druski_2k5

While it is amusing that good old Mack is not in a suit & tie like the rest....if that's what this picture is about....I want to know where Tommy Tuberville is at?

Awesome. I love how Bo just says what and how it is on his mind and won't change for anyone. He truly does care about the players and the program and will go to bat for anyone and they know it too. I hope he doesn't have to have "another talking" though about his attitude. I'm tired of hearing/reading about that he needs to tone it down. Screw that, it's what makes him "him", and he needs to be himself because he has the best interest in the players and the program. Unlike some other coaches we have known in the past....and I definitely don't want to go back to those days.

Thanks for the updates Knapp! This. And I mean this times a billion. This is the mindset we have to have. We aren't going to be 3 yards and a cloud of dust and have big-heavy set guys who get burned by faster guys in other conferences. [Or that's how the perception is] That is the mindset you have to have. Bo is essentially saying, "We are going to do what the hell we want and we are going to do it damn well and that's your problem, so deal with it." Love it. Love that quote. It feels kind of like our old teams of "We are going to run option and right down your throat and we dare you to stop us". That's the same mentality essentially. Getting more and more fired up for the season after reading this thread.

Don't forget this blown call too: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NfYxKRR2Wl4 Bad calls are bad!!! Just rehashing the obvious....but.... The Iowa State thing was a complete joke. I thought it couldn't get worse than that. Then came Texas A&M. Sad thing is, before the ball was even snapped on that 3rd down, I knew who was coming and what coverage we would be in that blitz package. So obviously bringing that much pressure is going to hurry the quarterback to get pressure on him, force a throw and remind him that the defense wasn't going to back down. A completely clean and legal hit. A perfect way to hurry the quarterback and take him down legally. There is no way that was pass interference. I will probably never live that call down. Just as bad as the 94 Orange Bowl, 98 Kansas State, the Eric Martin hit was questionable, but him being the ONLY guy ever suspended in conference play for an on-field hit, raises a lot of questions too.

It's encouraging to hear the offensive philosophy and that they are getting over on our defense. Bo hasn't let us down on defense yet and he won't this year, so if all of this is true, this is encouraging and hopefully making huge strides. But like all off-season reports, stories, fluff-pieces, I take everything with a grain of salt. Put it on film guys, put it on film.

Well if you're worried about getting shafted on a controversial call, then as a team you have to do the best to your ability to limit those situations. You have to make sure you dominate the other team enough so that a bad call won't hurt you. Yeah bad calls suck when they go against you, and you can't blow everyone out, but the mentality is you have to limit those situations so that you don't get shafted. Easier said than done, yes, but that's the only way you could combat a shafted call, be it last year or this year. That being said, I think the refs will be much more fair and less annoying in this conference.

My biggest fear for the Washington game is that it will be called at halftime because we've already broken all of their players. I don't know why, but I have a deep desire to see us hang 100 points on this team. We can't beat them bad enough to satisfy me this year. I rarely ever feel that way, especially about a non-con opponent. But this year I do. For some reason Knapp, I agree with you. 100 percent. There is something about this team that drives me up the wall after the Holiday Bowl. Just how much $^ their fans talked after that game was just unbelievable. It's like the first game didn't even happen. Yeah yeah, we should have been ready for the game, I know I know. I could understand a little ribbing, but for as far as they went with it, was excessive. They acted like they won the friggin' BCS Title game against us 70 to 05, when sadly they finished 7-6 and our season was done when we not only lost to Oklahoma, but found out we would have a re-match with them. No motivation what-so-ever, and they can't seem to grasp it. It's almost like talking crap after you beat down an FCS team, or a BCS team with 2nd and 3rd stringers, it was just annoying. Not only annoying to watch our guys not care and have awful play, but the fact they couldn't realize why we weren't there mentally. No it's not an excuse, but it's a big reason why we laid a giant egg. We had hopes of a conference title game and a BCS birth/win. Their dreams were of just getting to a bowl, which I congratulate them on doing so, but that's what their season was about. Had USC not been sanctioned, I do believe we would have saw them instead of Washington. Good for them if they are getting their program on the right track, we know how that goes, but good lord, keep things in perspective. ...and get a touchdown called back for excessive celebration when a receiver shows them off a bit to much following a score? I say wear them for the Washington game - what could possibly go wrong there?It's a good thing you can't get a touchdown or even first down "called back" because of excessive celebration.Actually this year there's a new rule that a touchdown can be called back if the celebration occurs before he scores.I think what Brooklyn is saying is that it has to be taunting. I think if you score the TD then flash the gloves it's assessed on the ensuing kickoff. If you somehow flash the gloves on the way to the end zone, then it can be called back. It's a dumb rule. Agreed. One of the dumbest rules out there. There is taunting that is wrong, ie, doing it to an oppenent's face or their bench. But for celebration reasons with your team that isn't taunting? Undeniably stupid. Sadly Dude, I think you are correct. I think they will be JUDGMENT calls, which are the worst calls for penalties in an emotionally driven game. So that means: No throwing the bones for Husker players. No FSU tomahawk chop. No Miami 'U' with their hands. No Hook 'Em horns. No Tennessee 'T'. And definitely no Gator chomp. At least that's how I understand it. Some refs might let it fly, I hope. But others will probably penalize it. Even if it isn't at an opponent's face, their bench, or their fans. Even if David throws the bones while being wrapped up by his teammates after he sacks someone, I think in theory, they can call a penalty on us for "Drawing attention to themselves." Well no #*$&, he just made a sack, of course all eyes are on him. Are we going to penalize the sack now? Sheesh.

