Shatel's Article

[JJ Husker]

I can see both sides of this but my terminology would line up more closely with NUinID. Being "ready to play" means starting the game out playing well. If you're competitive for a couple quarters then end up getting blown out, I would file that in a different category than "not being ready to play."

I wouldn't term the 2011 games with Wisconsin or Michigan "not ready to play" as we were competitive for some time, especially Wisconsin. I would say our defense wasn't ready to play against UCLA, tOSU and Wiscy last year. Our offense didn't come "ready to play" in several game last year but usually recovered, thus all the comeback victories (not that the defense was great in those games, either).

I guess I can see this. I suppose the team could've been ready to play originally and then totally fail to adapt or make adjustments. I would categorize that as being only partially ready to play. But, we're splitting hairs now.

 

[Mavric]

Yes, actually you have said that. Every time you mention a mistake a player may have made, its always the coaches fault for not preparing, motivating, recruiting or whatever. So, unless you change your previous story, it's not the players fault for anything because the coaches could/should have done something differently.

As I said, the players are held accountable to the coaches, and if the coaches don't/can't correct the mistakes, then there's a problem. Yes, it is the coach's responsibility to fix the problems. Do you think that Bill Callahan should have been fired in 2007?

Yes

 

[beanman]

I can only think of one game last year were NU came out and completely laid an egg in and that was Wisky II.

What do you call 653 yards by UCLA?

What do you call 500 yards and 63 points by Ohio State?

If those aren't eggs...

I don't call those eggs. I call those deuces.

 

[knapplc]

Starting off well, then falling flat on your face when the other team throws a couple of haymakers at you doesn't indicate, to me, that the team was ready to play.

This is a 60 minute game. That's why the guys used to hold four fingers up when the fourth quarter rolled around. They sure weren't doing that against UCLA, OSU, Wiscy or Georgia.

IMO that has nothing to do with being ready to play the game. It does have to do with resiliency and being about to handle adversity. In the MSU, NW, and Wisky I, games NU was able to handle the adversity. In 2 of the 4 loses NU was not. That is what is so perplexing. You can say and feel what ever way you want about the UCLA game and Georgia game. I don't think they folded up in those games. With 2 minutes left in the game NU could have won the UCLA game. NU went toe to toe with Georgia for the better part of the game.

I can see both sides of this but my terminology would line up more closely with NUinID. Being "ready to play" means starting the game out playing well. If you're competitive for a couple quarters then end up getting blown out, I would file that in a different category than "not being ready to play."

I wouldn't term the 2011 games with Wisconsin or Michigan "not ready to play" as we were competitive for some time, especially Wisconsin. I would say our defense wasn't ready to play against UCLA, tOSU and Wiscy last year. Our offense didn't come "ready to play" in several game last year but usually recovered, thus all the comeback victories (not that the defense was great in those games, either).

Since when did success at Nebraska mean winning the first three quarters?

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

We didn't need the Internet in the 1970s. Tom Osborne was on the hot seat from nearly the beginning. Back when people just grumbled loudly in analog real-life situations, Osborne was so aware of fan disatisfaction that he interviewed for the head coaching job in Boulder, in 1978 iirc. The scoring explosion teams of the early '80s bought him another 10 years. But again, no Internet was required. Osborne was keenly aware of his reputation for not winning the big game, and sometimes losing embarrassingly to teams perceived as more elite than Nebraska.

And you know what? He learned from that. The Huskers had been built for strength in Boyd Eppley's weight room, and looking at the elite teams beating the Huskers Osborne realized he had to recruit for defensive speed.

Absolutely a team and coach need to earn the fans' trust. They need to earn the fans' everything. College football is an entertainment product, and those fan dollars and TV contracts pay for the inflated coaching salaries. A coach doesn't need to answer to every yahoo's complaint or suggestion, but he damn well better be putting an entertaining product on the field. If Husker fans are spoiled, it's because a lot of effort went into making us the pride of college football. I think most of us are reasonable in the way we've reduced expecations, but it's hardly chippy to want to do better than a 4 loss season and at least one televised humiliation.

I mean, after awhile you learn to avoid M. Night Shamalayan movies, right?

 

[True2tRA]

I can only think of one game last year were NU came out and completely laid an egg in and that was Wisky II.

What do you call 653 yards by UCLA?

What do you call 500 yards and 63 points by Ohio State?

If those aren't eggs...

I don't call those eggs. I call those deuces.

I call it Shat-eling themselves.

Ba Dah BING

get it....the guy who wrote the article....get it.

 

[NUinID]

Starting off well, then falling flat on your face when the other team throws a couple of haymakers at you doesn't indicate, to me, that the team was ready to play.

