Tommie Frazier Twitter reaction

[grandpasknee]

Strangely enough, Tommy, as an offensive player, fails to mention that the defense wasn't getting any help by the offense when UCLA was running train. Then when UCLA wasn't running train our offense was doing enough for our defense.

 

Convenient to forget that for now.

 

Please bye bye forgive people for not constantly rewriting a book that has already been written a hundred times. I think you are smart enough to see the same old problems that were on display again out there. If you really need to hear it though, the offense failed, the defense failed, the coaches failed. There now it's all been mentioned.

 

But he's specifically mentioning the defense. If he would've mentioned the offense at all then I would've been absolutely okay with the comment. But he didn't. I am tired of the same old problems, but this one feels different. I don't know why, maybe because the offense only turned the ball over once. Maybe because the defense played well in the first half, which wasn't always the case even when the offense was moving the chains and staying on the field.

 

It's a new monster with a similar head, imo.

Read the last line..he'll hammer the Offense in his next blog..or whatever it is he does...

[lo country]

Strangely enough, Tommy, as an offensive player, fails to mention that the defense wasn't getting any help by the offense when UCLA was running train. Then when UCLA wasn't running train our offense was doing enough for our defense.

 

Convenient to forget that for now.

 

Please bye bye forgive people for not constantly rewriting a book that has already been written a hundred times. I think you are smart enough to see the same old problems that were on display again out there. If you really need to hear it though, the offense failed, the defense failed, the coaches failed. There now it's all been mentioned.

 

But he's specifically mentioning the defense. If he would've mentioned the offense at all then I would've been absolutely okay with the comment. But he didn't. I am tired of the same old problems, but this one feels different. I don't know why, maybe because the offense only turned the ball over once. Maybe because the defense played well in the first half, which wasn't always the case even when the offense was moving the chains and staying on the field.

 

It's a new monster with a similar head, imo.

He said he would comment on the offense in his show. No way the O goes unmentioned. No way. I am sure he has less to say about them than the D.

 

But I think he should have more to say. He was a quarterback, after all. He should know just how valuable it is for the defense to have an offense that can stay on the field.

I agree. The O failed the D. A whole half of 3 and outs that took all of like 3 minutes off the clock hurt them. Even if adjustments were trying to made, no way they can adjust when they (D) had no time to even meet with staff before time to take the field again because of the crap Beck was calling.

[True2tRA]

Strangely enough, Tommy, as an offensive player, fails to mention that the defense wasn't getting any help by the offense when UCLA was running train. Then when UCLA wasn't running train our offense was doing enough for our defense.

 

Convenient to forget that for now.

 

Please bye bye forgive people for not constantly rewriting a book that has already been written a hundred times. I think you are smart enough to see the same old problems that were on display again out there. If you really need to hear it though, the offense failed, the defense failed, the coaches failed. There now it's all been mentioned.

 

But he's specifically mentioning the defense. If he would've mentioned the offense at all then I would've been absolutely okay with the comment. But he didn't. I am tired of the same old problems, but this one feels different. I don't know why, maybe because the offense only turned the ball over once. Maybe because the defense played well in the first half, which wasn't always the case even when the offense was moving the chains and staying on the field.

 

It's a new monster with a similar head, imo.

He said he would comment on the offense in his show. No way the O goes unmentioned. No way. I am sure he has less to say about them than the D.

 

But I think he should have more to say. He was a quarterback, after all. He should know just how valuable it is for the defense to have an offense that can stay on the field.

 

I honestly tend to agree bye bye. The defense had to be f'ing exhausted. Especially when you only send a four man rush. The DL got tired. Coverage had to play longer. Tired LBs and DBs. Add to that the pace UCLA was moving.......

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Strangely enough, Tommy, as an offensive player, fails to mention that the defense wasn't getting any help by the offense when UCLA was running train. Then when UCLA wasn't running train our offense was doing enough for our defense.

 

Convenient to forget that for now.

