Does this bother you?

[TheSker]

if you can't field a half assed D that can stop the run or at least slow it down, you are screwed..Minnesota gashed us on first down, running up the middle....basic ass whooping was had.

 

I agree. I'm disappointed that our upperclassmen aren't better on the DL, but I'm pleased generally speaking with our young talent on the DL. We've got to find the answer at LB. We missed several TFL against Minny.

[True2tRA]

Ok. So say you are one of these people who don't think coaching is the problem. Okay, so let's blame the players then, if you say so. I don't like to do it, but for arguments sake since you refuse to blame coaches, it has to be the players. Well, in that scenario, I have the same question for all of you. At what point do we blame players failures on the coaches? At what point do you begin to believe there are systematic flaws? At what point do you feel there may be a cultural problem? Is there a time where you feel like maybe these players are not being put into a position to succeed? There multiple, multiple baffling things that have happened on the field with this team that the players don't even have control of. Baffling coaching decisions, strange play calling. A defensive scheme that has been exposed by the better opponents we've faced for quite some time now and apparently now the lesser opponents feel very confident against it. So again, when or what will make you believe maybe it is a coaching problem. Personally, I've seen enough to KNOW its a coaching problem. Open your eyes and ears and it's pretty evident.

 

There is another thread started a bit ago about assigning blame. Pelini is completely responsible for the program, the players and our performance. My interest is having Pelini find the right pieces to get us on track. I have opened my eyes and watched film. I've listened to different breakdowns of it online. You have every right to know it's a coaching problem. I'm more interested in seeing if we can find our answer at LB and at safety opposite Coop.......and I'm more interested to see if Armstrong can provide that intangible spark to help our offense move the chains.

 

Armstrong will make Becks offense look better. I don't doubt that at all.

 

The defense is clearly the main issue, sure, but how many more guys can we move around? It didn't work last year with a completely different set of guys. An experienced set of guys for that matter. Now we think Bo can plug in more youngsters to find an answer? I don't know. He refuses to play CJax so I'm not sure who is left at safety. He won't bring the safeties up closer to the LOS to blow up the run so at this point it doesn't matter anyway.

[TheSker]

Ok. So say you are one of these people who don't think coaching is the problem. Okay, so let's blame the players then, if you say so. I don't like to do it, but for arguments sake since you refuse to blame coaches, it has to be the players. Well, in that scenario, I have the same question for all of you. At what point do we blame players failures on the coaches? At what point do you begin to believe there are systematic flaws? At what point do you feel there may be a cultural problem? Is there a time where you feel like maybe these players are not being put into a position to succeed? There multiple, multiple baffling things that have happened on the field with this team that the players don't even have control of. Baffling coaching decisions, strange play calling. A defensive scheme that has been exposed by the better opponents we've faced for quite some time now and apparently now the lesser opponents feel very confident against it. So again, when or what will make you believe maybe it is a coaching problem. Personally, I've seen enough to KNOW its a coaching problem. Open your eyes and ears and it's pretty evident.

 

There is another thread started a bit ago about assigning blame. Pelini is completely responsible for the program, the players and our performance. My interest is having Pelini find the right pieces to get us on track. I have opened my eyes and watched film. I've listened to different breakdowns of it online. You have every right to know it's a coaching problem. I'm more interested in seeing if we can find our answer at LB and at safety opposite Coop.......and I'm more interested to see if Armstrong can provide that intangible spark to help our offense move the chains.

 

Armstrong will make Becks offense look better. I don't doubt that at all.

 

The defense is clearly the main issue, sure, but how many more guys can we move around? It didn't work last year with a completely different set of guys. An experienced set of guys for that matter. Now we think Bo can plug in more youngsters to find an answer? I don't know. He refuses to play CJax so I'm not sure who is left at safety. He won't bring the safeties up closer to the LOS to blow up the run so at this point it doesn't matter anyway.

 

I also think Armstrong will make the offense look better. Beck seems to be more cautious with Armstrong's youth and play to his strengths with the option and use of our other backs. On defense it's not just plugging a different set of guys didn't work. It's more specific than that. Compton and Fish knew the defense well and how to make reads, but neither were among the faster players on the field. We have better speed at LB now, but are struggling with their reads in live action. I believe Pelini is diligently working to get our LBs figured out. I don't have the answer for CJax or what is happening at that safety spot. Someone else might have insight there. I do know there are a couple of LBs that a lot of people wondered why they weren't playing more, but Minny helped answer that. Several TFLs were missed. Very makeable tackles. LBs have the opportunity to rack up a lot of tackles in Pelini's defense. We've seen it with several Pelini coached LBs.....Ruud, D Williams, L David.

