Hujan

We actually discovered some decent talent on the roster (Cross, Ozigbo), when Riley/Langsdorf finally pulled the plug on the Newby debacle. It's shame it took them 8-9 games. God only knows what records Wilbon might have broke if he was allowed to run. Love how we rewrite history. Newby got injured and lost his ability to cut laterally and a large portion of his speed. But please, continue to talk to us about how poor of a running back he was now that he's beat out everyone else for the #1 spot this year. I've heard that claim before. You got a link for the report of this major injury that allegedly cost Newby something he demonstrably never had in the first place? Hell the best move of Newby's career was that jump-cut stumble for a TD against UCLA. And honestly, take out South Alabama where he got almost every carry and the broken play at Minnesota. What do the numbers tell you then? Newby's numbers were fluff.

OWH There's a lot of truth here. It wasn't about 9 wins. It was the animosity with the fans and administration, the rants, the embarrassing behavior, and the overall sense that we'd reached our ceiling under Bo. I felt better about the direction of the program after last season than I did after any season under Bo post 2010.

We actually discovered some decent talent on the roster (Cross, Ozigbo), when Riley/Langsdorf finally pulled the plug on the Newby debacle. It's shame it took them 8-9 games. God only knows what records Wilbon might have broke if he was allowed to run.

Take out the pre-season cupcakes and the one blown play against Minnesota and Newby was in the low to mid-4s. The continued support of Newby is perhaps the biggest reason to question Riley and Langsdorf's coaching abilities, IMO. If they can't see that he simply doesn't have what it takes to be a truly effective back at a Power 5 program, I really have to question their opinion of everything else. Eye test, stats, whatever you want to look at, he simply did not have it last year and it's not really even close. Even worse, I fear that his inability to move the chains will only further undermine their confidence in the running game which is already a tough sell for them in general, and thereby embolden their decision to have Tommy sling the rock 30-40 times a game in a driving rainstorm.

I think that 5.2 was inflated based on him getting virtually all of the carries against the pre-season cupcakes, especially South Alabama. If you take away the TD run he had against Minnesota—which was the product of a blown assignment by the Minnesota D, resulting in a hole big enough to slide a battleship through—he didn't do a single impressive thing during the season with the possible exception of that one TD against UCLA where he dodged a tackler as he fell into the end zone. He might have speed, but he lacked vision, decisiveness, patience, elusiveness, and the ability to break tackles. I lost count of the number of times he actually ran to—not away from—tacklers, only to go down from the slightest contact. There was even a time on a kick return where it look like he got tackled by the defender's shadow. I really, really, really hope the lightbulb came on for him during the offseason, but mostly I just hope that Riley & Co. are not using his productivity (or lack thereof) as the gauge of how successful a running game can or will be at Nebraska. Sometimes it's the singer not the song.

I just hope that Riley has the courage to give Ozigbo and Wilbon fair shots at the #1 spot if/when Newby struggles and doesn't just give up on the run game like he did last year. Riley needs to understand that Newby struggling is not an indictment of the run game as a whole but is simply a reflection of his limited skills. If we feed Ozigbo and Wilbon and give them a chance with artful plays, the run game will work just fine.

Sorry. Players leaving their teams in a terrible spot because they are too mentally weak to face adversity is not worthy of much else. Truth hurts.

I appreciate that he made the decision before spring practice to give the younger guys more reps with the 1s so that he doesn't leave us in as much of a lurch. This just reinforces what the other early leavers on the DL told us: Big body doesn't necessarily mean string mind. Good riddance.

