Jamal...On the Rebound

[Hunter94]

Baylor vs. Washington is one of the bowl games I'm most excited about, should be entertaining....

 

 

Baylor should hang 40 or 50 on Washington........

[B.B. Hemingway]

Baylor vs. Washington is one of the bowl games I'm most excited about, should be entertaining....

 

 

Baylor should hang 40 or 50 on Washington........

 

Probably, but Washington should hang 35-45 on Baylor as well....RG3 is great, but Baylor has NO defense....

[AFhusker]

You are quick with the childish insults (so is my 3 yr. old nephew)....well done.... Washington is FAR, I said FAR, from a lower level college team... Maybe you noticed that the Pac-12 is pretty stout (Oregon, Stanford, USC, Arizona St.). Washington has a hell of an offense, and should give Baylor a helluva game....

 

What is childish about pointing out the truth? You tried being a smart ass and it didn't work out because you didn't read what was said before. No need to act childish because you were proven wrong.

 

By FAR not a lower level college team? I don't think so, they beat three bowl teams after looking closer at their schedule , (6-7 Hawaii after their bowl loss to BYU, and 7-5 Cal who will also be 7-6 after they lose to Texas, and 7-5 Utah which is 50/50 against GT) and the rest of their wins consisted of 6-5 Eastern Washington, 3-10 Colorado or sCUm as I like to call them, 4-8 Arizona, and 4-8 Washington State. So the collective records by the teams that UDub beat was 37-47 or an average of 5-7 record.

 

Now the teams that they lost too were NU 51-38, Stanford 65-21, Oregon 34-17, USC 40-17 and 38-21 to an 3-9 Oregon State team. So as you can see, yes Washington is the definition of a lower level college team.

 

And you want to call ASU "stout" since when is a 6-7 record "stout?"

[It'sNotAFakeID]

I'll say I didn't read the article to avoid getting attacked for not doing that but to rebut what AFHusker said:

 

Maybe the coaches felt that he was going to be a part of the starting WRs come the beginning of the season and through 5 games, he was. I don't think you can redshirt after the 6th game if I'm right. So you think it wasn't too bright to not redshirt a player who was producing for our offense a week before you can't redshirt him anymore?

 

Not so bright of thinking.

 

Our first 5 games were against 4 high school quality teams and one lower level college team in Washington. Anyone that played could have looked good against them. My point is that he came here as a QB and if you are going to play him at WR and burn his RS, then you are going to have to take the bad with the good aka blocking. And then to bench him when we hit the meat of the schedule it a waste of the season. It would have made more sense to keep him playing or just don't play him at all.

 

You do know that Washington made it to the Alamo bowl? Wyoming was also in a bowl game as well. Our 5th game was against the Big10 champ Wisconsin...

 

Other than Wisky, it still stands true, For some reason I thought we played one of our other scrub teams before Wisky.

 

As for Wyoming, yes they made a bowl and were dominated by the powerhouse Temple Owls. Yea, that's a quaity 8-5 team.

 

Washington is 7-5 and likely to be 7-6 after their bowl game. Dare we talk about how lucky we were to win that game?

 

Then you throw in the two games against the schools of the blind deaf and dumb and it further proves how easy of a schedule we really had. The really funny part is that over the years we as NU fans have always claimed that the B1G was overrated due to their "name" teams that just weren't very good. Well, that didn't change when NU joined the conference, but now a lot of NU fans are sounding a lot like the UM and tOSU fans that we were debating with over the years.

 

Dare we say how we were up by 20+ points before "packing it in". We won that game handily. Washington's scores in the end were garbage.

 

I fail to see how our schedule was easy, we played 2 teams that are in BCS bowls, and 9 teams that made bowl games. Do explain it in excruciating details because as you have already observed, my reading comprehension isn't very good.

[B.B. Hemingway]

You're just looking for someone to argue with, and your childish banter isnt doing any good here....The 'fact' is, Washington is not a lower level college team, they made a bowl game in one of the best conferences in the country.... Arizona St. isnt gonna challenge for a championship, but they are a talented team, aka stout..... Texas went 8-4 this year, andh had a losing recorhd last year..... With all that talent I suppose they are lower level....

 

We may have a different definition of 'lower level football'

 

But my guess is logic escapes you.....

[Mavric]

Anyone who watched Jamal through the first half of the season knows that this article is off the mark. Jamal can't even CONTRIBUTE after leading the team in receiving yards! Who's buying that? Don't dare try to say that it's because he played against nobody. He was the only guy consistently making plays against Wisconsin.

 

Other reasons I don't believe this articles reasoning:

1. Bo said Turner wasn't playing at first because he was sick

2. Turner stopped getting P/T after his Taylor comment

3. It wasn't a gradual decline P/T and stats, there was a sudden hault

4. The same treatment was used for Phil Dillard and Courtney Osborne

5. Turners drop against Minnesota is nothing compared to the DROPS BK and Bell had this year

 

If we can't find a way to get Jamal involved, whats the point in going after a Devin Fuller?

