bolshoifish

Do you know what your talking about at all? Ganz IS Taylor's mentor and coach. Similar? Ganz is probably the best passing QB we have had play for us. Great player, great GA, and has been doing a great job so far. Hmm.. I'll be sure to put in the sarcasm symbol next time (on the last part). Ganz did have a lot of passing yards, but his passes were generally much more high risk then the average passing qb. I don't think I'm alone when in holding my breath everytime Ganz would throw due to him trying to make a play on every play, even when it wasn't there. He is doing a good job, it can't be a bad thing that he is in constant communication with Taylor, but for example, on the approach to the line of scrimmage side line passes when the coverage is soft, they seem to have a very similar risk prone attitude.

No one else finds Ganz's high risk passing and Taylor's high risk passing eerily similar? I'm sure it's just a coincidence, it's not like he's his coach or anything...

It's one of many. That's the problem. Just to get this straight, if we win out and prior to bowl are 11-2 (which is a very real possibility at this point), this year was a failure because we didn't dominate in every win and Bo didn't satisfy an unreal expectation on sideline demeanor? I don't think that is what any of us are saying. I'd love an 11-2 season. However I am not going to let that mask what we know is a problem, and that is discipline. Continuing with the status quo will not get us to the next level, luck will run out. I don't see the connection between Bo's behavior and the teams undisciplined nature. It is bizarre to say the least.. clearly this team holds itself accountable for the mistakes: just look at Eric Martin's reaction after getting that boneheaded facemask penalty. They are all trying to play well for each other, but I do agree that week after week shows it is a problem. I really don't now how you fix something like putting Marlowe in because he has always been your sure hand at fielding punts and watch him drop one (I find it hard to believe that the shoulder issues caused the drop).

It's one of many. That's the problem. Just to get this straight, if we win out and prior to bowl are 11-2 (which is a very real possibility at this point), this year was a failure because we didn't dominate in every win and Bo didn't satisfy an unreal expectation on sideline demeanor?

These things happen EVERY SATURDAY on MANY MANY teams. Tuberville hit the headphones off an assistant today.. i don't even want to think what these boards would degenerate to if Bo did that. So, last week we complain about the OC that has us in the top 10 on most offensive stats, this week a sideline skirmish ruins this win for many fans. Maybe we should just fire Bo and bring Tom back? Is that the only way to make you happy? (There are issues to discuss about this game, but the sideline skirmish is the most ridiculous one).

Haven't seen this posted elsewhere, but I thought some of you might find this interesting. An offensive lineman from Oregon takes a look at the Penn St. matchup and the state of our lines. http://www.sbnation....-ol-carson-york

I do think that most of the "bone-headed" playcalling Beck does is a direct result the players not showing they can consistently run certain packages. For instance, I've seen a lot of stops on third and short when Beck calls runs up the middle. I do think he has just decided that he won't let Martinez's limitations as a thrower influence how he wants to call a game (I'm not bagging on Martinez, just pointing out that he still has a lot to learn regarding the pass game). As far as Tyler Moore.. it probably would help to have him around. It's not a given that he would be starting, but he is talented and it never hurts to have more tackles in the rotation.

Funny you should mention that... I was going to mention in my original post that I'd hate to see what MSU fans would do if presented with an Neb-A&M-esque performance by the refs. Were Nebraska fans whining in 09-10.. yes... but we were whining about 1) subjects that nearly destroyed B12 (and certainly reshaped the landscape of college football) 2) being subjected to an unprofessional incompetent buffoon of a commissioner. If Beebe had a shred of integrity, the whining would of been reduced. As it stood, it was unclear if Beebe would take time to arrange the reffing of the A&M game. I like to think no.. but that guy did some strange stuff that year. We? Probably you. I wasn't whining. Any good team will overcome penalties, we simply beat our self in the TAMU game. We had opportunities to put points on the field, we didn't. Let go of the past, it is almost 2013. Officiating didn't almost cost us the game against MSU. If you want to look at it that way, it also helped us win. The HUSKERS left a lot of points on the field, and the defense was non existent in the rush attack. We are to blame it was so close. They played dirty, but its not like we didn't have a player out there making us look like buffoons (Stafford). Flipping off the MSU sideline and grabbing his crotch towards the fans is not any better than their dirty tactics. My mistake, Nebraska collective - HuskerNationNick.. oh wait, apparently you don't understand all the uses of we... as in "We voted in the president".. not meaning that you actually voted for the president.

