Guy Chamberlin

Raiders have always like Gregory. Skip to the part where Cosell explains why he's better than Jadaveon Clowney:

I've worked for a lot of people I don't agree with. I'm doing it even as we speak. I think that's why they call it "work."

You're comparing Devaney and McBride to Bo? And I'm clueless? How do you know he turned a blind eye? You're putting RB on a pedestal that is unjust. What does Christian values have to do with Pelini deplorable behavior and his decision to coach under him? Also, Why is it bad for him to coach under Bo at a program that would allow him to speak his mind, but it's not even worth mentioning that a university, that you follow, shut him up because he is an outspoken Christian? The same one that allows professors to preach their agnostic, atheist, etc. views on students?Do you recall Coach Brown publicly disagreeing with the way Bo conducted himself? Me neither.There's nothing wrong with asking why a preacher's actions are completely inconsistent with what he claims to believe. Pelini is a psychotic douchebag who tried to burn the place down on his way out of town. Rather than objecting to that and distancing himself from Pelini, Brown talked about what a great and loyal guy he is and followed him to his next gig. In my view that makes Coach Brown a complete hypocrite. I like the guy...but it is what it is. Haha burning the place down is a pretty out there suggestion. What action did RB make that he's not following?I guess I don't agree and even understand why RB should make any comment publicly in regards to Bo, but he did, and he addressed your exact thought in his interview with Sipple when it was announced he'd be following Bo. For someone who was in the middle of the fallout and being fired himself, and not wanted at the university he coached at for nearly 24 years, I'm going to guess there is much more to behind the scenes than any of us are privvy too. And by your logic, everybody is a hypocrite for the company they keep. Do you consider Bo's actions to be consistent with the values that Coach Brown preaches about and claims to espouse?I'll ask you again in another form, what Bo actions go against Brown's preaching?Really seems like you're playing coy with the comparison of Bo to Devaney and McBride and completely ignoring the context of Sargon's post, or are you actually clueless to their demeanors? Devaney and McBride had some anger issues and cursed a decent amount. I have no issue with that behavior, so long as it doesn't distract them from coaching. The issues with Bo were far more serious. He was a complete cancer, who was actively trying to turn the team against the university, the fans, the state, etc. that's the problem with him, not merely some cursing. I disagree. He was a bad head coach, but he never turned the team against the university, state, and especially the fans. That's ridiculous. The only person that he tried stirring crap up against was SE, which was completely out of line, but even then those players lashing out were already upset at SE before Bo met with them. I think we've already established that Bo isn't Adolph Hitler (Hitler actually blitzed too often) and maybe cancer is a strong word, but it's not hard to trace Bo's thin-skin for any kind of criticism to a bunker mentality he established with his players: the only people that mattered were the people in the locker room. The outside world didn't understand. Not the fans, not the local media, not anyone who dared second-guess the team. It protected Bo with his players and gave them an excuse for their own poor performance in what was perhaps a poor strategic game-plan. I mean, Bo literally blamed fan expectation for the Wisconsin blowout last year. His rants were pretty clear on this subject. The Eichorst hate came late in the bridge burning process, and it would be really naive to think that Bo's parting shot to the players was the first time he trashed Eichorst in front of them.

I have never disagreed with Nebraska's end-of-year ranking. More often it seemed the pollsters were being nice to us.

I dunno if I buy the premise that people are now claiming Randy Gregory was never that great to begin with. RG came back for a Junior year already touted as a Top Five, maybe even Top Three draft pick. He was dogged by injuries, poor schemes and huge expectations, and was still a Top Ten draft pick. His tweener size for the NFL was always an issue, but everyone agreed he'd get drafted high regardless and someone would figure out how to use his talents. Suddenly you have some off-field issues that make you look back on his less than consistent play, including taking himself out of games when he looked winded, and that dials up the second guessing. But as this guy says, those questions marks might make RG drop, but that will also make him a bargain for the right team, and force RG to focus on the things he can control, which he'll need to do to reestablish his creds. Weirdly enough, it might take a tick of pressure off Randy Gregory and maybe that's what he needs.

I agree with all of the above. If sexual preference shouldn't matter, then we shouldn't make such a big deal out of it. The only problem is, we're not there yet. Close. But not yet.   as long as we keep bringing it up, it will be a big deal, and people don't understand that. Keeping it in the closet is worse, and it's actually not your decision. swing and a miss, that's not what i meant and you bloody know it, i don't see the point of bringing up someones races or sexual orientation or percieved gender because it DOESN'T BLOODY MATTER, you treat everyone the bloody same. I thought I was being extremely fair in agreeing with this line of thinking, while pointing out that we don't get to decide that discrimination is officially over, especially when it isn't. There are a lot of people who think we should stop talking about race because we have a black President, too. When there's compelling evidence that everyone is treated the bloody same in this country -- or bloody England if that's where you're from -- we can shut up and concentrate on the question marks in Nebraska's offensive line.

