TheSker

I'm not into the scheme debate. One of Jay Foreman's articles helped convince me scheme is not the issue. I like our young talent and I liked the adjustments and coaching from Pelini today.

I'm with this. I actually had less concern of the quarterback turning the ball over today than any time in recent memory.

I'm not worried about how Pelini handles the internal coaching stuff right now. On different occasions, the camera showed Pelini personally coaching Baptiste, Gerry, Rose and Anderson. I believe Pelini sees a ton of potential in this defense with some of the athletes he has.

I think we might have exhibit 1 and 1A that Martinez is not our best option at quarterback. I think it's more clear why Zaire Anderson does not play much against passing teams. I think it's old seeing Ankrah whiff. I think our MLBs just need to let their understanding of the game catch up with their athleticism and they will be fine. I think I like the young talent on this team.

I see you left out Wisconsin from last year...if Ohio St wasn't on probation we would have played them instead. My point is to offer a generalization that we've been down a similar road before and stuck with a coach. It's not my agenda to crucify Pelini. Isn't "crucify" a dramatic word to use when talking about the ability of a football coach? Yes

It's not about records. Saban doesn't care if he has the fans behind his back. The problem is he wins so the fans back him. He goes to USC or Texas for recruiting but if you win the recruits come to you. Interesting thoughts. Enjoy your day.

That's all fine and I don't necessarily disagree. I would simply hedge a bet that if we lose Pelini, our next coach is likely to last less than 6 years.

i do not think 6 years is necessarily enough, especially for a first time coach. bo has shown a lot. any reasonable person would know that the jury should still be out. and frankly, it is much less of a risk to give some more time to bo than to take a chance on a new hc. So instead of getting a proven HC you are going to give Bo more time? I would agree with that if the blowouts were getting more competitive but they aren't. i am not so sure we would get a proven hc. i think we would be back at square giving an up-and-coming (or, on-the-come, to use bo-speak), coordinator his first shot at a head coaching gig. maybe that is not the worst thing, maybe bo's time as run up, so i would say if bo has another 4 loss season, he gets a timeline to win the B1G. but under that scenario, i do not think 3 years would be unreasonable. at least 2. We could get a proven HC, TO didn't want to open up the pocket book. If dollars were equal, why would somebody like Saban choose someplace like USC or Texas (who has a worse record than us) over Nebraska?

I see you left out Wisconsin from last year...if Ohio St wasn't on probation we would have played them instead. My point is to offer a generalization that we've been down a similar road before and stuck with a coach. It's not my agenda to crucify Pelini.

Ah, yes....a reminder of the 70's when TO was getting beat regularly by OU (by 20+ points) and the late 80's and early 90's when TO couldn't win a bowl game for 7 straight years (wow!! 7 straight years). Ok so during those time periods TO was losing to Oklahoma, Florida State and Miami (mostly on their home turf) and one of the seven was to Georgia Tech. He was losing to the uppercrust. Nothing to be ashamed of about that. And a 20+ point loss is not the same as letting schools rack up 40+. And now...for the real argument. It's the way the team plays....losing AND winning. Sloppy. Sloppy. Sloppy. Players talking about how they didn't leave it all on the field and such...that's what most have issue with. Yes, the sloppy play rebuttal. Since one of Pelini's blowouts was to an undefeated Ohio State team, do we put an asterisk on that like you are doing with the Georgia Tech game above for Osborne? And by the way, here's the scores from the OU games in 1973, 75 and 77. In 1973, OU 27, Nebraska 0. That's a 27 point differential and Nebraska was shut out. Probably a good thing there wasn't internet after that game. In 1975, OU 35, Nebraska 10. A 25 point differential. Ouch. In 1977, OU 38, Nebraska 7. (38-7=31) holy blowout Batman......it might be time to consider other coaching options. But those were proven coaches against championship quality teams?? That it's not always greener over there is something to consider but something to also consider is that Bo knew being competitive against the best was the deal coming in and it would be wise for him to NOT try to hide behind stats from a bunch of cupcake games. At some point every fanbase is gonna say enough is enough and give somebody else a shot. Pelini's blowouts have not been to cupcakes. Ohio State went undefeated and Meyer's name would be mentioned in the top 3 or 4 coaches in the college game today. One of our other blowouts was to a Russell Wilson led Wisconsin team.....and look what he's doing in Seattle. I don't like the blowouts any more than anyone else, but they were certainly not against bad competition.

What year in TO's tenure did we try to run him off?

Ah, yes....a reminder of the 70's when TO was getting beat regularly by OU (by 20+ points) and the late 80's and early 90's when TO couldn't win a bowl game for 7 straight years (wow!! 7 straight years). Ok so during those time periods TO was losing to Oklahoma, Florida State and Miami (mostly on their home turf) and one of the seven was to Georgia Tech. He was losing to the uppercrust. Nothing to be ashamed of about that. And a 20+ point loss is not the same as letting schools rack up 40+. And now...for the real argument. It's the way the team plays....losing AND winning. Sloppy. Sloppy. Sloppy. Players talking about how they didn't leave it all on the field and such...that's what most have issue with. Yes, the sloppy play rebuttal. Since one of Pelini's blowouts was to an undefeated Ohio State team, do we put an asterisk on that like you are doing with the Georgia Tech game above for Osborne? And by the way, here's the scores from the OU games in 1973, 75 and 77. In 1973, OU 27, Nebraska 0. That's a 27 point differential and Nebraska was shut out. Probably a good thing there wasn't internet after that game. In 1975, OU 35, Nebraska 10. A 25 point differential. Ouch. In 1977, OU 38, Nebraska 7. (38-7=31) holy blowout Batman......it might be time to consider other coaching options. difference is Bo is getting blown out by multiple teams not just 1 team in the conference. I'm not disputing there are differences......but there are also similarities that are wise to consider before Nebraska becomes a coaching carousel.

