Saunders Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 1999. That’s the last time Nebraska won something that actually mattered. Here’s Nebraska’s problem, and this holds especially true for anyone who remembers when the program wasNebraska; if the team couldn’t dominate the Big 12, why are things going to be any better in the Big Ten? Team Preview: http://cfn.scout.com/2/1082088.html Offense Preview: http://cfn.scout.com/2/1082087.html Defense Preview: http://cfn.scout.com/2/1082086.html Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 The Huskers are given a big flaming bag of unfair in their first year in their new league having to face the three best teams from the other division, going to Wisconsin and hosting Ohio State in the first two league games. That quote made me chuckle... Not a horrible article, a couple points I thought he was smoking it on. Quote Link to comment
BIG ERN Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 Has some length and good points, but off on some new guys. Quote Link to comment
Atbone95 Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 His "Top 3" on defense doesn't include Dennard.... That's just wrong. Quote Link to comment
kchusker_chris Posted June 24, 2011 Share Posted June 24, 2011 His "Top 3" on defense doesn't include Dennard.... That's just wrong. Said Stein went from "good to great" huh? Quote Link to comment
hosker Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I liked the articles, didn't see any thing that is obviously wrong with any of it.... Mentioning Okafor, while failing to mention Heard or Abdullah is my biggest problem. Crick & Steinkuhler will be more dominant than Suh & Crick, imo.... Dennard will be as good as usual, but with less experience playing along side of him, I can see how he might be squeezed off of the POY list. Quote Link to comment
bshirt Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I liked the articles, didn't see any thing that is obviously wrong with any of it.... Mentioning Okafor, while failing to mention Heard or Abdullah is my biggest problem. Crick & Steinkuhler will be more dominant than Suh & Crick, imo.... Dennard will be as good as usual, but with less experience playing along side of him, I can see how he might be squeezed off of the POY list. Better than Crick & Suh? Wow......here's hoping! Quote Link to comment
Atbone95 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I liked the articles, didn't see any thing that is obviously wrong with any of it.... Mentioning Okafor, while failing to mention Heard or Abdullah is my biggest problem. Crick & Steinkuhler will be more dominant than Suh & Crick, imo.... Dennard will be as good as usual, but with less experience playing along side of him, I can see how he might be squeezed off of the POY list. Sorry, but the "more dominant than Suh & Crick" bit is a little too strong a koolaid for me. Quote Link to comment
bigg10 Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I liked the articles, didn't see any thing that is obviously wrong with any of it.... Mentioning Okafor, while failing to mention Heard or Abdullah is my biggest problem. Crick & Steinkuhler will be more dominant than Suh & Crick, imo.... Dennard will be as good as usual, but with less experience playing along side of him, I can see how he might be squeezed off of the POY list. Sorry, but the "more dominant than Suh & Crick" bit is a little too strong a koolaid for me. Dude I am getting the impression, that the koolaid is a bit to strong for you. Quote Link to comment
hosker Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I liked the articles, didn't see any thing that is obviously wrong with any of it.... Mentioning Okafor, while failing to mention Heard or Abdullah is my biggest problem. Crick & Steinkuhler will be more dominant than Suh & Crick, imo.... Dennard will be as good as usual, but with less experience playing along side of him, I can see how he might be squeezed off of the POY list. Better than Crick & Suh? Wow......here's hoping! Why won't they be?. . . . Maybe "more dominant" is the wrong term... But at the very least they will be as good as Suh/Crick They have had both, more time in Pelini's system, and better players/experience on all levels around them than what Suh had. . . . I think the only thing that might hold them back is playing against bigger & more run-oriented OL's. And maybe the fact that they have more talent around them will hold them back some statistically, but it certainly will not stop them from effecting the game as much, if not more-so, than Suh/Crick, imo. Quote Link to comment
Moiraine Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 They have had both, more time in Pelini's system, and better players/experience on all levels around them than what Suh had. . . . I think the only thing that might hold them back is playing against bigger & more run-oriented OL's. And maybe the fact that they have more talent around them will hold them back some statistically, but it certainly will not stop them from effecting the game as much, if not more-so, than Suh/Crick, imo. You have weird logic. It doesn't take into account the individual at all. You're pretty much saying "They've been around Bo more than Suh was, so obviously they'll be better." By that logic, I could go study with them for 4 years and be better than Suh, because that's 2 years more Pelini than Suh had. It just doesn't make sense. Suh was and is an anomaly of a player. 2 Quote Link to comment
hosker Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 They have had both, more time in Pelini's system, and better players/experience on all levels around them than what Suh had. . . . I think the only thing that might hold them back is playing against bigger & more run-oriented OL's. And maybe the fact that they have more talent around them will hold them back some statistically, but it certainly will not stop them from effecting the game as much, if not more-so, than Suh/Crick, imo. You have weird logic. It doesn't take into account the individual at all. You're pretty much saying "They've been around Bo more than Suh was, so obviously they'll be better." By that logic, I could go study with them for 4 years and be better than Suh, because that's 2 years more Pelini than Suh had. It just doesn't make sense. Suh was and is an anomaly of a player. No, that is not what I am saying at all... Suh was very special, no doubt. But to say Crick and Stein aren't capable of being equally as dominant is low-balling them a bit, imo. . . . Both Crick and Stein have all the physical tools necessary to control any given game(sorry, I thought this was common knowledge). . . . I am not saying anyone can learn Pelini's system and go out and throw 300lbs OL around like rag dolls. By that logic Bo or Carl could line up at DT and play better than Suh, because they know the system better than anybody else. I am saying Crick and Stein are just as special as Suh. Maybe not as physically gifted, but all around they will be just as good, if not better. Quote Link to comment
The Dude Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I haven't seen anything from Stien to suggest he's anything other than a below average to average DT. Crick was light years ahead of him as a Sophmore. Quote Link to comment
bshirt Posted June 25, 2011 Share Posted June 25, 2011 I haven't seen anything from Stien to suggest he's anything other than a below average to average DT. Crick was light years ahead of him as a Sophmore. Certainly true enough. However, it wouldn't be a huge stretch to imagine him making major strides his junior year. No proof so far....but possible. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.