Turner - Sometimes, we laid down. We weren't bringing the fight back.

[RedDenver]

Yep, start randomly selecting players to be the starters. That'll surely make things better by making competition during practice meaningless. Brilliant!!

If we keep playing players who are not excited to be playing, and who lose focus while taking plays and series off, or as Turner says, "laid down and didn't bring the fight", then we are making things worse because that makes actual performance in the game meaningless. Here's the mathematical equation for that, hope it helps:

Game Day Performance > Practice Performance

Because, (and here is the brilliant part) the following is true: No one goes to a bowl game or moves up in the rankings based on how they "practice". Because in the end, it's how you play on Saturday, not how you practice on Tuesday, that determines success or lack thereof.

Perhaps you missed what you wrote: " Pull names out of a hat from 2nd String to Scout team until all the positions are filled."

I'm pointing out how stupid that statement is with sarcasm.

It's not really a stupid statement...it's making a statement. You don't think the first team would be embarrased to sit out a series or two and watch the backups play with more passion? It's called lighting a fire under their a$$.

So your motivational ploy is to just put anybody in there? How does the 2nd string guys react when the first string plays badly and the coaches then randomly select the 5th string guy to play? You're not motivating them - you're showing that you don't actually care what anybody behind the starters is doing. I'm criticizing the overreaction by the poster not the idea of playing the backups. I've bolded the most ridiculous part.

 

[Landlord]

One thing I noticed is that when Ameer ran up the left sideline for that long run, no emotion was displayed at all on the sideline by our players. It seemed like back in the good ole days when stuff like that happened guys were jumping around and going crazy. I guess I just don't understand what you need to get yourself jacked to play. I mean, if you're playing in front of a half empty stadium I get it. But how can you not be fired up for a game at Memorial?

It used to be that when a player would jump around in excitement and celebrating a good play fans would say..."act like you have been there before".

Really?

I've heard this about fans acting like that, but I've never heard anyone complain about players showing emotion.

I have. There was a hell of a lot of it during the 2008 Virginia Tech game specifically.

There will always be something.

 

[irafreak]

Yep, start randomly selecting players to be the starters. That'll surely make things better by making competition during practice meaningless. Brilliant!!

If we keep playing players who are not excited to be playing, and who lose focus while taking plays and series off, or as Turner says, "laid down and didn't bring the fight", then we are making things worse because that makes actual performance in the game meaningless. Here's the mathematical equation for that, hope it helps:

Game Day Performance > Practice Performance

Because, (and here is the brilliant part) the following is true: No one goes to a bowl game or moves up in the rankings based on how they "practice". Because in the end, it's how you play on Saturday, not how you practice on Tuesday, that determines success or lack thereof.

Perhaps you missed what you wrote: " Pull names out of a hat from 2nd String to Scout team until all the positions are filled."

I'm pointing out how stupid that statement is with sarcasm.

It's not really a stupid statement...it's making a statement. You don't think the first team would be embarrased to sit out a series or two and watch the backups play with more passion? It's called lighting a fire under their a$$.

So your motivational ploy is to just put anybody in there? How does the 2nd string guys react when the first string plays badly and the coaches then randomly select the 5th string guy to play? You're not motivating them - you're showing that you don't actually care what anybody behind the starters is doing. I'm criticizing the overreaction by the poster not the idea of playing the backups. I've bolded the most ridiculous part.

You need more practice with the internet...

 

[RedDenver]

You need more practice with the internet...

Umm, ok. Are you pretending now that you were just trolling?

 

[Savage Husker]

Anybody else think they're not having "fun" out there? I think Bo's cell phone prank and Harlem shake needs to carry over to the field. Still need to take care of business, but have fun doing it.

Guess Bo finally sees this, hope he knows how to make it happen now and right the ship. He doesn't have to be Pete Carroll, but he needs to loosen up and have fun himself, like the hip checks he gave his LSU players.

 

[presidentjlh]

I think a more natural Bo would be a better coaching Bo.

A lot of these play calls, they just over-think. The team over-thinks, the coaches over-think, and that's when mess-ups happen.

At some point, you just need to play. In the first quarter, that's exactly what Nebraska was doing: They were just playing football like they knew, and it looked good. But when UCLA reared its head just once near the end of the half, the doubts crept in. The fears. People think these guys don't care about getting blownout. I argue the opposite. I think they worry about it so damn much that when things start to go wrong, they just kinda freeze up and lose all their instincts.

 

[knapplc]

A lot of these play calls, they just over-think. The team over-thinks, the coaches over-think, and that's when mess-ups happen.

At some point, you just need to play. In the first quarter, that's exactly what Nebraska was doing: They were just playing football like they knew, and it looked good. But when UCLA reared its head just once near the end of the half, the doubts crept in. The fears. People think these guys don't care about getting blownout. I argue the opposite. I think they worry about it so damn much that when things start to go wrong, they just kinda freeze up and lose all their instincts.

