Nebraska mindset needs refinement

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

IMO, Bo is not the issue. It is a young and inexperienced staff that is hurting him.

 

 

This is the "mindset" thread. If a head coach has only one duty or skill, it's taking responsibility for the mindset of the team.

[Glendower]

Yep, powerful, seeeeeecret insider sources.

It's just a feeling I have. I see a lot of tone in articles and just things that the staff are saying that makes this year feel like a watershed, indy or bust type year.

 

...a saltwatershed, mayhaps?

[kchusker_chris]

IMO, Bo is not the issue. It is a young and inexperienced staff that is hurting him.

 

IMO, Bo hiring & retaining young and inexperienced staff at almost every position is the issue. He wants to break the bank and put in some rockstar coordinators - I'll be 100% behind the decision. But he had that opportunity, he didn't do, and we both know he won't do it this time either. So ultimately, Bo is the issue.

[KazLong]

When I post score predictions its based off my xbox preformance. So when he reads fans predictions he should not take online as word of God.

 

 

Edit: I do full disclosure turn off the system i disgust if I am losing.

[lo country]

 

IMO, Bo is not the issue. It is a young and inexperienced staff that is hurting him.

 

IMO, Bo hiring & retaining young and inexperienced staff at almost every position is the issue. He wants to break the bank and put in some rockstar coordinators - I'll be 100% behind the decision. But he had that opportunity, he didn't do, and we both know he won't do it this time either. So ultimately, Bo is the issue.

 

Ultimately yes. he hired them. My point being that Bo can't be all places at once. H took over the D and it has improved. he has taken over the ST and they have improved. OL and offense (against MSU) not so much.

 

Prior to Frank being fired in 2003, I was all for getting rid of Bohl and giving Frank another year to see if he could fix things. 2003, he hires Bo and we go 10-3. Not bad. Same with Bo. With a competent staff, he might be "that guy", but as you and others have said, he's had chances, but failed. If Bo can't get rid of folks, I think that will cost him as it did Cally and Frank before.

 

His poor hires have hurt how good he actually might be as HC. Not saying he would, but no doubt the inexperience at key staff positions would hurt any coach, let alone a guy (Bo) with limited (none) HC experience.

[True2tRA]

I really don't know what the whole "lacking of emotion" term means anymore. It just seems like just a canned excuse to misdirect people from the actual problems

Doesn't it?

 

I mean from the perspective of a fan, a teammate, or a coach, "we just weren't really fired up to play" is really the absolute last thing you would want to hear from a college football players mouth. Yet we've heard it multiple times in each of the last four years at least. Literally, multiple times. Even once after the first game of the season which is when you'd think they'd be the most ready to lay it on somebody else for a change, instead of beating the piss out of each other.

 

As you said, what is not being said? But why would this be the go to excuse?

[TheSker]

 

And you appear to be content with crapping on Tom Osborne's legacy to defend Bo.

 

I find it unfortunate you would say write this. Osborne's legacy is astounding.....but it took him a lot to get there and I'm not going to sweep 1979 or 1990 under the carpet.

[TheSker]

 

 

I am aware of the differentiation of blowout losses and AP top 10 finishes. Osborne and Pelini also took over two programs in different conditions.....back to back national titles vs losing record. I was making the point the Big 8 was often a "cupcake" schedule and many expected more out of Osborne around year 7 also. As I mentioned previously, Pelini keeps winning over 70% of his games....he'll be here.

 

 

For all the talk of Pelini taking over a losing program, his best teams (2009 and 2010) were anchored by Callahan recruits Suh, Prince, Crick, Hagg and Helu. He was left with a nice cupboard.

 

Also, the Big 8 simply was NOT a "cupcake schedule". That is a myth. In that span, Osborne played: #12 Missouri, #18 Kansas, #17 Colorado, #13 Kansas, #12 Missouri, #17 Missouri, #13 Oklahoma State, #7 Colorado and #15 Iowa State, in addition to all the games against Oklahoma, who was basically the '70s equivalent of today's Alabama. Not to mention the non-conference schedules back then would make modern ADs cry. There were no I-AA or Sun Belt teams to practice against.

 

So which of your points remains? That Osborne wasn't meeting fan expectations and was nearly pressured to leave? That's true, and it only shows how insane the expectations once were. And to think today's fans are often thought to be overcritical.

 

I'm happy there was some talent in place. Those losing records under Callahan were not fun. As far as the Big 8......here are some numbers on Kansas, Colorado and Kansas State as examples. During Osborne's head coaching tenure, KU had 14 losing seasons, 2 eight win seasons and 1 ten win season. Prior to 1989, Colorado had 9 losing seasons. And should Kansas State even be mentioned?.....17 losing seasons including two winless seasons in '87 and '88 and a 1 win season in '89. If you want to claim "the Big 8 simply was NOT a 'cupcake schedule'" then feel free. The numbers, in my opinion, state otherwise.

[hskrfan4life]

 

Year 7 and the guys still can't get pumped for a game.

The same thing might have been said in 1979. Or 1989.

 

 

 

Those have been on the schedule for over 40 years.

look at the teams we beat last year. only like 3, maybe 4 made a bowl. the teams we have beaten this year? they will all struggle to make a bowl. so cupcakes have always been present, but our schedule of late looks more like a bakery.

During the decade of the 1980s, only 3 teams in the Big 8 had records above .500 for the decade. OU and Nebraska were two of them. Oklahoma State was the third. Barely. You can decide what baking reference to use for that.

So, we can agree that you are happy with beating completely terrible teams and nearly always losing to good teams, often in embarrassing fashion.

 

And you appear to be content with crapping on Tom Osborne's legacy to defend Bo.

