th3r0m

It makes little sense for Paterno to apparently have someone removed from his program and avoid him because he is repulsed by his very presence and to then allow them unfettered access to the facilities he basically lives in. And even less sense to then, when handed the ammunition needed to remove permanently from your life in addition to preventing further instances of atrocities against children to be perpetrated by a person who apparently repulses you, to do nothing with it. I think Paterno lacked knowledge of the truth of the situations, but I couldn't say whether it was purposeful or not because I just don't see where it benefits him to keep quiet about this. So Paterno committed perjury in his grand jury testimony? Got it. How much jail time do you think he is facing? Not sure where I said or even implied he committed perjury, I said I thought he lacked knowledge, as in not having the full story of the events that had taken place, not that he knew nothing at all.

It makes little sense for Paterno to apparently have someone removed from his program and avoid him because he is repulsed by his very presence and to then allow them unfettered access to the facilities he basically lives in. And even less sense to then, when handed the ammunition needed to remove permanently from your life in addition to preventing further instances of atrocities against children to be perpetrated by a person who apparently repulses you, to do nothing with it. I think Paterno lacked knowledge of the truth of the situations, but I couldn't say whether it was purposeful or not because I just don't see where it benefits him to keep quiet about this.

Sorry but no. He got fired because he was part of the chain of command that this went through and got shoved under the rug by. That much is documented and admitted. It is not a witch hunt. I don't understand how people can divorce themselves from reality enough to think that this was just a convenient opportunity to get rid of the guy. He tied their hands the day he found out about what went on in 2002 and didn't go directly to the authorities and continued to have Sandusky around the program... and that's assuming he was ignorant of the situation that went on before Sandusky was removed as DC in the 90s. Which isn't very plausible. Funny, but I have yet to read of or see any evidence where this was "shoved under the rug" by Paterno. That's media supposition at it's finest, as is the posting by the media and general public on boards and blogs all over the internet about how he must have been thinking about his reputation/wins/legacy versus the safety of those kids. Sandusky had never been arrested for, nor charged with nor found guilty of any sort of crime (and still hasn't), so how exactly do you justify cutting off all ties with the person based on second hand accounts and hearsay? It's not as if Paterno actually witnessed anything that would have made what you are purporting he do - completely block access to all campus facilitys/programs etc,- actionable without putting the university and himself at risk (and even had he done so, there is zero evidence that it would have prevented Sandusky from continuing to molest children). Did JoePa know about what happened in the shower involving his former staff member? yes, he himself admitted that to a grand jury. Did he report it directly to the police? No. There you go. He's not being charged with a crime because he did not lie about that. That doesn't mean the workplace where this was swept under the rug, by the people that this was known by, needs him to be charged with a crime to see that it was a huge problem. By not being immediately turned over to police it was a problem and that was compounded by having the man accused still around the program. His inaction and those of his direct superiors (which is laughable at penn state) enabled a child rapist. Get that through your head. Everyone involved needs to be and will be canned whether they are facing indictments or not. They taint the entire institution if you allow them to remain. He's not being charged with a crime because he did nothing wrong - he reported it to the "authorities" in charge of his institution (which is how the law/statute is worded... although I imagine that the statute may be amended to rid itself of such ambiguity in the future), not because he didn't lie about it to the grand jury - if the Grand Jury thought he was lying they would have charged him with perjury as they did with Schultz and Curely.. but they didn't, which seems to point to and support the fact that Paterno's testimony that he was unaware of the specifics of what took place in the shower is the truth. I've read the Grand Jury's report and honestly, based upon what's in there, Paterno is, at this time and until any evidence is produced to refute it.... innocent of wrong doing. If you want to talk about inaction, how about the detectives who dropped an investigation at the bequest of Penn State Campus Police, an AG/Head of Police that decided not to file charges, a mother who worked with the police to tape phone conversations but didn't pursue it when the police dropped it, the executives of Second Mile who were apparently informed several times about possible issues but did nothing, Shultz and Curely who did nothing... there was a whole lot of failure going on here by not only Penn State officials but by local and county law enforcement, school coaches and officials and other various authorities. The victims were let down at every single level by every person who should have protected them but to pin the majority of the blame on Paterno and say that it was Paterno who enabled and apparently by way of inaction, condoned, Sandusky's actions is a ridiculous. Could he have done more? Given the information we have now, it appears to be obvious he could have. But he didn't have all of this information, he had an apparently vague report of some sort of sexual misconduct between a former employee and a child, which he had already reported a required by law and "morality". Paterno is the "big name" goat being sacrificed to overshadow the rest of the stuff in the background.. it will be interesting to see where this case goes with regard to the public's interest in the case now that the "blood" we've all been calling for has been shed. Wrong. So wrong. McQueary told him what happened in excruciating detail. Show me in the indictment or in the testimonies of those involved where anyone says Paterno was told in full detail what happened in that shower. Don't you think that the Grand Jury would have indicted Paterno as well if Mcqueary (sp) had testified differently? Because that what happened with Schultz and Curley. Which is from a NYT article with no source named... If there was actual verifiable proof of this why wouldn't they have included it in the indictment. With that kind of testimony they could have nailed Paterno with charges of perjury just like they did Schulz and Curley and if they have they should use it... I'm not for sparing Paterno because he's old or a famous figure, I'm just not cool with a smear campaign targeting anyone ( old, famous or not) that is backed by very little in the way of evidence.

