Kernal

12 hours ago, Nebfanatic said:

We will get at least 2 wins this year, come on. We aren't Illinois bad.

Illinois has two wins already.  So... no, we're not Illinois bad.  Rutgers is awful, and they're 1-4... we're not going to be 1-4 either.

Why did we look like we had four down linemen all day.  I thought one of the advantages of a 3-4 is that you can change where that fourth pressure comes from.  Maybe I missed it, but I don't remember seeing anything that would cause Purdue's O-line problems.  Terrible defensive game plan.

Learned that Purdue wasn't "beatable," last week wasn't "rock bottom," and Frost is still alluding that Riley is to blame.  Pretty sad.

On 9/22/2018 at 4:30 PM, PlzCoolerMe said:

Also on BR overreaction, talking about Spielmans lack of effort/results.  What is going on with these guys?  Do they just not want to work? 

Probably.  This staff is demanding more of players.  More work, less skipping workouts, less eating junk food, plus all the extra work of learning new systems, terminology, etc.,.  Plus, there are higher expectations now.  If you think about it, it's only natural that some people simply don't want to work extra hard.  You probably see people like that every day of your life... I know I do.

On 9/22/2018 at 10:14 PM, JJ Husker said:

I guess what I don't get about this no buy in angle is why, if Frost and the coaches know who these guys are, are these not bought in players seeing the field? Yes Frost says the best they got are being played and obviously we don't have the luxury of replacing them with good players but wouldn't it be better to play the worst guy on the team than to give credence to an attitude problem player.

It's pretty easy to talk a good game.  I'm sure all of the players would have said they were on board with things if asked.  But the truth comes out when it's time to put in the work.  Maybe they want to be on-board the new Frost train, but they didn't realize how much more would be expected of them.  That's all fine and natural.  But the onus is on the coaching staff to "help" them figure it out, one way or another.

11 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

It's weird because this is the same team and same personnel who were playing a completely different, more aggressive brand of football against Colorado — a surprisingly good Colorado team we were assured — including great push from both OL and DL, a rejuvenated run game, a revelation at freshman QB and our two best-in-conference wide receivers -- total beasts!  We blamed the loss on a single play or two and marveled at all the good things Scott Frost had already gotten out of the same players he inherited from Riley.  What happened to that narrative?

Right, the Huskers played pretty well against Colorado... and it wasn't enough.  They lost.  So all that extra work the players had been doing didn't pay off.  For some guys, that will motivate them to work harder.  But some guys may have been maxxed out on the effort they were willing to put in.  Then as Knappic said, doubt creeps in and you get all sorts of additional problems.

-----------

The bottom line is all this excitement from fans and media about the new coaching staff is fun for us, but it means a lot more work for the players.  Not all of them are going to be willing to work even harder, but that's what is now evidently necessary.

The stadium has the same "it" factor it always had... it just doesn't as often have as good of a team playing in it.  When the team is playing well, such as they did against  #7 Michigan State 2015, people point to it as a tough place to play.

ESPN has a story up about Frost's 0-3 start.

Quote

...

 

Frost said Monday afternoon he's still confident that the plan he and his staff laid out at the start of the season will eventually produce the right results. On Saturday, he said he felt his team kept its will to compete despite the quickly lopsided score against Michigan. Wolverines safety Josh Metellus tells a different story from what he saw after intercepting a pass on the fourth play of the game.

 

"After the first series, when we went back out there we just knew they wanted to give up," Metellus said. "You could just see it in their eyes."

 

Frost and Nebraska's veteran leaders did not shy away from the notion that not everyone in their locker room was invested enough to stick around through this nadir. The head coach said he didn't think anyone had jumped ship yet, but called it "inevitable" that some players would be lost. Eventually, he said, that would make the team stronger. Junior linebacker Mohamed Barry said he hoped that the committed and non-committed separated themselves sooner rather than later.

 

"Let's just be truthful," Barry said. "There are some people that want it, and some people that don't. That's why we're playing the brand of football we're playing right now. We're going to get there, and it's all positive, but I hope that if people have any doubt in us and our team that they make their exit now."

 

It might be time for Frost and his staff to force the issue. He hinted this weekend that changes might be coming. If there are players on the field that weren't interested in being out there, Frost ought to help them out with that - even if that means replacing some players with younger, weaker, less talented counterparts for the time being. After all, it can't really get any worse, so he might as well burn it all the way down to the ground.

 

...