 

This might be a new addendum to the "terrible fan/extraordinarily low bar" discussion.

I would love to be able to beat crappy teams AND beat good/great teams. I just think when we hit the field we (as players and fans) should not think we are going to get blown out or lose embarrisingly with more turnovers then points. Year 7 and this needs to happen no excuses. When Tom was coaching it was different than what is going on now. Different rules and different everything.

[grandpasknee]

Yes I would agree with the title of this thread. But perhaps it is the Nebraska fans that need a refined mindset. Some of the bluster on here is just ridiculous. Yes, the Huskers have been beaten soundly in the past decade. Still, in a world where change is the only constant, and winning any game against a school that has embraced parity is difficult, I think fans need to accept that fact that this isn't the 70s or the 90s. Having success like we did during those years is the EXCEPTION, not the norm. If one looks back over the last 20 years, Ohio St, Fla State, Alabama, OU, Texas, LSU, etc, have all been absolutely laughable teams at times.

 

We as fans need to remember that it is all about what 17 - 21 year old kids do on a Saturday afternoon. Nothing more. Even if they are losing badly, they are worth watching and supporting. Very few, if any of us on this board have the ability to influence coaching changes or decisions. And it is fine to make suggestions and observations, but way to many seem to have their personal identities wrapped up in this football team.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

IMO, Bo is not the issue. It is a young and inexperienced staff that is hurting him.

 

IMO, Bo hiring & retaining young and inexperienced staff at almost every position is the issue. He wants to break the bank and put in some rockstar coordinators - I'll be 100% behind the decision. But he had that opportunity, he didn't do, and we both know he won't do it this time either. So ultimately, Bo is the issue.

 

Ultimately yes. he hired them. My point being that Bo can't be all places at once. H took over the D and it has improved. he has taken over the ST and they have improved. OL and offense (against MSU) not so much.

 

Prior to Frank being fired in 2003, I was all for getting rid of Bohl and giving Frank another year to see if he could fix things. 2003, he hires Bo and we go 10-3. Not bad. Same with Bo. With a competent staff, he might be "that guy", but as you and others have said, he's had chances, but failed. If Bo can't get rid of folks, I think that will cost him as it did Cally and Frank before.

 

His poor hires have hurt how good he actually might be as HC. Not saying he would, but no doubt the inexperience at key staff positions would hurt any coach, let alone a guy (Bo) with limited (none) HC experience.

 

 

I'm still confused. Bo can't be all places at once? Of course he can. He's the head coach. He sets the tone, the desire, and the standard for everything. It's his job to motivate every player on the team before he sends them into a game or off to work with their position coaches and coordinators. He has to motivate those assitants, too, and he can't act surprised by anything they do on a Saturday.

 

On any team in any sport where the players admit they lacked fire, you look over at the head coach. "Mindset" is the singular duty of a head coach. It's what makes them inspirational. Or not. I know you'd love to fire Tim Beck, as if that would exorcise some demon, but it doesn't make sense when you look at the persistent struggles of this team.

[kchusker_chris]

Ultimately yes. he hired them. My point being that Bo can't be all places at once. H took over the D and it has improved. he has taken over the ST and they have improved. OL and offense (against MSU) not so much.

 

Prior to Frank being fired in 2003, I was all for getting rid of Bohl and giving Frank another year to see if he could fix things. 2003, he hires Bo and we go 10-3. Not bad. Same with Bo. With a competent staff, he might be "that guy", but as you and others have said, he's had chances, but failed. If Bo can't get rid of folks, I think that will cost him as it did Cally and Frank before.

 

His poor hires have hurt how good he actually might be as HC. Not saying he would, but no doubt the inexperience at key staff positions would hurt any coach, let alone a guy (Bo) with limited (none) HC experience.

 

My only issue with this is that he's already had the opportunity to put together a competent staff. Frank got 1 chance and hit a home run and still got canned. There's plenty of reason to call BS on that situation. Cally never got a chance to fire Cosgrove. Bo got the same chance Frank did, and then 3-4 years to see it play out. Seems like that's how it should be. However, it doesn't appear to have worked out for him. So does he deserve another chance? Are you confident based on his other hires since that he can find that difference maker (or two) on the staff that will elevate the program both on the field and in recruiting? I'm not very confident he can, or more specifically that he'll be willing to.

[Bowfin]

Also, as stated before, just because it worked back then doesn't mean it works today

 

Leadership qualities are timeless, in my opinion.

 

People's psyches haven't changed in 2,000 years, let alone 20.

 

People will still follow strong leaders and strong leaders will still want to lead people towards goals and ideas bigger than themselves. We just don't seem to make leadership qualities a priority in recruiting.

[Bowfin]

17 - 21 year old kids

 

Here's the problem: When these 17-21 year olds get a scholarship, we (and they) still think of them as kids. When the enlist in the military, these same 17-21 year olds are expected to be men...or become men in 12 weeks...

 

...and to be honest, most people can live up to the challenge of what's expected of them. So it boils down (once again) to opinions. What does one expect from a Senior scholarship player on the NU football team? Your answer and my answer will probably be different, and one can't argue opinions.

[Guy Chamberlin]

To my eye, this Husker team seemed tougher than previous years. A lot of it appeared to come from Abdullah and Armstrong setting a tone, and a more prideful (and probably talented) defense.

 

That may still be the case. I honestly can't tell anymore. I'm holding out the possibility that Michigan State University just has better players and better coaches.

 

Last time we licked our wounds after a big loss, regrouped with a bye week and played Northwestern at home, we came out unfocused, undisciplined and almost crapped the bed.

 

I'd like this time to be different.