GBRedneck

If Frank was a hell of a coach, then why isn't he in a better job than he currently holds? If he is this world beater coach, then why haven't top programs snatched him up? He's done alright in his current position but I wouldn't say he's set the world on fire. I will say this about Frank, he was a hell of a running backs coach, HC...not so much. He was obviously a helluva lot better than what we have now. That's not even debateable.

If some on the board could drop their irrational dislike for the current staff, the answer is kinda simple. The roster is talented and deep in some positions (interior defensive players, wide receivers) and thin and less talented in others (QB, DE, LB). The roster is good in some spots and not so good in others. Does that make it talented or not talented, and how the hell do you decide? According to some Nostradomi on this board roster depth and quality is the fault solely and exclusively of the current staff. I would include the intellectual giant who, in another thread, predicted the current staff will be gone next year. Pretty simple: with similarly talented rosters, a fired coach won north of .700 of his games here. Only when a coach comes in and lays an egg against a very easy schedule do we hear that the talent isn't there to continue 9+ win seasons. Of course, that's not what was said at the time of the firing last year. And it's not the case today, either. The roster isn't perfect, but it's far better than the results that were wrung out of it. Now cue: we only won last year because of a single player arguments. Talent level under Frank was dropping, anyone who is honest can see that. Same with the last staff. MK III Eyeball Detector. Frank had the #14 class in the country when he was fired, and he likely would've signed Woodhead. Exposed again. You straight up invent crap to try to make a point. http://dataomaha.com/neb100/player/60 "Danny Woodhead doesn’t dwell on not being recruited by Nebraska and why should he?" HAHAHA! An article about Danny Woodhead not getting a scholarship from Callahan doesn't expose anything I said. Solich had already recruited Woodhead to walkon, and if a bunch of blue chips didn't fall into place by signing day, he would have gotten a full ride. Solich and Nebraska had only contacted Woodhead once. They didn't even recruit him to walk-on. Bullsqueeze. Solich had already asked Woodhead to walkon at the Huskers summer camp before his senior year. And then Solich was fired in November when Woodhead's senior season was barely over. The misinformation spewed here by some is outrageous. I'm not saying he was offered or even that he definitely would have been offered. What I'm saying is, if it had gotten near signing day and a spot or two was still open (which was usually the case with Solich) Woodhead would have been a likely recipient. But Callahan completely ignored him. So he accepted the Chadron State offer. However disappointed that Nebraska contacted him once and never called back, Woodhead chose Division II Chadron State not so much as a consolation prize but as an opportunity to reunite with his older brother, Ben, a wide receiver. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/sports/football/danny-woodhead-is-a-big-talent-in-a-small-package.html?_r=0 Your article is from 2012. Funny how memories and stories change after 9 years. Let's look at something closer to the actual timeline: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/sports/ncaafootball/26back.html So yes, Solich was in touch, they had several conversations, he attended camp, he was asked to walkon, ALL before he even started his senior year. Now stop the misinformation. EDIT: I think your 2012 article was specifically talking about post-Solich. After Callahan was hired, Woodhead was contacted once about walking on and that was it. You are correct. I read an article that interviewed Scott Dowling when he was HC of Northern Colorado and he did mention that they offered him as a walk-on. He did say that it did change when Callahan got hired. My apologies... Thanks, Stumpy1. Much respect. But be ready to suffer the wrath of RADAR!

