hskrpwr13

Calling Nebraska a "destination job," Bo Pelini on Wednesday brushed off speculation that he could become a candidate for the vacant head football coaching position at Arkansas.

He was asked if he was flattered that his name often is mentioned when a high-profile job opens.

"You talking about the Arkansas thing?" Pelini asked. "Actually, I didn't even know my name got thrown around. I don't even know how that stuff happens.

"I'm here and I'm happy to be here."

http://huskerextra.com/sports/huskers/football/article_46f97e2f-24d8-5442-81eb-e8afadf35e0a.html

Nice of Bo to immediately shoot down the speculation for a change, although I did think it was pretty clear that those suggesting he could be a candidate were just pulling his name from past speculative articles on other coaching searches.

Of course, we've heard in this before from other head coaches and even a previous assistant within NU's program. However, I'm trusting Bo's word on this one.

To answer knapp's question, I do think ennui is the biggest factor in play.

The first two season of Bo's tenure there was excitement around the newness of the team. Third season, there was a QB battle and boasting of best D even without Suh. Last season, I think people thought there'd be a potential QB battle and it was to be our first season in B1G.

This season? No off the field story lines. The defense is believed to be taking a step back. Outside of Burkhead and Martinez, where's the star power? Bottom line, there just doesn't seem to be any excitement or controversy as there's been in past years. I don't necessarily think that's a bad thing, but I do think its affected early ticket sales. Plus, as some have pointed out, it seems that under Pelini, the Spring Game has taken on less of a feel of what we can expect during the fall practice/season. Almost like putting on a "fake" show for the sake of putting on an expected show.

By kickoff, this thread may be proven moot, but there's definitely a lack of buzz than we've seen for a while.

Not that I don't love the Nebraska tradition, but somehow...I'm thinking die-hards care more about tradition than winning, and is that really the goal?

I'm more of a traditionalist in the sense of why change what has worked and that NU stands out MORE because of the tradition aspect versus FOLLOWING a trend. If NU starts a trend, I'd consider that outstanding even if it bucks tradition. Not sure how following a trend, makes NU stand out. Really, it just makes NU like most everyone other program. Changing NU's uniform is only oustanding to us NU fans because its new to us. I would think think if NU makes changing their uniforms a less rare occurance, it will eventually be met with a yawn.

I agree with much of the article except for the "hear what they want to hear" statement. For every legit misread of a Pelini statement, Pelini at the same time leaves enough not said, or says things in such a way at times, that allows for the opportunity to misread his statements.

 

The writers other points have nothing to do with how one interprets Pelini. Those comments show how one (media) can twist anything based on whether you like the guy/want him to succeed or for marketing/entertainment purposes.

 

If someone "misreads" Bo's statements how exactly is that his fault?

When a message/statement can legitimately be interpreted in multiple ways, its the reciever's fault if he/she doesn't grasp the intended meaning?

I have yet to see this offense do anything basic to see if there are any changes needed. Overall, not enough ball security, too many dropped passes, poor blocking, penalties, loss of focus, lack of leadership. How does one recommend a change in an offense that at its core is its own worst enemy? If we can just play solid football I think these kinds of threads become fewer and have less input.

Yep. You nailed it for, sheepdog. I guess the next question is why the O has seemed to be good at times at some things, and bad at times at the same. Is the problem that the O tries to be jack-of-all-trade, "multiple" as some would call it, instead of finding one-type of offensive scheme, and mastering it? Is it something as simple as just not having the correct talent (whether that mean "good fit" or better talent)? Is it a Callahan-type syndrome where the fundamentals are not taught because the coaches expect that players already have the fundamental ingrained by the time they get to this level?

IMO, its the jack-of-all-trade problem, and I think it starts mostly with the O-line. I look at O-line blocking similar to D blitzing. If a D-line can successfully pass blitz, it can usually stop the run on its way to the QB. If an O-line can blast a D off the ball in the running game, the same basic blocking scheme can be used to support the passing game since the D should never get to the QB even the O-line doesn't form a true pocket.

I guess to answer Enhance's question, among other suggestions, I would hope for a simpler O-line scheme.

I agree with much of the article except for the "hear what they want to hear" statement. For every legit misread of a Pelini statement, Pelini at the same time leaves enough not said, or says things in such a way at times, that allows for the opportunity to misread his statements.

