Hercules

Jesus, Dirk Chatelain is such an idiot. At least Tom Shatel has the good sense to stay out of it.

What the f#*k do you want him to say? Jesus Christ.

 

 

I don't know, but a good start would have been at least getting in front of a microphone and a video camera to say it.

Wait til after practice.

@HuskerExtraBR3m

 

Looking back at this morning's news conference, and the declaration of no Monday practice, I get the sense Bo knew this was coming out.

 

I've been following Brian Rosenthal on twitter for two days and this is the second time he's made me reconsider.

If Bo knew this was coming, he'd have to be the dumbest brick on the face of the earth not to get out in front of it. If he knew this was coming and did nothing pre-emptively, he should be fired, because there's no way somebody that dumb will ever win a conference championship.

Anybody else more pissed off about him saying he was on his way out the door than about him cussing out the fans?

Still think this damage can be managed by Bo. But he's got to apologize, and he's got to do it well, and then he's got to WIN.

 

Damon Benning ‏@damonbenning4m

 

People have known the audio exists for over a year. Pretty interesting timing.

It's not interesting timing - it's ridiculously predictable timing. It's politics. Of course people who want Bo gone waited until the most opportune time to drop this bomb. It's obvious.

It also doesn't change what Bo said, and it does nothing to help the notion that his football team is a reflection of himself - an out of control roller coaster.

All Nebraska fans will understand the context of the tape. It doesn't change how unprofessional and ill-advised Bo's comments were.

I don't think this necessarily means that Bo is gone. But he's got a hell of a lot of politickin to do if he's going to stay. Public apologies before the end of the day or something bad is going to happen.

We do have a stadium full of fair weather fans.

 

The hell we do.

It's not like we've sold out every game since 1962.

I get the feeling a lot of fans are still angry at 18-year-old Frost for choosing Stanford.

No. Not that. but kinda at the fact that he came crawling back when it didnt work out just in time to be the star predecessor to Frazier. He did a tremendous job as a qb, and was an incredible competitor, but as a person, I always had some question marks on him. I attended a high school that competed against Wood River in everything. As a kid, I saw plenty of Scott and his dad Larry between football and basketball games over the course of 3 years. Two words defined them-excessive arrogance

 

Those last two words could not be more true!!! If we make changes fine. But if Scott Frost is absolutely an arrogant f#*k and doesn't reflect anything we stand for at Nebraska. He made demands that made Bo pull the offer to him go join our staff. There is a reason Tim Beck asked him for plays this off-season and Bo refuses to talk to him. I haven't read this whole thread, but put Scott Frost's resume on paper and tell me that outside of where he played CFB anyone here would hire him as HC. It's laughable

Your posts on Frost reek of double standards. You argue that the only reason anybody around here considers him a reasonable coaching candidate is because he went to school here, and then call him "an arrogant f#*k" because he refused to accept a lateral move to Nebraska? If not for the notion that he's expected to show loyalty to UNL and to Osborne, why in the world would he accept that position? Right now, he's OC at the #2 program in the country. Had he accepted our offer, he'd be the WRs coach at a program that just dropped out of the top 25.

That's not arrogance. That's weighing the pros and cons of the job offer and making a good career decision.

Now, let's say he is arrogant - not for refusing a job offer, but just for being a douchey, arrogant person. Who gives a damn? Our current head coach is BO FREAKIN' PELINI! He's as arrogant as they come - to the point of being so confident in his coaching that he refuses to adjust after giving up ridiculous amounts of points and yards over and over again! He's known nationally for two things - being an asshat on national television and to the local media, and having his defensive guru status rubbed in the mud as his defenses get blown away.

Let me be clear - I like Pelini. I hope he can turn things around. I don't care that he's arrogant (which he is), I just want him to run a clean program, and I want him to win. And if Scott Frost can do that better than Pelini, I am all for bringing him in, no matter how arrogant he is. I don't think Frost is ready to be HC at Neb - I'd love to have him as OC, but he'd be nuts to take that job right now. But this idea that he doesn't deserve to be at Nebraska because he's "arrogant" is a bunch of crap.

