Riding the fence no more

[NUinID]

That wasn't even close to the point I was trying to make. If the whole game of football was simply about who has the most talent than the teams with the most talent would always win, but they don't.

I think if you asked most Texas fans they would feel that they have been fairly mediocre by their standards the last 4-5 years. Same goes for Florida except for last year at 10-2.

But again that is not the point. Those teams have lost to schools that they have way more talent than this year.

OK, so I'll ask you this, when was the last time Nebraska beat a team that was probably more talented than it? I honestly cannot remember. Maybe OU 2009?

Well, if we were to look at recruiting rankings I would say Michigan 2013 would be the most recent, followed by Michigan 2012, and OSU 2011.

Again I am not debating that NU is underperforming, but to say that we should beat a team simply because Nebraska is more talented is wrong.

 

[sd'sker]

Again I am not debating that NU is underperforming, but to say that we should beat a team simply because Nebraska is more talented is wrong.

but should we at least be able to expect to beat them? like, preseason when we go through our schedule and predict who we will beat and who will beat us?

 

[kchusker_chris]

Well, if we were to look at recruiting rankings I would say Michigan 2013 would be the most recent, followed by Michigan 2012, and OSU 2011.

Again I am not debating that NU is underperforming, but to say that we should beat a team simply because Nebraska is more talented is wrong.

I'd agree w/ MI - but not OSU with Bauerman (or whoever that guy was) in there. Talent-wise, with him under center he took them down to Iowa levels...oh wait...

And no one is saying we should beat a team simply because we are more talented, but we shouldn't be losing as many as we do to completely underwhelming teams. We should beat Minnesota (13'), Iowa (13'), UCLA (12'), Northwestern (11'), Texas (10'), A&M (10') , Washington (10'). There's 7 losses, Bo should be 4-3 in those games. I don't think that's unrealistic do you? And we shouldn't get blown out by OSU, Wisconsin, Michigan, USC...or need a hail mary at home to beat northwestern, squeak out wins against Wyoming, or a bunch of lucky comebacks, etc.

We aren't going to get them all, but Bo's left A LOT on the table. These aren't Alabama losing to #4 Auburn losses. Needing a miracle to beat a team that wins a single conference game is just head scratching.

 

[NUinID]

I admit they don't win em all. There's a lot that goes into it. But I'd say 8 or 9 times out of 10, the team w/ the most talent on the field wins the game.

exactly. and when the more talented team does not win, you can generally blame coaching. and that is my point.

sure, no matter what we will get out-coached or lose to the less talented team occasionally. but how many times are we out-coaching our opposition? and how many times are we getting out-coached?

Of the 4 losses this year the only game IMO that NU got outcoached in was Minnesota. Coaching was not an issue in the other losses. Turnovers/MSU, Turnovers and poor ST play/Iowa, Poor Tackling and Youth and a hurt QB got the better of Nebraska against UCLA. I think the game plans were sound in all of those games. I actually think NU physically outplayed MSU in the game. Just my opinion.

 

[Junior]

I admit they don't win em all. There's a lot that goes into it. But I'd say 8 or 9 times out of 10, the team w/ the most talent on the field wins the game.

exactly. and when the more talented team does not win, you can generally blame coaching. and that is my point.

sure, no matter what we will get out-coached or lose to the less talented team occasionally. but how many times are we out-coaching our opposition? and how many times are we getting out-coached?

Of the 4 losses this year the only game IMO that NU got outcoached in was Minnesota. Coaching was not an issue in the other losses. Turnovers/MSU, Turnovers and poor ST play/Iowa, Poor Tackling and Youth and a hurt QB got the better of Nebraska against UCLA. I think the game plans were sound in all of those games. I actually think NU physically outplayed MSU in the game. Just my opinion.

Funny how none of those issues you listed pertains to coaching in your mind.

 

[kchusker_chris]

I admit they don't win em all. There's a lot that goes into it. But I'd say 8 or 9 times out of 10, the team w/ the most talent on the field wins the game.

exactly. and when the more talented team does not win, you can generally blame coaching. and that is my point.

sure, no matter what we will get out-coached or lose to the less talented team occasionally. but how many times are we out-coaching our opposition? and how many times are we getting out-coached?

Of the 4 losses this year the only game IMO that NU got outcoached in was Minnesota. Coaching was not an issue in the other losses. Turnovers/MSU, Turnovers and poor ST play/Iowa, Poor Tackling and Youth and a hurt QB got the better of Nebraska against UCLA. I think the game plans were sound in all of those games. I actually think NU physically outplayed MSU in the game. Just my opinion.

turnovers, poor ST play, and poor tackling has been a trademark of the Pelini era. Those games weren't anomalies. How is that not coaching? And we got outcoached in the 2nd half of UCLA but a wide margin.

 

[NUinID]

I guess when I am talking about getting out coached I think of game day coaching and game planning.

Look I coached 20 years of HS football its just not that black and white for me when I watch games. I coached as Norfolk High for the last 15 of that time. Mostly I coached freshman, but I always had sideline duties at varsity games and sat in on a little of the day to day prep.

We rarely were the more physically imposing team athletically going against Lincoln and Omaha teams, yet we won our share of games because we played hard, we generally out schemed other teams, played superior ST and were willing to take chances. The fact that our HC IMO is the best offensive mind in the class A ranks helps also. So I understand what it is like to beat teams when you don't have the more talented team and understand why it happens in college football.

