So Bo's staying. Now what?

sd said:
Mavric said:
This is what I keep pointing out is the flaw in your thinking.
Click to expand...
the first part is semantics. how we define what is 'not a very good team'. so your point is that we might be close? we could see a totally season next year than we have with the past 6? i would agree. i just do not think it is very probable.
Click to expand...
All that doesn't necessarily have a lot to do with us but basically, yes. There is a lot of talk about teams we "should beat" and "lowly competition". My point is even if we were a legit Top 20 team, we could expect to struggle with 3-4 teams that are barely above .500 and probably lose to a couple of them. Let alone the 2-3 Top 25 teams we see every year. It happens all the time. Things go our way, we're 11-1 or 10-2 (which we were last year). Things don't go our way and we could easily be 7-5 or 6-6. But we're obviously not good enough to be a Top 20 team right now.

Edit: The thing with the above is the same applies to about 20-25 teams in any given year. That's just how things are now.

Are we close? That's the $64,000 question. I keep thinking "if we can just keep from shooting ourselves in the foot....." but at this point it's almost too much of a pattern to have a reasonable expectation of that. Those that want to keep Pelini think we're close. Those that want him gone don't think there's any way to fix those things. I'm honestly not sure what I think now.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Duke said:
I think staff changes are not only necessary, but inevitable.

Coaches that ARE SAFE and should return next season:

  • Bo Pelini - Head Coach
  • Ron Brown - Running Backs
  • Rich Fisher - Wide Receivers
  • John Garrison - Offensive Line
  • Terry Joseph - Secondary

Coaches that need to be replaced:

  • Ross Els - Linebackers/Special Teams Coordinator/Recruiting Coordinator

Coaches that are "on the fence" to being replaced:

  • Tim Beck - Offensive Coordinator / Quarterbacks
  • Rick Kaczenksi - Defensive Line
  • John Papuchis - Defensive Coordinator
  • James Dobson - Head Strength Coach

Moving Forward...What Nebraska needs to do this offseason to help build the program back to being a national power:

1. Change Our Offensive Philosophy

  • Get Back to Power Football While Keeping Option Elements (Speed Option, Read Option, etc.)

- 2 Back Football, Big-Fast Offensive Lineman, Multiple Blocking Schemes of (zone, power-o, traps, counters.)

  • Study Teams That Fit A Run First Philosophy and Appeal To This Blue Collar State

- My suggestion would be for our coaches to study the San Francisco 49ers, Wisconsin Badgers, & Stanford Cardinals this offseason. Remember, Tom Osborne molded his I-Formation Power Option offenses off of many schemes & concepts that he thought would fit his run-first philosophy, most notably Oklahoma's Wishbone Option being one of those.

2. Change Defensive Philosophy

  • Change to an Attacking, Fast, but Physical Defense. STOP THE RUN FIRST!!!

- Give Bo Pelini credit, we will have a lot of talented athletes on the defensive side of the football next year. Gregory, Moss, Valentine, Rose, Banderas, etc.

  • Study Multiple Defensive Philosophy's

- 3-4 Defense............Alabama

- 4-2-5 Defense........TCU

- 4-3 Defense...........Michigan State & Charlie McBride's 4-3 Robber Defense of the 90's

3. A Complete Overhaul of Special Teams Philosophy

  • Make Special Teams Important Again...Be The Aggressor

- Special Teams is 1/3 of a football game that many teams don't put enough emphasis on. Your championship teams usually always have great special teams. It not only affects field position, but it can quickly change momentum in a game as well. Nebraska needs to change it's special teams philosophy from a passive safe philosophy to an aggressive, attacking special teams unit...for kickoff returns, punt returns, punt blocks, field goals, etc.

IN CLOSING:

With Sean Eichorst's statement, he is giving Bo Pelini new life at Nebraska whether he wants to have it or not. The ball is now back in Bo's corner for him to make the necessary changes to get Nebraska back into the nation's elite. This is his #1 responsibility this offseason...the question is can he get it done, and is he willing to make those changes even if it means he has to go against his loyalty to some coaches who are also his friends?

With Eichorst's statement of support for Bo Pelini today Nebraska fans also have been tasked with a responsibility...to keep supporting this program win or lose, no matter who is in the head coach's seat. We must continue the sellout streak, we must continue being a well traveled and well respected fan base for away games, and we must continue to expect excellence out of this program, but remain classy in doing so. When Nebraska fans cease doing these things, then Nebraska ultimately quits being Nebraska, and thus we risk becoming just a footnote in the pages of college football history.