 

The writers other points have nothing to do with how one interprets Pelini. Those comments show how one (media) can twist anything based on whether you like the guy/want him to succeed or for marketing/entertainment purposes.

Which is hearing what you want to hear. It means you've made up your mind, and only see facts that support your theory, versus basing your theory on all the facts.

My point of that statment was that some in the media and non-Bo-fans many times know exactly what he meant, but conciously make the decision to spin it a different way to further an agenda. I don't see that as "hearing what you want to hear". To me, that attitude is more subconcious, and not as nefarious as spin-doctoring.

I agree with your statement too. But since you misunderstood what I meant, this supports my first point, that sometimes the one delivering the message is at fault for not being clear. LOL

Those mentioning the apparant change with Pelini is spot on. I can understand why Bo played "control freak" when he was first hired. But at some point, he has to start trusting those around him (and at this point, those around him are all people he recruited/hired). If everyone now feels accountability and trust towards each other, the sky is the limit. Especially, if the staff can recruit those with the leadershp mind-set like some of those mid-90s players.

I'm sure that most teams in the NFL have some sort of 'bounty program'.

You're probably right. But I'm sure most of those are side bets between players on who will get the first sack of the game, ect. Not to try and injure guys and hurt their careers. That's garbage, and there's no place for it. I can't believe so many people are giving Williams and the Saints a pass on this. Especially after how much Suh was vilified for kicking at a guy out of frustration.

I'm wondering if thats where there is a disconnect. How are these players applying/defining "bounty"? If its about just a big hit (regardless of whether they just gave up a 20 yard completion or not), and nothing to do with intent to injure, then I can understand where one might find it acceptable (tax/salary cap implications aside). However, if thats the case, they need to choose a different word for it besides "bounty". Just call it the "big hit side bet" or something, and they can't single out certain players to hit.

Glad to see UNL taking the lead researching this issue. Seems to be getting a lot of press lately.

 

Finally!!

 

Someone in this thread interested in the actual research.

 

This could be the beginning of the end of football as we know it...(Probably j/k), but it is one of the reasons I haven't pushed my own Son into the only sport I ever loved.

I value the sportsmanship and teamwork the sport has taught me..But between that and the countless "mini-concussions" that occured anmost every play that I wasn't able to fend off blocker's headbutts, and the hazardous chemicals and semi-volitile organics I've inhaled over the years as a prescreening tool to identify unknown wastes..uh,,where was I going with this?..Oh yeah!..most of the holes in my braim were probably avoidable.

 

I'm afraid you might be correct about the beginning of the end. I really hate to see it but if there are long term unavoidable injuries to the brain, I would feel guilty watching football. From what I've read it's going to be a difficult thing to solve with equipment and rules. I don't think most fans want to talk about it. Very depressing topic.

Or better equipment could be an answer. I'm leave much of my philosophical opinions unstated.

Its definitely awesome that UNL is one the front lines with this! Like someone else's comparison about the weight room, perhaps this is something that could get us a recruiting edge.

I agree with much of the article except for the "hear what they want to hear" statement. For every legit misread of a Pelini statement, Pelini at the same time leaves enough not said, or says things in such a way at times, that allows for the opportunity to misread his statements.

The writers other points have nothing to do with how one interprets Pelini. Those comments show how one (media) can twist anything based on whether you like the guy/want him to succeed or for marketing/entertainment purposes.

Everyone defines "being fair" differently. I suppose each person feels that they are fair toward the team. To me, being fair means a pretty even balance of support to go along with justified criticism. There are a number of people who post here regularly who seem to forget to post in support of this team, and spend pretty much all of their time griping. Not what I consider "fair."

Excellent post, knapp. Upon reflection, I have to admit I fail in this regard too often.

Interesting. Kevin Steele told on him to his mommy. LOL I hope Bo is using this tactic.

http://huskerextra.c...54bd12a7cd.html

The comment was telling, one of the most telling from Nebraska football coach Bo Pelini all of last season.

Pelini said on Oct. 3 - two days after quarterback Taylor Martinez threw three interceptions at Wisconsin - that the gap separating Martinez and top backup Brion Carnes "is pretty wide right now."

Pelini no doubt hopes that gap has narrowed.

Martinez, for his own sake, should hope the disparity has been reduced.......