For years it seemed like Nebraska owned the SEC, especially at bowl time. I don't remember any gloating over beating an SEC team either. Chances are the team wasn't as good as Oklahoma, and we didn't think of the conference having its own personality. The SEC is as old as college football, but the narrative of SEC dominance is pretty new. In fairness to the SEC, they've had a pretty good run this decade. I know there's a lot of SEC paranoia around here, but Ohio State got everyone's attention last year, and I think 2015 will start with a lot of eyes on the Big 10.

If Gregory was indeed using marijuana to cope with anxiety issues, then it's probably something related to the source of his anxiety. Which could be lots of stuff. The NFL doesn't need anything definitive, just that Randy Gregory has issues.

I agree with all of the above. If sexual preference shouldn't matter, then we shouldn't make such a big deal out of it. The only problem is, we're not there yet. Close. But not yet. as long as we keep bringing it up, it will be a big deal, and people don't understand that. Keeping it in the closet is worse, and it's actually not your decision.

You know, that '71 team also featured a QB roll-out where Tagge suddenly takes a three-step drop, buying the perfect amount of time to make a simple 12 yard completion. Similar play was a staple of our Triple Option. It might be the single best weapon a running/passing quarterback has.

Not a slam in any way, just an observation: Tom Osborne often seemed like a coach on his way to a quadruple bypass. Mike Riley carries a lot less baggage. Both are nice guys who value integrity, but they appear to be very different people and likely very different coaches.

YouTube wanted me to watch some of the 1972 Orange Bowl where Nebraska crushed Alabama. So I did. I was shocked to see Jerry Tagge run a few plays that looked an awful lot like a zone read. We called them "quarterback keepers" back then.

UNL has done a very good job trying to instill better eating and nutrition habits into its players. But when you hear nutritionists talking about the football players, they just shake their heads. Left to their own devices, young football players would eat nothing but meat, potatoes and sugar in mass quantities. And beer. They are already huge, often oversized, and building bodies that will not make physiological sense in a few years when they stop playing football. Combined with the violence of the game itself, they are doing multiple things that will shave years off their life-expectancy. Marijuana pales as a health issue. But it's impossible for a public university not to make marijuana against team rules as long as it's illegal and a potential impairment to judgement. It's just tough to see an entire career go up in smoke when that joint may be less dangerous than that plate of fried chicken, or God forbid, the legal pain-killers and mood management pharmacueticals that are all over the place.

I agree with all of the above. If sexual preference shouldn't matter, then we shouldn't make such a big deal out of it. The only problem is, we're not there yet. Close. But not yet.

At best, this whole thread is asking if we'd trade a bit of moral high ground for those elusive victories. It's an interesting POV.

This just aired last night. As devastating satire goes, it's pretty brilliant:

Couple things: 1) It's not hindsight. It was very much in the conversation at the time, not just in the national press, but among Nebraska fans willing to admit they were conflicted. 2) Nobody, certainly not Tom Osborne, decides to throw character out the window in order to win at all costs. You convince yourself that you can have both. But sometimes the wheels you set in motion don't go the way you want. The intent to get faster and nastier did indeed have an unfortunate — some might say predictable — side effect. But that's the nature of Fasutian bargains. We wouldn't trade 1993 - 1997 for anything. Which is what makes this thread interesting.

