Mutiny in Huskerland

[IrishAZ]

Why were the 2002 Raiders Gruden's team, and why were the 2003 Raiders Callahan's team? If Gruden was so damn good, he would have won the super bowl with the raiders. The year Gruden left, the Raiders offense exploded and carried them to the Super Bowl. That Super Bowl looked as if Gruden knew what Callahan was going to call. Callahan was his offensive coordinator during those 2 seasons that you mentioned Gruden took the Raiders to the playoffs. He bolted for Tampa because he knew that good defense wins championships and Dungy and Kiffin had set up a great one in Tampa. Gruden hasn't made the playoffs again with the Buccaneers since the SuperBowl. They were a perennial playoff team with Dungy. This begs the question, did Gruden take Dungy's team to the Super Bowl? If you wanna look at things the way that you choose to, put the shoe on the other foot and see how it fits.

 

Charles Woodson had a beef with Callahan. He seems to be having problems with Norv Turner. So I think the argument that it was Callahan isn't very valid. Al Davis wouldn't sign Woodson to a long term deal because even he sensed that Woodson to be a possible bad egg. Tim Brown was pissed because his role in the offense was being lessened because he isn't a playmaker anymore. I think that this year in Tampa proved that. It's hard to take for some guys, same with Rice, but he at least had the class to not blame someone else for his diminishing skills.

DJR -

 

Concerning the Raiders and Gruden - I'm not defending Gruden here - just illustrating that left to his own devices, Callahan is not as successful as everyone thinks. Consequentrly, I'll leave the shoes on the feet they're on, thanks

 

Your analysis of the situation with Callahan taking over Gruden's team is consistent with what I was stating - if Gruden knew the playbook, that means Callahan was using Gruden's system and had success with it througout the regular season.

 

The following year, Callahan put in his own system and he tanked - and that is what Gannon was complaining about.

 

I'm not out to prove Gruden is better than Callahan or whatver. This is a Husker board, not a Raider board (we can have that discussion at length on a Raider board if you want, and believe me it'll be a long one ) - so I'll stick to discussing Callahan.

 

But, allow me to reverse the question - if Callahan was so good, why did he go 4-12 (!!!!!) the year after he went to a Suprbowl?

 

As for Brown - again, if playing time was the reason for the gripe, why isn't he bitching now that his reception total went from 80+ to about 30?

 

If BC was the second coming of Bryant or Osbourn or Stoops or Parseghian, I would say he's earned the right to be as curt and/or rude as he wants to be.

 

But he's not a winner - yet. Consequently, I find it puzzling why there's such a tremendous amount of rationalization going on to defend the guy amongst some fans. Believe it or not, handling players is an important part of coaching.

 

IRISH!

[Benard]

I couldn't agree with you any more. The kids that are leaving were not going to play anyway. This goes to show how the talent level has dropped when Frank took over.

I disagree. You dont' want kids leaving your program and especially the way they are leaving. Sure some of these guys may never have stared for NU but they would of been some of our better special teams players and very good scout team players. That is a big part of a team aswell. I am very suprised that birkel didn't play this year. he has talent.

[formerfan]

Okay so you are a moderator. That's makes you an *** kisser. The moderators tell us oh there's a support pederson webite. ***** you people. If you want to have a ****** **** and keep us from having any opinions then kick everybody off this board and  kiss each others ***.

 

Obviously since the word "husker" is attached to this board you are under their control.  Everytime someone leaves this team it's the same old crap "I never heard of this guy".   You make it sound like everything is great. Take off your scarlet and cream glasses and stop making excuses.  Steve Pederson spent and Callahan are not going to lead you anywhere. And if, and that 's a big if you are real fans you would question what the hell is going on in Lincoln. Stop making excuses for these morons.

 

 

I feel I need to respond to the ridiculous nonsense as it was directed, most obviously, towards me.

 

Everyone here will agree that no one has tried to prohibit anyone from expressing their opinion on this board. You are free to give your perspective at any time about any topic, as long as you aren't juvenile about it (i.e. follow the board rules).

I disagree, there was one *****-***** whose name starts with an A (how appropriate) who wanted to have people banned or moved to a different website because they had different views than that of the puderson/callahan suck-@$$.

 

He then went on a hate-filled, personally offensive attack on another member when he was not bright enough to dispute the other members truthful claims.

 

Funny how that works, huh?

 

 

[DaveH]

I disagree, there was one panty-waste whose name starts with an A (how appropriate) who wanted to have people banned or moved to a different website because they had different views than that of the puderson/callahan suck-@$$.

Yea, and that's great. He suggested it and we, the moderators, decided against making such a forum.

 

No one has ever been shunned from expressing their opinions on this board. Blackshirt has the final say in member status.