I'll agree with that completely times a million. He made the best decision for him. Can't fault him there.

...and get a touchdown called back for excessive celebration when a receiver shows them off a bit to much following a score? I say wear them for the Washington game - what could possibly go wrong there? Score a touchdown, flip the ball back to the ref [or maybe hand it back to the ref, flipping it might be excessive] and then when the camera is on said player on the sideline, then we can show them off after the point after.

That game would be the National Championship game of course. What bigger stage to show off those new Adidas gloves?

Also, Bo Pelini never called a defensive game at the college level either and he turned out to be a great coordinator and defensive mind. Granted he served under some GREAT NFL minds, but I'm just saying. I'm not saying Tom Beck is going to be the offensive version of Pelini, I'm just trying to keep things in perspective.

In anticipation of the torrent of replies to this post of, "I hate that," I'd like to ask, why do people dislike this? Please explain. I'm not a huge fan of it myself, but what I AM a fan of is scoring points. When you watch an entire team look over to the sideline, it seems to take something away from the game. Instead of having an advantage with an experienced QB who understands defenses and what to do at the line, you can bring in any schmoe without a neck injury and play the position. I know there's more to it than that, but it's like a part of the game is being taken off the field. It really doesn't matter. And no one––certainly not me––will care once wer'e blasting good defenses again. Call it a preference. While you are correct about just wanting to score points, I don't see how looking towards the side-lines is a "bad" thing. It works for A LOT of spread teams. Spread teams have been playing in title games recently, as well as keeping the defenses balanced. Yeah, it may not look pretty, but here's my counter-point. Our defense does the same thing. When they see the offense audible, the defense will look over to the sideline for a new play-call and they read and distribute the play. What's the next result? Our defense gets off the field on 3rd down. It works. It's an advantage. Just like having an offensive coordinator in the sky-box, or a dual threat quarterback, you use your weapons to your advantage. If it's something that is legal, can work, and can do it well, then do it. I know you said it's a preference thing and you just want to score points, I understand that, but our defense is under the same kind of play-calling ideology.

This was one of my first Husker memories too. I don't really remember the whole game [being 6 years old will do that] but I do remember losing. And I remember before Bennett over-kicked it and hooked it left, my dad was holding onto me, hoping and praying it would go through, and when he missed it, it just felt like the biggest let down of emotion ever. Whenever I see that kick now-a-days, it burns deep inside and always gives me a depressive feeling. No doubt about it, probably more than any other "bad highlight". That was my "1984 Orange Bowl" game, since I wasn't alive for the actual 1984 Orange Bowl. But for those that lived through both of them, and everything else, I'm sure it brought back painful memories. But you had some good insight and stories to tell! Even the good and bad, but that's what sports are about! Welcome to the board, contribute as much as you can & Go B1G Red!

Worried? Maybe a little bit, but not really. I have 100% faith in Bo and trust him with what we are planning on putting on the field in 44 days. Let's put things into perspective guys: We haven't had a full season under Mr. Beck. We haven't even had a conference game or even a full game under him to see how things will work. Let's not jump on the bandwagon if we come out on fire in the first few games. But let's also not bury the guy if we struggle against great defenses either. Keep things in perspective. Although, I DO like what he is saying. High tempo offense, taking advantage of our ATHLETES instead of just getting guys on the field because of who they are. Finding ways to get our receivers open instead of just one thing but using their strengths and our teams strengths to get the best players on the field. Slimming down the playbook to make things simpler to take advantage of our younger guys getting on the field quicker. And hopefully implementing a run first spread option offense that can also pass the ball when needed to keep defenses honest, as well as being able to take shots down-field and trying to confuse the defense with play-action, roll-outs and fakes. I will hold judgment on our offense until I see us play the rubber match against Washington, and against Wisconsin and Ohio State. Then I think we can evaluate our offense and have a better feel for them after those three games. It's a fair topic. But we are dealing with the unknown. People are generally afraid of what they do not know or what to expect.

I apologize for my ignorance towards this topic, so maybe Big Ten fans or Iowa fans can help me out: How good is this guy? From reading through the comments, he sounds like a legit shut-down corner that we let get away sadly. But considering the time-frame and everything else, and the fact you don't always get the ones you want and they always don't turn out the way you want, it's understandable. I think we may have had a shot at him, but he was Pelini probably got into the game too late [not his fault] and this guy was probably leaning Iowa the whole way, as we had our staff shake-up, and he already had his mind made up. Nothing wrong there.

