Bo Pelini Turnovers in Big Games

[EZ-E]

There's always been an interesting balance between telling your players to do something and actually getting them to do it. Maybe it comes down to recruiting better, maybe the coaches just can't get the best message across... I'm not sure.

I'm reminded of our bowl game against South Carolina. IIRC, there was a deep pass touchdown where Alshon Jeffrey got behind our safeties. I believe the coaches were quoted sometime after the game as saying just before that play, they specifically told the players what to do to prevent the big play. The players just flat out didn't do it, and it had nothing to do with athleticism or Jeffrey being too good. The players were out of position after specifically being told where and what to do.

With fumbles, I also wonder where that disconnect comes from. I'm less inclined to think it's coaching when I hear about the emphasis placed on it or Ron Brown's "pledge of allegiance" philosophy when running the football. Fumbles haven't been an issue yet this year but Saturday will certainly be a benchmark for how the team has responded to the increased emphasis on turnovers.

I think it has more to do with Bo is afraid to sit anyone. Look at 2010 When Martinez got hurt. We had a capable back up in Lee and rather than sitting Martinez for the rest of year(or let him heal) and letting Lee play he risked further injury to Martinez than to sit him and happened again in the Wyoming game. Hell all we had to do in the Wyoming game was run the ball on their defense and we win comfortably. He doesn't seem too concerned about the health of his players.

Lee's elbow was never the same after '09. Just saying. Believe he re-hurt himself after the Texas game sometime in 2010.

 

[Enhance]

I believe robsker's point is that the Huskers aren't supplementing victories with any significant benchmarks. Yes, other teams across the country schedule cupcakes, and many of their wins come against inferior opponents. But, Nebraska is trying to be a team that wins conference titles, big bowl games and occasionally competes for national titles. They're also not bringing in many keynote victories during the year. Just about every time the Huskers play a season-changing game, they lose, and often not in the best of fashions.

So, it's entirely reasonable to suggest that nine wins is eventually not going to be good enough for the program if it's not being supplemented by anything else. I don't think we're at a place yet where we need to be thinking about another direction, but you must ask yourselves one question - if you hire somebody to do a difficult and important job, and they're not doing everything you need them to do, how long do you keep them on?

 

[robsker]

no... not every other school plays the same schedule... not most of those in the SEC, PAC 10 and B12. And there is plenty of variability even in non-conference schedules. The B1G is weak. And the B12 is better these past few years than it was a few years back. It is true that NU has been consistently landing 9 sins (along with ca. 7-8 others)... but also consistently losing the majority of games against ranked foes, consistently w/o a championship of any sort, and consistently getting whooped on national TV. So... take the 9 wins (1/2 against fish) alongside the other consistencies and there is clear need for improvement.

 

[robsker]

I believe robsker's point is that the Huskers aren't supplementing victories with any significant benchmarks. Yes, other teams across the country schedule cupcakes, and many of their wins come against inferior opponents. But, Nebraska is trying to be a team that wins conference titles, big bowl games and occasionally competes for national titles. They're also not bringing in many keynote victories during the year. Just about every time the Huskers play a season-changing game, they lose, and often not in the best of fashions.

So, it's entirely reasonable to suggest that nine wins is eventually not going to be good enough for the program if it's not being supplemented by anything else. I don't think we're at a place yet where we need to be thinking about another direction, but you must ask yourselves one question - if you hire somebody to do a difficult and important job, and they're not doing everything you need them to do, how long do you keep them on?

Thanks! Much better stated than what posted earlier. You have captured my thoughts well.

 

[Enhance]

I think it has more to do with Bo is afraid to sit anyone. Look at 2010 When Martinez got hurt. We had a capable back up in Lee and rather than sitting Martinez for the rest of year(or let him heal) and letting Lee play he risked further injury to Martinez than to sit him and happened again in the Wyoming game. Hell all we had to do in the Wyoming game was run the ball on their defense and we win comfortably. He doesn't seem too concerned about the health of his players.

I'm not so sure. David Santos lost his blackshirt and barely played against USM, if I'm not mistaken. And though we never found out specifics, the general consensus about Lee was that he was physically incapable of being the starter we needed him to be because of injury.

