lkplayer

When I talk to players that played for him, they all say Pelini has an incredible ability to motivate. He's a defensive genius, as far as I could tell, and that same game he got one damned penalty he also managed to completely shut down one of the nation's most potent offenses while leaving the offensive playcalling to someone else. Sometimes young coaches overreact, but all great coaches have the motivation factor in common. Pelini is a very special guy. Heaven forbid your FOOTBALL coach is a hardass. I think with the sissy-girl coaching philosophy we have now we forget what it's like to have a fire lit under your butt. That's football. What we forget is how much love Pelini gave his players. Any three and out, there wasn't anyone in the world more excited than Bo. I like seeing coaches hugging players and keeping their motors running. It's all about passion and intelligence.

I actually have a very, very close source to this.... This article is downgrading the significance of Doak's influence and accomplishments. He was one of the few older coaches who survived as long as he did. It's gonna hit the fan when it comes out, for real. There are countless stories that show the true character of this now-crumbling regime, and a wonderful description of the old to "new" horrible process. My roommate is a former player, and I know many, many players.... there is no personal player-coach relationship with this staff. It's all business, all cut-throat, all BS. When last season ended, another player told me that this season would either be national championship contention or it would fall completely apart, all because of the lack of friendship/role model between player and coach. Like I said, this book would've gotten Callahan and Peterson fired by itself (and I think that was the reason for writing it... don't get it twisted either... Doak ghostwrote it). It's that revealing.

It might be because the players don't get a high ranking until those teams actually start offering them. I could see USC recruiting a player thats has 2 stars and the next week that kid would probably have 2 stars added to his ranking. So how does that explain the star quality of Husker recruits? They must be at least 1 or 2 stars better than the services give them since the Huskers play like a high school team. wow. lol.

sounds like a politician... way to have absolutely no stance on anything. if you are a husker fan and you don't have an opinion on the state of things right now, you don't know anything about football. there is always an objective truth. that's why you argue opinions. all husker fans want what is best for the team... they just have differing opinions.

Ding Ding Ding! *raises the champ's hand

The number one recruit in the country is a scrambling quarterback. They are far superior behind center in the college game.

It might be because the players don't get a high ranking until those teams actually start offering them. I could see USC recruiting a player thats has 2 stars and the next week that kid would probably have 2 stars added to his ranking. It's a mixture, I think, but as long as there is a profit motive, those PROFIT-DRIVEN-COMPANIES are not going to be objective. They're like any other media publication.

all i'm saying is this: Don't think this staff can recruit better than the staff of 2003. That's a lie. The entire defense that year went pro. The offense was just as prolific (and it was wack). That team, talent wise alone, poops all over anything we've had since. And, yes, Rivals and Scout is notorious for adding stars to recruits once they get an offer... the best of the best? Perhaps not... I see the point with Gabbert. Then again, he's had a hell of a senior season (ha). So this coaching staff has absolutely no leg left to stand on. The talent has gone down.

And your D will have to practice against that O-- that's why our defense used to be full of indefatigable monsters. If they had to step up and take on Green or LP a few days a week during practice, they were going to be ready for *anything*. When you have an entire offensive backfield (and receivers!) who love to crush defenders, the people who play against them the most are going to be able to murder anyone who isn't will to give at least that much. And the opposition D has one week to prepare against something they won't see all year until they face you... a hell of an advantage!

There are evolutions of it being used today which could change the scope of Husker football.

It isn't. West Virginia, Illinois, Texas A&M.. not to mention all the of the duel threat quarterbacks who consistently keep their teams in the game on athletic ability. Also, keep in mind, the option was damn near extinct in the Osbourne era, but no one said a damned thing then. Yes. Having the option as part of your game != to basing your offense on it. Two completely different things. Hell, NU ran the option this year. Doesn't mean they are an option team. Most of the teams you mention could fit more under a spread attack description than an option description. Spread Option, yes... the evolution of the option... all "option" means is a play-action run--i.e., a faked handoff and misdirection. West Virginia runs the option every play, and if they don't, it is a playaction. Texas runs the spread--there are more passes, more draws, not a lot of option running. Huge difference to what WV or Illinois does.

Although I can see the point of the other 5 this one doesn't really make sense. While running 3 plays and not getting a first will take more of the game clock than 3 incomplete passes, in actual time (not the game clock) they will take the same amount of time. At the end of the game, the defense is on the field less, period. So when the fourth quarter rolls around, unsuccessful drives still result in more defensive energy.

It isn't. West Virginia, Illinois, Texas A&M.. not to mention all the of the duel threat quarterbacks who consistently keep their teams in the game on athletic ability. Also, keep in mind, the option was damn near extinct in the Osbourne era, but no one said a damned thing then. Yes.

I won't.. I'll check out their stats this season. oooooo

Since the beginning, it has been apparent to me that the dump-off, slant, sissy-formation-switching WCO is completely inferior to any form of run-oriented offense. If you look at football on its most fundamental level, running the ball--especially with the duel threat of a running quarterback and running back--is far more effective than a pass offense with a slow, unathletic quarterback. Why? 1. The ball is in what is probably your best athlete's hands every single play, thus increasing your chances for a big play or, at least, a first down. 2. Even in a three and out, your defense gets a bit of a breather, and the clock is controlled with every first down made. 3. You don't have to get 5-star, phenomenal receivers (who, BTW, have NO REASON to ever come to Nebraska from Florida or Cali)--just a decent tight end and one speedy receiver, both for play-action purposes. Running backs, on the other hand, will be lining up if you do it right. 4. There is still a pass threat when you can run the ball--the ever so effective play action. We had more long throws 5 years ago than we do today, and this is supposed to be a passing offense? 5. IF run successfully, the defense who has to play against the option will tire in the second half, a lot. 6. Nebraska culture is running the football. You may think that doesn't matter, but it does. It is who we are. We are used to the best (or among), fastest athlete at quarterback. We should be looking for a new coach to lead us into--at the very least--some sort of Illinois model. I was thoroughly impressed with what I saw from them. It looked like an evolution of where Nebraska was going. I honestly believe such a change, with the entire overhaul of this coaching staff, could save the program.