Hawkeyes lose annual rivalry, gain another

[knapplc]

And let's put one crazy notion to rest right now - Nebraska didn't go away from the Power Run game because it doesn't work anymore. Nebraska left the Power Run game for the WCO when Solich was fired. Different coach, different offensive philosophies, plain and simple.

 

There is zero reason why a Power Run game can't work today. Athletes are not so much faster today than they were 15 years ago that we couldn't win with Osborne's offenses. We're talking fractions of a second on skill players, nothing more.

[Judoka]

I dont think Iowa will ever stray from the power game.

 

 

Dude, they will have to, or be resigned to runner-up status at best. But, they won't have the cache to regularly acquire the talent required to compete at the level necessary.

 

I'm just saying programs like michigan, ohio state, penn st. and dear old NU will perennially dominate the conference going forward, even more so than in the last ten years, because the entire conference will be forced to match up talent wise with what NU brings to the party on the defensive side of the ball. This upcoming season will reflect this change, and the beginning of a new era in big ten football.

 

It ain't chess, its checkers. Unfortunately for the big ten, NU has 11 black-shirted kings.

And your argument on the rest of my post?? I pointed out why we wouldnt stray and that it does actually work, and you say, "because we will have to". I'll forward your request to managment, but I dont think it will get very far. As I stated, until the rest of the B10 can compete as well as Iowa and Wiskey have in thier bowl games, they have no room to brag. Getting to the bigger games is only part of it, once there you have to be able to win them. That is something I hope Nebraska brings to the table, because to be honest besides Iowa and Wiskey I am a little ashamed at the rest of the B10 and their less than stellar post season play. To put it simply, would you rather have Nebraska make it to the NC, only to lose, or would you rather make it to the rose or orange and win? So I really dont care what kind of game Bo wants to play, just play it well, as for who wins and who loses, that will be decided on the field on game day. You all should have a good time this year, the games are most of the time fairly close when it comes to State,MI,OH ST,Wiskey and Iowa and even sometimes MI ST. I hope you will find the experience much to your liking.

I think I'd rather they made it to the NC game and lost.

[Spartness]

Hey knapplc. When you talk about guys who have played a down of football for N, then yes, we don't have a speed advantage. Guys like Kinnie and Burkhead have decent speed, but are not burners. Guys like Bell are burners, but who knows how good he will be until we see him on the field. Turner is supposed to be very quick and shifty, but I really haven't read much about his straight away speed ... so I don't know. Those three freshmen RBs are advertised as being burners, but we won't know that until we see them on the field.

 

So my point is what we have available right now for the spring game you are correct. What we have next fall may be a different story or the same story. Too many folks are basing a speed advantage on what we will have in the future. Can't do that.

 

Hey, can I invite you for a glass of Kool-aid. What flavor you you like?

[blasted_imposter]

And let's put one crazy notion to rest right now - Nebraska didn't go away from the Power Run game because it doesn't work anymore. Nebraska left the Power Run game for the WCO when Solich was fired. Different coach, different offensive philosophies, plain and simple.

 

There is zero reason why a Power Run game can't work today. Athletes are not so much faster today than they were 15 years ago that we couldn't win with Osborne's offenses. We're talking fractions of a second on skill players, nothing more.

 

Actually, it (power run game) didn't work any more, it doesn't work now, and it won't work in the future. Teams have to be able to throw the ball consistently and attack the perimeter to go undefeated and win the MNC these days, which is how I, and Nebraksa fans in large part, define "working".

 

 

This ain't the 1970's - 1990's big 8, loaded with kansas, iowa state, ksu, okie state, missouri, etc. Update: Teams across the country caught up to NU in terms of power and strength training. Other advantages have to be identified. Power Run Football is fine if you want to be a "good" team, winning 7-8 games a year, in fact, it lends itself to that. See: iowa, wisconsin, msu, and most of the big ten. But if you want to be a "great" team, you have to be able to do more than that. See: every national champion since 2000, not including that ohio state team that totally lucked out with critical bad calls against, and injuries to, a Miami team that should have spanked them all over the field, and would have 19 times out of 20.

 

Power football as a championship team identity is dead, as a whole, and you'll see why, first hand, when NU plays wisconsin, iowa, ohio state, and the like.

 

I can't believe i'm having to say this stuff on a husker message board.

