Skeptic/Believer

[Count 'Bility]

Why is it that our schedule is percieved to be so much easier that 2 or more losses is unacceptable?

 

Because our two tough games are UCLA and Michigan. And those two teams are probably fringe top 25 team at best.

So, last year there was Ohio St. That was the ONLY team better than the 2 you mentioned that we played last year, that we dont this year. Not to mention, we could still play Ohio St this year anyway. Hence, my question still stands.

[skersfan]

I think you kinda missed my point.

 

Did not said player state he moved to DL because we are light there? He was not playing on the offensive line that some on here continually say is poor. If he is not a OL starter/player, has not played defense and now has been moved due to not having enough players, again this year, what does that mean?

 

We obviously still have defensive problems, that could have been helped by better roster management last year it appears. Starting a bunch of talented kids (again claimed as most have not seen the field in any meaningful reps, or none at all) is a recipe for problems. I think we win most of our games, but UCLA, Michigan, Michigan State, Northwestern and Ohio State if we play them will show those problems.

 

If the QB kids are as good as some claim then I thin we are two years away of being what some think we will this year.

 

For the record Martinez has done a great job, errors yes, but to think these two freshmen will not make errors from watching their high school film is what I was talking about. Will the new kids be as solid as what we have seen, even though some think he is sub par.

[walksalone]

I really REALLY dont want to turn this into a "what if we fire Bo" thread, but this is something that really concerns me the more I think about it. I think back to those words of Dirk Chatelain. "Bo is not good enough to get us over the hump, but he's not bad enough to fire". How bad do we have to let it get? Let's face it, we dotn have a good record of canning 9-win coaches. We're STILL trying to recover from the 1st time we did it. Yes, 2013 is definitely THE year, one way or another.

He nailed it with that analysis. You can't (or probably shouldn't) fire a coach who wins 9 games every year . . . but how long should we tolerate that as basically being the ceiling for the program? How long should we endure being repeatedly embarrassed on national TV because we got to the 9 win mark? How long should we accept almost winning the conference?

 

My own opinion is 6-7 years. That should be more than enough time for a coach to hire his staff, recruit his players, and implement his system.

 

6-7 years is so tough now, especially with a win within 2 or 3 years of taking over the job, and the number of guys who have turned programs around...

 

I know this is going a little outside the box, but i wonder if there'd be a comparison to coaches who in the past 10 or 15 years who have been very successful within the first 3 or 4 years, and compare that to coaches 30 or 40 years ago...

[hskerprid]

What I forsee and hope doesn't happen. NU offensively is a juggernaut this year but the defense loses us a few games.

Beck then becomes a hot commodity and is convinced with $ or a head coaching gig and leaves.

 

2014 we turn the corner defensively and have a top10 unit. Now the offense is in reconstruction mode with a new OC.

 

Maybe unfairly to Pelini it is conjectured that he will never be able to put both together in the same year if ever. Pelini's head is called for and boom back to square one.

[skersfan]

I see the exact same thing. I see us needing three more years to be competitive on both fronts. But the good thing is that is what I expect, I think we are getting closer. I think he can weather the storm, as long as there aren't any big blow out losses. Those have to stop. If there are the same number this year. I think Bo will be gone. No matter how unfair due to the youth. A new AD is not going to take losses like we had last year. The only one on the schedule capable of that is Ohio State if we win the division. I see teams that could beat us, but not blow us out in conference. UCLA will be a close game, and most likely will be rated close to us when we play. That game will tell us how good the defense is and maybe how good they will get during the year.

[Count 'Bility]

I'll say this though. I am twice as confident for the future with the situation we have evolved into now from 4 years ago (great offense-not great defense) as opposed to if we would have remained a team with a great D and mediocre to sh**ty offense. I've mentioned this before. He's straightened out the defense here-TWICE. Then he straightened out the offense. I have all the confidence in the world he can do it with the defense again. I know, it was not his full load of players in his first couple of great defenses, but the con to that is, this great offense we have IS his players.

[JJ Husker]

I have to agree with many; the well of acceptable excuses runs dry this season. I am hopeful that they get it done but it is sh#t or get off the pot time for Bo & Co. Favorable schedule in years six and three. I really hope it goes our way because starting anew will only prolong further what it is we are all waiting for. I can live with one or two well contested losses but the head shakers and blowouts gotta be a thing of the past. I really like Bo and hope for the best but I will be at the front of the line calling for his head if anything resembles last seasons CCG debacle.

[Chaddyboxer]

Why is it that our schedule is percieved to be so much easier that 2 or more losses is unacceptable?

 

Because our two tough games are UCLA and Michigan. And those two teams are probably fringe top 25 team at best.

I would beg to differ on the later team....with Gardner at the helm....they can and prob. are easily top 15 material. Just my opinion....