Whether fair or not, compare Pelini to the greatest coaches of the last 10 years - Pete Carroll and Nick Saban. There are some obvious discrepancies, most important of all the talent Carroll/Saban had and the proven (and alleged) NCAA infractions. But, those teams project sheer discipline game in and game out. They also show an ability to learn from mistakes and make in game adjustments.

I know it's not the most fair comparison for various reasons, but it's only natural to look at what the best teams have and figure out what we need to do to get there. All things constant, we lack discipline at crucial times, but I think that just comes with coaching experience and your ability to create/hire a good staff.

 

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

There's always been an interesting balance between telling your players to do something and actually getting them to do it. Maybe it comes down to recruiting better, maybe the coaches just can't get the best message across... I'm not sure.

I'm reminded of our bowl game against South Carolina. IIRC, there was a deep pass touchdown where Alshon Jeffrey got behind our safeties. I believe the coaches were quoted sometime after the game as saying just before that play, they specifically told the players what to do to prevent the big play. The players just flat out didn't do it, and it had nothing to do with athleticism or Jeffrey being too good. The players were out of position after specifically being told where and what to do.

With fumbles, I also wonder where that disconnect comes from. I'm less inclined to think it's coaching when I hear about the emphasis placed on it or Ron Brown's "pledge of allegiance" philosophy when running the football. Fumbles haven't been an issue yet this year but Saturday will certainly be a benchmark for how the team has responded to the increased emphasis on turnovers.

I think it has more to do with Bo is afraid to sit anyone. Look at 2010 When Martinez got hurt. We had a capable back up in Lee and rather than sitting Martinez for the rest of year(or let him heal) and letting Lee play he risked further injury to Martinez than to sit him and happened again in the Wyoming game. Hell all we had to do in the Wyoming game was run the ball on their defense and we win comfortably. He doesn't seem too concerned about the health of his players.

^^^This guy

 

[husker_99]

I think it has more to do with Bo is afraid to sit anyone. Look at 2010 When Martinez got hurt. We had a capable back up in Lee and rather than sitting Martinez for the rest of year(or let him heal) and letting Lee play he risked further injury to Martinez than to sit him and happened again in the Wyoming game. Hell all we had to do in the Wyoming game was run the ball on their defense and we win comfortably. He doesn't seem too concerned about the health of his players.

I'm not so sure. David Santos lost his blackshirt and barely played against USM, if I'm not mistaken. And though we never found out specifics, the general consensus about Lee was that he was physically incapable of being the starter we needed him to be because of injury.

Whether fair or not, compare Pelini to the greatest coaches of the last 10 years - Pete Carroll and Nick Saban. There are some obvious discrepancies, most important of all the talent Carroll/Saban had and the proven (and alleged) NCAA infractions. But, those teams project sheer discipline game in and game out. They also show an ability to learn from mistakes and make in game adjustments.

I know it's not the most fair comparison for various reasons, but it's only natural to look at what the best teams have and figure out what we need to do to get there. All things constant, we lack discipline at crucial times, but I think that just comes with coaching experience and your ability to create/hire a good staff.

even though Bo is a first time head coach he should have picked up on most of this when he was DC for other teams. Teams have figured out his defense and he hasn't changed it.

 

[husker_99]

There's always been an interesting balance between telling your players to do something and actually getting them to do it. Maybe it comes down to recruiting better, maybe the coaches just can't get the best message across... I'm not sure.

I'm reminded of our bowl game against South Carolina. IIRC, there was a deep pass touchdown where Alshon Jeffrey got behind our safeties. I believe the coaches were quoted sometime after the game as saying just before that play, they specifically told the players what to do to prevent the big play. The players just flat out didn't do it, and it had nothing to do with athleticism or Jeffrey being too good. The players were out of position after specifically being told where and what to do.

With fumbles, I also wonder where that disconnect comes from. I'm less inclined to think it's coaching when I hear about the emphasis placed on it or Ron Brown's "pledge of allegiance" philosophy when running the football. Fumbles haven't been an issue yet this year but Saturday will certainly be a benchmark for how the team has responded to the increased emphasis on turnovers.