This is a 60 minute game. That's why the guys used to hold four fingers up when the fourth quarter rolled around. They sure weren't doing that against UCLA, OSU, Wiscy or Georgia.

IMO that has nothing to do with being ready to play the game. It does have to do with resiliency and being about to handle adversity. In the MSU, NW, and Wisky I, games NU was able to handle the adversity. In 2 of the 4 loses NU was not. That is what is so perplexing. You can say and feel what ever way you want about the UCLA game and Georgia game. I don't think they folded up in those games. With 2 minutes left in the game NU could have won the UCLA game. NU went toe to toe with Georgia for the better part of the game.

I can see both sides of this but my terminology would line up more closely with NUinID. Being "ready to play" means starting the game out playing well. If you're competitive for a couple quarters then end up getting blown out, I would file that in a different category than "not being ready to play."

I wouldn't term the 2011 games with Wisconsin or Michigan "not ready to play" as we were competitive for some time, especially Wisconsin. I would say our defense wasn't ready to play against UCLA, tOSU and Wiscy last year. Our offense didn't come "ready to play" in several game last year but usually recovered, thus all the comeback victories (not that the defense was great in those games, either).

Since when did success at Nebraska mean winning the first three quarters?

I thought this whole discussion was about being ready to play not whether they won or lost the game. There are many instances of Nebraska winning the game when they didn't play that well. There are also instances of NU losing when they played well. That includes games played under TO.

 

[knapplc]

Since when did success at Nebraska mean winning the first three quarters?

I thought this whole discussion was about being ready to play not whether they won or lost the game. There many instances of Nebraska winning the game when they didn't play that well. There are also instances of NU losing when they played well. That includes games played under TO.

It is about being prepared to play the game.

How long is a game? Is it over after the first five minutes where we did OK?

Is it over after the first half, where we stayed with them?

Is it over after the third quarter, where things started to go against us and we lost the will to fight?

Or is it over after the fourth quarter ends, the quarter where teams who want to win are fighting their asses off to actually win the game?

Who cares if the team is ready to play on the bus, or in the locker room, or for the first few minutes of the game. We used to make mincemeat out of those teams. That's why we held four fingers up after the third quarter ended - we knew that no matter how hard that team fought against us for three quarters, they were done. They'd already given it all. But we had prepared not for one quarter, not two, not three, but for the whole game.

I couldn't care less if this team is prepared to play on Friday during film sessions or during pre-game on Saturday afternoon. I care if they're ready to play when it's all going wrong, when the sh#t has hit the fan. I care if they came to play for 60 minutes.

Sure, we lost games under Osborne where we came to play the whole game. It happened under Devaney, Solich, Callahan and it's happened under Bo. But we started this back-and-forth when you implied it was OK that we gave up 600+ yards twice and 60+ points twice last year because those teams appeared to be prepared early in the game. I'm saying that doesn't matter, it has never mattered at Nebraska. That's a given.

All that matters is fighting your a$$ off for four quarters. No, you don't win all those games, and you can even "win" all four quarters and lose.

It's not about winning and losing, it's about efforting. All game long.

 

[Mavric]

Starting off well, then falling flat on your face when the other team throws a couple of haymakers at you doesn't indicate, to me, that the team was ready to play.

This is a 60 minute game. That's why the guys used to hold four fingers up when the fourth quarter rolled around. They sure weren't doing that against UCLA, OSU, Wiscy or Georgia.

IMO that has nothing to do with being ready to play the game. It does have to do with resiliency and being about to handle adversity. In the MSU, NW, and Wisky I, games NU was able to handle the adversity. In 2 of the 4 loses NU was not. That is what is so perplexing. You can say and feel what ever way you want about the UCLA game and Georgia game. I don't think they folded up in those games. With 2 minutes left in the game NU could have won the UCLA game. NU went toe to toe with Georgia for the better part of the game.

I can see both sides of this but my terminology would line up more closely with NUinID. Being "ready to play" means starting the game out playing well. If you're competitive for a couple quarters then end up getting blown out, I would file that in a different category than "not being ready to play."

I wouldn't term the 2011 games with Wisconsin or Michigan "not ready to play" as we were competitive for some time, especially Wisconsin. I would say our defense wasn't ready to play against UCLA, tOSU and Wiscy last year. Our offense didn't come "ready to play" in several game last year but usually recovered, thus all the comeback victories (not that the defense was great in those games, either).

Since when did success at Nebraska mean winning the first three quarters?

I never said that was success. Just, for me, that's in a different category than "not being ready to play." Maybe the other team makes some adjustments that you don't adjust to yourself. Maybe something bad happens during the game and you give up. Maybe the other team is just plain better than you.