I think the argument can be made that he didn't win it all until he abandoned the Hector identity. Not entirely, but just enough. That's bullsh#t. I'm getting real tired of this revisionist history that wants to claim that Osborne went a little dirty to make it over the hump. And primarily because of the Lawrence Phillips thing. Read some of Tom's book on the subject and find out why he really gave LP too many chances. Spoiler alert- it wasn't to win a natty, it was to do all he could (yes, probably too much in hindsight) to help a young man who just couldn't be helped. It was by no means Phillips alone. Terrell Farley was a serial drunk driver who couldn't stop f'ing up. Christian Peter was arrested 8 times at UNL, including 4 assaults on women. Jason Peter became addicted to crack, heroin and hookers. There were others. It was noted at the time that some of the faster, better players Osborne was recruiting, particularly on defense, were coming from rougher neighborhoods, and didn't even pretend to want an education from the University of Nebraska. So what's your point? I don't think anyone is claiming Tom didn't want good players or didn't want to win games. Yeah, some of the players from that time had some issues....the same issues found everywhere throughout college football at the time. I would say a lot of college football players are at schools such as Nebraska primarily to play football and not necessarily for an education. Tom played the game within the rules and he won, a lot. Does that make him a bad guy? Does that mean he did things for the wrong reasons? I sure don't think so. I was just offering perspective within the context you offered. Every college football program will have a few bad eggs. Lawrence Phillips was one. But your claim of revisionist history is a bit revisionist itself. After a six year stretch of bowl blowouts and rumblings of dissatisfaction with Tom Osborne, TO took a long hard look at his coaching and recruiting philosophy in 1990. He realized that the college game had moved from strength to speed, especially on defense. He made a conscious and aggressive effort to recruit for defensive speed, and in general to get the same level of athletes who were now thwarting Nebraska. The staffed dialed up efforts in football hotbeds like New Jersey. There wasn't a lot of vetting for character -- and to the point of this thread, maybe Nebraska fans wanted a little more swagger. Maybe it was our turn to dish out some punishment. Didn't we love the Peter Brothers and the roid rage they brought to the team? There were more big city kids with attitude coming to Lincoln, Nebraska. There was a lot of looking the other way once they got here. Was it a conscious effort by Tom Osborne to trade some of the cornfed character of Nebraska for the cold-blooded skillset it took to compete at college football's highest level? It's a fair question. It doesn't mean Tom Osborne is a bad guy. But there's still a paradox. Hence this thread. We can certainly move from Achilles and Hector to Faust and Milton as needed.

I think the argument can be made that he didn't win it all until he abandoned the Hector identity. Not entirely, but just enough. That's bullsh#t. I'm getting real tired of this revisionist history that wants to claim that Osborne went a little dirty to make it over the hump. And primarily because of the Lawrence Phillips thing. Read some of Tom's book on the subject and find out why he really gave LP too many chances. Spoiler alert- it wasn't to win a natty, it was to do all he could (yes, probably too much in hindsight) to help a young man who just couldn't be helped. It was by no means Phillips alone. Terrell Farley was a serial drunk driver who couldn't stop f'ing up. Christian Peter was arrested 8 times at UNL, including 4 assaults on women. Jason Peter became addicted to crack, heroin and hookers. There were others. It was noted at the time that some of the faster, better players Osborne was recruiting, particularly on defense, were coming from rougher neighborhoods, and didn't even pretend to want an education from the University of Nebraska.

Mike Tyson is Achilles. Evander Holyfield is Hector. Hector defeats Achilles, even though Achilles was willing to bite his ear off. Later, they become friends. The End.

Achilles also had a weak spot. He's pretty famous for it.

Jeebus loves Himself some football.

I was never on the Bo bandwagon He did some good things to keep a leaking ship from capsizing- now hopefully the next step is back to relativity He was an embarrassment in many ways and in the end not a good fit, Im very glad he is gone However I know several people including players and adult friends of mine who had consistent interactions with him who thought the world of him on a 1-1 basis Like most people he has his pluses and minuses- but demonizing him serves little purpose Time to move on It's really interesting watching the fallout on Jim Harbaugh's firing by the San Francisco 49ers after one of the most successful runs by a rookie coach in NFL history. At every step in his career, Harbaugh leaves behind people who he rubbed the wrong way, who admired him as a coach and competitor but soon admitted they couldn't stand being around him on a daily basis. Alex Boone, one of Harbaugh's most public defenders last year just admitted that Harbaugh's manic style wore down veteran players, and he even wondered if the man was clinically insane. And at every step in his career, there are others who defend Coach Harbaugh and say his results speak for themselves. So clearly both sides are correct. In this case, both side predict Harbaugh's time at Michigan will be brief. I'm normally not one for demonizing, but demonizing most definitely serves a purpose. It makes it easier to move on.

The wisdom, maturity and willpower of 19 year olds is not notoriously well-developed. Especially college celebrities away from home for the first time. Would love for these kids to be role models, but this is the age where even good kids make mistakes and pampered athletes envy the students who don't have their every movement monitored, or sent viral on Instagram. I think there's a difference between accepting a joint at a party and stealing a bicycle, but I get why they fall on the same side of the punishment ledger. Alcohol is more dangerous and always has been. Have to assume that underage drinking warrants the same penalty.

I don't see any disconnect between being inspirational and being confrontational.