Tommie Frazier Twitter reaction

[TheSker]

even TO made changes when things just didn't work and eventually he got it right.

Eventually

[redout22]

What a great comment by Tommy. Hes 100 percent right

[Dr. Mantis Toboggan]

Tommie F can't coach worth a crap......period. I honestly think he should've kept his trap shut after being honored at half-time........really!? Gotta blast the Huskers on twitter!? Whatever.........

He has done more for the University than the people trashing on him. Tommy has every right to speak his mind after what he accomplished at Nebraska. If I was him I would be disappointed as well. Why is it okay for the players to talk about Callahan, but not your lord and savior Pelini? Everyone is entitled to their opinions, especially those who help Nebraska win championships.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

As far as my inclusion in this, I've read the thread and my response is about how the offense directly affected the defense yesterday.

 

You didn't read very well, then, because I answered your question in the very post of mine you quoted.

 

When the Defense is on the field, regardless of situation, I expect them to stop the other team from moving the ball or scoring, more often than not. With the rare exception of a turnover in horrible field position, nothing the Defense is expected to do has anything whatsoever to do with the Offense. If the Offense has 10 yards and zero points in the fourth quarter, I expect - I demand - that the Defense is out there doing their job. Period.

 

Directly or indirectly, the Offense has LITERALLY NOTHING AT ALL to do with the Defense's play. If the Offense fumbles the ball at the 1 yard line, I fully expect the Defense to keep the opponent out of the end zone. That's their job.

 

It's insane to blame the problems of one side of the ball on any other side. The Defense is to blame for not stopping UCLA. The Offense is to blame for failing to score after hitting 21 points.

 

Does the word 'indirectly' have any meaning?

[JJ Husker]

I've tried to read this thread, I really have. Problem is I can't muster up one sh#t to give. Twelve years of bullsh#t has finally taken it's toll on me personally. I'm sure some will call me a fair weather fan or bandwagon jumper. For those that would, let me preemptively say, f#*k you. Hopefully I can't get slapped for that when it's not yet directed at anyone specific. I was born in 1963, in Nebraska, and have been a fan for as long as I can remember. There were some tough times in the late 70's and 80's. This thing I've had with the Huskers has not been some passing fancy, only engaged while we were winning. The difference now is, I am not proud of this program even in losses. I always when TO was here but I have not felt that since the day Callahan showed up. Sure there have been occasions; Jack Hoffman, The deal at Penn St, and even yesterday with the classy treatment of UCLA's player loss. But I am done with this program being a national embarrassment on the field. Done. It can be better and it needs to better. Hell, I am not even that concerned about the tradition anymore. Whatever tradition we managed to drag from the trenches of Callahan has morphed into a punchline for the rest of college football.

 

We only beat cupcakes. We lose, big and embarrassing, to any real team with a heartbeat. I think back on all the debates about how many wins, 8-9-10-11, are enough and I can only laugh. I've always maintained the W or L is not what's important. It can't be. Beating a hapless Southern Miss or Pacific doesn't mean sh#t. If I cared any longer, I would dig up the stats and results from our last ten games against significant opponents. Anyone grounded in reality already knows what information would be gleaned from that exercise. We aren't getting better and we won't with the status quo. And sadly, we may not with a regime change either. Currently we are only slightly further ahead of the day Cally and Pede left. That is not good enough for Nebraska football and it sure isn't good enough for this fans attention.

[Danny Bateman]

As far as my inclusion in this, I've read the thread and my response is about how the offense directly affected the defense yesterday.

 

You didn't read very well, then, because I answered your question in the very post of mine you quoted.

 

When the Defense is on the field, regardless of situation, I expect them to stop the other team from moving the ball or scoring, more often than not. With the rare exception of a turnover in horrible field position, nothing the Defense is expected to do has anything whatsoever to do with the Offense. If the Offense has 10 yards and zero points in the fourth quarter, I expect - I demand - that the Defense is out there doing their job. Period.

 

Directly or indirectly, the Offense has LITERALLY NOTHING AT ALL to do with the Defense's play. If the Offense fumbles the ball at the 1 yard line, I fully expect the Defense to keep the opponent out of the end zone. That's their job.

 

It's insane to blame the problems of one side of the ball on any other side. The Defense is to blame for not stopping UCLA. The Offense is to blame for failing to score after hitting 21 points.

Knapp, I know this has been broached before, but basically my two cents...

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The defense cannot point their finger at the offense for their porblems or vice versa. The defense has to stop people. And the offense has to score points.

 

BUT...