Bo Pelini & Nebraska were given a second chance today. Sometimes it's those second chance stories that become the most memorable.
Click to expand...
Good assessment. I think the defense needs to emphasize speed and stopping first down yardage and yards after contact. In past decades we have trouble with stopping the run effectively but being vulnerable to passing on third downs- usually against top 20 teams. Our defense seondary has done good for the past few years but started to slip the last few games of the season. Many times when we failed to blitz on third down and rushed only four without getting pressure. A coaching issue more than player but Valentine looked like the type who could make a four man rush work. The defensive/rush ends were not as effective or as present as some years ago.

The offense- we have done fairly well but I still think the offensive line is not as good as we need. They improved as the season went along despite the numerour injuires. The receivers were a great crew but got the dropsies over the past few games- product of different throwers??? Beck seems to go in streaks with good calls and then gets over conservative. I am not sure what the offense's style is now. In Osborne's day, you would call it an option or power running with I Backs. We seem to be tryiing to do a lot of everything now. I would not want an offense known for running only. Osborne and Solich suffered from that in my opinion. Opponents put 8 or 9 men in the box to stop the run or option daring us to throw the ball. Good teams usually beat us using that strategy. We need to be a running offense with a very credible passing attack to keep the opponents honest.

Not by name, but I think we need a new DC, D Line coach, strength & conditioning coach, and an assistant Head Coach to shepherd the offense and recruiting. The most urgent need is a Special Teams coach. Field position is maybe the most important aspect of the game after stoppiing turnovers especially unforced turnovers. Reading the previous posts, no one will agree with yours or my suggestions- but this is my two cents worth.

 
I'm not understanding the hate for Kaz...Our Dline has played better this year then they have in some time. We led the B1G in sacks and TFLs and it all starts up front. I agree with getting rid of Els and Cotton, maybe even Pap but not Kaz.

 
Is strength and conditioning really a weakness for us? Let's not forget, the guy's been with us for 5+ years. I can't really recall past instances where we've called for his head like we have this year. I find it hard to believe its our strength and conditioning program that lead to all of the injuries we've experienced this year rather than pure old bad luck.

Being out-sized and overmatched at times on the line is not a result of Dobson, it's a result of recruiting players who are smaller than the competition.

 
Stumpy1 said:
I'm not understanding the hate for Kaz...Our Dline has played better this year then they have in some time. We led the B1G in sacks and TFLs and it all starts up front. I agree with getting rid of Els and Cotton, maybe even Pap but not Kaz.
Click to expand...

I'd agree with this as well. Kaz has a proven record, in the Big 10 nonetheless, producing top D lines and NFL talent. Our D line play the past few years after Suh has been atrocious at times. Gotta admit, the D line this year may have been my favorite group to watch from a growth and overall results perspective as a whole. I see no reason why he should go.

 
If we play a good team and if players are healthy and if we win I will be happy and will want Bo to stay. I know that's a lot of if's. However if we are healthy and manage to handily lose I want him gone. Either way some changes need to be made.

 
What can we expect now? we can expect to see angry Bo cam after every penalty again next year....because he provides the anger that TV expects to be there. We can expect more angry outburst aimed at the media because that is what angry Bo does. We can expect husker nation to continue with the infighting because angry Bo is such a divisive force. Am i tired of angry Bo? Yes i am. i am so tired of being embarrassed for Nebraska because of angry Bo. If angry Bo can somehow be exercised from the Bo that the players love maybe i could get behind nebraska football. If the same angry Bo is still here next year i am out.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I'm wondering how many on this board have actually played or coached football higher than a HS level

 
I am praying for the anti-Bo crowd to NOT show up next year so we can put to rest the sell out streak and that "Greatest Fans" BS

I predict the sell out streak will end next year and that will actually be a blessing for the program moving forward

 
IvabigN said:
I am praying for the anti-Bo crowd to NOT show up next year so we can put to rest the sell out streak and that "Greatest Fans" BS

I predict the sell out streak will end next year and that will actually be a blessing for the program moving forward
Click to expand...
If that happens, Bo probably does end up losing his job then. If you want Bo to stay, you definitely don't want the sellout streak to end.

