knapplc Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Bill Callahan was the antithesis of what Nebraska Football stood for. The vast, VAST majority of Husker fans did not/do not want him as our coach. There are pockets of people who like him as our coach, but then there are pockets of people who liked any coach, anywhere. The reality is that Callahan was bad for this team and this program. He was a last option hire by an idiot AD who made an epically bad decision. Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 We are not in a court of law. So people can decide based on the integrity of myself and their common sense. You act as though NO 2nd hand info is credible. Obviously it's a case by case thing, but you want to lump it all together when convenient. No, we're not in a court of law. We're in the court of public opinion. And the jury is about ready to hang this thread. Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 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. Edit - just realized I looked at the wrong game. Regardless, I can pull up any number of scores to contradict your point. That very same offense only scored 6 points against a far less talented defense on the road. Also, Pelini has had two defenses finish in the top ten in scoring defense and yards allowed. Did any facet of Callahan's teams ever finish in the Top 10, in anything? Didn't the 07 offense finish around #10? Also...Bo had a lot of very talented BC recruits to work w/. and as they have started to leave the D has gotten worse each year. Next year is all Bo players so we'll see where we go. AND BC had to field an offense from FS players who weren't recruited to run BC's offense...so he was handicapped off the bat. Again, BC had is faults. I just think his track record/resume show he's a great coach...and I would have liked to see how he could have grown as our HC. I already pointed out how he got better w/ recruiting in his later years at NU. AND he wanted to bring in a better DC but we wouldn't put the $ up for it. Nebraska is too conservative...stubborn...spoiled to give an outsider like BC a legit chance IMO. He'd be better off at a place like KU, ASU, UA, WSU, S or N Carolina...etc. Link to comment
Enhance Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 It's not that this thread is stupid. Well...I change my mind. It's that it's a vicious circle. CactusboyOG is clearly not going to be convinced by anything we say here, and everything he says is just absolutely ridiculous. 1 Link to comment
T_O_Bull Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 ...and we lost! 200 yards in the first half didn't do us any good. T_O_B G>B>R Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Didn't the 07 offense finish around #10? Rushing Offense - 66th Passing Efficiency - 18th Scoring Offense - 9th Total Offense - 28th Wins - 5 Final Rank - 61st (Sagarain; the AP doesn't go that low) Link to comment
Enhance Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 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. Link to comment
Enhance Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Didn't the 07 offense finish around #10? Rushing Offense - 66th Passing Efficiency - 18th Scoring Offense - 9th Total Offense - 28th Wins - 5 Final Rank - 61st (Sagarain; the AP doesn't go that low) Rivals says their scoring offense was only 33.4 points and finished outside the Top 25. Am I looking at something wrong here? Link to comment
knapplc Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Didn't the 07 offense finish around #10? Rushing Offense - 66th Passing Efficiency - 18th Scoring Offense - 9th Total Offense - 28th Wins - 5 Final Rank - 61st (Sagarain; the AP doesn't go that low) Rivals says their scoring offense was only 33.4 points and finished outside the Top 25. Am I looking at something wrong here? No, I screwed that up. TOTAL Offense was 9th in the country. Scoring was 28th. Just flip-flopped those two. Here's the NCAA stat page for 2007. Link to comment
Blaze1up Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 WT.... someone needs a hug, get this man some help or best bet go be a Longhorn fan. Link to comment
The Dude Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 Best troll thread I've seen on HuskerBoard. Clever and commited. 10/10 1 Link to comment
Cactusboy Posted January 6, 2012 Author Share Posted January 6, 2012 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. Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 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? 2 Link to comment
Enhance Posted January 6, 2012 Share Posted January 6, 2012 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. Link to comment
Recommended Posts