That's not how I remember it, but I'll take your word for it. All I remember is Suh was basically an above-average player after his junior year, nothing to necessarily get too excited about, then came out and dominated his senior year perhaps more than any other DT in the history of college football. But I think it's funny that you're justifying VV's decision in a way that is probably completely counter to how he's justifying it. You think he is a mediocre draft pick and will always be a mediocre draft pick, so might as well get the show on the road now. I think VV has been told he's a 3rd round pick and he wants to sell while his stock is high. Your rationale is completely counter to what his apparent rationale is. Nothing says "NFL potential" like a guy who realizes he will have to step up for this team to succeed and decides to cut and run instead. Not saying that's his rationale, but if you're right that it was, that would concern me as an NFL GM. I would definitely put a check next to the "Looks for the easy way out" box. I think you're taking it the wrong way; I don't think he's looking for the "easy way out." I think he is making the smartest decision for him. I don't think it is, "oh, Maliek is gone, I'm going to have to work harder and do more." I think it is, "my snaps are going to increase greatly, and in turn my chance of injury. Is the upside worth the risk knowing my injury history?" I think it is prudent for him to take 4th round money now rather than come back, risk injury, and maybe get 2nd or 3rd round money. If those were the facts, I could understand it. But the reality is that VV will not go any higher than the 6th round. He hasn't exactly been a workout warrior and it's very hard to see him testing well at the combine. Not to mention that it is a very talent-rich year for DTs. In my view it's leave now and get drafted in the 6th round or come back hard your senior year and strive for a 2nd round spot. But I think your first comment is exactly his fear: With Collins gone, VV knows that he is going to draw the double teams and be the focus of the opposing offensive line and therefore that his stats next year will likely be worse than this year, so he's got to sell while his stock is the highest its going to get. That's fine, but it does not portend a high draft slot or a long, successful career in the NFL.

How would have Valentine benefited by coming back for another year at NU? I'm just curious to why so many people are saying this. Because it would have given him a chance to actually show that he's a dominant athlete at the DT position and not just a guy who occasionally makes a play when he's not taking plays off or in the shop getting repairs for a bum wheel. I still don't see how he would have gone into the top 2 rounds by coming back for another year at NU. There was always going to be doubts about him from NFL scouts. Now, he doesn't have to worry about getting injured again while at NU, and he can prove himself to NFL scouts. The guy has the size and quickness to make it in the NFL. Yes, there are doubts about his motor and willing to play through injuries, and that will cause VV's draft position to be in the 4-6 round range. But, he's just hoping to get drafted and go from there. I can totally understand why he's doing this. I understand what you are saying, but NFL guys don't draft players from their college stats. They draft guys on their skills and their potential to be a good-great NFL player. I disagree; look at Suh. He would have basically been VV had he left after his junior year. Prototypical size, athleticism, etc., but would have been a late draft pick at best. Comes back for his senior year, explodes onto the scene, is runner up for the Heisman (remember that?) and goes in the first round. Not saying VV could have made that kind of transition, but I'm not sure he could do much worse than where he'll be drafted now (assuming he's even drafted). Nothing says "NFL potential" like a guy who realizes he will have to step up for this team to succeed and decides to cut and run instead. Not saying that's his rationale, but if you're right that it was, that would concern me as an NFL GM. I would definitely put a check next to the "Looks for the easy way out" box.

How would have Valentine benefited by coming back for another year at NU? I'm just curious to why so many people are saying this. Because it would have given him a chance to actually show that he's a dominant athlete at the DT position and not just a guy who occasionally makes a play when he's not taking plays off or in the shop getting repairs for a bum wheel.

I find it surprising. IMO, he was our fourth best DT last year after Collins and the Kevins. He just never really lived up to the hype, IMO. I think he would have been better served staying another year, showcasing his stats without having to play in Collins' shadow, and hopefully proving to scouts that he can get through a full season without major injury.

Ozigbo is your hammer in two-back or two-tight end sets. Wilbon will be the Sproles-type of back on screens and draws. It's that simple.

I think it's limited to schools licensed through "IMG," which must be a marketing agency. In other words, it's a ranking of a particular marketing agency's clients, not every possible school. Ohio State and Oregon must use someone else.

When people complained about throwing the ball so much I think people forgot what our strongest position on offense was No doubt our WRs are the best athletes on the team, but you need to have someone who can get them the ball consistently. As much as I love what Armstrong brings to the table, he is just not a QB who you can trust to reliably throw the ball 30-40 times a game. If we had a Joe Ganz or Zac Taylor back there throwing to this group of receivers and the offense putting up lots of yards and TDs, I think you'd see a lot less angst about our run-pass balance.

