Calling out all Frost Supporters

[Decoy73]

1 hour ago, Hagg said:

Who is trying to get you (or anyone) to not stand by what they are saying?  Besides you?  As far as characterizing people's remarks as "false, unsubstantiated" being "thrown around," well,  we've got a 3 and 9 record this year and you know the Frost era record here.  If you want to pretend like your remarks are more substantial and less false, lmao ... have fun with that.  I don't know you and you don't know me, but I don't think you'd like the end result of the tack you're taking if it's to place yourself more truthful than any other member/poster in here. 

We'll for starters, you referred my post as "silly".  So there's that.  Felt I had to reaffirm my stance.

 

I never said your comments were "false" or "thrown around".  I said conjectural and unsubstantiated.  Maybe you should look up the difference.

 

And when did I place myself as more truthful than any other member/poster?  And if I had, this end result would be??

 

 

 

[lo country]

21 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

It is easier. Rutgers and Indiana instead of Ohio state and Michigan state. Other than Oklahoma the non con is a joke. I agree it’s not easy- no schedule or game is when you are a s#!tty program on the worst 4 year stretch since the 50s 

I'm still thinking 4-8.  Fitz will have Northwestern ready for Ireland.  Minnie, Iowa and Wisky?  Michigan?  Brett will only get better.  So maybe 5-7?

[runningblind]

12 minutes ago, admo said:

I mean, they beat us once... Played us once. But they did win a lot of other games too. That's how it goes? Beat Nebraska, but those other 7-9 wins are just luck 

Never said the rest were luck,  just that it's not hard to beat Nebraska.  Everyone gets a win.

[ColoradoHusk]

8 minutes ago, lo country said:

Problem is there is so many ways to run the ball.  Frost said that Iowa shifted their LB's back and out to take away the option so he tried to run inside and it didn't work.  My thoughts on that are that we stopped ourselves.  They moved personnel so Frost chose to stop running the option/outside stuff.  They didn't shut it down.  So he went inside.  Which brings me to the below.

 

To running, I would like us to develop a dedicated power scheme.  Not just running off tackle, but use a FB (Yant) or an HB.  If we are going to go inside, pull a TO and do some traps/counters.  Do something to scheme against the D. Not just slam a RB into the line and call it power.  Saw somewhere today that TO ran about 50%, 25% option and 25% pass.  If we want to be balanced, then run something similar to Coastal.  2 back sets.  We can run counters/traps/dives off of this as well as option.  And even the RPO.  As some have mentioned, I'd like a modified option, again similar to Coastal, where the Run is for the RB and the P is obviously to receiver.  Try to limit the QB as the primary runner.  On another board someone mentioned looking at Smothers arms throughout the game (thought of it myself after he pointed it out) that he was beat to hell and back.  No way he any QB will last if they are our primary run threat. Again, another check in the Held needed to go block.  

 

IMHO, we have no real scheme or identity.  It changes from series to series, game to game, and what ever cluster F of receiver/RB rotation we use.

I agree that the current offense is an issue, but I have no idea what the answer is.  I like having a non-statue QB, but I do think the current offense relies too much on the QB run game.  That has just led to our QB's getting injured and either playing them hurt, or having to turn to inexperienced backups.  I don't know what the answer is in offensive scheme, but I don't think the answer is to turn to running the ball 70-80% of the time, as some other posters have.  Even Wisconsin who has a great offensive line can't line up and beat teams all the time with their style of offense.

[CyHawk]

Tear off the bandaid and get a new coach! Frost is not exactly the upstanding guy that I would want coaching my kid:

https://www.the-mainboard.com/index.php?threads/scott-frost-marriage-implosion-thread.182118/

 

The NCAA violations have to be enough to fire him with cause and save $20M for the next coach.