But - again, to me - those are all different categories.

 

[NUinID]

Since when did success at Nebraska mean winning the first three quarters?

I thought this whole discussion was about being ready to play not whether they won or lost the game. There many instances of Nebraska winning the game when they didn't play that well. There are also instances of NU losing when they played well. That includes games played under TO.

It is about being prepared to play the game.

How long is a game? Is it over after the first five minutes where we did OK?

Is it over after the first half, where we stayed with them?

Is it over after the third quarter, where things started to go against us and we lost the will to fight?

Or is it over after the fourth quarter ends, the quarter where teams who want to win are fighting their asses off to actually win the game?

Who cares if the team is ready to play on the bus, or in the locker room, or for the first few minutes of the game. We used to make mincemeat out of those teams. That's why we held four fingers up after the third quarter ended - we knew that no matter how hard that team fought against us for three quarters, they were done. They'd already given it all. But we had prepared not for one quarter, not two, not three, but for the whole game.

I couldn't care less if this team is prepared to play on Friday during film sessions or during pre-game on Saturday afternoon. I care if they're ready to play when it's all going wrong, when the sh#t has hit the fan. I care if they came to play for 60 minutes.

Sure, we lost games under Osborne where we came to play the whole game. It happened under Devaney, Solich, Callahan and it's happened under Bo. But we started this back-and-forth when you implied it was OK that we gave up 600+ yards twice and 60+ points twice last year because those teams appeared to be prepared early in the game. I'm saying that doesn't matter, it has never mattered at Nebraska. That's a given.

All that matters is fighting your a$$ off for four quarters. No, you don't win all those games, and you can even "win" all four quarters and lose.

It's not about winning and losing, it's about efforting. All game long.

I never said it was ok to give up 60pts or 600 yards a game. We were discussing being ready to play the game. Of coarse it is not ok to give up that many yards or points. Just because a team does give up x number of points or yards doesn't mean they are not "efforting" for 60 minutes. There are some many incalculable variables that go into winning and losing a game. Effort is only one. Most teams, and I am not talking about just Nebraska, are giving full effort in every game all the time. I have only seen NU roll over and play dead during Callahan's last year. I just have a different perspective than you have.

 

[strigori]

Blasphemy! I refuse to even read this! Osborne and McBride are Gods of Men. I will not have anyone say otherwise!

Seriously though, I do respect the heck out of both these men. Great men and great coaches. I couldn't imagine Nebraska football without either of them. It was before my time being that I was born in '81, I got to live through most of the good stuff, but you are probably right we would have ran them off.

Fact is, things have changed. No coach anywhere should expect to be given the sort of time coaches were given in the past. Not anywhere. So it's not just Nebraska. There is a win now mentality, there's too much money involved. Also, as Nebraska has shown, it doesn't take long to go from greatness, to not even hearing your named mentioned by national media. So whether it's right or wrong, Bo has to understand that he has got to get things fixed quickly. Not because I say so or anyone else says so. It just seems to be the way things are now unfortunately. For Bo's sake, I hope he does it. I think he's a good coach, he just chose a hell of a place to take his first HC gig. Nothing easy about it.

And how many places that have run off good coaches have had any better luck with the next guy?

Yep, Pelini has won a ton, bit no hardware to who for it. Always a a runner up. In the first five years he has amassed a win total that is in a historic level. But at the same time, how long will we as Nebraska fans accept losing every big game? And getting blown out a couple of times a year?

The numbers and history suggest Pelini will never get over the hump. Most every coach who will do it, does it within the first five years.

Like ... who, exactly?

Nick Saban?

Les Miles?

Gary Patterson?

Mack Brown?

Frank Beamer?

Bobby Bowden?

Tom Osborne?

Bo Schembechler?

Bill Snyder?

Phillip Fulmer?

Should have read 'First five years at a school' not as a head coach in general. Snyder and Beamer are big exceptions, but they also took over epic dumpster fires (for Snyder its more like the Springfield tire fire) And also speaking to a conference title, not just a national title. And if I remember correctly, Bowden won a conference title at Duke before taking over FSU.

 

[Mavric]

Blasphemy! I refuse to even read this! Osborne and McBride are Gods of Men. I will not have anyone say otherwise!

Seriously though, I do respect the heck out of both these men. Great men and great coaches. I couldn't imagine Nebraska football without either of them. It was before my time being that I was born in '81, I got to live through most of the good stuff, but you are probably right we would have ran them off.

