I wish Callahan was still our HC

[Cactusboy]

...and we lost! 200 yards in the first half didn't do us any good.

T_O_B

G>B>R

 

and now you're changing the subject. That was ONLY said to address the untrue claim that the O only put up big numbers vs weak teams or after the game was decided.

[Cactusboy]

Here's some really simple stats for CactusboyOG's obtuse point of view.

 

The 4 years preceding BC, Frankie was 38-14 for a .731 win% (Frank was .756 over his 6 years)

The 4 BC years 27-22 for a .551 % (I'm not sure if you call that a win percentage or a lose percentage)

The 4 years after BC, Bo is 38-16 for a .704 %

And, just as a point of reference for the program, TO was 255-49-3 for an .836 and never won fewer than 9 games.

 

So, as you can plainly see 1 of these 4 doesn't belong in any rational conversation about who would be a better HC.

I think it can be successfully argued that; Frank was slightly trending downward going from .756 over 6 years to .731 his last 4 years, the BC years were nothing short of abysmal, and the Bo years have been steady 4 loss years but, coming out of the BC funk, actually rather impressive. No 5-6, 8-4, 9-5, or 5-7 records in there for Bo. Bo has had a better record every single year. Is it about time to start improving on 4 losses? Yes it is but, pining for the Callahan days? Really?

 

 

Talk about obtuse.

 

FS inherited a program coming off of 3 NCs in 4 years...he pissed that away about as fast as humanly possible.

BC inherited an average program at the time and installed his new offense which was polar opposite.

(FS hit the ground running w/ the same offense on a program running on all cylinders...BC didn't have those luxuries.)

[Cactusboy]

Callahan's '07 offense finished outside the Top 10 in yards gained, but didn't finish inside the Top 25 in points. That's pretty significant, if you ask me. His offense may have been good, but it wasn't even a Top 25 in points earned.

 

As far as Callahan's "track record". You do know he got fired from Oakland, yes? For being what? A bad coach.

 

I'm not going to emulate anybody other thoughts on this, because everything I think has been said already. There's so many reasons that have been spoken about ad nauseum that it's just repetitive. Firing Bill Callahan was the right move and a necessary move. His overall record, his lack of connection to the fan base, his poorly developed talent and his demeanor were just down right bad. The guy thought he was doing a pretty good job as a coach near the end of the 2007 season. How full of yourself do you have to be to honestly think your team with a losing record is being well coached?

 

I don't have the quote but if somebody could find it for me, that'd be great.

 

So a fired coach is a bad coach? Is that for for all coaches or just BC because it's convenient?

 

and yes...it's not an easy to task to go against conventional wisdom and group think. You have to consider ALL facts and context and usually it's just easier and more comforting to cling to what you and others think they know and have always known.

The statistical facts support his firing. You're entire argument, for the most part, is based off of the presumption that things might have been different if he were given more time. That problem is that his four years here were unimpressive, he had one horrendous year and the facts did not support his retaining.

 

I have considered all the facts, and all the facts lead me to my own conclusion - he shouldn't have been the coach at Nebraska football. Not in 2004 and not any year after that.

 

And you're right. Somebody who gets fired is quite obviously good at what they do.

 

He never had a starting QB going into a season that had more than 1 year in his program.

 

He wanted to fire Coz and bring in a much better DC bout wasn't allowed because we wouldn't spend the money.

 

2 relevant facts that never get mentioned, but should.

 

 

Oh...Pete Carrol was fired as HC of the Patriots.

[Cactusboy]

2006 was BC's best year here. We were 9-5. We put up gigantic offensive numbers like 10 against USC and 7 against OU. In the time BC was coach, we put most of our points up against teams with a pulse when the game was clearly lost. The only thing I would have liked to have seen was what a BC recruited QB could have done his jr. or sr. year. However, BC could never keep a QB around long enough to get there. Beck bolted. Freeman decommitted. Gabbert decommitted. With another couple of BC coached years, Suh would have been lucky to be a mid-fourth round draft pick. BC was good at getting the talent, but he rarely ever developed it once he got it to Nebraska.

DING DING DING. We have a winner. It amazes me when people talk about how good the offense was under BC. It sucked. Oh, against cupcakes, and good teams that had pulled their starters, it could score.

Does it amaze you when people say our D is good under Bo? Should we cherry pick scores of old? BC's offenses didn't do well at times..but other times it did. 200 yard IN THE FIRST HALF vs USC in 07.

 

Wow, that's funny.

 

At times, pretty much everything looks good. That was BC's offense. We had an entire season of one of the most dominant defenses I've ever seen in 09. And we decimated some extremely good offenses along the way. This season wasn't anything great, but to compare what Pelini has done on defense to what BC did on offense because of a 200 yard half in which we scored all of ONE TD, is pretty ludicrous. If that your argument, you've just proved mine. Thanks for the help, lol.

 

I gave only one example, but there are more.

Bo had one year in which our D didn't underachieve overall and that was 09. I give him a pass on 08....10, 11 he doesn't get one. And I'm not saying he's a bad HC...but the jury is clearly out on if he is or will be a good HC.

[Cactusboy]

 

 

It could be that...

 

Or maybe we are too stubborn to accept the FIRST LOSING SEASON of many of our LIFETIMES.

Or maybe we were to stubborn to accept the SECOND losing season of our lifetime.

Or possibly the calling of OU fans "effin Hillbillies" for throwing oranges, which is something that WE ALSO DID.

Or maybe it was the missing of a bowl game in over 40 YEARS.

Or maybe it was the missing of a bowl game for a SECOND time.

Or maybe it was getting embarrassed by the KANSAS FRIGGIN JAYHAWKS. Or maybe it was when we got our arses handed to us by OSU.

Or maybe it was being HC in the MOST EMBARRASSING loses in school history over multiple seasons.

Or maybe it was that he said things were "too complicated" for us.

Or maybe it was that he said "it's just one loss of one season" after handing us our first losing season in forever and our first non-bowl game season in forever.

 

Dude did NOT get it. Plain and simple. It was a horrid hire by a horrid AD. They are both gone. They both did irreparable damage to the Husker legacy and Husker nation. Good riddance, don't let the door hit you on the way out.

 

and on a scale of 1 to 10 what do you rate the job that Bo has done so far? 1 to 10...on your feelings on where we'll be in 3 years? I give him a 6 and 4.

[Enhance]

Callahan's '07 offense finished outside the Top 10 in yards gained, but didn't finish inside the Top 25 in points. That's pretty significant, if you ask me. His offense may have been good, but it wasn't even a Top 25 in points earned.

 

As far as Callahan's "track record". You do know he got fired from Oakland, yes? For being what? A bad coach.

 

I'm not going to emulate anybody other thoughts on this, because everything I think has been said already. There's so many reasons that have been spoken about ad nauseum that it's just repetitive. Firing Bill Callahan was the right move and a necessary move. His overall record, his lack of connection to the fan base, his poorly developed talent and his demeanor were just down right bad. The guy thought he was doing a pretty good job as a coach near the end of the 2007 season. How full of yourself do you have to be to honestly think your team with a losing record is being well coached?

 

I don't have the quote but if somebody could find it for me, that'd be great.

 

So a fired coach is a bad coach? Is that for for all coaches or just BC because it's convenient?

 

and yes...it's not an easy to task to go against conventional wisdom and group think. You have to consider ALL facts and context and usually it's just easier and more comforting to cling to what you and others think they know and have always known.

The statistical facts support his firing. You're entire argument, for the most part, is based off of the presumption that things might have been different if he were given more time. That problem is that his four years here were unimpressive, he had one horrendous year and the facts did not support his retaining.

 

I have considered all the facts, and all the facts lead me to my own conclusion - he shouldn't have been the coach at Nebraska football. Not in 2004 and not any year after that.

 

And you're right. Somebody who gets fired is quite obviously good at what they do.

 

He never had a starting QB going into a season that had more than 1 year in his program.

 

He wanted to fire Coz and bring in a much better DC bout wasn't allowed because we wouldn't spend the money.

 

2 relevant facts that never get mentioned, but should.

 

 

Oh...Pete Carrol was fired as HC of the Patriots.

And was then partially responsible for USC getting hammered with NCAA sanctions, thus fleeing back to the NFL. He cheated at USC. Not a wholly good example.

 

Your QB point is a fair argument, I'll give you that much. But even Petyon Manning wouldn't have salvaged much of Nebraska's season. Maybe they get to a bad bowl game. There was far, far more wrong with his teams than quarterback play. The other facts still remain. He was disliked, had two losing seasons, missed a bowl game twice, had the worst defense in Nebraska history (he's still ultimately responsible for that as head coach), suffered two of the most embarrassing losses in our schools history, was accused of playing favorites by former players, destroyed some of Nebraska's tradition, made former players feel unwelcome and the list goes on.

[Cactusboy]

 

I think what is trying to be pointed out to you is, that anybody can say anything in a PM, in person, or on a message board. Just because somebody said it doesn't make it true or valid. Did you really think you were going to start an "I want Callahan back" thread and not be subjected to ridicule and smart ass comments? The Callahan/Peterson years are the absolute worst on record for this program. Seems like every week of his reign we set some new, stupidly pathetic, low for the program. He and Peterson alienated ex-players and destroyed the culture of this program. I don't care what you or anyone thinks of his recruiting, offenses, or any other compartmentalized piece of the puzzle, the fact is we hit rock bottom and started to dig while he was here. Anyone who still thinks he would be better for this program than Pelini either didn't pay attention, is severely reality challenged, or is just plain stupid. If you want to claim he was better at some specific aspect, then go right ahead but, a better head coach? That ship has sailed and it sank in a fiery explosion.

 

BC w/ a top notch DC would make LOTS of NU fans happy. Just get outside of the group thinkers on the internets w/ their pitch forks and you'll start to realize this. I realize this not long ago as I started talking about these thing to random NU fans I know.

 

While I see where you are coming from, and I agree that he could have a good team if he ran the offense and a good DC ran the defense. The problem with Callahan was more than just the results on the field. You must have a really short memory, so I'll refresh you:

 

-After every bad loss, all Callahan said was, "me and my coaching staff did everything perfect." Uhhhh.... No

-He completely destroyed the walk-on program

-He alienated tons of alumni members

-He and his staff didn't know how to make halftime adjustments

 

The list goes on, and I can't remember half of the things. I've tried to forget this horrible 4-year span in Nebraska football history.

 

I can't believe we are even having this discussion....

 

In response to the bolded.

 

1 - who cares what he said on his TV show about a loss. That' just petty.

2 - how many are on the walk on program now compared to 2007?

3 - why were they alienated? any chance because they were negative and bitter and that wasn't wanted around the program? (Remember when I said Matt Davidson said he knew former players that wanted us to lose all our games?)

4 - Can't argue that.

 

numbers 1 to 3 point to what I said about former players and fans being immature and too full of themselves.

[Enhance]

I gave only one example, but there are more.

Bo had one year in which our D didn't underachieve overall and that was 09. I give him a pass on 08....10, 11 he doesn't get one. And I'm not saying he's a bad HC...but the jury is clearly out on if he is or will be a good HC.

The 2010 defense finished in the Top 15 in scoring defense and total defense. What, exactly, is underachieving about this?

[Cactusboy]

It was never going to happen.... but a nice theoretical would have been the BC offense with a Pelini defense. A shame Ganz didn't have an extra year or two.... we might have had a shot at the NC in '09.

 

Just like I always dream about the 1983 team having 1984's defense.

 

Gabbert would have been nice to have.

[Cactusboy]

 

 

The problem seems to be we won't spend money on our coaches. Anyone know why that is? Why are we not even the top 20 for average pay of assistant coaches? maybe we should spend less on sky boxes and more on coaches...

 

Yes because all of the extra income off those sky boxes is a stupid idea... Even though over $40 million of it was raised through private donation... Edit: meh just forget about it... Its Friday.. Time for a martini of some sort, then argue with Carlfense about silly crap in the politics forum during the off season...

 

 

Donations so we can hire top notch coaches sounds like a possible better idea to me.

[Cactusboy]

Callahan's '07 offense finished outside the Top 10 in yards gained, but didn't finish inside the Top 25 in points. That's pretty significant, if you ask me. His offense may have been good, but it wasn't even a Top 25 in points earned.

