What Games Have Pelini and Our Coaches Won Us?

[Count 'Bility]

This is just another case of the "Doesnt matter what he does, Bo cant win". Nothing more. Nothing less.

[sd'sker]

how can he be personally responsible for all of our loses and none of our wins? is that really possible, or even logical?

[skersfan]

A team wins, a team loses. Both side are responsible for the wins and the losses.

 

I hate using this term, because to me it means little, but he has won the magical 9 games a year. That says something for a first time coach, trying to teach himself his job and all of his staff basically. Learning the recruiting system, learning how to improve it, that is a very tough job alone. Beginners normally lose more than they win. Stepping in at a major program, stopping the bleeding and getting the fan base behind him is a major accomplishment.

 

He has done better than I thought he would, just to young and inexperienced for this job. But it seems he may have made a major step forward here recently. Adapting to what he has and playing with their abilities. We will know more about that this weekend. Last weekend I saw what I want from Bo. A team that played full out, overcame problems, seemed to have a plan and finished strong. That is all I ever ask. Play the game like Nebraska. He continues to that, continue to grow as a head coach, he can stay forever as far as I am concerned. Most know I am not the biggest Bo fan, and really never have been. But he and his team have shown me they play like Huskers. Win or lose, he seems to be doing it the right way now.

[Ric Flair]

Let's rephrase the question then. How many times have we been matched up against a team with similar or superior talent and ended up winning the game because the coaching staff had a great game plan going in, made critical adjustments at just the right time or otherwise simply outcoached the staff on the other side of the field?

[StPaulHusker]

I don't understand this topic. Am I missing something?

 

What games has Bob Stoops, Les Miles, and Bill Snyder won for their teams? Which ones did they lose?

 

This really seems like a silly, petty, argument to try to make for either side.

[QMany]

If we are going to move the goalposts, we could start with last week, for one ...

[skersfan]

I would say Washington 1 and Clemson. Possibly the Ohio State comeback, but I think injuries affected that more. Really hard to nail this down. You obviously have a number, throw it out and name your thoughts, then maybe we can respond to those. My memory is not that great!!!

[StPaulHusker]

Missouri a couple of times I guess.

[Ric Flair]

I don't understand this topic. Am I missing something?

 

What games has Bob Stoops, Les Miles, and Bill Snyder won for their teams? Which ones did they lose?

 

This really seems like a silly, petty, argument to try to make for either side.

 

Asking what the value added is of our coaching staff when it comes to actually winning football games is "silly and petty?"

 

I can tell you that Bill Snyder probably brings more value as a game day coach to the field than any other coach in college football. He routinely takes teams with very little talent and beats teams with far more talent. K-State has absolutely no business being as good as they have been while he's been coaching there.

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Let's rephrase the question then. How many times have we been matched up against a team with similar or superior talent and ended up winning the game because the coaching staff had a great game plan going in, made critical adjustments at just the right time or otherwise simply outcoached the staff on the other side of the field?

 

Still. Zero.

 

The coaches don't win the games.

The players don't win the games.

 

The coaches and players win games.

[Count 'Bility]

Let's rephrase the question then. How many times have we been matched up against a team with similar or superior talent and ended up winning the game because the coaching staff had a great game plan going in, made critical adjustments at just the right time or otherwise simply outcoached the staff on the other side of the field?

Ok. But I'm not gonna make it cut-and-dried dependent on a win. There's been games we were clearly outclassed in but were also in position to win, that you can make an easy peasy case that Bo and the guys outcoached the sh#t out of the opposing team.

2008-I would say these....

Texas Tech

Clemson

 

2009

Oklahoma

Texas

Arizona (this one's a little iffy to me)

 

2010

I have a hard time finding any in 2010. MAYBE Oklahoma St, but that one's iffy. This season was probably Bo's worst in the perspective of what shouldve been.

 

2011

Ohio St for sure.

Maybe on Michigan St and Penn St.

 

2012

i would say Michigan, and then even Georgia, since we had them on the ropes for all of 3 quarters.

[Count 'Bility]

And yes it is a hard topic. It's sort of implying that if Bo was a good coach, he should have a crap ton of wins over teams that have more talent, meaning, winning games youre proabably supposed to lose. How many opportunities does Nebraska even have a year to play games where the opponent is of equal or less talent? Just this year alone, I would put UCLA and Michigan thus far in that category. We won one and lost the other. Minnesota is obviously a game we shoulda won, despite how well theyre playing, we're the more talented team there.

 

Overall, it's tricky.

[StPaulHusker]

I don't understand this topic. Am I missing something?

 

What games has Bob Stoops, Les Miles, and Bill Snyder won for their teams? Which ones did they lose?

 

This really seems like a silly, petty, argument to try to make for either side.

 

Asking what the value added is of our coaching staff when it comes to actually winning football games is "silly and petty?"

 

I can tell you that Bill Snyder probably brings more value as a game day coach to the field than any other coach in college football. He routinely takes teams with very little talent and beats teams with far more talent. K-State has absolutely no business being as good as they have been while he's been coaching there.

Yes it's silly and petty. You would have to dissect every aspect of every game to try to make an argument from one side or the other. Lets take Northwestern in 2011. The Husker team on the field couldn't get out of it's own way with turnovers and lost the game. Is that on Bo?

 

Now fast forward to this years Northwestern game. Down 21-7 early. 21-14 at half. Defense comes out and basically holds ground and Huskers win. Did Bo coach any differently or did the defenders finally get into position to make a play?

 

Bo is responsible for every win and every loss. There is no gray area.

[JJ Husker]

Let's rephrase the question then. How many times have we been matched up against a team with similar or superior talent and ended up winning the game because the coaching staff had a great game plan going in, made critical adjustments at just the right time or otherwise simply outcoached the staff on the other side of the field?

 

I would say every game we have won, against similar or superior talent, was because of the coaching staff (and the players). Don't ask me who or how many that is- so far this year I would say Michigan about covers it.

 

I understand the tendency (because I have it myself) to blame the coaches for losses to inferior talent but, IMO we have to hold the players and coaches alike responsible for all wins and losses. It just sticks out more when we witness a loss, or even a close call, where it is evident that poor personnel or play calling decisions were made or certain adjustments were or weren't made. It is easy to blame the coaches for that and I think some of that is well earned and fair. Likewise it is pretty hard to sit back and watch us blowout a team like Southern Miss and think it was because we out coached them. I guess to be fair we have to give the coaches credit for all the wins, even if in some cases for no better reason than they didn't prevent us from winning.

[Mavric]

Our coaches don't put enough effort into recruiting.

Our coaches don't get good enough athletes to play here.

We don't practice the right things

We don't play the best athletes we do get, just the ones who are smart or aren't in the doghouse.

Our offensive play-calling is terrible.

Our defensive scheme doesn't work without the elite athletes that we can't recruit.

Our low-caliber athletes aren't being developed because our strength and conditioning program is terrible.

 

Yet somehow, our lowly players who actually get on the field after the coaches have chosen their favorite as still able - despite being out-classed, out-conditioned and out-prepared - to overcome the terrible positions they've been put in and terrible plays that have been called to be one of only a few teams to win at least nine games each of the last five years and play in three of the past four conference championship games.

 

Can we at least say we are able to recruit the players with far-and-away the most heart and desire (for all of that to be true)?