Stewart Mandel is not a Boliever

[zoogs]

Actually, I think we've seen that every time Armstrong was on the field, polo.

[sd'sker]

Actually, I think we've seen that every time Armstrong was on the field, polo.

hate to disagree with my main man, polo. but i agree with zoogs. i think the offense did run much smoother with TA. i am guessing it is because they simplified the playbook(?). something they probably should have done long ago. do a few things excellent rather than everything ok.

 

but nupolo8, what do you think is the biggest flaw in the staff?

[NUpolo8]

Mr A,

 

Similar results? I'm not going to point to star levels or rankings, that's dumb, but this staff reminds me of the people who'd skip class all semester, then cram for a week before the final and skate with an average grade. Then brag about how good they did.

 

Zoogies,

 

I would say we only partly saw it. Further, if I were asked to pick the biggest flaw in the staff (I know no one asked me, but I'm saying it anyway) is their stubborn refusal to adjust their scheme to their players. Are they as bad as Callahan? Maybe not, but I see a lot of similar qualities in that respect.

[NUpolo8]

Actually, I think we've seen that every time Armstrong was on the field, polo.

hate to disagree with my main man, polo. but i agree with zoogs. i think the offense did run much smoother with TA. i am guessing it is because they simplified the playbook(?). something they probably should have done long ago. do a few things excellent rather than everything ok.

 

but nupolo8, what do you think is the biggest flaw in the staff?

 

You're quick, you.

[sd'sker]

really did not think you would notice.

[Count 'Bility]

Hey, just asking.

 

Also, you think maybe a new philosophy might take longer than a year to show the results? I guess we could run around and play this game all day.

[sd'sker]

i think the point is that we need drastic changes after the 2011 and 2012 seasons. but we got more of the same.

[NUpolo8]

Hey, just asking.

 

Also, you think maybe a new philosophy might take longer than a year to show the results? I guess we could run around and play this game all day.

 

Well.....devils advocate, your "60-3 after those losses" argument kinda show instant improvement...

 

But who knows., probably so, yes. I'll say this, it's clear there's a pr campaign going on now. And that absolutely is a good thing.

[Guy Chamberlin]

We did see the defense step up in a big big way, most of them underclassmen.

 

We lost our three year starting quarterback and had to throw Kellogg and Armstrong to the wolves. Then Armstrong gets dinged and we realized why Kellogg was third string and our depleted o-line steps up and helps Abdullah have a career year while Armstrong regains his footing and leads us to a perfectly nice bowl win against favored Georgia.

 

Same team gave Michigan State a good push, and we didn't yet know they were a legit top five team.

 

Turnovers were still a problem but stupid penalties were down.

 

Speaking of expectations, no one would have predicted a Martinez-less Nebraska with a second string offensive line goes 9 - 4. sh#t happens, and I'm sure it will again next year, but it's not hard to see some positives unless you're really gunning for disappointment.

[Count 'Bility]

Hey, just asking.

 

Also, you think maybe a new philosophy might take longer than a year to show the results? I guess we could run around and play this game all day.

 

Well.....devils advocate, your "60-3 after those losses" argument kinda show instant improvement...

 

But who knows., probably so, yes. I'll say this, it's clear there's a pr campaign going on now. And that absolutely is a good thing.

how instant?

'91 was 9-2-1 with losses to Washington 36-21 and Miami 22-0. Two games in which was looked for all if not the most part like we didnt belong on the field.

 

'92 was 9-3 with losses to Washington 29-14, Iowa St 19-10 (a loss to someone we shouldnt) and Florida St 27-14.

 

'93 is when I would say we really started seeing the results. "91 and '92 were pretty status quo for most of Osborne's tenure. Sometimes things just take a year or two to cycle through. So wouldnt say instant.

[Notre Dame Joe]

Getting burned by awrong hire has made you gun shy with his replacement.

[Saunders]

Getting burned by awrong hire has made you gun shy with his replacement.

It's not so much that, as it is repeating history by being forced into a bad hire because nobody good wants the job.

[carlfense]

Getting burned by awrong hire has made you gun shy with his replacement.

You're right. It definitely has for some fans.

[NUpolo8]

Hey, just asking.

 

Also, you think maybe a new philosophy might take longer than a year to show the results? I guess we could run around and play this game all day.

 

Well.....devils advocate, your "60-3 after those losses" argument kinda show instant improvement...

 

But who knows., probably so, yes. I'll say this, it's clear there's a pr campaign going on now. And that absolutely is a good thing.

how instant?

'91 was 9-2-1 with losses to Washington 36-21 and Miami 22-0. Two games in which was looked for all if not the most part like we didnt belong on the field.

 

'92 was 9-3 with losses to Washington 29-14, Iowa St 19-10 (a loss to someone we shouldnt) and Florida St 27-14.

 

'93 is when I would say we really started seeing the results. "91 and '92 were pretty status quo for most of Osborne's tenure. Sometimes things just take a year or two to cycle through. So wouldnt say instant.

 

Outside of ISU, those losses were to national champions or those in the top five. Do you think Nebraska, right now, could keep within two scores of Alabama, FSU, etc?

[Mavric]

Getting burned by awrong hire has made you gun shy with his replacement.

It is possible but it is also not an apples-to-apples comparison. The best of Callahan's four years was worse than the worst of Bo's six years from a win-loss standpoint. And quite possibly a host of others as well.