RBs

oldjar07

All-American
Oct 25, 2009
4,895
3,099
113
Luke needs to be on the field, we're not good enough to not have our best athletes not playing. Plug him in somewhere please...
Yep couldn't agree more. That's what will tell me if this staff really wants to win or not. Should have been done against Iowa, but hopefully it happens these last two games. Whether Luke is playing, RB, WR, or QB, he should never come off the field. He's by far our best athlete on offense.
 

BuckysBoys1

Redshirt Freshman
Mar 28, 2019
852
596
93
I’m not even sure how anybody could even look at Wan’Dale and think he looks anything like Ameer or Rex.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldjar07

HominidHusker

Junior
Jun 25, 2018
1,705
2,819
113
I feel bad for Thompkins who battled for so long just to get a chance to play again. He persevered more than most would, he finally gets a taste of the game again and quickly sidelined with yet another injury in a short season. Seems he may have to wait til next year?

Morrison before the season, Thompkins, then Mills and even Scott.
4 out of 5 scholly RBs hurt thru only 5 games and none had many game carries.

Can’t catch a break there.
 
  • Like
Reactions: NikkiSixx

Blackshirt316

All-American
Jan 17, 2007
4,259
616
113
Keep in mind, because this year isn't using any of the players eligibility clock, both the players and coaches are being a lot more liberal in deciding to not play with injuries they typically would be playing with in a normal season.
 

Reditus

Walk On
Jun 20, 2019
431
602
93
This should be a big week for the running game as Purdue struggles against the run per their message board. If our backs are not ready I want to see a heavy dose of QB keepers otherwise I want to see a 100 yard rushing RB this week.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BleedRed78

jlb321

Defensive Coordinator
Aug 8, 2014
7,542
8,340
113
You're forgetting a pretty important running back in Ameer, but I agree. Haven't had a running back with good instincts back there since those two.

ranking recent backs while at Nebraska

1. Ameer
2. Helu
3. Rex
 

TheBeav815

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Feb 19, 2007
18,613
8,219
113
Chicago Suburbs
ranking recent backs while at Nebraska

1. Ameer
2. Helu
3. Rex
For the system they were in I won't disagree with Helu edging out Rex. I think Rex could thrive in more systems than Helu could because of his ability to break tackles in tight confines, but there's no denying Roy's top end speed made him a different sort of weapon than Rexy.

I'm not sure if Ameer is truly the #1 of that list but in terms of how much he was asked to carry the team, Ameer had the biggest burden of the three IMO.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BleedRed78

dinglefritz

Nebraska Legend
Jan 14, 2011
25,764
20,568
113
Looks like the RB room is getting healthier.
Thompkins was supposedly out last week because a false positive test. I'm wondering if those really are false positive tests or if those guys given their youth, nutritional and physical status maybe actually had the virus but eliminated it very quickly without a significant viremia. It just seems odd that 90% of your positive test results would be "false" positives.
 

Stlhuskers

Newbie
Aug 25, 2008
35
31
18
.... "false" positives.
False positives are when the first test (ex antigen test) comes back positive but a subsequent test (usually a different test like PCR) comes back negative. I thought the Big10 process was to retest positives the following day to ID those that were false. A false positive is not simply testing positive but feeling fine. Also, false positives are a normal part of the clinical process and are not unique to this virus. Better a false positive than a false negative.
 
  • Like
Reactions: BleedRed78

Bigred_b1624

Walk On
Nov 20, 2018
249
342
63
Thompkins was supposedly out last week because a false positive test. I'm wondering if those really are false positive tests or if those guys given their youth, nutritional and physical status maybe actually had the virus but eliminated it very quickly without a significant viremia. It just seems odd that 90% of your positive test results would be "false" positives.
I believe it was Scott who was out for a false positive
 

TheBeav815

Nebraska Football Hall of Fame
Feb 19, 2007
18,613
8,219
113
Chicago Suburbs
Thompkins was supposedly out last week because a false positive test. I'm wondering if those really are false positive tests or if those guys given their youth, nutritional and physical status maybe actually had the virus but eliminated it very quickly without a significant viremia. It just seems odd that 90% of your positive test results would be "false" positives.
Glad I'm not the only one thinking it. I don't know why he bothers saying anything at all, he clearly doesn't want to disclose when their guys catch it.
 

dinglefritz

Nebraska Legend
Jan 14, 2011
25,764
20,568
113
False positives are when the first test (ex antigen test) comes back positive but a subsequent test (usually a different test like PCR) comes back negative. I thought the Big10 process was to retest positives the following day to ID those that were false. A false positive is not simply testing positive but feeling fine. Also, false positives are a normal part of the clinical process and are not unique to this virus. Better a false positive than a false negative.
I understand all of that. That still doesn't explain why you would have 90% of your original screening tests come back as false positives after PCR testing. That's a pretty high failure rate. My question would be how long is the gap from the first sample and test until they re-sample and run the PCR. I doubt they're using the same swab. If not and there's say a day lag in re-testing, a transient viremia could account for the difference in test results. It would be interesting to hear UNMC's explanation of the difference. I know a large area medical facility had similar issues several months ago with a rapid test which resulted in them discontinuing it's use.
 

jlb321

Defensive Coordinator
Aug 8, 2014
7,542
8,340
113
90% is high


The COVID test isn’t designed as a screening test – it is designed for testing of people with a high probability of disease - symptomatic people.