 

I think that the folks that believe there is more blame for the offense than the defense and therefore let that spillover into blaming the offense for everything do so because more is expected of the offense. We ALL knew going into this season that the O was going to have to carry the extremely young D. We're breaking in new players at basically 8 of 11 spots on the defense this year, and growing pains were totally expected with that level of inexperience. Meanwhile, the O wields the best corps of WR's NU has ever had, a legitimate 3 deep at RB, SUPPOSEDLY the best OL we've had during Bo's tenure (color me skeptical), and to top it off, a 4 year record holding QB running the show.

 

 

I think it's obviously to any of us by now that Bo's teams are wildly inconsistent. They seem to handle adversity VERY poorly (although, the cardiac combeacks last season could form an argument against this)-- in that when things start to go wrong, they compound and continue to get worse and worse until we've made the game unwinnable. This is a trend we've seen far to often and it distrubs the hell out of me. I absolutely abhor the fact that in the season we finally have permanant captains and a ton of important contributing seniors, NO ONE is shown rallying the troops or getting fired up on the sideline. Who is going to hold anyone accountable?! The time to do it is during the game to get the ship righted and try to win, not afterwards with a sheepish look on your face because you just peed another game down your leg... But I digress...

 

The handling of adversity... the snowballing of problems once they begin... and the wild inconsistency and underacheivement of this team even within games (i.e., playing lights out one series and crappiing the bed the next) indicates the psychological problem within the team and coaches by extension that people have pointed to in the past. They just do not seem to be able to respond well to the other team scoring once or twice and instead seem to retreat into a shell. The same goes for coaches. One part of me feels extremely bad for the players... I'm finally of the belief that a huge part of the blame for the offense yesterday should go to Beck. In the past I've tended to think it was just on the players, but these UCLA games (between what we saw yesterday and that damn zone read in the endzone last year) have done Beck in for me. I'm officially off his bandwagon, and he's starting to p*ss me off.

 

I finally saw a great explanation of it yesterday: The best coaches have their base system or scheme in place, and run it every game. They will tweak it to take advantage of what they think they can exploit on the other team. Beck seems to abandon any type of base offense so to speak and instead exclusively devise and run a gameplan for each new opponent each week. We do have the zone read and the toss sweep which we see every week. But, instead of deciding what we do WELL and DOING IT, Beck seems to think it is better to try to force what we may NOT DO AS WELL simply because he's seen something on tape that leads him to believe the opposing defense is weak against it. Well, we often fail to execute those particular plays (god... I sound like Bo) because we don't normally run them, lose yards or gain minimal ones, and it blows up in our face.

 

Basically, it boils down to Beck trying to get cute and outscheme the other team rather than doing what we do well. And it has me as fed up as all the rest of you.

 

Sorry, I tried not to ramble. The point is, they blame the offense because WAY more was expected of them. And it isn't even entirely the offenses fault. A majority of the blame should go to Tim Beck. But the defense bears blame too. Moreover, I believe a huge part of the blowout losses is a pervasive psychological tendency to give up and inability to regain focus and execute well when things start to go wrong, which obviously leads to snowballing and games getting out of hand.

 

I will give it the rest of the season. There is always hope. But Beck is really blowing games with his damn play calling, and if the psychological problem remains and we don't win the B1G this year, I don't know that it will ever get better under Bo (with this staff) and it may be time to change things up.

[True2tRA]

As far as my inclusion in this, I've read the thread and my response is about how the offense directly affected the defense yesterday.

 

You didn't read very well, then, because I answered your question in the very post of mine you quoted.

 

When the Defense is on the field, regardless of situation, I expect them to stop the other team from moving the ball or scoring, more often than not. With the rare exception of a turnover in horrible field position, nothing the Defense is expected to do has anything whatsoever to do with the Offense. If the Offense has 10 yards and zero points in the fourth quarter, I expect - I demand - that the Defense is out there doing their job. Period.

 

Directly or indirectly, the Offense has LITERALLY NOTHING AT ALL to do with the Defense's play. If the Offense fumbles the ball at the 1 yard line, I fully expect the Defense to keep the opponent out of the end zone. That's their job.

 

It's insane to blame the problems of one side of the ball on any other side. The Defense is to blame for not stopping UCLA. The Offense is to blame for failing to score after hitting 21 points.

Knapp, I know this has been broached before, but basically my two cents...

 

I agree with you wholeheartedly. The defense cannot point their finger at the offense for their porblems or vice versa. The defense has to stop people. And the offense has to score points.

 

BUT...