Sorry but no. He got fired because he was part of the chain of command that this went through and got shoved under the rug by. That much is documented and admitted. It is not a witch hunt. I don't understand how people can divorce themselves from reality enough to think that this was just a convenient opportunity to get rid of the guy. He tied their hands the day he found out about what went on in 2002 and didn't go directly to the authorities and continued to have Sandusky around the program... and that's assuming he was ignorant of the situation that went on before Sandusky was removed as DC in the 90s. Which isn't very plausible. Funny, but I have yet to read of or see any evidence where this was "shoved under the rug" by Paterno. That's media supposition at it's finest, as is the posting by the media and general public on boards and blogs all over the internet about how he must have been thinking about his reputation/wins/legacy versus the safety of those kids. Sandusky had never been arrested for, nor charged with nor found guilty of any sort of crime (and still hasn't), so how exactly do you justify cutting off all ties with the person based on second hand accounts and hearsay? It's not as if Paterno actually witnessed anything that would have made what you are purporting he do - completely block access to all campus facilitys/programs etc,- actionable without putting the university and himself at risk (and even had he done so, there is zero evidence that it would have prevented Sandusky from continuing to molest children). Did JoePa know about what happened in the shower involving his former staff member? yes, he himself admitted that to a grand jury. Did he report it directly to the police? No. There you go. He's not being charged with a crime because he did not lie about that. That doesn't mean the workplace where this was swept under the rug, by the people that this was known by, needs him to be charged with a crime to see that it was a huge problem. By not being immediately turned over to police it was a problem and that was compounded by having the man accused still around the program. His inaction and those of his direct superiors (which is laughable at penn state) enabled a child rapist. Get that through your head. Everyone involved needs to be and will be canned whether they are facing indictments or not. They taint the entire institution if you allow them to remain. He's not being charged with a crime because he did nothing wrong - he reported it to the "authorities" in charge of his institution (which is how the law/statute is worded... although I imagine that the statute may be amended to rid itself of such ambiguity in the future), not because he didn't lie about it to the grand jury - if the Grand Jury thought he was lying they would have charged him with perjury as they did with Schultz and Curely.. but they didn't, which seems to point to and support the fact that Paterno's testimony that he was unaware of the specifics of what took place in the shower is the truth. I've read the Grand Jury's report and honestly, based upon what's in there, Paterno is, at this time and until any evidence is produced to refute it.... innocent of wrong doing. If you want to talk about inaction, how about the detectives who dropped an investigation at the bequest of Penn State Campus Police, an AG/Head of Police that decided not to file charges, a mother who worked with the police to tape phone conversations but didn't pursue it when the police dropped it, the executives of Second Mile who were apparently informed several times about possible issues but did nothing, Shultz and Curely who did nothing... there was a whole lot of failure going on here by not only Penn State officials but by local and county law enforcement, school coaches and officials and other various authorities. The victims were let down at every single level by every person who should have protected them but to pin the majority of the blame on Paterno and say that it was Paterno who enabled and apparently by way of inaction, condoned, Sandusky's actions is a ridiculous. Could he have done more? Given the information we have now, it appears to be obvious he could have. But he didn't have all of this information, he had an apparently vague report of some sort of sexual misconduct between a former employee and a child, which he had already reported a required by law and "morality". Paterno is the "big name" goat being sacrificed to overshadow the rest of the stuff in the background.. it will be interesting to see where this case goes with regard to the public's interest in the case now that the "blood" we've all been calling for has been shed. Wrong. So wrong. McQueary told him what happened in excruciating detail. Show me in the indictment or in the testimonies of those involved where anyone says Paterno was told in full detail what happened in that shower. Don't you think that the Grand Jury would have indicted Paterno as well if Mcqueary (sp) had testified differently? Because that what happened with Schultz and Curley.

