sbhusker

I noticed a couple concering lines postgame: 1. Frost thinking that going up 24-0 wouldve emptied the stands and started the blowout. 2. Barry thinking they had it in the bag at half. That they thought they were going to win. I don't like that today Frost doubled down on the idea that they needed just one more score. It's like they are trying to pick the right time to be able to stop trying hard. Just keep playing. If the other team quits, go harder. That's the fun time. There should never be any 'oh we're up by enough we can screw around' fun time. That's not how you win.

Pronounced like Babadook? Monster off the edge?

You're the best, Knap! (Feel free to move/erase the thread to clear some clutter, though others might find it helpful.)

I'm planning a trip for the Northwestern and Michigan State games (driving out from California with my dad). Does anybody know if it is possible to tour the facilities during the week? Would I need to set up an appointment with the athletic department? I looked online for an email address to the athletic department and didn't find much. Does anybody have a lead I can follow? Any help would be greatly appreciated. Thanks!

haha... I sense a pattern.

I tried to go back and find "the very first N touchdown", first TD out of the state, first TD against old Big 8 teams etc. couldn't find anything. Yeah, I couldn't find scoring summaries from that era, either. I found the Chamberlin TD runs of 20 and 10 yds against ND in 1922 here: http://www.huskers.com/ViewArticle.dbml?DB_OEM_ID=100&ATCLID=919576 NU won 20-19, sealing a perfect 8-0 season and handing ND its only loss that year. The article says he also threw the go-ahead TD, which presumably would be more 'glorious' than the other two TDs, but the play's yardage is not given.

That Brandon Jackson run is a good run, it's just that it came in the 4th quarter against Louisiana Tech in a blowout win. Anyone else have any feelings for this? That's a good point, Knap. I can see how we might want to go with plays from bigger games or clutch situations. That brings up another question, though: What about plays that put us over the top in important games but that don't have any video evidence? If we want to especially include plays that might have had a larger impact on the program, maybe we should bring some of these into the fold. I'm not trying to over-think it (Isn't that what Husker fans do though?). This is a fun thread either way!

Possibility for 25. Starting @ :23 in. (Hope that works) 20 and 10. Guy Chamberlain against Notre Dame in 1915. Haven't found em on Youtube yet. Gonna stay up all night looking. Makes you wonder what all happened before they started to "put it on film." Maybe some of it is somewhere?

Well, after Charles Jackson's comments, it appears Bo's potential bungling goes beyond offending the fans and media. I was hoping that would've been the extent of it. Maybe time for a new poll? Have at it...I think I'll just sit back and lurk for awhile, waiting for my next chance to hassle knapplc for getting emotional. kidding dude.

You posted in another thread that Bo is "in danger of losing the fanbase." I was just wondering what happened yesterday (which I suppose could be added to previous concerns held by some regarding his sideline demeanor) to cause that opinion. If it's because he "misled" fans (like you) then yes, I think you are taking it personally. So, I made a guess that your interpretation of Bo's comments as being misleading to fans, or whatever you think he did that does not meet your expectations, caused you some hurt feelings. I hope that explanation is less nonsensical, even if you still disagree with my conclusion But if you say your feelings aren't hurt, then I believe you. Wouldn't want to blow your "dispassionate" cover

Well played sir! yes a little but I don't care over here BTW- we signed a pretty good class today. Hell yeah! Now, if we can just get some new coaches! haha GBR!