[Count 'Bility]

Ok. So say you are one of these people who don't think coaching is the problem. Okay, so let's blame the players then, if you say so. I don't like to do it, but for arguments sake since you refuse to blame coaches, it has to be the players. Well, in that scenario, I have the same question for all of you. At what point do we blame players failures on the coaches? At what point do you begin to believe there are systematic flaws? At what point do you feel there may be a cultural problem? Is there a time where you feel like maybe these players are not being put into a position to succeed? There multiple, multiple baffling things that have happened on the field with this team that the players don't even have control of. Baffling coaching decisions, strange play calling. A defensive scheme that has been exposed by the better opponents we've faced for quite some time now and apparently now the lesser opponents feel very confident against it. So again, when or what will make you believe maybe it is a coaching problem. Personally, I've seen enough to KNOW its a coaching problem. Open your eyes and ears and it's pretty evident.

 

There is another thread started a bit ago about assigning blame. Pelini is completely responsible for the program, the players and our performance. My interest is having Pelini find the right pieces to get us on track. I have opened my eyes and watched film. I've listened to different breakdowns of it online. You have every right to know it's a coaching problem. I'm more interested in seeing if we can find our answer at LB and at safety opposite Coop.......and I'm more interested to see if Armstrong can provide that intangible spark to help our offense move the chains.

 

Armstrong will make Becks offense look better. I don't doubt that at all.

 

The defense is clearly the main issue, sure, but how many more guys can we move around? It didn't work last year with a completely different set of guys. An experienced set of guys for that matter. Now we think Bo can plug in more youngsters to find an answer? I don't know. He refuses to play CJax so I'm not sure who is left at safety. He won't bring the safeties up closer to the LOS to blow up the run so at this point it doesn't matter anyway.

 

I also think Armstrong will make the offense look better. Beck seems to be more cautious with Armstrong's youth and play to his strengths with the option and use of our other backs.

While I agree, what's gonna happen next year then when Armstrong has the experience? Does Beck begin Watsoning again? Or is it just possible that Armstrong is just the better qb. I would like to see a film breakdown in detail that shows Beck "pared" it down for Armstrong them three games, cuz from general point of view I didnt see it. And until I see this team completely sh#t their pants like they did Saturday, and against UCLA, and against Wyoming too, I will not concede that there is not a serious, team-wide division centering around the qb position. I've since heard that it's been there since the beginning of fall camp. That maybe qb battle was actually closer than we all wanted to admit from day one. I'm talking a possible full-blown Ganz/Keller type deal here folks. Of course, just heresay I've heard, but we have a lot of in-game evidence that's hard to argue with.

[TheSker]

Ok. So say you are one of these people who don't think coaching is the problem. Okay, so let's blame the players then, if you say so. I don't like to do it, but for arguments sake since you refuse to blame coaches, it has to be the players. Well, in that scenario, I have the same question for all of you. At what point do we blame players failures on the coaches? At what point do you begin to believe there are systematic flaws? At what point do you feel there may be a cultural problem? Is there a time where you feel like maybe these players are not being put into a position to succeed? There multiple, multiple baffling things that have happened on the field with this team that the players don't even have control of. Baffling coaching decisions, strange play calling. A defensive scheme that has been exposed by the better opponents we've faced for quite some time now and apparently now the lesser opponents feel very confident against it. So again, when or what will make you believe maybe it is a coaching problem. Personally, I've seen enough to KNOW its a coaching problem. Open your eyes and ears and it's pretty evident.

 

There is another thread started a bit ago about assigning blame. Pelini is completely responsible for the program, the players and our performance. My interest is having Pelini find the right pieces to get us on track. I have opened my eyes and watched film. I've listened to different breakdowns of it online. You have every right to know it's a coaching problem. I'm more interested in seeing if we can find our answer at LB and at safety opposite Coop.......and I'm more interested to see if Armstrong can provide that intangible spark to help our offense move the chains.

 

Armstrong will make Becks offense look better. I don't doubt that at all.

 

The defense is clearly the main issue, sure, but how many more guys can we move around? It didn't work last year with a completely different set of guys. An experienced set of guys for that matter. Now we think Bo can plug in more youngsters to find an answer? I don't know. He refuses to play CJax so I'm not sure who is left at safety. He won't bring the safeties up closer to the LOS to blow up the run so at this point it doesn't matter anyway.

 

I also think Armstrong will make the offense look better. Beck seems to be more cautious with Armstrong's youth and play to his strengths with the option and use of our other backs.

While I agree, what's gonna happen next year then when Armstrong has the experience? Does Beck begin Watsoning again? Or is it just possible that Armstrong is just the better qb. I would like to see a film breakdown in detail that shows Beck "pared" it down for Armstrong them three games, cuz from general point of view I didnt see it. And until I see this team completely sh#t their pants like they did Saturday, and against UCLA, and against Wyoming too, I will not concede that there is not a serious, team-wide division centering around the qb position. I've since heard that it's been there since the beginning of fall camp. That maybe qb battle was actually closer than we all wanted to admit from day one. I'm talking a possible full-blown Ganz/Keller type deal here folks. Of course, just heresay I've heard, but we have a lot of in-game evidence that's hard to argue with.