[walksalone]

I have to agree with many; the well of acceptable excuses runs dry this season. I am hopeful that they get it done but it is sh#t or get off the pot time for Bo & Co. Favorable schedule in years six and three. I really hope it goes our way because starting anew will only prolong further what it is we are all waiting for.

 

Money

 

I think more than two regular season losses, and this season will be a disappointment. This is the first time in a couple years, where looking at the schedule, seeing what we've got personnel wise, and knowing what the coaching staff is capable of, that I think we could maybe go undefeated regular season. The past two years have been meat grinders, with disappointing results in the bowl games. This year, there's a chance to take that leap forward many of us have been waiting for.

 

That being said, if we end up with 3 or 4 losses and either missing the CCG or getting in through the back door, with another loss in a bowl, will be disheartening, and the "Fire Bo" crowd will have all the ammo they ever could have needed...

[JJ Husker]

Why is it that our schedule is percieved to be so much easier that 2 or more losses is unacceptable?

 

Because our two tough games are UCLA and Michigan. And those two teams are probably fringe top 25 team at best.

I would beg to differ on the later team....with Gardner at the helm....they can and prob. are easily top 15 material. Just my opinion....

I can see being concerned about top 5 to top 10 teams but if we're preemptively preparing for a let down against 15-25ish teams, there are significant problems.

[Moiraine]

70-31

 

Skeptic.

[The Dude]

Why is it that our schedule is percieved to be so much easier that 2 or more losses is unacceptable?

 

Because our two tough games are UCLA and Michigan. And those two teams are probably fringe top 25 team at best.

So, last year there was Ohio St. That was the ONLY team better than the 2 you mentioned that we played last year, that we dont this year. Not to mention, we could still play Ohio St this year anyway. Hence, my question still stands.

 

Well yeah, it shouldn't surprise anyone if we lose our two postseason games. . . if we get two.

 

I thought the question was about the regular season. The teams we know we're playing. We have two tough games, and even those teams aren't exactly at the top of the college football heap. Any more than two losses in the regular season is unacceptable. And that's beyond question.

[Count 'Bility]

Why is it that our schedule is percieved to be so much easier that 2 or more losses is unacceptable?

 

Because our two tough games are UCLA and Michigan. And those two teams are probably fringe top 25 team at best.

So, last year there was Ohio St. That was the ONLY team better than the 2 you mentioned that we played last year, that we dont this year. Not to mention, we could still play Ohio St this year anyway. Hence, my question still stands.

 

Well yeah, it shouldn't surprise anyone if we lose our two postseason games. . . if we get two.

 

I thought the question was about the regular season. The teams we know we're playing. We have two tough games, and even those teams aren't exactly at the top of the college football heap. Any more than two losses in the regular season is unacceptable. And that's beyond question.

The question is about the regular season. The Ohio St CCG matchup is just spec becuase I'm thinking that many are expecting this season to be easier without Ohio St and Wisconsin being the only two teams lacking from a year ago, and we could end up playing one of them anyway.

 

But even so, look at our non-con. It's going to be considerably tougher. UCLA should be better and they already beat us a year ago as it is. Wyoming may be a wash with Arkansas St. Southern Miss should be a little better. South Dakota St is probably well ahead of Idaho St, not to mention they'll be jacked because they know they were right there 3 years ago.

 

Then in conference, of the two games replacing Ohio St and Wisconsin, the tougher of the 2-Purdue-is on the road. Then of the remaining opponents, the two toughest matchups-Michigan and Penn St-are on the road. Michigan will be better. Penn St-probably not. Minnesota's gonna be a little better yet again, Northwestern's could be a bit scary with the amount they have returning.

 

Rabble rabble. I'm just thinking way too much is being bought into this supposed easy schedule when in all honesty, it's really not that much easier just because two teams are switched up. I'm afraid some are setting themselves up for a huge dissappointment when we actually do lose 2-3 games, regardless of the outcome. I know 2013 has been pointed to as the year since we joined this conference, but now that it's here, it's just not shaping up to be as easy as it looked 3 years ago.

[The Dude]

UCLA will be without the #1 reason they beat us - Johnathan Franklin. Just based off that, it's hard to say they should be better than last year. The rest of the non-con is a complete joke. Let's not kid ourselves.

 

Our trouble with Northwestern has more to do with us than it does Northwestern. It's pretty telling about the state of the program when we're worried about playing a team like that. Or worse, South Dakota State lulz.

 

1 loss is understandable. 2 is disappointing. 3 is unacceptable. At least, it should be. Knowing we had an extraordinarily favorable schedule, Pelini had 2 years to put together a national title contender. And here we are worrying about Purdue, Northwestern, and South Dakota State.

[JJ Husker]

If it was easy, the girl scouts could do it. I'm done with being concerned about being disappointed because I am ready for the alternative if it should come to that. Bo and the boys need to nut up and get it done.