JJ Husker

Then how did you make it through the Callahan years? Just curious.

You and me both brother. I'm guessing maybe he clicked a link to a very different article or some such thing. He can't be talking about the article you and I read. Or maybe he misread your comment.

The FSU piece is a fair and insightful article written by the "other side", that exposes a lot of what goes on but does so without an agenda, actually leading me to sympathize a good deal with the players in some respects. The Alabama piece though.... holy smokes. I find it hard to sympathize with a player who essentially threatened a teachers life with a war story of beating up a homosexual. Then you sure as sh#t better not complain or whine about a single thing in your life. You're going to have to explain this if you want anybody to understand it. I just read that whole FSU deadspin deal. If that article causes you to sympathize with the players, I am at a loss for words. And your response to 1995 Redux; "Then you sure as sh#t better not complain or whine about a single thing in your life." WTF is that supposed to even mean? You feeling ok?

It's mighty sad that any Husker "fan" would correlate winning with cheating or being dirty. If I recall, that isn't how we accomplished the feat in the past, it's not how we presently do it, and, other than some wild, baseless, assumptions about what others want, it's not how more than a handful of mouth breathers want to do it in the future. Edit- To be clear, I am not saying we are or were squeaky clean in all aspects. Every program is going to have some issues but, we have been pretty darned clean when it comes to NCAA sanctions and the like. It's a pretty wild leap, imo, to say that because some fans want to win more, and because a very small handful of lunatics would accomplish that feat at any cost, that must mean winning=cheating. And, to carry it further, since Bo has run a clean program, the only way to stay clean is to keep Bo. They're both fallacious arguments.

And a conspiracy theory- Bo had this false story realeased to force an up or down vote of confidence by SE. Maybe he is in as much limbo as many of us feel and he wanted to know where he stands so he could be on the lookout for his next job if required. Edit- this rumour mill sh#t is sort of fun, in a sick, twisted, perverted type of way. Take a couple facts or observations and start spinning a story around them.

Since this is all conjecture anyways, I've got a couple theories that could support why Bo would resign. 1- He was basically blackmailed after tapegate, to prevent being let go at that time, maybe he had to agree to resign if certain milestones were not reached this season. It has been rumored that he was required to either get to the CCG and perform well or win it. His demeanor these last few weeks has been extremely subdued imo. It wouldn't surprise me if maybe he has been anticipating this and dreading it for quite some time. 2- Bo seems like a pretty straight shooter and standup guy. Maybe he did not meet some performance standards that had been set and is actually holding himself accountable for falling short. 3- Possibly the rumored 2nd, unreleased, tape recording of him going off at a practice is being held over his head, to assure a resignation and to prevent the distasteful firing of a 9+/- win coach. I would think that would be something the Nebraska AD would be highly sensitive to after the Solich deal. Anyway, I don't think Bo resigning is near as farfetched as some here do. If true, I've got highly mixed feelings. A few weeks ago, I might've just said good riddance but I've seen much these past two games to renew some hope. One things for sure, this rumor sure does match up with some other recent rumors about Tressel being interested, etc. The fact that this guy, whoever he is, put his name to it, knowing the potential sh#tstorm, only lends credibility imo.

I guess that's what naws at me more than anything also T2tRa. Most of it is glaringly obvious, even to the casual observer, or it is basic fundamentals type stuff. It has to be staring Bo in the face everyday. I don't think he's stupid and I'm sure that is why he laments execution so much. But a coach can fix tackling and fumbling problems if he chooses to fix it. He can change how we approach special teams, especially punt returns, if he wants to. He can recognize, just like us, that this defense, young or not, seems to play much better in more of an attack mode. He can see that when his OC starts to go Watson that maybe it's time to tell Beck to relax and stick with what has been working. I think these issues more than any are why so many are talking about the need for a coaching change. A handful of relatively simple things is all that's holding us back and he does not seem intent on fixing those things. Sorry, didn't want to get that far off the specific topic but it just seems so freakin obvious.

