VTech Game

[NU41SB]

It's as simple as this: Lee is our starter, period. He's one hit away from being out the rest of the game or season (See: Sam Bradford). It is prudent to have your #2 guy as prepped as possible, especially if that #2 is a true Frosh.

 

Barring injury, Green will continue to get mop-up duty all year. He will not start over a healthy Zac Lee in 2009.

 

In 2010, as Bo has made perfectly clear time and again, the QB spot is up for grabs and must be earned on the practice field and in the classroom. Zac's one year of starter-ship won't mean a thing in 2010. If Green can beat him out in 2010, Green will be our starter.

 

IF Green is our starter next year, we're in really good shape. It means we have a starter gifted enough and prepared enough to lead this team where Bo wants us to go. It also means we have a talented backup with in-game experience in case Green goes down. Win/win.

 

We're in good shape at QB right now. Let's just enjoy the ride, shall we?

 

 

[EbylHusker]

I guess you misunderstand. Your argument is my argument. While some see Lee as entitled unless injured to start ahead of Green for the next two years based on what happened in one "we buy em, we beat em" football game that for all big programs should be called a "pre season" game, I think it was very telling that they burnt Green's shirt to play in that game. If they didn't plan on utilizing Green in a major way; they would have waited to burn the shirt and see how it's going. It's not like they could not have given him the same number of snaps in practice. In my way of thinking it was a decision that they needed Green on the field likely this season --not "in case" but "because". Otherwise it is a boneheaded move to cut a player of Green's ability down to two years of eligibility to mop up this year and next year.

 

I just found it very telling and asked on another thread if anyone else thought that we would be seeing him start. So shoot me. Start a Zac Lee for the Heiseman thead if that floats your boat. There is NO Quarterback controversy on the team. There is none in the media. There is none on this site. I'm primarily basing my opinion that he will play more than some of the "Zac Lee is our quarterback until 2012" crowd believe on burning the redshirt in the first game. And the fact that he displayed some elusive ability running the ball was good but not the reason I think he will see a lot of playing time this year.

 

I think they are just bringing him along a little more slowly than Barkley at USC but have the same plan to get his talent on the field sooner rather than later. It could be all wet, but one's opinion should not be so threatening to other Big Red fans. Instead of taking shots at those who think that is the case, why not state your opinion without personal attack. We'll see in the fullness of time if I am right or wrong.

 

I have not seen a single person yet state that Lee is entitled to the starter position all season. If there is a post like that on these boards, please point me to it. But either way, I certainly know at least the vast majority of the people posting responses to your theory do not feel that way.

 

And really, I think people are so hot and bothered by you, not by your idea that Green is great. If you want to dry hump Cody Green because your gut tells you he's the bestest, then just do it and admit it. The problem comes in when you ignore facts (like claiming Lee is not mobile after I have posted video evidence that he is and others have posted his 4.6 listed speed) and try to support your side of the argument with Green's performance in our opener, but disregard everything that supports Lee from the opener. Oops, gee, I can't imagine why that gets people riled up...

 

And finally there's your theory about Green not redshirting because the staff intends for him to take over midseason. I'm sorry, but that's not the obvious reason, no matter how much you wish it to be. The simplest answer is the one that's a common occurrence in college football, and that's to have your #2 player at a key position where you're thin get valuable playing time in case the starter goes down. Is your version a possibility? Sure, but don't be surprised that you get jumped on for it, because when combined with all this other stuff, it makes you look really bad.

 

So as I said, it's not really your idea, but the way you fail to support your idea while ignoring all the reasons there are to say that right now there's no logical reason to think Lee will lose his starting job.

[EbylHusker]

I know I am getting way ahead of myself, but this game has become a little larger than expected. I still think we will beat them. However, we beat VTech and upset OU (they are hurting and I don't know how Bradford will recover), what are we looking at here????

 

 

My prediction......

 

Nebraska vs. OSU - Big 12 Championship in Dallas

 

(Texas will fold....as usual)

 

Again, if you put my thoughts together with .10, you can buy yourself a cup of coffee. Really amounts to nothing. But I want to be put on record.

 

Well if we beat VT and OU, then we'll probably have beaten Missouri as well. I'd say it would definitely mean we'd win the north. However I think UT will be better than OU this year (thought that before Bradford went down), so whoever comes to the Big 12 Champtionship from the north will be playing UT, imo.