 

Please bye bye forgive people for not constantly rewriting a book that has already been written a hundred times. I think you are smart enough to see the same old problems that were on display again out there. If you really need to hear it though, the offense failed, the defense failed, the coaches failed. There now it's all been mentioned.

 

But he's specifically mentioning the defense. If he would've mentioned the offense at all then I would've been absolutely okay with the comment. But he didn't. I am tired of the same old problems, but this one feels different. I don't know why, maybe because the offense only turned the ball over once. Maybe because the defense played well in the first half, which wasn't always the case even when the offense was moving the chains and staying on the field.

 

It's a new monster with a similar head, imo.

Read the last line..he'll hammer the Offense in his next blog..or whatever it is he does...

 

I'm just disagreeing with his knee-jerk reaction. He was a former quarterback. He should know just how valuable an offense that stays on the field is to a defense. So why go off on the defense when he should have clearly saw that the offense did the defense no favors in the 3rd quarter?

[skersfan]

Zoogies,

 

You are one of the most level headed posters on here.

 

But Tommy has earned the right to comment on this team, more so than anyone on this board. His voice will be heard, and things need to change.

 

I really do not know what needs to be done, but have been screaming for a real OC and DC since both hirings. I think Bo can get it done, but he has to take the Dabo path. Had he done that, I think we would be in much better shape. I think there is still time to do that. But stubbornness is one of Bo's strong suits. And that of never taking the blame. The first half showed we have some talent. It needs to be put in place by qualified Coordinators, let Bo manage the team as a head coach is supposed to do. Spend the money, bring in talent and reap the rewards. It has worked for Dabo, Saban does it. Why can't we.

[Junior]

Tommie has an axe to grind probably because of what happened with Brion here. But he's coming off more and more as just a bitter malcontent. I gotta say I don't think it's very becoming of a former Husker legend to come out and trash the program like this.

 

Why, what is untrue about what he said?

[Paul in WI]

That man was a general on the field and has earned the right to state his public opinion about the state of Nebraska football, however positive or negative. If he hadn't come to Nebraska, the 90's would have very likely looked a lot different. So Tommie, you go right on ahead and speak, because I know that you have love in your heart for our program. We miss you and players like you.

 

[knapplc]

But I think he should have more to say. He was a quarterback, after all. He should know just how valuable it is for the defense to have an offense that can stay on the field.

 

Dude. What. The. F.

 

I've read about a dozen posts from you today talking about the Offense. The Offense has problems. That's understood. But you cannot absolve the Defense from blame by continually pointing the finger at the Offense.

 

I don't get it. It's like you're looking at the whole team and blaming half. It was an equal meltdown. It's not the Offense's fault that the Defense blew up. Again. It's not the Defense's fault that the Offense stopped scoring or moving the ball after the first quarter.

 

Why, when people point out that the Defense sucked today, do you constantly point the finger back at the Offense? At what point does the Defense have to stand up and take their own blame?

[lo country]

Zoogies,

 

You are one of the most level headed posters on here.

 

But Tommy has earned the right to comment on this team, more so than anyone on this board. His voice will be heard, and things need to change.

 

I really do not know what needs to be done, but have been screaming for a real OC and DC since both hirings. I think Bo can get it done, but he has to take the Dabo path. Had he done that, I think we would be in much better shape. I think there is still time to do that. But stubbornness is one of Bo's strong suits. And that of never taking the blame. The first half showed we have some talent. It needs to be put in place by qualified Coordinators, let Bo manage the team as a head coach is supposed to do. Spend the money, bring in talent and reap the rewards. It has worked for Dabo, Saban does it. Why can't we.

This^ We are NU and like Tommie, we deserve a better product. This is not some FCS school where guys can learn on the fly. It is one of the winningest programs of all time. 5 NC's, 3 Heisman winners etc..... Dabo spent big bucks and to date, it is paying off. Same with Bama. Bo is in rare company with the whole 9 wins per year. Imagine if we had competent staff to support him?