 

I think that the folks that believe there is more blame for the offense than the defense and therefore let that spillover into blaming the offense for everything do so because more is expected of the offense. We ALL knew going into this season that the O was going to have to carry the extremely young D. We're breaking in new players at basically 8 of 11 spots on the defense this year, and growing pains were totally expected with that level of inexperience. Meanwhile, the O wields the best corps of WR's NU has ever had, a legitimate 3 deep at RB, SUPPOSEDLY the best OL we've had during Bo's tenure (color me skeptical), and to top it off, a 4 year record holding QB running the show.

 

 

I think it's obviously to any of us by now that Bo's teams are wildly inconsistent. They seem to handle adversity VERY poorly (although, the cardiac combeacks last season could form an argument against this)-- in that when things start to go wrong, they compound and continue to get worse and worse until we've made the game unwinnable. This is a trend we've seen far to often and it distrubs the hell out of me. I absolutely abhor the fact that in the season we finally have permanant captains and a ton of important contributing seniors, NO ONE is shown rallying the troops or getting fired up on the sideline. Who is going to hold anyone accountable?! The time to do it is during the game to get the ship righted and try to win, not afterwards with a sheepish look on your face because you just peed another game down your leg... But I digress...

 

The handling of adversity... the snowballing of problems once they begin... and the wild inconsistency and underacheivement of this team even within games (i.e., playing lights out one series and crappiing the bed the next) indicates the psychological problem within the team and coaches by extension that people have pointed to in the past. They just do not seem to be able to respond well to the other team scoring once or twice and instead seem to retreat into a shell. The same goes for coaches. One part of me feels extremely bad for the players... I'm finally of the belief that a huge part of the blame for the offense yesterday should go to Beck. In the past I've tended to think it was just on the players, but these UCLA games (between what we saw yesterday and that damn zone read in the endzone last year) have done Beck in for me. I'm officially off his bandwagon, and he's starting to p*ss me off.

 

I finally saw a great explanation of it yesterday: The best coaches have their base system or scheme in place, and run it every game. They will tweak it to take advantage of what they think they can exploit on the other team. Beck seems to abandon any type of base offense so to speak and instead exclusively devise and run a gameplan for each new opponent each week. We do have the zone read and the toss sweep which we see every week. But, instead of deciding what we do WELL and DOING IT, Beck seems to think it is better to try to force what we may NOT DO AS WELL simply because he's seen something on tape that leads him to believe the opposing defense is weak against it. Well, we often fail to execute those particular plays (god... I sound like Bo) because we don't normally run them, lose yards or gain minimal ones, and it blows up in our face.

 

Basically, it boils down to Beck trying to get cute and outscheme the other team rather than doing what we do well. And it has me as fed up as all the rest of you.

 

Sorry, I tried not to ramble. The point is, they blame the offense because WAY more was expected of them. And it isn't even entirely the offenses fault. A majority of the blame should go to Tim Beck. But the defense bears blame too. Moreover, I believe a huge part of the blowout losses is a pervasive psychological tendency to give up and inability to regain focus and execute well when things start to go wrong, which obviously leads to snowballing and games getting out of hand.

 

I will give it the rest of the season. There is always hope. But Beck is really blowing games with his damn play calling, and if the psychological problem remains and we don't win the B1G this year, I don't know that it will ever get better under Bo (with this staff) and it may be time to change things up.

 

Yes! I've said this for f'ing years now.! Well put and finally someone who sees it the same way I do.

[Danny Bateman]

JJHusker's still fired up! I'm more at a point of passive indifference at this point, since I know we have virtually no chance of winning handily against a good opponent, a slim chance of winning a VERY tight battle, and the odds HUGELY favor us getting our ass kicked. Which then leads to us getting trashed by commentators on national TV, which is bad for publicity and recruiting... It is a vicious cycle. The fact that it's gotten to this point is really just sad as a fan. It makes me sad to watch us pull this same crap big game after big game after working over poor teams fairly well and showing flashes even within the big games themselves.

FYI, as for Tommie, I don't care how he feels about Brion and what went down. What he did on the field for this team is enough for him to have unlimitied slack to say whatever the hell he wants about the product on the field. Especially if it's accurate. He's earned it far more than any of us.

[zoogs]

So Damon Benning is a better judge of what is wrong, then Tommie? What a joke.

 

What's this based on? Damon seems to be quite an articulate commentator on the team in his sideline reports and his radio show (whether you agree with his points or not, it's subjective), while Tommie, to be fair, all I've seen on him is gripes about Brion's playing time and some ranting, sophomoric missives sent up on Twitter after a game in which he was honored by the school at halftime.

--

 

A little more on the offense/defense debate, I just want to add I don't think it's quite exactly an even, two sides of the coin deal. For instance, we talk about offenses wearing down defenses by staying on the field and running up-tempo, or just as the game goes on and the # plays accumulates. Nobody's ever floated around an expression about defenses wearing down offenses by keeping them on the field. Because that'd be dumb.

