JKinney

4 hours ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

Frost is overhyped in your view?  Unbelievable.  This staff is 3 fricking games into their first season.  How about you dial it back a tad?  Yeah the results we have seen thus far are not ideal--in fact they are the opposite of ideal.  But we need to sit back and just let this process work.  

 

Frost and these coaches took an 0-12 team to 6-6 then 13-0...they didn't suddenly become stupid and incompetent overnight.

 

Were going to take some lumps this year.  Things are probably going to get worse before they get better.  I dunno, maybe take some Prozac if you can't handle it.

"Still 100% support Scott Frost, but it is becoming increasingly clear that he might have been over hyped.  He needs to do some learning and fixing as much (if not more) than the players."  This is the line in my post that triggered you?  Really?  I can promise you that I am plenty relaxed, you can keep your Prozac, seems like you might need it.  

47 minutes ago, 4skers89 said:

I think Held said UCF lost like 1 fumble from their RBs in 2017.  That comes from coaching.  The thing UCF had going for them, which we lack, is players doing as they're coached.

So Martinez and the running backs are just not listening to the coaches, and hence "not buying in"?  C'mon  this is what happens with every post...the main point of my post was:

Scott Frost needs to do some learning and fixing as much (if not more) than the players.  I get the pushback of, no IT IS ALL ON THE PLAYERS.  I just don't believe that to be true.  Scott Frost makes mistakes, he may need to adapt, and learn, etc.

3 hours ago, TheSker said:

The players, especially the new ones.....Martinez specifically....will need to make these mistakes in live games.  They need the experience of it to correlate to what they are being coached.

 

I guarantee you this staff is coaching them well.

You need to experience fumbles in person, before you can be properly coached to hold the ball tight and close to the body?  Remember in the 90s Solich wouldn't play Ahman Green until he learned to switch hands on runs to keep the ball to the outside?  Pepperidge Farm remembers.

9 hours ago, MountainMan said:

 

I was surprised to learn the best interest of the program was to lose to a sun belt team and have a record breaking loss to Michigan. 

 

Imagine what ill learn next week

It's crazy to me the amount of propaganda  being pushed out of the campus and media these days.  I am fully supportive of Scott Frost, but at what point does he receive any criticism for starting 0-3?  He has made numerous coaching errors to get us here see points below (reiteration of previous posts)    

-We are losing the turnover margin, and both Martinez and many of the running backs continue to run with the ball away from their body (this comes down to coaching). 

-Several 4th and short play-calls, have failed because for some reason Scott Frost refuses to run the most efficient short yardage play: the QB sneak under center. 

-His clock management has been very questionable, when we were behind late to Troy he bleeds the clock with plays for an almost 7 minute drive, but when we are ahead against Colorado we can barely run off a minute at all.  

-Michigan was certainly more talented than us, but not 56-10 worthy.  Frost had a very poor gameplan, and as other posters have pointed out, he lacks a significant power run game.  

-The unnecessary penalties continue to plague us, and they need to coach up special teams.

I am so sick of hearing about players who are a "cancer"  and not "buying in".  Not "buying in" does not cause you to fumble the ball, hold the ball away from your body (or are you going to argue that Adrian Martinez, and about 90% of our running backs aren't "buying in").  It doesn't cause you to commit penalties over and over and over (this is coaching!).  It doesn't cause poor clock management.  It doesn't cause you to continue running a scheme that the players either are not capable of running, or are not consistently running.  For example, has Scott called one offensive play under center yet this year?  I'm not saying change your scheme, but why not try something just to change it up.

Still 100% support Scott Frost, but it is becoming increasingly clear that he might have been over hyped.  He needs to do some learning and fixing as much (if not more) than the players.

18 minutes ago, TGHusker said:

Regarding the bold:   This is the look of passion, of ownership and accountability.  Those are traits that will get us over the top and all the way to the top... in due season.