 

As far as Callahan's "track record". You do know he got fired from Oakland, yes? For being what? A bad coach.

 

I'm not going to emulate anybody other thoughts on this, because everything I think has been said already. There's so many reasons that have been spoken about ad nauseum that it's just repetitive. Firing Bill Callahan was the right move and a necessary move. His overall record, his lack of connection to the fan base, his poorly developed talent and his demeanor were just down right bad. The guy thought he was doing a pretty good job as a coach near the end of the 2007 season. How full of yourself do you have to be to honestly think your team with a losing record is being well coached?

 

I don't have the quote but if somebody could find it for me, that'd be great.

 

So a fired coach is a bad coach? Is that for for all coaches or just BC because it's convenient?

 

and yes...it's not an easy to task to go against conventional wisdom and group think. You have to consider ALL facts and context and usually it's just easier and more comforting to cling to what you and others think they know and have always known.

The statistical facts support his firing. You're entire argument, for the most part, is based off of the presumption that things might have been different if he were given more time. That problem is that his four years here were unimpressive, he had one horrendous year and the facts did not support his retaining.

 

I have considered all the facts, and all the facts lead me to my own conclusion - he shouldn't have been the coach at Nebraska football. Not in 2004 and not any year after that.

 

And you're right. Somebody who gets fired is quite obviously good at what they do.

 

He never had a starting QB going into a season that had more than 1 year in his program.

 

He wanted to fire Coz and bring in a much better DC bout wasn't allowed because we wouldn't spend the money.

 

2 relevant facts that never get mentioned, but should.

 

 

Oh...Pete Carrol was fired as HC of the Patriots.

And was then partially responsible for USC getting hammered with NCAA sanctions, thus fleeing back to the NFL. He cheated at USC. Not a wholly good example.

 

Your QB point is a fair argument, I'll give you that much. But even Petyon Manning wouldn't have salvaged much of Nebraska's season. Maybe they get to a bad bowl game. There was far, far more wrong with his teams than quarterback play. The other facts still remain. He was disliked, had two losing seasons, missed a bowl game twice, had the worst defense in Nebraska history (he's still ultimately responsible for that as head coach), suffered two of the most embarrassing losses in our schools history, was accused of playing favorites by former players, destroyed some of Nebraska's tradition, made former players feel unwelcome and the list goes on.

 

Pete Carrol wasn't responsible for the sanctions. It was an assistant that knew about what was going on. To say a coach is bad just because he was fired is ridiculous. I'm sure there are plenty of more examples of good coaches getting fired and going on to be successful as a HC. It should really go w/ out say.

 

I've covered the rest of the stuff you bring up.

[Cactusboy]

I gave only one example, but there are more.

Bo had one year in which our D didn't underachieve overall and that was 09. I give him a pass on 08....10, 11 he doesn't get one. And I'm not saying he's a bad HC...but the jury is clearly out on if he is or will be a good HC.

The 2010 defense finished in the Top 15 in scoring defense and total defense. What, exactly, is underachieving about this?

 

We should have been better considering who was on that D. I knew Bo was talking out of his butt when he said we'd be 5 times better in 2010 than 09...so I was never going to hold him to that...but there shouldn't have been as much as a drop off as there was. and I'm not saying it was a bad defense. It was a good D but it also underachieved.

[Enhance]

I gave only one example, but there are more.

Bo had one year in which our D didn't underachieve overall and that was 09. I give him a pass on 08....10, 11 he doesn't get one. And I'm not saying he's a bad HC...but the jury is clearly out on if he is or will be a good HC.

The 2010 defense finished in the Top 15 in scoring defense and total defense. What, exactly, is underachieving about this?

 

We should have been better considering who was on that D. I knew Bo was talking out of his butt when he said we'd be 5 times better in 2010 than 09...so I was never going to hold him to that...but there shouldn't have been as much as a drop off as there was. and I'm not saying it was a bad defense. It was a good D but it also underachieved.

On that note, I think I'm done with this thread. Enjoy the weekend everybody.

[T_O_Bull]

Here's some really simple stats for CactusboyOG's obtuse point of view.