I still, for the life of me, don't understand why people think the fan angst has such a big impact on recruiting separate and apart from the reason for the angst in the first place. For one, as long as the stadium is full on game days, it is only relevant if one assumes that fan angst will translate into a coach's firing and we all know that ADs don't fire successful coaches just because the fans are in uproar (assuming fans would even be in uproar if the coach was successful, itself a dubious assumption). Two, it unrealistically assumes that other programs experiencing similar problems are magically going to have much more patient, well-behaved fans than ours. But if you're read any other teams' message boards, you'd know that the angst is at best a wash and, more realistically, other teams' boards make Nebraska's message boards look like The Reading Rainbow. You think Texas, USC, LSU, or Alabama have less caustic boards than Nebraska? They will tar and feather their coaches if the margin of victory is not to their liking. Half of our fanbase would feel guilty about getting angry at Riley if he tortured dogs in his free time and would probably find a way to blame themselves for him doing it. Blaming the message boards for paltry recruiting is at once a very arrogant and very self-loathing thing to say, IMO. Forgetting that 18 year old kids who are highly touted have access to the internet is part of that line of thinking. If they are considering school A and school B, jump on a social media website for both and randomly see positive thinking from one fan base but anger and loathing from the other, it could easily sway them the other way. Our players see more of what we post on this message board than you think, why wouldn't a recruit come to anplace like this to see what the fans think? I don't doubt recruits might peruse the boards. But the false predicate in your hypothetical is that our board will be more "negative" than the boards pertaining to the other 5-7 teams the recruit is also considering. I think that's really unlikely. And if your answer is to point out the recruit might be comparing us to successful programs with positive boards, I would counter that (1) our relative negativity would be over shadowed by the reason for it (I.e., our comparatively poor record), and (2) that any recruit worth having should be able to see that comparing the attitudes of fans on a 10-2 team to those of a 5-7 team is very apples to oranges. Unless we are supposed to act like over medicated, loopy Stepford fans with creepy plastic smiles in the face of objectively terrible coaching decisions, I don't find the content of the board all that surprising or abnormal and neither would a recruit comparing us to TCU. You are missing the point. All it takes it 1 nasty comment and it could completely change a kids mind on whether or not he wants to come here. I'm not saying we should all pump sunshine, but some of the crap that gets posted here is exactly what would make me not want to play here if it were me. If it only takes one nasty comment for them not to want to come here, they probably weren't coming anyway or wouldn't have lasted if they did. Or any other program for that matter. The recruit who is capable of being dissuaded by just one negative comment will likely not find a home anywhere without developing thicker skin. I still, for the life of me, don't understand why people think the fan angst has such a big impact on recruiting separate and apart from the reason for the angst in the first place. For one, as long as the stadium is full on game days, it is only relevant if one assumes that fan angst will translate into a coach's firing and we all know that ADs don't fire successful coaches just because the fans are in uproar (assuming fans would even be in uproar if the coach was successful, itself a dubious assumption). Two, it unrealistically assumes that other programs experiencing similar problems are magically going to have much more patient, well-behaved fans than ours. But if you're read any other teams' message boards, you'd know that the angst is at best a wash and, more realistically, other teams' boards make Nebraska's message boards look like The Reading Rainbow. You think Texas, USC, LSU, or Alabama have less caustic boards than Nebraska? They will tar and feather their coaches if the margin of victory is not to their liking. Half of our fanbase would feel guilty about getting angry at Riley if he tortured dogs in his free time and would probably find a way to blame themselves for him doing it. Blaming the message boards for paltry recruiting is at once a very arrogant and very self-loathing thing to say, IMO. Forgetting that 18 year old kids who are highly touted have access to the internet is part of that line of thinking. If they are considering school A and school B, jump on a social media website for both and randomly see positive thinking from one fan base but anger and loathing from the other, it could easily sway them the other way. Our players see more of what we post on this message board than you think, why wouldn't a recruit come to anplace like this to see what the fans think? I don't doubt recruits might peruse the boards. But the false predicate in your hypothetical is that our board will be more "negative" than the boards pertaining to the other 5-7 teams the recruit is also considering. I think that's really unlikely. And if your answer is to point out the recruit might be comparing us to successful programs with positive boards, I would counter that (1) our relative negativity would be over shadowed by the reason for it (I.e., our comparatively poor record), and (2) that any recruit worth having should be able to see that comparing the attitudes of fans on a 10-2 team to those of a 5-7 team is very apples to oranges. Unless we are supposed to act like over medicated, loopy Stepford fans with creepy plastic smiles in the face of objectively terrible coaching decisions, I don't find the content of the board all that surprising or abnormal and neither would a recruit comparing us to TCU. You are missing the point. All it takes it 1 nasty comment and it could completely change a kids mind on whether or not he wants to come here. I'm not saying we should all pump sunshine, but some of the crap that gets posted here is exactly what would make me not want to play here if it were me. If it only takes one nasty comment for them not to want to come here, they probably weren't coming anyway or wouldn't have lasted if they did. Maybe, but why risk it? We can keep throwing out the excuse of "Other fan bases are just as pissy and hostile on the internet as we are so it doesn't hurt recruiting" all we want, but it's BS. It's just a way to pretend we are still a special fan base while getting to say we should fire our coach 4 games into a season. Our fan base used to be an asset and not only in the stadium on game day. It has nothing to do with preserving our "specialness" as a fan base. The reason I reject the contention that negative comments dissuade recruits is because that assertion is being used as a basis for censorship. People who share your mindset want to whitewash message boards and online discussion of the team so that it is all roses and sunshine. But that would be as dishonest as it is unrealistic. Being "negative" serves a purpose. It is frankly cathartic to be able to vent after a frustrating game. It may also be productive in the sense that fan angst could be a catalyst for the coaches to reexamine their strategies. I have very little doubt that game plan against UCLA and Riley's comments about wanting to establish the run are, at least in part, a reaction to the overwhelming consensus among fans that Nebraska needed/needs to run the ball more. Of course, people can go to far in their "negativity" and it becomes unproductive, but even so, I think those instances are no more destructive to the program than the many sunshine pumpers who are happy to dispense a multitude of excuses for the program's struggles and are glossing over very real issues with the program. As in everything, there is balance. But to say that anything but non-stop sunshine pumping is damaging to the program is nonsense, in my humble opinion. And if speaking one's honest opinion is wrong, then I don't want to be right. (BTW, 1995, I don't necessarily consider you part of the group of non-stop sunshine pumpers I'm referencing; I'm merely addressing you because we're having the discussion, but I don't have any contempt for you personally, FWIW.)

