightmare, so from that instance when I watch talent tape or games, I watch more closely on the "true" forms of the game and not some fairy tale that Keller had me thinking he was something he was obviously not. I was thinking that it was his shot to get back at USC and put us back on the national map. Not so much. I also remember when Joey came in, we would move the ball more. Sure the guy had his faults and turnovers as the backup, but he had to sling it around because our defense was so piss poor. Keller had good games against mediocre teams, and kept us in the USC game for as long as he could in the 1st half, but after the Ball State game, things just went down him for him and the entire team. [ugh I hate re-living this!] STATISTICALLY, he had some "decent" games, but some of the stats could be inflated due to garbage points in the late game [uSC, Oklahoma State, Texas A&M] or against weaker opponents [Nevada, Ball State, Iowa State, Wake Forest [1-2 TD to INT ratio at Wake Forest], but his best game actually came in the game he got hurt at Texas. From what I also remember, we would hardly stretch the field in 2007 like Zac Taylor did in 2006 where we ran a multiple set of routes that went short, medium, and long. In 2007 I remember wee would go with "ball control" through the air on slants, hitches, curls, out routes, and we would rarely see a 15 yard post route, or a double move, or a play action deep pass to a tight end on a delay or a streaking receiver after being set up by the run. Keller also had a bad habit of checking down quite frequently to whoever was in the backfield if memory serves me right. When Joe came in, we we're more of a spread option team, took more chances down field because we had too, and maybe Watson was calling more of the plays and Callahan wasn't, because there was a difference when Ganz came in to run the offense as opposed to Keller. Perhaps not only the looks we gave and the plays we ran, but maybe the team tried harder with Joey in. It's hard to say he wasn't a Husker, but thankfully we haven't ran into those problems of guys being such idiots we don't consider them Huskers, but I may put Keller in that category. He didn't provide anything in terms of great results on the field, and off the field he was a mess, although not LP mess, and he is the focal point of a disastrous season and regime of everything that could go wrong, did go wrong in terms of Callahan/Pederson. Now Cory McKeon IS a disgrace to wear the Husker uniform, I was so high on the guy in 05 and 06, but maybe because we had other players around him that made him look good as some of those guys were coached by Bo in 2003, or so it could seem, because there was no reason for McKeon to play as bad as he did in 2007 after coming off pretty solid seasons before. I remember our linebackers, Octavien and Bo Rudd, being very slow and very suspect that year, course most of that is due to coaching, if not all of it, but McKeon was CLEARLY a cancer to that team/defense when he was supposed to be a leader. Ironically, that disastrous cancer lead us BACK to Bo, and really that's the only thing that matters. As Tommie Frazier once told Ray Lewis on a New Years night in Miami, "It's not where I've been, it's where I'm going fat boy." Or something like that. *Looks at topic* Oh yeah right, QB race. I got my popcorn out, it should be a fun one, but the starter has to be a leader on and off the field, and to be able to move the ball consistently or when we need it the most, improved offensive line should help out our offense as a whole as well, may the best man win.

If Suh couldn't win in a year where NO ONE but him seperated themselves from the pack [ie, great offensive players] as he is herald as the BEST college Defensive Tackle of ALL-TIME, then NO ONE, and I repeat, NO ONE will EVER win it on defense, again. Heck, I don't even think Charles Woodson would have won it last year if he played his 1997-self. Ingram was deserving to be in New York, but not to win it. Had Tebow not gotten it in 2007 as a Sophomore [lets be honest, Dennis Dixon of Oregon deserved it that year, Oregon fell off the face of the Earth when he got injured] then Ingram does not win it as a Sophomore. Ingram had a great game against Florida, thankfully, but he was slightly overrated for winning the Heisman I thought. Tebow winning the award opened the door for underclassmen to win the award. Tebow in 2008 had better stats/season than he did in 2007, but with Bradford being the Quarterback of one of the greatest offenses of all-time, it was hard to overlook that. Dixon should have won in 2007, and Suh should have won in 2009, and Frazier in 95. The Heisman nowadays, is just awarded to the "Best offensive player playing in the National Championship or a BCS type bowl game". No way was Suh going to get enough votes to win the award as he was going to play in the HOLIDAY BOWL. It's sad and a joke. Back on topic.... Crick is a great talent, with him stepping up, that should open the doors for Meredith or Steinkuhler to play well, but sadly, if Suh could not win the award, Crick will not, and I don't see a TRUE defensive player winning anytime soon. And by "true" I mean, someone that doesn't both play offense and/or special teams, but no one plays both ways that is a threat to win it, so that is a moot point.

