84HuskerLaw
New member
We may yet learn one or two guys are ‘no shows’ and be at the 85 limit already. Hope not. We need every guys we can get. Got to put a winning team on the field in 6 weeks! GBR.
There will be two fewer players that we don’t know yet come fall camp. At least two not on scholarship.We may yet learn one or two guys are ‘no shows’ and be at the 85 limit already. Hope not. We need every guys we can get. Got to put a winning team on the field in 6 weeks! GBR.
This is clearly a glass half full - half empty type thing. It’s true the team was competitive with almost every team they played, including quite a few good teams in the top 30. But, it’s also true that the the team went 0-8 vs those teams. That is a strong indication they’re not a top 30 team certainly and suggests probably much less since they couldn’t find even a single win vs that many ‘good’ but not great opponents. The ‘eye test’ suggests somewhere around #70 out about 140 but the win loss numbers suggest lower I suppose. There is a fairly large amount of parity (mediocrity) across the bulk of cfb with the top 10% and very bottom 10% the exceptions. There’s clear separation for those. NW last year was hard to explain but they just didn’t seem to try at all, and played well below they’re typical capabilities. I also tend to think many opponents take us lightly and expect to beat us.I guess? If you think being pushed around by the likes of Illinois and Minnesota and Purdue on a regular basis indicates the program has had adequate talent, enjoy.
The point is on paper we should have the talent to dominate these teams. In reality, no.
And no I don't think calling them the bottom feeders of the conference is that much of a stretch. Even if they pull the occasional okay season out of their asses, they're still among the least talented teams in the conference.
And no I don't think our four top ten opponents last year were bottom feeders. It would be absurd to think that, and you know I don't think that, but I understand why you need to attack that strawman.
No mention of Manning as he went through about 10 guys. What have I missed
Hard to say since he was asked in another question and only mentioned 1 of the 2 asked about before moving on as well. He also wasn't going to mention Decoldest it seemed until asked again. I don't know if anything is there with this but I could be wrong.
We will know about a lot more come fall camp in less than two weeks.
From what I've read, he answered about the first guy then the interviewer moved on before he could answer about manning.
In the 24/7 article, he mentions about 10 guys, specifically speaking about each one. No mention of Manning. I was just curious if he was hurt. The local sports guy made a comment about the interview and pointed out that a prominent name was not discussed. That is what made me look up the interview to see who he was referring too.
For those of us who don’t tweet?!?Mickey's wife is having one on Twitter. Cant say i disagree with her, hopefully they are both happy in Lincoln
For those of us who don’t tweet?!?
After a quick look: A statement about a restaurant treating her differently based upon the color of her skin. She is not exactly shy about it. Also basically saying if she wasn’t married to Mickey nobody would care about her experience.For those of us who don’t tweet?!?
For those of us who don’t tweet?!?
When’s the last time (probably never) that anyone on here has seen a black person be turned away at a restaurant because of their skin color? I don’t doubt some kind of minor confrontation/confusion with a hostess, but I highly doubt she wasn’t seated because she’s black.She apparently went to a restaurant and was told "we're full."
There is plenty of discussion about the reasoning for that. She seems to claim it is because of her being black. Others speculating that they only appeared to have tables open because the outdoor space was not being used because of the heat.