Pretty simple: with similarly talented rosters, a fired coach won north of .700 of his games here. Only when a coach comes in and lays an egg against a very easy schedule do we hear that the talent isn't there to continue 9+ win seasons. Of course, that's not what was said at the time of the firing last year. And it's not the case today, either. The roster isn't perfect, but it's far better than the results that were wrung out of it. Now cue: we only won last year because of a single player arguments. Talent level under Frank was dropping, anyone who is honest can see that. Same with the last staff. MK III Eyeball Detector. Frank had the #14 class in the country when he was fired, and he likely would've signed Woodhead. Exposed again. You straight up invent crap to try to make a point. http://dataomaha.com/neb100/player/60 "Danny Woodhead doesn’t dwell on not being recruited by Nebraska and why should he?" Exposed again. You straight up invent crap to try to make a point. http://dataomaha.com/neb100/player/60 "Danny Woodhead doesn’t dwell on not being recruited by Nebraska and why should he?" Solich had already recruited Woodhead to walkon, and if a bunch of blue chips didn't fall into place by signing day, he would have gotten a full ride. Solich had already asked Woodhead to walkon at the Huskers summer camp before his senior year. And then Solich was fired in November when Woodhead's senior season was barely over. The misinformation spewed here by some is outrageous. I'm not saying he was offered or even that he definitely would have been offered. What I'm saying is, if it had gotten near signing day and a spot or two was still open (which was usually the case with Solich) Woodhead would have been a likely recipient. But Callahan completely ignored him. So he accepted the Chadron State offer. However disappointed that Nebraska contacted him once and never called back, Woodhead chose Division II Chadron State not so much as a consolation prize but as an opportunity to reunite with his older brother, Ben, a wide receiver. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/sports/football/danny-woodhead-is-a-big-talent-in-a-small-package.html?_r=0 Your article is from 2012. Funny how memories and stories change after 9 years. Let's look at something closer to the actual timeline: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/sports/ncaafootball/26back.html So yes, Solich was in touch, they had several conversations, he attended camp, he was asked to walkon, ALL before he even started his senior year. Now stop the misinformation. EDIT: I think your 2012 article was specifically talking about post-Solich. After Callahan was hired, Woodhead was contacted once about walking on and that was it. This is correct. Solich wanted him as a walk-on & he may have ended up with a filler scholarship or even a gray-shirt had Solich missed on a few guys later in the signing period & not been fired. When Solich was fired the lines of communication were cut completely. Many people were mad about how the walk-on program was treated under Callahan, the whole time he was here. Exactly. But somehow the truth doesn't fit certain agendas.

If some on the board could drop their irrational dislike for the current staff, the answer is kinda simple. The roster is talented and deep in some positions (interior defensive players, wide receivers) and thin and less talented in others (QB, DE, LB). The roster is good in some spots and not so good in others. Does that make it talented or not talented, and how the hell do you decide? According to some Nostradomi on this board roster depth and quality is the fault solely and exclusively of the current staff. I would include the intellectual giant who, in another thread, predicted the current staff will be gone next year. Pretty simple: with similarly talented rosters, a fired coach won north of .700 of his games here. Only when a coach comes in and lays an egg against a very easy schedule do we hear that the talent isn't there to continue 9+ win seasons. Of course, that's not what was said at the time of the firing last year. And it's not the case today, either. The roster isn't perfect, but it's far better than the results that were wrung out of it. Now cue: we only won last year because of a single player arguments. Talent level under Frank was dropping, anyone who is honest can see that. Same with the last staff. MK III Eyeball Detector. Frank had the #14 class in the country when he was fired, and he likely would've signed Woodhead. Exposed again. You straight up invent crap to try to make a point. http://dataomaha.com/neb100/player/60 "Danny Woodhead doesn’t dwell on not being recruited by Nebraska and why should he?" HAHAHA! An article about Danny Woodhead not getting a scholarship from Callahan doesn't expose anything I said. Solich had already recruited Woodhead to walkon, and if a bunch of blue chips didn't fall into place by signing day, he would have gotten a full ride. Solich and Nebraska had only contacted Woodhead once. They didn't even recruit him to walk-on. Bullsqueeze. Solich had already asked Woodhead to walkon at the Huskers summer camp before his senior year. And then Solich was fired in November when Woodhead's senior season was barely over. The misinformation spewed here by some is outrageous. I'm not saying he was offered or even that he definitely would have been offered. What I'm saying is, if it had gotten near signing day and a spot or two was still open (which was usually the case with Solich) Woodhead would have been a likely recipient. But Callahan completely ignored him. So he accepted the Chadron State offer. However disappointed that Nebraska contacted him once and never called back, Woodhead chose Division II Chadron State not so much as a consolation prize but as an opportunity to reunite with his older brother, Ben, a wide receiver. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/sports/football/danny-woodhead-is-a-big-talent-in-a-small-package.html?_r=0 Your article is from 2012. Funny how memories and stories change after 9 years. Let's look at something closer to the actual timeline: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/sports/ncaafootball/26back.html So yes, Solich was in touch, they had several conversations, he attended camp, he was asked to walkon, ALL before he even started his senior year. Now stop the misinformation. Yep, the truth usually does come out after time. There are a few more articles that state the Nebraska told him he "might" be able to join the team as a kick returner. I even read an article where Scott Dowling (Frank's RC) had said that they didn't even recruit him because they wanted someone bigger. More bullsqueeze. Stop it already! They had him at summer camp, they asked him to walkon, all before he even started his senior year. By the time signing day rolled around and they saw he would accept a D2 scholarship before walking on, they likely would have offered if they had an open spot. And it's "Downing", not "Dowling".

