Too legit to quit: Callahan won't resign

[junior4949]

We've seen it many times that a new coach walks into a losing program and within 1 or 2 years turns the exact same players into winners. Look at Stoops at OU and Meyer at Florida and Carroll at USC. I've seen it several times at the high school level as well. On D, the biggest changes is the Dline. The LB's and most of the secondary are veteran players. Did they just forget how to play? I don't think so.

[freemason9]

We've seen it many times that a new coach walks into a losing program and within 1 or 2 years turns the exact same players into winners. Look at Stoops at OU and Meyer at Florida and Carroll at USC. I've seen it several times at the high school level as well. On D, the biggest changes is the Dline. The LB's and most of the secondary are veteran players. Did they just forget how to play? I don't think so.

 

The key point there is "exact same players." In Oklahoma, Stoops did not come in with a bare cupboard. The previous staff did a good job of recruiting, and Stoops was lucky enough to get them after a couple of years' experience. That made the difference, not Stoops.

[knapplc]

That's me. I don't post often because this seems like a gathering spot for coach hatred. I'm not on board, because--strictly speaking--coaches do not lose games. Players lose games. There are some on this board that actually blame the coaches for players' attitudes, but I can tell you that the fans and media have a greater effect on the players' attitudes as a whole.

 

I just cannot stress enough how much I disagree with the underlined parts. Either you don't follow college football much or you're simply looking for a reason to like these coaches.

 

I fail to comprehend how anyone can look at the body of work Tom Osborne put together - along with his coaching staff - and think that coaches have no effect on wins and losses.

 

There was a 20-year stretch where Nebraska didn't crack the top ten in recruiting classes more than twice. Most Husker Fans grew up ignoring the recruiting rankings because they meant so little to our success year in and year out. T.O. would take decent-to-average players and, through his own personal brand of excellence in coaching ability, would make these kids top players.

 

It didn't happen once, it didn't happen a few times.... it happened every single year he was running the ship.

 

The kids we put on the field were NOT highly regarded. They were NOT sought-out players for the most part. They were kids with guts and determination and will. The coaches molded those raw materials into some really great players. They then took those great players and made them into excellent teams.

 

Man, there were dozens of games - literally - where we demolished our opponents not because we had greater athletes or because we got lucky, it was because our coaches instilled a winning attitude in our players, and with that training, with those attitudes, they could not lose.

 

Absolving a coaching staff from the debacle we see before us this season is simply one of the most myopic things I've ever heard of.

[freemason9]

That's me. I don't post often because this seems like a gathering spot for coach hatred. I'm not on board, because--strictly speaking--coaches do not lose games. Players lose games. There are some on this board that actually blame the coaches for players' attitudes, but I can tell you that the fans and media have a greater effect on the players' attitudes as a whole.

 

I just cannot stress enough how much I disagree with the underlined parts. Either you don't follow college football much or you're simply looking for a reason to like these coaches.

 

I fail to comprehend how anyone can look at the body of work Tom Osborne put together - along with his coaching staff - and think that coaches have no effect on wins and losses.

 

There was a 20-year stretch where Nebraska didn't crack the top ten in recruiting classes more than twice. Most Husker Fans grew up ignoring the recruiting rankings because they meant so little to our success year in and year out. T.O. would take decent-to-average players and, through his own personal brand of excellence in coaching ability, would make these kids top players.

 

It didn't happen once, it didn't happen a few times.... it happened every single year he was running the ship.

 

The kids we put on the field were NOT highly regarded. They were NOT sought-out players for the most part. They were kids with guts and determination and will. The coaches molded those raw materials into some really great players. They then took those great players and made them into excellent teams.

 

Man, there were dozens of games - literally - where we demolished our opponents not because we had greater athletes or because we got lucky, it was because our coaches instilled a winning attitude in our players, and with that training, with those attitudes, they could not lose.

 

Absolving a coaching staff from the debacle we see before us this season is simply one of the most myopic things I've ever heard of.

 

I'm not about to get in a pissing match with you, but I do know what I'm talking about; furthermore, there is JUST NO WAY that you can compare the post-Osborne teams with the era of the 90's. Tenure of staff and players is far different, as is the caliber and parity of other college programs.

 

Remember that Osborne's teams usually won when they were supposed to, and they lost when they were expected to. I remember it pretty clearly, and that's why Coach O was looking for work in the late-70's and early 80's. I was one of those that were saying that he should go. I was an idiot, but that whole thing taught me a lot. How long did it take Coach O to find just the right formula for success? Over 20 years.