Well, they certainly are "special". I find it fairly disturbing that this topic hasn't generated a bunch more discussion in three days. This leads me to a couple assumptions. 1- The usual coach defenders/pumpers realize this ST area is directly attributable to coaching, so they have decided to avoid it. And B) It is so brutally obvious to everyone else that even the fans have given up acknowledging the liability it is.

This is fairly valid but it might need to be looked into even deeper. We had five turnovers against the number one defense, but I wouldn't say they "forced" any (1 tops) of them.

I +1'd1 your first post because I think you're on to something. However, I've got just a slightly different theory. What if our turnover margin is basically the same for all opponents, good and bad alike? Maybe it's not that our turnover margin is better against lesser competition. Maybe it is just that they're so bad they can't beat us even with us helping them. And when we play better teams, that's why we're seeing the blowouts. It would take some research and analysis, but maybe turnovers are 90% of all our problems. Could be keeping us from blowing out lesser teams, making those games closer than they should be, and might explain the big losses against some of the better teams. MSU loss was definitely due to turnovers. Wiscy CCG blowout definitely had turnovers. I don't recall the turnover situation in the last two UCLA games. Maybe Bo needs to go old school and have these guys carry a ball around campus. This also fits my theory that we really haven't been facing many teams at all that should beat us. Maybe we're seeing nine win seasons because we play seven or eight or nine teams that are so bad they virtually cannot beat us. I guess that would explain quite a bit, to me anyway, about why I'm not overly impressed with that nine win stat.

Interesting. How about Tressel as OC and Narduzzi as DC. Paps and Beck back to GAs. Then if we still cant win the B1G we get rid of Bo and Tress takes over with Nard as DC. Sounds good but I'm not sure Beck and Paps are qualified for GA positions. When I said "take turns fetching coffee", that was a euphemism for actually fetching coffee, somewhere, for somebody else.

Both teams are terrible offensively. Why don't people understand that our sudden "improvement" on defense is due to playing terrible offensive teams? We played the same way against Illinois and Purdue, then looked helpless against Minnesota. After a bye-week. Nothing's changed but the competition. Wisconsin would hang +40 on us tomorrow. I would agree that Mich and MSU are not offensive juggernauts. Actually UCLA is about the only decent offense we have faced and I'll give Minny some credit for shoving the ball down our throat. We definitely had, and still have, some issues defending the run. But if you can't see that our defense played immensely better games vs UM & Michigan, I'm not sure how much good it would do to tell you you're wrong. We've got some talent and when the coaches actually turn them loose to attack more, they have overall performed much better. Wiscy may very well hang forty on us but that would be a lot more dependent upon what kind of game Bo and Paps let our D play.

I've got an idea. Keep Bo and bring in Tressel as OC and maybe Beck and Paps can take turns fetching coffee.

Maybe they have a product like Viagra or Cialis for aging coaches???

^^^This. the Michigan and MSU games backed me off the ledge quite a bit. We played pretty darned well in both those with the exception of turnovers and some suspect offensive play calling at points. I almost think I would be a lot happier, even with the exact same outcomes we've experienced this year, if the coaches had our defense attacking more like they have these last 2 games. Getting beat when it looks like you're trying is one thing, getting beat when you're playing pattycake is damned hard to watch, imo.

Not at all. How would you avoid laughing is my question.

Wowza. Link and image removed at site owner's request Holy hell. What kind of licensing and training does it take to operate that thing? Is it safe to have in the house with children around?

I'm not sure I understand the question posed in the title. We are where we are. My expectations really have no bearing on where the program is. The team is meeting or exceeding some peoples expectations. The team is not meeting other peoples expectations. So on one hand our expectations have little influence on reality. But, on the other hand, if we collectively had no , or very low, expectations, surely the program would gravitate towards that goal. If collectively we all were satisfied with winning three games per year, it might be amazing how quickly that would be all we could achieve. I think that's why so many people have high standards and get a bit pissy with people who are satisfied with being irrelevant in the national picture, top ten, whatever their mark is.