Any diagnostic test not intended as a screening test in the absence of a suitable pretest probability will have a tremendous number of false positives. A test in the setting of a low pre-test probability will perform poorly

A test to identify patients with coronary artery disease will perform much better if you are testing a group of people with exertional substernal chest pain with other risk factors for CAD versus asymptomatic people who exercise regularly without symptoms.

If you utilize routine chest CT scan testing of asymptomatic young nonsmokers to look for cancer you will find a tremendous number of nodules and other abnormalities that will not be cancer when further investigated. It is why routine body CTs in the absence of any clinical indication are discouraged because in many, many cases you are going to find nonsignificant abnormalities that none the less will lead to further unnecessary tests, biopsies, future scans etc.


Second, screening tests are designed to have a high sensitivity and low specificity – ie high false positives and almost no false negatives. When screening for diseases such as cancer etc you want to have high confidence in a negative test – you don’t want to miss finding the disease. A positive test in screening is followed up with better confirmatory tests – many of these will be negative

Lastly with regards to COVID – you would rather sit a kid for an asymptomatic positive understanding that it might be a false positive rather than wait to test until kids are symptomatic in which case they have the potential to be infectious for the prior 24-72 hours before exhibiting any symptoms. Waiting to test until symptomatic risks a much larger breakout.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stlhuskers

BleedRed78

Walk On
Oct 22, 2019
409
483
63
Thompkins was supposedly out last week because a false positive test. I'm wondering if those really are false positive tests or if those guys given their youth, nutritional and physical status maybe actually had the virus but eliminated it very quickly without a significant viremia. It just seems odd that 90% of your positive test results would be "false" positives.
I'm hearing there's about 90% rate for these tests to come up as false positives. So this makes sense...
 

jlb321

Defensive Coordinator
Aug 8, 2014
7,542
8,340
113
I'm hearing there's about 90% rate for these tests to come up as false positives. So this makes sense...
the false positive rate depends on the pretest probability that the illness you are testing for is present in the individual you are testing

the false positive rate will be very low in someone presenting with fever, cough, shortness of breath with cxr abnormalities and a known exposure versus someone completely asymptomatic without known exposure
 

BK1

Newbie
Sep 27, 2001
40
33
18
Remember the days when our 3rd team RB could have been a starter just about anywhere else in the country?
Yes I do and there were plenty of seasons in which that was the case. One could go 5 deep in years like 1995 to start the season:
1) LP
2) Childs
3) Benning
4) Green
5) Sims
6) Uhir or Mackovicka
 

NikkiSixx

Graduate Assistant
Sep 14, 2013
5,962
4,261
113
I feel bad for Thompkins who battled for so long just to get a chance to play again. He persevered more than most would, he finally gets a taste of the game again and quickly sidelined with yet another injury in a short season. Seems he may have to wait til next year?

Morrison before the season, Thompkins, then Mills and even Scott.
4 out of 5 scholly RBs hurt thru only 5 games and none had many game carries.

Can’t catch a break there.
Scott and staff recruited a lot of guys who were injured in high school that other schools backed off on, so that wasn't very smart as far as I'm concerned. They got a winner in Maurice Washington, but the kid didn't work out. But I doubt he would have been kicked off the team if TO was coaching. Tom gave a lot of chances. Scott, not quite as much. MW would have turned into a good receiver if he applied himself.
 

HominidHusker

Junior
Jun 25, 2018
1,705
2,819
113
Scott and staff recruited a lot of guys who were injured in high school that other schools backed off on, so that wasn't very smart as far as I'm concerned. They got a winner in Maurice Washington, but the kid didn't work out. But I doubt he would have been kicked off the team if TO was coaching. Tom gave a lot of chances. Scott, not quite as much. MW would have turned into a good receiver if he applied himself.
Since we can’t land much top talent, I’m not completely opposed to taking a flier on a couple kids who were elite before injury. We have a pretty low success rate with the healthy ones anyway sometimes.
 

oldjar07

All-American
Oct 25, 2009
4,895
3,099
113
The killer was Gregg Bell a juco washing out
I don't like the idea of recruiting juco RB's honestly. If there's one position you can plug a talented freshman in and expect to do reasonably well, it's at running back.
 

BuckysBoys1

Redshirt Freshman
Mar 28, 2019
852
596
93
Thompkins was supposedly out last week because a false positive test. I'm wondering if those really are false positive tests or if those guys given their youth, nutritional and physical status maybe actually had the virus but eliminated it very quickly without a significant viremia. It just seems odd that 90% of your positive test results would be "false" positives.
Wrong, Marvin Scott was out with a false positive.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Stlhuskers