 

In addtion, I'm certain that even you would have to admit that there is something very strange going on with the defense this year. We don't know it yet, and it is likely that we will never know for certain . . . but you can bet that it revolves around 4-5 players.

[ICT HSKR 10]

We've seen it many times that a new coach walks into a losing program and within 1 or 2 years turns the exact same players into winners. Look at Stoops at OU and Meyer at Florida and Carroll at USC. I've seen it several times at the high school level as well. On D, the biggest changes is the Dline. The LB's and most of the secondary are veteran players. Did they just forget how to play? I don't think so.

 

The key point there is "exact same players." In Oklahoma, Stoops did not come in with a bare cupboard. The previous staff did a good job of recruiting, and Stoops was lucky enough to get them after a couple of years' experience. That made the difference, not Stoops.

 

Happened here in Phoenix. I'm so sick of hearing about the NU/ASU game from '96, I'm glad ASU is having a little success this year so they'll shut up about '96. Dirk Koetter was a decent recruiter, just couldn't cut it as head coach. They bring in Dennis Erickson and boom, they're top 10. Callahan has proven (to the recruiting magazines) that he can recruit, he & his staff just can't do anything with them once they're here. I look for the new coaching staff next year to take the talent that's there get things moving in the right direction quickly.

[knapplc]

I'm not about to get in a pissing match with you, but I do know what I'm talking about; furthermore, there is JUST NO WAY that you can compare the post-Osborne teams with the era of the 90's. Tenure of staff and players is far different, as is the caliber and parity of other college programs.

 

Remember that Osborne's teams usually won when they were supposed to, and they lost when they were expected to. I remember it pretty clearly, and that's why Coach O was looking for work in the late-70's and early 80's. I was one of those that were saying that he should go. I was an idiot, but that whole thing taught me a lot. How long did it take Coach O to find just the right formula for success? Over 20 years.

 

In addtion, I'm certain that even you would have to admit that there is something very strange going on with the defense this year. We don't know it yet, and it is likely that we will never know for certain . . . but you can bet that it revolves around 4-5 players.

I'm not trying to start anything either. I just disagree with your premise that coaches don't affect attitude and performance. I believe they do.

 

And while it took T.O. 22 years to find the National Championship formula, I would counter that he had a great deal of success throughout his career. He was one play away from winning the MNC in 1983, and how many more years was he one win away from playing for it all? And even more than T.O. looking for a job, remember how everyone and their brother was calling for Charlie McBride's head in the late 80s? "He can't coach," "He has no idea what he's doing," etc. He turned out pretty well in the end, though. But it was only after he learned to adapt to the current game and learned how to get the most out of all of his players. HE was responsible for those dominating defenses of the 90s, not ONLY the players.

 

And yes, "even I" would agree that there is something wrong with this defense. =) It is certainly a few players, but it is also Cosgrove. There is just no way to absolve him from wrongdoing in this debacle. He is doing something wrong, and the players are doing something wrong, and the result is... this season.

[Pasadena Husker]

I found this old press release for Callahan.

Hammer! Don't hurt'em!

[junior4949]

We've seen it many times that a new coach walks into a losing program and within 1 or 2 years turns the exact same players into winners. Look at Stoops at OU and Meyer at Florida and Carroll at USC. I've seen it several times at the high school level as well. On D, the biggest changes is the Dline. The LB's and most of the secondary are veteran players. Did they just forget how to play? I don't think so.

 

The key point there is "exact same players." In Oklahoma, Stoops did not come in with a bare cupboard. The previous staff did a good job of recruiting, and Stoops was lucky enough to get them after a couple of years' experience. That made the difference, not Stoops.

 

Do you honestly believe if Blake would have been retained they would have had the success they did under Stoops? A different coach took the same players and changed them from a losing mentallity to winners.

 

We've seen it many times that a new coach walks into a losing program and within 1 or 2 years turns the exact same players into winners. Look at Stoops at OU and Meyer at Florida and Carroll at USC. I've seen it several times at the high school level as well. On D, the biggest changes is the Dline. The LB's and most of the secondary are veteran players. Did they just forget how to play? I don't think so.

 

The key point there is "exact same players." In Oklahoma, Stoops did not come in with a bare cupboard. The previous staff did a good job of recruiting, and Stoops was lucky enough to get them after a couple of years' experience. That made the difference, not Stoops.

 

Happened here in Phoenix. I'm so sick of hearing about the NU/ASU game from '96, I'm glad ASU is having a little success this year so they'll shut up about '96. Dirk Koetter was a decent recruiter, just couldn't cut it as head coach. They bring in Dennis Erickson and boom, they're top 10. Callahan has proven (to the recruiting magazines) that he can recruit, he & his staff just can't do anything with them once they're here. I look for the new coaching staff next year to take the talent that's there get things moving in the right direction quickly.

