This all started 20 years ago

[ColoradoHusk]

Just now, Undone said:

The thing is, naming Solich was really only the half of it.

I feel like our fan base is blind to the fact that Osborne locked in on Pelini when he was tasked with finding a new head coach as Athletic Director. In my humble opinion, Tom didn't exactly leave a legacy of doing well with the tough decisions post-coaching retirement. 

That's a fair statement, and I don't necessarily disagree with you.  But I could also say that Solich and Pelini had much better win-loss records than the other 2 coaches that have been at NU since Osborne.  There are circumstances with the coaches, such as inherited talent, conference toughness, and so on, but if I look strictly at win-loss record, Solich and Pelini are much better than Callahan and Riley.

 

I just don't get the point of a thread talking about what happened 20 years ago, when NU starts to struggle in each season.  It happens every year.   

[Undone]

I'll agree with that, for sure. I'm much more interested in talking about how to un-dumpster fire our current situation.  

[Enhance]

1 minute ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I just don't get the point of a thread talking about what happened 20 years ago, when NU starts to struggle in each season.  It happens every year.   

Because the past often helps shape the narrative of the hear and now, even if it isn't wholly relevant. It's the same reason people kept bringing up the goat and World Series drought and all that other nonsense with the Cubs. There was no curse. It was just a simple problem of management, coaching and talent never being on the same page for a very long time.

 

I think it's sort of the same situation here. I do think it's important to realize that Nebraska's leadership has made some bad decisions in the last ~20 years, but you're right - ultimately, none of that stuff matters. The here and now matters. The truth is that Nebraska just isn't very good.

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, Enhance said:

Because the past often helps shape the narrative of the hear and now, even if it isn't wholly relevant. It's the same reason people kept bringing up the goat and World Series drought and all that other nonsense with the Cubs. There was no curse. It was just a simple problem of management, coaching and talent never being on the same page for a very long time.

 

I think it's sort of the same situation here. I do think it's important to realize that Nebraska's leadership has made some bad decisions in the last ~20 years, but you're right - ultimately, none of that stuff matters. The here and now matters. The truth is that Nebraska just isn't very good.

I understand that talking about the past does shape the narrative.  I totally get it.  But, when Nebraska seems to get really bad ('04, '07, '15, '17-headed that way), instead of putting blame on the coaches that are actually leading those teams, they want to put the blame elsewhere to fit their own narrative.

[dtbugeater]

For me, it is an interesting thought experiment to wonder what would have happened if solich stayed on for a while.  

 

I mean, let's just say that either way we end at this same place. Given that, I guess I wish it was with solich rather than what we got. 

[JJ Husker]

1 minute ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I understand that talking about the past does shape the narrative.  I totally get it.  But, when Nebraska seems to get really bad ('04, '07, '15, '17-headed that way), instead of putting blame on the coaches that are actually leading those teams, they want to put the blame elsewhere to fit their own narrative.

 I agree that the blame and responsibility ultimately is in the here and now. But it is inevitable for us to keep bringing up the past decisions that have contributed to where we are as a program. Nothing we can do about it now but it is what it is. I don't think it's necessarily making things fit a narrative or diverting blame.  If we don't take lessons from history then we are more apt to make similar mistakes again. I totally agree that talking about Frank, Tom, Callahan, Pederson etc. does nothing to fix our current problems but it's unavoidable when dissecting where we're at today.

[Cdog923]

1 hour ago, BIG ERN said:

"If you look at football around the country, to get by 41 years without a losing season, with one 7-7 season, is really pretty remarkable," Osborne said. "We maybe have painted ourselves into a little bit of a corner, where expectations are awfully high."

Frank was 58-19 here and 3 Top 10 finishes....

...and begin to **** the bed when he was forced to recruit, and not rely on Tom's leftovers. 

[Toe]

1 hour ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I really don't care whether TO should have hired a different guy 20 years ago or if he shouldn't have even had a chance to name his successor.  Not saying it's not a worthy argument, but I don't know what this has to do with the state of the program under Riley and the current staff.

 

For basically the same reason, at this point I really don't care one way or the other about what Riley did at Oregon State, only about the s#!tshow we're seeing here and now.

[beorach]

If we consider the time we spent legitimately* contending for national titles as relevance, we've now been irrelevant for about the same amount of time as we were relevant under TO.  How much money have we spent on coaches in that time?  $100M?  What a waste...  How about we pay for a coach as if we care about football in this state?  Why do we demand the moon on a shoestring budget?  We're plenty stupid about money in other ways besides.  Look at recent extensions.  Look at what we paid NIU to clear a date and come to Lincoln.

 

The Riley hire happened and I got behind him.  I never felt like it made a lot of sense, though.  What success he had wasn't recent after all.  We'll be lucky to win 5 this season now.  I feel for the kids.

 

* - 2001 doesn't count and I don't need to explain that to Cornhusker fans.

[junior4949]

43 minutes ago, Cdog923 said:

...and begin to **** the bed when he was forced to recruit, and not rely on Tom's leftovers. 