 

Not a likely scenario for us, but anything is possible.

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

I know I am getting way ahead of myself, but this game has become a little larger than expected. I still think we will beat them. However, we beat VTech and upset OU (they are hurting and I don't know how Bradford will recover), what are we looking at here????

 

 

My prediction......

 

Nebraska vs. OSU - Big 12 Championship in Dallas

 

(Texas will fold....as usual)

 

Again, if you put my thoughts together with .10, you can buy yourself a cup of coffee. Really amounts to nothing. But I want to be put on record.

 

Well if we beat VT and OU, then we'll probably have beaten Missouri as well. I'd say it would definitely mean we'd win the north. However I think UT will be better than OU this year (thought that before Bradford went down), so whoever comes to the Big 12 Champtionship from the north will be playing UT, imo.

 

Not a likely scenario for us, but anything is possible.

I wouldn't count out Okie Lite just yet. They play Texas in Stillwater this year and in the past they have always given UT a fight. If Okie Lite can jump out to an early lead, I think this could be the year Okie Lite wins. Okie Lite has the pleasure of playing their toughest games (Texas, Tech, Mizzou) in Stillwater. Their 4 road games are to ATM, Baylor, Iowa St and OU. The game in Norman can't really be consider an away game considering there are so many OSU fans in and around the Norman area.

[EbylHusker]

Yeah, that's a good point about Oklahoma St. I do agree they've got a shot.

[clone]

Most of the teams 90's NU played were beaten before they even played a single down, because they knew that they were going to get pounded on every play. That carried over into each successive season. I don't know why this simple formula is proving to be such a difficult concept to grasp.

 

 

ahhh... there it is. recent history doesn't matter (as usual) but ten year old events do.

 

mizzou fan has every reason to think they can win this game.

 

NU has a GOOD possibility of pulling it out as well.

 

But ANCIENT HISTORY ain't playing a part in this game.

 

If Nu wins... it's because

 

BO KNOWS FOOTBALL!!

 

he's a defensive genius and that'll keep ya in most games.

 

 

 

 

 

except VaTech and OU.

[HuskerGBR]

 

I guess you misunderstand. Your argument is my argument. While some see Lee as entitled unless injured to start ahead of Green for the next two years based on what happened in one "we buy em, we beat em" football game that for all big programs should be called a "pre season" game, I think it was very telling that they burnt Green's shirt to play in that game. If they didn't plan on utilizing Green in a major way; they would have waited to burn the shirt and see how it's going. It's not like they could not have given him the same number of snaps in practice. In my way of thinking it was a decision that they needed Green on the field likely this season --not "in case" but "because". Otherwise it is a boneheaded move to cut a player of Green's ability down to two years of eligibility to mop up this year and next year.

 

I just found it very telling and asked on another thread if anyone else thought that we would be seeing him start. So shoot me. Start a Zac Lee for the Heiseman thead if that floats your boat. There is NO Quarterback controversy on the team. There is none in the media. There is none on this site. I'm primarily basing my opinion that he will play more than some of the "Zac Lee is our quarterback until 2012" crowd believe on burning the redshirt in the first game. And the fact that he displayed some elusive ability running the ball was good but not the reason I think he will see a lot of playing time this year.

 

I think they are just bringing him along a little more slowly than Barkley at USC but have the same plan to get his talent on the field sooner rather than later. It could be all wet, but one's opinion should not be so threatening to other Big Red fans. Instead of taking shots at those who think that is the case, why not state your opinion without personal attack. We'll see in the fullness of time if I am right or wrong.

 

I am not dogging you here man, but if I remember right I thought you can still redshirt a player even if they played a couple of times. I was thinking it was they could play 4 quarters total and then they couldn't get a redshirt. Someone correct me if I am wrong, because I am not totally sure what the number is. Plus you don't have to redshirt before the season...you have so many games I thought, but once again not sure on the rules there.

 

Just saying Green can still redshirt so they didn't burn it yet. It is good to get him some game experience at the start though and I am sure the coaches are on a wait and see...which is why they also put in Washington to see how it plays out.

[knapplc]

I am not dogging you here man, but if I remember right I thought you can still redshirt a player even if they played a couple of times. I was thinking it was they could play 4 quarters total and then they couldn't get a redshirt. Someone correct me if I am wrong, because I am not totally sure what the number is. Plus you don't have to redshirt before the season...you have so many games I thought, but once again not sure on the rules there.