Funny you should mention that... I was going to mention in my original post that I'd hate to see what MSU fans would do if presented with an Neb-A&M-esque performance by the refs. Were Nebraska fans whining in 09-10.. yes... but we were whining about 1) subjects that nearly destroyed B12 (and certainly reshaped the landscape of college football) 2) being subjected to an unprofessional incompetent buffoon of a commissioner. If Beebe had a shred of integrity, the whining would of been reduced. As it stood, it was unclear if Beebe would take time to arrange the reffing of the A&M game. I like to think no.. but that guy did some strange stuff that year.

I have to say, all the whining going on up in Michigan these days is really disappointing. Michigan's argument about how they would of won if Dennard wasn't injured is akin to a junk bond investor bragging about beating the average if his chips all fall right. Guess what, you had four years to build up a team around Dennard, but you didn't.. the only one to blame is themselves. With Michigan State.. wow.. cherry picking bad penalties as a justification for why you should of won is just ridiculous. Guess what, hitting a defenseless offensive player on an interception is against the rules.. in fact, the rule is called the Sapp rule in the NFL. Even if we getting rid of penalties in the game and giving them points, by my estimates, we still win by a point (or if we go to overtime, by more). For example, taking 4 off of MSU's score to counter the late hit penalty, but adding the 7 for the pick 6 still leaves them in the hole by a point. GET OVER IT.. babies. While I'm at it.. Nebraska would of crushed Michigan in 97. That is all.

I love how we are hearing quotes of "this is what happens when you hire a high school football coach". Yet, 1) some of the most successful football coaches today started in highschool (e.g., Art Briles, Frank Solich), 2) when I think highschool, i think of a coach who finds a successful play and runs it till it doesn't work anymore, i.e., checkers vs. chess, 3) our OC received the praise of Urban Meyer last year (during a game he called).. he referred to the playcalling as "dynamic" and was very flattering. On a different note, on that sweep, to clear the line of scrimmage we had to bring the house. If you want to blame anybody for Beck not calling more run plays on short yardage, blame Cotton and the line since they haven't shown over the last several games that they can handle the responsibility.

And Ball would get more carries if he didn't share carries with White, so the argument goes both ways. I think the biggest problem with Bennett's argument is the split carrying point and the Wilson/Martinez comparison. Both guys have exactly the same amount of carries, and both guys have split the carries with other players. So...well...DUH Bennett. They both split carries so why did you even bring up this point? Second...I think having Wilson as a quarterback does a lot more for your running back than having Martinez. I truthfully don't understand how loading the box to stop Martinez frees up running lanes for Burkhead. I think Ball is better than Martinez, but Rittenberg makes another couple of good points. Wisconsin's o-line is better and they haven't faced as good of defenses as Nebraska has (including Wisconsin's). OP, the blog doesn't suck, and Bennett doesn't either. The only reason Bennett doesn't do as well as Rittenberg in this argument is because he utilizes a pointless split-carry argument and thinks that running quarterbacks make running the football easier. Your right, it doesn't suck as long as they stick to their lunchtime links. I agree that Rittenberg may be ok, but Bennett.. oh yes, he sucks.

And Ball would get more carries if he didn't share carries with White, so the argument goes both ways. Exactly, its a bogus argument. You have two backs that have carried the same amount of times.. how does splitting reps have anything to do with what they accomplished on the given reps, and what they would accomplish if given more?

Yep, I knew we were in trouble with Bennett when he touted the SEC over B1G in his B1G recap on a day that Auburn more or less lost to Utah St. I'm not saying that B1G is comparable, but he used the Alabama-Penn St. victory as it's sole evidence. By his logic, if Wisconsin beats a mid level SEC team: B1G wins the conference battle!

It's not that he chose Ball. It's the logic that he used to do so. It's also a reoccuring theme: they take opposing views on a matter just to have opposing views, not because there is a good argument. I agree, Ball is good.. but a 5th grader can come up with a better argument than that. The only worthwile ESPN blogger I have seen was the guy Ubben replaced (from some San Antonio paper).

http://espn.go.com/blog/bigten/post/_/id/36052/take-two-big-tens-best-running-back I am dumbfounded by Bennett's logic on this one: Ball and Burkhead have the same amount of carries, but because Ball would have more carries if he were in the game for 4 quarters he is the better running back. Umm.. Burkhead would have more carries if Martinez pitched the ball more. Ball is running behind the best line in the country, could you imagine what Burkhead would do with that line? Wisconsin is also becoming my least favorite team.. I like the team itself, but the fans that post to national blogs certainly act like they're new to big boy football league.