 

We no longer have the 'aw shucks' "They were just a better team" from MR. (forget how he didn't develop players)  OR

 

the Bo favorite quote "THE PLAYERS didn't execute" (forget all of his failure to make adjustments)  OR

 

BC's "It is just one game and one season".  after he didn't try to win the Colorado game to get us bowl eligible at the end of season 1 (sure sign that he still had the NFL mindset and not a college mindset).  

 

Personally, I for once feel we have the mindset with the Coaches that will get us back to where we belong and a whole system's approach in which everyone is in agreement - we don't have conflicts between D and O or a unknown identity on offense.  This extends to the top with the AD and the Admin as well - we are all pulling in the same direction without admin or the AD undercutting what we are trying to do wt the football program.   They no longer see it as a 'bigger than the Univ' threat but as a huge window to view the Univ through.  If football looks good then the U will look good.

Respectively disagree TG.  I am BEYOND tired of the coach speak, and I'm ready to see it on the field. 

Still a big supporter of Scott Frost, but I'm really tired of these "intangibles" i.e. a "look of passion" being touted as the way of getting us there.

Also, Bo's quote is very similar to Frost's "Giving up 3rd and 19s is a good way to get beat, Giving up holding calls is a good way to get beat" etc.  Almost all coaches say something like this to answer press conference questions.  Just the way the game is played so to speak.

11 hours ago, KingBlank said:

1.  I spoke about long term and short term issues.  Habits aren't what lost the game.  Continue to believe what you will.  Yes there is a clear line, the others don't coach here anymore.

2.  I don't think I suggest how you watch the game, keep your insinuating comments to yourself, no one #$%# cares.

3.  Uhh what, I don't think that was ever implied or said, but good,  argue some point that wasn't present. 

 

This is the point that strikes me most clearly about bad takes from the first two games we have played.  In my (oh so humble) opinion, we did not lose the first two games because of "buy-in", "culture", strength and conditioning, lack of talent,  or bad habits.  We didn't lose last Saturday because we didn't have Adrian Martinez. 

We are 0-2, because we were simply out-coached, and not as well prepared as the teams we faced.  We are losing the turnover margin, and both Martinez and many of the running backs continue to run with the ball away from their body (this comes down to coaching).  Several 4th and short play-calls, have failed because for some reason Scott Frost refuses to run the most efficient short yardage play: the QB sneak under center.  His clock management has been very questionable, when we were behind late to Troy he bleeds the clock with plays for an almost 7 minute drive, but when we are ahead against Colorado we can barely run off a minute at all.  You could go on and on. 

Scott Frost still has my full support, but I believe, the difference between us being 0-2 or 2-0 falls on his shoulders, not on bad habits, or guys not buying in, or a QB not playing. 

http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/62665328

 http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2011/11/qb-sneak-vs-rb-dive.html

12 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

 

That's recruiting.  We are talking about sacrificing morals regarding running the whole team.  

 

For example:  Mark Dantonio is said to be a clean recruiter but then you get reports like this that say maybe the WHOLE program isn't so squeaky clean

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/2018/01/26/report-details-pattern-misconduct-inside-michigan-state-football-basketball/1069826001/

John Gagliardi doesn't get brought up enough, winning-est coach in College Football History, the downside is he only coached at DIII, though he and many others believe his main philosophies could work at higher levels.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/John_Gagliardi

https://www.athleticbusiness.com/People/one-on-one-college-football-coach-john-gagliardi-discusses-unconventional-methods.html

18 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

If Frost wants to succeed here, he's going to have to sacrifice some morals to make it happen

"If we should win, let it be by the code.  Faith and Honor held high." - Husker Pregame Prayer

1 minute ago, Undone said:

 

2015 was an interesting year, schedule-wise, because the only teams we played from the East were Michigan State and Rutgers. Also, Wisconsin probably had its worst team of the past five seasons.

 

So schedule-wise it was about as good a year as any for Bo to have finally broken the conference title drought.

 

Michigan State bested Ohio State to get to Indy. Bo had matched up well against Michigan State.

 

It would have been cool to have finally broken the conference title drought that year, but I wouldn't trade any of those hypotheticals for bringing Frost in this season. And that's why discussing Bo at this point seems so especially pointless.