Are you kidding me? You must be a PSU fan. Just because you didn't break the law doesn't mean you didn't do anything wrong. He did the absolute bare minimum from a legal standpoint, but given this situation, EVERYBODY (not just a head football coach) should be held to a higher standard. His cowardly inaction enabled Sandusky to roam freely to molest other innocent children, and Paterno KNEW that was the case (or he was in denial about it, which doesn't make it better). If your argument is really that he didn't break the law, or that lots of other people were wrong too, then get your head out of the sand. Paterno screwed up in a huge way, and he deserves everything coming down the pipe at him (which by the way, is not jail-time. Just unemployment and shame). Not a Penn State fan at all, just not a fan of being led around by my nose by the media. The majority of what I've seen posted by media and in comments around the web is by people who are angry and start "reading" between the lines and filling in the blanks with "facts" that don't exist and then using those "facts" to stir up others into mindless frenzies. My argument is that Paterno, based upon what we currently know is factual, is the legally and morally innocent, he did what he was supposed to do. The fact that you or I wanted him to have done more doesn't make him morally bankrupt, it just makes us disappointed and mad that someone we elevated to and recognized as a "godlike" epitome of perfection failed to live up to our expectations, so know we're tearing down our idols to him and smearing his name.

Sorry but no. He got fired because he was part of the chain of command that this went through and got shoved under the rug by. That much is documented and admitted. It is not a witch hunt. I don't understand how people can divorce themselves from reality enough to think that this was just a convenient opportunity to get rid of the guy. He tied their hands the day he found out about what went on in 2002 and didn't go directly to the authorities and continued to have Sandusky around the program... and that's assuming he was ignorant of the situation that went on before Sandusky was removed as DC in the 90s. Which isn't very plausible. Funny, but I have yet to read of or see any evidence where this was "shoved under the rug" by Paterno. That's media supposition at it's finest, as is the posting by the media and general public on boards and blogs all over the internet about how he must have been thinking about his reputation/wins/legacy versus the safety of those kids. Sandusky had never been arrested for, nor charged with nor found guilty of any sort of crime (and still hasn't), so how exactly do you justify cutting off all ties with the person based on second hand accounts and hearsay? It's not as if Paterno actually witnessed anything that would have made what you are purporting he do - completely block access to all campus facilitys/programs etc,- actionable without putting the university and himself at risk (and even had he done so, there is zero evidence that it would have prevented Sandusky from continuing to molest children). Did JoePa know about what happened in the shower involving his former staff member? yes, he himself admitted that to a grand jury. Did he report it directly to the police? No. There you go. He's not being charged with a crime because he did not lie about that. That doesn't mean the workplace where this was swept under the rug, by the people that this was known by, needs him to be charged with a crime to see that it was a huge problem. By not being immediately turned over to police it was a problem and that was compounded by having the man accused still around the program. His inaction and those of his direct superiors (which is laughable at penn state) enabled a child rapist. Get that through your head. Everyone involved needs to be and will be canned whether they are facing indictments or not. They taint the entire institution if you allow them to remain. He's not being charged with a crime because he did nothing wrong - he reported it to the "authorities" in charge of his institution (which is how the law/statute is worded... although I imagine that the statute may be amended to rid itself of such ambiguity in the future), not because he didn't lie about it to the grand jury - if the Grand Jury thought he was lying they would have charged him with perjury as they did with Schultz and Curely.. but they didn't, which seems to point to and support the fact that Paterno's testimony that he was unaware of the specifics of what took place in the shower is the truth. I've read the Grand Jury's report and honestly, based upon what's in there, Paterno is, at this time and until any evidence is produced to refute it.... innocent of wrong doing. If you want to talk about inaction, how about the detectives who dropped an investigation at the bequest of Penn State Campus Police, an AG/Head of Police that decided not to file charges, a mother who worked with the police to tape phone conversations but didn't pursue it when the police dropped it, the executives of Second Mile who were apparently informed several times about possible issues but did nothing, Shultz and Curely who did nothing... there was a whole lot of failure going on here by not only Penn State officials but by local and county law enforcement, school coaches and officials and other various authorities. The victims were let down at every single level by every person who should have protected them but to pin the majority of the blame on Paterno and say that it was Paterno who enabled and apparently by way of inaction, condoned, Sandusky's actions is a ridiculous. Could he have done more? Given the information we have now, it appears to be obvious he could have. But he didn't have all of this information, he had an apparently vague report of some sort of sexual misconduct between a former employee and a child, which he had already reported a required by law and "morality". Paterno is the "big name" goat being sacrificed to overshadow the rest of the stuff in the background.. it will be interesting to see where this case goes with regard to the public's interest in the case now that the "blood" we've all been calling for has been shed.

