The guy gashed OSU for 50 plus yd run, who else has done anything like that this year? Seriously it isn't that hard to figure out. Get your playmakers on the field, Betts too
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
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.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...
Sean Callahan reported that we'd have all our backs this week for the first time this season. So I'd expect Mills hopefully with Thompkins to spell him.Do we know thompkins' injury?
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.
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.ranking recent backs while at Nebraska
1. Ameer
2. Helu
3. Rex
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.Looks like the RB room is getting healthier.
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..... "false" positives.
I believe it was Scott who was out for a false positiveThompkins 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.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 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.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'm hearing there's about 90% rate for these tests to come up as false positives. So this makes sense...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...
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:Remember the days when our 3rd team RB could have been a starter just about anywhere else in the country?
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.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.
No, the false positivity rate for these tests is not 90%. Read jlb for more information.I'm hearing there's about 90% rate for these tests to come up as false positives. So this makes sense...
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.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.
No, the false positivity rate for these tests is not 90%. Read jlb for more information.
The killer was Gregg Bell a juco washing outOzigbo wasn't a slouch his senior year. But recruiting at that position has been sub par for awhile.
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.The killer was Gregg Bell a juco washing out
Mike Rozier says hello.......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.
Wrong, Marvin Scott was out with a false positive.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.