It Will Be Nice that Starters Will No Longer Be Entrenched in Cement

HuskerinSunDiego

HuskerinSunDiego

Special Teams Player
Bo Pelini's philosphy for first-teamers was kinda like what happens in short track speed skating in the winter Olympics: the first person to take over first place always won because nobody could pass them. Likewise, it was mind-numbing to see a guy become a starter and only lose his position if his leg fell off. Although Bo had promised that each position was up for grabs each week for practice, nothing was further from the truth.

It will be nice to see guys actually competing for jobs. It will be nice to see a backup inserted in the game when the starter allows three sacks, gets blown off the ball, or goes 3-12 in the first half. Gone are the days of grabbing the first team position in your sophomore year and only relinquishing it upon graduation.

 
Am i the only one who didn't believe starters never were challenged and threatened to lose their job? We had new starters all the time at various positions. In another thread, a poster posted that he believes players were too up tight in practice because they believed every day they were being evaluated to see who the starter was going to be. He believed the players then got to the game and let down because they were pushed too hard in practice to prove they deserved to be the starter that week.

It's always interesting to see the difference in perception from various fans.

 
Idk what you guys have been hearing but what I've heard is this was an even bigger problem than most of us realized. It will be interesting who comes out on top next fall or even game to game for that matter.

 
HuskerinSunDiego said:
Bo Pelini's philosphy for first-teamers was kinda like what happens in short track speed skating in the winter Olympics: the first person to take over first place always won because nobody could pass them. Likewise, it was mind-numbing to see a guy become a starter and only lose his position if his leg fell off. Although Bo had promised that each position was up for grabs each week for practice, nothing was further from the truth.

It will be nice to see guys actually competing for jobs. It will be nice to see a backup inserted in the game when the starter allows three sacks, gets blown off the ball, or goes 3-12 in the first half. Gone are the days of grabbing the first team position in your sophomore year and only relinquishing it upon graduation.
Click to expand...
I don't recall Banderas's leg falling off when he was replaced by Roach?

 
BigRedBuster said:
Am i the only one who didn't believe starters never were challenged and threatened to lose their job? We had new starters all the time at various positions. In another thread, a poster posted that he believes players were too up tight in practice because they believed every day they were being evaluated to see who the starter was going to be. He believed the players then got to the game and let down because they were pushed too hard in practice to prove they deserved to be the starter that week.

It's always interesting to see the difference in perception from various fans.
Click to expand...
I think it existed in certain positions, and not in others. You saw Bandera's yanked, Santos out, Turner warming pine, etc. I also think we just have such a lack of depth from Bo's piss-poor roster management with recruiting that it often appears as though we had someone behind a starter that was better, not necessarily because they were better - but because it was hard to believe they could be much worse. hard to operate at a scholly level in the mid-70's.

 
throwing bones said:
HuskerinSunDiego said:
Bo Pelini's philosphy for first-teamers was kinda like what happens in short track speed skating in the winter Olympics: the first person to take over first place always won because nobody could pass them. Likewise, it was mind-numbing to see a guy become a starter and only lose his position if his leg fell off. Although Bo had promised that each position was up for grabs each week for practice, nothing was further from the truth.

It will be nice to see guys actually competing for jobs. It will be nice to see a backup inserted in the game when the starter allows three sacks, gets blown off the ball, or goes 3-12 in the first half. Gone are the days of grabbing the first team position in your sophomore year and only relinquishing it upon graduation.
Click to expand...
I don't recall Banderas's leg falling off when he was replaced by Roach?
Click to expand...
But we watched Cotton fall on national TV and didn't get replaced

 
It had to be demoralizing for the vast majority of backups who never got in. Bo's philosophy of staying with one horse until it finally hits its stride was bad for the team. Yeah, an occasional backup got in, but we all know that Bo almost never removed a starter. NFL mentality. Didn't work at the college level.

Imagine how much more energized guys will be, knowing that they might actually get to play. No more 3-for-12 with a fumble and an INT and remaining in the game. Sorry, son, time to sit down for a quarter so we can see what the next guy can do.

 
StPaulHusker said:
throwing bones said:
HuskerinSunDiego said:
Bo Pelini's philosphy for first-teamers was kinda like what happens in short track speed skating in the winter Olympics: the first person to take over first place always won because nobody could pass them. Likewise, it was mind-numbing to see a guy become a starter and only lose his position if his leg fell off. Although Bo had promised that each position was up for grabs each week for practice, nothing was further from the truth.

It will be nice to see guys actually competing for jobs. It will be nice to see a backup inserted in the game when the starter allows three sacks, gets blown off the ball, or goes 3-12 in the first half. Gone are the days of grabbing the first team position in your sophomore year and only relinquishing it upon graduation.
Click to expand...
I don't recall Banderas's leg falling off when he was replaced by Roach?
Click to expand...
But we watched Cotton fall on national TV and didn't get replaced
Click to expand...
To be fair, that was a rather strong breeze. I would have broken bones in a severe osteoporosis patient.

 
Didn't Bo talk a mean game w/r/t this issue, too, though? Don't all coaches? A coaching change means everyone gets another look, of course, but I don't know that we can fairly assume anything about Riley based on talk. Maybe you found some good information elsewhere, though?

 
beorach said:
Didn't Bo talk a mean game w/r/t this issue, too, though? Don't all coaches? A coaching change means everyone gets another look, of course, but I don't know that we can fairly assume anything about Riley based on talk. Maybe you found some good information elsewhere, though?
Click to expand...
Good point , everyone just assumes Riley will be different. Maybe ,maybe not

 
markiemark said:
beorach said:
Didn't Bo talk a mean game w/r/t this issue, too, though? Don't all coaches? A coaching change means everyone gets another look, of course, but I don't know that we can fairly assume anything about Riley based on talk. Maybe you found some good information elsewhere, though?
Click to expand...
Good point , everyone just assumes Riley will be different. Maybe ,maybe not
Click to expand...
Exactly. There's zero evidence he won't do the same thing.

I'm pretty sure when Bo came in he stated the best players would play, period. Everyone rejoiced because Callahan had his favorites while perceived better players were benched. Seven years later we're saying the same thing. I'm not holding my breath on Riley changing this.

 
Sooooo.....just for clarification.

Solich was heavily criticized for not playing the best players. He had his favorites and mismanaged the roster because there were better players on the bench.

Callahan was heavily criticized for having his favorite players and starting them over players that fans KNEW were better that were sitting on the bench.

Bo was heavily criticized for having his favorite players and obviously some players were in "the dog house" with him so that's why those "better" players were sitting on the bench.

Hmmmmm.....see a trend here? Maybe the trend is that fans THINK they know who the better player is and they really don't.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Hmmmmm.....see a trend here? Maybe the trend is that fans THINK they know who the better player is and they really don't.
Click to expand...
The problem was that T.O. never hesitated to pull a guy when he wasn't performing. Come on, the greatest QB in the history of college football was pulled in the second quarter of the national championship game. T.O. never got into that mentality that you have to stick with your starters. He kept plugging in players until something fit. THAT is what has spoiled us. We have seen that a team works infinitely better when players are being replaced when they don't perform. Sorry that the 3 predecessors never understood this seemingly-easy concept.

 
Nailed it, BRB! That trend isn't going to change.

Here's another thing that will happen every time we punt: we'll have gone away from what worked. If only OCs wouldn't get too cute. Or too stubborn.

Okay, all that said, I have to agree about some players just never seeming to get the hook in the Bo era. It seemed odd, as well as consistent with what felt like an overall 'good enough' mentality.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top