Sorry but no. He got fired because he was part of the chain of command that this went through and got shoved under the rug by. That much is documented and admitted. It is not a witch hunt. I don't understand how people can divorce themselves from reality enough to think that this was just a convenient opportunity to get rid of the guy. He tied their hands the day he found out about what went on in 2002 and didn't go directly to the authorities and continued to have Sandusky around the program... and that's assuming he was ignorant of the situation that went on before Sandusky was removed as DC in the 90s. Which isn't very plausible. Funny, but I have yet to read of or see any evidence where this was "shoved under the rug" by Paterno. That's media supposition at it's finest, as is the posting by the media and general public on boards and blogs all over the internet about how he must have been thinking about his reputation/wins/legacy versus the safety of those kids. Sandusky had never been arrested for, nor charged with nor found guilty of any sort of crime (and still hasn't), so how exactly do you justify cutting off all ties with the person based on second hand accounts and hearsay? It's not as if Paterno actually witnessed anything that would have made what you are purporting he do - completely block access to all campus facilitys/programs etc,- actionable without putting the university and himself at risk (and even had he done so, there is zero evidence that it would have prevented Sandusky from continuing to molest children).

Well that's just too damn bad, tell it to the 40 kids or their families and see if they agree with you. "In the heat of the moment" doesn't absolve people of crimes of omission, just like it doesn't absolve them of crimes of commission. And what exactly was Paterno's crime? Because apparently no one can find any legal issue with how he handled it. Oh, never mind, I forgot, it's a "moral" crime... and thus need not actually require any kind of factual basis or evidence to back up.

Read the Grand Jury report. You have no idea what you're talking about when you say this is fueled by the media. This has been entirely driven by Joe Paterno's lack of action over nine-plus years of knowledge of Sandusky's actions. All reading the Grand Jury report does is make one mad (aside from the fact that we're assuming Paterno knew a crap ton more about Sandusky's actions than we can prove). And being mad feels great, it sets up the foundation of "righteous" anger, on which we can build our soap box and then use that to mount our high horse. Once mounted we can then proceed to justify and all of my actions to "punish" people in the name of "justice." The whole "morals" thing that everyone is preaching right now has very little to do with defending innocent children or any kind of "morality" at all, it the excuse we're using to vent anger at people who may or may not deserve it (although anybody we're mad at does, of course, deserve it, right?). Firing Paterno doesn't actually make anything better (in fact I highly doubt if anything at all comes out of this case in regards to truly making positive changes to prevent this sort of thing in the future), it just appeases the masses - he's a sacrificial goat, put out there by not only the BoT but also the police and AG to draw a ton of attention to the case, so much attention in fact, that they can sweep under the rug the fact that many people, including those now calling out Paterno for not doing more, did less than he did (because we have short memories and once the bloodthirst has died off we typically forget about it and move on... at least until the next time our thirst rises again). And the media laps it up and feeds it because it's money in the bank as far as they are concerned and if/when they find out they were wrong they don't have any culpability. It's the modern day version of the Salem Witch trials, seen most recently during the Casey Anthony case as well where the media stirred up a frenzy with suppositions and assumptions. So now we've gotten mad and someone has been punished/sacrificed. Do we all feel better now? Can we all stand tall and talk about how justice was done? As I said before, disgusting.

Ridiculous... this was a modern day witch hunt fueled by careless media making a lot of assumptions and suppositions with no real basis on factual evidence - that the BoT fired Paterno is not surprising given the rumors they've been trying to oust him for years, but fervor for which "we" were clamoring for his firing to "punish" him is repugnant. The whole "he should have morally done more" argument is the result of hindsight and a lot of Monday morning quarterbacking. It's always much easier to see how a someone screwed up after the fact and what they should've/could've done to change things - it's much, much harder to perform at that kind of level of self-realization during a situation. As for the "I would've done this or kicked this person's ***&^^*, " well, we're all real tough on the internet, but the majority of us would have done no more than he did - reported it to his superiors - and of those who actually may have done more (which is very few) even fewer could actually back it up. Honestly, disgusted at what was done to those boys, disgusted it was covered up and disgusted with the pitchfork and torches mob mentality that we've allowed ourselves to be stirred up into by the media. Thank goodness our legal system gives zero weight to judgement of the court of public opinion, else we'd all hang. I only hope that the rioting is quelled before anyone gets seriously hurt as there's no need to had further injury, hurt and pain to this mess of a situation.

get off your high horse or get off the board. one or the other. this is an internet message board. i dont see many professing themselves to be coaches or whatnot.. what i do see is fans...and as extension of your local watering hole the internet is the new playground for those to shell out their opinions. some are obviously longer than others... No thanks I like the board and my high horse, it makes it easy to judge others for their opinions and decisions - it's especially nice because I get to hide behind the anonymity of internet to do it. I do apologize that my opinion was to long, however I didn't realize there was a character limit on Huskerboard. I'll try to make sure my opinions in the future are shorter and better reflect those of others on the board. In that vein, "FIRE Watson!!!! ...and let them eat cake!!!" Have a nice day!