 

Just saying Green can still redshirt so they didn't burn it yet. It is good to get him some game experience at the start though and I am sure the coaches are on a wait and see...which is why they also put in Washington to see how it plays out.

 

I think you're thinking of a medical redshirt.

[junior4949]

Most of the teams 90's NU played were beaten before they even played a single down, because they knew that they were going to get pounded on every play. That carried over into each successive season. I don't know why this simple formula is proving to be such a difficult concept to grasp.

 

 

ahhh... there it is. recent history doesn't matter (as usual) but ten year old events do.

 

mizzou fan has every reason to think they can win this game.

 

NU has a GOOD possibility of pulling it out as well.

 

But ANCIENT HISTORY ain't playing a part in this game.

 

If Nu wins... it's because

 

BO KNOWS FOOTBALL!!

 

he's a defensive genius and that'll keep ya in most games.

 

 

 

 

 

except VaTech and OU.

 

 

What exactly did VT and OU do that was so impressive offensively last Saturday? Alabama made Tyrod look average at best. OU's OL was horrible at best. There's teams out there that have enough firepower on offense to score lots of points on Nebraska, but VT doesn't appear to have it. If we can contain their RB, it appears they have little else. I'm hopeful our front 4 is comparable to Bama's. While BYU is no slouch team at all, OU should have had enough pieces of the puzzle left to at least squeak out a win even without Bradford. I'm sure Bradford will be healthy and Stoops will pull the troops together. OU might make our D look foolish. However, VT showed me nothing offensively that suggests Bo's D won't keep us in the game.

[AR Husker Fan]

I am not dogging you here man, but if I remember right I thought you can still redshirt a player even if they played a couple of times. I was thinking it was they could play 4 quarters total and then they couldn't get a redshirt. Someone correct me if I am wrong, because I am not totally sure what the number is. Plus you don't have to redshirt before the season...you have so many games I thought, but once again not sure on the rules there.

 

Just saying Green can still redshirt so they didn't burn it yet. It is good to get him some game experience at the start though and I am sure the coaches are on a wait and see...which is why they also put in Washington to see how it plays out.

I think you're thinking of a medical redshirt.

Correct. The NCAA website states:

 

The term "redshirt" is used to describe a student-athlete who does not participate in competition in a sport for an entire academic year. If you do not compete in a sport the entire academic year, you have not used a season of competition. For example, if you are a qualifier, and you attend a four-year college your freshman year, and you practice but do not compete against outside competition, you would still have the next four years to play four seasons of competition.

 

Each student is allowed no more than four seasons of competition per sport. If you were not a qualifier, you may have fewer seasons of competition available to you. You should know that NCAA rules indicate that any competition, regardless of time, during a season counts as one of your seasons of competition in that sport. It does not matter how long you were involved in a particular competition (for example, one play in a football game, one point in a volleyball match); you will be charged with one season of competition.

 

Please contact the certifying institution or conference for additional information. You also may contact the NCAA membership services staff at 317/917-6222 if you have further questions.

 

The NCAA by-laws defines a medical hardship as follows:

 

14.2.4 Hardship Waiver. A student-athlete may be granted an additional year of competition by the conference or the Committee on Student-Athlete Reinstatement for reasons of “hardship.” Hardship is defined as an incapacity resulting from an injury or illness that has occurred under all of the following conditions: (Revised: 8/8/02, 11/1/07 effective 8/1/08)

 

a. The incapacitating injury or illness occurs in one of the four seasons of intercollegiate competition at any two year or four-year collegiate institutions or occurs after the first day of classes in the student-athlete’s senior year in high school; (Revised: 1/10/92 effective 8/1/92, 11/1/01, 8/8/02)

 

b. The injury or illness occurs prior to the first competition of the second half of the playing season that concludes with the NCAA championship in that sport (see Bylaw 14.2.4.3.4) and results in incapacity to compete for the remainder of that playing season; (Revised: 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97, 4/26/01 effective 8/1/01, 4/3/02, 4/24/08)