 

Thats some good level-headed analysis.

I can't speak for anyone else, but I simply think it's fun to talk about comparing different players, coaches, etc.  If there is any 'point'  to these conversations at all, it is that maybe we should learn a little more fan patience for those coaches who seem on the cusp of winning, i.e. we should have more patience with Scott Frost if he doesn't necessarily set the world on fire right away. Just my two cents, I've made about all the points I can, and I have listened to some honest criticism as well.

8 minutes ago, Blackshirt316 said:

 

 

Frank took the greatest football program in the country to .500 ball in 5 years.

 

The equivalent in todays game would be Alabama winning the championship this season and having Saban retire.

 

If the guy that took over for Saban went from where they are now to a .500 record in 5 years he'd be labeled one of the worst coaches in history.

 

By your logic Osborne took a team that won back to back National Championships a year prior and mired them in mediocrity for a decade.  If the guy that took over for Saban played in a National Championship and won multiple conference titles in those 4 years before his one .500 season, I would hardly call him one of the worst coaches in history, just obviously not as good as Saban (one of the greatest coaches in history).  Just my opinion.

19 minutes ago, Crusader Husker said:

Frank and Bo were not in the same realm as Coach Osborne.  Should he have gotten more time, sure, but results for both Bo and Frank away from Nebraska have been average at best.  They are both at schools now with medium expectations and are good fits.  Coach Osborne evolved.  I don't think Frank and Bo are capable of changing.

I agree with your assessment, and it does put a big damper on my argument.  Out of curiosity, do you believe that had Tom Osborne been fired after the 1976 season, as he himself has stated the boosters were considering if he lost in the Bluebonnet bowl, he would have been just as successful at another school? 

I tend to think it's kind of a mix, a lot is the talent and ability to learn that the head coach possesses, but some might be the fit of the right school with the right work ethic, recruiting, etc.

Which may explain how a coach could do good things at one school and be mediocre at another.

4 minutes ago, RedSavage said:

The records may be similar but the caliber of teams they were beating are not.  In year one alone, Osborne beat #10 UCLA, #14 NCST, #18 KU, #17 CU and #8 TX.  Solich and Pelini were never going to come close to reaching that trajectory.  They beat a buncha patsies and lost to most teams with a pulse.

1974 Osborne played 3 ranked teams... #13 Kansas (finished 4-7), #1 Oklahoma (undefeated), #18 Florida (finished 8-4)

1999 Solich played 5 ranked teams...#18 Texas (finished 9-5), #21 Texas A&M (finished 8-4), #5 K-State (finished 12-1), #12 Texas (2nd time finished 9-5), #6 Tennessee (finished 9-3)

2009 Pelini played 5 ranked teams...#13 VTech (finished 10-3), #24 Missouri (finished 8-5), #20 Oklahoma (finished 8-5), #3 Texas (finished 13-1), #22 Arizona (finished 8-5)

This is the 2nd year, I think they look fairly comparable if you go over their whole body of work.  You are entitled to your opinion, and I was certainly not alive to judge the caliber of teams Osborne played in the 70s for myself.

14 minutes ago, ADS said:

Will this offseason ever end?

To me it's fun to debate this topic.  That's all.

40 minutes ago, knapplc said:

"...including Frank Solich."

 

Dr. Tom will never stop believing that giving the reins to Frank Solich was the right thing to do.

 

I don't know what Tom saw in Frank. But Frank was not capable of running that team the way it needed to be run. And as Tom's players matriculated out of the program, that became more and more obvious.

I have to respectively disagree with you knapplc.  I believe Frank Solich and Bo Pelini get a bad rap in Husker Nation for their coaching abilities (here I am not considering behavior or off-field issues), not because they were inferior coaches, but rather because they were coaching in the shadow of one of, if not the, greatest coach of all time Tom Osborne.  Another contributing factor is that fans have become much more impatient after the instant success of coaches like Urban Meyer at Florida, and Nick Saban at Alabama.

