druski_2k5

You can say "guys don't get it" which is a possible argument, and a valid one. However.... Since we prepared a more traditional 4-3 defense this year, just like in 2003, where are the younger guys? Bo only had one off-season to implement his defense, and some younger guys played on that defense. Both Bullocks brothers and Fabian Washington were all Sophomores. That's 3/4 of the secondary being under-clansmen with only one off-season to learn a system. [Not a Math Major as you can tell ] Barrett Ruud was a Junior, but a new system. Same story for Demorrio Williams, a Senior from Junior College, who wasn't with Nebraska for long. Just like Lavonte David, a Junior College transfer, even though he "miss-played some plays early on" his athleticism made up for it. Even Bo said he was out of position early on in 2010, but that his athleticism made up the difference for him to make plays.

I just remember watching in 2003, when we ran a more tradition 4-3 before the Spread explosion in the Big XII, guys were coming all the time. Yes, we still had two safeties high, but out of a normal 4-3 or even a Nickel package, we were almost always bringing pressure somewhere. However, looking back at our 09 and 10 defenses, when we took on more Spread attacks, again, guys were coming from everywhere. We bring a lot of pressure with our Nickle package, or Bo will always try to blitz one more defender than there is blockers. Which would leave our guys in Man Coverage all over the field with little to no safety help. Maybe we don't have the athleticism on defense to do all of those things. Maybe that's why we are just rushing 4 and dropping back. But if that's the case, then why do our highly touted defensive recruits not see the field more? The guy I talked to said it wasn't "overly difficult" and the "learning curve" is a myth, so if that is truly the case, are we really playing our best players? I don't want to second guess Bo on defense, in fact, looking at his philosophy on defense, it is very very sound. But you need the athletes to run it. Like we had the last two years. Maybe we just don't have those guys up to speed. But one would think athleticism would surely trump knowledge of any system. Look at the LSU/Alabama game. The safety bit on a play-action on that HB pass. The tight end was wide open, but the safety had enough athleticism to get back and intercept the pass, thus saving Alabama from getting at least a Field Goal on that drive and it went into over-time and they won. Surely we have to have athletes back there on defense? Obviously these guys are athletic enough to play Division I Football, but are they the best we have? I would think Bo is smarter than that, and I don't want to question the defense, but it makes you wonder.

This is a very good point. I was talking to someone who was on the team during Bo's first year here in 2003. I asked him if his defense is "too complicated" as some have suggested here. He stated that "Bo's system is a good defense" [obviously], but that we don't have the "defensive line to make it work". Seeing how we rarely blitz anyway and we just sit back in coverage, this would work IF we had the line to do it. Think of the last two years combined with a great secondary. One can make the other look good. The line may have made the secondary look good in 09, and the secondary may have just been *that* good last year, which it was. The feeling I got from him, was that if we had a quicker defensive line that could put pressure on the quarterback from just rushing 4, things would be different. I think we are reluctant to blitz because that will leave our secondary matched up in one on one situations, and we can all agree, this years secondary cannot lock down in man to man coverage. So blitzing from Cover 0 wouldn't work. My question is, why don't we see more zone blitzing then? I'm sure we have seen it from time to time. But it seems like all we do is rush a non-existent 4, leave everyone in coverage. Eventually, with our secondary this year, someone will get open, hence why we have struggled so much. But most of that should be obvious to us all. I didn't get into technical terms with him, didn't have a lot of time, but he felt that the line makes things go in Bo's offense and they need to put pressure to make everything work.

Couldn't agree more. Apparently, huskers.com had a survey up within the last couple of years asking fans if the sound system should be upgraded. By the looks of things, and from what I heard, the interest level wasn't there. I find this baffling. People in North stadium complain it's too loud, people in South stadium can't hear a damn thing. I know that the decibels from the crowd can outweigh those from speakers, but I should at least be able to hear the announcer when people are casually talking before the game. For what it's worth Enhance....when I took the survey I DID fill out the miscellaneous part where I could list other comments or concerns and specifically stated the stadium P.A. noise/music level as you can't hear anything if you aren't in the North end-zone, like you stated, because it is absolutely true. I have student tickets in South, and I'm sure you do somewhere, but you can't hear anything at all. I get the fact the crowd gets loud when Sirius starts, but I remember it being SO MUCH louder when we used to have 4 screens and I'm sure the sound came out of all 4 and you could hear everything fine. Now we have the North end-zone and that's it. I remember reading on here that re-wiring around the stadium would be just as much as getting another jumbo-tron. So perhaps we will go that route in the future with an identical jumbo-tron in the South end-zone? I was very surprised as well that on the pie graph of the survey that was listed SO LOW. If memory serves me right, it was actually the lowest worry on the survey about the stadium itself, which you are correct, was baffling. So I did my part in the survey

