Hercules

Jesus where did all the rush ends go...

And your examples of this are? I think it's been a pretty good discussion but I might be one those old school blue hairs to which you are referring. Sometimes it's not "old school blue hair" to suggest that traditions revert back to how they used to be. Those times IMO would be when the new way is not accomplishing anything and may possibly be providing negative motivation. Insanity is doing the same thing over and over again and expecting different results. I think it's time to shake it up by taking the blackshirt tradition back to the way it used to be. Maybe just maybe it will help provide more blackshirtesque results on Saturdays. I don't see how it could hurt. In 09 if you remember correctly, Bo tried to give them out after we beat Mizzou. The Defense said no. We need to do it one more game and that game was against Texas Tech. We gave up 31 points (7 of which were when Niles Paul fumbled) and only 259 yards against a Mike Leach offense that had usually owned us. They earned them. It has been that way since '08 and I absolutely have no problem with that. Remember in '07? They were given out in camp. That defense towards the end of the year appeared to not even care. I remember watching them and screaming the rhetorical question "Are you even trying?" Over and over at the TV after about the Okie State game that year. I don't recall them ever not getting to wear their black practice jerseys. You tell me. What is a bigger "break in tradition?" A team like the 07 team that ( again to my knowledge) never had to give theirs up. Or a team that comes together and works to earn it and agrees upon it? Again, the players know the deal and they know the standards they are being held to and have agreed upon them. No issue with the way this tradition is being handled. For all your concern about the "old school blue hairs," you seem to have entirely missed the tradition of the Blackshirts. Which is not surprising knowing how youthful you are. But these examples pale in comparison to the Blackshirts the "old school blue hairs" know. I understand that you know a few of the players. That's great. Almost every one of them was born in 1990 or later, and none of them were old enough to really understand this tradition, where it came from and why it means so much to people today. Using these players as examples of how it should be entirely misses the point. They're young men - they have neither the experience nor the memories of the great Blackshirt defenses. There's a predatory aspect to the real Blackshirts that these guys know nothing of. Certainly they don't evince that aspect of the tradition, aside from a few players here and there over the past, say, ten years or so. There were more "true" Blackshirts on the 1993 defense than in all of the 2000s. So you'll have to pardon us "old school blue hairs." Those of us who weren't still crapping our diapers when the last few real Blackshirt defenses played. I guess we just don't understand like you.

What? A ton of old school blue-haired responses in this thread that sound a tad Jason Peter-ish If you have an opinion, why not just make a reasonable statement that adds to the discussion, like everyone else in this thread has done, as opposed to accusing everyone you disagree with of being old?

What?

Umm...why? Thought I would chime in again and tell you what I meant now that the news is out that Tommy had additional surgery to clean up his knee. Questionable as to when he will be ready to go again as he has been held out of practice. Pelini and the reports all made it sound pretty routine. Said that Armstrong wasn't "full-go" yet, but all indications seem to be that he will still be competing for that #2 spot with RKIII.

I will give you 2011. Which is one instance (even though the other backs got about 8 carries per game - not a ton, but definitely much more than none). However, Braylon wasn't 100% last year. He also had over 50 carries on the season, and Taylor had more as well (throw in 55 carries for Imani as well). So one season we ran a runningback noticeably harder than we should have. Five we didn't. Gotta agree with 74Hunter on this one. Ameer was overworked last year, and wasn't nearly 100% down the stretch. When he was fresh against Georgia, the difference in his play was shocking, at least to me. The run at 3:18 in this video - that's Abdullah at 100%. Looks like a small Lawrence Phillips. We need that guy in November/December, and we didn't have that last year. Especially with how loaded the offense is this year and how easy the schedule is, there's no reason for Abdullah to be worn down by the Northwestern game.