Fact is, things have changed. No coach anywhere should expect to be given the sort of time coaches were given in the past. Not anywhere. So it's not just Nebraska. There is a win now mentality, there's too much money involved. Also, as Nebraska has shown, it doesn't take long to go from greatness, to not even hearing your named mentioned by national media. So whether it's right or wrong, Bo has to understand that he has got to get things fixed quickly. Not because I say so or anyone else says so. It just seems to be the way things are now unfortunately. For Bo's sake, I hope he does it. I think he's a good coach, he just chose a hell of a place to take his first HC gig. Nothing easy about it.

And how many places that have run off good coaches have had any better luck with the next guy?

Yep, Pelini has won a ton, bit no hardware to who for it. Always a a runner up. In the first five years he has amassed a win total that is in a historic level. But at the same time, how long will we as Nebraska fans accept losing every big game? And getting blown out a couple of times a year?

The numbers and history suggest Pelini will never get over the hump. Most every coach who will do it, does it within the first five years.

Like ... who, exactly?

Nick Saban?

Les Miles?

Gary Patterson?

Mack Brown?

Frank Beamer?

Bobby Bowden?

Tom Osborne?

Bo Schembechler?

Bill Snyder?

Phillip Fulmer?

Should have read 'First five years at a school' not as a head coach in general. Snyder and Beamer are big exceptions, but they also took over epic dumpster fires (for Snyder its more like the Springfield tire fire) And also speaking to a conference title, not just a national title. And if I remember correctly, Bowden won a conference title at Duke before taking over FSU.

So ... like who, exactly?

 

[Mavric]

Yes, actually you have said that. Every time you mention a mistake a player may have made, its always the coaches fault for not preparing, motivating, recruiting or whatever. So, unless you change your previous story, it's not the players fault for anything because the coaches could/should have done something differently.

As I said, the players are held accountable to the coaches, and if the coaches don't/can't correct the mistakes, then there's a problem. Yes, it is the coach's responsibility to fix the problems. Do you think that Bill Callahan should have been fired in 2007?

Yes

To go a step further, I really didn't disagree with firing Solich. He did a lot for the program over the years but I think he was in over his head as a BCS-level head coach. I really don't buy his supposed turnaround the last year because our schedule was terrible. Maybe he would have done better but I didn't see it.

So I'm not of the mind that coaches can do no wrong. I just think it's uneducated to say the coaches are totally to blame for everything.

 

[True2tRA]

Since when did success at Nebraska mean winning the first three quarters?

I thought this whole discussion was about being ready to play not whether they won or lost the game. There many instances of Nebraska winning the game when they didn't play that well. There are also instances of NU losing when they played well. That includes games played under TO.

It is about being prepared to play the game.

How long is a game? Is it over after the first five minutes where we did OK?

Is it over after the first half, where we stayed with them?

Is it over after the third quarter, where things started to go against us and we lost the will to fight?

Or is it over after the fourth quarter ends, the quarter where teams who want to win are fighting their asses off to actually win the game?

Who cares if the team is ready to play on the bus, or in the locker room, or for the first few minutes of the game. We used to make mincemeat out of those teams. That's why we held four fingers up after the third quarter ended - we knew that no matter how hard that team fought against us for three quarters, they were done. They'd already given it all. But we had prepared not for one quarter, not two, not three, but for the whole game.

I couldn't care less if this team is prepared to play on Friday during film sessions or during pre-game on Saturday afternoon. I care if they're ready to play when it's all going wrong, when the sh#t has hit the fan. I care if they came to play for 60 minutes.

Sure, we lost games under Osborne where we came to play the whole game. It happened under Devaney, Solich, Callahan and it's happened under Bo. But we started this back-and-forth when you implied it was OK that we gave up 600+ yards twice and 60+ points twice last year because those teams appeared to be prepared early in the game. I'm saying that doesn't matter, it has never mattered at Nebraska. That's a given.

All that matters is fighting your a$$ off for four quarters. No, you don't win all those games, and you can even "win" all four quarters and lose.

It's not about winning and losing, it's about efforting. All game long.

Good show chap! But I'm not plus 1 ing you anymore because I give some damn good rally speeches here and you never plus one mine so to hell with ya. You got all these rep points and I got sh#t. Now I'm taking my ball and going home.

 

[okaive]

Haven't read the whole thread, but this is what stood out in that article for me:

Now there's a breed of Husker fan, a new breed if you will, that is not afraid to talk about coaching changes. This sort of dialogue comes easier and freer the more you change coaches. Most programs that change coaches on a regular timetable typically find that that's all they become good at.

If we keep firing a coach with a 9 or 10 record, we will be without a coach or just a coach that has very little experience. Who else would want to come here and have a 10 win and be afraid that they will be fired?