[blasted_imposter]

Hey knapplc. When you talk about guys who have played a down of football for N, then yes, we don't have a speed advantage. Guys like Kinnie and Burkhead have decent speed, but are not burners. Guys like Bell are burners, but who knows how good he will be until we see him on the field. Turner is supposed to be very quick and shifty, but I really haven't read much about his straight away speed ... so I don't know. Those three freshmen RBs are advertised as being burners, but we won't know that until we see them on the field.

 

So my point is what we have available right now for the spring game you are correct. What we have next fall may be a different story or the same story. Too many folks are basing a speed advantage on what we will have in the future. Can't do that.

 

Hey, can I invite you for a glass of Kool-aid. What flavor you you like?

 

Talking Defense much? I am.

[knapplc]

Hey knapplc. When you talk about guys who have played a down of football for N, then yes, we don't have a speed advantage. Guys like Kinnie and Burkhead have decent speed, but are not burners. Guys like Bell are burners, but who knows how good he will be until we see him on the field. Turner is supposed to be very quick and shifty, but I really haven't read much about his straight away speed ... so I don't know. Those three freshmen RBs are advertised as being burners, but we won't know that until we see them on the field.

 

So my point is what we have available right now for the spring game you are correct. What we have next fall may be a different story or the same story. Too many folks are basing a speed advantage on what we will have in the future. Can't do that.

 

Hey, can I invite you for a glass of Kool-aid. What flavor you you like?

 

Why do you assume that Bell, Green, Turner, etc are faster than the Big 10? I know they are all reputed to be "fast," but that's only one side of the equation. You have to consider who they're up against. It's not like we're Corvettes to their Camrys. They have some Mustangs and Chargers and Camaros, too.

 

If we've got guys who are running 4.4 40s, that's great. But football speed isn't track speed, and frankly, a 4.4 guy isn't going to be so much faster than a 4.5 or a 4.6 guy that it automatically means wins if the schemes aren't sound, or the blocking isn't up to par, or tackling isn't sound. Our speed is only one of a dozen factors to consider, and it's not even the most important factor.

 

Frankly, we're going to have to prove in game situations that we're not going to shoot ourselves in the foot with holding or procedure penalties, with personal fouls, with incorrect reads, with guys missing their assignment/blocks, etc. before we start talking about rolling through any conference.

 

The Big 12 North was a challenge for us the last three years. All this talk about dominating an entire conference from the get-go is just silly.

[knapplc]

And let's put one crazy notion to rest right now - Nebraska didn't go away from the Power Run game because it doesn't work anymore. Nebraska left the Power Run game for the WCO when Solich was fired. Different coach, different offensive philosophies, plain and simple.

 

There is zero reason why a Power Run game can't work today. Athletes are not so much faster today than they were 15 years ago that we couldn't win with Osborne's offenses. We're talking fractions of a second on skill players, nothing more.

 

Actually, it (power run game) didn't work any more, it doesn't work now, and it won't work in the future. Teams have to be able to throw the ball consistently and attack the perimeter to go undefeated and win the MNC these days, which is how I, and Nebraksa fans in large part, define "working".

 

 

This ain't the 1970's - 1990's big 8, loaded with kansas, iowa state, ksu, okie state, missouri, etc. Update: Teams across the country caught up to NU in terms of power and strength training. Other advantages have to be identified. Power Run Football is fine if you want to be a "good" team, winning 7-8 games a year, in fact, it lends itself to that. See: iowa, wisconsin, msu, and most of the big ten. But if you want to be a "great" team, you have to be able to do more than that. See: every national champion since 2000, not including that ohio state team that totally lucked out with critical bad calls against, and injuries to, a Miami team that should have spanked them all over the field, and would have 19 times out of 20.

 

Power football as a championship team identity is dead, as a whole, and you'll see why, first hand, when NU plays wisconsin, iowa, ohio state, and the like.

 

I can't believe i'm having to say this stuff on a husker message board.

 

You aren't saying anything that wasn't said about Nebraska in the 1990s. Prior to our National Championship run, Osborne's offense was considered antiquated. Then we reeled off 60 wins in four years and everyone was eating crow.

 

There isn't a team in D1A that has significantly greater speed than 1995 Florida, and we beat them like a drum. Did we do it through the air? Do you remember that game?

 

Do you remember 1997 Tennessee? The Vols were another very fast team, who also happened to have a fantastic QB. Kicked their ass something fierce, if I recall correctly.

[druski_2k5]

I understand what Knap and blasted_imposter are saying, and to a point I agree with both. As much as I loved our 60-4 run, and even including what happened in 1993, as much as I loved that because that's what I grew up in, I think there are a few things to point out.

 

1. Weightlifting programs and facilities for Nebraska were SO much more advanced at the time which contributed a lot to our success. Other teams have caught up in these areas.

 

2. The offense itself: Our offense was not slow and big by any means. Our linemen back then were smaller and quicker, so they could pull to the outside, we had speed at the position skills, Frazier, Phillips, Green, and then a WHOLE lot of depth at running back that we don't have today. Clinton Childs, Damon Benning, Makovicka brothers at full-back, Dan Alexander, Correll Buckhalter, DeAngelo Evans, and possession receivers and tight ends that you could count on that blocked like mad men: Reggie Baul, Matt Davison, Lance Brown, Kenny Cheatham, Brendan Holbein, Eric Alford, Sheldon Jackson, Abdul Muhammad. Walk-on's and having more scholarships to hand out helped A TON as well.

 

*Edited*

 

Even later with Eric Crouch, Jammal Lord, the would-be Carl Crawford, and guys like Thunder Collins [who was a bust], David Horne [decent, but no where near the hype], DeAnte Grixby [fast, but wasn't real effective], Dahrran Diedrick [a decent back], Cory Ross [tremendous heart] it's guys like that with speed, explosiveness we had in the backfield. Outside Crouch and Lord, there was not much offense which is why it revolved heavily around them, we didn't have the depth from 2000-2003 that we had in the 90s to make a serious run and come away with a ring. That and fumbles in 1999 cost us dearly as well.

 

3. Oklahoma was down. I know the Big Eight was still top heavy in the mid-90s, especially 1995 without Oklahoma, but they were still down none-the-less.

 

4. Coaching staff: Our staff was together for so long, you don't see that in this day in age, we were TREMENDOUSLY lucky to have the same staff for years and years. Our coaching staff had cohesiveness like no one of their kind of coaching staff before. That won't ever happen again.

 

5. Defense and defensive speed: We always had speed and size on offense, but when we got a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP caliber defense, is when we wont National Championships, when we could stop the big offenses at the right times. We went smaller at linebacker and we were flying all over the field, we got more aggressive and switched from a base 5-2 to a base 4-3 and played balls out. Osborne always said he didn't want to play offense like Miami or Florida State, he wanted to play defense like Miami and Florida State.

 

6. The Option: This used to be a prominent offensive style for high school, now no one really runs this offense, so it is SO hard to recruit for it. I know we weren't a true Flexbone or 90% option offense, but it was just another wrinkle for our power run, but again, our quarterbacks and running backs were much faster than Wisconsin's running backs and quarterbacks now, which is why we pulled it off back then, because of SPEED on offense. We weren't slow by ANY means on offense. Once we got depth and leaders on offense, we were able to sustain drives, much like defense getting critical stops.

 

7. Leaders: Frazier, the Peter brothers, Tomich, Wistrom, and other guys I didn't mention, we don't have "those kind" of leaders anymore, or at least not that we have seen yet. Someone with a little fire in their belly. Is it Bo? I'm sure it is, in fact I know it is, but he has to be able to be himself and fire his team up if no one on the team is doing it. This is a huge miss right now.

 

It is SO important, more than ever, to watch film and study and to know exactly what the offenses are going to do. Which is why I am so glad we have Bo and his staff, more than ever, you need to examine and break down film with so many different types of offenses, I'm not sure if our staff back then could do what is done today. Could they? Possibly, but it's not a fair argument.

 

 

Lastly, you can still have a "power" running game by spreading it out. Osborne even said he would probably run some variation of a spread offense today that gave defenses fits. You can still be power by being in 4 or 5 wide, with motion, fakes, keepers, reads, choices, double options, option pass, etc. It's all about an attitude, and that attitude starts up front that we are going to knock the guys in-front of us over, and our speed guys in the backfield and on the outside are going to get open or get the blocks they need to open the running and passing game. But again, we had speed on offense in the 90s, it's not like we had a bunch of John Clays' or Ron Daynes' back there for us.

 

It's not like saying we are going from 1997 offense to Texas Tech. THAT would be the definition of going from one extreme to the next. Even in the West Coast Offense days, we still had a running game. It just wasn't option, quarterback, or depth oriented like in the 90s or early 2000s.

 

You can still be power without running I-Form Twin Tight End or Maryland I. It's all about attitude that starts up-front and having guys on the edge having speed or good hands too to keep the defense honest of a play-action, or breaking a run to the outside and relying on a receiver to block. The same concepts still exist, it is just spread out.

