MadcatNU

i heard on another board that part of Trevor's problem was with BC. If he goes, and TR likes the new coach, then he'll be N. On the same board there was some insight to how the Irish fans are looking at this. Apparently all the unofficial visits havn't gone un-noticed. But when he comes, it's always with his father and his girlfriend. They tend to sit off by themselves and TR never interacts with the other ND recruits. This has caused some concern among Irish fans that TR is somewhat of a basket case. Many wonder why he keeps coming on these visits without committing.

What group?

i agree 100%. If you can't coach them, they might as well be two stars or none. The thing that really hurts in Gabbert and Compton's case is that we would be losing their talent to a north rival.

Assuming he did come and we were able to keep all the other O line commits, that would be a tremendous class for this unit.

No coaching change, but an AD change. One that does not bode well for the current staff. I would think him ignorant if he didn't consider the staff's jobs up in the air for next season, not to mention after that. He will most likely be RS next year, so if they aren't around for at least '09 he'll never have the chance to play for them. Wouldn't be much different to him than if they were fired tomorrow.

Much different situation than Freeman, imo. No doubt that coming here had a lot to do with the "better prepared for the NFL" though process. If BC goes, so to does his reasons for coming here. It's only natural that he explores his options when it looks like BC isn't going to be around much longer. There was no threat of BC's departure when JF pulled his stunt.

What happened to Alabama? Wasn't it between us and them originally? Also, i thought Gabbert made some pretty strong statements about Pinkel (and not interested in playing for him) in previous comments.

i thought they didn't want him

Joel Mackovicka made a similar comment on 1620 the other night. With our current staff, i think we are seeing the importance of coaching. But this doesn't minimize the importance of recruiting. Imo, there are three elements: recruiting, coaching, stregth training and development. Being excellent in one of these areas can make up for a deficiency in the others, but also a deficiency in any one of these can undermine success in the other areas. It depends, but to be truly great you have to have all three. We're learning the hard way about the importance of coaching. Hopefully we don't have to learn about the others the hard way too.

when you "Google" asswhuppin, it's going to re- direct you to the 2007 nightmare in Missouri. i don't know... the '01 CU game might still come up instead. Christ almighty people, if you don't like the coaching staff fine. There's plenty not to like. But stop acting like firing everyone in sight will make things better. We got exposed twice in '01, a shockingly bad season in '02 and uncompetitive against the better teams in the big 12 in '03. Was this Mizzou game so different from KSU of that year? BC isn't crippling this program. It was crippled before he got here. He just has yet to fix it. Maybe he will, but if not he'll be gone in a couple years and we give some else a try. If not BC, hopefully that person. and so on until we find a guy that can do it. Does it suck? Yes. But going into meltdown doesn't make it any easier or make the process go any faster. When i watch our team play like they did on Saturday it makes me sad to be a husker fan. And when i see fans on message boards pounding on their keyboards like a bunch of monkeys going ape sh#t, i get the same feeling.

Many of the players on the '04 defense that went pro later admitted to giving up towards the end of the season. It was their third set of coaches in three years. No player should have to go through that. It's hard to blame them for being upset and quiting. At the same time, it's hard to fault the coaches when the players they inherit refuse to play for them.

Three things that come to mind: Our line isn't that big compared to other lines in the big 12. It's more average in comparison. Zone blocking. The denver Broncos run it, and they've had pretty good success plugging RBs into their offense. Michigan also uses it, so we aren't alone in using it in cfb. But i don't think most cfb teams use it, and one has to wonder if maybe this isn't a problem for our players. The O line is taught not to knock defensive players down, because the falling bodies could injury another one of our players. I don't fault the reasoning, but when the O line can't seem to get a push and looks soft one has to again wonder.

The option play isn't dead. It's used quite frequently bymany teams at all levels outside the pros, but usually at most a couple times a game. The bulk of the offense is generally something else. Offenses that relly heavily on this play continue to be common in high school and some divisions of cfb. But it's become nearly extinct at the 1-A (bowl subdivision?) level. The biggest knocks i've heard on these so called "option" offenses is that they are hard to recruit to, they are relatively easy for a speedy defense to counter (which speed has become a major priority to teams around the country) and that your own defense doesn't get much preparation for the opponent as they are facing an option attack all week during practice.

Think I heard the question on the radio and the Interviewer bought up Tom Osborne and the Cal went on with that answer. Makes sense as to why he didn't mention TO in that case. If it's even a big deal that he didn't anyway...

I think people forget that they played with Michigan last year. I know, I know - Michigan lost to App st. Still, it's not small feat to go into the big house and play with UM. For a cup cake, Ball St. packs a deceptive amount of healthy calories. Our D still should've contained them better than they did, though.

My mistake on Gray then. I thought Helu and Mendoza had been moved to defense?

Not if academics are important to you. If that is the case, his choices make a lot of sense.

Is this guy more of a speed back? Glenn is a bruising back, but i don't think he has the speed to open up the play book the same way Lucky does. Castille and Gray sound like they are similar to Glenn. I'm wondering if we lose part of the play book when we lose Lucky, and that maybe that is what Tavares is for.

I have a question, which is sort of involved. Is it NCAA rule that you can take no more than 25 scholarship players per year, even if you are more than 25 under the max limit?

Rumor that Gabbert is going on an official visit to MU for this weekend's game.

i think he's got a pretty good idea where he is going. And i think that place won't be Lincoln. I'd love to be wrong about this.

Buddy Wyatt is our D line coach. He came to us from Alabama, after Shula was fired so Saban could take over. Seemed like a good hire at the time. I thought Alabama had some pretty good D lines the past few years.

This makes me think Kuli would be a bad way for them to go. Adding him would only make their roster more top heavy in terms of class. What they need is young players with three or four years to play and ideally a rs since the upper classmen have the position tied down for the near future.

There's probably some merit to those quotes. But i think we'd have other problems if the players were going full speed three times a week in practice. Lucky already had one concussion during fall camp for example. And i don't think we should be taking a chance on killing Keller (or whoever our starting QB is) in practice. I have some concerns about us not practicing in pads. I'm a big believer in you play like you practice. But this represents another extreme imo. I'm sure it worked for them. I don't think that means it's the only thing that works though.

You feel Solich was unfairly treated, yet pile the criticism on BC for not being this way. Isn't that hypocrisy as well?