lkplayer

I guess I'm not convinced he's the man for the job. I remember how he went ballistic at that last bowl game. I think he is a good defensive coordinator but I think someone stepping into this job needs to be not only knowlegable but also polished. For my part, I think someone like Turner Gill, who even though he is not as experienced, has a little more finesse than Bo.

I just don't want to be embarrassed again by a coach who can't control his temper, then have to hear about it for weeks on end after the game.

 

Any thoughts?

TLS2

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.

If you would have left your argument at these coaches cannot 'coach up' these recruits, then you may have ground to stand on.

 

But for the facts you try to state about some of our players being over-hyped, well that is a bit far fetched, to say the least. Stars don't mean anything? Why is it that places like Texas, USC, LSU, Florida, etc., get the best talent year in, year out and are consistently among the elite in college football? Because talent level (i.e., star rankings) mean quite a bit.

 

Now with star rankings, there are always things you cannot factor in. Work ethic, off the field issues, legal trouble, etc., but that goes along with everything else.

 

The other thing you cannot factor in is that the ratio of 3*'s to make an impact as compare to 5* players. There would be more players to make an impact that are in that range, because there are SIGNIFICANTLY more of them.

 

Gabbert moved up in the rankings because of the fact he won MVP of the NIKE Camp he attended, to go along with the fact he was far and away the best QB at the Elite 11 Camp. That is how all players make a significant jump in the summer time when they are not playing any games.

 

But all in all, if you don't like the rankings, just don't read 'em.

 

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.

coming from a family whose father coached very successfully in at the college level for over 25 years, i can say with some levelheadness that indeed, it is important to have some kind of option game.

 

this is true for the high school and college games because the players aren't as conditioned, disciplined, or trustworthy 100% of the time. when running a play that has different 'options', all it takes is ONE breakdown by one defender to get a good gain. then later, to keep them guessing, to keep them off balance.

 

an 'option' can be run out of the gun (which is like WVU), out of a multiple set (like Florida), or out of the I (like old Nebraska U).

 

the way we ran it in the 80's was straight triple option and clearly couldn't be run today. a quick trap by the FB or pull it and attack the D-ends and wait to pitch or keep would, nowadays, get the QB hurt or would not gain much yardage because safeties and OLB are sooo much faster and have much better range today.

 

in the 90's the triple option morphed into belly options, counter options, and read options. couple that with great power running (i.e. with a fullback lead on almost all plays), and good effective play-action passing and it is possible with the right players to be fully effective today. yes, a more capable thrower and a more agile running type quarterback are needed, along with countless hours of repetition and chemistry.

 

i personally think these hybrid type offenses run by WVU and Florida, where the QB is a runner, passer, and distributor is MUCH more effective at the COLLEGE level where great talent is great talent, but there will always be a weak link in the D. having a few option plays keeps the D honest and makes them prepare in pratctice for a long time to just defend a few basic plays.

 

in today's college football world you have to be able to spread the field and open lanes against the defense. but to keep them in check it is important to attack with plays that force them to defend and be responsible. and that is what the option does.

Ding Ding Ding! *raises the champ's hand

How many high school QBs are lining up to run the option?

 

How many NFL teams that they may aspire to play for run that offense?

 

15 years ago it was a lot easier to find a Tommie Frazier, Scott Frost, Eric Crouch, or even Steve Taylor. It still starts with the QB--but it's a question of the type of QB. It's a lot easier nowadays to find one that can throw the ball than run a 4.5 40.

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

If you would have left your argument at these coaches cannot 'coach up' these recruits, then you may have ground to stand on.

 

But for the facts you try to state about some of our players being over-hyped, well that is a bit far fetched, to say the least. Stars don't mean anything? Why is it that places like Texas, USC, LSU, Florida, etc., get the best talent year in, year out and are consistently among the elite in college football? Because talent level (i.e., star rankings) mean quite a bit.

 

Now with star rankings, there are always things you cannot factor in. Work ethic, off the field issues, legal trouble, etc., but that goes along with everything else.

 

The other thing you cannot factor in is that the ratio of 3*'s to make an impact as compare to 5* players. There would be more players to make an impact that are in that range, because there are SIGNIFICANTLY more of them.

 

Gabbert moved up in the rankings because of the fact he won MVP of the NIKE Camp he attended, to go along with the fact he was far and away the best QB at the Elite 11 Camp. That is how all players make a significant jump in the summer time when they are not playing any games.

 

But all in all, if you don't like the rankings, just don't read 'em.

 

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.

 

 

5. IF run successfully, the defense who has to play against the option will tire in the second half, a lot.

 

 

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!

So exactly how is this thread relevant? Is your rant going to get NU to magically switch the offense? The option offense is DEAD. Get over it.

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

So why, exactly, is the option almost extinct?

 

Are coaching staffs across the nation stupid?

 

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.

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.

 

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.

So why, exactly, is the option almost extinct?

 

Are coaching staffs across the nation stupid?

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.

If you would have left your argument at these coaches cannot 'coach up' these recruits, then you may have ground to stand on.

 

But for the facts you try to state about some of our players being over-hyped, well that is a bit far fetched, to say the least. Stars don't mean anything? Why is it that places like Texas, USC, LSU, Florida, etc., get the best talent year in, year out and are consistently among the elite in college football? Because talent level (i.e., star rankings) mean quite a bit.