[Utah_Husker]

I haven't been on for a while, but after reading this thread, I'd have to agree with what IrishAZ is saying. I remember a couple of times during the season I tried to compare what was happening with Callahan to the implosion of ND with Willingham, but I don't follow the Irish enough to make a convincing argument. But we have an ardent Notre Dame fan here on this board that says things smell familiar. Not to say its definitely going to be a disaster, but I think we'll know by the end of next year.

[junior4949]

Unfortunately, I don't think we will know anything by the end of next year. More than likely we will have a first year starter at QB unless Dailey does something to really impress BC in spring practice. I wouldn't be surprised if we see as many as 3 different QB's start a game next year. We will be very inconsistant at that position I'm afraid. So, in all reality we won't know anything about the team and BC as a coach because so much of the offense is centered on the play at QB.

 

The defense can't get much worse, or can it? With some key players leaving, I don't think we can heavily rely on true freshman starting in the secondary or at LB. Call me pessimistic, but I don't see a lot of improvement from a team standpoint next year. I don't reallistically think we can make any kind of judgement unil either year end 2006 or season 2007.

 

If anyone believes we will be contending for a NC in the near future, then I have to ask how long is near? We won't be contending for any title next year or the year after that. If the coaching staff can keep all attitudes in check, by year 3 of this recruiting class we may be a contender. However, keeping the me first attitude in check with some of these "superstars" will be as challenging as keeping Tim Brown, Jerry Rice, Gannon, and company happy.

 

What I really think "Pud" handed to us NU fans was what a lot of other programs are going through. If BC doesn't play for a NC by year 3, we'll all be calling for his head. Just like Notre Dame, we'll be switching coaching staffs like some change their underwear.

[hoyamannn]

Unfortunately, I don't think we will know anything by the end of next year. More than likely we will have a first year starter at QB unless Dailey does something to really impress BC in spring practice. I wouldn't be surprised if we see as many as 3 different QB's start a game next year. We will be very inconsistant at that position I'm afraid. So, in all reality we won't know anything about the team and BC as a coach because so much of the offense is centered on the play at QB.

 

The defense can't get much worse, or can it? With some key players leaving, I don't think we can heavily rely on true freshman starting in the secondary or at LB. Call me pessimistic, but I don't see a lot of improvement from a team standpoint next year. I don't reallistically think we can make any kind of judgement unil either year end 2006 or season 2007.

 

If anyone believes we will be contending for a NC in the near future, then I have to ask how long is near? We won't be contending for any title next year or the year after that. If the coaching staff can keep all attitudes in check, by year 3 of this recruiting class we may be a contender. However, keeping the me first attitude in check with some of these "superstars" will be as challenging as keeping Tim Brown, Jerry Rice, Gannon, and company happy.

 

What I really think "Pud" handed to us NU fans was what a lot of other programs are going through. If BC doesn't play for a NC by year 3, we'll all be calling for his head. Just like Notre Dame, we'll be switching coaching staffs like some change their underwear.

I agree we will not have a complete turnaround next year, but our QB play should be better and so should our LB play. The new OLB's are highly touted and will have spring and fall to learn and stay in shape. The problem we've had in the past with JUCO's was that they came in the fall and they were out of shape.

I think one thing that will set this staff apart from maybe ND was that BC seems to be able to pull some real talent in here. What he does with the talent remains to be seen. I think we'll get our 1st good look next year though, when we see Beck/Taylor QB, Lucky RB, Murtha OL, Moore/Octavian LB and Bowman CB, all who should see plenty of playing time right away.

I saw glimpses of the offense working wonderfully this year, and if we get the talent in here and they still can't win then I will also want someone else running things. It's nice to see after all these years though that the top guys in the country want to come here to play. I was beginning to think the Cal/Fla kids didn't like the snow!

[IrishAZ]

This sort of begs the question, but...

 

The reason for the change from the Solich staff was to prevent a slide to mediocrity, right?

 

Even with more competitive play in the next two years or so, can you all really see a significant improvement in wins/losses? I mean, why change play style when the result becomes the same?

 

We might field some decent/good teams...maybe some 9 win seasons, perhaps even 10 wins and some bowl appearances or a B12 championship or two. But I'm having a hard time envisioning BC taking NU back to the very elite and contesting with the SEC or OU or USC (and eventually ND, of course ) for NC's.

 

I mean, you can bring in all the talent in recruiting in the world, but unless the coaching is there, it's useless. Case in point: contrary to Hoyamann's opinion, ND has/had a *ton* of talent - ND has more players seeing playing time in the NFL than any other college besides Miami. A consistent Rivals top 20/10 class every year (until last year). The current roster has 12 Parade All Americans for chrissakes and we went .500 for the year!