 

Well, since coach Frost said Purdue is a team we can beat and said that last Saturday's game was the low point, then you can almost be certain we'll lose to Purdue.  We can only beat Purdue if the players make plays.  Saturday was only the bottom if the players start making plays.  Players thinking victories will happen just because Scott Frost and UCF's staff is here rather than as a result of hard work during the week and during games is why we saw a bunch of hapless spectators getting run off the field against Michigan.  Until our players -- all eleven on the field, in all three phases of the game-- start kicking the asses of the guys lined up across from them we're in for more losses.  Every team on our schedule is capable of beating us if our players don't show up ready to fight.

In his post-game presser coach Frost said "if [he] had a team that didn't compete he would be really worried right now."  It really worries me that he thinks his players were actually competing in that game because to me it looked like quite a few of them completely checked out in early in the game.

Until all the players on the field are willing to sell-out on every play, every week, no matter the score or consequences, then no amount of S&C, nutrition, scheme, recruiting stars, or talk from the players or coaches is going to translate into wins.

We've been seeing these collapses for a long time now.  Yesterday's reminded me of the game against Wisconsin where Melvin Gordon set the single game rushing record against "defensive genius" Pelini's 2014 team.  It also reminded me of the 62-3 beating Riley's 2016 team took against OSU and Callahan's 2007 beating at the hands of Okie State.

If this were simply a talent issue we wouldn't have lost to Troy, nor would we have looked worse than SMU against Michigan.  I agree 100% with what this Michigan player said in the clip: Players looked like they didn't want to be there.

This shouldn't come as a surprise to anyone watching the game; it was OBVIOUS in the way many of them were playing.

We could try to figure out why that is, and people have been trying to figure that out for a long time.  Most people seem to come to the conclusion it's something called "culture," but that's about as far as it ever gets.  Nobody seems to know how to change it, or at least, nobody in charge seems to be willing or able to change it.  I suppose the NU Athletics Department is too concerned with their precious sell-out streak and all the other meaningless crap they churn out every week trying to keep the money rolling in to risk change.  You see this all the time when the accountants (shareholders, etc.,) rather than experts start running businesses.  But I digress.

To me, I would stop trying to figure out why guys aren't playing hard (i.e. acting like they don't want to be there).  I would demote every player who "gave up" against Michigan and I would keep trying different players until I had 22 that were going to sell out on every snap, every week.  If that meant 22 fourth-string walk-ons, then that's who I'd play.  Those other guys can figure out why they weren't playing hard on their own time.  If they later become willing to consistently play like they're capable I would consider putting them back into the lineup. 

If that means we lose every game this year so be it.  I would be inviting those on scholarship who didn't see the light to transfer at the end of the school year and I'd put a lot of energy into recruiting replacements.  Eventually, you'll have a team full of guys who are willing to sell-out on every play.  Only then will things like S&C, scheme, talent deficiencies become an issue worth addressing. 

Until we have 11 guys on the field going 100%, every week, nothing is even going to begin to change.

42 minutes ago, Husker03 said:

Watched the replay, will disagree with this sentiment. Most of the defense did not give up the first half. A few slackers, (looking at you, D Young), but no wholesale towel throwing in. The o-line gave up all game but that’s nothing new. Outside of that, they had played hard and had chances to get things back under control until several of the killer mistakes and breakdowns,(Lindsey’s muff) allow things to get so out of control so quick that even the coaches phone it in after half. 

This Michigan player was playing defense, so he was playing against the offense.  Probably safe to assume he was primarily referring to the offense. 

17 minutes ago, gobiggergoredder said:

Miles was a terrible hire too.

I thought he showed promise the first couple years and was well-liked.  Hasn't turned out too well in the long run, but none of our bball coaches have either.  Hiring a coach is such a crap shoot- if there were a magic formula everybody would be using it.

9 minutes ago, Whistlepig said:

maybe perlman shouldn't have publicly chastised Bo- that wasn't his job to do that and I think he was a ranging ahole to do that publically- that was the beginning of the end for Bo because Perlman ....gasp... couldn't take the horror of a coach who showed a pulse on the sidelines

you anti Bo guys are great- look what you got- a C nt for an AD (gone) and Ahole chancellor (gone) forced out a legend- and a winning coach who thin  skin wieners couldn't stand because "he was an embarrassment " well soak in the loss to Iowa ya got your nice coach who loves you all - no embarrassment in losing to Iowa today is there?

Yeah, it wasn't rage-nose's behavior was it; it was everybody else.  Zero accountability, just like Bo.  Point those thumbs at everybody else.  Too bad you don't remember Osborne as coach of Nebraska football or you wouldn't make such ignorant comments about a coach showing a pulse.

