Count 'Bility Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Sker aint lying, but he seems to be greatly exaggerating the importance of this, cuz frankly I, as well as many others probably, dont (and shouldnt) give a sh#t.The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding. If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach. You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago. Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03. So what about the Osborne guys? Just to say, Perlman wasnt Chancellor until 3 1/2 years after Osborne quit coaching. Quote Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Sker aint lying, but he seems to be greatly exaggerating the importance of this, cuz frankly I, as well as many others probably, dont (and shouldnt) give a sh#t.The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding.If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach.You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago.Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03. So what about the Osborne guys? Considering Perlman wasn't an interim chancellor until 2000 and was officially named in 01, I'd say you're alluding to something else. Quote Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Sker aint lying, but he seems to be greatly exaggerating the importance of this, cuz frankly I, as well as many others probably, dont (and shouldnt) give a sh#t. The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding. If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach. You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago. Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03. So what about the Osborne guys? Just to say, Perlman wasnt Chancellor until 3 1/2 years after Osborne quit coaching. You and I are an alliance! Quote Link to comment
zoogs Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach. Indeed. And it's not just players that have been fed this. Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Sker aint lying, but he seems to be greatly exaggerating the importance of this, cuz frankly I, as well as many others probably, dont (and shouldnt) give a sh#t.The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding. If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach. You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago. Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03. So what about the Osborne guys?Just to say, Perlman wasnt Chancellor until 3 1/2 years after Osborne quit coaching. You and I are an alliance! I'm here for the facts yo. Take it back. Quote Link to comment
StPaulHusker Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Sker aint lying, but he seems to be greatly exaggerating the importance of this, cuz frankly I, as well as many others probably, dont (and shouldnt) give a sh#t.The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding.If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach.You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago.Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03. So what about the Osborne guys? Considering Perlman wasn't an interim chancellor until 2000 and was officially named in 01, I'd say you're alluding to something else. Yeah but Osborne's guys became Solich's guys while Pearlman was Chancellor. What do you have to say about THAT?!?! Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Sker aint lying, but he seems to be greatly exaggerating the importance of this, cuz frankly I, as well as many others probably, dont (and shouldnt) give a sh#t.The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding.If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach.You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago.Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03. So what about the Osborne guys? Considering Perlman wasn't an interim chancellor until 2000 and was officially named in 01, I'd say you're alluding to something else. Yeah but Osborne's guys became Solich's guys while Pearlman was Chancellor. What do you have to say about THAT?!?! Very VERY few. The 2001 5TH YEAR seniors wouldve been the only Osborne guys to have played during the Perlamn chancelling era. Quote Link to comment
Saunders Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Sker aint lying, but he seems to be greatly exaggerating the importance of this, cuz frankly I, as well as many others probably, dont (and shouldnt) give a sh#t.The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding.If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach.You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago.Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03. So what about the Osborne guys? Considering Perlman wasn't an interim chancellor until 2000 and was officially named in 01, I'd say you're alluding to something else. No... you're saying that the players are being brainwashed (fed information) by coaches with questionable motives, because they worked for Harvey. Hence my asking if players under Osborne were subject to that, since there are those who share the same opinions. Quote Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Sker aint lying, but he seems to be greatly exaggerating the importance of this, cuz frankly I, as well as many others probably, dont (and shouldnt) give a sh#t. The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding.If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach.You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago.Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03. So what about the Osborne guys? Considering Perlman wasn't an interim chancellor until 2000 and was officially named in 01, I'd say you're alluding to something else. Yeah but Osborne's guys became Solich's guys while Pearlman was Chancellor. What do you have to say about THAT?!?! Very VERY few. The 2001 5TH YEAR seniors wouldve been the only Osborne guys to have played during the Perlamn chancelling era. Who says Dahrran Diedrick didn't have CLOUT? Quote Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Sker aint lying, but he seems to be greatly exaggerating the importance of this, cuz frankly I, as well as many others probably, dont (and shouldnt) give a sh#t. The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding.If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach.You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago.Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03. So what about the Osborne guys? Considering Perlman wasn't an interim chancellor until 2000 and was officially named in 01, I'd say you're alluding to something else. No... you're saying that the players are being brainwashed (fed information) by coaches with questionable motives, because they worked for Harvey. Hence my asking if players under Osborne were subject to that, since there are those who share the same opinions. No, I'm saying you're talking out of your ass and are wrong. Try to keep up. 1 Quote Link to comment