 

I'm always amazed we have to go there.  Raiola, Fonoti, Fabian Washington, Richie Incognito, and the Bullocks brothers all say hi.  Solich inherited a grand total of five top three round NFL players from TO.  Callahan inherited seven.  In the 05' draft, we had three defensive players taken in the first two rounds.  We lost a lot in 04', and we lost by a lot of points.  It's actually pretty sad when you think back on it considering nearly 30 percent of the defense that year were top two round NFL players.   

[HuskerMav11]

1 hour ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I understand that talking about the past does shape the narrative.  I totally get it.  But, when Nebraska seems to get really bad ('04, '07, '15, '17-headed that way), instead of putting blame on the coaches that are actually leading those teams, they want to put the blame elsewhere to fit their own narrative.

 

1. It's not mutually exclusive. You can discuss the past and still blame the current situation on the current coaching staff.

2. Because we're fans and this is a discussion board. You want to have a brainstorm session, create a roadmap to success, and come up with an action plan? What's the point. The only valuable contributions we have to this program is dollars. Boil it all down, and that's all that is left.

 

The only meaningful action we can take as fans is to appropriate our funds elsewhere. Everything else doesn't matter.

[Cdog923]

4 hours ago, junior4949 said:

 

I'm always amazed we have to go there.  Raiola, Fonoti, Fabian Washington, Richie Incognito, and the Bullocks brothers all say hi.  Solich inherited a grand total of five top three round NFL players from TO.  Callahan inherited seven.  In the 05' draft, we had three defensive players taken in the first two rounds.  We lost a lot in 04', and we lost by a lot of points.  It's actually pretty sad when you think back on it considering nearly 30 percent of the defense that year were top two round NFL players.   

What was Solich's best year?

[junior4949]

13 hours ago, Cdog923 said:

What was Solich's best year?

 

I'm sure we'll disagree here, but I'd say 01' as we played for a NC.  I'm sure you'll say it was 99' because we won a CC.  I wonder if the Bama fans are happier with lets say last season over 11'.  They won a CC last year, but they won a NC in 11' without winning a CC.  01' was Solich's fourth year as coach.  A lot of the players on that team were his. 

 

One of the reasons I wanted to see Solich get at least another three seasons when he was terminated was because of the defensive talent he brought into the program.  Bo did pretty good things with the defense in just one year.  It would have been exciting to see what he could have done with three years under his belt.  Solich was also in the process of tweaking the offense more to the spread.  This was one of the reasons he recruited Dailey.  I realize Dailey wasn't the slinger Callahan wanted or needed him to be, but I think he could have been successful in the spread.  I've always thought it was extremely poor of the administration to give Solich just one year after he'd made several staff changes.  If he was fired for off the field problems, I've always found this a bit ironic considering the types of players we allowed to play during the 90's run. 

[Cdog923]

Just now, junior4949 said:

 

I'm sure we'll disagree here, but I'd say 01' as we played for a NC.  I'm sure you'll say it was 99' because we won a CC.  I wonder if the Bama fans are happier with lets say last season over 11'.  They won a CC last year, but they won a NC in 11' without winning a CC.  01' was Solich's fourth year as coach.  A lot of the players on that team were his. 

 

Well, you're correct here. '99 was a far better team than '01, IMO; if ball handling wasn't an issue, '99 could have won a national title as opposed to backing into one a couple of years later. I'd also argue that '99 defense was the best out of that 6 year run. 

 

2 minutes ago, junior4949 said:

 

One of the reasons I wanted to see Solich get at least another three seasons when he was terminated was because of the defensive talent he brought into the program.  Bo did pretty good things with the defense in just one year.  It would have been exciting to see what he could have done with three years under his belt.  Solich was also in the process of tweaking the offense more to the spread.  This was one of the reasons he recruited Dailey.  I realize Dailey wasn't the slinger Callahan wanted or needed him to be, but I think he could have been successful in the spread.  I've always thought it was extremely poor of the administration to give Solich just one year after he'd made several staff changes.  If he was fired for off the field problems, I've always found this a bit ironic considering the types of players we allowed to play during the 90's run. 

 

Please explain your rationale behind this belief: not that I'm disagreeing with you, but his hiring of Barney Cotton to run the offense kind of goes against this, doesn't it? 

[junior4949]

Solich back then mentioned we were heading more towards the spread.  Dailey wasn't really like many/any of the QBs we had recruited in the past.  He was recruited as a dual threat.  He didn't possess the speed and size of guys like Jammal Lord, Frazier, etc.  Barney Cotton was hired to run a run first attack with a pretty high tempo.  Before joining our staff in 03', Cotton was the OC at New Mexico State where they led their conference in passing efficiency, rushing, and total offense.  This is where the spread was to be born.  We were going to spread the field, run first, and quite a bit of short passing routes in space.  Unfortunately, we didn't get to really see what Cotton had in mind because he was only here the one year and had to work with a QB named Jammal Lord.  I'm not going to bag on Lord at all, but he wasn't what was needed for the spread.  He completed less than half of his passes, and he threw more INTs than he did TDs.  This is one of the reasons Dailey got to play as much as he did in 03' and not redshirt.  They were grooming him to be the starter in 04' implementing more of the spread concepts.