Skeptic/Believer
- Thread starter walksalone
- Start date
Count 'Bility
Banned
get what done? Is it time to move on if we lose close competitive games to UCLA, Michigan, possibily Ohio St in a CCG, and another SEC team in a bowl, making 4 losses again? Even if theyre all very close? Is it still time to pull the plug.
Maybe I overread stuff too much, but I really wish it would be specified what it is that is supposed to get done to be acceptable.
We're not gonna win the National Championship in 2013 (god, I hope I'm wrong as hell though) and I'd be willin to bet money we wont play for it either. I just dont know where we draw the line that says Pelini isnt the guy and we start all over again. There's just too many variables in how it plays out for it to be cut and dried good or bad.
Hedley Lamarr
New member
If we are competive and lose those games by less than 10 pts it would show improvement. If we get our bottoms smacked by 3+ scores again then Bo can go.
Count 'Bility
Banned
Thank you. That's what I mean. And, it's realistic.
I agree with you as well. Meltdown,blowout losses to the tune that we've become accustomed too will NOT be acceptable anymore.
StPaulHusker
Banned
I would tend to agree to a lot of what is being said. First, no more excuses about having a young defense/offense. LSU is losing basically it's entire starting D to the draft and I bet they young guys will step up. They played a lot of kids. If Bo was unwilling or unable to do this, it's on him. Our schedule lines up pretty nicely to make a run. I believe that this year will surely show us where we are as a team. If there are more than 2 losses, I think there is a systematic problem. Regardless of the score. If we get smacked in losses, then I believe it is time to at the very least look elsewhere to someone that can get us over the hump. My only problem with this is who would really be better than what we have that would be willing to come here?
Count 'Bility
Banned
I really REALLY dont want to turn this into a "what if we fire Bo" thread, but this is something that really concerns me the more I think about it. I think back to those words of Dirk Chatelain. "Bo is not good enough to get us over the hump, but he's not bad enough to fire". How bad do we have to let it get? Let's face it, we dotn have a good record of canning 9-win coaches. We're STILL trying to recover from the 1st time we did it. Yes, 2013 is definitely THE year, one way or another.
carlfense
New member
BCS win or conference championship. Not close, almost, should haves, could haves, etc. Just win. I'd add that if he cannot do it this year . . . with this schedule . . . I don't think that he can ever do it.
The excuses will run out eventually.
Last edited by a moderator:
carlfense
New member
He nailed it with that analysis. You can't (or probably shouldn't) fire a coach who wins 9 games every year . . . but how long should we tolerate that as basically being the ceiling for the program? How long should we endure being repeatedly embarrassed on national TV because we got to the 9 win mark? How long should we accept almost winning the conference?
My own opinion is 6-7 years. That should be more than enough time for a coach to hire his staff, recruit his players, and implement his system.
Last edited by a moderator:
Count 'Bility
Banned
Why is it that our schedule is percieved to be so much easier that 2 or more losses is unacceptable? I'm not trying to be an a-hole, i'm just askin a question, because I honestly dont see where it's coming from. We take Ohio St and Wisconsin of the schedule and replace them with Illinois and Purdue. Purdue on the road may not exactly be a cakewalk, and, we've split the Ohio St/Wisconsin games the last two seasons anyway. Michigan's back in Ann Arbor. There's still Michigan St. Penn St's back in happy Valley. A UCLA team that beat us a year ago that should be better yet.
I dont see how the 2013 schedule is so night and day easier than what we've had just because the two big dogs from the opposite division are not on it, which we could end up playing in a possible CCG anyway.
I think WAY too much stock is being put into what I call a mythical "easy" schedule and thus creating some unreasonable hopes and expectations. We should have the offense to do it, but, unfortunately, I dont see the defense being quite able to hold up their end. Again, better, but not yet good enough.
I dont see how the 2013 schedule is so night and day easier than what we've had just because the two big dogs from the opposite division are not on it, which we could end up playing in a possible CCG anyway.
I think WAY too much stock is being put into what I call a mythical "easy" schedule and thus creating some unreasonable hopes and expectations. We should have the offense to do it, but, unfortunately, I dont see the defense being quite able to hold up their end. Again, better, but not yet good enough.
carlfense
New member
You're not being an a-hole . . . here's my reasoning:
This is basically as easy as our schedule (conference and non-conference combined) is going to be for the foreseeable future. If we can't do it this year with a senior QB . . . when is it going to happen?
Well, I am amazed that we have the two best QB's in the nation riding the pines behind this terrible fumbling machine starting. Yea the fumbling machine on the Hypsman list. These other two sure tore up highschool, but so did the useless QB we have now. Must again be poor roster management to keep these guys from starting. Maybe we could have three. I wonder who the next super wonder boy that has never played a down is that will be compared to one of our better QB's to play at Nebraska. Of course next year this soon to be wonder shoud be starting ahead of the other two because, well because.
How some people can be so sure of kids that have never played a down, being better than the kid we have now is beyond fandom. If they were, they would be starting this year. Same story last year with the young DL prospects. Just wait, now we are taking OL that have hardly played a down moving them to the over talented DL. Some can not see the forest for the trees.
How some people can be so sure of kids that have never played a down, being better than the kid we have now is beyond fandom. If they were, they would be starting this year. Same story last year with the young DL prospects. Just wait, now we are taking OL that have hardly played a down moving them to the over talented DL. Some can not see the forest for the trees.
Count 'Bility
Banned
This is why I agreed with Hedley's comment.........
2-3 losses in close games would be ok-shows improvement at least.
2-3 losses in meltdown/blowout fashion again, and, yes, I'll jump ship as well and it'll be time to start again.
Personally, I think there will be 2-3 losses but in competitive fashion. Maybe not by a combined 7 points type of thing, but at least in a way that suggests we are moving in the right direction. I just dont think we have the experience on the staff or defense to say this is the year or else. But it damn well better be the year some legitimate improvements are made.
Count 'Bility
Banned
Because, our qb play has been the least of our issues the past couple years. Has he made mistakes? yes. Could he have played better? Yes. Has he been totally responsible for our sh**ty losses? No.
The Nickens to DT thing is being so blown out of proportion it's hilaroius. he was barely on the two-deep on the Oline, and he'll probably not make the 2-deep on the dline. Just because some players and coaches pumped some sunshine into the newspaper about the move doesnt mean there are issues with the guys we are projecting to make moves. How's that for not seeing forrest fires and log cabins and such.
LumberJackSker
Active member
The Dude
New member
Because our two tough games are UCLA and Michigan. And those two teams are probably fringe top 25 team at best.
Last edited by a moderator: