EZ-E Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So what is the deal with the animosity towards the new offensive staff? I thought that is what people wanted? A new look on offense. Can someone clarify with me in an objective manor why they don't believe that Tim Beck is unworthy of promotion? 2 Quote Link to comment
Blackshirt39 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So what is the deal with the animosity towards the new offensive staff? I thought that is what people wanted? A new look on offense. Can someone clarify with me in an objective manor why they don't believe that Tim Beck is unworthy of promotion? I think people are just frustrated that it wasn't a big "Wow!" hire. Its a solid staff but inexperienced. This staff isn't built for the short run. That was the mistake Bo made when he was hired. Quote Link to comment
da skers Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 sh#t you could have hired Bill Walsh (if he were alive) and they would have complained that he was out of touch with football and hadn't won anything since the 88 superbowl. People like to bitch. 1 Quote Link to comment
EZ-E Posted February 12, 2011 Author Share Posted February 12, 2011 Would not call that a mistake at all. He HAD to keep continuity on the offensive side of the ball to give his defense time to gain traction. If we would have went with a whole new staff when he was here we very well could have gone 4-8 or 5-7 again. That could have very well ment the death penalty to our program. Try convincing a kid from Florida or Texas that they should come to a cold weather state to lose. In 2008 we won some games that we flat out would not have won had we not had the offense that we did. Watson was kept at that moment in time to help make the transition go much quicker. Quote Link to comment
EZ-E Posted February 12, 2011 Author Share Posted February 12, 2011 sh#t you could have hired Bill Walsh (if he were alive) and they would have complained that he was out of touch with football and hadn't won anything since the 88 superbowl. People like to bitch. I agree. No matter who the hire was the board was primed for an explosion. Quote Link to comment
krc1995 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So what is the deal with the animosity towards the new offensive staff? I thought that is what people wanted? A new look on offense. Can someone clarify with me in an objective manor why they don't believe that Tim Beck is unworthy of promotion? I think people are just frustrated that it wasn't a big "Wow!" hire. Its a solid staff but inexperienced. This staff isn't built for the short run. That was the mistake Bo made when he was hired. This is a spot on analysis Quote Link to comment
CornKing Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So what is the deal with the animosity towards the new offensive staff? I thought that is what people wanted? A new look on offense. Can someone clarify with me in an objective manor why they don't believe that Tim Beck is unworthy of promotion? The trick is if you B*tch about everything then you never have to say you were wrong if you like something that goes wrong. It is our society now to expect everything and take responsibility for nothing. I blame the hippies lol. Quote Link to comment
The Dude Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So what is the deal with the animosity towards the new offensive staff? I thought that is what people wanted? A new look on offense. Can someone clarify with me in an objective manor why they don't believe that Tim Beck is unworthy of promotion? Hippies. 1 Quote Link to comment
dubsker Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So what is the deal with the animosity towards the new offensive staff? I thought that is what people wanted? A new look on offense. Can someone clarify with me in an objective manor why they don't believe that Tim Beck is unworthy of promotion? Hippies. Quote Link to comment
Overland Park Husker Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So what is the deal with the animosity towards the new offensive staff? I thought that is what people wanted? A new look on offense. Can someone clarify with me in an objective manor why they don't believe that Tim Beck is unworthy of promotion? Why they don't believe he is unworthy of a promotion? Not a lot of people feel that way. A lot do feel that he was unworthy of the promotion. Quote Link to comment
huskers1 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Beck is not the one who I am a little disappointed about. I actually think Beck will be very good for years go come. I have to say that I am pretty disappointed at the Garrison hire. He very well could be a very good coach but like others have said, he came from a power, straight-ahead running offense. I just think that if we were going to get a new o line coach we should have gotten a guy that has at least some experience in the spread. Although we did start to go toward the spread toward the end of Crouch's career so we'll see. Quote Link to comment
zonaSker Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So what is the deal with the animosity towards the new offensive staff? I thought that is what people wanted? A new look on offense. Can someone clarify with me in an objective manor why they don't believe that Tim Beck is unworthy of promotion? I think people are just frustrated that it wasn't a big "Wow!" hire. You act like all the sunshine pumpers here KNEW that we'd get Scott Frost, that next years offense would be as good as Oregon's was this year, and we were going to shock the world and make a run at the title. Oh wait, they thought they did, and that we were going to. Welcome to the internety. Quote Link to comment
Blackshirt39 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 So what is the deal with the animosity towards the new offensive staff? I thought that is what people wanted? A new look on offense. Can someone clarify with me in an objective manor why they don't believe that Tim Beck is unworthy of promotion? I think people are just frustrated that it wasn't a big "Wow!" hire. You act like all the sunshine pumpers here KNEW that we'd get Scott Frost, that next years offense would be as good as Oregon's was this year, and we were going to shock the world and make a run at the title. Oh wait, they thought they did, and that we were going to. Welcome to the internety. Hey I was disappointed that we didn't get Frost as much as anyone else. But I think people are overestimating the value of that big hire. The quick fix didn't work last time so Bo built for the long run with this staff. I'm excited for spring ball. Quote Link to comment
Danny Bateman Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Would not call that a mistake at all. He HAD to keep continuity on the offensive side of the ball to give his defense time to gain traction. If we would have went with a whole new staff when he was here we very well could have gone 4-8 or 5-7 again. That could have very well ment the death penalty to our program. Try convincing a kid from Florida or Texas that they should come to a cold weather state to lose. In 2008 we won some games that we flat out would not have won had we not had the offense that we did. Watson was kept at that moment in time to help make the transition go much quicker. As an aside before I reply to EZ... I agree with Huskers1... Garrison is probably a good coach, but it would've been nice to get a spread/pass pro Oline coach to aid Barney in his (pass pro) futility. EZ... I don't think it would've been a death penalty if we'd had a losing record again. Ty Willingham did it the year before he went 0-fer with his Husky team... Only he then got fired. So it wouldn't have been the end of DONU... Just probably the end of Bo's reign. I don't know how much slack they would've given him. I would hope at least one more year after having said losing record, but in the "win now" society we live in, I could see us firing Bo after a bad first year. Also, I'd like to point out... I don't know if any of you guys were the same way, but after we fired Cally, I was gung ho with Wats and thought he'd do great. It had to do with the playcalling under him in 07 (the first half of the CU game, when we went into halftime ahead) LOOKED so much better when compared to Callahan's playcalling (we lost that game and guess what: Callahan took over playcalling at half-time). Now, that loss probably had more to do with our gaping hole, Cosgrove D... But I for one, in 08, thought Wats would lead us to the promised land offensively. Quote Link to comment
hskrpwr13 Posted February 12, 2011 Share Posted February 12, 2011 Dudeguyy, I thought the same about Watson when Bo was hired. I was relieved that Bo kept him and figured all we then needed was to fix the defense. I'm glad Watson's leaving, but I don't fully blame him for the problems. I think Bo's been trying to get away from the type of offensive scheme where Watson excells. I believe Bo understood this, thus explaining why he has defended Watson this whole time. I gotta believe Bo is hiring an offensive staff that will have more ability to run the scheme he wants. Agree, that many wanted hires that were more recognizable. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.