I swear I think some of you guys don't think Nebraska practices any of the things that need to be fixed, which is just laughable. Trust me when the season is over the coaching staff will do a self evaluation of what needs to be done better. Most likely they will have an outsider do an evaluation also. They will then go about trying to fix the deficiencies. They do this every year. Just like every team does.

Things got to change at Nebraska to make things better, there is no doubt about that, but give Iowa and Minnesota some credit.

 

[NUinID]

Again I am not debating that NU is underperforming, but to say that we should beat a team simply because Nebraska is more talented is wrong.

but should we at least be able to expect to beat them? like, preseason when we go through our schedule and predict who we will beat and who will beat us?

Personally, I would say no to this. In the college football world there are too many decent teams anymore to expect to beat most. If a team doesn't show up to play they can get beat by a lot of teams they should beat in this day and age. I expected NU to beat Wyoming, SDSU, and S.Miss and Purdue at the beginning of the year. I said we should beat Minnesota, Iowa, Illinois, but you never know.

IMO this is BP's biggest coaching flaw. I think he takes certain teams lightly and it makes his team do it. TO was great at making sure his team takes took everyone seriously for the most part.

 

[Dagerow]

Yeah, I'm behind Pelini too. But for different reasons. I think it's a lot harder on a program to reboot than people realize. We fire Bo now and the Huskers will be set back by another two or three years. Or more. I just think it will be more efficient to fix the existing problems and improve what we have. Rather than shitcaning the whole staff and starting from scratch again. That, and I continue to believe that Bo is a decent coach. Albeit with a few flaws.

You're assuming he can fix the problems. What makes you believe that? (honest question)

Past experience. When he got here, the D was terrible. It shortly became dominate, but the offense began to lag. He then focused on the offense, and it became very good. He just needs to put all the pieces together and be able to maintain the working elements when he improves the others.

 

[NUance]

Yeah, I'm behind Pelini too. But for different reasons. I think it's a lot harder on a program to reboot than people realize. We fire Bo now and the Huskers will be set back by another two or three years. Or more. I just think it will be more efficient to fix the existing problems and improve what we have. Rather than shitcaning the whole staff and starting from scratch again. That, and I continue to believe that Bo is a decent coach. Albeit with a few flaws.

You're assuming he can fix the problems. What makes you believe that? (honest question)

Like I said, I think it's a lot harder to reboot a program and start from scratch than to fix the existing problems and improve what we have. What makes me think Pelini can address our problems, you ask? Well, aside from his character flaws (read: sideline temper tantrums) Pelini seems to be fairly well though of in football circles. I believe he has the respect of his colleagues in both college and pro coaching circles. Have you heard any of the comments from high school coaches who have attended his seminars? Pretty much glowing reports. I suspect he knows more than any of us armchair coaches here on HB or any other Interwebs gossip haven. But you're missing the point. If we change coaches there will almost certainly be a HUGE penalty in inertia. First, we would lose most of our current recruiting class. Then, for the next couple of years we'll hear that our roster is full of guys who don't quite fit the new schemes of the next set of coaches. A coaching change is sure to set us back a couple of years. Perhaps more. It happened when we fired Solich. It happened when we fired Callahan. How many times do we need to go down that path before we figure it out. That was the point of my post.

OTOH, I've said in other threads that if Eichorst did a smooth job of transitioning, I would be all in favor of a coaching change. For example, if we changed sometime in the early spring so as not to lose a whole recruiting class, and he had another homerun coaching candidate lined up to immediately take over, I'd be all in favor of a change. What we don't need is to go off half-cocked after a heartbreaking loss and fire the guy, then end up running yet another ad hoc clusterf#@k coaching search. Nothing good will come from that.

 

[NUinID]

Yeah, I'm behind Pelini too. But for different reasons. I think it's a lot harder on a program to reboot than people realize. We fire Bo now and the Huskers will be set back by another two or three years. Or more. I just think it will be more efficient to fix the existing problems and improve what we have. Rather than shitcaning the whole staff and starting from scratch again. That, and I continue to believe that Bo is a decent coach. Albeit with a few flaws.

You're assuming he can fix the problems. What makes you believe that? (honest question)

Like I said, I think it's a lot harder to reboot a program and start from scratch than to fix the existing problems and improve what we have. What makes me think Pelini can address our problems, you ask? Well, aside from his character flaws (read: sideline temper tantrums) Pelini seems to be fairly well though of in football circles. I believe he has the respect of his colleagues in both college and pro coaching circles. Have you heard any of the comments from high school coaches who have attended his seminars? Pretty much glowing reports. I suspect he knows more than any of us armchair coaches here on HB or any other Interwebs gossip haven. But you're missing the point. If we change coaches there will almost certainly be a HUGE penalty in inertia. First, we would lose most of our current recruiting class. Then, for the next couple of years we'll hear that our roster is full of guys who don't quite fit the new schemes of the next set of coaches. A coaching change is sure to set us back a couple of years. Perhaps more. It happened when we fired Solich. It happened when we fired Callahan. How many times do we need to go down that path before we figure it out. That was the point of my post.

OTOH, I've said in other threads that if Eichorst did a smooth job of transitioning, I would be all in favor of a coaching change. For example, if we changed sometime in the early spring so as not to lose a whole recruiting class, and he had another homerun coaching candidate lined up to immediately take over, I'd be all in favor of a change. What we don't need is to go off half-cocked after a heartbreaking loss and fire the guy, then end up running yet another ad hoc clusterf#@k coaching search. Nothing good will come from that.

Well said, I agree. I am not dead set against a coaching change, though I think BP can get things done. SE just better have someone ready to go and he better be sure that he is the right guy.