If some on the board could drop their irrational dislike for the current staff, the answer is kinda simple. The roster is talented and deep in some positions (interior defensive players, wide receivers) and thin and less talented in others (QB, DE, LB). The roster is good in some spots and not so good in others. Does that make it talented or not talented, and how the hell do you decide? According to some Nostradomi on this board roster depth and quality is the fault solely and exclusively of the current staff. I would include the intellectual giant who, in another thread, predicted the current staff will be gone next year. Pretty simple: with similarly talented rosters, a fired coach won north of .700 of his games here. Only when a coach comes in and lays an egg against a very easy schedule do we hear that the talent isn't there to continue 9+ win seasons. Of course, that's not what was said at the time of the firing last year. And it's not the case today, either. The roster isn't perfect, but it's far better than the results that were wrung out of it. Now cue: we only won last year because of a single player arguments. Talent level under Frank was dropping, anyone who is honest can see that. Same with the last staff. MK III Eyeball Detector. Frank had the #14 class in the country when he was fired, and he likely would've signed Woodhead. Exposed again. You straight up invent crap to try to make a point. http://dataomaha.com/neb100/player/60 "Danny Woodhead doesn’t dwell on not being recruited by Nebraska and why should he?" HAHAHA! An article about Danny Woodhead not getting a scholarship from Callahan doesn't expose anything I said. Solich had already recruited Woodhead to walkon, and if a bunch of blue chips didn't fall into place by signing day, he would have gotten a full ride. Solich and Nebraska had only contacted Woodhead once. They didn't even recruit him to walk-on. Bullsqueeze. Solich had already asked Woodhead to walkon at the Huskers summer camp before his senior year. And then Solich was fired in November when Woodhead's senior season was barely over. The misinformation spewed here by some is outrageous. I'm not saying he was offered or even that he definitely would have been offered. What I'm saying is, if it had gotten near signing day and a spot or two was still open (which was usually the case with Solich) Woodhead would have been a likely recipient. But Callahan completely ignored him. So he accepted the Chadron State offer. However disappointed that Nebraska contacted him once and never called back, Woodhead chose Division II Chadron State not so much as a consolation prize but as an opportunity to reunite with his older brother, Ben, a wide receiver. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/sports/football/danny-woodhead-is-a-big-talent-in-a-small-package.html?_r=0 Your article is from 2012. Funny how memories and stories change after 9 years. Let's look at something closer to the actual timeline: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/sports/ncaafootball/26back.html So yes, Solich was in touch, they had several conversations, he attended camp, he was asked to walkon, ALL before he even started his senior year. Now stop the misinformation. Link? The blue letters that are underlined and start with http?