 

Now with star rankings, there are always things you cannot factor in. Work ethic, off the field issues, legal trouble, etc., but that goes along with everything else.

 

The other thing you cannot factor in is that the ratio of 3*'s to make an impact as compare to 5* players. There would be more players to make an impact that are in that range, because there are SIGNIFICANTLY more of them.

 

Gabbert moved up in the rankings because of the fact he won MVP of the NIKE Camp he attended, to go along with the fact he was far and away the best QB at the Elite 11 Camp. That is how all players make a significant jump in the summer time when they are not playing any games.

 

But all in all, if you don't like the rankings, just don't read 'em.

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.

If we ended up with the #1 recruiting class in the nation this year, we'd still be mediocre 4 years from now unless Bill Callahan is shown the door

Agreed, regardless. Absolutely.

You missed my point. Yes, I completely agree that good recruiting is the only leg that Bill Callahan has to stand on. The point is that Bill Callahan has demonstrated that he is incapable of turning a good recruiting class into a good football team.

I hear you, but you missed my point...

Callahan doesn't have hardly any good recruits. That was my point. The system is a scam.

This is a pointless argument anyways. Maybe Callahan gets good recruits...maybe he doesnt. But it doesnt matter because he will turn every single good recruit we get into an unmotivated drone playing on a football field

I don't think it's pointless that the 2003 was a very talented football team with good coaches.

What else is this coaching staff leaning on as a crutch besides recruiting?

Websites get money based on the hits and media coverage they receive. It has nothing to do with what player is going to what school. It has to do with how many fans are going to hit up their website. In the case of fanatic Nebraska fans who desperately want to see a return to glory, we are the perfect bait. When Gabbert committed, his 4-star status magically jumped to five-star--in the off-season.

Really? I would have assumed it to be because he was named MVP of the Nike Camp over the summer...

And your boy Kenny? Thought so...

"Websites can get ad money. But typically they make a lot of money on subscriptions. Actually gathering money from people."

I bet there are a hell of a lot of Nebraska subscribers.

"So player's ratings are increased because it will generate more revenue? hmm. I guess it can't be because the sites got more film on a kid than they had before. Truth is there are a lot of kids out there and on some of em, they don't have much information on them initially."

Anyone can go to a kid's game two weeks in a row and have two new films... compared to the amount of money the kid can generate with a high rating? It's probably worth it.

"A few of your thoughts are bit far fetched for me.

I can't believe you just said "I'll take Jammal 'It's my ball and I'm running it' Lord." I need Jamal Lord like I need another hole in my head!"

An athlete at quarterback just torched us two weeks in a row.... Jammal was a part of system that rarely got us blown out. The option is far superior than the dated WC... it keeps the ball from the defense and tires out opponents in the second half. It also puts the ball in an athlete's hand every single play. Jammal had no O-Line that year, and he was still an amazing quarterback, with as much athleticism as we've ever had. He went to the NFL.

And Dejuan Groce... wow... that's a hell of a recruiting job.. the whole damned defense went pro. And that's mediocre?

oh... and Fabian Washington...

Man. That's a lot of NFL players.

Look...

There is a huge difference between pro football and high school football--a much bigger gap than in basketball--so when a high school kid enrolls in college, it becomes very important that he be developed, taught fundamentals, etc. No athlete can get away on raw talent alone on the college level, period, which leads me to this. So when you see all of these freshmen that are supposed to be contributing, keep in mind that they have terrible coaches, so they are sitting on their talent, learning on their own (not easy for most young men).

Moving on...

When it comes to rivals, scout and all that other crap, I can understand the hype for basketball. It's pretty easy to see who is going to be a killer in that realm. However, in football, the ratings are worthless... here's why:

Websites get money based on the hits and media coverage they receive. It has nothing to do with what player is going to what school. It has to do with how many fans are going to hit up their website. In the case of fanatic Nebraska fans who desperately want to see a return to glory, we are the perfect bait. When Gabbert committed, his 4-star status magically jumped to five-star--in the off-season. When we picked up Jonas Gray, his boy Kenny's 3-star status went up to four-star. Why? Because Nebraska fans will freak out about it and hit their website, hoping the linebacker will commit as well.

The reason I point this out is because this coaching staff has one leg to stand on, and that's the recruiting one. But can anyone honestly tell me that there are more playmakers on the field than there were in 2003?!

Do you really think Marlon Lucky was the number 2 back in the nation? That's higher than Ahman... do you think that David Horne was number 5? C'mon... you've been had.

The truth is that this team is a hell of a lot less talented than the 2003 team, offensively and defensively. I'll take Jammal Lord, Matt Herian, and Wilson Thomas over this offense any day. Defensively, I don't even have to start... it isn't just coaching. Those coaches recruited Barrett Ruud, Demorrio Williams, the Bullocks Brothers, Trevor Johnson... stop with the recruiting crap. Solich's last staff was waaaaay better at recruiting and, more importantly, DEVELOPING talent.

Don't forget our 2003 losses came to Vince Young, Ell Roberson and Darren Sproles, and a fluke loss to Brad Smith.

Don't be a victim to the hype machine.