Jason Peter throws some crap at the wall.

[knapplc]

I would rather get my information from someone who knows how to win, who has been there, and who can see what's wrong and have a cogent opinion on how to fix it than get the same attempt from someone who simply sounds good on the microphone but doesn't really know what they're talking about. Some people may enjoy a radio-quality voice. I appreciate the knowledge he provides, and I'm willing to sacrifice some broadcasting quality to get it. He's far from perfect, but he's better than most talking heads.

 

But, to each their own.

[Lyons in the Sea of Red.]

I would rather get my information from someone who knows how to win, who has been there, and who can see what's wrong and have a cogent opinion on how to fix it than get the same attempt from someone who simply sounds good on the microphone but doesn't really know what they're talking about. Some people may enjoy a radio-quality voice. I appreciate the knowledge he provides, and I'm willing to sacrifice some broadcasting quality to get it. He's far from perfect, but he's better than most talking heads.

 

But, to each their own.

I understand what you are saying, but I dont understand how you can get on people on the board about slandering the program and then defend Peter. The guy is known for it. Even worse, he played here.

[knapplc]

How does he slander the program? I haven't listened to him since The Spread went off the air.

[Enhance]

I guess I'm confused to was to what "insight" Jason Peter offers? He tells me nothing I don't hear from other former players or what I see on here. Damon Benning is from the same era as Jason Peter, although he wasn't the same caliber of player, and I find him more informative and far less obstructive with his opinions. I don't see the Peter appeal.

 

Just because someone has been there doesn't always make them the best resource for information. I've listened to him as I've listened to others, and I don't see the appeal in what he has to say.

[knapplc]

I guess I'm confused to was to what "insight" Jason Peter offers? He tells me nothing I don't hear from other former players or what I see on here. Damon Benning is from the same era as Jason Peter, although he wasn't the same caliber of player, and I find him more informative and far less obstructive with his opinions. I don't see the Peter appeal.

 

Just because someone has been there doesn't always make them the best resource for information. I've listened to him as I've listened to others, and I don't see the appeal in what he has to say.

 

And that's where we differ, because I found Peter to be as informative as Benning. Some like Benning, some don't. Some like Peter, some don't. Opinions vary.

[Enhance]

I guess I'm confused to was to what "insight" Jason Peter offers? He tells me nothing I don't hear from other former players or what I see on here. Damon Benning is from the same era as Jason Peter, although he wasn't the same caliber of player, and I find him more informative and far less obstructive with his opinions. I don't see the Peter appeal.

 

Just because someone has been there doesn't always make them the best resource for information. I've listened to him as I've listened to others, and I don't see the appeal in what he has to say.

 

And that's where we differ, because I found Peter to be as informative as Benning. Some like Benning, some don't. Some like Peter, some don't. Opinions vary.

I'm interested in what makes him appealing, though. An explanation, of sorts, for trying to understand what about his opinions interest people. Whenever I've listened to him, I've found him unnecessarily critical and his opinions to be far too substantiated in "how things used to be" than how they are now, in an era where what he had is impossible to replicate. I feel most of his opinions do nothing more than fire people up and get people hoping things get back to the glory days. He spares no chance to remind people he's a former Husker and things were better back then. I don't see how it's insightful.

 

I've seen people type the exact same things on this message board that Jason Peter says, and they get railed for it. If a mathematician says 2+2=4, does my saying it somehow make it less impressive?

[knapplc]

I have agreed with some of his criticisms in the past. Further, I found his interplay with Jeff "The Nancy Boy" Wilkerson to be amusing.

 

Sure, he lives in the past, but isn't that inherent in anyone with experience? Unless we get Rex Burkhead to host a show, nobody on the air is going to have insight into anything that isn't from the past.

[ZRod]

I have agreed with some of his criticisms in the past. Further, I found his interplay with Jeff "The Nancy Boy" Wilkerson to be amusing.

 

Sure, he lives in the past, but isn't that inherent in anyone with experience? Unless we get Rex Burkhead to host a show, nobody on the air is going to have insight into anything that isn't from the past.

I'm all for remembering the past and learning and growing form it, but you can't live in it. (seems like we've been discussing this a lot) At a certain point you have to understand that this isn't the past and things just aren't the same as they were then. It's a different game now and as much as somethings stay the same others change. From what I can recall listening to Jason when he was in Lincoln he really struggles with that.

[knapplc]

I'm all for remembering the past and learning and growing form it, but you can't live in it. (seems like we've been discussing this a lot) At a certain point you have to understand that this isn't the past and things just aren't the same as they were then. It's a different game now and as much as somethings stay the same others change. From what I can recall listening to Jason when he was in Lincoln he really struggles with that.

 

 

I don't know what this means. At what point do we go from learning from the past to "living in it?" Where is that line, and how do we cross it?

 

Most every Husker-related show has former players as guests weekly, if not daily. Some have been hosted by former Huskers. We have websites dedicated solely to archiving past teams. The University has their old yearbooks online, and people peruse them regularly for stats and to learn about past teams. This site has discussions weekly, if not daily, about past teams from the last decade, the 90s, the 80s, the 70s and beyond.

 

When do we cross that line? How does Peter cross that line, especially when the subject of his modern-day shows is, invariably, today's team?

 

 

EDIT - correct me if I'm wrong, but it seems like there are simply people who don't like Peter - either his past life, his radio demeanor, his delivery, his schtick, whatever. That's perfectly acceptable and cool, and there's nothing wrong with that. Isn't that what we're getting at here? The delivery more than the message?