If some on the board could drop their irrational dislike for the current staff, the answer is kinda simple. The roster is talented and deep in some positions (interior defensive players, wide receivers) and thin and less talented in others (QB, DE, LB). The roster is good in some spots and not so good in others. Does that make it talented or not talented, and how the hell do you decide? According to some Nostradomi on this board roster depth and quality is the fault solely and exclusively of the current staff. I would include the intellectual giant who, in another thread, predicted the current staff will be gone next year. Pretty simple: with similarly talented rosters, a fired coach won north of .700 of his games here. Only when a coach comes in and lays an egg against a very easy schedule do we hear that the talent isn't there to continue 9+ win seasons. Of course, that's not what was said at the time of the firing last year. And it's not the case today, either. The roster isn't perfect, but it's far better than the results that were wrung out of it. Now cue: we only won last year because of a single player arguments. Talent level under Frank was dropping, anyone who is honest can see that. Same with the last staff. MK III Eyeball Detector. Frank had the #14 class in the country when he was fired, and he likely would've signed Woodhead. Exposed again. You straight up invent crap to try to make a point. http://dataomaha.com/neb100/player/60 "Danny Woodhead doesn’t dwell on not being recruited by Nebraska and why should he?" HAHAHA! An article about Danny Woodhead not getting a scholarship from Callahan doesn't expose anything I said. Solich had already recruited Woodhead to walkon, and if a bunch of blue chips didn't fall into place by signing day, he would have gotten a full ride. Solich and Nebraska had only contacted Woodhead once. They didn't even recruit him to walk-on. Bullsqueeze. Solich had already asked Woodhead to walkon at the Huskers summer camp before his senior year. And then Solich was fired in November when Woodhead's senior season was barely over. The misinformation spewed here by some is outrageous. I'm not saying he was offered or even that he definitely would have been offered. What I'm saying is, if it had gotten near signing day and a spot or two was still open (which was usually the case with Solich) Woodhead would have been a likely recipient. But Callahan completely ignored him. So he accepted the Chadron State offer. However disappointed that Nebraska contacted him once and never called back, Woodhead chose Division II Chadron State not so much as a consolation prize but as an opportunity to reunite with his older brother, Ben, a wide receiver. http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/02/sports/football/danny-woodhead-is-a-big-talent-in-a-small-package.html?_r=0 Your article is from 2012. Funny how memories and stories change after 9 years. Let's look at something closer to the actual timeline: http://www.nytimes.com/2007/08/26/sports/ncaafootball/26back.html So yes, Solich was in touch, they had several conversations, he attended camp, he was asked to walkon, ALL before he even started his senior year. Now stop the misinformation. EDIT: I think your 2012 article was specifically talking about post-Solich. After Callahan was hired, Woodhead was contacted once about walking on and that was it.

If some on the board could drop their irrational dislike for the current staff, the answer is kinda simple. The roster is talented and deep in some positions (interior defensive players, wide receivers) and thin and less talented in others (QB, DE, LB). The roster is good in some spots and not so good in others. Does that make it talented or not talented, and how the hell do you decide? According to some Nostradomi on this board roster depth and quality is the fault solely and exclusively of the current staff. I would include the intellectual giant who, in another thread, predicted the current staff will be gone next year. Pretty simple: with similarly talented rosters, a fired coach won north of .700 of his games here. Only when a coach comes in and lays an egg against a very easy schedule do we hear that the talent isn't there to continue 9+ win seasons. Of course, that's not what was said at the time of the firing last year. And it's not the case today, either. The roster isn't perfect, but it's far better than the results that were wrung out of it. Now cue: we only won last year because of a single player arguments. Talent level under Frank was dropping, anyone who is honest can see that. Same with the last staff. MK III Eyeball Detector. Frank had the #14 class in the country when he was fired, and he likely would've signed Woodhead. Exposed again. You straight up invent crap to try to make a point. http://dataomaha.com/neb100/player/60 "Danny Woodhead doesn’t dwell on not being recruited by Nebraska and why should he?" HAHAHA! An article about Danny Woodhead not getting a scholarship from Callahan doesn't expose anything I said. Solich had already recruited Woodhead to walkon, and if a bunch of blue chips didn't fall into place by signing day, he would have gotten a full ride. Solich and Nebraska had only contacted Woodhead once. They didn't even recruit him to walk-on. Bullsqueeze. Solich had already asked Woodhead to walkon at the Huskers summer camp before his senior year. And then Solich was fired in November when Woodhead's senior season was barely over. The misinformation spewed here by some is outrageous. I'm not saying he was offered or even that he definitely would have been offered. What I'm saying is, if it had gotten near signing day and a spot or two was still open (which was usually the case with Solich) Woodhead would have been a likely recipient. But Callahan completely ignored him. So he accepted the Chadron State offer.