I believe the tradition may have started as the entire first team defense getting them but I think the tradition has evolved since the beginning. I think the Blackshirts mean much more than that now. It has evolved into a representation of something fierce and powerful. An intimidation factor in ways. Plus, if I'm not mistaken, isn't Bo himself the one who changed the tradition by not handing them out to the starting defense? So in that itself it has clearly evolved, from the Osborne era and again in Pelini's short time here. You're right that the tradition has changed over time, but that doesn't necessarily mean that every change has been for the better. I think the biggest problem with Bo's policy is that it is fickle, and the last few seasons have undercut the symbolism that he's trying to convey. He's attempted to turn the blackshirts into something that must be earned over time, with great defensive performances on gameday that live up to the great Blackshirt defenses of the past. That was cool in 2008-2010, when Bo's defenses got better each week and actually had great performances against great teams that did live up to the Blackshirts of the 70's-90's. However, in 2011-12, they just handed out blackshirts after the first game where the defense looked halfway decent against a respectable opponent (in 2012, a Bellomy-led Michigan squad). The idea that the defense had somehow "arrived" in that game was later completely blown apart as they gave up an average of 30.5 points per game the rest of the season. If Bo's only going to hand out Blackshirts once they have supposedly been "earned" by on-field performance, he better be willing to take them away when those standards aren't met, and he better be willing to go entire seasons without distributing Blackshirts (2012 should have been one of those). I'd prefer a return to the old tradition. If you're on the #1 Defense, you wear a Blackshirt. You're expected to perform like a Blackshirt from day one, not starting halfway through the season. I also love the stories from former players about their first fall camp and seeing the top defense in those things, setting the tone from day 1. THAT'S intimidating. Over the current policy, I'd even prefer they hand out individual Blackshirts as those players earn them, even in Fall Camp. Ciante Evans should have one from day 1. That might be a nightmare in reality though, practicing with a unit of guys wearing different colors.

I totally agree. I also noticed that Taylor's throwing motion has completely regressed. See?

I've seen this several times, and I can only imagine that the people asking this question don't know how good Barry Sanders was in college, much less the NFL. He still owns the record for most rushing yards in a season with 2,638 yards, averaging 238.9 yards per game (240 rushing yards in a single game wasn't great - it was AVERAGE). I repeat - 2,638 yards - in eleven games. He didn't have 14 games, like modern RB's do, and still there won't be anybody who breaks that record any time soon (this was also before they counted stats from bowl games in records - over 12 games, Sanders had 2,850 rushing yards). I love me some Tommie Frazier, but he was a system player surrounded by Lawrence Phillips, Ahman Green, some of the best offensive lines of all time, some of the best blocking receivers in the country, and the offenses he led were complimented by nasty defense. Barry Sanders had Mike Gundy (it's worth noting that not a single Oklahoma State offensive lineman from that 1988 team was ever selected in the NFL draft).

They don't want any players on the business end of a Kenny Bell block to forget where they are. Mostly this... but also, probably television.

I am worried about the UCLA game, like many here. Given our inexperience on defense, there's no real good reason to think that we'll totally shut them down with Hundley at QB. We've always struggled with mobile QB's in the Pelini era, and Hundley is one of the better ones we'll have faced. On the optimistic side of things: after an atrocious first half, the defense played reasonably well last year in the second half against UCLA. Nebraska's 2nd half performance was all about turnovers and horrendous playcalling. If our offense can put together even just 3 good quarters of football, it might be enough to win this year.

I don't understand why Michigan is going to pro-style, either. Gardner seems like a perfect fit for a run/pass spread option kind of scheme, something like Missouri was running against us the last few years, except Gardner's a way better runner than Gabbert or Booger Boy. Put that kid on a spread field and let him find a receiver. Have him check one or two options, and if they're not open, he can run downfield. If I'm Pelini, I'm terrified of that. Hoke seems to have a thoroughbred and he's trying to turn him into a plow horse. Maybe it'll work, and maybe a D1 college head coach knows more about his team and players than I. But I'll believe it when I see it. Didn't Michigan try to move to a pro-style right when Hoke arrived, limiting Denard's running? I seem to recall their offense struggling early on, and then as they adapted and let Robinson loose down the stretch, they did much better. Maybe they'll do the same thing this year with Gardner, or maybe Gardner is a much better passer than Robinson (I think this is the case, actually). Hopefully, they'll just fall flat on their face and cede the division to us by mid-November.