 

A power game like Wisconsin works, but they don't have the same caliber players in their backfield that we did in the 90s or early 2000s. We were MUCH faster and athletic than Wisconsin's running game. Everyone has an obsession with their offense, but our old offense was so much more different than what they run today, which is why our offense of old would still work today, but you have to recruit for it, and right now, we are not recruiting for our old offense, it seems most high schools aren't running that, and most kids want to get to the NFL, so they are going with more pro or spread offenses. With us, we seem to be going spread option offense with a lot of no huddle.

 

We will be just as fast on offense as we are on defense, and to me that sounds a lot like how we were back then. Not saying we will win it all next year or go 60-4, but it's the philosophy of having speed and starting it up-front, is where it begins.

 

I am not discrediting what we did, I think 1995 Nebraska is the greatest college football team of all-time. But you have to admit, everything went right for us, everything was aligned for us and NO ONE will EVER repeat what we did from 1993-1997. No one. That run was ours and only ours, we should be thankful because everything worked so great for us and I appreciate everything that everyone did to get us that run.

[blasted_imposter]

 

You aren't saying anything that wasn't said about Nebraska in the 1990s. Prior to our National Championship run, Osborne's offense was considered antiquated. Then we reeled off 60 wins in four years and everyone was eating crow.

 

There isn't a team in D1A that has significantly greater speed than 1995 Florida, and we beat them like a drum. Did we do it through the air? Do you remember that game?

 

Do you remember 1997 Tennessee? The Vols were another very fast team, who also happened to have a fantastic QB. Kicked their ass something fierce, if I recall correctly.

 

Way to go!

 

I wonder where all the other Power Run football teams that win 60 games in 4 years are?

 

 

 

Or maybe 30 games in 3 years?

 

 

 

Or maybe a National Championship in any season over the last ten?

 

 

What you're talking about is an aberration, a freakish occurrence. Amazing, yes, but nothing that can or will be duplicated.

 

NOBODY WILL WIN LIKE THAT AGAIN. Not NU, not wisconsin, iowa, georgia tech, or the like.

 

Again, whats your point? Shall NU go back? I would have said yes last year, as anything consistent would have won the big 12 for NU.... but now? I'd rather go where we're going. Beck sounds like the right man for the job, and I totally buy what Bo has going on, top to bottom.

 

Another point, since offense has crept in to the discussion, how did 12-1 KU offense look so fast without a single top-shelf prospect?

 

ALso, a correction: I never said NU would dominate the slow ten conference from the get-go. I do believe NU's Defense will dominate the slow ten conference from the get go. And It Will Be Ugly.

 

IMO: NU will win the plains division, and compete in the first league championship game, with or without an offense. With Beck as OC? look out, could be a special season.

 

Off hand, I'll again (as last year) predict one regular season loss, which I think will come at Penn St, but Michigan St or Northwestern could probably do it as well. I just don't believe Wisconsin, Iowa, or Ohio State will be able to score against the Blackshirts this year, much if at all.

 

I also believe that 2011 Blackshirt D will allow an average of less than 10 ppg, and yes, I know that means all time great numbers.

 

React.

[blasted_imposter]

I understand what Knap and blasted_imposter are saying, and to a point I agree with both. As much as I loved our 60-4 run, and even including what happened in 1993, as much as I loved that because that's what I grew up in, I think there are a few things to point out.

 

1. Weightlifting programs and facilities for Nebraska were SO much more advanced at the time which contributed a lot to our success. Other teams have caught up in these areas.

 

2. The offense itself: Our offense was not slow and big by any means. Our linemen back then were smaller and quicker, so they could pull to the outside, we had speed at the position skills, Frazier, Phillips, Green, and then a WHOLE lot of depth at running back that we don't have today. Clinton Childs, Damon Benning, Makovicka brothers at full-back, Dan Alexander, Correll Buckhalter, DeAngelo Evans, and possession receivers and tight ends that you could count on that blocked like mad men: Reggie Baul, Matt Davison, Lance Brown, Kenny Cheatham, Brendan Holbein, Eric Alford, Sheldon Jackson, Abdul Muhammad. Walk-on's and having more scholarships to hand out helped A TON as well.

 

3. Oklahoma was down. I know the Big Eight was still top heavy in the mid-90s, especially 1995 without Oklahoma, but they were still down none-the-less.