Discussion in the recruiting forum has the opinion that the staff was only looking to bring in one for 2016 Tre Bryant is solid. Dont let the 3* concern you. Ozigbo, Newby, Wilbon, Taylor, Bryant - more than plenty of backs next season. Like I said, the position remains unproven and a "solid", 3*, 4.53/40 RB doesn't thrill me so much. We used to get guys like Rozier and Phillips, i.e., studs. When's the last time we've had a real stud at the position? I give credit to Ameer, but he was a self made kinda guy. We need a legit, blue chip RB @ NE. NE should still be a destination for RBs, but I guess that's changed. The Gurly's, Fournettes, and Henry's of the world are going elsewhere. Sigh. I don't care about their HS stats once they hit the college field. Ameer proved that he was a stud. So were Rex and Roy. And Newby was the #75 player overall according to Rivals when he was coming out of HS. Newby is more or less a bust at this point, IMO. Maybe Taylor or Wilbon can be 'that guy', I dunno, we've been waitng 2 years to see Taylor. Ameer, Rex, and Roy were all good, but I wouldn't call them great. I miss having a great, domineering RB @ NU, we used to be RB U. I would love to be surprised some year and have the next 5* Leonard Fournette sign with us for a chancge. Or any 5* player. We haven't had a difference maker--ay any position--on this team for eons other than Suh. This 3* stuff isn't going to cut it. Let's stop and talk recruiting. Corn, who do you want to start RB next year? My opinion is Ozigbo. Ozigbo isn't that fast nor is he terribly elusive. Wilbon is better in all regards and gets my vote. Of course, if Adam Taylor comes in and lives up to original billng, he could be the ticket. But, he blew out a knee in H.S. and an ankle last year I guess, so how much could we expect from him? Wilbon is the ticket, me thinks. Now, if and only if, Newby toughens up and learns to break tackles, he could still compete for #1. But I've been saying that for 2 years and it hasn't happened. But the determining factor will be their pass blocking ability. Can Tre Bryant pass block?

This is exactly why I feared the bowl would be a bad idea. A win is "meh" but a loss is a disaster. It's a classic high-risk, low-reward scenario that's best avoided. How would a loss to UCLA be a disaster? They are a better team than us this year. There is no difference between losing 7 or 8 games. Purdue and Illinois losses were disasters. UCLA? Nope. Read a few lines above this sentence. I already explained it. Here's the Cliff's Notes version : 5-8 = worst season in 58 years Meh. 5-8 is no different than 5-7 or 5-6. All of them suck. It's a historic difference. It's 50 years difference. Worst record in 8 years? meh Worst record in 58 years? WHOAH!!

Time to get over it. It was two losing teams, one lost to the other. Oz lost to a loser in Iowa St., a much worse loss in husker history.Was NU down 42-16 in that loss to Iowa State. I don't think so. A top ranked team losing to a below 500 Iowa St team is a better loss than two losing teams squaring off. Really? Now that's some kind of spin.I will forgive TO for losing once to a losing team in his 25 year career at NU. Riley managed to do it twice in the same month this season. Riley's first year, TO's 15-16 or somewhere in there. Much bigger loss. Not that I care, but the bitching over losing o Purdue is not a big deal in the grand scheme of things. Stop bitching about it. It meant nothing. None of the losses meant anything. We're 5-0 BAYBEE!!!!