I'm allowing myself one post on this topic and then I'm out. 1. Of COURSE race is a part of this story. No matter what story you believe, it's clear that George Zimmerman was suspicious of Trayvon Martin before Martin had done anything illegal, and that Martin was suspicious of Zimmerman before Zimmerman had approached him. It's also clear that Martin's family doesn't remotely trust the local police department, and if you don't understand the roots of that sentiment, which go back for decades, go take a history class. If you think that race didn't play a role in this, you're either naive or you're a white guy from Nebraska that has only seen about 20 black people in your entire life. 2. I'm fairly certain that the new racism is white people playing the victim, complaining about how unfairly they are being treated by the media - yeah, white males have it sooooo hard. Give me a break.

Don't really disagree with anything you're saying, except that I think Bo will probably prove himself to be a defensive "genius" or "guru" or whatever you want to call it, in time. Tom Osborne is considered one of the greatest offensive minds of all time, had the most consistent program of all time, and even his teams would get shut out every now and then. I think Pelini's recruiting has improved, and I have no doubt that his ability to develop players and coach defense will also continue to improve.

If he only wins six or seven games, it could happen. Don't think it will be an issue.

I'm sorry. I'm a huge Nebraska fan and I think Eric Crouch was a great player. But anybody who votes for Crouch in this poll has no idea how good Billy Sims was. Remember that play Crouch made against Iowa, where we bulldozed his way to the endzone? That's how Billy Sims looked against Nebraska. Skip to :40

If we're winning, those are New York-invitation type numbers. How many wins would it take to get Taylor to NYC with stats like those? I would imagine we would need to be in the conference title game again for him to get an invite. Probably 11 during the regular season. More importantly, he would need to have a huge game early on against UCLA, and he would need another great game against Michigan. It would help if Michigan and Nebraska played each other undefeated. To actually win, he'd probably need all of that, plus a signature game against Ohio State for the conference championship. I dont think he needs to have a big game against UCLA. In fact, he could actually struggle early in the season if he catches fire, has huge games against the Michigans and gets that signature moment. If the defense is erratic as we expect but he is lights out and carries the team to wins anyway, that would be a big plus as well. Remember, the Heisman as transpired into this "what have you done for me lately" award that is very seldom, if ever, based on the entire body of work. You're right that the Heisman is somewhat of a "what have you done for me lately," award, but it is also an award that has more to do with hype than actual productivity. If Taylor struggles against UCLA on a national stage, he doesn't have a chance to get back into the conversation until November agains Michigan. He might be able to make a Suh-like charge at the end of the season and get to NYC, but he wouldn't have a shot at winning.

If we're winning, those are New York-invitation type numbers. How many wins would it take to get Taylor to NYC with stats like those? I would imagine we would need to be in the conference title game again for him to get an invite. Probably 11 during the regular season. More importantly, he would need to have a huge game early on against UCLA, and he would need another great game against Michigan. It would help if Michigan and Nebraska played each other undefeated. To actually win, he'd probably need all of that, plus a signature game against Ohio State for the conference championship.

I can't imagine that anyone has done it other than '71 Nebraska. 1971 is also the only year where the top 3 teams in the final poll were all in the same conference.

