hate to disagree with my main man, polo. but i agree with zoogs. i think the offense did run much smoother with TA. i am guessing it is because they simplified the playbook(?). something they probably should have done long ago. do a few things excellent rather than everything ok.Actually, I think we've seen that every time Armstrong was on the field, polo.
You're quick, you.hate to disagree with my main man, polo. but i agree with zoogs. i think the offense did run much smoother with TA. i am guessing it is because they simplified the playbook(?). something they probably should have done long ago. do a few things excellent rather than everything ok.Actually, I think we've seen that every time Armstrong was on the field, polo.
but nupolo8, what do you think is the biggest flaw in the staff?
Well.....devils advocate, your "60-3 after those losses" argument kinda show instant improvement...Hey, just asking.
Also, you think maybe a new philosophy might take longer than a year to show the results? I guess we could run around and play this game all day.
how instant?Well.....devils advocate, your "60-3 after those losses" argument kinda show instant improvement...Hey, just asking.
Also, you think maybe a new philosophy might take longer than a year to show the results? I guess we could run around and play this game all day.
But who knows., probably so, yes. I'll say this, it's clear there's a pr campaign going on now. And that absolutely is a good thing.
It's not so much that, as it is repeating history by being forced into a bad hire because nobody good wants the job.Getting burned by awrong hire has made you gun shy with his replacement.
You're right. It definitely has for some fans.Getting burned by awrong hire has made you gun shy with his replacement.
Outside of ISU, those losses were to national champions or those in the top five. Do you think Nebraska, right now, could keep within two scores of Alabama, FSU, etc?how instant?Well.....devils advocate, your "60-3 after those losses" argument kinda show instant improvement...Hey, just asking.
Also, you think maybe a new philosophy might take longer than a year to show the results? I guess we could run around and play this game all day.
But who knows., probably so, yes. I'll say this, it's clear there's a pr campaign going on now. And that absolutely is a good thing.
'91 was 9-2-1 with losses to Washington 36-21 and Miami 22-0. Two games in which was looked for all if not the most part like we didnt belong on the field.
'92 was 9-3 with losses to Washington 29-14, Iowa St 19-10 (a loss to someone we shouldnt) and Florida St 27-14.
'93 is when I would say we really started seeing the results. "91 and '92 were pretty status quo for most of Osborne's tenure. Sometimes things just take a year or two to cycle through. So wouldnt say instant.
It is possible but it is also not an apples-to-apples comparison. The best of Callahan's four years was worse than the worst of Bo's six years from a win-loss standpoint. And quite possibly a host of others as well.Getting burned by awrong hire has made you gun shy with his replacement.