<img class="UMSRatingIcon" id="ums_img_tooltip" />

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

<img class="UMSRatingIcon" id="ums_img_tooltip" />

I don't know what it is about your posts, but that shows up a lot.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

But I think he should have more to say. He was a quarterback, after all. He should know just how valuable it is for the defense to have an offense that can stay on the field.

 

Dude. What. The. F.

 

I've read about a dozen posts from you today talking about the Offense. The Offense has problems. That's understood. But you cannot absolve the Defense from blame by continually pointing the finger at the Offense.

 

I don't get it. It's like you're looking at the whole team and blaming half. It was an equal meltdown. It's not the Offense's fault that the Defense blew up. Again. It's not the Defense's fault that the Offense stopped scoring or moving the ball after the first quarter.

 

Why, when people point out that the Defense sucked today, do you constantly point the finger back at the Offense? At what point does the Defense have to stand up and take their own blame?

 

 

Alright, let me walk you through my reasoning:

 

Question #1: What was the difference between the first half and the second half in terms of what the offense was doing and what the defense was doing and how they were doing those things? Specifically, how.

[Junior]

But I think he should have more to say. He was a quarterback, after all. He should know just how valuable it is for the defense to have an offense that can stay on the field.

 

Dude. What. The. F.

 

I've read about a dozen posts from you today talking about the Offense. The Offense has problems. That's understood. But you cannot absolve the Defense from blame by continually pointing the finger at the Offense.

 

I don't get it. It's like you're looking at the whole team and blaming half. It was an equal meltdown. It's not the Offense's fault that the Defense blew up. Again. It's not the Defense's fault that the Offense stopped scoring or moving the ball after the first quarter.

 

Why, when people point out that the Defense sucked today, do you constantly point the finger back at the Offense? At what point does the Defense have to stand up and take their own blame?

 

 

Alright, let me walk you through my reasoning:

 

Question #1: What was the difference between the first half and the second half in terms of what the offense was doing and what the defense was doing and how they were doing those things? Specifically, how.

 

Well, on defense they stopped covering receivers and tackling, mostly. If you can't see that... well...

 

The Avery missed sack that turned into a first down was a turning point for our defense. They fell apart after that. You simply can't argue otherwise.

[huskerinAZ]

I have no DOUBT that Tommie will HAMMER the offense on his weekly online show. I watch it every week, and even on a "good" week, he is always on the offense and doesn't mince any words about how he feels about that side of the ball either LOL He is not a Beck fan at all and has no clue why the man jumps around so much and doesn't just stick with what is working.........Im sure he will have plenty to say this week about the O

[HuskerfaninOkieland]

The Avery missed sack that turned into a first down was a turning point for our defense. They fell apart after that. You simply can't argue otherwise.

You could almost see the defense completely deflate at that point. That was when I knew this game was over

[It'sNotAFakeID]

But I think he should have more to say. He was a quarterback, after all. He should know just how valuable it is for the defense to have an offense that can stay on the field.

 

Dude. What. The. F.

 

I've read about a dozen posts from you today talking about the Offense. The Offense has problems. That's understood. But you cannot absolve the Defense from blame by continually pointing the finger at the Offense.

 

I don't get it. It's like you're looking at the whole team and blaming half. It was an equal meltdown. It's not the Offense's fault that the Defense blew up. Again. It's not the Defense's fault that the Offense stopped scoring or moving the ball after the first quarter.

 

Why, when people point out that the Defense sucked today, do you constantly point the finger back at the Offense? At what point does the Defense have to stand up and take their own blame?

 

 

Alright, let me walk you through my reasoning:

 

Question #1: What was the difference between the first half and the second half in terms of what the offense was doing and what the defense was doing and how they were doing those things? Specifically, how.

 

Well, on defense they stopped covering receivers and tackling, mostly. If you can't see that... well...

 

The Avery missed sack that turned into a first down was a turning point for our defense. They fell apart after that. You simply can't argue otherwise.

 

But what did the offense stop doing? They stopped staying on the field. They didn't just not score, they didn't get a first down.