This is exactly why I feared the bowl would be a bad idea. A win is "meh" but a loss is a disaster. It's a classic high-risk, low-reward scenario that's best avoided. How would a loss to UCLA be a disaster? They are a better team than us this year. There is no difference between losing 7 or 8 games. Purdue and Illinois losses were disasters. UCLA? Nope. Read a few lines above this sentence. I already explained it. Here's the Cliff's Notes version : 5-8 = worst season in 58 years

If some on the board could drop their irrational dislike for the current staff, the answer is kinda simple. The roster is talented and deep in some positions (interior defensive players, wide receivers) and thin and less talented in others (QB, DE, LB). The roster is good in some spots and not so good in others. Does that make it talented or not talented, and how the hell do you decide? According to some Nostradomi on this board roster depth and quality is the fault solely and exclusively of the current staff. I would include the intellectual giant who, in another thread, predicted the current staff will be gone next year. Pretty simple: with similarly talented rosters, a fired coach won north of .700 of his games here. Only when a coach comes in and lays an egg against a very easy schedule do we hear that the talent isn't there to continue 9+ win seasons. Of course, that's not what was said at the time of the firing last year. And it's not the case today, either. The roster isn't perfect, but it's far better than the results that were wrung out of it. Now cue: we only won last year because of a single player arguments. Talent level under Frank was dropping, anyone who is honest can see that. Same with the last staff. MK III Eyeball Detector. Frank had the #14 class in the country when he was fired, and he likely would've signed Woodhead. You might want to research that because you are dead wrong AGAIN! Frank wanted nothing to do with DW because he thought he was to small to be a D1 player. Frank sucked a evaluating talent. Frank was slow playing him. He was fired in November. He would have likely offered before signing day. Callahan is the one who wouldn't give him the time of day as he was trying to fill out his first class. That, or Solich would have (at least) asked Woodhead to walk on and likely would have made him a starter/given him a scholly his sophomore or junior year, all things considered. Solich had alreay asked him to walkon. Don't take anything RADAR says seriously.

If some on the board could drop their irrational dislike for the current staff, the answer is kinda simple. The roster is talented and deep in some positions (interior defensive players, wide receivers) and thin and less talented in others (QB, DE, LB). The roster is good in some spots and not so good in others. Does that make it talented or not talented, and how the hell do you decide? According to some Nostradomi on this board roster depth and quality is the fault solely and exclusively of the current staff. I would include the intellectual giant who, in another thread, predicted the current staff will be gone next year. Pretty simple: with similarly talented rosters, a fired coach won north of .700 of his games here. Only when a coach comes in and lays an egg against a very easy schedule do we hear that the talent isn't there to continue 9+ win seasons. Of course, that's not what was said at the time of the firing last year. And it's not the case today, either. The roster isn't perfect, but it's far better than the results that were wrung out of it. Now cue: we only won last year because of a single player arguments. Talent level under Frank was dropping, anyone who is honest can see that. Same with the last staff. MK III Eyeball Detector. Frank had the #14 class in the country when he was fired, and he likely would've signed Woodhead. Exposed again. You straight up invent crap to try to make a point. http://dataomaha.com/neb100/player/60 "Danny Woodhead doesn’t dwell on not being recruited by Nebraska and why should he?" HAHAHA! An article about Danny Woodhead not getting a scholarship from Callahan doesn't expose anything I said. Solich had already recruited Woodhead to walkon, and if a bunch of blue chips didn't fall into place by signing day, he would have gotten a full ride.

