NoLongerN

Yes. Excellent. Agreed. This is why I object to the idea that we are 1-2 players away. Just within the OL, if Turner is the starter and no one can supplant him, then the level or depth of players behind him, even if they get in all the needed reps and years, we are woefully way, way behind. As I see it, if a "rebuild" takes 3-6 years, then what we have seen in the OL rebuild has been "off" thus far and further behind than other areas. So, it won't really surprise me if the OL still has another 2-3 years before we can truly see if it has been rebuilt. As I see it, then that means that it will take 6-9 years to see an OL system rebuilt here at Nebraska. I'm not debating anything here ... just pointing that out. Which, for me means that our OL coaching has been horrific. I do not think it would need to take this long. Sadly, we are just coming to this "awakening" to do something about it.

Ya, I get this comment. It's really more of a "set-up" ... this guy was a big problem all season long. I've been told we are only 1-2 players away. Thus, there is no one on the team that can overtake Corcoran. That is a problem. So, as I said, if we aren't going to "train him up" and get an OL coach who is gonna do that ... then let's move and fix this. We fired four coaches because we decided it was time to move on. No, Turner isn't in the same camp as AM ... but Turner is just getting beat so bad ... and yet, it seems there is no "help" coming to him from a coach or a teammate. Turner needs some help. If not, he's gonna be the next AM. Frost continues to stay with AM regardless ... and so I'm just stating that Turner is a problem [not a solution], just like AM. Let's see this and do something about it. Either coach him up or move on. For me, it all continues to show that we are not 1-2 players away. Actually, we aren't ever 1-2 players away on the OL [as I see it].

For me, I would move on from every punter and kicker. I would also move on from Corcoran. Perhaps he can be "trained up", yes, then get a good coach who can do that. It's like Remember The Titans with that guy, he's just getting beat every play [put in Pete' ... he's better]. Ryan Gosling [thanks for the correction FunHusker] was the actor who played cornerback that said to play Pete' cause he couldn't compete against these guys.

I'm good with this with a real tough nosed OL coach. I think we need more of a B1G or SEC OL coach.

He will be a "blackshirt" in my mind forever.

God yes ... and please!

Facts/Truth > Click bait As for that "empirical data" Alberts is ignoring because Frost won a championship as a player almost 25 years ago, it's pretty overwhelming. Since 1971, there have been 705 coaches who were at the same school 4+ years. One hundred five (15%) got a fifth season after having zero winning seasons, zero bowl appearances and less than .390 win percentage. Of those 105 coaches, only 14 (13%) ever had a winning season at that school. Of those 14, only two went on to have a career record over .500 at that school. Only four ever finished a season at that school ranked in the top 25. None of those coaches ever went on to finish in the top 10. In those 50 years, not once did a top-20 program like Nebraska give a coach a fifth year after four straight losing seasons. Not once. In fact, you'll only find two examples of a coach at a top-20 program getting a fourth season after three straight losing seasons; In 2008, Washington fired Tyrone Willingham after he went 0-12 in his fourth year after going 2-9, 5-7 and 4-9 the previous three seasons. In 1994, LSU fired Curley Hallman after he went 4-7 in his fourth year after going 5-6, 2-9 and 5-6 the previous three seasons. What Alberts is doing is unprecedented.

My guess is that a good ST will produce anywhere from 3-10 points per game, perhaps more. A team like us seems to average missing somewhere between 6-10 points. If you mix that all together, it can be anywhere from a 6 to 20 point range. It's all just fascinating to see the causes and conditions of a problem ... and then not do anything about it. It feels like an "intervention" is needed. Oh wait, that just happened ... and this one doesn't seem to be an issue from the top down. I know that their will be an excuse coming for that close loss of 5 points though.