1. The mysterious illnesses/injuries to players not playing well do seem odd. I thought the same about Rodriguez after he got benched vs. Northwestern but he didn't even make the road trips after that so ... maybe???

2. There was a coincidence to this but even JT admitted he was dogging it in practice so I think this is conspiracy theory.

3. Somewhat but I'm not sure. He got some chances vs. Ohio St. but also fumbed (which he recovered) then there was a bye. That's three weeks between Wisconsin and Minnesota - quite a bit a practice time without a lot of games so it might not have been as fast as it seemed.

4. Dillard eventually came around and played great. Was it because or in spite of how he was treated? Tough to say. Osborne and Turner still have time.

5. I'd be pretty sure it's more than just the drops. Especially with Turner, there has obviously been some attitude trouble. Players are going to make mistakes but if they're still out there busting their butt every play, you can live with some. Bad play coupled with bad attutude doesn't usually get you very far.

[bshirt]

Baylor vs. Washington is one of the bowl games I'm most excited about, should be entertaining....

 

 

Baylor should hang 40 or 50 on Washington........

 

 

 

 

 

Washington could score 40 or 50 (or more) on Baylor.

 

But as AF says, they're just High School teams.

[bshirt]

Anyone who watched Jamal through the first half of the season knows that this article is off the mark. Jamal can't even CONTRIBUTE after leading the team in receiving yards! Who's buying that? Don't dare try to say that it's because he played against nobody. He was the only guy consistently making plays against Wisconsin.

 

Other reasons I don't believe this articles reasoning:

1. Bo said Turner wasn't playing at first because he was sick

2. Turner stopped getting P/T after his Taylor comment

3. It wasn't a gradual decline P/T and stats, there was a sudden hault

4. The same treatment was used for Phil Dillard and Courtney Osborne

5. Turners drop against Minnesota is nothing compared to the DROPS BK and Bell had this year

 

If we can't find a way to get Jamal involved, whats the point in going after a Devin Fuller?

1. The mysterious illnesses/injuries to players not playing well do seem odd. I thought the same about Rodriguez after he got benched vs. Northwestern but he didn't even make the road trips after that so ... maybe???

2. There was a coincidence to this but even JT admitted he was dogging it in practice so I think this is conspiracy theory.

3. Somewhat but I'm not sure. He got some chances vs. Ohio St. but also fumbed (which he recovered) then there was a bye. That's three weeks between Wisconsin and Minnesota - quite a bit a practice time without a lot of games so it might not have been as fast as it seemed.

4. Dillard eventually came around and played great. Was it because or in spite of how he was treated? Tough to say. Osborne and Turner still have time.

5. I'd be pretty sure it's more than just the drops. Especially with Turner, there has obviously been some attitude trouble. Players are going to make mistakes but if they're still out there busting their butt every play, you can live with some. Bad play coupled with bad attutude doesn't usually get you very far.

 

Exactly.

 

Dropping passes, blocking "nobody" and being confused what routes they're supposed to run usually results in less playing time. But not here...........noooooo way. It's Bo's secret conspiracy plot, of course.

[Enhance]

Isn't the answer to Turner's problems simple? Perform in practice and you'll see playing time. Whether people agree with it or not, this is Pelini's MO. I'm sure there are instances where Pelini has thrown a guy in who hasn't had great practices but has a lot of potential. However, in most cases Pelini says you play how you practice, more or less.

[Calvin]

Good read. I hope he gets it together. He's got game changer abilities for sure.

 

And I don't have a problem with the "Jamal Drill". Half of the coaches we've all had are hard asses who never compliment but always have some deficiency in your game to glare at. That's their job. It's a duel purpose. Make you better physically and tougher mentally. These kids are brought up always being the best athletes to take the field. They get to college and it's no longer the case. They need a reality check and a coach, an experienced mentor, is the one to give it. Too harsh? Really? You've never had a coach pull you by your facemask and scream and cuss and ask what you're even doing on the field in the first place? I bet every college player has had that experience and I bet they're there partially because of it.

[AFhusker]

Baylor vs. Washington is one of the bowl games I'm most excited about, should be entertaining....

 

 

Baylor should hang 40 or 50 on Washington........

 

 

 

 

 

Washington could score 40 or 50 (or more) on Baylor.

 

But as AF says, they're just High School teams.

 

Another guy who can't comprehend what his written. Washington is a bad (lower echelon) college football team. All you have to do is look at their season to prove it. If Washington scores 50 on Baylor, they will give up about 60-70 with that secondary.