 

So the offense does carry some extra burdens. The offense dictates a lot more about the game; that's football. Offenses will score and they will get yards; it's mostly a question of how many. Not to say defenses can't fail to hold up their end, of course that's entirely true. However, a puttering offense that promptly goes 3-and-out repeatedly and sends the defense back again, often without having flipped field position, that's a kind of burden the O puts on the D that is unique.

[BartonHusker]

I applaud Tommie for saying it. What he said wasn't wrong at all.

[knapplc]

Sorry, I tried not to ramble. The point is, they blame the offense because WAY more was expected of them. And it isn't even entirely the offenses fault. A majority of the blame should go to Tim Beck. But the defense bears blame too. Moreover, I believe a huge part of the blowout losses is a pervasive psychological tendency to give up and inability to regain focus and execute well when things start to go wrong, which obviously leads to snowballing and games getting out of hand.

 

I agree with much of the rest of your post, and +1. But we don't give Blackshirts to our defense because they're the little brother to the offense. We give them Blackshirts and expect them to perform at a certain level of excellence, full stop.

 

If we're to the point where we expect less than perfection from our defense, then it's time to end the Blackshirt tradition right here and now.

 

Directly or indirectly, the Offense has LITERALLY NOTHING AT ALL to do with the Defense's play. If the Offense fumbles the ball at the 1 yard line, I fully expect the Defense to keep the opponent out of the end zone. That's their job.

 

It's insane to blame the problems of one side of the ball on any other side. The Defense is to blame for not stopping UCLA. The Offense is to blame for failing to score after hitting 21 points.

 

Does the word 'indirectly' have any meaning?

 

If the thrust of the argument was that the Offense and Defense indirectly affect each other, then yes, I'd be more in agreement with that than where we're headed so far. But even then, I'm 90/10 of the same opinion - each side of the ball has to account for themselves. The Offense cannot stop the opponent from scoring. The Defense cannot outscore the opponent. Each side of the ball has their specialty, and each owns their own problems.

 

We can as easily blame the Defense for yesterday's offensive collapse. But that's not the thrust of the conversation, and that's wrong thinking.

[knapplc]

A little more on the offense/defense debate, I just want to add I don't think it's quite exactly an even, two sides of the coin deal. For instance, we talk about offenses wearing down defenses by staying on the field and running up-tempo, or just as the game goes on and the # plays accumulates. Nobody's ever floated around an expression about defenses wearing down offenses by keeping them on the field. Because that'd be dumb.

 

So the offense does carry some extra burdens. The offense dictates a lot more about the game; that's football. Offenses will score and they will get yards; it's mostly a question of how many. Not to say defenses can't fail to hold up their end, of course that's entirely true. However, a puttering offense that promptly goes 3-and-out repeatedly and sends the defense back again, often without having flipped field position, that's a kind of burden the O puts on the D that is unique.

 

No. My God, no. The defense dictates to the opponent just as much as the offense. The best of the Blackshirts went out there and imposed their will on the opponent just as much as our offense in the Pipeline days.

 

We don't talk about defenses wearing down an offense, we talk about shutting the offense down. Stringing together defensive three-and-outs, that's the defensive equivalent of grinding, long drives from the offense.

 

The puttering offense puts no more burden on the defense than the defense that cannot stop the opponent puts on the offense.

[TheSker]

The Defense cannot outscore the opponent.

Came close against Southern Miss.

[BartonHusker]

Sure the offense didn't help the defense but this wasn't one game issue for the defense. The defense in the 2nd half looked like pretty typical to me as of late against quality opponents. Just the offense put even more pressure on the faulty defense.

 

Just in this game we were horrible all-around in the 2nd half.

[zoogs]

Right, right, a defense can shut down an offense, much like an offense can put up yards on a defense. However, defense fatigue is something that is unique to the defense. If the offense gets the ball back right away it's good for them.

 

I guess if you get down 2 or more scores, that's a different issue. That would be putting the offense behind the 8-ball.

 

However the effect of sending the D back on with short turnaround again and again, vs an fast-paced offense, that's a kind of disadvantage that isn't handed back even when a score is given up. Especially when the first few times we were still ahead. It does go both ways, but this is one way where I don't think it's exactly equal. We may agree to disagree on this. A gassed D loses ability to keep up, an effect that snowballs, while the only thing that similarly hampers the offense is the scoreboard. BTW, I don't think you, I, or BBXII are even too far apart in our thinking here, generally. Probably coming down to the talking points.