• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

Is honesty not acceptable?

Greatest Fan of All

The Legend
10 Year Member
McCaffery is much slighter than Wandale. McCaffery also went out of a game once this year for the remainder of the game because he got beat up. You made an erroneous claim that Wandale's hip pointer on an outside play was the result of "overuse", even though you have exactly zero evidence of that.

I never said McCaffery would not be a difference maker. In fact, I think he already is one. I just wonder if, since he doesn't seem quite ready in the passing game, putting him out there to mostly run against a defense like Iowa would have been a good idea.
Blah, blah, blah...just give it up, your argument is empty.
 
Last edited:

goodnterribles

Regulators! Let's mount up.
5 Year Member
Bingo. Can’t have it both ways.
Who is trying to have it both ways? McCaffrey actually DID get hurt running between the tackles. Wandale hurt his hip on an outside play. Furthermore, Wandale is built much thicker than McCaffrey, so there's not really a comparison between the two.

Attempting to have a conversation with you two is silly.
 

winnerwinner

Recruit
2 Year Member
Who is trying to have it both ways? McCaffrey actually DID get hurt running between the tackles. Wandale hurt his hip on an outside play. Furthermore, Wandale is built much thicker than McCaffrey, so there's not really a comparison between the two.

Attempting to have a conversation with you two is silly.
Your samples are actually opposite. Luke got hurt, but not because of any size difference - the injury was on his leg. Wandale got hurt when a much larger, hard hittng linebacker tackled him hard. So the one who actually got hurt because of a size difference was Wandale even though he was running outside.
 

goodnterribles

Regulators! Let's mount up.
5 Year Member
Your samples are actually opposite. Luke got hurt, but not because of any size difference - the injury was on his leg. Wandale got hurt when a much larger, hard hittng linebacker tackled him hard. So the one who actually got hurt because of a size difference was Wandale even though he was running outside.
Wandale was out in space, which is where everyone agrees he should be most of the time. Some of the board orthopedists claim he hurt his hip because of overuse between the tackles.
Luke, right now at least, doesn't seem to have as much of a grasp on the passing offense, so he was running zone read a lot in that IU game and when he came in against MD. I think we can all agree Luke has a slight frame right now. Much slighter than Wandale, who is short but built like a tank. That's all I was saying, and yet two people took it as some silly example to come after me.
 

winnerwinner

Recruit
2 Year Member
Wandale was out in space, which is where everyone agrees he should be most of the time. Some of the board orthopedists claim he hurt his hip because of overuse between the tackles.
Luke, right now at least, doesn't seem to have as much of a grasp on the passing offense, so he was running zone read a lot in that IU game and when he came in against MD. I think we can all agree Luke has a slight frame right now. Much slighter than Wandale, who is short but built like a tank. That's all I was saying, and yet two people took it as some silly example to come after me.
as far as those claims go, i think he was definitely overused. luke has a slight frame, but that doesn't mean he can't "handle" 21 carries a game. i think he can, and he somewhat proved it in the maryland game. is it wise to make luke carry 21 times? probably not. it probably wasn't wise to overuse wandale like they did either. the nebraska offence pretty much turned into the wandale show till he got banged up.

with the tensions on the board, you shouldn't be surprised that some "frost realists" would try to use every opportunity to bash "frost apologists" or vice versa. i feel your pain though.
 

goodnterribles

Regulators! Let's mount up.
5 Year Member
as far as those claims go, i think he was definitely overused. luke has a slight frame, but that doesn't mean he can't "handle" 21 carries a game. i think he can, and he somewhat proved it in the maryland game. is it wise to make luke carry 21 times? probably not. it probably wasn't wise to overuse wandale like they did either. the nebraska offence pretty much turned into the wandale show till he got banged up.

with the tensions on the board, you shouldn't be surprised that some "frost realists" would try to use every opportunity to bash "frost apologists" or vice versa. i feel your pain though.
I was saying since he already got hurt running that sort of offense against Indiana, and Iowa's defense is much better. I just think he would have taken a beating out there.

As far as those two, they're simply wrong (they're good at that) and misnterpreting things I've said (also good at that). But it's all good, I'm excited to see what LM can do next year with a few more pounds and a stronger grasp of the passing side of the offense.
 

solesrfr

Varsity
5 Year Member
Who is trying to have it both ways? McCaffrey actually DID get hurt running between the tackles. Wandale hurt his hip on an outside play. Furthermore, Wandale is built much thicker than McCaffrey, so there's not really a comparison between the two.

Attempting to have a conversation with you two is silly.
AM got injured too and he is big. The idea of a small guy gets hurt more than a big guy is not based in any statistical data that I have seen.


C
 

bilsker

Tom Osborne
15 Year Member
He's
McCaffery is much slighter than Wandale. McCaffery also went out of a game once this year for the remainder of the game because he got beat up. You made an erroneous claim that Wandale's hip pointer on an outside play was the result of "overuse", even though you have exactly zero evidence of that.

I never said McCaffery would not be a difference maker. In fact, I think he already is one. I just wonder if, since he doesn't seem quite ready in the passing game, putting him out there to mostly run against a defense like Iowa would have been a good idea.
9/12 passing so he's plenty capable. Maybe not the whole ball of wax but enough. And better than Martinez probably. The running game it's not even close....he's the far superior option there. In fact, on pass plays you could dumb it down to 1 or 2 reads and let him create from there. Martinez had little ability to avoid a pass rush or to make something out of a scramble.

Point is...you had a guy who was healthy and capable and you stuck with the gimp instead. Doesn't seem real smart to most people. Even if he doesn't take all 21 carries that Martinez had...getting him several series would have been wise.
 

winnerwinner

Recruit
2 Year Member
I was saying since he already got hurt running that sort of offense against Indiana, and Iowa's defense is much better. I just think he would have taken a beating out there.

As far as those two, they're simply wrong (they're good at that) and misnterpreting things I've said (also good at that). But it's all good, I'm excited to see what LM can do next year with a few more pounds and a stronger grasp of the passing side of the offense.
but thinking he would have taken a beating isn't the same as having that double standard they got you on.

saying they both probably could be managed a bit better than 21 carries a game is probably accurate.

but fair enough.
 
Top