Frank Solich                        Bo Pelini               Tom Osborne    Nick Saban (Alabama)

1998 9-4                               2008 9-4               1973 9-2-1           2007 2-6

1999 12-1                            2009 10-4            1974 9-3               2008 12-2           

2000 10-2                            2010 10-4            1975 10-2            2009 14-0

2001 11-2                            2011 9-4               1976 9-3-1           2010 10-3

2002 7-7                               2012 10-4            1977 9-3               2011 12-1

2003 9-3                               2013 9-4               1978 9-3               2012 13-1           

Looking at just each coaches first 6 years, the only one that really stands out is Nick Saban, but otherwise these records are all fairly good, both Frank Solich and Tom Osborne inherited National Championship caliber teams their first year, and they both only got 9 wins.  Although there are a lot of variables I would AT LEAST try to make the case that Frank Solich's future at Nebraska could have had the same trajectory as Tom Osbornes' if we would have had more patience.  The same with Bo Pelini.

Just my two cents, there is no way to prove it one way or another, but I like these kind of debates.

18 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:

I think not being under center on 4th and 1 will always make me nervous whether we are converting or not 

To me, until I see data that says otherwise (and maybe it's out there, if so point it out to me), the QB sneak under center is NEARLY ALWAYS the best play to run if you are going for it on 4th and 1.  If you are passing it on 4th and short you are willing shooting yourself in the foot as far as converting goes, by about 9-10% every time.  The evidence below relates to the NFL, but I would guess it more or less holds true in college football as well.      

Evidence: http://www.sportsonearth.com/article/62665328

 http://archive.advancedfootballanalytics.com/2011/11/qb-sneak-vs-rb-dive.html

So to sum up...

1)  It's not unfair that UNL won't refund tickets for all of the Husker fans that paid for them, because it says "no refunds/exchanges" on the back of the ticket.

2)  It's classy to pay a team that had a game scheduled, and didn't play: 1.17 million dollars because it's the right thing to do.

3)  It's not prudent, to have a preliminary plan in place (such as food and hotels the next morning and an alternate game time) when it was obvious there was a chance of cancellation (people were talking about it at work in Lincoln), and not to start formulating one until the time the game starts.

Orwell would be proud

I think the people on this board are honestly loony if they believe that the Huskers owe Akron more money than our own fans.  I love the Huskers as much as anyone, but they (the administration) are not immune from criticism.

Disclaimer: ****I will take part of this post back, IF we do manage to schedule another game, and give those with cancelled Akron tickets admission free****

Not saying Scott Frost won't be successful, but the two tweets above lead me to question Brando's judgement. 

57 minutes ago, PaulCrewe said:

So your Akron.  It’s 10:00-10:30ish.  You need to find a hotel with around 50 rooms to accommodate your players, coaches, trainers, etc with a ballroom for breakfast.  So that eliminates anything in Lincoln so it’s back to Omaha.

You’d get in around what 1-2am.   Game scheduled at 10:30.  Need to have breakfast so your up at 5-5:30 so you can leave close to 7am to try to be in town a little after 8.  Then get ready again to play in two hours.  

Yep sounds easy and logical.  There was no way this was happening with such a long delay, so it isn’t that easy to move the game to the next day.

And as someone has mentioned that isn’t even thinking about the headaches on UNL’s side.  Stadium staffing and concessions would have been problematic.

If this is how it went down, the BOLD bothers me the most.  I agree with all the difficulties with scheduling at the last minute, but there should have at least been a rudimentary plan in place by game time in case this game didn't get played.  I live in Lincoln, and this was not a surprise storm, people at work were talking about it's effect on the game on Wednesday and Thursday.

I honestly don't know if Moos had any backup plan, but it didn't seem like it, a lot of people (as already mentioned in this thread) sacrificed a lot beyond ticket prices to make it to the game.  I would hope moving forward, that if we know in advance of a storm, we would try to get some of the hotel rooms, meals etc. lined up in case of a worse case scenario.  Just my 2 cents.