Riley was essentially fired after game three this year.  I'm sorry you watched the whole season expecting to see a competitive team- it must have been maddening for you.  I didn't even bother watching today.  I have no embarrassment at all.  Zero.  If my choices were Bozo or Riley for 2018, I would choose Riley 100% of the time.  If for some Pelini were re-hired I would not watch a single thing to do with Nebraska football. 

SE was a strange dude and terrible AD, no doubt.  But don't try to pin Pelini's problems on SE.  Pelini was a raging a-hole long before SE was hired. His first leaked profane rant was from 2011.  Osborne's big failure as AD was that he didn't fire Bozo himself.  If he had, maybe Perlman wouldn't have hired SE to do it.

Learned that some people, despite 6 weeks of bashing the coaching staff and the team's record, like to pretend the team should still come out and storm Minnesota- as if the players don't read and hear all of it.  I watched with very little interest and wasn't a bit surprised by any of it.  Nor do I believe there's a single thing to be learned from dissecting the game.

I thought he did it to let POB try to score since we were right down there and that was POB's first major game action.  I didn't think anything of it at the time.  Surprised some people are trying to make a big deal out of it, I mean: who cares?

Maybe nothing changes until the end of 2018... 

5 hours ago, grandpasknee said:

Wasn't "didn't execute" the continual mantra of the Pelini gang too?

Pelini was using that excuse still in years 5, 6 and 7 when he had his own players and ample time to install his systems. 

Players not executing well in Riley's third year is frustrating but probably shouldn't be unexpected.  He spent two years running the Tommy Armstrong combo offense and pampering Pelini loyalists.  Diaco is in year one with a completely new defensive scheme, with injuries four-deep at safety, terribly inexperienced corners and LBs who don't fit well.

Riley still needs to get it improved this season, like right now.  Worse than 7-5 and it's hard to make an argument to keep him.

deleted
 

Just now, Rike Miley said:

 

Did you bother to watch their press conference the day they fired Eichorst? Or the day they hired Rimington? Or any of their quotes about how football rules over anything else and there is no reason for us to not be successful? Or that HB is active in recruiting and has recruits and their families over to their house for brunch? Do some research and then get back to me. 

Yes, I've seen all of that.  Every last word of it.  It is all canned stuff.  Is that your argument then: you just think you know more than anybody else because reasons.

4 minutes ago, Rike Miley said:

With an administration that did not know what it takes to win. Harvey Perlman is gone. HB and RG seem to get it. Been reported that they want a power 5 sitting AD and opening the checkbook to get that. Could have just went at got Trev Alberts but that would be the easy route. These guys want to win and you can tell. It all starts at the top and attitudes are changing in Lincoln. 

I can't tell that at all.  They seem like outside hired guns to me, like everyone else: interested only in their own careers.  What exactly did they do that makes you think they "get it" any more than Eichorst, Perlman, Pedersen, or anyone else?  Those guys didn't "want to win?"

4 minutes ago, yort2000 said:

 

No, read the part you didn't quote in my original post.

 

 

Ah right.  Yes, I agree. 

People arguing we need a mobile quarterback seem to think we haven't and don't try to recruit them.  But as you said, we end up with a runner and not a quarterback.  Now we have quarterbacks who are less mobile, and the mob is crying again for a mobile quarterback- forgetting what kind of "mobile quarterbacks" we get at Nebraska.

Just now, yort2000 said:

 

Exactly my point.  Thanks.

Your point is that we haven't been able to get the type of quarterback we want?  Do you think we haven't tried?

16 minutes ago, yort2000 said:

And I'll just leave this here:

 

Cam Newton (MNC year)  - 2,854 yds., 66.1%

JT Barrett (MNC year) - 2,834 yds., 64.6%

Cardale Jones (MNC year) - 860 yds., 60.9%

Marcus Mariota (final year) - 4,454 yds., 68.3%

Deshaun Watson (MNC year) - 4,593 yds., 67%

Jalen Hurts (last year) - 2,780 yds., 62.8%

 

Anything jump out at you?

 

 

 

Yes, what jumps out at me as that none of those players came to Nebraska to play.  Here's a list for you:

Zac Lee

Cody Green

Johnny Stanton

Taylor Martinez

Tommy Armstrong

AJ Bush

Zack Darlington

Brion Carnes

Anything jump out to you?

1.  RageNose Pelini was fired two years too late.

2.  Who the f#*k is Mike Riley?

If any of you crybabies want to give away OSU tickets for free I'll use them.  Just let me know. 

By the way, forecast is for cold and rainy in Lincoln on Saturday, so that's part of your ticket "nosedive."