I found this statement interesting...

"Nebraska last season ran the ball 68 percent of the time. Pelini wants more balance. Which makes sense, considering the ample talent at the receiver positions."

Part of the reason that percentage of run is so high is because NU was leading late in most games. This tells me that Bo wants to be a predominently passing team unless we're leading late in the game. I would think as a 'defensive' guy, he'd be more interested in taking advantage of playing keep away and running the clock.

ughhhh... enjoyed the usual offseason sunshines and rainbows attitude by the team, but hearing we're not changing the scheme at all kind of makes me think we won't see much of a change in our pass rush next year.

 

Looks like it's another year of patticake BS.

Agreed. I'm not fan of the scheme. Yes, last year it worked wonderfully against predominantly pocket passers, but really struggled with true dual-threat QBs. I miss '03 when Bo consistently had Demorrio Williams come off the end and used a lot of disguised blitzes. I keep wondering if Bo changed his D philosophy (dual threat QBs existed in '03) or if he feels (despite what he may say publicly) that he doesn't have the necessary speed to unleash the rush scheme.

Agree, Enhance. I can see how some my take some of the things he says in a negatvie manner, but would also think if those same people would look at the whole instead of singular comments, those people would be able to understand the whole of the message.

Even if someone disagrees with the Pelini's tone, can one really argue with his responses? Are one of these "offended" people actually going to gripe that Bo is wrong, and that they do know more than Bo about his schemes and the general goings on within the program? I'd consider that thought process to be "nutty".

Wow! First time reading this read and I'm shocked at some of the comments here considering some of the comments I've seen in other threads when it comes to the likes of a Christian Peter for one example. I wonder if this passed-out person had been female, if some posting in this thread would think of it differently. "Common Prank"? Hope your daughter never ends up passed out drunk. If she did she'd be at fault for her actions, but I don't think this common prank would be an equal reaction to her faulty behavior.

Last I heard, men treat other men differently than they treat women. I'm not saying what this jackass did was entirely blameless. But it would have been a LOT worse if that had been a passed out girl. This is just the way society is. Isn't it?

 

Exactly.

 

Apples and Oranges.

 

I appreciate the feeback, but disagree. I'm a logic guy. If rubbing your genitals on a woman's face without her consent is considered sexual assualt (legally or otherwise), it should be if you do it to a male too. Just like a woman shouldn't be allowed to physically assault a male, just because old-time thinking would argue that scenario isn't possible (Women are a lot more badass these days). If you want to have a some type of agreement among friends that this is acceptable behavior, then so be it. I don't believe I've ever been part of a group of friends (acquaintences?) where one of us doing this to another would've been considered an acceptable prank.

Yeah but, this probably wouldn't have happened if it was a woman. So now where are we?

 

 

EDIT: also, I don't remember anyone defending the guy (that's what we call a strawman argument, since you're into the logic thing), and I wouldn't consider it an "acceptable" prank. The fact that it's not acceptable is the whole point of the prank.

No worries. I guess we differ on the definition of "prank". To me, a prank is a joke, not criminal behavior. You called it a "common" prank. I've heard of it, and assume its used in a minority of hazings. But no, I dont think its common for guys to tea-bag each other. If I'm out of the loop on this phenomenon, I'll gladly remain so.

For those asking if I treat women differently: I guess the situations youre referring to would be bar type situations. I don't flirt with men, so I guess that would be different. However, I would never try to sexually assault either sex. And If a woman ever started a fist fight with me, said gal will get clocked just as if she were male. Laws should and do apply to each sex equally. How we each internalize the actions is where we differ I guess.

Wow! First time reading this read and I'm shocked at some of the comments here considering some of the comments I've seen in other threads when it comes to the likes of a Christian Peter for one example. I wonder if this passed-out person had been female, if some posting in this thread would think of it differently. "Common Prank"? Hope your daughter never ends up passed out drunk. If she did she'd be at fault for her actions, but I don't think this common prank would be an equal reaction to her faulty behavior.

Last I heard, men treat other men differently than they treat women. I'm not saying what this jackass did was entirely blameless. But it would have been a LOT worse if that had been a passed out girl. This is just the way society is. Isn't it?

 

Exactly.

 

Apples and Oranges.