I appreciate the post, it's nice to keep these things in mind, and stay more down to earth.

I have no problem supporting the military (my brother is currently serving), but UNL's efforts are clearly far more geared towards advertising.  I personally don't feel it appropriate that UNL waves the flag around to sell tickets, which is exactly what they are doing.  If they really wanted to help they could make a giant donation towards Wounded Veterans or other organizations...instead they promote a special chair, or a flyover, or veterans faces which we will feature on camera a bunch of times to get people teary eyed and buy NU tickets and get them good PR.

Please read McCain's report on "Paid Patriotism": https://www.mccain.senate.gov/public/_cache/files/12de6dcb-d8d8-4a58-8795-562297f948c1/tackling-paid-patriotism-oversight-report.pdf  From a former POW.  It talks mostly about professional sports, but it does include 3 Big Ten schools, see a summary here: https://www.reddit.com/r/CFB/comments/3t1lpx/indiana_purdue_and_wisconsin_had_paid_patriotism/

The congressmen could only get a report from 60% of the Pentagon's contracts, so it wouldn't surprise me if Nebraska also has some sort of abuse like this.

57 minutes ago, Branno said:

 

Nothing like telling a kid to not pursue his dream.

47 minutes ago, huskerfan333157 said:

So, in essence, you're saying he shouldn't try what's best for him and he should forget about his dreams? Pretty sure he can find a full ride wherever he goes. Also, Gebbia will never be a starter here due to the schematic fit.  C'mon now.

Oh c'mon, no one is saying drop out of football and forget about the NFL, I am just saying set yourself up for the best possible scenario for your life, if your dream doesn't work out.  Gebbia could get a full ride anywhere, BUT he needs a good diploma in-case it doesn't work out)

Which choice would you recommend a loved one

College A.

Chance of making it to the NFL: 1.6%

Chance of graduation from football players: 81% (will make on average over 1 million dollars more over their lifetime then one without)

Ranking of team in College Football: 35

Ranking of team in Academic Support : 11

Cost of College: Free

College B.

Chance of making it to the NFL: 2.0%

Chance of graduation from football players: 55% (will make on average over 1 million dollars more over their lifetime then one without)

Ranking of team in College Football: 10

Ranking of team in Academic Support: 50

Cost of college: Free

The top college is UNL, the bottom is the average top ten ranked (in football) school. 

That said, no hard feelings if you disagree, this will be my last post fleshing it out.

5 minutes ago, MichiganDad3 said:

By staying at NU TG could end on Frost's staff in a few years. Why not learn from the most innovative coach in the business. You have to think long term.

I agree that almost all long-term thinking by TG, it would be best if he would stay here and finish his degree, with some of the best academic support staff in D1 college football.  If he transferred out to somewhere else where he could get a full ride scholarship, AND better support academically more power to him.  As my original post states, I believe it would be a bad decision to transfer to a school with a lower graduation rate, and academic support staff to pursue an NFL dream that has a 1.6% chance of coming true. 

5 minutes ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

 

If it's Tristan's dream to play in the NFL then who are any of us to tell him to not pursue that dream? 

 

His best shot at achieving that dream is to start for a team where the offense fits his skills. And that isn't Nebraska.

I never said Tristan shouldn't follow his dream....my post simply stated that it shouldn't be framed in terms of as the best overall decision he could make for his future.  That is not clear.

9 hours ago, huskerfan333157 said:

There are a lot of people outside of huskerboard who aren't as accepting.  Like I said, would you stay in a company where you like your co workers aka team over transferring to another company where you could move up the ladder in a short time to possibly make a lot more money?

These kinds of posts are REALLY hard to take at face value.  You can certainly argue that TG doesn't owe NU anything, but it's hard to argue that he is making the best decision for himself on transferring?  What you are in essence arguing is that it is smart for TG to do everything in his power to try to make it into the NFL (for the chance of making a lot more money).  Here are the statistics (http://www.ncaa.org/about/resources/research/estimated-probability-competing-professional-athletics).