The only reason to bench Taylor is if he's hurt. I'm tired of the staff playing guys who aren't 100%.

supposedly Josh Mitchell I guess tweeted calling Husker fans dipsh#ts and then deleted the tweet

Wow, if it was SJB calling out the fans i wouldnt mind. Josh Mitchell was getting burned the entire game however

He's not calling out the entire fan base. He's calling out all of the losers who decide to give the players a bunch of crap on twitter after a bad game. It's one thing to go onto a message board and bitch, it's another to do it directly to a player.

How do you guys think it's not a scheme issue? Who the f#*k do you think is asking them to play like this?

What do you mean? Our coaches are not asking that dlineman to lose that one on one battle and allow himself to get hooked.

 

At some point the players do have to put forth the effort to fight through some things. That's a one on one matchup and that guy got destroyed.

Every defensive player isn't going to win every battle. The scheme has to work even when some players get beat.

No scheme is going to work 100% when the players get beat.

I do think that there are things they could adjust. If you have two defensive lineman pushed into the same gap, and the offensive play is built to take advantage of that, you're going to get beat on that play. But I would think you could change the coverage scheme or the safety assignments so that the secondary can react and get downhill faster to keep that run a 10 yard gain instead of 60.

How do you guys think it's not a scheme issue? Who the f#*k do you think is asking them to play like this?

I think there are probably some arguments against the current scheme as far as reducing the amount of man coverage we use. It was amazing when Gomes, Amukumara, Dennard and Hagg were flying around, and could blanket everyone on the field. But I don't think we have the personnel in the secondary right now to blanket everybody in man coverage, and I'm guessing that using more zone would be more effective in stopping the big play, and in stopping the run game.

However, when it comes to playing the run in those pictures Foreman and Benning posted? That has nothing to do with scheme, because you're not going to find a scheme that makes up for the defensive line making mistakes or getting worked.

If you can't marry the scheme to your current personnel, you have a scheme issue.

OK, but good luck finding a scheme that doesn't ask its defensive linemen to do something as basic as fitting the correct gap.

In other words, using this diagram:

We had two guys in the A gap, which left the B gap wide open.

I don't even understand what same run fit means so if someone could break that down for me I'd be grateful.

I'm no expert, so I could be wrong, but look at the photo Jay Foreman posted. See how the defensive tackles are in the same gap? One of them should be taking care of the gap that the RB is going through. The LB there did his job getting into the other gap, and the DE's are containing the play like they're supposed to.

It's like Jay says - it's not scheme. It's mental, physical errors and it's just flat out getting beat by the guy across from you.

We came out in the second half running the same offense that got us that 21 - 3 lead and had Husker Nation rocking.

 

But UCLA made adjustments on both sides of the ball.

 

We should have run the ball more? Wait, isn't that the conservative approach that Beck is being accused of here?

 

Beck got too cute? Where? When? Those horizontal passes are safety valve plays when the deep routes aren't working, and with Bell, Turner and Abdullah getting the ball, they're reasonable if not exciting calls. Tight end drops a perfectly thrown woud-be first down pass. Abdullah fumbles on contact inside the 10. Are we supposed to give up both the running and passing game?

 

Hindsight is perfect. I'd say go back and watch the game, but you really shouldn't. It's a beautiful fall day out there. But if you did, you'd see that the calls made sense, it was just that the Huskers lost their mojo, from the quarterback on down. And a defense that gave up 35 points in 16 minutes -- without the benefit of an offensive turnover -- sure didn't do the offense any favors.

 

That's what you get when you have an offense built on sand and your only hope to score against a real team is to trick them or throw one over the top. UCLA got serious and started running right at us hard. That was the turning point and they never stopped. An energizer like Imani in a ball-control offense ...if we had one...could've made it a game. This fluffy offense only works for intramural sports. You make a good point that it's not the play-calling....it's the entire offensive strategy.

 

Beck wants to be like Oregon...he gets a hard on watching their offense...we don't have that kind of athlete to be like Oregon.