Right, from that perspective I can see how "lying" to the press can be construed as "lying" to the fans. Of course that assumes that Bo had the option (legally, contractually, whatever) to spill his guts but decided not to, just to be a stinker. Is that the assumption? That he could have told us everything but that he hates the media so much and is so indifferent towards the fans that he decided not to? Or are we dealing with a coach who is still new to dancing around gray areas (let's face it gray areas might never be his specialty), especially with the media, who said "No!" a little too defensively and forcefully in response to a question he already said he wasn't going to answer (after the 4th time it was asked), and now is in a PR sh*tst*rm manufactured by some fans (and reporters) who would rather discuss their hurt feelings than the STELLAR class we just pulled? With that, recognizing the irony of keeping it alive, I drop it.

gotcha, good point. But wait...that means Bo LIED to the press! *gasp*

Haha, true, I guess you have to give the last guy (Sherman, I think?) some credit for trying to tie it back into recruiting: something like "Would staff changes be something that you think you should address with recruits?" Interestingly, from what I have read on here (so far), nobody seems to be questioning whether making staff changes after LOI's are in would undermine the trust between recruits and the HC/University that Bo mentioned as being even more important than who recruits' position coaches will be. It seems like most of the "He messed up and it was pretty bad" advocates are taking it personally, worrying about how his "gaffe" (if there was one) might offend fans, rather than how current and future recruits might react. Am I wrong?

I know there are already several threads in which this topic is being argued but maybe we can try to quantify the "tenor of the fanbase" (or at least the message boarders among us) and see who truly is...dun dun dun..."out of touch"?

Fair enough. It is definitely a tricky situation politically, especially given Beck's Cardinal Mooney ties. I'd be happy with Frost as qb coach, getting ready to replace Beck at OC if Beck should move on to a HC gig or leave with Bo sometime down the line. I stick by the notion that we shouldn't be afraid to take a risk on a young coach. Also, I think continuity in the coaching staff, if they are getting the job done (obviously), is key to the success of a football program, especially Nebraska's. I don't see Nebraska as a program that will ever be such a hot destination among the best coaches that it can withstand constant turnover. Our best bet, I think, is to find a staff (or at least staff leaders: HC, OC, DC) that share a vision and are willing to stick around and see it through. Maybe Bo and Beck are willing to stick around and are capable of seeing it through, but what we are dealing with now is a blurry and disjointed vision between Bo and Wats that is definitely not working.

True, Frost would have to start being an OC, just like Bo had to start being a DC. When Bo was hired as DC was it because he was totally "seasoned" or was it because Monte Kiffin tagged him as a can't miss young up and comer? How about when Devaney picked TO as OC? If what we're talking about actually happens (longshot) Frost would probably have a few years here as co-OC/qb coach before Beck moved on and he moved up to be OC, so your "2 years experience as offensive coach" qualm would no longer apply. In fact at that point he'd have as much experience as TO did when he became OC. It's one thing to say "he's not as good, but we want him anyways" and another to say "he is good, and, if great, he could stay at NU for the next ~25 years." I don't know of many (any) other young up and comers who would stay at Nebraska for that long if successful. Bring in the Tulsa guy and how long before he moves on to his next destination? Then what? I think it would be wise to bring somebody in who has shown major promise in the profession and would be devoted to the program long term.

I will reply as though your concerns about bringing in Frost are not related to your desire to keep Watson: Resume-wise, I don't think Frost's experience is THAT much less than Bo's was in 2003. We can certainly debate the experiential value of Frost's years playing in the NFL and coaching at N. Iowa and UO versus Bo's years coaching in the NFL. But we'd agree that both have been around and learned from an impressive list of football influences right? However, beyond the "completeness" of Frost's seasoning, his viability as an immediate co-oc (sorry Watson) and eventual HC (if Bo leaves), comes from the (admittedly hard to define) "it" factor that he has displayed all along. From his tough, competitive, leadership at NU, to his ability to learn new positions and schemes in the NFL, to his actions in the Blount fiasco against Boise, to his recruiting prowess at UO, to Bellotti calling him something like the most impressive candidate he'd ever interviewed, to the performance of UO's WRs this year, to being coached by his mom in HS I just think he has (and gets) "it." Plus, like others have said, he would offer the security of having a coach who is wholly loyal to the program and the state. Like I said before, we can keep trying Raider and CU retreads (Kidding of course, but hey, Cable and Hawkins are both available!), or we can take a chance on another young up and comer, which seems to have worked out well in the past.