You're describing "paralysis of perfection," and I think you're correct. It's why we see the defense scrambling around to get plays and personnel in when they should just be out there, ready to play.

At least one of UCLA's blitz of 3rd-quarter TDs came on a short-yardage play near the goal line where they got the play in, snapped the ball and scored before half of our defenders were within 2 yards of their correct position.

 

[presidentjlh]

Exactly. We know the matter isn't physical, this team has talent, loads of it.

This is a classic case of a team that is in its own head. As a hockey fan, I'd compare them to the Pittsburgh Penguins in the playoffs these past couple years. They look great in the games that don't matter in the reg. season because they just play naturally. But in the playoffs, it intensifies, and suddenly, in the big moments, they fall apart. They lose games at record margins. 8-2, 7-3, when in the playoffs you'd expect more 2-1 and 3-2 games.

And it's interesting because like Nebraska, they are known to be loaded with talent, and their coach is very hesitant to make adjustments. Incredibly similar teams.

 

[mwj98]

Well, I'm gonna ask the question. Doesn't sound like scheme's, or anything like that with this team. Sounds like leadership in the locker room. Who is the leader in the locker room? Taylor doesn't talk.

Every Nebraska team, for as far back as I can remember, had somebody.

 

[robsker]

Exactly. We know the matter isn't physical, this team has talent, loads of it.

This is a classic case of a team that is in its own head. As a hockey fan, I'd compare them to the Pittsburgh Penguins in the playoffs these past couple years. They look great in the games that don't matter in the reg. season because they just play naturally. But in the playoffs, it intensifies, and suddenly, in the big moments, they fall apart. They lose games at record margins. 8-2, 7-3, when in the playoffs you'd expect more 2-1 and 3-2 games.

And it's interesting because like Nebraska, they are known to be loaded with talent, and their coach is very hesitant to make adjustments. Incredibly similar teams.

Ahh.. I am a 50 year Blackhawk fan and hockey is to me awesome (10 times what football is). Anyway... the Penguins/Husker analogy is well... I cannot agree. The Penguins are arguably the MOST talented team in Hockey... bar none. Or... maybe the Hawks are a peer. The Pens have folded as you say and played poorly in the playoffs.

In contrast, the Huskers do have talent... but nowhere near the top of all of football (the way the Pens have talent relative to the NHL). Anyway, qualitatively your argument is fine.... both under perform at crunch time.

 

[Savage Husker]

A lot of these play calls, they just over-think. The team over-thinks, the coaches over-think, and that's when mess-ups happen.

At some point, you just need to play. In the first quarter, that's exactly what Nebraska was doing: They were just playing football like they knew, and it looked good. But when UCLA reared its head just once near the end of the half, the doubts crept in. The fears. People think these guys don't care about getting blownout. I argue the opposite. I think they worry about it so damn much that when things start to go wrong, they just kinda freeze up and lose all their instincts.

You're describing "paralysis of perfection," and I think you're correct. It's why we see the defense scrambling around to get plays and personnel in when they should just be out there, ready to play.

At least one of UCLA's blitz of 3rd-quarter TDs came on a short-yardage play near the goal line where they got the play in, snapped the ball and scored before half of our defenders were within 2 yards of their correct position.

All I can picture is Benny telling Smalls, "Man, you think too much!"

 

[Savage Husker]

Well, I'm gonna ask the question. Doesn't sound like scheme's, or anything like that with this team. Sounds like leadership in the locker room. Who is the leader in the locker room? Taylor doesn't talk.
Every Nebraska team, for as far back as I can remember, had somebody.

I agree, I don't think Xs and Os was the major issue. They don't have a "take charge" leader. They don't have a player on either side of the ball that is a game changer or one that is consistently reliable, not yet. And I also don't think they play the right talent at the right positions or time of game. TM not being 100%, I don't care if he is tough, if he is limiting his playmaking ability, get RK3 or TA in there. Why was a 6-7 string WR in at a critical time of game, Wullanwaber's dropped pass. The coaches are holding kids back and not getting them in the game, as they did with Lavonte and Phillip Dillard, off the top of my head.

This coaching staff reminds me of my late high school baseball coach, he knew the game so well but was not good at coaching players up, did a good job of bringing them down.

 

[clone]

The standard of excellence has been forgotten. Strapping on the "N" doesn't mean what it used to for these players. The attitude and effort put forth by the players on these Pelini teams is utterly disgraceful. What in the hell is up with the players' sideline disinterest for the game--especially when they're playing like crap? Bo needs to stop this experiment with being their friend and go old testament, because these players lack focus and discipline.

we didn't used to just win games, we used to punish our competition...that hunger and pride is long gone....

and when NU went down in defeat it used to be fighting all the way and punishing the opponent. Even when NU lost (which was 2 times a year on average) under Osborne --- they went down not because they were unfocused, unmotivated, out-hustled or were lacking in intensity. They were focused, intense, violent, well-prepared and went down against better foes that day. No dishonor in that.