I think it has more to do with Bo is afraid to sit anyone. Look at 2010 When Martinez got hurt. We had a capable back up in Lee and rather than sitting Martinez for the rest of year(or let him heal) and letting Lee play he risked further injury to Martinez than to sit him and happened again in the Wyoming game. Hell all we had to do in the Wyoming game was run the ball on their defense and we win comfortably. He doesn't seem too concerned about the health of his players.

^^^Tgus guy

yeah cause that didn't happen right?

 

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

There's always been an interesting balance between telling your players to do something and actually getting them to do it. Maybe it comes down to recruiting better, maybe the coaches just can't get the best message across... I'm not sure.

I'm reminded of our bowl game against South Carolina. IIRC, there was a deep pass touchdown where Alshon Jeffrey got behind our safeties. I believe the coaches were quoted sometime after the game as saying just before that play, they specifically told the players what to do to prevent the big play. The players just flat out didn't do it, and it had nothing to do with athleticism or Jeffrey being too good. The players were out of position after specifically being told where and what to do.

With fumbles, I also wonder where that disconnect comes from. I'm less inclined to think it's coaching when I hear about the emphasis placed on it or Ron Brown's "pledge of allegiance" philosophy when running the football. Fumbles haven't been an issue yet this year but Saturday will certainly be a benchmark for how the team has responded to the increased emphasis on turnovers.

I think it has more to do with Bo is afraid to sit anyone. Look at 2010 When Martinez got hurt. We had a capable back up in Lee and rather than sitting Martinez for the rest of year(or let him heal) and letting Lee play he risked further injury to Martinez than to sit him and happened again in the Wyoming game. Hell all we had to do in the Wyoming game was run the ball on their defense and we win comfortably. He doesn't seem too concerned about the health of his players.

^^^This guy

yeah cause that didn't happen right?

 

[HuskerLuke]

I agree with the OP's general point that turnovers are an issue, but I have to call out the obvious bias in the selection of these games:

2008: You include a home OOC game against unranked Virginia Tech but somehow forget our bowl win against Clemson?

2009: If Texas Tech and Iowa State are big games, then literally every conference game is a big game this year.

2010: I'll give you a pass on the 2010 Texas game because although that team was horrible, it was a big game for our fans.

2011: Northwestern wasn't a big game. They were 3-5, again, just because a game looks convenient for a narrative doesn't mean it fits.

2012: All games listed were pretty big.

All I'm pointing out is this: if your point is "turnovers are a problem in general for Nebraska," that's fine, and you'd be right to make that case. If your point is "Nebraska often breaks down in big games," you can also make that argument, but please restrict the analysis to big games. Nebraska playing crappy against a bad opponent doesn't make that a big game, it just makes it a crappy performance by Nebraska.

 

[The Dude]

One thing stands out to me....I watched all of those games, but I never once saw Bo Pelini turn the ball over.

This is a really stupid argument. We consistently turn the ball over a lot. That's part of coaching.

It's also a really stupid argument to make it sound like Bo doesn't care about turnovers, or ever work on them.

I'm sure most people would agree it's something he probably cares about. Caring about it and being capable of fixing it are two different things. The latter remains to be seen.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Again, 1999 Nebraska team ended the year 12 - 1, ranked #2 and leading the nation in fumbles by a pretty good margin iirc.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

1999 Huskers fumbled 49 times and lost 25 playing one less game than the 2012 Huskers who fumbled 35 times and lost 22.

To my surprise that team of Eric Crouch, Dan Alexander and Correl Buckhalter averaged about the same yards per game rushing, and a little less per carry, than the 2012 Huskers.

 

[The Dude]

I've never quite understood the fascination with comparing stats of different offensive systems from totally different eras of football. What's important is what we're doing compared to the other teams playing now.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I've never quite understood the fascination with comparing stats of different offensive systems from totally different eras of football. What's important is what we're doing compared to the other teams playing now.

Well I've never quite understood the fascination with HuskerBoard in general, but I partake nevertheless.