This is an intriguing idea. I MIGHT be okay with this, depending on how it looked, but that is a real stretch. Nah, I'm pretty comfortable in my own skin, like most of us, that we can talk about things like this and be just fine with it. Actually I think we all know that.

Ah okay, I had not seen that yet. Sucks for Tech fans.

Would it even be remotely funny if the conference game that Texas purchased on the Longhorn network would be the Red River Rivalry? I don't think it will be, but I wouldn't be surprised if it did happen, although I don't see ABC selling that game. Also, what if they were to broadcast the Texas/Kansas basketball game on Longhorn Network only? That'd upset a lot of KU fans that's for sure.

Isn't Oklahoma State legally bound to whatever Oklahoma does anyway? It's time to let the past be the past. If we meet up with Oklahoma in a future home and home, great, if we meet them in a bowl, wonderful. But the days of our conference tie-ins with them are over. Let it be. Besides, I'm looking forward to new series and match-ups, and so should everyone else.

Student tickets FTW!!! Hopefully figure something out for Indianapolis, as I expect us to make it, or the Bowl game.

But if Texas A&M and Oklahoma leave, then that MUST mean those teams can't ever beat Texas at anything now!1!!1!1!1! It POSSIBLY couldn't be anything political, stability, or financial issues that would cause teams to leave the Big XII, only results on the field are why teams are leaving and nothing else is related to that!!11!11!1!ONE11!1! What a mess. I came across this rumor and didn't know how long it had been out, so I decided to do some more research. After doing 2 pages of google search about A&M to the SEC, all I have to say is, thank god we got out when we did. I wouldn't want to imagine what we would be thinking if we didn't get our Big Ten invitation. Do what you gotta do A&M. If A&M leaves I think that will spell the true end to the Big XII. Oklahoma will have to see the writing on the wall, with BevoESPN network. Yeah yeah, Nebraska was going to start their own network, but that's because Texas wouldn't sign off on a Big XII network, which is causing tons of problems between the Big XII schools now. Imagine if the OU/Texas game would be the game to air on BEVO network only, it would be utter chaos in Sooner and Big XII land. It was interesting to read that A&M is not legally bound by Texas legislature, and fans/alumni are upset enough at this BEVO network that they are pondering other options. The only thing we Husker fans can tell our former Big XII brethren: We told you so.

While I do enjoy the caNUfeelit song and video...and good highlights from the previous year...I would like to see a remake with this song with old-school glory day highlights, with maybe a few newer plays from the Pelini era mixed in as well.

That's essentially what 2001 was. If I'm not mistaken, those helmets were not cream-colored like our past helmets, they were strictly a white shell. What do you mean by new helmets? The design, the color scheme, or what? Did we go back to the cream-shell look? In a few HD shots I can tell our helmets now are a little more cream, but maybe I missed something. 2001 and 2003 uniforms were very similar but in 2003 the sleeves were back to the double stripe which I prefer over the 2001 single stripe... but unfortunately in 2003 the socks were absent. Which is why I said the 2003 tops with 2001 socks. As far as the helmets it's just the design, the colors are the same. Prior to 2004 the vents on top of the shell were all little pinprick style vents. Now they have the modern slot vents on top and have much better airflow. They also don't have that crappy foam padding anymore. Ah yes, the vents. I knew the vents were changed for all players now due to air-flow. I thought it used to be player preference but after seeing everyone with the pin-holes, it's a universal thing. I have to disagree with the difference between 2001 and 2003 tops. I think the 2003 tops, the logos, are closer together, as the 2001 tops, the logos are more spread apart. The 2001 and 2003 tops in terms of sleeves, both were double stripe. It just depended how said player rolled up the sleeves on his jersey. An example of the logos, I present from Jamaal Lord: http://sites.google.com/site/nebraskafootballhistory/_/rsrc/1239124266019/uniforms/Lord%202003.jpg From 2001 TCU game In the first picture, the sleeves are not tucked into the pad, thus showing the double stripe. http://graphics.fansonly.com/confs/nacda/graphics/preseason-pigskin-crouch.jpg In the second picture where it looks like there is a single stripe, I think the sleeve is just tucked into the pad. http://a.espncdn.com/photo/2009/1206/ncf_g_heisman2001_390.jpg You can see in the 2nd picture of how one would think there were just single sleeves. Both are from the same game, but both have different styles of sleeves as shown. I think that was of player preference, as it seemed that most players had their jersey tucked into the pads, which is why it could be considered single sleeve as opposed to double sleeves. Even when Crouch got his jersey retired, the jersey shows the double sleeves. http://www.huskersnside.com/pics/640/FKTIAMMEOVIVDXF.20020901030215.jpg Just super small differences, but we both have the right idea. ....only 48 more days until kickoff. This off-season is far too long....

That's essentially what 2001 was. If I'm not mistaken, those helmets were not cream-colored like our past helmets, they were strictly a white shell. What do you mean by new helmets? The design, the color scheme, or what? Did we go back to the cream-shell look? In a few HD shots I can tell our helmets now are a little more cream, but maybe I missed something.