That's all true. And yet, if Wandale was here, I'm sure most if not all of the touches would have gone to him and the other guys wouldn't have been in some sort of dog house. I checked the stats on Wandale. He has 6 touches for runs. Other than that, he has 71 receptions for 811 yards at around 11.5 yards per and 6 TD's. My point is ... even Wandale would have been used wrong. From what I understand ... that is on Held and not Frost. It looks like Wandale is going to fall just short of 100 receptions this season. Stoops seems to understand how to use Wandale far better than Frost [as I see it]. I realize that Wandale wasn't quite good enough for a lot of folks here on the board [but I'd still keep him and find a use for him ... he's a nice piece at WR].

Absolutely! He has to be made the water boy [as I see it]. I don't see how it is all suppose to work and look. He's really not "above" any of his coaches that just got fired. He's the one who has pushed what he wants ... and it has lead to mediocrity and losing.

It feels like various posts can put words in your mouth ... so ... I was watching those titles in 71-72. I had moved on from Scott after the Illinois game. And as I keep stating, the two-year extension was "bull-butter". It was not a "cost of doing business". It was folks who saw Scott as a "Nebraskan" and "savior" and the extension was a short-term fix to help recruiting [but Scott has floundered in really every capacity other than "loving these kids"]. For me, I don't admire Trev for his decision. I do applaud his gamesmanship amidst his own PR and political maneuvers for sure [the stuff he pulled in the last week would rival the national leaders]. I would have respected him greatly to fire Frost at the end of the season after his evaluation he said he would do [at the end of the season]. Still, I get it all ... and here we are. I'm not trying to win any argument and will be rooting for Scott to succeed. I made this post because as an old-timer, I would not do what has been done by any stretch ... going all the way back to when we were 8-14 after two seasons under Frost. I wanted Frost to have five [5] years for the rebuild come hell of high-water, but frankly, it was obvious to me at 8-14 that we had a "lemon" and it has been difficult to see the program have to suffer under Scott's lack. I get it. I failed at several opportunities in life that most would have concluded that I would have been very successful. In that ... I truly feel for Scott. We all wanted it to be the fairy tale story ... some continue to perpetuate it. That's okay ... you get another year. For me, my previous wife of 26 years, her Dad [Iowa St. alum] and my former three sons ... it's just another year for them to laugh at and mock and humiliate me.

It means we can't move the chains in any sort of running game nor get those tough two yards. I don't care if that is the spread or our version. It hasn't worked. We have an OL that can't or hasn't been called to make a two yard push or to stay on the field and use up the clock. Overall, I don't get the bash of what Jeremy is saying. Perhaps that's because I'm thinking about the "mindset" in what I see in the Flexbone that takes me back to the glory years in my mind where you saw a man in front of you and you moved him to where you wanted him and drove a truck through that hole. That sounds like a terrible thing to have happen again. To believe that the Spread will do that in any fashion is a good chuckle ... oh, I mean, the "right version" of the Spread.

Am with you in every way in that share.

Yes, I could see the Flexbone working here well myself. As Knapp said though, it's currently the "details" that have cost us. But I am with you, we have to get back to basic football and smashmouth and the OL being able to truly block and pass. What a concept. :-) Hope we can get out of the way.

If you have an OL that can block for smash mouth football ... then yes, it can work when you want to run it. That is the problem, we can't block to open up those holes when needed ... and we don't have an OT's who can protect any sort of passer to get the necessary time to take in the open reads and deliver. You have to have those two things established or be able to do ... for there to be consistent effectiveness in the B1G. The "finesse" stuff does not and will not work in the B1G. It makes me think of the offense like what Frost ran for UCF against Auburn. You can't take on teams like Auburn and be really successful again and again running "finesse" systems. You can win a game if you have a really sharp offense with a talented QB and the like, sure. But "fluff" doesn't stand up against stronger, faster defenses who have the DL to win the line of scrimmage. If the past four years have taught Scott anything, it's that he had no clue to the depth of the OL and DL build that was upon him. In fact, he was actually a few years late to the dance as he needed more OL help than he imagined, put his eggs in to few baskets and then didn't develop them. This is why we can't been the bottom dwellers. Their lines are better and stronger and they don't have our mistakes and special teams.