If some on the board could drop their irrational dislike for the current staff, the answer is kinda simple. The roster is talented and deep in some positions (interior defensive players, wide receivers) and thin and less talented in others (QB, DE, LB). The roster is good in some spots and not so good in others. Does that make it talented or not talented, and how the hell do you decide? According to some Nostradomi on this board roster depth and quality is the fault solely and exclusively of the current staff. I would include the intellectual giant who, in another thread, predicted the current staff will be gone next year. Pretty simple: with similarly talented rosters, a fired coach won north of .700 of his games here. Only when a coach comes in and lays an egg against a very easy schedule do we hear that the talent isn't there to continue 9+ win seasons. Of course, that's not what was said at the time of the firing last year. And it's not the case today, either. The roster isn't perfect, but it's far better than the results that were wrung out of it. Now cue: we only won last year because of a single player arguments. Talent level under Frank was dropping, anyone who is honest can see that. Same with the last staff. MK III Eyeball Detector. Frank had the #14 class in the country when he was fired, and he likely would've signed Woodhead. You might want to research that because you are dead wrong AGAIN! Frank wanted nothing to do with DW because he thought he was to small to be a D1 player. Frank sucked a evaluating talent. Frank was slow playing him. He was fired in November. He would have likely offered before signing day. Callahan is the one who wouldn't give him the time of day as he was trying to fill out his first class.

I wonder how far Callahan's super bowl reputation carried him. Not as far as a shady former OU HC took him.

If some on the board could drop their irrational dislike for the current staff, the answer is kinda simple. The roster is talented and deep in some positions (interior defensive players, wide receivers) and thin and less talented in others (QB, DE, LB). The roster is good in some spots and not so good in others. Does that make it talented or not talented, and how the hell do you decide? According to some Nostradomi on this board roster depth and quality is the fault solely and exclusively of the current staff. I would include the intellectual giant who, in another thread, predicted the current staff will be gone next year. Pretty simple: with similarly talented rosters, a fired coach won north of .700 of his games here. Only when a coach comes in and lays an egg against a very easy schedule do we hear that the talent isn't there to continue 9+ win seasons. Of course, that's not what was said at the time of the firing last year. And it's not the case today, either. The roster isn't perfect, but it's far better than the results that were wrung out of it. Now cue: we only won last year because of a single player arguments. Talent level under Frank was dropping, anyone who is honest can see that. Same with the last staff. MK III Eyeball Detector. Frank had the #14 class in the country when he was fired, and he likely would've signed Woodhead.

If some on the board could drop their irrational dislike for the current staff, the answer is kinda simple. The roster is talented and deep in some positions (interior defensive players, wide receivers) and thin and less talented in others (QB, DE, LB). The roster is good in some spots and not so good in others. Does that make it talented or not talented, and how the hell do you decide? According to some Nostradomi on this board roster depth and quality is the fault solely and exclusively of the current staff. I would include the intellectual giant who, in another thread, predicted the current staff will be gone next year. Pretty simple: with similarly talented rosters, a fired coach won north of .700 of his games here. Only when a coach comes in and lays an egg against a very easy schedule do we hear that the talent isn't there to continue 9+ win seasons. Of course, that's not what was said at the time of the firing last year. And it's not the case today, either. The roster isn't perfect, but it's far better than the results that were wrung out of it. Now cue: we only won last year because of a single player arguments. Wait, a similar roster included the loss of one of the best running backs in Nebraska history, and a record setting wide receiver? How many close games last season did AA win? Not trying to be snarky but that argument is ridiculous although I have heard a few on the board make that claim, usually as a reason to trash the current staff. Right on cue!

I think purely from a talent perspective (not including the coaching or any other outside factors like staff changes/injuries) this is an 8-win team. Coaching and the right circumstances probably could've had them as a conference title contender or a 4-5 win team. We obviously saw the latter. I don't want that to come off as me saying bad coaching led to the season the team had. While they coaches are certainly culpable and made mistakes this year, I also believe coaching transitions can sometimes be rough and that doesn't necessarily mean the coaches are bad. Coaching transitions from bad coaches to good coaches are usually easy. Transitions from good coaches to bad coaches, not so much.

I have to disagree. It's perception. 6-7 is better than Callahan's 2 worst seasons. 6-7 would only be the worst record since '07. 8 years ago. Worse than Bo, but at least not reverting to worse than Callahan. 5-8 would be the worst season in FIFTY EIGHT years. That's going all the way back to the Bobfather's predecessor before most of our current players' parents were even born. That will get a lot of play by talking heads. That's epicly bad.