I appreciate the feeback, but disagree. I'm a logic guy. If rubbing your genitals on a woman's face without her consent is considered sexual assualt (legally or otherwise), it should be if you do it to a male too. Just like a woman shouldn't be allowed to physically assault a male, just because old-time thinking would argue that scenario isn't possible (Women are a lot more badass these days). If you want to have a some type of agreement among friends that this is acceptable behavior, then so be it. I don't believe I've ever been part of a group of friends (acquaintences?) where one of us doing this to another would've been considered an acceptable prank.

You new to Lincoln, Hacker? This is how life has usually been at Big Red. The athletic dept is judged based on how well the football program is doing. Its not mid-90s, but not terrible either. There were a few decent basketball seasons during the Nee era, and a couple of great baseball seasons under Van Horne, or with his team. Wresting was probably better at one time than it is now, but again, its not terrible. What am I missing? I dont remember NU being a consistent mens power in anything other than football and wrestling.

I think Whitlock's comment in his tweet is funny. It's probably not a good idea for him to be saying stuff like that considering what his job is, but it's still funny. I don't think it's anything racist enough for everybody to get all butt hurt about though.

I'd agree, Shark. Too me, its funny bar room humor that shouldn't be taken so seriously. The galling part is the source. If one had made a similar type joke of one of African descent, Whitlock would want the proverbial book thrown at him/her.

Wow! First time reading this read and I'm shocked at some of the comments here considering some of the comments I've seen in other threads when it comes to the likes of a Christian Peter for one example. I wonder if this passed-out person had been female, if some posting in this thread would think of it differently. "Common Prank"? Hope your daughter never ends up passed out drunk. If she did she'd be at fault for her actions, but I don't think this common prank would be an equal reaction to her faulty behavior.

Define clean program? Do we have one now? Seems we've had a decent amount of alcohol related incidents during Bo's tenure, however, I'm not stating alocohol related incidents have increased under Bo. Just wondering where some draw the clean/dirty line. I'm with NUance. I think there's a difference between "clean" and "pristine".

 

Someone brought up '95. Did we have a dirty program then? I could see it both ways depending on where one draws the line.

 

Dirty, like Miami and Oklahoma in the 80's? No. But NU certainly toed into that relatively grey area many times. As I recall the NCAA was investigating NU like crazy from 94-97 and they never found anything of substance wrong--leastways nothing compared to Miami and OU.

Wasn't in Jason Peter and someone else that admitted to 'roid use? I always thought TO ran a clean program, but had a few misfits with those champ' teams. But was TO complicit with the 'roid use, did he truly not know, or was it one of those where he purposely insulated himself to maintain plausible deniability? I'd luv to blindly believe TO knew nothing. Bottom line, if its all true, NU may not have 'run' a dirty program, but they'd certainly have 'had' one even if not uncovered by the NCAA.

Certainly, at the time, I knew nothing of any 'roids rumors so I was perfectly ok for NU to recruit some questionables, with the hope that the coaching staff could reign them in. Obviously, one aw-sh#t (Phillips) somewhat underminded all positive perception the staff tried to built.

Define clean program? Do we have one now? Seems we've had a decent amount of alcohol related incidents during Bo's tenure, however, I'm not stating alocohol related incidents have increased under Bo. Just wondering where some draw the clean/dirty line. I'm with NUance. I think there's a difference between "clean" and "pristine".

Someone brought up '95. Did we have a dirty program then? I could see it both ways depending on where one draws the line.

Looks like Erstad has some learning to do with bullpen management. Yesterday, waited too long with the hook. Today, was too quick (Lemke and King). That, or the bullpen coach is seeing something in the pen thats not transferring to the game.

This team doesn't yet seem to bunt well either. Late in the game, I was surprised that he called bunt with a runner on 3rd and less than 2 outs. Considering how the bunting had been up to that point, would've liked to have let the batter try to put in the outfield.

Overall, the weekend games were fun to be at, but tough way for both games to end.

Hadn't originally planned, but heading to today's game. Last night was fun despite the bad loss. 1200+ was announced attendance. Assuming accurate, 1000+ was pulling for Red. This early in the season, I'd like to see the program come to AZ annually.

actually liked the corn helmet!

I think its neat looking, especially considering that there's not a whole lot you can do with "corn" as the subject matter. Call me old school, but I'd have a hard time viewing a Husker team with yellow helmets.