Hujan

This is exactly why I feared the bowl would be a bad idea. A win is "meh" but a loss is a disaster. It's a classic high-risk, low-reward scenario that's best avoided.

Even if they aren't ready? Don't tell me there's nobody better on this team than Utter. If that's the case then we can just forget Husker football ever being good again. You can choose to go that route. Some of us are going to let the coaches get us back to being very good!!! The way I see it is this. I have a couple of options. First option; I can act like some of the people who have been banned here recently. I can rant and rave and no matter what happens, I'll blame the coaches and demand their removal every chance I get. My life will generally be miserable because of all the doom and gloom I'll be spouting. Second option; I can maintain a positive outlook even though we had a bad year. I can maintain hope for the future and be excited when signing day comes and then spring practice after that. I can be patient and understand that sometimes coaching transitions are a process. This option leaves me happier and more stress free in my daily life, so that's what I chose, but that's just me. Why is it binary, though? Why is it either kool aid or doom and gloom? Why can't it be a little bit of both? Why can't someone say they like Riley's disposition, are encouraged that we were in every game this season, like what we're seeing from some position groups (LBs, WRs, DBs), and are liking the S&C program, but are a little bit worried about the offensive play-calling, personnel mismanagement, refusal to rotate linemen, etc.? I think most sensible Husker fans were a little bit unsure about the Riley hire, became downright worried when he outfitted his staff with ineffective cronies from Oregon State, and full-on hit the panic button when this supposedly veteran staff was making game management mistakes that would cause a pimply faced Madden playing teenager do a face palm. That said, we want the program to succeed and are hopeful it will, but see some concerning issues that warrant mention if only because it's cathartic to voice our opinion, but also in the faint, perhaps unrealistic hope that someone important is listening and might take what the fans are seeing to heart.

Discussion in the recruiting forum has the opinion that the staff was only looking to bring in one for 2016 Tre Bryant is solid. Dont let the 3* concern you. Ozigbo, Newby, Wilbon, Taylor, Bryant - more than plenty of backs next season. Like I said, the position remains unproven and a "solid", 3*, 4.53/40 RB doesn't thrill me so much. We used to get guys like Rozier and Phillips, i.e., studs. When's the last time we've had a real stud at the position? I give credit to Ameer, but he was a self made kinda guy. We need a legit, blue chip RB @ NE. NE should still be a destination for RBs, but I guess that's changed. The Gurly's, Fournettes, and Henry's of the world are going elsewhere. Sigh. I don't care about their HS stats once they hit the college field. Ameer proved that he was a stud. So were Rex and Roy. And Newby was the #75 player overall according to Rivals when he was coming out of HS. Newby is more or less a bust at this point, IMO. Maybe Taylor or Wilbon can be 'that guy', I dunno, we've been waitng 2 years to see Taylor. Ameer, Rex, and Roy were all good, but I wouldn't call them great. I miss having a great, domineering RB @ NU, we used to be RB U. I would love to be surprised some year and have the next 5* Leonard Fournette sign with us for a chancge. Or any 5* player. We haven't had a difference maker--ay any position--on this team for eons other than Suh. This 3* stuff isn't going to cut it. Let's stop and talk recruiting. Corn, who do you want to start RB next year? My opinion is Ozigbo. Ozigbo isn't that fast nor is he terribly elusive. Wilbon is better in all regards and gets my vote. Of course, if Adam Taylor comes in and lives up to original billng, he could be the ticket. But, he blew out a knee in H.S. and an ankle last year I guess, so how much could we expect from him? Wilbon is the ticket, me thinks. Now, if and only if, Newby toughens up and learns to break tackles, he could still compete for #1. But I've been saying that for 2 years and it hasn't happened. Even better. See what I said about 247. http://247sports.com/Player/Mikale-Wilbon-21725?Institution=1800 Average recruiting site had Mikale listed as a 3 star RB, #21 overall. Should we run him out of town? I counter with Rivals, 4*, 16th overall RB. Hey, I'm good with Wilbon if he pans out. I'm just a bit concerned that Riley has only recruited Ozigbo and Bryant who are merely "solid". Jordan Stevenson doesn't count, since, you know, he's gone. I'm concerned about Riley's recruiting @ the RB position, is what I'm saying here. http://sports.yahoo.com/wku/football/recruiting/player-Mikale-Wilbon-141266 What better way to justify throwing the ball nonstop than to not even have any RBs on the roster? I'm being a bit facetious, but de-emphasizing the run game is a multi-pronged approach for Riley & Co., consisting of game planning (run/pass balance), play selection (vanilla run plays vs. creative run plays), personnel (Newby vs. actual running backs), and recruiting (not going after many/any RBs).