For the most part this is true, and what others here have stated is true, how OU rivalry was killed, politics, on the field, etc. I know all Texas fans aren't like this so I can't speak for them all....but I dislike Texas because of the football results and because EVERY TIME THEY WIN they act like they just beat you 100 to 00. Even if it they made a last second 87.6 yard Field Goal, or a 100 yard Hail Mary to win by 1, they would STILL act like they "own" you 100-00 that day. It's just so annoying to listen to their arrogance & annoyance. I know a few people that live in Texas and they truly have a disdain towards Texas too as they are fans of other teams. They aren't just like that to just us, they are like that to every team they beat. They act like we are running from them. However, as others have stated, we never "ran" from Oklahoma when they rattled off X amount of wins against us, and that was every year it happened. However, they "truly" only beat us down in 2003. All of the other games were close, nail-bitters, and broken hearts everywhere in Husker nation. Even 2010 was close, but fumbles and the in-ability to tackle, catch the ball, and contain Gilbert cost us that game. I never thought Gilbert's feet would kill us that game and it did and it shouldn't have. Did we even try to make an adjustment to that? I don't think I ever saw it. He wasn't Young or Martinez or something, but he did enough to move the chains and get positive yards. We still have more National Titles than them [although the one we split shouldn't have been a split since they lost their last game] more Heisman Trophy winners, more Conference titles, [albeit they had us 3-2 in Conference Title games and 2-0 against us in those games] and I'm not sure on the other sports, but I think they got our Volleyball team a few times as well in the last year or two in a few regular season games, but I believe our ladies got a Big XII title last year I believe? And I know we came in 2nd overall in Big XII for Conference Championships....2nd only to....*drum roll*...Texas. *Sighs* That being said, being 1-9 sucks against them in Big XII play. Yeah, it sucks no doubt. And while we have to look to "past accomplishments" to make 1-9 sting less, our past is still impressive, and it lessens the blow, somewhat, considering 1996, 1998, 1999, 2002, 2006, 2009, and 2010 were the worst. 2003 was just all Vince Young and a new offense they put out against us, I think, and 2007..well...we should have won that again, but nothing went right that year until after the Colorado game. It's just one of those things. Just bad luck, un-timely errors, and inability to execute in key situations hurt us against them. I am a firm believer that if we switched teams, ie: our Huskers in their Texas uniforms and Texas in our Husker uniforms...I guarantee that Texas would still beat Nebraska. That just seems to be how it is. I know that sounds crazy but I do believe that considering how much bad luck and just "WTF" moments we've had against Texas. Throw the records out, throw the players out, just put those two teams on the field will be an instant classic usually in a Texas victory as of late. It just makes you wonder with SO MANY close games, how we couldn't have got a few more wins, or even got over the hump by "being due" in 2009 and 2010. But alas, it was not to be. Texas is not a "bad" state. They have good people. They have Ron Paul too. I root for the San Antonio Spurs and the Tennessee Titans [who were originally from Houston] so I can't hate on the entire state itself. But the University of Texas at Austin...cannot stand them. Mostly politics and bad football loses though. Maybe...just maybe....1-9 can be erased by not only a B1G championship...but a win against Texas in the BCS National Title game, in the same season! THAT would TRULY erase 1-9 from the Big XII. Although the arrogant Texas fans will still point to overall record of how they "own" us....

What is this you speak of? Is this some sort of witch-craft trickery? Can we only win games now by trick plays? Is this the word from the Iowa fan that I saw on the front page that they will beat us of this so called "Play-Action" that we have never seen, used, or heard of before?

Hercules is right. It's hard to get consistency on the offensive line when the scheme changes every year, as well as having a new quarterback come in. That's just something that takes time. Also about the walk-on program not being as deep to help on the line is also a factor. The last factor, in my opinion, is that we are not far and away the best weightlifting team out there. We have a great strength & conditioning team, however, other teams have caught up in this area which have made it a little more even on that playing field. Not saying our "old Pipeline" was over-rated or that the weightlifting was the "only" reason why they were so dominant, but it sure did help that we were far and away the best at doing that back then. It's a few things that add up, however, if the line fails to excite me in the next few seasons, many more will be calling for Cotton to be gone than already. Hopefully with Garrison coming in and working with old OL coaches will help, but we shall see.