Great find!

Hmmm, I understand we are the Big Red and we always wear red at away games. However, that being said, there are two ways I look at this. If you want to make an "impression" of fan following to away games: Then you wear white or black. If you want to stick with "Wear Red" then you obviously wear Red, except the downside is the fans won't be as noticeable, well, except when we win we will all be cheering. I would suggest white. First because it is an official color [Not going to say the B word], and secondly, our team wears white jerseys on the road, so that's why I would consider wearing white, as well as if we wanted to make a fan impression, especially at Notre Dame in 2000, and just like anywhere else!

It was a good video, but I just have one problem with it besides some of the words being hard to understand. We shouldn't be giving THIS MUCH attention to Texas. Yes, we know they are on our schedule. Yes, we know the date we play them. Yes, they know we are pissed off at them. Yes it will be a great game. Yes, it will be a great atmosphere. Yes, everyone knows everything. It would have been better had it been a prelude to the 2010 season, Wear Red, Be Loud, Beat Everyone. Not just Texas. Even if we beat Texas on 10.16.10, which I have a good feeling we will, we would still have to worry about the North to get to the Big XII title game, and once we get there, who knows who we would face there, maybe Texas again? An unknown Oklahoma State or Texas Tech team? A rebuilding Oklahoma team? We still got tough road environments at Texas A&M and Washington to think about, as well as moving the ball on offense, which again I think we should do decently this year. Thankfully, Bo and company will have these guys on an even keel and take it one game at a time. At least that's how I would take it, and I'm sure he is doing the same thing as well. Good video, but lets promote us dominating the 2010 season, and not just focus on beating Texas. We aren't Colorado where beating ONE TEAM makes OUR SEASON, regardless of record. We are Nebraska, lets focus on winning the North, the Conference, and our BCS bowl game and hopefully a National Championship.

Awesome pics! I've been looking for the same super great quality pics of the names on the North end-zone press box for a LONG time. I figured they would turn up somewhere, and they did. Great job Knapplc!!

Public urination lands you on the sex offender list? I can't see how one has anything to do with the other. There is some truth to this. Being a former Criminal Justice major, there is some tendancy towards this. While they may not be a classic sense of a "sexual predator" the fact that he is "exposing himself" in public while urinating, is the thought process. There is some research that shows if someone is willing to "urinate in public" or "expose themselves by streaking or flashing ones parts" that they COULD have "sexual predator" tendencies because they just did it "for fun" but deep down mentally there maybe some "issues there". I laughed first at the thought too, but I guess it kinda makes sense. You might be right. I'm just concerned that this is his second brush with the law concerning alcohol, and Bo alleged when he took over a couple of years ago that he'd be tough on stuff like this. If anything it'll be a suspension against Western Kentucky, which is no loss but will hurt Niles' stats. It's possible that it'll just be handled internally and he won't miss game time, but I'd be surprised if that's all that happens. No, no, no. Make him play EVERY down. And every pattern either a go, deep post or deep flag. 4th quarter - 3rd and one on the NU 29 yard line. QB (TBD) calls the play "QB sneak on two - except for Niles, he get gets to do a skinny post, and pick up your knees this time" Niles, "gasp, gasp, arrgh, gasp" This is epic, and may actually work, never thought of something like that. I didn't know he was that "young" [im not much older than him so that sounds weird for me to say this] but he needs to get his head on straight and just stay the heck outta trouble. He probably will get a game or two, but I can't stop laughing at the "run a skinny post every time a play is called", that is classic!

Glad to hear all the hype, finally nice to hear some good takes on us at the National level to get our swagger back! Bo won't let the hype get to their heads though, he will keep them at a nice level and make them want to win every game and not be handed victories. This is so refreshing to hear. And yes, we would have won the BCS title last year if we were able to get a little bit of a push up-front for the running game, and was able to hold blocks long enough for routes to develop, but with all the nagging injuries, well, we all know how the season went. With all the talk at the National level, that will surely bring the haters and trolls out, which is fine by me since that usually means we are making our way back to be on top for a while! Maybe this will be THE year, but I'm trying to stay away from the "Hype Train", but it's reads like this that you can't help but get excited over! And who can blame us as fans?