Just like the people complaining that Riley was having Armstrong snap the ball with 14 seconds left on the clock against Southern Miss and Riley didn't even know it until it was pointed out by a reporter in the post-game presser. It was literally like, "Golly, were we doing that? I'll have to go back and look at the game tape, but if that's the case, we need to take a look at that." Or when the coaches deciding to throw the ball 45 times a game until the collective state was demanding that they run the ball and when they started listening we actually started winning. Or when anyone who understands football and is an honest person can tell you that Newby has no business running the ball for Nebraska (or any Div. 1 team for that matter) and when they started feeding the ball to Cross, we started to put a little running game together. Or when the coaches decided to start Daniel Davie at corner until he was getting consistently burned and then they had to put in someone else and Davie has basically never been seen again. Or when the coaches dialed up an ambiguous QB run/pass play when all we needed was a simple, vanilla run play to beat Illinois. Or when we needed to pickup a first down against Wisconsin and instead of a creative run play, the coaches dialed up the vanilla run play they should have called against Illinois Or when it was forth and short against Iowa and instead of kicking the field goal or picking up the first down, the coaches dialed up a low-percentage fade route for our wildly inaccurate QB Or when the coaches stubbornly refused to rotate any offensive linemen, only to discover through injury at the end of the year that our best offensive lineman on the team had been riding the pine all season long. Trust me, the coaches have give us PLENTY of reasons to question their decision-making this year and, frankly, we might have had another loss or two if not for the fact that the seat had become so damn hot from their manifest incompetence that they had to accede to some of the demands from the fanbase and media if only to try and fail so they could say, "See! We did what you wanted and it didn't help!" Except it did.

Kids are softer, but so is society as a whole. Criticism is taboo now. Just look at HuskerMax. It's a mortal sin to call out a player on that board.

Why are people assuming he leaves? I think Collins might benefit from another year. Valentine? Give me a break. Dude needs a lot more seasoning at this level before he can realistically think NFL. It's not even close, IMO.

Bummer. I thought Mosley had potential to be at least as good as Josh Mitchell. Seemed like a small guy with a lot of fire and agility.

To be clear, I don't disagree with having rules and enforcing them, lest the coach be seen as soft and lose control of his team. But the thing that both of you seem to be taking for granted is that whatever Rose did was public knowledge. My point is simply that it may not have been known until Riley announced it, in which case it might have been better to just keep it under one's hat for a couple weeks and just let the problem solve itself when he graduates. But reasonable minds may differ. I'd just never heard of a senior being dismissed from a team a couple of weeks before the season was over.

Maybe I missed it, but I'm surprised no one has speculated who did the best on the testing. I bet Wilbon was tops among RBs and my money is on Alonzo Moore for the WRs, though I bet DPE would be tops if he was healthy. I'll go with Chris Jones among the DBs.

I'd be all for it if it means we have to pay him less per year.

Believe it or not, I am actually more worried about the O than the D next year, though that will change if Collins and Valentine leave. I think Banker's D could be dangerous (to opponents) with a legit pass rusher and some corners with good press skills. The run stoppage is there, you just need corners to press up and deny the receivers a clean break and a pass rusher or two to get in the backfield and disrupt the QB's timing. Good post. I agree. One of the biggest bummers of the Wisconsin loss for me was the fact that Newby played a really good game.