Bo's position isn't necessarily contradictory, and it mirrors what most coaches think. Most coaches want to redshirt freshman for a variety of reasons - get them acclimated to being away from home, get them used to college classes and time-management, get them used to the speed of the game, etc., all without the added pressure of having to perform. Yes, some of them can help - but coaches would still rather give them a year in the weight room and the classroom. However, given that a lot of kids state that "early playing time" is a factor in recruiting, coupled with the fact that kids are eligible as freshman - well, a coach pretty much has to play those that can. And since they are eligible, you play those that will help. But coaches really would like the rule - so long as all schools are held to it and can't use it as a recruiting point ("We play freshmen at State U - but Nebraska doesn't..."). Oh I could understand why he would want to sit certain players. Pressure, adjustments, learning, technique, etc. I understand all of that. And thanks for clearing that up, if all schools aren't held to it then it would be not wise for us to do it as it would hurt recruiting a ton. Good point there. Makes more sense now. I was always under the impression if a player could contribute, then he would play. As well as if a player "needed" to work on some things, or get his adjustment period down, and worry about all of that first year stuff, then we would red-shirt him. Or if there was so much depth he wouldn't see playing time and would red-shirt. Makes a little more sense in recruiting and keeping things fair for all schools if there was such a rule. I've heard Bo mention it a few times but I haven't heard it talked about much on a national level.

So let me get this straight: Bo wants to make Freshman ineligible to play, for various reasons, yet these same Freshman are expected to make in impact for our team? It just seems like saying two things at once. "These guys shouldn't be on the field, however, we are excited about X, Y and Z contributing in their true Freshman year." So which one is it? If they can make an impact we play them but if they can't we red-shirt or sit them? Isn't that the benefit of red-shirting by getting adjusted into what they have to do? Why make them ineligible when we can just red-shirt them?

This game angers me so much.

I agree the Spring Game was smoke and vanilla. We will run Pistol and Spread Option and throw some under-center in there I believe as well. I would call that a "Multiple Option" offense [there's that word again! ] If that seems to be the case if we are truly running a lot of option, zone read, etc. I swear I've heard a lot of people on this board confirming they've seen "Option out of almost every formation" when they got glimpses of the offense in the spring and summer. If it was truly a smoke screen, why would there be multiple people confirming it? And by multiple people I mean like 2-3 people that have posted on this board.

Exactly what I was going to say Knapp. We should be around 15-11, but 24 is way too low. That was the first thing I thought of when I read the thread title. You could make an argument for how we finished the season, but the team did not show up or care in the Bowl game, guys weren't buying into the offensive game-plan, and injuries took a toll on the team. But it's mostly the TV/Big XII agreement.

This jump out at anyone else? I think we had a significant attitude issue with a handful of seniors we were really depending on last year. Not the best year for leadership. (In the view of a person who wasn't there, so...) Four or five problem guys, huh? I could guess three, maybe... That jumped out at me. I don't think he meant to say "I'm glad Zac and four or five guys are gone now, life's easier for me." But it's what he did say. Agreed Zoogies. That jumped out at me too. I wonder what kind of chemistry/team-mate issues we really had on offense last year. Things are starting to add up why we saw what we saw at times last year....