The '71 team was pretty much just as dominant in their era as the '95 team was in theirs. '71 Nebraska did have one close game, but it was against Oklahoma, who after that season was considered the second greatest team of all time. 34-7 vs. Oregon 35-7 vs. Minnesota 34-7 vs. Texas A&M 42-6 vs. Utah State 36-0 vs. Missouri 55-0 vs. Kansas 41-13 vs. Oklahoma State 31-7 vs. Colorado 37-0 vs. Iowa State 44-17 vs. Kansas State 35-31 vs. Oklahoma 45-3 vs. Hawaii 38-6 vs. Alabama The final poll of the season was: 1. Nebraska 2. Oklahoma 3. Colorado 4. Alabama In my opinion, that kind of dominance makes '71 Nebraska an extremely close second to '95 Nebraska in the GOAT debate, and if anyone said '71 was better, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Notably, both Nebraska teams played significantly tougher schedules than 2004 USC and 2001 Miami, and neither had a close game against an average opponent, like USC and Miami both did. I've seen a number of lists with '95 as #1 and '71 as #2, not just in Nebraska history but all-time. I have no problem with that. They have an incredible resume, I just think the 1995 team is clearly better. The only word in that last sentence I disagree with is "clearly." Neither team had a weakness, and they played in completely different eras. The only knock against '71 Nebraska is they had a close game against a truly great Oklahoma team. The only knock against '95 Nebraska (and Osborne's championship run in general) was that they didn't have to face a great Oklahoma team. Osborne's championship run happened after Switzer was gone. Like I said, I don't have a problem with anyone saying '95 Nebraska is better. I do take issue with anyone who says it's inarguable.

The '71 team was pretty much just as dominant in their era as the '95 team was in theirs. '71 Nebraska did have one close game, but it was against Oklahoma, who after that season was considered the second greatest team of all time. 34-7 vs. Oregon 35-7 vs. Minnesota 34-7 vs. Texas A&M 42-6 vs. Utah State 36-0 vs. Missouri 55-0 vs. Kansas 41-13 vs. Oklahoma State 31-7 vs. Colorado 37-0 vs. Iowa State 44-17 vs. Kansas State 35-31 vs. Oklahoma 45-3 vs. Hawaii 38-6 vs. Alabama The final poll of the season was: 1. Nebraska 2. Oklahoma 3. Colorado 4. Alabama In my opinion, that kind of dominance makes '71 Nebraska an extremely close second to '95 Nebraska in the GOAT debate, and if anyone said '71 was better, I wouldn't have a problem with it. Notably, both Nebraska teams played significantly tougher schedules than 2004 USC and 2001 Miami, and neither had a close game against an average opponent, like USC and Miami both did.

I wouldn't say that's his legacy. He's the all-time school leader in total offense. That's his legacy. I would agree however that the main statistic separating him from greats like Frazier or Gill is turnovers. Taylor's basically on par or better in every other category. In other words, his turnover problem is part of his legacy. . . thus far. The good news is we seem to remember of these guys mostly by what they did their senior season. Hypothetically, if he puts the team on his back and carries them to a championship this year, that would be what he's most remembered for. No, his legacy is being our starter for four years and being one of the greatest athletes in this university's history. I think it's all those things. That's fair. My impression at first was that you were saying the turnovers alone were his legacy. I would agree that looking back on his career, Taylor will always be remembered for being explosive, productive, fun to watch, and also a major turnover risk. Hopefully he has an awesome senior season that will overshadow his previous turnover issues.

Cy's right. If we as fans on an internet forum do not refocus our thread on improving the defense, it's sure to affect our team's actual performance on the field this year.

Where are you looking? We have a consensus preseason rank of #18: http://preseason.sta...ensus/2013.html We're ranked in the top 25 by all five publications listed on stassen. Then I stand corrected. This bodes well for the above mentioned situation then. Although 18 still requires some help. I don't think they'd need any help out of the normal. If there are four undefeated teams at the end of the season, yes, they'd need some help. But if there are only one or two, and Nebraska's one of them, they'll be playing for the title. That said, I would be very surprised if Nebraska was still in the BCS title conversation this year by the end of November. There's been numerous instances where an undefeated team doesn't get in and a 1 loss SEC team does. There have been no instances where an undefeated BCS conference team is replaced by a 1 loss SEC team.