 

This is exactly my point. Bring in a new coach. He motivates the same players, and he gets a totally different result than the previous coach.

[NeutralBV]

There are few Callahan supporters on this board because they are attacked in the same way Callahan is, so they just don't post. I don't think that this board is a true representation of how all Husker fans feel.

T.O. is an honorable man, and he may see a glimpse of that in Callahan because he doesn't turn tail and run from all of the criticism. I'd like to see a little slack in the posts that just say the same thing over and over. Let T.O do his job the way he sees fit, there's not much we can do about it anyway.

 

Then again, I may be wrong.

 

There are people who think 9/11 was the work of our own government. When we explain to them how they are wrong, is that bad too? If, after those explanations are given to them, they still refuse to believe that terrorists were responsible, how would you have people react to them? It is the fault of the person who will not see reason, not those trying to speak reason to them.

 

Callahan has helmed the ship during the worst four years of Husker Football since 1962. He has steadfastly refused to make halftime adjustments. He has failed to properly assess what’s happening during games, costing us points and wins. He refused to adapt his offensive philosophy to the abilities of the players he inherited in 2004, unnecessarily costing us both our winning season streak and our bowl game streak. He (along with Steve Pederson) has alienated the core of Huskers Past, the very men who made this program what they are, removing a vital resource from this team. He has hired an incompetent coaching staff and refuses to correct those mistakes, with disastrous results this season. His coaching philosophy has resulted in a team without heart, a team that has given up, a team that has no ability to battle back from adversity.

 

These points are irrefutable. Leveling these wholly accurate accusations at Callahan are not “attacks,” they are facts. The ONLY reason a person would be attacked in a conversation involving Bill Callahan is if they refuse to see what is so obvious to the majority. Frustration with that level of blindness will lead to harsh words, especially in the anonymity of an Internet forum.

 

Here are some facts you left out -- worthy of consideration, but unlikely to change the minds of many:

4 of the 6 losses are to teams currently ranked in the Top 15, two of those teams are in the top 7 and USC was ranked #1 when NU played them. By year end, NU might have played one of the 5 toughest schedules in the nation.

 

3 of the losses have been on the road; and the A & M game was 16-14 at the half, at home, and NU 3 turnovers to A & M's zero. While coaches influence taking care of the ball, players execute it.

 

BC's offense has shown an ability to score points and his version of the WCO can help attract recruits looking to play in a system that throws the ball if they have NFL aspirations.

 

In other words, NU might be better off giving BC and Watson the time to make furhter offensive improvements wiht an overhaul on the defensive coaching staff and scheme. I agree with some other posters that there is something to admire in a guy that refuses to quit, resign or give up when an entire state is saying FU and the horse your rode in on.

[REDSTEEL]

Was asking this if Callahan stayed. Really not worried about him staying but Osborne should ask himself this if he keeps him. You would then have to point out that it was mishandled by T.O., by not letting the recruit know ahead of time time that he was going to keep Callahan and letting some of the big name recruits leave.

Osborne cannot talk to the recruits. That's a recruiting violation and would bring the NCAA down on our heads. Osborne is doing everything he can short of firing the whole staff right now, which he's on record as saying he won't do. We cannot expect the man to go back on his word.

 

First of all I never said call recruits. I meant tell the Media and the fans that he will be back no matter what just like Notre Dame has with Weiss.

 

Every single coaching staff in America works under those conditions. Notre Dame is willing to forgive one crummy season like this, but if they aren't noticeably better next year, you can bet Charlie is going to be out on his Weiss.

 

Yes, but is Charlie firing any of his asst coaches and bringing in different ones like Nebraska will if Callahan stays? I was referring that it would be hard to convince lets just say any good defensive coach like Pellini was for Greenbay to come in and take a job where you were going to have make the team so much better so that they would win enough games just to be safe for another year. Thats asking a lot and doubt any coach thats worth anything would be willing to jump on board.

We got Bo Pelini in a situation exactly like the one you're describing, and I'd say he worked out OK for the one year he was here.

 

You think Bo came in thinking it might have been one year and out? I doubt it Solich probably gave him an idea that it would be longer then one year then Pederson came in and changed that. No one of Pellinis caliber will give this school a chance for what could be an one and done especially if he has a family.

[RedGixxer]

You maybe correct we just have to wait and see! But my guess is he is gone!

 

 

What's the holdup anyway? That SOB Callahan should be in Siberia by now wrecking the Siberian National dog sled team...