 

4. Coaching staff: Our staff was together for so long, you don't see that in this day in age, we were TREMENDOUSLY lucky to have the same staff for years and years. Our coaching staff had cohesiveness like no one of their kind of coaching staff before. That won't ever happen again.

 

5. Defense and defensive speed: We always had speed and size on offense, but when we got a NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP caliber defense, is when we wont National Championships, when we could stop the big offenses at the right times. We went smaller at linebacker and we were flying all over the field, we got more aggressive and switched from a base 5-2 to a base 4-3 and played balls out. Osborne always said he didn't want to play offense like Miami or Florida State, he wanted to play defense like Miami and Florida State.

 

6. The Option: This used to be a prominent offensive style for high school, now no one really runs this offense, so it is SO hard to recruit for it. I know we weren't a true Flexbone or 90% option offense, but it was just another wrinkle for our power run, but again, our quarterbacks and running backs were much faster than Wisconsin's running backs and quarterbacks now, which is why we pulled it off back then, because of SPEED on offense. We weren't slow by ANY means on offense. Once we got depth and leaders on offense, we were able to sustain drives, much like defense getting critical stops.

 

7. Leaders: Frazier, the Peter brothers, Tomich, Wistrom, and other guys I didn't mention, we don't have "those kind" of leaders anymore, or at least not that we have seen yet. Someone with a little fire in their belly. Is it Bo? I'm sure it is, in fact I know it is, but he has to be able to be himself and fire his team up if no one on the team is doing it. This is a huge miss right now.

 

It is SO important, more than ever, to watch film and study and to know exactly what the offenses are going to do. Which is why I am so glad we have Bo and his staff, more than ever, you need to examine and break down film with so many different types of offenses, I'm not sure if our staff back then could do what is done today. Could they? Possibly, but it's not a fair argument.

 

 

Lastly, you can still have a "power" running game by spreading it out. Osborne even said he would probably run some variation of a spread offense today that gave defenses fits. You can still be power by being in 4 or 5 wide, with motion, fakes, keepers, reads, choices, double options, option pass, etc. It's all about an attitude, and that attitude starts up front that we are going to knock the guys in-front of us over, and our speed guys in the backfield and on the outside are going to get open or get the blocks they need to open the running and passing game. But again, we had speed on offense in the 90s, it's not like we had a bunch of John Clays' or Ron Daynes' back there for us.

 

It's not like saying we are going from 1997 offense to Texas Tech. THAT would be the definition of going from one extreme to the next. Even in the West Coast Offense days, we still had a running game. It just wasn't option, quarterback, or depth oriented like in the 90s or 2000s.

 

You can still be power without running I-Form Twin Tight End or Maryland I. It's all about attitude that starts up-front and having guys on the edge having speed or good hands too to keep the defense honest of a play-action, or breaking a run to the outside and relying on a receiver to block. The same concepts still exist, it is just spread out.

 

A power game like Wisconsin works, but they don't have the same caliber players in their backfield that we did in the 90s or 2000s. We were MUCH faster and athletic than Wisconsin's running game. Everyone has an obsession with their offense, but our old offense was so much more different than what they run today, which is why our offense of old would still work today, but you have to recruit for it, and right now, we are not recruiting for our old offense, it seems most high schools aren't running that, and most kids want to get to the NFL, so they are going with more pro or spread offenses. With us, we seem to be going spread option offense with a lot of no huddle.

 

We will be just as fast on offense as we are on defense, and to me that sounds a lot like how we were back then. Not saying we will win it all next year or go 60-4, but it's the philosophy of having speed and starting it up-front, is where it begins.

 

I am not discrediting what we did, I think 1995 Nebraska is the greatest college football team of all-time. But you have to admit, everything went right for us, everything was aligned for us and NO ONE will EVER repeat what we did from 1993-1997. No one. That run was ours and only ours, we should be thankful because everything worked so great for us and I appreciate everything that everyone did to get us that run.

 

 

Thank you.

[knapplc]

I wonder where all the other Power Run football teams that win 60 games in 4 years are?

 

Or maybe 30 games in 3 years?

 

Or maybe a National Championship in any season over the last ten?

 

What you're talking about is an aberration, a freakish occurrence. Amazing, yes, but nothing that can or will be duplicated.

 

NOBODY WILL WIN LIKE THAT AGAIN. Not NU, not wisconsin, iowa, georgia tech, or the like.