Let's be honest here: Rex Burkhead makes Beck's life much easier. It's been a long time since I've seen a back that seems to see a couple of seconds into the future. If you get that guy one on one in space, its almost an automatic first down. But yes, this OP is spot on. Saying that we will win such and such game if the second half offense shows up and lose if the first half offense shows up is a bit ridiculous. This is a 4 quarter team. They have shown they are a 4 quarter team all season. You may be able to stuff them for a quarter or two, but not the whole game. I was even more impressed that Beck stuck to his guns.. down 21 logic dictates a more pure passing attack (which is more than likely what Watson would of done). Beck sticks to his game plan and shows enourmous patience and confidence in his playmakers.

Oh one last thought, I thought Dirk's explanation that his questions on Saturday were to allow Pelini to respond to his article was funny. That is certainly not how his questions came out. They came out as having an agenda, so I'm not sure why he didn't expect a short retort/rebuke from Pelini.

Bo doesn't throw his guys under the bus to save his own ass. Never has, never will. There is a difference between throwing somebody under the bus and being open about disappointment. He gives no outlet, no voice, and no consideration for fan frustration. Thus the media takes this roll on. For all the talk about Spurrier pulling a similar stunt, on most given days, Spurrier is very enjoyable to listen to. The inane questions I believe are due to the media giving up on Bo. They know he won't answer any question they throw at him past a sentence. I actually wish he would send his bro out for post game interviews. Carl is quite a bit more adept with the press.. and very knowledgeable in setting up their video equipment. The negativity surrounding the program is rather high considering we've only lost 1 game, we've had stellar records regarding off-field issues, and Bo is not considered on the hot seat whatsoever. I pin this negativity squarely on Bo. The things he has done the last 2 seasons has raised quite a few red flags. He is unwilling to discuss any of it in detail, so fans are left little direction if you don't heed to "In Bo we trust". For instance, in a profession that is extremely competitive and high paying at the mid-upper tiers, there is an large amount of nepotism in coaching. So, when Bo hires a golf pro, some guy he grew up with down the street, etc. Its a huge red flag. Not that they may not be good hires (Beck seems to be doing rather well), but it is certainly the type of behavior that gets many many coaches fired (see Callahan). In a slight off topic, I'm not to worried about him leaving here either. He's coached at enough places to know that the local media is rather kind. He's a winner for sure, but he is certainly a drama queen (no, I probably wouldn't suggest Dirk call Pelini a drama queen).

I honestly feel bad for T-Mart. He wouldn't be catching nearly the hell he has caught if Pelini would give the media and public a shred of info. I honestly don't get Pelini. For somebody who acts like they don't want drama, he is extremely good at creating exactly that. He empasizes being a straightshooter to the team and recruits, but turns it off to the public. His statements about injuries are laughable. What he doesn't seem to realize is a lot of heat that the team has endured is a direct consequence of him not being straight with the fans and media. I thought the Dirk piece was well phrased. It highlighted what we all have questioned: why does Bo seem to have a different level of accountability for some vs. others. I honestly believe that if Pelini gives the media and fans any accountability regarding Shawn Watson for some very suspect play calling (highlight: being in field goal distance to tie B12 title game and calling a 3-5 step drop back pass) then T-Mart gets a bit more of a pass from Dirk. I've never even heard of the scenario Pelini created to offload Watson. Fire the guy.. don't feel sorry for him. Watson has made more at Nebraska then I will make in the next 20 years. Honestly, you can't have the horrific offense we had in 2009 and act like it never happened. The Dirk piece was conceived last season.. it just so happened to be T-Mart that became the first scenario applicable this season.

Oh, and I wouldn't call a 10-7 win a domination. It is a defensive domination.. but their offense was dominated as well.