 

c. In team sports, the injury or illness occurs when the student-athlete has not participated in more than three contests or dates of competition (whichever is applicable to that sport) or 30 percent (whichever number is greater) of the institution’s scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition in his or her sport. Only scheduled or completed competition against outside participants during the playing season that concludes with the NCAA championship, or, if so designated, during the official NCAA championship playing season in that sport (e.g., spring baseball, fall soccer), shall be countable under this limitation in calculating both the number of contests or dates of competition in which the student-athlete has participated and the number of scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition during that season in the sport. Dates of competition that are exempted (e.g., alumni contests, foreign team in the United States.) from the maximum permissible number of contests or dates of competition shall count toward the number of contests or dates in which the student-athlete has participated and the number of scheduled or completed contests or dates of competition in the season, except for scrimmages and exhibition contests that are specifically identified as such in the sport’s Bylaw 17 playing and practice season regulations. Scrimmages and exhibition contests that are not exempted from the maximum permissible number of contests or dates of competition may be excluded from the calculation only if they are identified as such by in the sport’s Bylaw 17 playing and practice season regulations; and (Revised: 1/10/92, 1/14/97 effective 8/1/97, 4/26/01 effective 8/1/01, 3/10/04, 5/11/05, 8/4/05, 4/26/07, 9/18/07, 4/24/08)

 

d. In individual sports, the injury or illness occurs when the student-athlete has not participated in more than three dates of competition or 30 percent (whichever number is greater) of the maximum permissible number of dates of competition as set forth in Bylaw 17 plus one date for a conference championship (e.g., gymnastics: 13+1=14, wrestling: 16+1=17), regardless of whether the team participates in the conference championship, provided the institution is a member of a conference and the conference holds a championship event in the applicable sport. Dates of competition that are exempted per Bylaw 17 (e.g., alumni contests, foreign team in the United States) from the maximum permissible number of dates of competition do not count toward the number of dates in which the student-athlete has participated. (Adopted: 4/24/08)

[Billyball]

Most of the teams 90's NU played were beaten before they even played a single down, because they knew that they were going to get pounded on every play. That carried over into each successive season. I don't know why this simple formula is proving to be such a difficult concept to grasp.

 

 

ahhh... there it is. recent history doesn't matter (as usual) but ten year old events do.

 

mizzou fan has every reason to think they can win this game.

 

NU has a GOOD possibility of pulling it out as well.

 

But ANCIENT HISTORY ain't playing a part in this game.

 

If Nu wins... it's because

 

BO KNOWS FOOTBALL!!

 

he's a defensive genius and that'll keep ya in most games.

 

 

 

 

 

except VaTech and OU.

 

 

What exactly did VT and OU do that was so impressive offensively last Saturday? Alabama made Tyrod look average at best. OU's OL was horrible at best. There's teams out there that have enough firepower on offense to score lots of points on Nebraska, but VT doesn't appear to have it. If we can contain their RB, it appears they have little else. I'm hopeful our front 4 is comparable to Bama's. While BYU is no slouch team at all, OU should have had enough pieces of the puzzle left to at least squeak out a win even without Bradford. I'm sure Bradford will be healthy and Stoops will pull the troops together. OU might make our D look foolish. However, VT showed me nothing offensively that suggests Bo's D won't keep us in the game.

 

I hope you are correct and I feel better about the VT game since they were defeated. On the other hand we gave up 350 yds or more to FAU. Alabama held VT to 155. Do you think FAU would beat VT? I don't think it would even be close. So I think we have a lot of work to do on defense. Scores are nice but I don't think Bo is shining on the team when he said they were too soft. In spite of the dominance of Alabama, clearly the better team, VT stayed in the game a long time. I will be real suprised if Alabama doesn't challenge Fla for the crown in the SEC and have NC consideration. So if we beat VT, we are going to be beating a very capable football team in their house. It won't be anything like a hired foe from the Sunbelt conference and will require all we can muster on both sides of the ball. VT is going to be mad as a hornet and they have become a pretty good program.

 

If we get by them, then we go into Misery with great momentum and confidence. It won't be easy but it surely would be sweet.

[VA Husker Fan]

I know I am getting way ahead of myself, but this game has become a little larger than expected. I still think we will beat them. However, we beat VTech and upset OU (they are hurting and I don't know how Bradford will recover), what are we looking at here????

 

 

My prediction......