 

Again, whats your point? Shall NU go back? I would have said yes last year, as anything consistent would have won the big 12 for NU.... but now? I'd rather go where we're going. Beck sounds like the right man for the job, and I totally buy what Bo has going on, top to bottom.

 

 

Offhand I'd say those Power Run football teams that win 60 games in 4 years are in the same place as all of those Spread teams that have won 60 games in a four year stretch, or 30 in three years - nowhere. The problem you have is that you're tying the results into the philosophy.

 

You want to win? Just do what you do better than the other guy. That holds true whether you're running a Spread passing attack, Spread run, Power run, Wishbone, Flexbone, or whatever. The point, since you seem to have missed it, isn't that you can ONLY win with the current offensive flavor of the month, it's that you can win with ANY kind of offense, or defense, as long as you're better at what you do than the guys who line up across the ball.

 

Football is cyclical. Spread attacks have come and gone. Power rushing attacks have come and gone. 3/4 defenses, 4/3, 5/2/4, whatever flavor you can dream up has already been run. There is very little new under the sun in college football. Football is, today, just what it was in the 1950s - a matchup of individuals played in a group setting.

[blasted_imposter]

GBR!

[Caven]

Wrong again, bucko. I watch the big slow ten plenty, born in big ten country, raised there, and as recently as last season said to myself, "god these teams are so freaking SLOW".

and

"Man, i wish NU could play these guys, it would be hillarious. That stone age offense wouldn't go anywhere."

and

"Oh snap!!! Amukamara never would have let that slow ass dude get his hands on the ball!"

and

"That running back that looks like he's running in place never would have made it to the line of scrimmage."

 

Removing the "leach" factor from most of the teams we play allows Bo and Carl to focus on lock down corners and line of scrimmage play, something that this team has in the bag. But i won't bother with this discussion any more, we'll just have to wait until the teams line up this fall...but best believe I'll be back to scoop up my message board credits when Ohio State gets blanked, Wisconisin goes for 140 yards on the ground, Iowa fires its offensive coordinator after the NU game, etc.

 

Oh god PLEASE let us fire our OC after the NU game. He has needed to go for years.

[blasted_imposter]

See? I know big ten.

[Spartness]

Hey knapplc. When you talk about guys who have played a down of football for N, then yes, we don't have a speed advantage. Guys like Kinnie and Burkhead have decent speed, but are not burners. Guys like Bell are burners, but who knows how good he will be until we see him on the field. Turner is supposed to be very quick and shifty, but I really haven't read much about his straight away speed ... so I don't know. Those three freshmen RBs are advertised as being burners, but we won't know that until we see them on the field.

 

So my point is what we have available right now for the spring game you are correct. What we have next fall may be a different story or the same story. Too many folks are basing a speed advantage on what we will have in the future. Can't do that.

 

Hey, can I invite you for a glass of Kool-aid. What flavor you you like?

 

Why do you assume that Bell, Green, Turner, etc are faster than the Big 10? I know they are all reputed to be "fast," but that's only one side of the equation. You have to consider who they're up against. It's not like we're Corvettes to their Camrys. They have some Mustangs and Chargers and Camaros, too.

 

If we've got guys who are running 4.4 40s, that's great. But football speed isn't track speed, and frankly, a 4.4 guy isn't going to be so much faster than a 4.5 or a 4.6 guy that it automatically means wins if the schemes aren't sound, or the blocking isn't up to par, or tackling isn't sound. Our speed is only one of a dozen factors to consider, and it's not even the most important factor.

 

Frankly, we're going to have to prove in game situations that we're not going to shoot ourselves in the foot with holding or procedure penalties, with personal fouls, with incorrect reads, with guys missing their assignment/blocks, etc. before we start talking about rolling through any conference.

 

The Big 12 North was a challenge for us the last three years. All this talk about dominating an entire conference from the get-go is just silly.

 

knapplc, I'm AGREEING with you. I made the point that people are basing this on players who haven't proved themselves on the field. I said the three backs are ADVERTISED as being burners. That means others are saying this ... not me. I'm not assuming anything. I said I have no idea how much straight-ahead speed Turner has. The report is Turner is very quick and shifty ... but I don't know how good he will be. I might had over-spoke a little about Bell being a burner ... but that doesn't mean I think he's going to be the best thing since slice bread in the Big 10 ... I don't have the foggiest idea. I'm agreeing with you. This is the problem with interpretation ... people have a tendency of reading something the wrong way. No big deal, dude, but you misread my post. So for the third time, I'm agreeing with you. 10-4?