Guy Chamberlin

Not to be too snarky, but if a lot of teams would love a coach who won 9 games every season, Bo Pelini would have bolted to them. After declaring he was "so outta here!" in 2011, he found he wasn't a hot item on the open market. So he went all-in at Nebraska. And that's the way it should be. He's done everything right in the off-season, recruiting appears to be paying dividends, and our schedule is soft in the right places to give us a chance in the polls -- if we deserve it. I think he has a good shot at a breakthrough season. In my book it doesn't have to be a Conference Championship or Bust. The problem with the previous six Bo Pelini seasons was lack of consistency and discpline, on one or both sides of the ball. That's a head coaching issue, and the only one that needs to be addressed. We know good football when we see it. So I'm gonna wait till I see it before declaring a magic number of wins or losses.

Bo Pelini was in the hot seat before last season. Does anyone think that seat didn't get hotter after the UCLA game and the f-bomb tape? Or that termination wasn't in the air after the Iowa game? So of course Bo's in the hot seat this year. Forde notes that Bo's personality has been an issue, and he seems to have worked on that in the off-season. Now it's time to see results on the field. Nothing to argue with, there. You can remain in a hot seat without getting fired. A lot of the debate around here is whether Bo can survive another 4 loss season. He probably can, but he'll start the next season on the exact same hot seat. When sports media pundits make this kind of analysis, they're taking fanbase expectations into account. Bo's situation isn't the media's fault. It's just where we're at.

Not sure if you've been watching recently, it's been a Nebraska lovefest on BTN. Actually I haven't. I was remembering last year when I was pretty jacked on the Husker's chances, and the BTN crew treated Nebraska as an afterthought. Among the Northwesterns and Iowas, but not the Big 10 royalty of Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin or MSU. Dismissive at best. Although not inaccurate. I'm buying BTN from Dish this week (I cancel when it's not football season) So you were sucking koolaid by the gallon and they made what proved to be a dead-on accurate assessment of our team. Damn them!!! If you'll note my first paragraph, I gave BTN points for accuracy. It took awhile for me to get used to Nebraska not being in the national championship discussion. It was hard when we didn't come up in the conference championships discussion. It honestly took me by surprise when BTN made us an afterthought in our six team division.

yup. i have been agreeing with you a lot lately count. the one thing that really annoys me about espn is when they criticize "media coverage". they are the media coverage of sports and drive everyone's narrative. They stole that from the Fox News playbook.

I think many on this board need to learn what a fact actually is. I was being sarcastic. I am not. http://collegepollarchive.com/football/ap/seasons.cfm?seasonid=1997#.U_egIvldV8E Since then, always had, and always will have little respect for any writers. Anyway, they have no say in National Champions anymore. And that's the way it should be. (Says a still-bitter Nebraska fan) Yeah, but coaches admit they don't get a chance to watch many games and many teams not on their schedule. Sports writers see more college football. Some coaches have been known to give the local beat reporter their vote. As I recall, the real debate in '97 wasn't whether the AP was biased against Nebraska, it's whether the coaches were biased on behalf of Tom Osborne, who had announced the Orange Bowl would be his final game. The timing sure didn't hurt us. My guess is Nebraska beats Michigan that year head to head (Peyton Manning > Ryan Leaf). But the miracle required to beat unranked Missouri was a legitimate knock against us. Or to put it another way, if Nebraska had been ranked #1, won its bowl game, then dropped to #2, we'd be screaming murder 17 years later. btw....the AP ranked Nebraska #1 in '94, when a certain Joe Paterno also went undefeated. Anti-Nebraska bias is only in the eye of Nebraska fans.

Well....we won our division two years ago, then got humiliated by a five loss team in the CCG and were soundly defeated by the fourth place SEC team in a second tier bowl game. With our four year starter and All-American guard still in place, we looked shaky at home against 5-7 Wyoming, then the wheels totally came off at home against UCLA. Watching the Minnesota, Michigan State and Iowa losses, it's hard to see where a healthy Martinez or Long compensate for the teamwide failures, which by now look like familiar big game jitters regardless of individual personnel. Either way, Nebraska hasn't looked ready for the Top 25, nor a lock to beat the Northwesterns, Iowas and Minnesotas of the Big 10. So failing to pick the Huskers isn't anti-Nebraska. Unless you're from Nebraska. So we found the WORST time in the world to let the wheels fall off. Clemson found that exact timing last year against FSU as well. Sometimes when the ball starts rolling, getting in front of it is murder. Everyone thought we would be great last year. Our offense would be fantastic and our defense was young and talented. It would take time for the defense to gel, but when they did we would be golden. Our offense fell apart with injuries while our defense was still green. What do you expect? We dropped some bad games. Does that make the original prediction a bad one? Not necessarily. After six seasons it feels like a pattern. Bo Pelini teams tend to underperform. As a fan I remain optimistic. If I'm betting my own money, I'd be very cautious. Predicting Nebraska will have a season similar to the last six seasons certainly isn't anti-Husker.