A win won't change much. It's still a losing season. Might provide a little more hope for next year. But it would be kind of hollow. But a loss is really bad. A loss means the worst season in 58 years. 2nd most losses ever in a Husker season. So, a win is still way better than a loss.

This is easily overlooked by the folks who only follow football. Steve Pederson botched the Solich/Callahan situation, but other than that, he was a pretty good AD. I think every other program - the ones I follow closely, anyway - liked him. It's just that football being the cash cow, any mistake with that program is going to be hugely magnified. I guess you don't follow Pitt. Pitt the first time or the last time? Don't kid yourself. They mostly hated him the first time, too. 2nd time was just icing on the cake. I think you are kidding yourself. You think wrong. http://pittsburgh.sportswar.com/article/2014/12/22/debunking-the-myths-of-steve-pederson/ Oh I see. One guy on a message board writes an op-ed piece and you refer to them as "they." A guy is butthurt that they have to play football games at Heinz Field and he changed the letters on the helmet. Let's skip past the 6 coaching hires he made while there the first time earning Big East coach of the year awards. And the abundance of fundraising and facilities upgrades he managed and that pesky "outstanding administrative achievement" award he earned. Oh and he got Pitt into the ACC because he upgraded the facilities. And he sucked so bad at the AD job there that he was re-hired a few years later. But "they" hated him.. Hey, you're entitlted to be a Steve Pederson fan, but that doesn't mean the Pitt fans were. Enough derailment. Google it for yourself.

This is easily overlooked by the folks who only follow football. Steve Pederson botched the Solich/Callahan situation, but other than that, he was a pretty good AD. I think every other program - the ones I follow closely, anyway - liked him. It's just that football being the cash cow, any mistake with that program is going to be hugely magnified. I guess you don't follow Pitt. Pitt the first time or the last time? Don't kid yourself. They mostly hated him the first time, too. 2nd time was just icing on the cake. I think you are kidding yourself. You think wrong. http://pittsburgh.sportswar.com/article/2014/12/22/debunking-the-myths-of-steve-pederson/

This is easily overlooked by the folks who only follow football. Steve Pederson botched the Solich/Callahan situation, but other than that, he was a pretty good AD. I think every other program - the ones I follow closely, anyway - liked him. It's just that football being the cash cow, any mistake with that program is going to be hugely magnified. I guess you don't follow Pitt. Pitt the first time or the last time? Don't kid yourself. They mostly hated him the first time, too. 2nd time was just icing on the cake.

The OP is only referencing players currently on the roster. BTW, where's the link to this info? http://247sports.com/Season/2015-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite Surprised to see Navy at 123... Aren't they ranked about #20 in the AP poll currently? How DO they do it??? Junior astronomers need to know.

He has plausible deniability on the Bert offer. But not on the policy change. That was a bold faced lie. NO it wasn't. Changing your mind on how you handle something, whether you like it or not, is not a lie. I don't drink Sunday through Thursday. But if I decide to have a beer on a Tuesday, it doesn't make me a liar. I think people get caught up on the word "liar" Example...you are a sales guy and applying for a new gig...you were responsible for 9.75 million in sales at your last job...on your resume you put down "Responsible for 10 million in sales" Did you lie? Sure...are you a liar? Sure...is it a big deal? Only if someone wants to make it one. SE might not have "offered" the job to anyone else but he sure as heck might have had some other people put out a few feelers. I know what you are trying to say but it isn't the same thing. Exactly! That is why people get caught up with the word "liar" What I mean is that in your scenario, you can actually disprove your salesman in an actual falsehood. A guy making a policy change does not constitute lying. Augusta National had a policy of not letting black people as members. Or women. Both of those policies have changed. Does that make them liars? He didn't change his policy. He made it up out of thin air last year as a convenient lie.