Ah, yes....a reminder of the 70's when TO was getting beat regularly by OU (by 20+ points) and the late 80's and early 90's when TO couldn't win a bowl game for 7 straight years (wow!! 7 straight years). Ok so during those time periods TO was losing to Oklahoma, Florida State and Miami (mostly on their home turf) and one of the seven was to Georgia Tech. He was losing to the uppercrust. Nothing to be ashamed of about that. And a 20+ point loss is not the same as letting schools rack up 40+. And now...for the real argument. It's the way the team plays....losing AND winning. Sloppy. Sloppy. Sloppy. Players talking about how they didn't leave it all on the field and such...that's what most have issue with. Yes, the sloppy play rebuttal. Since one of Pelini's blowouts was to an undefeated Ohio State team, do we put an asterisk on that like you are doing with the Georgia Tech game above for Osborne? And by the way, here's the scores from the OU games in 1973, 75 and 77. In 1973, OU 27, Nebraska 0. That's a 27 point differential and Nebraska was shut out. Probably a good thing there wasn't internet after that game. In 1975, OU 35, Nebraska 10. A 25 point differential. Ouch. In 1977, OU 38, Nebraska 7. (38-7=31) holy blowout Batman......it might be time to consider other coaching options.

I disagree that we don't have the talent to win the conference this year. We lack the fundamentals to win the conference this year...the same lack of fundamentals we've had for the last 2 years. Can win games if you can't tackle properly, or protect the football, or constantly get bad penalties, or don't play your quarterback's strengths...it's ALL coaching. Period. I think we'll find out more about our talent in the weeks to come. I like the speed of our young guys on defense. I'm disappointed in some of our upperclassmen on defense on the defensive line and in the secondary. We need Ankrah and Randle to step up, and Evans may be good in coverage but has issues with open field tackling. And the bottom line at quarterback in my opinion is if Martinez wheels are hobbled, he's not our best option at quarterback. It's a tall task, but I'm hoping the quarterback change will provide a needed boost to our offense which I believe is much more disappointing than our defense.

I guess they need something to fill air time. Pelini looking at other positions is a complete non-issue. Non-issue in that it doesn't bother you, or that you don't believe he has looked at other jobs in the past? In that it doesn't bother. Who cares if he looks for other jobs? What fantasy world are people living in? I love my job and am always looking to see what is out there. It is what you are supposed to do. The fan base is constantly calling for coaches heads and yet he isn't supposed to keep his options open? Ridiculous! Coaches are hired to be fired. Any and every coach is stupid not to look and listen. If nothing else you can leverage a raise out of it. The other side of that coin....I can guarantee you if my employers knew I was actively seeking a job elsewhere, they would be looking for my replacement and probably make the move before I could. So it's ok for Bo to look...but now we all know he is so I expect the university is doing their due dilligence. Bo may have accelerated things... Not exactly. There are occupations where the number of qualified candidates is limited. A division I coach (in any sport) is one of these occupations. In my position, there are 1000's of potential candidates that would have minimum qualifications for my job in the city I live in alone. A division I coach is a unique position.

Ah, yes....a reminder of the 70's when TO was getting beat regularly by OU (by 20+ points) and the late 80's and early 90's when TO couldn't win a bowl game for 7 straight years (wow!! 7 straight years).

I guess they need something to fill air time. Pelini looking at other positions is a complete non-issue. Non-issue in that it doesn't bother you, or that you don't believe he has looked at other jobs in the past? Doesn't bother me. Coaches have agents who continually have feelers out there. I'm sure he has someone looking on his behalf....which is typical for a DI coach. Many schools also hire a consultant to keep these things behind the scene with coaches. And we have learned that Osborne became aware of the recording a year ago while still Pelini's boss. Nothing unusual to see here.

I guess they need something to fill air time. Pelini looking at other positions is a complete non-issue.

Cosgrove was let go as part of Bill Callahan's staff. And in case we forgot, Cally had two losing seasons and missed a bowl. I don't think OU won the championship game in 2004. I don't doubt Pelini may be doing too much, but I'm a believer that recruiting has been his biggest issue. I agree about Beck. I liked him as OC, but I agree the offense should not have the issues we are seeing from it.

Believe me, no matter how much the media plays up the, "They fire coaches that win 9 or more games a year," and "it's too much of a fishbowl" there are not many coaches who don't look at Nebraska and think, "Just imagine what I could do there. Bill/Bo/Frank/etc couldn't get it done but I know I can." Coaches, at least most great coaches, have huge egos about what they are capable of and will step up to any challenge especially when they will be at a place that can give them almost anything they want to help them become great. Very informative. Steve Pedersen's coaching search must not have been difficult as I heard it might have been.

Memo from Bill Snyder.......this ain't the 90's any more.

And in the 70's, we were concerned about Osborne's record vs Oklahoma. And in the 80's into the 90's we were concerned about Osborne losing 7 straight bowl games. I can't argue about the blowout losses, I don't like them either, but sticking with a coach for 25 paid very high dividends. And by the way, a few OU/Nebraska scores from early in Osborne's tenure.....1973, OU 27 NU nada......1975, OU 35 Good Guys 10......1977, OU 38 Good Guys 7. (and soon thereafter TO was considering leaving Nebraska....what?????).

I agree it's a valid point......but seriously, is head coaching turnover every 6 years the answer either?

MIght as well let NU try to see if head coach #4 since Osborne can get it done, right? Nothing like a coaching carousel to get you where you need to go.

If Iowa had an opening, he might.