For the record I am 110% behind Bo and his staff. Didn't Bo just get a contract extension? So not only other teams would back off from him, but also to let him know that the University and administration is behind him? Seriously, come on people. Why does Notre Dame suck? Because they keep firing coach, after coach, after coach, after coach and have no chemistry in terms of keeping a coach they believe in. It's one thing to not believe in a coach after one season and everything came out that came out [see Bill Callahan] but it's completely different when Bo's teams is doing everything asked of them off-the field and having great chemistry. Was 2010 a failure? Yeah, it was and Bo would be the first one to agree with it. But seriously, we were within seconds and a few plays here and there of winning back to back Big XII championships against two teams that have dominated the conference and have been in BCS bowl games. Should Bo seriously be fired for a few seconds and a few plays here and there? Delusional. Osborne never won the conference every year and even had an awful bowl resume of a losing streak until the 1995 Orange Bowl. Osborne is smarter than that. Now what shouldn't be acceptable is what happened in 2002, 2004, and 2007. Those are not acceptable years at Nebraska. But getting 9 to 10 wins a year, having ONE OF THE BEST defenses in the country and making the right changes on offense and adjusting the offense to his vision, he will be given more time, and probably more time than we all think. I know college sports is cut-throat win now, but we've always done things differently than everyone else. I think holding onto a coach that has a track-record like Bo will pay off BIG time. He's a defensive mastermind, and if the offense can hold up their end of the bargain, no one will be complaining about Bo ever again. The only fact I have to post this is to show how ridiculous this whole thread/idea is. I don't think it's that wrong in today's college football world, to expect 9-10 wins [2008, 2009, 2010] competing for conference championships every year [2009, 2010] and making a run at a National Title when the stars line up or when the team finally gets it's swagger going [2010, but failed for a few reasons and hypothetically 2011, 2013?] There's nothing wrong with those expectations at all. It's not like we are asking Bo to "compete for the Divisional title" and if we "Don't get the Divisional title, well that's okay." I know we expect championships, but championships aren't always National Championships, that's unreasonable to ask for. Every coach would be fired for that reason. We have to keep things in perspective people. But getting to the conference title game, competing with everyone in the nation, hopefully getting to a BCS bowl and having a shot to win the whole enchilada every few years or even a few years in a row to get into it, is not unreasonable at all. Every post this guy has is just a Bo-bashing post/thread. It's fine to have an opinion on him, but it's a fairly negative one and in my opinion, an un-fair one. Let's just go get some other coach and go 4-6 every year. I know Bo isn't the only guy for the job, but some of you guys make me wonder how they would react once we had back to back losing seasons if we were to ridiculously fire Bo. And this is coming from a guy who started watching Husker football in 1993 and grew up during 60-3 with 3[could-have-should-have-been-5]National Titles.

20: Joel Makovicka crazy never say die run, vs. Akron 1997. Another 60: Bobby Newcombe to Eric Crouch screen pass vs. California 1999.

49: Brandon Jackson screen pass vs Texas 2006. Another 80: Dan Alexander run @ Colorado 1999 where he out-ran a Colorado sprinter. Major props to Alexander for that one.

"You're not as bad as you think" = you just got destroyed by the eventual greatest college football team to ever grace the Earth.

The way the season ended, how the offense sputtered, the mental lapse at Oklahoma State, and who was coaching the team, you would be correct. I'm talking about just the talent on the team itself. Not the results. Just what we had available on the roster, if coached right, the team could have been great. Key phrases: Coached right and available talent. The offense had weapons and the defense was decent to strong at times, but the team itself was so inconsistent. They failed *mostly* because of poor leadership and bad coaching from the top. I probably went a little far comparing them to the 1999 team, at least in terms of results that's very true, but there was a lot of talent that was under-utilized in my opinion on the 2006 team. That's all I'm saying.

I bet we won't show a lot until the Wisconsin game. Maybe a lot of Pistol, some Shotgun 2 back or 1 back Shotgun sets. But I expect the Wisconsin game to really open up the playbook a lot. 4 Wide, 5 Wide sets, lots of motion, different looks, Jet Sweeps, play-action off of those. Maybe even against Washington as well. I know Beck said he wanted to run the offense, and I'm paraphrasing, to "Run an offense so that not everyone knows what we're going to run by Week 8."

In terms of "Receiving yards and TDs" it really shows our run-first nature, but what you never see talked about is how EVERY receiver that has came through here HAD to be good at run blocking or they wouldn't see the field. It just shows the kind of team we used to be as we never highlighted receivers in terms of yards, and the shift in philosophy later on. Just seeing Swift, Peterson, Nunn and Purify on that list really angers me. Not so much because they disappointed, but they were on the team at the same time! How could we not put those 4 our there and have a great offense? Especially with the running backs we had in 2006 and the defense talent we had on that team? Zac Taylor was the Big XII Offensive Player of the Year [Pretty sure he was] but we could not make it work to our advantage for all the marbles, or even a Conference title. I know I know, Callahan, but man, I would have loved to see us run a Spread Option with those guys. Nunn was a burner, Purify could jump out of the building and had good speed, and Swift and Peterson were GREAT possession receivers. I LOVED watching them make catch, after catch, after catch on a post, drag, or slant route over the middle. Heck we even had Matt Herian with them too. 2006, in my opinion, could be categorized with the 1999 team [in terms of just straight up talent] that we had all the right players to win the whole thing but didn't for "X" reason. Fumbles in 1999 & of course the coaching blunder in 2006 that lead to what was 2007.

Man, you know we're historically a dominant run-first team when 6 out of those 11 on the "Best Receivers of all time" list, played most, if not all, of their college playing career after 1998.

Reap what you sow.

I don't care.