If the current NU team was like that... hair on fire intense every play all game irrespective of score --- if they played with focus and were violent, giving all on every play every game and finished with 5 or 6 losses a season I would be satisfied and never complain. The record is not the point. How the team plays --- that is the point. So... under Bo, the point (at least for me) is not that they have failed to be a champion of anything... or that they failed to do well record-wise against good foes. It is that the team has been (and seemingly continues to be) poorly prepared, lacking in drive, non-physical (relative to where they should be), generally non-intense, poorly coached and lacking in focus. That is, to me, a dishonorable way to lose (or win --- as the Wyoming game is an example... NU played w/o intensity, focus or drive but won because their foe was simply wildly over-matched by talent deficit relative to NU). NU picks up some uninspired wins this way... and that is not worth accolades at all.

So, when NU lost games under TO, they only lost to "better teams".

1981--#7 NU lost to an unranked Iowa.

1984--#1 NU lost to an unranked Syracuse

1986--#3 NU lost to an unranked Colorado

1990--#10 NU lost to an unranked Oklahoma (by 35)

1992--#7 NU lost to an unranked Iowa State (the ultimate sleep walking loss)

1993--#6 NU goes down to the wire against unranked Kansas (winning when KU missed a 2-pt conversion in last minute of game)

1994--#2 NU almost lost to unranked Wyoming (Benning said the team was not focused for that game)

1997--#6 NU plays Central Florida very close (bringing boos against Scott Frost)

Yes, the lack of focus about Bo's teams are concerning, but don't act like NU played every game lights out under Tom Osborne. There are plenty of games under TO, where the team came out flat, and the team had close games or even lost.

You listed 8 games from a 25 year career. I can think of 8 games off the top of my head from the last 2 years....hell last year alone....

Actually - it looks like he picked 8 games from 17 years where nebraska was ranked in the top ten and lost to unranked teams. There were others, 1976 #9 NU vs ISU comes to mind.

1972 opener- #1 NU lost to unranked UCLA.

1973 #10 NU tied unranked OK St- even a blowout loss that year 27-0 to OU.

1974 #4 NU lost to unranked Wisky also #5 NU lost to unranked Mizzou

1975- #2 NU blownout 35-10 by OU

1976- #1 NU tied unranked La Tech - #3 NU lost by 10 to Mizzou at home and lost to unranked ISU

More examples if you look.

 

[CheeseHusker]

It certainly did happen to Osborne, but you could argue that 1) it didn't happen anywhere nearly as often, and 2) in the majority of those cases, the games were not blowouts.

Do you see an opponent scoring 48, 49, 63, 70 points on any of those?

In my mind, the only game of the Osborne era that remotely compares to any game listed here is the '90 Oklahoma game. To me, that is the only time I ever saw an Osborne coached team completely give up. IIRC, that game was fairly competitive until Mickey Joseph got his leg broken on an unbelievably late hit out of bounds that wasn't called, and it went pear-shaped.

Otherwise, there are a lot of close games on there where the Huskers certainly weren't sharp.... but rarely, if ever, did they look like they were completely overmatched and outclassed, save for maybe a couple of the early 90s bowl games, and they certainly never looked like they checked out.

Some of those games should be looked at in context. The '84 Syracuse loss is the most textbook example of a classic sandwich-trap game if I ever saw one. It was right in between two nationally-televised matchups with teams ranked in the top 10 (UCLA and Oklahoma State); it was the week after an emotional, dominating road win; it was the second consecutive week that they had to travel, and they had gone to the west coast the week before and had to go to the east coast; there were question marks over the offense as Gill, Rozier, Fryar, and Steinkuhler had all just graduated (I couldn't even tell you who was the starting QB in that game.... Travis Turner? McCathorn Clayton?). Syracuse also plays in that stupid dome, and sometimes teams just get intimidated going there. In retrospect, it isn't that surprising at all that they weren't completely up for a game like that.

The ISU game was kind of similar.... they'd just literally destroyed CU and KU in consecutive weeks.

But these games were a blip on the radar. They certainly did happen, but they were the exception. Over the course of 25 years, you found maybe 10. That's an average of less than one every two years.

Pelini has four of these a season, and that doesn't even include some of the wins in which they looked equally sluggish but were playing horrible overmatched opponents.

 

[clone]

Yup. Definitely an apples to oranges comparison.

TO inherited a National Championship team in the Big2 conference and still had some rocky results. Pelini inherited Cally's sub-par teams and had to manage the conversion from the Big12 to the Big10.

Different eras for sure. Just pointing out that the TO era wasn't pure football dominance. He went through the "can't win the big game" crap too... a string of bowl losses and getting owned by Switzer and OU.