I think that the expectations of many fans with regard to the Husker offense and/or Watson and the offensive coaching staff are so high as to be unable to be met - I feel the same is true of the defense as well. The offense is either too multiple or not multiple enough, it either passes too little or to much or on the wrong down or with the wrong quarterback; Watson goes away from the running game too soon or stays with it too long, etc, etc, etc. While I don't think Watson is the most brilliant OC to ever grace college football I think that expecting our offense to be some kind of powerhouse given the injuries, shifting play styles and the quarterback carousel that the last 3 years have been is ridiculous. I most definitely would have like to see touchdowns and W's in the games that have been posted as evidence of ineptitude but I don't think Watson leaving solves the fumbles, bumbles, penalties, miscues, drops, bad reads and blocking issues that the offense has experienced. On the defensive front, a few big plays against a player or the defense as a whole and it's like the Titantic is sinking all over again. Simply put my expectations were too high. After last years torching of Arizona, I expected a potent offense, a stout defense, a North title, Big XII championship and possibly a trip to the National Championship - we had a lot of talent returning and started the season ranked high enough to really make a go of it. Upon finding out Lee had been dropped to 3rd string and the starter was a freshman, I was worried and ready to temper my expectations of the Big XII title and National Championship chances (I though the North was still easily in hand). But Martinez looked good, Helu and Burkhead looked good, David looked good - in fact the whole team looked pretty darn good and so I didn't temper anything. All was actually going pretty well, just a few missteps on offense, even after the Texas game until the injury bug really started hitting. Now, before the injuries there were some issues with execution, loss of focus, etc, but they were relatively easily overcome with big plays and better talent. Once some of the playmakers started going down and opponent talent levels moving up, the issues that were once a bit of a pain in the side became a full blown cancer - killing drives, taking points off the board and putting the defense in often insurmountable positions. But, ugly as it often was, the Huskers still won and my expectations, batter and bruised a bit, remained high, although after the loss to Texas, National Championship became just a dream. The loss to A&M was tough, but even then only the National Championship was foregone. In fact, until the second half of the game tonight, I still expected to win the Big XII championship - and I held out hope until the end of the 4th. While I fully believe, and will until the day I die, that Husker fans are the best fans in all of college football - the fans, myself included, have become a fickle, spoiled, whiny, entitled bunch. The Osborne years, especially the 90's, were great, but they've somehow managed to convince us fans that we DESERVE championships, high rankings and no loss seasons just because we're the Huskers. How we measure success has become skewed such that anything less that complete domination of the North, Conference and FBS as a whole is failure. A 10-3 or 11-3 or 10-4 season, in the wake of some close, ugly and heartbreaking losses is obviously a bit tougher to swallow than an 13-0 season as conference champs, but it's kind of like playing the lottery and complaining about only winning $200K instead of the jackpot. Every week we're calling for coaches heads, throwing players under buses, calling out refs and conference officials, badmouthing sports writers... from the inside looking out and the outside looking in it's gotten pretty ugly folks. Should there be accountability for the performance of the team? No question. And there is, thankfully by cooler, more level heads than those of the fans.

Keep in mind that the "awesome D" also let Colorado receivers get behind them not once, but twice for 14 of those 17 points. If you're going to remove the big plays the defense made for NU then you need to be fair you should remove the big plays they gave up to Colorado as well, making it a 24-3 game (offense to offense).

I think people are going to find something to complain about regardless of how things are going (although it's endemic across all spectrums of life, not just as Husker fans). If Bo didn't go ballistic last night, everyone would be asking why Bo wasn't in the ref's ears. Instead, he did and now everyone's complaining about how embarrassing he was. I don't really hold it against Perlman for saying what he did, but agree that it should have "no commented" and handled inside the organization. As far as not representing Nebraska well or the "that's not how we handle things at Nebraska", in my opinion, I'll take honest, expression of how one feels over all the politically correct BS that "everyone" seems to want to spread around just so someone is not offended. Even if it makes Nebraska look "bad." Even if it makes a booster or three unhappy. I'd bet that at the end of the day, even if it were to cost him his job at Nebraska or future jobs, Bo would rather have done what he did and looked the fool than to have just taken what was happening lying down.

I imagine that had they actually been doing their job (calling a fair, unbiased game) last night instead of, well, whatever the heck they were doing, Bo wouldn't have been tearing them a new one all night.

I'm wondering this as well. Aside from the halftime interview where the reporter opened with "Coach why are you upset about the fumble," I didn't really see anything I'd call being "irate at pretty much anyone within five feet". Honestly, had I been asked the same question (as well as the follow-ups), under the same circumstances, my answers probably would have been much less courteous than Bo's.