 

Nebraska vs. OSU - Big 12 Championship in Dallas

 

(Texas will fold....as usual)

 

Again, if you put my thoughts together with .10, you can buy yourself a cup of coffee. Really amounts to nothing. But I want to be put on record.

 

So what are you saying? We need the VT win to improve our rankings to win a tiebreaker in the north to get to the conf CG? Cuz that's the only impact the VT game has on us getting to Dallas.

[Igetbored216]

What exactly did VT and OU do that was so impressive offensively last Saturday? Alabama made Tyrod look average at best. OU's OL was horrible at best. There's teams out there that have enough firepower on offense to score lots of points on Nebraska, but VT doesn't appear to have it. If we can contain their RB, it appears they have little else. I'm hopeful our front 4 is comparable to Bama's. While BYU is no slouch team at all, OU should have had enough pieces of the puzzle left to at least squeak out a win even without Bradford. I'm sure Bradford will be healthy and Stoops will pull the troops together. OU might make our D look foolish. However, VT showed me nothing offensively that suggests Bo's D won't keep us in the game.

 

Everyone thought VT wouldn't be a threat last year offensively and they hung 35 on us AND won the game. Granted, our LB and secondary play appears to be playing better, but we were also just against FAU. If there is one thing I have learned over the last few years it's to never underestimate or write off VT. Did they lose to Bama? Yes, but I think alot of teams are going to lose to them this year. They were highly underrated in my opinion, and their defense looks real sharp and real fast.

 

Oklahoma's o-line looked absolutely horrible against BYU. But we don't play them next week. They have plenty of time to get things ironed out before they play us, and even though they might not have a great record by the time we meet up, the team will probably be very good. Their defense played decent, but in the end, it wasn't enough to win the game.

 

By the way, BYU is rated way too high. I see at least six teams that could beat them that are ranked lower. I mean, c'mon. Oklahoma's o-line was playing like crap, their star TE was out, AND their Heisman winning QB was also out of the game and they STILL only won by one point.

[mwj98]

I know I am getting way ahead of myself, but this game has become a little larger than expected. I still think we will beat them. However, we beat VTech and upset OU (they are hurting and I don't know how Bradford will recover), what are we looking at here????

 

 

My prediction......

 

Nebraska vs. OSU - Big 12 Championship in Dallas

 

(Texas will fold....as usual)

 

Again, if you put my thoughts together with .10, you can buy yourself a cup of coffee. Really amounts to nothing. But I want to be put on record.

 

So what are you saying? We need the VT win to improve our rankings to win a tiebreaker in the north to get to the conf CG? Cuz that's the only impact the VT game has on us getting to Dallas.

 

 

 

 

Ok....I have read a lot of good feedback. Boards like this are great because you get a feel for what people are thinking. Realistically, this was the first game. It's like a pre-season game. I expected mistakes and yards given up, but the way we looked as compared to last year was much improved. Do we have ways to go?? Absolutely. But, I remember struggling against Maine, W. Michigan and was walking away scratching my head. You can NEVER compare any NU teams to the one's of the 90's. You just can't. Different level.

 

I honestly feel this team has what it takes to beat VTech and OU. Period. We will only get better as the year goes on. Undefeated? Bit of a stretch. But why not?? I saw another thread questioning if we can beat Mizzou. I still struggle with the fact Mizzou is an issue. But I digress.

 

Bottom line is this. Last year, we should have had 10 or 11 wins. The tech meltdown at the end and then letting Vtech slip away by the way of personal fouls. I feel we pick up one additional win and surprise some folks. OU is in serious trouble and we got them at home. VTech was counting on a National Title, those hopes are dashed. We don't play OSU (thank god) and Texas. This thing is set up perfectly for us.

 

One more thing, I'm not basing this on a win against a weak FAU team. I see more than stats. I see a team with direction, effort and intensity. You concentrate on those fundamentals, the rest will take care of itself.

 

I live 25 minutes from Arlington.....I'm buying tickets. Huskers will be in the Big 12 Championship!!!!!!!

 

 

 

[EbylHusker]

But what separates a team from being an 8 win team or a 10 or 11 win team is sometimes a very fine line. Most teams with those many wins will get tested at least once or twice during the season, and what separates them is they find ways to get it done. So while it's fine to say we should have been a 10 or 11 win team last season, I'm pretty sure we ended up with what we deserved since, bottom line, we didn't find ways to get it done.