 

The 4 years preceding BC, Frankie was 38-14 for a .731 win% (Frank was .756 over his 6 years)

The 4 BC years 27-22 for a .551 % (I'm not sure if you call that a win percentage or a lose percentage)

The 4 years after BC, Bo is 38-16 for a .704 %

And, just as a point of reference for the program, TO was 255-49-3 for an .836 and never won fewer than 9 games.

 

So, as you can plainly see 1 of these 4 doesn't belong in any rational conversation about who would be a better HC.

I think it can be successfully argued that; Frank was slightly trending downward going from .756 over 6 years to .731 his last 4 years, the BC years were nothing short of abysmal, and the Bo years have been steady 4 loss years but, coming out of the BC funk, actually rather impressive. No 5-6, 8-4, 9-5, or 5-7 records in there for Bo. Bo has had a better record every single year. Is it about time to start improving on 4 losses? Yes it is but, pining for the Callahan days? Really?

 

 

Talk about obtuse.

 

FS inherited a program coming off of 3 NCs in 4 years...he pissed that away about as fast as humanly possible.

BC inherited an average program at the time and installed his new offense which was polar opposite.

(FS hit the ground running w/ the same offense on a program running on all cylinders...BC didn't have those luxuries.)

 

Maybe you should just jump on the Jets bandwagon. They obviously have one of the best OL's in the NFL. BC screwed up the Raiders and left them in a shambles. Then he came to Lincoln and did the same thing. Good ridence nto an idiot coach who had no idea what he was dong, case in point the scrapping of the Walk On Program. Just plain stupid.

T_O_B

G>B>R

[JJ Husker]

Here's some really simple stats for CactusboyOG's obtuse point of view.

 

The 4 years preceding BC, Frankie was 38-14 for a .731 win% (Frank was .756 over his 6 years)

The 4 BC years 27-22 for a .551 % (I'm not sure if you call that a win percentage or a lose percentage)

The 4 years after BC, Bo is 38-16 for a .704 %

And, just as a point of reference for the program, TO was 255-49-3 for an .836 and never won fewer than 9 games.

 

So, as you can plainly see 1 of these 4 doesn't belong in any rational conversation about who would be a better HC.

I think it can be successfully argued that; Frank was slightly trending downward going from .756 over 6 years to .731 his last 4 years, the BC years were nothing short of abysmal, and the Bo years have been steady 4 loss years but, coming out of the BC funk, actually rather impressive. No 5-6, 8-4, 9-5, or 5-7 records in there for Bo. Bo has had a better record every single year. Is it about time to start improving on 4 losses? Yes it is but, pining for the Callahan days? Really?

 

 

Talk about obtuse.

 

FS inherited a program coming off of 3 NCs in 4 years...he pissed that away about as fast as humanly possible.

BC inherited an average program at the time and installed his new offense which was polar opposite.

(FS hit the ground running w/ the same offense on a program running on all cylinders...BC didn't have those luxuries.)

Yeah, you're probably right. Once you go 3 for 4 NC's, you can reasonably expect that to continue forever. According to your logic, Frank inherited a 9-4 team because that's what they did in 1998. BC is the one who changed the offense and you want to blame Frank for that? BC didn't have any of your so called "luxuries" because he was too busy dismantling anything that resembled Husker football. How is that anyones fault other than his own?

 

Frank went 10-3 in 2003, Bill came in the very next year and went 5-6 in 2004 and had "improved" by his 4th year to 5-7 in 2007. That's your evidence that BC was a good coach but it was all Frank's fault? Obtuse is saying you want Callahan back as HC even though there is not one shred of evidence that BC did anything except destroy this program. Obtuse is blaming Frank for the 4 horrid years BC was here even though his worst year was his last. Obtuse is saying you want to replace a coach who has gone 9-4 or 10-4 for 4 years with one who never accomplished anything approaching that. Before .756, During .551, After .704. Lather, rinse, repeat. You think the cupboards were bare when BC took over? What did Bo inherit, especially on the defensive side? This is a total waste of time. You're either being obstinate on purpose or it is impossible for a rational thought to enter your mind. You can wish for BC all you want, luckily the rest of Husker nation will never let you realize your dream. If they do, I'll be chanting Go Buffs on Saturday's. You're excused.