[tsimo3381]

My thought on this is that Jason Peter says most of what he says for ratings. He is a polarizing figure where you either love him or hate him. I will give him credit that he is fairly knowledgeable about sports in general, especially football. I have listened almost everyday since he came on air here in Omaha but only for about a half hour during my commute. First day, I lasted about 45 seconds when they were discussing the kid from Auburn that transferred here and he said something along the lines of "we don't need anymore DBs. We need DLs. So if some DL wants to go out and shoot somebody, then go ahead and come here. Don't have to kill them, just wound them." Also does a whole lot of "back when I played". Which is all fine and dandy but we realize it's not the same and we don't need to hear how great you were all the time. The other one that got me was talking about over/under wins this year and Peter says "I am taking the under" Now each person is entitled to their opinion but he said it emphatically and think he prefaced it with something like "I know it's shocking, but I am taking the under" Like I said, I listen to it because I can't get enough football talk this time of year and he does offer some good insight and I like Gary Sharpe but definitely not my favorite broadcaster by a long shot.

[tschu]

LONG LIVE SCHICK AND NICK

 

JP is 15 years and tons of drug addiction problems removed from the game. Also, any legitimate insights that he has are overshadowed by his incoherent and uninformed rantings about things.

[Goal-line]

LONG LIVE SCHICK AND NICK

 

JP is 15 years and tons of drug addiction problems removed from the game. Also, any legitimate insights that he has are overshadowed by his incoherent and uninformed rantings about things.

 

 

Schick and Nick are/were removed from reality. JP's past is behind him. I would consider him a lot more informed about Husker football than most folks, and in particular, substantially more informed than either Schick or Nick.. The Schick and Nick show was a pathetic blend of incompetence laced with failed comedic substance. Neither one of those two idiots had a clue about most sports subjects, or most subjects in general. That is why they had whole hours of their show dedicated to other talk topics. It was epic and complete failure.

 

I, for one, am glad the Schick and Nick show is now dead forever. So is the rest of the rational world.

[ZRod]

I'll admit that I haven't listened to him since he had his show in Lincoln so I couldn't tell you if his "schtick" has changed. But that is probably what I liked the least about Jason, loved his book and his work at Nebraska just not what I perceive his attitude to be. Let me just be clear that I have no problem bragging about past titles and glory, as long as there is someone alive that is old enough to remember them and give it a context (i.e. the modern era of football).

 

I guess living in the past is hard to define, but to me it's just someone who can't get over the fact that things have changed and aren't going to be like they were. The old "back in my day" line is a dead give away to me that someone is living in the past. "back in my day we used to do this, this and this" well guess what it's not back in your day anymore and unfortunately things will probably never be that way again. Rules change, limits change, people have changed. Just because you were tough as nails and talented doesn't mean that guys who play today are weak moma's boys that can't perform. Maybe he's changed but it seems like that was the way he talked here in Lincoln, and maybe I'm ranting incoherently here but I just feel like he didn't have respect for his Alma mater anymore.

[jsneb83]

Well I know now that I won't be inviting this feces-throwing monkey into my house. Thanks for the heads up.

[Enhance]

I have agreed with some of his criticisms in the past. Further, I found his interplay with Jeff "The Nancy Boy" Wilkerson to be amusing.

 

Sure, he lives in the past, but isn't that inherent in anyone with experience? Unless we get Rex Burkhead to host a show, nobody on the air is going to have insight into anything that isn't from the past.

Well, like I said, it comes down to how you relay those experiences to people. All of us, in essence, "live in the past," because our personalities are dictated by our experiences. It's who we are and what we rely on. That's fine, but Jason Peter is kind of like that vegan internet meme. "How do you know someone is a vegan? Don't worry, they'll tell you." And like my mathematician example, I hear people say the exact same things Peter says, and they're not former players. Often times, and this is the real issue I have with him, there's no substance to what he's saying. Sure, he can compare today to yesterday and tell me all the ways yesterday was better, but that doesn't matter to me. And if it feels like every time I hear Peter that's exactly what I get. Maybe I haven't listened to him enough - I don't know. But I can only go off of my experiences, and each time I turned him on, it was the same song and dance.

I'll admit that I haven't listened to him since he had his show in Lincoln so I couldn't tell you if his "schtick" has changed. But that is probably what I liked the least about Jason, loved his book and his work at Nebraska just not what I perceive his attitude to be. Let me just be clear that I have no problem bragging about past titles and glory, as long as there is someone alive that is old enough to remember them and give it a context (i.e. the modern era of football).

 

I guess living in the past is hard to define, but to me it's just someone who can't get over the fact that things have changed and aren't going to be like they were. The old "back in my day" line is a dead give away to me that someone is living in the past. "back in my day we used to do this, this and this" well guess what it's not back in your day anymore and unfortunately things will probably never be that way again. Rules change, limits change, people have changed. Just because you were tough as nails and talented doesn't mean that guys who play today are weak moma's boys that can't perform. Maybe he's changed but it seems like that was the way he talked here in Lincoln, and maybe I'm ranting incoherently here but I just feel like he didn't have respect for his Alma mater anymore.

I agree, for the most part. There's nothing wrong with having an opinion, except when you treat that opinion as gold. I'm not one to say "You can't criticize people if you couldn't do their job", because that's B.S., but I do think you should level your criticisms out if you aren't in their position. Peter has no boundaries in this regard, which is why I can't stand him. He speaks like he genuinely knows exactly how to get Nebraska football back to championships, but instead of giving learned and constructive criticisms, he spends most of his time just ranting.