When Abdullah was a freshman I thought he was destined to be a return man only. Dude was fast, but he just ran fast into the line. If there was a hole it was great. If not, he went down immediately. I thought he got stronger, but maybe the key was getting patient.

Can't disagree with that.

Not sure if you've been watching recently, it's been a Nebraska lovefest on BTN. Actually I haven't. I was remembering last year when I was pretty jacked on the Husker's chances, and the BTN crew treated Nebraska as an afterthought. Among the Northwesterns and Iowas, but not the Big 10 royalty of Michigan, Ohio State, Wisconsin or MSU. Dismissive at best. Although not inaccurate. I'm buying BTN from Dish this week (I cancel when it's not football season)

Well....we won our division two years ago, then got humiliated by a five loss team in the CCG and were soundly defeated by the fourth place SEC team in a second tier bowl game. With our four year starter and All-American guard still in place, we looked shaky at home against 5-7 Wyoming, then the wheels totally came off at home against UCLA. Watching the Minnesota, Michigan State and Iowa losses, it's hard to see where a healthy Martinez or Long compensate for the teamwide failures, which by now look like familiar big game jitters regardless of individual personnel. Either way, Nebraska hasn't looked ready for the Top 25, nor a lock to beat the Northwesterns, Iowas and Minnesotas of the Big 10. So failing to pick the Huskers isn't anti-Nebraska. Unless you're from Nebraska.

I like ESPN. Never understood the hatred. SportCenter is good for highlights from all over the world of sports. If I want something specific, immediately, I go to the internet. If I'm judging ESPN against other networks trying to fill airtime 24/7, they come out ahead. 30 for 30 is generally outstanding. BTN gives Nebraska less love than ESPN. No national media will appease the local fanbase. ESPN is solid on the NBA, NFL and MLB. They get spread thin on the NCAA.

If it was your job to be an objective college football analyst, wouldn't you make a rational case that Nebraska has been given the benefit of the doubt every preseason, then proceeds to under-perform? At which point anyone would hesitate to pump Husker sunshine until proven otherwise? Wouldn't you say the same thing about the Big 10? And isn't the national media generally more polite about this than most members of HuskerBoard?

I thought the offensive line was playing better at the end of the year. As good or better than the uninjured version that started the year. McKewon's main thesis -- that we ran better against poor rushing defenses than good rushing defenses -- isn't particularly brilliant, but it gets overlooked by fans who wonder why we don't just run at will, since Ameer clearly gets 5+ yards every carry. I think everyone holds up Michigan State as an example of what Nebraska could do if it didn't keep handing the ball to the other team. There are some online pundits willing to risk their reputation to generate outraged clicks. McKewon isn't one of them.

Am I wrong that every person who thinks Nebraska doesn't have an identity thinks we should be running the ball more? That maybe it's not so much about identity as it is about running the football more? I get the Georgia Tech example, but like Nebraska in the '90s and Oklahoma in the '70s and '80s, those option/wishbone offenses are pretty complicated. Although they're mostly about running, they're not about doing "one thing well." Lots of different looks and sets, and very demanding of the offensive line. A much smaller percentage of QBs can pull it off, and you have to recruit specifically for an offense the NFL doesn't use. Nebraska '94 & '95 were near perfection, but they were 12 years in the making. In lesser hands those option offenses are turnover machines. There's a reason why every team doesn't go all in on a rushing offense. And if you want to see unexpected formations and trick plays, Tom Osborne was the master. Personally, I don't want to see offensive balance be accused of being "multiple." I also hope we have some fun. Simplicity isn't necessarily the same as efficiency, but it might be a good place to start. I'd like to see what we do well, too, but a little experimentation is always in order.

That will ruin all the speculation! But then we get to start second-guessing.

Are we presuming the online fanbase is better at it?

