Frustration

[walksalone]

Whatever dude Callahan is here for at least 5 years so you might as well get used to it.

 

If we're only playing .500 ball come next year, and if we get handled by OU like we did this year, do you really think that Callahan will still be coaching here?

 

How much rope are they really giving this retard, is what I want to know...

[AR Husker Fan]

If we're only playing .500 ball come next year, and if we get handled by OU like we did this year, do you really think that Callahan will still be coaching here?

 

How much rope are they really giving this retard, is what I want to know...

I think the only way you can legitimately judge his performance or system is by giving him enough time to bring in his recruits, develop them, and have them starting. That means, for me anyway, at least two more years, when his first class are juniors.

 

Even that is somewhat optimistic, however. So much of this offense depends on the decision-making ability of the quarterback. If the light comes on for Dailey, or if we get a quarterback who can make the right decisions, that might speed things up by a season. If the quarterbacks don't "get it", then the timeframe increases. That would be true, conversely, if a team were to go from a West Coast offense to the option - you need a quarterback who can make the right decisions - when to hand off to the fullback, when to keep, when to pitch. Some get it, some don't. Lord, for example, never seemed to get it, in my opinion.

 

For me, it's a question of whether this system will ultimately provide NU a chance to win a national championship. In another thread, someone - perhaps you - pointed out that under the old system, we were winning 9 games a year. That's true - but it's also true that we'd seemed to have reached a plateau. Good enough to win a majority of games, but not good enough to contend for a championship. I think Solich would still be around today had recruiting been better. But given the limitations of the option, and what other teams are doing in terms of talent, we needed noticeable improvement in recruiting and we weren't seeing it. We seemed destined to remain "just not quite good enough".

 

Callahan's system may not work at Nebraska. It may be that he can't coach. But judging him before he's had a chance to implement it with players he feels can run that system - and have been in that system long enough to learn to run it - is unrealistic.

 

Yes, we've suffered through a horrendous year - and next year probably won't be much better, unless Dailey develops better decision making. Beck may be a world-beater as a quarterback, but I have trouble believing he will be as a true freshman. Perhaps we already have a quarterback on campus that can run this offense, but I don't think so.

 

But I'd guess that even if we have another year similar to this year, Callahan will still be around. Putting aside the issue of whether we can afford to buy out his contract, so long as he's bringing in high ranking recruiting classes I would think he'll be given a few more years, at least.

 

And changing coaches after just a couple of years - well, not only do you have the inherent instability that results (both from negative recruiting and from players having to start anew with a new system), you have the problem of finding a top-notch coach that would be willing to take the job. It was tough enough landing someone the last time - firing Callahan now would increase the difficulty by orders of magnitude.

[walksalone]

Well, his last performance, driving my beloved Raiders into the ground is more proof, that his ass cannot coach. I know i'm going to suffer the next few years due to SP's inability to pick a decent replacement, for Solich. SP was hoping to get a big name in here due to the fact that he was hoping he could get kids to commit on our coach's "name recognition".

 

It baffled me, why we hired a guy, who had just been fired for leading a team to a 4-12 season. Granted, the year before he'd gone to the superbowl, but there are two reasons for that. One, because the dinosaurs on the team had career years, second because he still had the leftovers from the earlier "Chucky" regime.

 

His inability to adjust under fire is his major malfunction. When the proverbial "shite" is hitting the fan, he changes nothing. I'm not a D-I football coach, but even I can tell when you need to adjust your gameplan to "improvise, adapt, and overcome", and I know at least a half dozen folks on here, capable of the same thing.

 

I know there's nobody out there that's worth two sh*ts anyways, if we're looking for a coach. I would have been happy with Bo. Our defence at least looked like they were trying harder, even if the statistics don't back me up.

 

Watching our team now, it looks like they really don't give a damn. At least for the bowl game last year, they looked like they had some fire in them...

[AR Husker Fan]

Originally posted by walksalone:

 

Well, his last performance, driving my beloved Raiders into the ground is more proof, that his ass cannot coach. I know i'm going to suffer the next few years due to SP's inability to pick a decent replacement, for Solich. SP was hoping to get a big name in here due to the fact that he was hoping he could get kids to commit on our coach's "name recognition".

 

It baffled me, why we hired a guy, who had just been fired for leading a team to a 4-12 season. Granted, the year before he'd gone to the superbowl, but there are two reasons for that. One, because the dinosaurs on the team had career years, second because he still had the leftovers from the earlier "Chucky" regime.

 

Well, there’s always two sides to anything as subjective as coaching. An equally valid, plausible argument is that Callahan’s coaching was responsible for squeezing career years out of those players, and getting them to the Superbowl. They had, after all, been underachievers to that point. As for the 4-12 season, it’s also equally plausible that those same players rebelled when Callahan tried to adjust their roles to improve the team. The long and the short of it is that there’s no way to tell, given those two years, the differences between the college game and the pro game, and the personalities involved.

 

Again, Callahan may be a lousy coach – all I’m saying is that, first, we can’t tell for at least two more years (and perhaps more) and, second, removing him now would actually probably hurt more than it would help.