Is it me or does this suggest we held most teams at or below their season average with the exceptions of Miami, Northwestern, Purdue, and arguably MSU?

Was that a joke? Sorry I didn't laugh LOL Not a joke. Just seems weird to me to formally dismiss a player before their final game in a very inconsequential bowl game. At this point, you might as well just let it ride and not play him in the bowl game, but I don't see the utility of throwing a guy off the team roughly a week before the final game of his college career. Was that a joke? Sorry I didn't laugh LOL I am also confused.

That's just how savvy Osborne was: he set the stage for anti-Pelini propaganda before Pelini ever got here. Hiring Pelini was just the final domino to fall in Osborne's elaborate plan. "Checkmate," says Osborne, "Checkmate."

Wait, so Wilbon was so far removed from the team this season that he's not even familiar with the verbiage and play calls at this point? What the heck did he do? (Link won't open on phone.)

Just so I understand, you'd prefer we keep the athletic deficiencies of our scholarship players on the DL so as not to offend the precious sensibilities of the athletes we expect to physically dominate opposing players in front of 90,000 screaming fans and a national TV audience?

The people who censor criticism of players are probably the same people who like participation ribbons and taking red pens away from teachers grading schoolwork.

I'm skeptical. Another 5-7 season in which multiple losses can be directly attributed to very pointed coaching blunders (e.g., BYU, Illinois, Wisconsin, and Purdue) and Riley and his buddies are going to have to find another party to crash.

Some guys just can't get out of their own way. It's a shame.

Me too. I always heard that arm strength was an issue, but I think it would do a lot to open things up for the offense to have a QB that not only looks for options underneath, but also has the touch and accuracy to put the ball there. Riley's offense really depends on a QB with the ability to see and hit open receivers in the short and intermediate routes. That said, if ZD's health is not 100%, there's no need to risk further injury. Honor his scholly and I'm sure he'll find ways to contribute as best he can in the meeting room, at practice, and on the sideline. There's always a place for good, smart kids on the team, IMO, whether they can see combat or not.

I like it. Let's see how they respond.

He was a senior, right? If so, dismissing him at this point seems a bit, "You can't quit! You're fired!"

If you've read a single report about the impact concussions have on the brain and what it does to an individual long term, you'd be singing a different tune. No offense, but adding the word 'liberal lawyers' (like they have anything to do with it?) and calling him a pu&&y makes you look pretty ignorant about the topic. You clearly don't understand the topic and come off looking not so great. You missed the point. Your argument is essentially that football is too violent and damaging to the brain, and that it perhaps needs to be re-examined as a sport. It's a conversation worth having, but the OPs point is that it doesn't make sense for a guy who feels that way to be calling a football game. It would be rather like having Sunday services led by a "pastor" who does nothing more than rant about the evils of organized religion.If Ed Cunningham thinks football is a brutal sport and too violent and dangerous, he shouldn't be calling games on TV. If you can't understand that, it's you who doesn't look "so great." My point was by using 'liberal lawyers' and calling him a pu&&y was immature. Like there's some agenda attacking football from the left. OP looks ignorant when using those terms. Not football specifically but the political left tends to be much softer and more bleeding heart that the right, for better or worse. Our participation-ribbons-to everyone, don't-criticize-anyone culture is brought to you by liberals. I have no doubt in my mind that Ed Cunningham probably gets walked all over by everyone he encounters and pays over MSRP for his cars. Coincidentally or not, I suspect he's a Democrat.

FIFY. Really? we had the second best offense in the B10 this season. B10 was considered the best football conference this year. Your opinion is truly uninformed. Yeah? Well this offense couldn't convert on 3rd and short to close out two games and we lost as a direct result. You are such an obvious shill for his joke of a staff it's disgusting.

FIFY.