Did Bo concentrate too much on scheme?

[admo]

Yes you are right Count. 4 down lineman. But many times in a game Suh would drop back. Or sometimes one of the rush ends would, creating a 3-4 style. It aligns with your point about Suh dropping back

[Count 'Bility]

Yes you are right Count. 4 down lineman. But many times in a game Suh would drop back. Or sometimes one of the rush ends would, creating a 3-4 style. It aligns with your point about Suh dropping back

I wonder if he did that on design or instinct, like I was discussin earlier. I'm not claiming to know one way or the either. Im really curious. Cuz of the 4 guys youd' drop out, why him? Why the guy that draws the double on EVERY SINGLE PLAY.

 

All i know is I remember the nation wide talk about how innovative and awesome Bo's defense was in 2009 and 2010 in stopping the alledged unstoppable spreads of the Big 12. Gawd, that seems like decades ago.

[Stumpy1]

 

Yes you are right Count. 4 down lineman. But many times in a game Suh would drop back. Or sometimes one of the rush ends would, creating a 3-4 style. It aligns with your point about Suh dropping back

I wonder if he did that on design or instinct, like I was discussin earlier. I'm not claiming to know one way or the either. Im really curious. Cuz of the 4 guys youd' drop out, why him? Why the guy that draws the double on EVERY SINGLE PLAY.

 

All i know is I remember the nation wide talk about how innovative and awesome Bo's defense was in 2009 and 2010 in stopping the alledged unstoppable spreads of the Big 12. Gawd, that seems like decades ago.

 

It's cause we were aggressive and not scared like we have been since we joined the B1G.

[admo]

Seems the spread or read option concept has four basic plays. 2 running: RB gets ball, QB keeps ball. 2 passing: Quick pass or play action. There's more to it obviously. But what would you want to eliminate? I would emphasize stopping their running tandem with an all out strategy & effort. Unless their QB is Mariotta. Even still, recievers can drop passes, balls deflected, passes overthrown, QB confidence rattles, etc. Keeping an offense frustrated because they can't run and limiting them to 28 points or less should give a Husker offense a chance to win.

[C N Red]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

It's so hard to keep up when those guys are grudge holding has beens who need to move on because they're hurting the team and when they're sages with you guys.

 

Any my opinion remains that Perlman isn't the problem.

 

Perlman is a problem. I've said it before, I'm saying it again. Since Polo can state his opinion was, is and always will be the only truth, I too want to push my opinion as the only right stance to take. Perlman is a problem and if you don't believe it you are wrong, b/c I am right and that's all you need to know.

[junior4949]

 

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.

 

If you look back at the last 17-18 years, I'd say Osborne has done a heck of a lot more to hurt this program than anyone else. Let him keep hiring turds just to protect his legacy?

[C N Red]

 

 

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.

 

If you look back at the last 17-18 years, I'd say Osborne has done a heck of a lot more to hurt this program than anyone else. Let him keep hiring turds just to protect his legacy?

 

You serious???? Ya, if it's one thing I've heard Osborne is guilty of is being extremely protective of his legacy and not wanting anybody to do better than he did. Very egomaniacal.

[NUpolo8]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

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.

It's so hard to keep up when those guys are grudge holding has beens who need to move on because they're hurting the team and when they're sages with you guys.

Any my opinion remains that Perlman isn't the problem.

Perlman is a problem. I've said it before, I'm saying it again. Since Polo can state his opinion was, is and always will be the only truth, I too want to push my opinion as the only right stance to take. Perlman is a problem and if you don't believe it you are wrong, b/c I am right and that's all you need to know.

Because when I visit other message boards about different teams, they all bitch about the chancellor too.

 

And I'm sure the presentations on how to ignore your chancellor are a hit at the coaches conferences every year.

[True2tRA]

 

 

 

 

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.

Well I wouldn't say "nobody" could but it would probably be difficult, you're right. Extensive knowledge about the players duties or assignments during games would probably tell you whether they were doing their job or not. As much as I've tried to learn about Bo's schemes, I never really got a good grasp on all of it. Too much to understand and too many variables.

I always thought simply from watching the games that Suh seemed to be willing to break contain more than most guys ever did. He seemed to be willing to get upfield and force pressure which honestly doesn't ever appear to be part of Bo's gameplan.

Same with LaVonte David. He seemed far too aggressive to be playing in Bo's scheme. Chasing the guy with the ball? Who does that? Shedding blocks and blowing up plays. Shooting through gaps instead of "spilling".

Maybe I'm wrong. Maybe these were just 2 of the 5 guys that actually ever "got it" and that was how it was supposed to look.

I'm glad that's all you took from my comment though. If all you're going to do is drop in every once in awhile and nitpick my posts, then please, add me to your ignore list. This seems to be the only times you ever drop in on my discussions is to do this crap.

My point really had nothing to do with an actuall bet. Poor choice of words on my part.