His mom. She posted here very frequently during his recruitment. I believe she has popped in occasionally this season too. She is also my secret crush. Shhh don't tell her. Gotcha. In that case, great job raising one heck of a young man, Ms. Morgan!

Who GAF what his offer sheet looked like? Kid is awesome and I'm excited to see him play for the next 2-3 years. Very glad we have him on our team. Who is Monique?

That guy is Wilbon. Wilbon can fulfill the "lightning" role in single-back sets and passing downs and Ozigbo is your hammer to punish the D in power-run formations and short-yardage situations. I really believe these two could become a poor man's version of Reggie Bush and LenDale White if the coaches would pull their heads out of their asses, shelve Newby, put Wilbon and Ozigbo on the field, and run the damn ball.

1.) Pelini hated recruiting enough to hurt himself and always has, but that's beside the point. No one called for his firing until maybe four or five years into his tenure not four or five games into it 2.) Riley actually understands how to recruit much like Callahan did. You have to keep your recruiters responsible and he has some excellent young recruiters such as Bray and Williams. Regarding #1, at the risk of derailing the thread, the reason for the discrepancy between the five years for Pelini and five games for Riley is that (1) most people were pleased with Pelini was hired whereas people either said "Who?" or "Oh no, not the career .500 coach from Oregon State" when Riley was announced, and (2) Pelini took a 5-7 team and went 8-5, whereas Riley took a 9-3 team and went 5-7. Regarding #2, what do you make of Hank Hughes, Bruce Read, and Mark Banker, three coaches who, if the reports are to be believed, do jack you-know-what on the recruiting trail? There is no doubt that Bray and Williams are the bright spots of an otherwise very "Meh" coaching staff, but having two guys who recruit their tails off while several others sit on their ass does not constitute "keeping one's recruiters responsible," IMO. Good questions. 1.) You're correct and again, his status wasn't remotely in doubt until 2011 at the earliest. 2.) Hughes and Read are not guys I look to as stud recruiters. I'm not sure where you're hearing this stuff about Banker because the guy shows up just as much as anyone else. Is he THE closer? No, but he'll get his. Riley, Langs, Williams, Bray and Stewart are all good for quality recruits. You're not going to have an entire staff of stud recruiters. Fortunately, not only does Nebraska have assistants who can close, it has a support staff second to none. Thanks for the responses. I guess my question as to at least Hughs and Read is are they doing ANYTHING to support recruiting and if not, can Nebraska afford to have two full-time assistants who aren't even "recruiters" let alone "stud recruiters."