Count 'Bility Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Sker aint lying, but he seems to be greatly exaggerating the importance of this, cuz frankly I, as well as many others probably, dont (and shouldnt) give a sh#t.The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding.If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach.You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago.Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03.So what about the Osborne guys? Considering Perlman wasn't an interim chancellor until 2000 and was officially named in 01, I'd say you're alluding to something else. Yeah but Osborne's guys became Solich's guys while Pearlman was Chancellor. What do you have to say about THAT?!?!Very VERY few. The 2001 5TH YEAR seniors wouldve been the only Osborne guys to have played during the Perlamn chancelling era. Who says Dahrran Diedrick didn't have CLOUT? What about Troy Hassebroek and Ben Zajicek then? 1 Quote Link to comment
Saunders Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Sker aint lying, but he seems to be greatly exaggerating the importance of this, cuz frankly I, as well as many others probably, dont (and shouldnt) give a sh#t.The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding.If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach.You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago.Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03.So what about the Osborne guys? Considering Perlman wasn't an interim chancellor until 2000 and was officially named in 01, I'd say you're alluding to something else. No... you're saying that the players are being brainwashed (fed information) by coaches with questionable motives, because they worked for Harvey. Hence my asking if players under Osborne were subject to that, since there are those who share the same opinions. No, I'm saying you're talking out of your ass and are wrong. Try to keep up. You're welcome to have your opinion, sans personal attacks. But off the top of my head, Frazier, Vrzal, Foreman, Moore, and Zatchka (all guys I listen to on podcasts) have said one way or another, that there's some issues with Harvey, his ego, and the football program. Quote Link to comment
NUpolo8 Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Sker aint lying, but he seems to be greatly exaggerating the importance of this, cuz frankly I, as well as many others probably, dont (and shouldnt) give a sh#t. The tension between Osborne and Perlman is hurting the football program.Both parties (yes, i said BOTH. Take 2 to tango) should let it go then. Get over it.It's not just Osborne, it's the football program. I've heard (and read) current and former players allude to Harvey's axe grinding.If the football players are actively worried about the chancellor, then their focus is way off or they're being fed something they shouldn't be by a coach.You can apply that to guys on the team, not guys that graduated a decade ago.Not necessarily, we've had coaches with questionable motives for awhile, including. Bo Pelini in 03.So what about the Osborne guys? Considering Perlman wasn't an interim chancellor until 2000 and was officially named in 01, I'd say you're alluding to something else. Yeah but Osborne's guys became Solich's guys while Pearlman was Chancellor. What do you have to say about THAT?!?!Very VERY few. The 2001 5TH YEAR seniors wouldve been the only Osborne guys to have played during the Perlamn chancelling era. Who says Dahrran Diedrick didn't have CLOUT? What about Troy Hassebroek and Ben Zajicek then? If you did that off memory, I'm impressed. Quote Link to comment
True2tRA Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Gotta have guys play within the system, period. When Bo had the horses, his defenses were absolutely SICK. There were games and whole stretches of seasons where his defenses just crushed opponents. His scheme was solid and earned him respect and a pretty penny. Personally I believe that unless he had the right horses, his scheme could be exposed. Or, if a matchup on a certain player favored the opposition it was exposed. If a player busted a play, it was exposed. In college ball, a missed assignment will happen quite often; or a player might not have a good matchup. So yeah, Bo's scheme was brilliant and Bo's scheme was suspect. When it was on, it was juice. When it was off--- he gets fired. He needed the horses and at times he had em and it was fun. But in college you have too much turnover for his scheme. Any defense with Ndamukong Suh on it is probably going to have success. DT is the best place to have your best player. Once in a lifetime player really. LaVonte David covered up a lot of issues in his own right also. Probably why he broke records. I'd be willing to bet you a lot of money that Ndamukong Suh and LaVonte David were playing outside the scheme more often than they were playing within it. Quote Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted January 20, 2015 Share Posted January 20, 2015 Gotta have guys play within the system, period. When Bo had the horses, his defenses were absolutely SICK. There were games and whole stretches of seasons where his defenses just crushed opponents. His scheme was solid and earned him respect and a pretty penny. Personally I believe that unless he had the right horses, his scheme could be exposed. Or, if a matchup on a certain player favored the opposition it was exposed. If a player busted a play, it was exposed. In college ball, a missed assignment will happen quite often; or a player might not have a good matchup. So yeah, Bo's scheme was brilliant and Bo's scheme was suspect. When it was on, it was juice. When it was off--- he gets fired. He needed the horses and at times he had em and it was fun. But in college you have too much turnover for his scheme. Any defense with Ndmakong Suh on it is probably going to have success. DT is the best place to have your best player. Once in a lifetime player really. LaVonte David covered up a lot of issues in his own right also. Probably why he broke records. I'd be willing to bet you a lot of money that Ndamukong Suh and LaVonte David were playing outside the scheme more often than they were playing within it. Nice making a bet that nobody has the ability to prove either way. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.