Having NU as 5th in the conference is not laughable --- we were, generally, more often about 4th or 5th in the Big 12 each season upon the completion of the regular season. Not that that factors in here except to say that recently (last decade or so) NU has been a #4/#5 type major conference team. To this season, Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan undoubtedly are above us --- legitimately so... no cogent argument can be posited against that. To have Michigan Stae above is is not unreasonable. You ask who Michigan and Michigan State have beated? Well... who has NU beaten? 4th in conference right now is a legit and defensible ranking for NU. 5th in conference is also a legit and defensible ranking for NU as well. Again, I would posit that NU has been a #4 or #5 in the conference type team for a decade --- why is surprising that NU is again at that level? We play Michigan State and Michigan in the not-too-distant future --- I think you will see then that they will be formidable foes for NU. This is not the 1970's, the 1980's or the 1990's anymore --- the days where it was unthinkable to be mid/upper mid-conference level are long past for NU. Since 2000, mid/upper mid-conference level has been the norm for NU. Why the surprise? Your right, I do see us 5th in B12 (maybe even 6th), but this is not the B12. Michigan and Michigan State got flat out dominated by Notre Dame (until the last 2 minutes), maybe I'm living in a world were strength of schedule matters, but if you have 2 5-1 teams with one losing to #4 and playing some decent competition (Washington is a good football team) and the other losing to an unranked team... and playing nobody (MSU)... then the former team gets higher rank (which is exactly the way the AP and Coaches view it). Further, MSU's lofty defense has played the absolute worst offenses in college football. The one good offense they played, they lost badly. For Michigan, they needed a comeback win against NW.. so its not like they've played so much better than us. The only reason they don't have a loss is because they've played the bottom dwellers in the conference. I guarantee you that if we swap schedules, they have at least one loss and we have 2 wins. I put us 3rd, right behind Illini (even though they are overratted, they have beat decent competition. I still think Washington is better than ASU though). The concept of rating teams solely on win-loss is just baffling to me. Rating teams in the same conference on win/loss is about the only rational way to rank them. SOS is all assumptions and "what ifs" --- actual wins/losses are concrete. A one-loss Nebraska cannot, under any circumstances, be rated above an undefeated Michigan team or an undefeated Illinois or Wisconsin. That is not to say that we are necessarily lesser a team than Michigan at this point (though I, personally, think that we are) --- but it does mean they took care of business (0 defeats) and NU did not. So 4th or 5th is about right. If head to head with common opponents means anything (and it may not) --- MSU owned, dominated, and destroyed OSU and we barely won against OSU. So... if anyone can claim a tie-breaker... it is MSU. So... NU 5th is not only reasonable... it is probably the only reasonable place to rank them. I would also probably agree with your sentiment if the season is over. Let's take your argument to the extreme: if Nebraska played #1, #2, #3, and #4 to start the season off and lost all of them but played well, and MSU won close games in the FCS to open conference play, then your argument is that MSU should be ranked ahead.. even if Neb is was clearly the better team? If one is just going to be ranking by wins or losses, there is little point of posting it on a national blog (except at the end of the season). It certainly doesn't hint that one has put much thought into it. It also just so happens to be that most of the computer rankings agree with me.

Having NU as 5th in the conference is not laughable --- we were, generally, more often about 4th or 5th in the Big 12 each season upon the completion of the regular season. Not that that factors in here except to say that recently (last decade or so) NU has been a #4/#5 type major conference team. To this season, Wisconsin, Illinois and Michigan undoubtedly are above us --- legitimately so... no cogent argument can be posited against that. To have Michigan Stae above is is not unreasonable. You ask who Michigan and Michigan State have beated? Well... who has NU beaten? 4th in conference right now is a legit and defensible ranking for NU. 5th in conference is also a legit and defensible ranking for NU as well. Again, I would posit that NU has been a #4 or #5 in the conference type team for a decade --- why is surprising that NU is again at that level? We play Michigan State and Michigan in the not-too-distant future --- I think you will see then that they will be formidable foes for NU. This is not the 1970's, the 1980's or the 1990's anymore --- the days where it was unthinkable to be mid/upper mid-conference level are long past for NU. Since 2000, mid/upper mid-conference level has been the norm for NU. Why the surprise? Your right, I do see us 5th in B12 (maybe even 6th), but this is not the B12. Michigan and Michigan State got flat out dominated by Notre Dame (until the last 2 minutes), maybe I'm living in a world were strength of schedule matters, but if you have 2 5-1 teams with one losing to #4 and playing some decent competition (Washington is a good football team) and the other losing to an unranked team... and playing nobody (MSU)... then the former team gets higher rank (which is exactly the way the AP and Coaches view it). Further, MSU's lofty defense has played the absolute worst offenses in college football. The one good offense they played, they lost badly. For Michigan, they needed a comeback win against NW.. so its not like they've played so much better than us. The only reason they don't have a loss is because they've played the bottom dwellers in the conference. I guarantee you that if we swap schedules, they have at least one loss and we have 2 wins. I put us 3rd, right behind Illini (even though they are overratted, they have beat decent competition. I still think Washington is better than ASU though). The concept of rating teams solely on win-loss is just baffling to me.

Speaking of Boise St. didn't their kicker get death threats last year? Could you imagine Bo's behavior in that scenario? Goes to show you, even fanbases that have nothing to be entitled about are still crazy.

Oh, my above post is predicated on Mart. still being snakebit from the Wisky game and thus is patient himself.