David was capable of hitting guys at LOS or behind it, excelling in one-on-one tackling, running down the ball carriers from sideline to sideline with quickness and power, and a knack for playing with aggressiveness. He was awesome. I think Bo's strategy on defense has a heavy emphasis on protecting against the big pass play while expecting those one on one tackles to happen every time. Instead of NFL talent on the field like David or Suh, we saw a lot of one arm tries and over pursuing. Especially with replacement/new guys. Saw some slow response and hesitation which lead to 5 yard gains before a LB makes a tackle attempt. Didn't see a lot of defenders around the ball much, like swarming and gang tackling. Mostly one on one - get him or whiff. College kids.

 

Blitzing, QB hurries, knockdowns, sacks and throwing the bones was not the identity of his team. Nor was stopping the run dead in its tracks with a ball hawking front 7.

 

It was always "don't give up the big pass play", execute the game plan and once the other team is in the read zone, the advantage is that the field shrinks. NFL strategy.

 

 

And it seemed to take players 25+ games before they started to really get it. Some sooner, and some later. By the time they did, and things looked good out there, they graduated. New guys come in, and repeat the slow painful strenuous learning process all over again.

Exactly.

[Sargon]

 

The point is, I heard about how great he was from the days Callahan was failing, what a great catch he would be. I knew the things he did when he left the first time, absolutely nothing positive towards Nebraska, then for seven years how great he was, up until the last month he walked on water around here. Even though he had stated numerous times how much he hated being here, the fans, the administration, the pressure, and in some ways the traditions. Had allowed some of the worst defeats this program has ever seen. Far worse than his predecessor.

 

Yet every single day, we see posts about the guy, how things could have been. Some are like girlfriends dropped, if I had only been better, I might still have such and such. He is gone. WE have a new coach, discuss the positive, move forward. He brought us absolutely nothing in the long run of things. Unless you consider a lot of hate, discontent, and a huge public black eye.

 

Time to move on to our new coach. Bo is not coming back, EVER!

 

Embrace the new coach, the old one had way more than a fair chance. He blew it. Move on.

 

Stop the poor we miss Bo threads, talk about something interesting that moves the program forward out of this mess, quit rolling in it.

Dang man, chill out.

 

I think Bo knows more about football and defensive scheme than MOST on this board.

 

I'm glad he got fired because I couldn't stand anymore blowouts on the field, or blowups off the field. But let's not pretend the guy couldn't coach.

 

I hope the new guys can take the horses and do better than Bo. Seems like a few adjustments and less ego will go for miles around here anyway.

 

But man, just chill. Not everyone has to think your way about the situation and be berated for their opinion. Let it go, he's fired.

 

 

 

The bolded is a pointless straw man and frankly is going to poke Boleavers in the direction of heat not chill. skersfans post seems pretty on target to me. Some, not many but some NU fans are spending too much effort on unwarranted defenses of Bo. It's annoying.

[skersfan]

I am not saying he did not. I am saying it seldom showed when it was important. That is a mark of a good coach, win the ones your supposed to, and beat some your not supposed to. Seldom if ever did that happen in 7 years.

 

He did good things here, but the bad things far out weigh anything positive he ever did.

 

I have asked that we move on, concentrate on the good Coach Riley can do, yet we constantly have these threads about poor Bo, ifa coulda woulda. He didn't. End of story.

 

So if you post about him and I post, it is not going to be positive. He got everything I could say positive about him last year. He was a slime ball 7 years ago, he still is, so if you don't like hearing my opinion about it, quit brining it up. He sucks. The sad part is took some 7 years to figure out what he was doing to the program and how far it was falling in the time frame. He never brought a qualified coach to the sideline, including himself. Knew nothing about recruiting, or roster management, and only knew the NFL think system.

 

He had his seven years, lets give the new guy the same allegiance most unconditionally gave Whats his name.

 

I heard the same crap about how great he was for 7 years, every single day. How did that work out? I would be happy to never hear his name again or have to talk about him. But some still cream their jeans everytime they think about him.

[Hunter94]

yup, it's over.........thankfully.

[Redux]

I am not saying he did not. I am saying it seldom showed when it was important. That is a mark of a good coach, win the ones your supposed to, and beat some your not supposed to. Seldom if ever did that happen in 7 years.

 

He did good things here, but the bad things far out weigh anything positive he ever did.

 

I have asked that we move on, concentrate on the good Coach Riley can do, yet we constantly have these threads about poor Bo, ifa coulda woulda. He didn't. End of story.

 

So if you post about him and I post, it is not going to be positive. He got everything I could say positive about him last year. He was a slime ball 7 years ago, he still is, so if you don't like hearing my opinion about it, quit brining it up. He sucks. The sad part is took some 7 years to figure out what he was doing to the program and how far it was falling in the time frame. He never brought a qualified coach to the sideline, including himself. Knew nothing about recruiting, or roster management, and only knew the NFL think system.

 

He had his seven years, lets give the new guy the same allegiance most unconditionally gave Whats his name.

 

I heard the same crap about how great he was for 7 years, every single day. How did that work out? I would be happy to never hear his name again or have to talk about him. But some still cream their jeans everytime they think about him.

 

I know the running joke is "Let if go, let it gooooooo". But seriously man, you are way too invested in proving he isnt fit to be coach here 2 months after he got. Fired.

 

I dont think that many people are still hung up over him as you think.