 

As for getting a “big name”, that wasn’t the motivation. The first choice was Huston Nutt. Nutt is not a “big name”, by any stretch of the imagination. What made Nutt attractive was two things – first, he had just beaten both Texas and Missouri (and beat Texas when they were ranked in the Top Ten and Arkansas was unranked), and, second, he recruits well given his circumstances. In the last six or seven years, he’s managed to snag some top talent – not a lot, but some – at a school that lacks anything close to the tradition or “draw” of Nebraska.

 

Yes, Callahan may have been hired as a “big name”, but I’d guess it was more for his recruiting, and his desire to build a staff that made recruiting the priority.

 

Originally posted by walksalone:

 

His inability to adjust under fire is his major malfunction. When the proverbial "shite" is hitting the fan, he changes nothing. I'm not a D-I football coach, but even I can tell when you need to adjust your gameplan to "improvise, adapt, and overcome", and I know at least a half dozen folks on here, capable of the same thing.

 

For the short term, yes. For the long term, no.

 

The only way to implement a new system is to commit to it – if you don’t, it’s akin to trying to implement a little more passing to an option offense. You won’t practice it enough to actually be able to do it. Likewise, the only way to convince recruits that they will actually perform in an offense that showcases their talents is to fully commit to that system.

 

Originally posted by walksalone:

 

I know there's nobody out there that's worth two sh*ts anyways, if we're looking for a coach. I would have been happy with Bo. Our defence at least looked like they were trying harder, even if the statistics don't back me up.

 

Which puts us back to the same “good, but not quite good enough” status quo. Ultimately, it comes down to whether we are willing to endure the pain in the hopes of making that final step back to national titled contender.

 

I think everyone on this board would prefer to see the option attack. It was part of Nebraska’s identity once Osborne installed it. It appealed to the fan base. It had a lot of pluses.

 

But finding a top notch coach who runs the option is virtually impossible. Finding recruits to run it is much more difficult than for an offense that the recruits feel will showcase their talents. There’s not even any guarantee Pelini would have run the option, or that he would have assembled a staff that could recruit. He may have been a good choice, but that’s in the past.

 

Originally posted by walksalone:

 

Watching our team now, it looks like they really don't give a damn. At least for the bowl game last year, they looked like they had some fire in them...

 

I would guess there are a fair number of the players that don’t like the coach or the system, or don’t like the roles they’ve been asked to fill. But if they feel that way, it’s almost impossible for the coaches to motivate them anyway. And as players, they need to bear some responsibility for their own motivation. Shouldn’t it be enough that they are Blackshirts? That they represent NU?

[Pedro Guerrero]

It baffled me, why we hired a guy, who had just been fired for leading a team to a 4-12 season. Granted, the year before he'd gone to the superbowl, but there are two reasons for that. One, because the dinosaurs on the team had career years, second because he still had the leftovers from the earlier "Chucky" regime.

 

 

 

So if you win must be the players but if you lose it has to be the coaching. I really don't understand this logic.

[walksalone]

So if you win must be the players but if you lose it has to be the coaching. I really don't understand this logic.

 

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

 

Anyways, please explain to me, a) why you throw the ball when you're trying to run out the clock, B) when your ground game is picking up steam, you start throwing the ball, c) when you're losing the game, but essentially running the same plays, you do not adjust the game plan?

 

Riddle me those batman...

[Pedro Guerrero]

So if you win must be the players but if you lose it has to be the coaching. I really don't understand this logic.

 

Thanks for putting words in my mouth.

 

Anyways, please explain to me, a) why you throw the ball when you're trying to run out the clock, B) when your ground game is picking up steam, you start throwing the ball, c) when you're losing the game, but essentially running the same plays, you do not adjust the game plan?

 

Riddle me those batman...

Didn't put words in your mouth dude you said one of the two reasons they went to the Super Bowl was because the Dinosaurs(players) had career years. Sounds like the credit is going to the players for a wining season.

[walksalone]

but when they got there, the "excellent" coaching, took over...

 

Gruden, flat out, out-coached Callahan, and made him look like an idiot...

[AR Husker Fan]

but when they got there, the "excellent" coaching, took over...

 

Gruden, flat out, out-coached Callahan, and made him look like an idiot...

Conversly, could it also not be that the players didn't execute? Does that not seem more likely, especially in light of your statement that "the 'excellent' coaching, took over", which implies that the players overcame any alleged "poor coaching" throughout the year? Why, then, did they not for the Super Bowl, unless they failed to execute?

[Pedro Guerrero]

but when they got there, the "excellent" coaching, took over...

 

Gruden, flat out, out-coached Callahan, and made him look like an idiot...

Conversly, could it also not be that the players didn't execute? Does that not seem more likely, especially in light of your statement that "the 'excellent' coaching, took over", which implies that the players overcame any alleged "poor coaching" throughout the year? Why, then, did they not for the Super Bowl, unless they failed to execute?

Gannon forgot what team he was supposed to throw the ball to. Kind of sounds like Dailey.