[AFhusker]

You're just looking for someone to argue with, and your childish banter isnt doing any good here....The 'fact' is, Washington is not a lower level college team, they made a bowl game in one of the best conferences in the country.... Arizona St. isnt gonna challenge for a championship, but they are a talented team, aka stout..... Texas went 8-4 this year, andh had a losing recorhd last year..... With all that talent I suppose they are lower level....

 

We may have a different definition of 'lower level football'

 

But my guess is logic escapes you.....

 

You have no logic, just your flawed opinion with no facts to back it up. Washington is not a good team at all and their is no such thing as a "stout" team with a losing record. The only word that describes ASU is that they suck. The PAC 12 sucks as a conference too, they have Oregon, Standford, and USC, the rest of the teams are average to below average teams. Much like the B1G was this year.

[AFhusker]

I'll say I didn't read the article to avoid getting attacked for not doing that but to rebut what AFHusker said:

 

Maybe the coaches felt that he was going to be a part of the starting WRs come the beginning of the season and through 5 games, he was. I don't think you can redshirt after the 6th game if I'm right. So you think it wasn't too bright to not redshirt a player who was producing for our offense a week before you can't redshirt him anymore?

 

Not so bright of thinking.

 

Our first 5 games were against 4 high school quality teams and one lower level college team in Washington. Anyone that played could have looked good against them. My point is that he came here as a QB and if you are going to play him at WR and burn his RS, then you are going to have to take the bad with the good aka blocking. And then to bench him when we hit the meat of the schedule it a waste of the season. It would have made more sense to keep him playing or just don't play him at all.

 

You do know that Washington made it to the Alamo bowl? Wyoming was also in a bowl game as well. Our 5th game was against the Big10 champ Wisconsin...

 

Other than Wisky, it still stands true, For some reason I thought we played one of our other scrub teams before Wisky.

 

As for Wyoming, yes they made a bowl and were dominated by the powerhouse Temple Owls. Yea, that's a quaity 8-5 team.

 

Washington is 7-5 and likely to be 7-6 after their bowl game. Dare we talk about how lucky we were to win that game?

 

Then you throw in the two games against the schools of the blind deaf and dumb and it further proves how easy of a schedule we really had. The really funny part is that over the years we as NU fans have always claimed that the B1G was overrated due to their "name" teams that just weren't very good. Well, that didn't change when NU joined the conference, but now a lot of NU fans are sounding a lot like the UM and tOSU fans that we were debating with over the years.

 

Dare we say how we were up by 20+ points before "packing it in". We won that game handily. Washington's scores in the end were garbage.

 

I fail to see how our schedule was easy, we played 2 teams that are in BCS bowls, and 9 teams that made bowl games. Do explain it in excruciating details because as you have already observed, my reading comprehension isn't very good.

 

That just shows that there are way too many bowl games. Making a bowl in todays game doesn't mean that the team is any good. All you have to be is .500 or one game under in UCLA's case to be bowl eligable. Since when is a 6-6 team considered good? We played 10 bowl teams in 2007, using your logic I have to ask does that mean that 2007 was the toughest schedule in NU history?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

 

 

That just shows that there are way too many bowl games. Making a bowl in todays game doesn't mean that the team is any good. All you have to be is .500 or one game under in UCLA's case to be bowl eligable. Since when is a 6-6 team considered good? We played 10 bowl teams in 2007, using your logic I have to ask does that mean that 2007 was the toughest schedule in NU history?

 

Good point. You're claiming that our schedule was easy as a prostitute, all I'm trying to do is to claim that it was a lot harder than you claim it to be. The combined records of our opponents this year was 91-57, roughly 62% winning percentage. Comparable to our 2007 schedule where our opponent's combined records were 95-57, roughly a 63% winning percentage.

 

Here are some other top teams schedule winning percentages:

 

Alabama--79-55 [59%]

Oklahoma State--95-64 [60%]

Wisconsin--87-74 [54%]

 

I could give more, but it's very tedious work and I'm slightly buzzed right now.

[Enhance]

That just shows that there are way too many bowl games. Making a bowl in todays game doesn't mean that the team is any good. All you have to be is .500 or one game under in UCLA's case to be bowl eligable. Since when is a 6-6 team considered good? We played 10 bowl teams in 2007, using your logic I have to ask does that mean that 2007 was the toughest schedule in NU history?

By that standard, if Team A doesn't make a bowl, is Team A possibly good? If making a bowl doesn't mean your good, then not making a bowl doesn't mean you're bad, right? By extension, how would you determine if any team is "good" or not? Because if you can't justify it by wins or whether they go to a bowl game, then what are you basing anything off of?

 

You're arguing that the system itself doesn't determine who is better than who, and frankly I don't disagree with that. But because it's the system in place, there's very little else you can use to evaluate a team. If you're not going to use W/L records or whether or not a team made a bowl, then you really have very little to evaluate.