Our offense is nothing like Oregon's. And we do have the kind of athletes, in my opinion.

Too bad we didn't just extend him the OC offer a couple years back . . .

 

Too bad we did but TO and Bo pulled the offer because he's a douche bag that we don't want associated with our program.

I thought we offered him a lateral move with no play calling responsibilities...?

Woah woah woah, no way do I believe Richt is an improvement over Bo. He might win more games (though that's not guaranteed), but this team would go downhill fast in other areas. Forget having a team of non-thugs who you can trust to be on the field any given Saturday rather than in jail, having a good team GPA, having all-americans, etc. Would be a very bad move in my opinion, this team is more than just football.

 

I love the way Bo runs the program as much as anybody. But you can't let the on-field performance sink to the point where fans "just hope that we're not embarrassed." That's what it's come to, and that's not acceptable.

 

If we had played UCLA close today, if we had played competitively for 4 quarters - I'd be fine. Not satisfied, but not disappointed either. But we got embarrassed. Again. You can't call 63 against Ohio State or 70 against Wisconsin flukes. It's a pattern.

 

Bo's still got this season to right the ship, but his seat should be on fire right now.

No doubt, I agree that Pelini still needs to put a good team on the field. What I'm saying however, is that Richt shouldn't be an option because, if he was, essentially what we're saying (knowing his track record) is, "we'll sacrifice everything we uphold off the field just for one or two more wins a year." To summarize, Bo might not be the guy, but Richt surely is not.

I don't know enough about Richt to know whether or not that's the case. I didn't think Georgia was having terrible off the field problems, but maybe I'm just out of the loop.

Woah woah woah, no way do I believe Richt is an improvement over Bo. He might win more games (though that's not guaranteed), but this team would go downhill fast in other areas. Forget having a team of non-thugs who you can trust to be on the field any given Saturday rather than in jail, having a good team GPA, having all-americans, etc. Would be a very bad move in my opinion, this team is more than just football.

I love the way Bo runs the program as much as anybody. But you can't let the on-field performance sink to the point where fans "just hope that we're not embarrassed." That's what it's come to, and that's not acceptable.

If we had played UCLA close today, if we had played competitively for 4 quarters - I'd be fine. Not satisfied, but not disappointed either. But we got embarrassed. Again. You can't call 63 against Ohio State or 70 against Wisconsin flukes. It's a pattern.

Bo's still got this season to right the ship, but his seat should be on fire right now.

Richt would be an outstanding hire, but Eichorst would have to pony up some serious stacks.

As far as the Offense vs. Defense debate...

Of course both units are to blame for the collapse, along with the special teams. Every phase of the game was bad.

However, the offense had a significantly worse game considering the expectations of them. They have 9 returning starters. The best WR corps in the Big Ten. A four year starter at QB. An experienced offensive line. A deep group of running backs. With all of that, they couldn't do ANYTHING in the second half. And in the first half, they managed a TD off of SJB's interception (short field), off of a UCLA special teams blunder (short field), and one long drive (which was extended by a penalty and a fourth down conversion that should have been negated by a false start - Jake Long is the new Andrew Rodriguez).

All things considered, I thought the defense played reasonably well in the first half. They didn't play as well as they looked, because I think UCLA was hurting themselves quite a bit. But they still put together a number of quality series, and were far more consistent than the offense was.

Of course none of this matters on the bottom line. Neither unit was good enough to overcome the other and win the game. But my expectation was for the more experienced and improved offense to carry the team while the defense figured things out. What UCLA exposed today, however, is that somehow, despite all our returning experience - the offense is not even as good as it was last year. And that is far more upsetting to me than the fact that our extremely young defense gave up 41 points (which is roughly the same as last year).

As far as Frazier goes - he can say what he wants. He's one of the best players ever to play at Nebraska. You can listen to him or not, and the University can get mad it him for saying it or not. But he's not going to change. He was a jerk as a player and he's a jerk now, but he is highly competitive and has high standards, and that's what made him so great, as a player and as a leader.