 

Carlyle Holliday was super-heavily recruited by NU, and I almost would have preferred he not have attended ND because he was absolutely wasted there (and he's a great kid too...really classy guy that deserved better than ND the last few years).

 

The result of all this talent: abyssmal teams for the last decade because of shoddy coaching. First Davie, then Willingham.

 

Here's the most telling comparison, I think - good coaches make do with the talent that they have *now* - playing a waiting game and getting blue-chip recruits hoping they'll pan out is a fool's errand.

 

And all offensive output aside...explain the defense tanking this year as well? You can't blame that on the Wine & Cheese Offense and the roster was still in good shape especially in the secondary with the Bullocks and Washington.

 

All character issues aside - here's the real question: do you actually think Callahan can do it? Can he bring NU back to the elite?

 

IRISH!

[DaveH]

As far as I am concerned and I have said it time and again, the jury is still out on Callahan and the staff. I have a hard time condemning "the new" because everyone else does without what I consider a fair evaluation. There are entirely too many variables with last years team to lay blame squarely on the coaching staff. Obviously everyone should share the blame. I know everyone has heard it before, but the current discussion begs my explanation...again

 

Normally this wouldn't matter much, IMO, but with such a drastic change in offensive philosopy the fact that most of these kids aren't what the new offense begs. On the defensive side of the ball there were kids who didn't buy into what Cosgrove and his staff was trying to do. It's hard to get anything done when you have a group of kids that seemed jaded by the last three years.

 

Anyone thinking that the coaching staff bringing a totally different way of playing the game could turn it round in a year is fooling themselves. Whether the style of play needed to be changed, or a bringing a coach in that can actually recruit the players that the system needs to thrive is debatable. However, what's done is done and I see Callahan being here for at least 5 years barring anything unusual. I believe when Pederson alluded to gravitating toward mediocrity, he was referring to the long term. Not the short term. Obviously the "gravitation" was not complete and still could be there

 

As far as recruiting, I have always believed that a good recruiter will go after the guys that will thrive on the team. Not necessarily the top ranked players on earth, but guys that will thrive with the kind of ball the team plays. I think Callahan and his staff know what kind of guy they want and they know how to get them to come to Nebraska,

 

Sure, talent will only take you so far if you can't coach. I am not convinced Callahan can't coach yet. I saw good things this year, especially on the offensive side of the ball that encorage me as a fan. There are just too many variables this past year to condemn everybody and their dog. Next year I look for improvement. How much? I don't know. How about a winning season. A QB that can read defenses in this offense and key on more than 2 receivers will go a long way IMO.

 

One thing about coaching in general that has always got me. It seems that fans evaluate coaching on how many games the team wins. Is that really that fair? I mean, afterall, the coach doesn't control what the players do on the field. I never hear someone say "Well, they don't win a lot of games but that guy sure can coach!"

[rawhide]

Fantastic,

 

 

For awhile so many threads have been pretty hate laced. This thread had good arguments both ways at least the last 1 1/2 pages. What Junior, Hoya and others have said is true. Its way too early to judge this system. A few players leaving for whatever reason I believe after a change like this is to be expected. After the 07 season and we go 6-5 yeah I'll jump on the bandwagon for a reeval of the program. Hasn't happened yet lets wait and see. I wish Washington luck in the future and thanks for the good times.

 

Keep up the good and rational posts everybody

 

 

GBR

[hoyamannn]

We also quickly forget how long it took Nebraska's version of 'God' (aka, TO) to win the title. 20 years? There's no room to wait today in college football. If Coker, Stoops and Carroll didn't have the early success they enjoyed they'd probably be at lower-tier schools or have coordinator jobs somewhere right now. Granted, TO routinely beat the rest of the Big 8 besides OU, but there weren't the scolarship limitations and rules that there are now, and recruiting was much different. I hope BC and the staff can take NU back to the elite, and I really think that if the D continues to be an issue, then SP will step in and make sure a change is made. I don't think he really cares what people think when he makes a decision, and he's not scared to make controversial decisions either. After watching the NC tonight, I'm pretty happy he passed on Pelini though.

[junior4949]

Yeah, I'm pretty sure Pelini whispered into White's ear to throw those 2 INT's just to see if his defense could keep USC out of the end zone. I'm sure he told the punt returner to do only God knows what on the 5 yard line so Pelini could see if his D could get a stop. This is amazing. The offense gives the ball up inside the red zone, and you want to blame the D and D coordinator. Get a life!

[IrishAZ]

...Next year I look for improvement. How much? I don't know. How about a winning season. A QB that can read defenses in this offense and key on more than 2 receivers will go a long way IMO.