 
Mavric said:
JTrain said:
Mavric said:
JTrain said:
So if we beat a #10 team (this is hypothetical, of course) we should not claim it as an accomplishment of any sort, considering it's basically the same as beating a #40 team. Good to know.

Of course, we could look at computer rating systems and see that the gap between 10 and 50 has actually widened slightly, on average, over the past decade. But we wouldn't want to bring any actual numbers into the discussion.
Click to expand...
Yes, that's exactly what I said. Feel free to continue arguing against your straw man, though.
Click to expand...
I wasn't quoting you, bub. I was extrapolating your logic. You literally said, "there isn't much difference team #10 and team #50."

Therefore, the accomplishment of beating "team #10" should not be much more significant than that of beating "team #50".
Click to expand...
No, you were ignoring my point and blowing it out of proportion to try to make your own.

The point is those teams are very close in talent and ability. Some put it all together better than others and that's why they're #10 and not 6-6. Thus, the team ranked #10 is definitely better, but not so much more so that the #50 team can't play right with them on a good day.

How many examples do you want? Or will you just ignore them as well?

Perfect example: Auburn: Goes from undefeated National Champions, to winless in the conference to SEC title game and possible NC game participant in four years. Did Chizik coach them down that badly in one year? Did Malzahan turn it around that fast? They were also badly outgained by 6-6 Wash St., needed a last second TD to beat 6-6 Miss St., were badly outgaind by 7-5 Ole Miss, and needed a fluke TD to beat 8-4 Georgia

Missouri - Won 2 games in conference last year and missed a bowl. Now one double-OT loss, in the CCG and has an outside shot at the NC game.

Ohio State - barley held off 5-7 Northwestern

Oklahoma State - One loss ... to 4-8 West Virginia, needed two scores in the last five minutes to come from behind against 7-5 K St.

Stanford - Lost to 4-7 Utah, barely beat 8-4 Washington, barely beat 6-6 Oregon St.

South Carolina - beat Missouri but out of the CCG because the lost to 5-7 Tennessee

Michigan State - lost to 8-4 Notre Dame, struggled with 1-11 W Michigan, struggled with 1-11 Purdue

Arizona State - also lost to ND, had to come back from a 12 point fourth quarter deficit against 4-7 Utah,

Oregon - Everyone's gold standard (along with Bama) early on lost to 7-5 Arizona and barely escaped 6-6 Oregon St.

LSU - struggled with 4-8 TCU, needed a fourth quarter comeback to beat 3-9 Arkansas

Oklahoma - struggled with 4-8 West Virginia, struggled with 4-8 TCU,

Those are just a few examples from the Top 20 this year.
Click to expand...
I'm with SD in not really understanding what this information tells us. I don't recall anyone in this thread denying that bad teams can compete with and even beat good teams. Or that teams can have drastic turnarounds from one season to the next.

First of all, the kind of parity you are talking about simply has not increased in the last few years. Once the effects of the 85 limit had fully taken hold in the late nineties, the difference between teams around #10 and teams around #50, based on relative strength ratings in various models, has stayed very consistent, and in some cases even increased slightly in this decade. But overall the spacing hasn't really changed in the last 15 years.

More importantly, I think the whole argument probably stems from a semantic issue. He can correct me if I'm wrong, but when SD used the term "weak competition", I don't think he meant teams that can't be competitive with good teams, or teams with little to no talent. I simply think he meant teams that are, on the whole, not very good this season. Or, to put it in more objective terms, teams that are consistently ranked outside the top 25, and quite often even outside the top 50.

Yes, Oklahoma St. lost to West Virginia and Ohio St. almost lost to Northwestern. No one denied these results, and in fact you can find countless similar results this season and in past seasons (even before the 85 limit). But does that save West Virginia and Northwestern from being called "weak competition"? I don't think so. If a 10-15-type team like Stanford, Oregon, or LSU was slated to play either of those, the line would deservedly be 20+ points.

Even the best-coached, most talented teams can lose to weak competition every now and then. But those teams should not and do not make this a regular occurrence. With Nebraska, we've lost or come extremely close to losing to Penn St., Michigan, Northwestern, Minnesota and Wyoming. I wouldn't hesitate in calling any of those teams weak competition which, again, isn't to deny they have talent or are capable of beating very good teams on occasion. The frequency in which Nebraska plays down to the competition, combined with many of our losses completely getting away from us, is ugly by any measure. Or at least any measure which doesn't included a half cup of Kool-Aid added.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top