I kind of thought this litany of questions, and everyones version of their answer(s) is what was filling up all these topics on Huskerboard. However, the OP did posit maybe few questions that have not been dealt with in great detail elsewhere. I sure don't have all the answers nor can I speak for what other people focus on or post. I guess I have not focused on the awesome job AA, our O line, or our defense in general did this week because we lost a game we could have easily won with 3 or 4 less turnovers. I guess losing a game we should have won takes some of the luster off of the bright points. I will always be a Husker fan. I may get frustrated or even get to the point where I'm just not as interested (like I was during much of the Callahan era) but deep down I will always wish for the best for our program. There are times where I really would like to give it up, but I just can't.

Hes saying the new coach better win at least nine games his first year. If he doesn't, what was the point in firing Pelini for a worse coach. What the hell kind of sense does it make to hire someone worse than before? But its exactly whats gonna happen and when we change coaches again in 5-6 years, the process starts all over again. I don't need that point of view explained. I understand it and it is what led to my comments. Any number of wins or losses doesn't mean anything until you consider how they we're acquired and against what level of competition. Personally, I think that number this year should be 10 or 11 considering who is on our schedule. Look at it this way, if we played Southern Miss, or their equal, every game, how many should we win? And then you have to consider how we play in those games. So, if we win them all but just squeek by in four of them, should that be considered as good as playing a couple Bamaesque teams, losing both, but playing very well while losing? Like I said, winning 9 games doesn't mean sh#t. You really expected 11 wins with a defense that most starters had no experience and after TM got injured? No, my 11 was based on our competition and did not factor in injuries, but thanks for making my point for me. There is much more to be considered than simply winning 9 games per year. That stat, minus any other context, could simply mean nine other teams didn't have any reasonable expectation of actually winning. Of course teams will have good games and bad games and mess with that a bit but it is still a valid point. We can't just sit back and forever think nine wins is always good enough. It might be seven and it might be eleven. That goes for Bo and it also goes for any possible replacement. So saying the next guy (if or when there is one) has to win nine or the change is a failure is false.

Hes saying the new coach better win at least nine games his first year. If he doesn't, what was the point in firing Pelini for a worse coach. What the hell kind of sense does it make to hire someone worse than before? But its exactly whats gonna happen and when we change coaches again in 5-6 years, the process starts all over again. I don't need that point of view explained. I understand it and it is what led to my comments. Any number of wins or losses doesn't mean anything until you consider how they we're acquired and against what level of competition. Personally, I think that number this year should be 10 or 11 considering who is on our schedule. Look at it this way, if we played Southern Miss, or their equal, every game, how many should we win? And then you have to consider how we play in those games. So, if we win them all but just squeek by in four of them, should that be considered as good as playing a couple Bamaesque teams, losing both, but playing very well while losing? Like I said, winning 9 games doesn't mean sh#t.

Winning nine games doesn't mean sh#t. Anybody who uses the 9 or 10 or 8 or 11 number of victories as a barometer on whether to retain or fire a coach, doesn't have a clue about what's important and what should be looked at.

Nick- thanks for the statistical backup to the point I was making (and that you have also made). +1. It seems some people just won't accept any criticism of the timing of play selection of this staff. Sure, I like to establish the run but I am not opposed in the least to throwing the ball and mixing it up to keep defenses off balance. The issue is giving up on the run when there is no need and it is working, or going strictly pass with the wrong personnel, or having great success with a few things but still going totally away from them. That's what drives me nuts with Beck.

No offense but, these are the arguments against Bo that literally drive me nuts. I've got some real concerns about his ability to get us at peak performance, winning the games we should, not getting embarrassed or blown out in any, and getting this team to put 4 quarters of ball on the field. And then there's people worried about his "angry" face and off color language. It's no wonder whenever people bring up legitimate concerns about his coaching that others automatically think we're haters. He's an emotional guy that swears a lot. Get used to it, or at least quit leading the charge with that complaint. It minimizes the real and more important issues.