See I think McKewon's excellent analysis suggests the exact opposite. The dominant teams, which presumably have this offensive "identity" we crave, are efficient at both running and passing the ball. When it's 3rd and 5 they don't have one play that almost always gets it. They have a few to choose from, because every defense has film of every game. Their offensive success isn't from creating an identity, unless that identity is good athletes who are mentally prepared and able to execute a diverse play selection. The Top 10 is full of teams who are master of all trades. That's where excellence comes from. I think we have a promising offense and should have a solid running game. McKewon's point seems to be that memories of Nebraska's impressive running attack are pretty selective, and dreams of just ramming Abdullah down the opponent's throat might be misguided.

A lot of what we're describing as our dream offense is actually the West Coast Offense. The WCO was never a pass-happy offense and the playbook didn't have to be huge. It was a way to use all your offensive threats in high-percentage executions, making it hard for a defense to clamp down on anything. It never hurt to be Joe Montana or Brett Favre, but several thousand of their yards came on short outlet passes to wide open receivers, often the RB or fullback who just slipped out of a block, or tight ends waiting safely on the sideline. They ran first, but they were never afraid to pass. When defenses committed to stopping the run -- which they often did -- the passing game could maintain sustained drives with a dink & dunk. A lot of the long bombs we see in football are the result of a wide receiver lobbying the quarterback, because he's consistently beating his man deep. I hope we play smart with Tommy. That doesn't mean we have to be timid.

I think this has been an obvious issue of Beck's and had been discussed at great length. Don't go away from what's working. Abduallh works, PERIOD. Still, I see someone plus1'd your comment so apparently multiple is still the in thing. Yea, because being a perennial top ten rushing team in the country just isn't good enough. Run the ball, play defense. I'm a Broncos fan, trust me on this! Yep, one thing Peyton Manning and John Elway are famous for is not passing the football. : ) I agree that when the running game is working, you stick with it. I just think there's a contingent of Husker fans who remember the offense getting 5, 6, 7 yards a carry in the first quarter, and conveniently forgetting when we got stuffed for zero, 1 and 2 yards a carry after defenses adjusted. I just don't see how "multiple" takes away from the running game. The efficient offense you just described could be accused of being multiple. You run to set up the pass. But you also pass to set up the run. I don't think that's too tricky or overly sophisticated. Maybe it's the notion that there's a preferred run/pass ratio, and Beck intends on maintaining if for every game regardless of what's actually working. Bo and Beck have uttered things recently to give that impression. I hope they don't have a magic number myself. I'd expect every game to have variations, because every game will unfold differently. The offense actually worked pretty well last season, all things considered, with Beck's 5:3 rush/pass ratio. When things didn't work it seemed more a matter of execution than play calling. Believe it or not there were times when Abdullah and Cross got stuffed in short yardage situations. No one complained about Beck's stubborn insistence on running. Abdullah got his yards playing in a multiple offense. That was basically my point. The passing game is Abdullah's friend.

You know who's hoping we maintain a robust passing game? Ameer Abdullah. Pass if necessary? Of course it's necessary. Announcing your intention to run Abdullah into the line 30 times a game and treating the forward pass (and your quarterback) as a liability is a quick ticket to killing the rushing game. Defenses will be licking their lips if we decide to be predictible rather than multiple. And what's the point of being loaded at wide receiver? When Tommy Armstrong's yards per attempt passing fall below Ameer Abdullah's yards per attempt rushing, we can talk.

I just want to know the punks who knocked the head off the statue at Sheldon to celebrate our victory against South Dakota State:

I approve.

I'll take that Johnny Rodgers punt return any day of the week. A helluva return in its own right, and though it didn't come late, it may have won the game for us. One of the reasons it's still remembered as the Game of the Century is that both teams were extremely well-matched. Between the two teams there was a total of one penalty for five yards. Everybody played as advertised. The wild card was Rodgers' punt return. The Husker legacy really started that day. If you want to remember OU vs. NU 1971, that's still your clip. Rodgers punt return against Bama may have been better. He had a non-scoring punt return against Colorado that was just insane. But Bama and Colorado ended up as blowouts. Then again, if Callahan's 5-7 season is a memorable "moment" why not just call out the entire 1971 or 1995 season?

I see no reason not to expect a better season than last season.

It was hard to read last year as a spectator. Tommy Armstrong reportedly played while dinged up, though it wasn't obvious when and where the injury was holding him back. It was hard to tell where alternating with Kellogg was strategy, evaluation or injury-based. Armstrong hadn't taken that many snaps when he had to sit out the entire Iowa game. Gotta admit this had/has me worried, since the nagging little injuries can ultimately be more detrimental than the big dramatic ones.