His presence definitely would have been nice today, but I'm glad he sat this week. In fact, I'd rather see him sit next week and even the week after if needed to give himself the chance to fully recover from his concussion, rather than get in there too early and re-injure himself. Brain injuries, like any other injuries, need time to heal and I think a lot of the time players are back on the field too soon after getting a concussion. In general, I don't think 1 week is enough and 2 weeks, unless it's a really, really mild concussion, is pushing it a bit as well - I'd even be for a mandatory 2 game or 21 day (whichever is greatest) leave for players who sustain a concussion. It would suck for the teams and most likely for the players themselves, but a healthy brain is more important in my book than a football game or even a championship.

Yup. And now the media can talk about how long it's been since we've beaten a team in the top 5 Maybe they'll let us count beating ourselves in the Texas game??? I suppose it would just move to Top 3 then #1 though.... just no pleasin' the media.

He hits him any higher and it would be a personal foul (for reasons stated above) and if he hit him any lower it would be a personal foul (blocking below the waist). Honestly, that hit was made in just about the only way it could have been, without them playing a game of patty cake, and not drawing a personal foul. Human physiology is such that if you engage someone with you shoulder, drive forward/through with your legs and hips and keep your head up like your supposed to, your going to "move up" the opponents body and helmet to helmet is going to occur. Martin essentially used a perfect tackling form on this guy, only without wrapping up (which again would have drawn a personal foul). He wasn't aiming high, wasn't leading with his head and likely didn't realize he'd hurt the guy at first. If I were Bo, I would be pissed at the flex though; not because he injured the guy, but because as a coach I'd expect him to be looking around to find someone else to hit rather than celebrating (I'm thinking maybe Martin forgot he wasn't playing defense at that point). Hell of a hit and if I'd made it, I'd include it in my highlight reel.

I suppose I just don't understand the attitude of letting Martinez "cost" us games this year so that he can potentially win games for the Huskers with his "experience" next year (you know, because of all of his experience taking his lumps.) As I've said before, if that's the case then they should bench all of the seniors and only play underclassmen who are going to be here next year, regardless of whether we win or lose, so that next year they field the best, most experienced team possible as they enter the Big 10. Extreme? Maybe even to the point of stupid? Yeah, it is, but so is leaving Martinez in a game when he's not getting anything accomplished when they have backups who can provide a different look and possibly put some points on the board. I'm not saying they win every game with Lee or Green at the helm either, but to discount any positives they can add to the game now because of the slim possibility of Martinez pulling a rabbit out of his hat in the future or because of some misguided notion that he needs to play all four quarters of a game to learn to play in adverse conditions is just a dumb an idea in my opinion as the one I posted above. He was getting nothing done on the field when he was pulled, granted he wasn't getting any help from his receivers or the Texas defense, but it was virtually a three and out from the second quarter on with him at the helm. Lee for whatever reason was able to come off the bench and move the ball. While he didn't do anything magical and pull out a win, he at least put together some drives and got the defense a bit of rest. As an aside, if Martinez's psyche is so fragile that getting benched for not playing well is going to break him, then maybe a move to another position would be best for him and the team in the long run. How Lee "moved the ball" was mostly 45 yards of penalties vs Texas. Those had "zero" to do with Lee. Lee was 4 for 9 passing for 14 yds. That's right...."14" yds. Lee plodded along for 25 yds in ten attempts (2.5 ypc). Whoopie. Was Lee's passing numbers screwed over by our pathetic wrs? Yes,just like Tmart. Lastly, Lee comes in to save our bacon down 14 pts and generates a whole big "one" fg (3 points). If that's not shades of last year, what is? The truth is that stats lie and "both" qbs played well but were sabotaged by our wrs (thanks Gilmore). There's nothing wrong with Tmart's psyche whatsoever. That's simply dreamed up BS. Well then, lets compare. First Downs Lee - 8 in 2 series Martinez - 5 in 9 series 5 Even taking away the 3 first downs from Texas penalties Lee, in 2 drives, was able to match what took Martinez 8 drives (not counting the drive Helu fumbled on) EDGE - LEE Rushing Lee - 10 for 25 with 0 yards lost (2.5 YPC) Martinez - 13 for 39 with 18 yards lost (1.6 YPC) Passing EDGE - LEE Lee - 4 for 9 for 14 yards, no sacks (44% completion rate) Martinez - 4 for 12 for 63 yards, 1 sack (25% completion rate) EDGE - Tie, Martinez had more yards, but a lower percentage and a sack. Aw heck, give it to Martinez. Fumbles Lee - 1 Fumble, none lost Martinez - 2 Fumbles, none lost EDGE - Lee Penalties Lee - 0 Taylor - 1 (intentional grounding, a crap call, but still a penalty) EDGE - Lee Looking at the numbers Lee is definitely NOT an Heisman candidate (or even a Big 12 Honorable mention) but he put in a better performance than Martinez who just was not, in any way, shape or form, having a good game. Theres just no way to spin it and say Martinez played well or even that he played better than Lee. He deserved to get pulled and Lee put on an admirable show for not having played more than couple series all year.