I'm not sure if it's the "calling plays" part of the OC job that would concern me, it's everything else. Politically, giving him the OC post wouldn't be the best move for the rest of the staff. This is different than 03' IMO. Beck would pissed no doubt. Who knows how some of the other guys w/ more experience would feel. Barney might be slightly ticked. Also, there's a lot more that goes into being an OC than just calling plays. There's a ton of logistics work - coordinating staff, players, meetings, etc. The management aspect of it is something he has no experience doing. For Frost's sake - bringing him in as an OC might not be in his best interest. There'd be a lot of pressure to perform, and a political firestorm to extinguish. He could be successful no doubt - I'm just not sure he would be as an OC for NU in 2011. This is why you bring him in and give him the title Co-Offensive Coordinator. He would coach the recievers or QB's and he would call the plays. Beck would be promoted to Co-Offensive Coordinator as well. Maybe even give him an associate head coach title or something to stroke his ego. Then in a few years, assuming some success, Beck would possibly leave for a head coaching job somewhere. At this time Frost would become full time Offensive Coordinator. Then if Bo if/when leaves, he would be promoted to Head Coach. This isn't really hard to see happening and it is a fantastic scenario for everyone involved with Husker football. We get a Nebraska guy who knows Nebraska and will be around for a LONG time. No brainer if you ask me. This is the long-term scenario I was also envisioning: bringing in Frost now could prepare NU for the departures of Bo/Beck. The Co-coordinator transitional stage is a good solution, IMO. The question then is: would Bo bring in the guy who everyone sees as Bo's eventual replacement?

I see what you are saying: that the situation now is different from 2003 in the sense that (in the hypothetical situation most on here have been discussing) we would not be completely replacing our staff on that side of the ball. (Most want to keep Beck and Brown) So the logic seems to be that if you aren't clearing out everybody then you have to promote from within, because no holdovers are going to like working under the new guy. That makes sense (even though I don't think Brown would mind as much as Beck would). And from what I've read on here (maybe those in the know could clarify), the Beck situation might be even more complicated because of some promises Bo made him along the way--which could render any "Frost as OC" conversation completely moot. (But since it's the off-season...) If this is what it came down to, would you rather keep Beck or bring in Frost? I am not anti-Beck, even though it is hard to completely exonerate him from the last few years' craptastic O's. Nor am I Frost's cousin/uncle/aquarium dude/etc. Just throwing it out there as something to talk about. I understand the added political concerns of clearing out one side of the staff (except Brown if he'd stay) after a 7-7 2002 vs a 10-4 2010, and I doubt TO would support such a move (is it ultimately up to him?). But I am less concerned than you are about Frost's ability to handle the logistics of being a coordinator. He's been around a lot of big time football, and I think, just like Bo was in 2003, that he'd be up to the challenge.

Who was the young WR's coach who Devaney let call plays in the early 70s? I'm not saying that Frost=TO, but to catch young coaches on the rise, don't you sometimes have to "take the risk" of promoting them to the next level of responsibility? Of all people, TO and Bo (circa 2003) should know this right?

I agree that Watson, like Callahan and many other OCs, would (wrongly) argue that the success of [his] offense depends more on scheme than execution. In other words, he over-thinks it. I disagree with the "predictability" argument though. Weren't we pretty predicable in the "glory days"? We stayed in the shotgun all day long. Can we even run the option from under center (where the qb gives to the fb or runs parallel to the LOS and we make them play the pitch outside?) Is this too old school?

Good point. I agree that Watson-coached teams have consistently underachieved. In this case, it is difficult to judge whether the cause is execution or play-calling. I think today it was execution, but at the same time, you have to run what you can execute. My suggestion is that, relying on the strength of our defense (perhaps taking out Rickey T. [as much as I love him], moving Gomes back to S, and bringing in Compton/Whaley at LB) we pound the rock, with triple option and a fullback. That's what I suggest. Feel free to critique...