Valid questions. I don't know if the offense was pared down for Armstrong, but we seem to run it differently......especially in how we try to get to the edge. It got frustrating seeing the continued attempt with the WR/bubble screens against Minny when Abdullah had been effective. You may be very correct about the qb battle in fall camp. We've seen a few of those happen over the years......Crouch/Newcombe being one of the more public ones.

[True2tRA]

We are in agreement in that account billy. You may remember me specifically debating that Beck really did not pare it down. I don't believe he did. TA is the better QB. He is more natural. His drops and his timing is what made things look better. He saw defenses fairly well and he got the ball out when it was supposed to be. This is a huge HUGE part of his success versus Taylor.

 

Also, not sure if you heard TA comments on Monday, but they were very interesting. He discussed the lack of leadership and not taking advantage of opportunities on offense. Hmmm.......

 

Let's hope it doesn't matter. Hopefully TA plays from here on out and I think more people will see how this team responds to success on offense. It affects the entire team, and scoring points also allows you to play aggressive defense.

[huskerfan92]

I agree with what Jay Foreman wrote today. He doesn't think the problem is coaching, nor do I. http://nebraska.247s...innesota-157368

 

Agree with all that was said regarding the lackluster effort by the defense. However, it still comes back to Pelini. A) He recruited these players. B) It is his job, for which he is compensated generously, to get these players in the proper frame of mind to be successful. No, he nor his staff can do it for them, but if they have players that don't have the desire and passion to be successful it comes back to recruiting.

 

In my mind, it ALL falls on Pelini's shoulders. Don't like the DC? Who hired him. Don't like the play/attitude of a player? Who recruited him? It's really that simple in my mind. Franky, don't think Pelini has the necessary tools to be a successful head coach at a D1 school. DC? Absolutely!

 

To take this one step further, I wouldn't want to have Shawn Eichorst's job right now. I imagine his inbox is filled with polite, or not so polite "suggestions" regarding the current state of Nebraska football.

 

Of course it comes back to Pelini. The move to the B10 has exposed a real weakness at LB. I'd be surprised if Ross Els gets an hour of sleep at night. The staff is desperately looking to solve the LB situation. In the Minnesota game, the small group I watched the game with commented several times how we had a LB in position to make a TFL and didn't get it done. Regarding Pelini's salary, it's in line with market value for DI head coaches now. There is more than one poster wanting to open up the checkbook even more......and that's fine with me. If Pelini is replaced, I expect better results immediately. Not in year 2. Immediately 10 or more wins and the B10 title. If not, he's gone after his first year.

 

[River-runner]

The people of Nebraska pay these guys how much money to perform so poorly? This ought to be a pretty hot subject in many rural barber shops across the state this week. Bo should have to defend his performance personally to a bunch of farmers in those barber shops this week - defend his half a%%sed job as the coach of the Nebraska Cornhuskers, defend his job as the guy entrusted with a sacred trust. He just needs to go away - people have had it.

[TheSker]

I agree with what Jay Foreman wrote today. He doesn't think the problem is coaching, nor do I. http://nebraska.247s...innesota-157368

Jay Foreman's link is above. Here's a link to what Barrett Ruud wrote, focusing primarily on the LB play. http://www.huddlepass.com/huddle/huskers-football/feature/70512

[Hayseed]

If you believe that simplistic video explained something then you've probably already made up your mind and are just looking for a place to vent.

[TheSker]

If you believe that simplistic video explained something then you've probably already made up your mind and are just looking for a place to vent.

 

I agree. He basically says their decision to run or pass depends on how many are in the box. Yep.

[deedsker]

If you believe that simplistic video explained something then you've probably already made up your mind and are just looking for a place to vent.

 

I agree. He basically says their decision to run or pass depends on how many are in the box. Yep.

Does your offense need to be more complex than that if it works?

 

Had we kept running the quick option to the short side of the field all game, would Minnesota have ever really stopped it?

[The Dude]

One thing it did sort of confirm for me was my suspicion that the "Vincent Valentine demands a double team" chatter was a wee bit overblown. And that's not a knock on the guy, I think he has a ridiculous amount of potential, he just isn't there yet.

[Mavric]

One thing it did sort of confirm for me was my suspicion that the "Vincent Valentine demands a double team" chatter was a wee bit overblown. And that's not a knock on the guy, I think he has a ridiculous amount of potential, he just isn't there yet.

Did I miss this or was there a reason given that VV didn't play much? Or did he play more and I just didn't see him out there? I know they said that he wasn't going to start but I didn't see him on the field much at all.

[The Dude]

One thing it did sort of confirm for me was my suspicion that the "Vincent Valentine demands a double team" chatter was a wee bit overblown. And that's not a knock on the guy, I think he has a ridiculous amount of potential, he just isn't there yet.

Did I miss this or was there a reason given that VV didn't play much? Or did he play more and I just didn't see him out there? I know they said that he wasn't going to start but I didn't see him on the field much at all.

Curry and Randle apparently had a good week of practice.