I suppose I just don't understand the attitude of letting Martinez "cost" us games this year so that he can potentially win games for the Huskers with his "experience" next year (you know, because of all of his experience taking his lumps.) As I've said before, if that's the case then they should bench all of the seniors and only play underclassmen who are going to be here next year, regardless of whether we win or lose, so that next year they field the best, most experienced team possible as they enter the Big 10. Extreme? Maybe even to the point of stupid? Yeah, it is, but so is leaving Martinez in a game when he's not getting anything accomplished when they have backups who can provide a different look and possibly put some points on the board. I'm not saying they win every game with Lee or Green at the helm either, but to discount any positives they can add to the game now because of the slim possibility of Martinez pulling a rabbit out of his hat in the future or because of some misguided notion that he needs to play all four quarters of a game to learn to play in adverse conditions is just a dumb an idea in my opinion as the one I posted above. He was getting nothing done on the field when he was pulled, granted he wasn't getting any help from his receivers or the Texas defense, but it was virtually a three and out from the second quarter on with him at the helm. Lee for whatever reason was able to come off the bench and move the ball. While he didn't do anything magical and pull out a win, he at least put together some drives and got the defense a bit of rest. As an aside, if Martinez's psyche is so fragile that getting benched for not playing well is going to break him, then maybe a move to another position would be best for him and the team in the long run.

I dont care that hes from the Callahan era. I have no bad feeligns for Callahan, sometimes nfl coaches just dont have "it" at the college level. I just dont like how watson never seems to adjust to what has worked int he past against that team. I did not see one counter, off tackle from under center and that is how ucla and ou ran all over texas. Maybe he can prove me wrong but he hasnt done anything yet to make me think any differently. If im wrong, im wrong, but can you PLEASE tell me what watson has done lately thats been imprssive? The offense seems poorly coached all around and have been for the past two years, in fact 3 years ago our offense got shut down when the defense got adjusted to it. Im waiting to see reasons or examples on how he is such a good offense coordinator..All i see is people saying "you hate watson because hes from the callahan era" I dont see any stats or reasons or how he has adjusted or how he mixes it up..or how hes so unpredictable. I'm not sure what else I could post that I didn't already say above with regard to Watson mixing it up and the various fan reactions I've seen. I don't think that changing up the offense every week is a very good idea, especially when we seem to have trouble executing the offense we've had all season. Sure it seems like a good idea on paper to just add and change things every week to target defensive weaknesses, but it just doesn't work all that well in real life. I haven't watched a ton of game film on Oklahoma or UCLA this year, but my assumption would be that they run those plays already and they didn't just put them in against Texas, although maybe they did. As for examples that he's a "good" offensive coordinator, what would you like to see? Every game that's posted as evidence of how bad he is is a loss (with the exception of OK last year), so I suppose to prove he is "good" one would post games we've won - but that just results in "well, those were bad defenses, so that doesn't prove anything." Didnt we run dives, counters, tackles last year? Why were we so effective against Arizona? We were effective because he mixed it up and ran from both shotgun and under center formations. He mixed it up well so I had hope our offense would do the same this year. But i rarely see runs from under center and i see way too much zone read going on. Why cant you implement some runs under center like we did last year? It seemed like he reverted away from that because his own ego wont allow him to go away from the zone read. He didnt do well in any games except VT last year and the year before and the arizon game. I would like to see him pass it on first down, he didnt do that against texas. I would like to us to run some singleback, i form. Do runs from under center AND shotgun, not just shotgun. We arent balanced, passing 7 times a game (or passing when we are down when we are a lot) and running 50 times a game isnt balance by any means. Balance also means showing different formations from under center to shotgun. We always have mental mistakes on offense and our wrs always drop passes because they focus on blocking more in practice. Shouldnt the poor play of the wr's, oline, and rbs in big games be pegged on the coaching? You also cant just run "zone read" against a defense that is prepared for that one play and all variations of the zone readand you cant execute the zone read when the defense is faster than your offense. Where was the passing on first or second down when they were cheating up? It was blatantly obvious they were playing the run yet we never took a chance on first or second down until we were down by a lot. Also, if people payed attention, martinez didnt make the wrong reads on zone read, no matter what he did the defense would have stopped it. I dont think Watson is a good OC, hopefully he will change but our offens hasnt shown any improvement in the mental aspect, dropping passes, fumbles, etc. He's running what he's running because Martinez is the quarterback. With Lee at the helm from the beginning of the season, I think we would see a less zone read oriented, more "mix it up" type of offense because Lee is not the running threat Martinez is and as such Helu and Burkhead and the passing game would be more utilized than they have been. I'm not saying they'd never run the zone read, but it probably wouldn't be called quite so often. But Lee isn't starting, Martinez is, so Watson is scheming to Martinez's strengths while at the same time being hampered by his weaknesses (redshirt freshman with a more limited playbook and less developed passing skillset.) No one has said that this offense is in any way balanced, it's very run heavy to take advantage of Martinez's speed. As such passes are usually only going to come on 2nd and long and 3rd and long situations (you would think being run heavy would satisfy the fans, who've been calling for it, but SURPRISE!!!, now the Huskers don't pass enough) As for passing on 1st or 2nd down, with the way the receivers were catching - or rather not catching - running was a higher percentage play regardless of how Texas was playing it and that Martinez was only averaging 2 yards a carry and Lee 3. As for Martinez not making the wrong reads, he was and has been for quite a while - several people have re-watched the game and posted about it. That said, even making the right reads wasn't going to get him a bunch of break away touchdowns on Saturday, but he was LOSING yards just about every time he ran in the second and third quarters. As for the mental mistakes, they are not just limited to our offense and in fact plague the defense as well, it's just that it's easier for the defense to "correct" their mistakes due to their speed. The overall mentality of the team with regard to making mistakes needs to be addressed from the top down from Bo to Carl and Shawn then to the assistants and the players. At the same time, it also needs to be a grass roots movement from the players that they are not going to allow this type of error prone mentality to exist any more.