So the average NCAA football player has a 1.6% chance of making the NFL, but for the sake of argument I will be generous, and say that TG has a 3.5% chance of making the NFL.  As it states on the NCAA's website, athletes best hope for future success is to GET A DEGREE.  The best decision for TB would be to use his football playing gifts to get a full ride scholarship and enter a school with the best academic support and graduation rates for football players (UNL is consistently near the top 10 in this).  Worst case scenario he would get a free college education and degree, best case scenario he would get drafted in the NFL.  I don't mean to pick on your post, but there are so many people trying to use a "free market analogy" or a "business analogy" to explain these points.  Basically your analogy would be more accurate as....Would you leave a company you have been working at for a year with one of the highest proven rates of employee promotion and profit-sharing for a 3.5% chance to make a lot more money at another company?

6 minutes ago, brophog said:

 

Nebraska has had an analytics department for several years.

I should have been more specific, when I said "Does the Nebraska Athletic Department have anybody looking at statistical analysis of things like this", I meant are they looking at Macro-Level issues, such as the affect of snaps faced vs. Team Defensive Health at the end of the season, instead of just Micro-Level issues, like team vs opponent matchups.

It seems from what I can tell that most of the Macro-Level issues the analytics department deals with have to do with recruiting, or national trends...

https://www.usatoday.com/story/sports/ncaaf/bigten/2016/09/16/nebraska-department-of-sports-analytics-mike-riley/90522358/

1 hour ago, Nebfanatic said:

With your theory how do you account for the fact players have in general gotten bigger, stronger and faster over time? Does small improvments in equipment over time not attribute to this?

I would argue (I cannot prove, so my guess is as good as yours) that most advances in the AVERAGE (not talking about training regimes for each team, I do think these can have an effect, ie Nebraska's training regime in the 90s) player speed, strength, etc. of the last ~20 years are the result of actual on-field equipment, for instance: cleats (allow better agility and acceleration), artificial turf (speed), pads (more flexibility, and better padding would make a player feel able to 'hit' harder, helmet (that now have sun visors, better field of view, etc.), rather than the difference in the equipment that is being placed in the training room. See the following article on how close Usain Bolt and Jesse Owens actually are in terms of speed, when you get rid of Bolt's on-track equipment: https://www.usatoday.com/story/life/entertainthis/2016/02/18/lets-all-appreciate-how-fast-jesse-owens/80523426/

I think Big Red Buster is mostly correct when he is saying most of the money spent on the actual facilities is done to impress players, rather than otherwise.  Nebraska in the 90s (in my humble opinion) were bigger, faster, and stronger not because they were lifting with better equipment, and in better facilities but because they had a better training program.  Most of the average player growth and strength, would be in regards to the technological advances mentioned above.

Thanks for the info....very interesting! 

--Now if you'll excuse me while I wander into the weeds--

I am unaware if he has already crunched the numbers, but I did some below:

2017 Big Ten average Defense vs. Pace of Play (basically the offensive speed of playcalling) = #65.83/128 with a median of 77/128

2017 SEC average Defense vs. Pace of Play (basically the offensive speed of playcalling) = #92.2/128 with a median of 101/128

I would put this forward as evidence that the average SEC team defense probably face more conventional (at least in terms of speed of playcalling) offenses, and that they also most likely face far fewer snaps during a year.  This could contribute to a team being healthier/have more endurance at the end of the year.

Does anyone have any data showing snaps faced vs. Team Defense Health or snaps made vs. Team Offensive Health at end of season?  I would be interested in knowing if this is negligible, or significant.  Is there any data that team defenses that have not faced a top 30 offensive team (in terms of pace of play) struggle more, less, or the same?  

A final question, does the Nebraska Athletic department have anybody looking at statistical analysis of things like this?  I am certainly not advocating a "Moneyball"  approach to college football, but statistical data could inform some of a coach's (Frost's) decisions?  For instance, is there a point at which the pace of play becomes negligible to effecting a defense?  For instance is the difference between an 15 second and 18 second snap negligible, but 18 seconds rather than a 21 second snap is very significant?