I still, for the life of me, don't understand why people think the fan angst has such a big impact on recruiting separate and apart from the reason for the angst in the first place. For one, as long as the stadium is full on game days, it is only relevant if one assumes that fan angst will translate into a coach's firing and we all know that ADs don't fire successful coaches just because the fans are in uproar (assuming fans would even be in uproar if the coach was successful, itself a dubious assumption). Two, it unrealistically assumes that other programs experiencing similar problems are magically going to have much more patient, well-behaved fans than ours. But if you're read any other teams' message boards, you'd know that the angst is at best a wash and, more realistically, other teams' boards make Nebraska's message boards look like The Reading Rainbow. You think Texas, USC, LSU, or Alabama have less caustic boards than Nebraska? They will tar and feather their coaches if the margin of victory is not to their liking. Half of our fanbase would feel guilty about getting angry at Riley if he tortured dogs in his free time and would probably find a way to blame themselves for him doing it. Blaming the message boards for paltry recruiting is at once a very arrogant and very self-loathing thing to say, IMO. Forgetting that 18 year old kids who are highly touted have access to the internet is part of that line of thinking. If they are considering school A and school B, jump on a social media website for both and randomly see positive thinking from one fan base but anger and loathing from the other, it could easily sway them the other way. Our players see more of what we post on this message board than you think, why wouldn't a recruit come to anplace like this to see what the fans think? I don't doubt recruits might peruse the boards. But the false predicate in your hypothetical is that our board will be more "negative" than the boards pertaining to the other 5-7 teams the recruit is also considering. I think that's really unlikely. And if your answer is to point out the recruit might be comparing us to successful programs with positive boards, I would counter that (1) our relative negativity would be over shadowed by the reason for it (I.e., our comparatively poor record), and (2) that any recruit worth having should be able to see that comparing the attitudes of fans on a 10-2 team to those of a 5-7 team is very apples to oranges. Unless we are supposed to act like over medicated, loopy Stepford fans with creepy plastic smiles in the face of objectively terrible coaching decisions, I don't find the content of the board all that surprising or abnormal and neither would a recruit comparing us to TCU.

I've heard good things about the Davis twins, but I am surprised people keep penciling them in at the DT spots. Last I looked, they were listed at ~250 lbs., which is WAY too small to play DT in the Big Ten. They will get plowed over. As bad as Banker's D was at times, it could at least count on two +300 lbs. tackles plugging up the middle. If you put in two 250 lbs. tackles, teams are going to start doing to us what we did to UCLA. We'd have problems stopping the run AND pass. IMO, if they are that light, I'd like to see what the Davis twins can do on the outside. If they have the athleticism to be premier pass rushers, having a tandem like that on the outside with a couple big heavies to plug the middle would be amazing. They were listed at 265 and I am sure they are bigger & stronger after a year in the program. Collins was listed at 290 before this year. I hope you're right. Anything less than 285 is going to be a liability in this D.

Don't forget Westerkamp.

1.) Pelini hated recruiting enough to hurt himself and always has, but that's beside the point. No one called for his firing until maybe four or five years into his tenure not four or five games into it 2.) Riley actually understands how to recruit much like Callahan did. You have to keep your recruiters responsible and he has some excellent young recruiters such as Bray and Williams. Regarding #1, at the risk of derailing the thread, the reason for the discrepancy between the five years for Pelini and five games for Riley is that (1) most people were pleased with Pelini was hired whereas people either said "Who?" or "Oh no, not the career .500 coach from Oregon State" when Riley was announced, and (2) Pelini took a 5-7 team and went 8-5, whereas Riley took a 9-3 team and went 5-7. Regarding #2, what do you make of Hank Hughes, Bruce Read, and Mark Banker, three coaches who, if the reports are to be believed, do jack you-know-what on the recruiting trail? There is no doubt that Bray and Williams are the bright spots of an otherwise very "Meh" coaching staff, but having two guys who recruit their tails off while several others sit on their ass does not constitute "keeping one's recruiters responsible," IMO.