I agree that they rushed the punt, but Bo couldn't see it from his side of the field and not 1 but 2 refs standing on the sideline right next to the play called it not a catch. It would have been nice if our booth called down to have him challenge it, but I'm not sure they had any better a view than Bo did. As a side note, the amount of time it takes for the booth to call down that they are reviewing a play seems way too long. ESPN/ABC manages to show five different angles of the shot before the next play is run, but it takes just about every single tick of the play clock and sometimes a timeout for the booth to give it a similar look? I don't get it. Since they are reviewing "every" play are they not being fed a live stream of those shots? Or do they have to request and then wait for ESPN/ABC to run them each time?

I dont care that hes from the Callahan era. I have no bad feeligns for Callahan, sometimes nfl coaches just dont have "it" at the college level. I just dont like how watson never seems to adjust to what has worked int he past against that team. I did not see one counter, off tackle from under center and that is how ucla and ou ran all over texas. Maybe he can prove me wrong but he hasnt done anything yet to make me think any differently. If im wrong, im wrong, but can you PLEASE tell me what watson has done lately thats been imprssive? The offense seems poorly coached all around and have been for the past two years, in fact 3 years ago our offense got shut down when the defense got adjusted to it. Im waiting to see reasons or examples on how he is such a good offense coordinator..All i see is people saying "you hate watson because hes from the callahan era" I dont see any stats or reasons or how he has adjusted or how he mixes it up..or how hes so unpredictable. I'm not sure what else I could post that I didn't already say above with regard to Watson mixing it up and the various fan reactions I've seen. I don't think that changing up the offense every week is a very good idea, especially when we seem to have trouble executing the offense we've had all season. Sure it seems like a good idea on paper to just add and change things every week to target defensive weaknesses, but it just doesn't work all that well in real life. I haven't watched a ton of game film on Oklahoma or UCLA this year, but my assumption would be that they run those plays already and they didn't just put them in against Texas, although maybe they did. As for examples that he's a "good" offensive coordinator, what would you like to see? Every game that's posted as evidence of how bad he is is a loss (with the exception of OK last year), so I suppose to prove he is "good" one would post games we've won - but that just results in "well, those were bad defenses, so that doesn't prove anything."

Regardless of performance?? 2010 Texas - zero TDs 2009 Texas - zero TDs 2009 Oklahoma - "one" TD (we get the ball on their 5 yd line due to turnover) 2009 Virginia Tech - zero TDs You trot that out like that's some kind of proof that Watson is terrible. But it's really not. What that is proof of is that the offense did not execute well and likely mucked up what was called. How many fumbles did the Huskers have in those games, how many dropped balls, drive killing penalties, mis-reads, bad passes, etc. Watson can't plan for and beat every single one of these things - no coach can - and even if he could, as we saw in the Texas game the players will reach deep down and find a way to shoot themselves in the foot anyway. That's not to say he doesn't have a good share of the blame, but laying the whole pile at his feet is nonsense and replacing him doesn't make those things go away. I do believe that there is an execution and discipline issue with the Huskers as coached by Bo, Shawn and Carl. While they are now playing, generally, with more fire and intensity than under Callahan, they make constant mental errors on both sides of the ball. The good news is that on defense, we are fast enough we can usually recover with out much in the way of injury. The bad news is that on offense, there is really no way to "recover" from these issues and they are going to sting us and keep stinging us until they get resolved. I don't know what the issue is or how to best address it, but it seems to be a team habit rather than solely a habit of the offensive side of the ball.