It's gonna be curious to see who his QB is. He is the one stuck on AM. Will he allow another to take his guys spot? I don't personally see Smothers as the answer ... and the line is still a D+ or C- at best to me, so at present, Frost does not have a starting QB, nor an offensive coaching staff. So, it is quite a build to occur. Better give it a special code name and work extra hard to get to 9-3 or 10-2. The games are more than winnable and it's the season to make or break.

Like in war, it's the stronger and more physical that pound their enemy into submission that win. "Finesse" looks real nice on paper ... and yes, it can be "successful" for periods and times. In the end, the only way you take control is when you take a beachhead, secure it and then impose your will onto the opponent. Frost said that he had hoped that the rest of the B1G would have to conform to him. Currently, he is still on that road of discovery in seeing that his utopia will not be given to him but he has to take it by force. In other words, you have to build the OL and the DL. The war is won in the trenches. We've been on a 15 year journey in "la la land". It's to the point now that it is "systemic".

Like Apollo Creed/Rocky, "Don't want one."

Can we just go ahead and flush all punters and kickers as well. For me, it would just be a nice flush. I'd go with no experience over what we have.

If you grab him you might as well grab Mickey Joseph as well and make that connection/grab.

I'd just like to see Scott getting folks some water bottles and doing mic checks and the like. Make him a deacon or something.

The fascinating part to me is that at 3-5 before the Purdue game, "the sell" was ... we only have a few games to really evaluate anything. Basically, we can't be like other universities that fire someone else after a few games. Basically, everything over four years, including being 3-5 this season ... you can't make any broad, sweeping decisions or judgments. Trev then spoke about the excitement of playing Purdue and said he thought we would win. We lose that game and the OSU game and now at 3-7, it's time to weigh in on the state of Nebraska football. Prior, we needed to wait for the end of the season. There will be time for all that stuff. Again, you can see so clearly "the sell" and PR of it all. Trev Alberts is a fan of making "bold, broad statements" about a coach's standing during a season, and has now expressed support for and confidence in fourth-year head football coach Scott Frost [which is fine]. Less than two weeks ago he said he wouldn't and that it would be "very counterproductive." Here is Trev's heart ... "I do think that there is a time and a space for that. All I can tell you is I’ve been extraordinarily proud of Coach Frost and our coaching staff." "I love working with Scott. We continue working together. I see great things for our program." It's all well and good. I'm not butthurt ... but I was right in his BS. He's been very busy trying to keep the ship floating. He will be hoping it works out [as we all will]. I'll credit him for working out a better deal for the university. I can't say, "In Frost I Trust", but he has another year to bloviate on his "that's a really good player" and being 1-2 players away. I'll be rooting for him to succeed. He has the easy schedule to show he isn't a bottom dweller.

I think it's hilarious.

I agree with your logic. IF Scott wants to use his "If/Then" logic in stating, “If we play with that much spirit every game,” "then we win a few more games" ... for me, it's a perfect scenario then to get him into a contract that puts him in the "if/then". When he took the job he said he was gonna get this fixed. Did he believe in his own mind that it would take seven [7] years? Will he need nine [9] years? Is that where we are going? I've heard a lot of bloviating that states that "it's just the cost of doing business". Okay. Well, Scott has affected his own market. It's "just business" to get Nebraska into a more favorable outcome in terms of wins and money. Scott, of all people, knows what the standard is. If he can't "get this fixed", the least he could do as a guy with a big red "N" in his heart ... is help Nebraska to truly get it fixed by winning or allowing the university to move on to a better coach. Both Scott and Nebraska could stand to both win with this type of thinking.

Yes ... and all of it would point to a real "fix" as we are beating the teams that we have out-recruited and are knocking on the door of those we are chasing. Heck, we would even be lookin' at a chance to represent our side of the conference and a chance to win the B1G. Instead, we are the bottom dweller of the conference ... having out-recruited all those above us [which doesn't show to well to the whole development area].