 

One thing about coaching in general that has always got me. It seems that fans evaluate coaching on how many games the team wins. Is that really that fair? I mean, afterall, the coach doesn't control what the players do on the field. I never hear someone say "Well, they don't win a lot of games but that guy sure can coach!"

Well, that's a point I should condede - truly, wins and losses aren't the sum of what makes a coach good or bad.

 

The best I've felt after a loss was ND losing to NU in 2000 - when ND took the Huskers to OT (and Arnaz Battle was QB playing almost the entire game with a fractured wrist he got in the first series of the game - heart of a lion that kid).

 

ND lost, but damn...they left *everything* on the field. If Davie or Willingham could have motivated the team into putting out 100% like that week in and week out, either would deserve to be at ND as far as I'm concerned, regardless of record (though their records would have been far better, I think, than they were if they could motivate that well).

 

You can see the difference between good and bad coaching pretty readily just by the approach to the game. For example (and just as a anecdote) between OU and USC - USC is up by 40 zillion with 4 minutes left in the 4th, some USC lineman makes a boneheaded play and there's a coach chewing his butt on the sidelines on national TV. The game's in the bag, but they don't stop coaching.

 

By contrast, Stoops looked shellshocked by halftime, and his players adopted the same attitude for the rest of the game. That's not to say Stoops is a bad coach, mind you. Everyone likes Stoops...it's impossible not to like the guy. And his accomplishments are undeniable. But OU was flat tonight - they made the fatal mistake with USC and didn't up the pressure with an early lead.

 

It's sort of like some advice my dad gave me once when I was in college "the best way to get good grades is to actually *learn* what they're teaching you" - translation: the best way to win is to play the game the right way: hard and with passion. Play right, the wins take care of themselves.

 

That's something that a coach can give a team right away. The X's and O's can take a back seat a bit in college (though they're still vitally important), but managing the team's attitude is very important, if not crucial.

 

Now, here's where you'll have to help me out - besides highlights, the only NU football I really sat down to watch was the Pitt game (interesting game, that) and the last half of the loss to the Mildcats.

 

In neither game did the team really look all that gunned up and ready to play. Some of that may just have been discomfort with the new system, but I didn't see a lot of fire there.

 

So, in general, how did the look this year in the rest of the games? Did they play with attitude, or were they adopting the "deer in the headlights" look of confusion and despair? Or maybe somewhere in the middle?

 

IRISH!

[Utah_Husker]

Those are excellent points, Irish. I think the only time I saw the team play with anything that resembled the intensity on the Nebraska teams I grew up with was the Missouri game and the last 7 minutes of the Colorado game. The rest of the time they looked lost. I don't remember last year being like that. The only game where they just looked horrible and gave up was Texas.

[DaveH]

IrishAZ,

 

I understand what you are saying about the coaches not stopping even though they are up big in a game and sure, a good coach should do that. However, we only see a fraction of the total interaction between the players and coaches. Basically what ever the game carrier decides to show us, whatever columnists want to right about and what ever we hear from word-of-mouth (We all know how reliable that can be:)).

 

As far as last night being an example of good coaching vs. bad coaching, I don't think so. USC's players played extremely well in all key positions. OU turned the ball over 5 times. I would have looked the same way if I was Stoops. After having your team play great, good enough to get to the championship, and then having your heisman winning QB throw 3 interceptions mixed with other bonehead plays has to be frustrating and hard to understand. OU came out looking good, but once they started turning the balll over the wind quicky left their sails. USC on the other hand did most everything right. And hey, it's gotta be easy coaching a team that does everything you tell them to and more. In my opinion, that game was more about who made the least mistakes. Not who was prepared better. IMO, both teams were prepared to win. OU just shat the bed

Stoops didn't get out coached IMO. It's more like USC's players outplayed OU and kept the misakes to a minimum.

 

I agree with your dad's advice. It goes along the same lines as taking ownership of what you are learning. You can translate that, IMO, to the football field by taking ownership of the team. That's something you should see from your senior's and upperclassmen and this year, the Huskers had nil. We need this leadership. Like I said before, especially on the defensive side of the ball, the players seemed jaded at the times. Like they could care less if they were there or not. Personally, I think that had more to do with the coaching changes over the last 3 years and not being able to really "dig in" with a coaching staff. That's why I am looking forward to some stability in that department for awhile.

 

The only game I saw in person was the IA State game. On the offensive side of the ball, I saw that most of the plays called were there. There were at least 2, maybe 3 receivers open but didn't get the ball. When Joe did decide to throw the ball, the defense was already closing in.

 

In the running game, Cory Ross was a workhorse and showed the most heart out of any player on the team. He rushed for over 1000 yards this year. Nebraska hasn't had a back rush for 1000 yards in at least a couple years.

 

As far as playing with attitude, I can say that usually they came out with some attitude, but then got flat in that department as the game went on.