[lo country]

Just now, ColoradoHusk said:

I agree that the current offense is an issue, but I have no idea what the answer is.  I like having a non-statue QB, but I do think the current offense relies too much on the QB run game.  That has just led to our QB's getting injured and either playing them hurt, or having to turn to inexperienced backups.  I don't know what the answer is in offensive scheme, but I don't think the answer is to turn to running the ball 70-80% of the time, as some other posters have.  Even Wisconsin who has a great offensive line can't line up and beat teams all the time with their style of offense.

I'm a run the ball guy for sure.  But balance is good. Some games throw to win, others run to win.  I just don't like having a real dedicated run scheme.  We do everything in the running game, but really none of it well.  When I use this next example, it's not to find the next Trevor Lawrence, but one like him that's pass first and run 2nd.  he developed into a good enough running threat that DC's had to account for it.  Some was scrambling and some was some great designed QB runs.  Get a QB that can distribute he ball to the playmakers and run enough (I like the option) to keep D's honest, but do not have him as the main runner.  Our current O rises and falls on the play of the QB.  Passing game, running game and decision making.  Shut down AM, win the game.  That (and let us self-destruct) has been DC's game plan for 4 years.  

[ColoradoHusk]

3 minutes ago, lo country said:

I'm a run the ball guy for sure.  But balance is good. Some games throw to win, others run to win.  I just don't like having a real dedicated run scheme.  We do everything in the running game, but really none of it well.  When I use this next example, it's not to find the next Trevor Lawrence, but one like him that's pass first and run 2nd.  he developed into a good enough running threat that DC's had to account for it.  Some was scrambling and some was some great designed QB runs.  Get a QB that can distribute he ball to the playmakers and run enough (I like the option) to keep D's honest, but do not have him as the main runner.  Our current O rises and falls on the play of the QB.  Passing game, running game and decision making.  Shut down AM, win the game.  That (and let us self-destruct) has been DC's game plan for 4 years.  

I think a run game is important, but I'm not "run the ball guy, just to run the ball".  I think Frost and his offense has done some very good things with their passing scheme against strong run defenses, which NU wouldn't be able to do if it were too "run-heavy".  I think you and I agree that the I-back run game needs to be fixed.  Whether it's bad OL or bad I-backs (or both), the lack of a consistent run game from the I-back position is maddening.

[lo country]

25 minutes ago, CyHawk said:

Tear off the bandaid and get a new coach! Frost is not exactly the upstanding guy that I would want coaching my kid:

https://www.the-mainboard.com/index.php?threads/scott-frost-marriage-implosion-thread.182118/

 

The NCAA violations have to be enough to fire him with cause and save $20M for the next coach.

To the actual Husker fans on this board, those rumors are old news.  You are stirring up nada if that was you attempt.  Nice try though.

 

 

[Crusader Husker]

22 minutes ago, CyHawk said:

Tear off the bandaid and get a new coach! Frost is not exactly the upstanding guy that I would want coaching my kid:

https://www.the-mainboard.com/index.php?threads/scott-frost-marriage-implosion-thread.182118/

 

The NCAA violations have to be enough to fire him with cause and save $20M for the next coach.

I have heard those rumors, but have never seen or heard anything anywhere else to think it is true.

[lo country]

13 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I think a run game is important, but I'm not "run the ball guy, just to run the ball".  I think Frost and his offense has done some very good things with their passing scheme against strong run defenses, which NU wouldn't be able to do if it were too "run-heavy".  I think you and I agree that the I-back run game needs to be fixed.  Whether it's bad OL or bad I-backs (or both), the lack of a consistent run game from the I-back position is maddening.

I'm with you.  Don't run to run or pass to pass.  Have a method to the madness.  I think this year was the culmination of several years of poor OL/RB/QB development and coaching.  Good OL play probably hides better than good RB play.  Guys can't run through walls.  

[admo]

23 minutes ago, runningblind said:

Never said the rest were luck,  just that it's not hard to beat Nebraska.  Everyone gets a win.

It was clearly implied though.

 

Why is it so horrific to admit that these teams are better than us? 

 

When the day comes when we acknowledge that, accept it, and believe it, that's when we will actually put in the work to be better than all these mofos, and prove it on the field. I mean, Isn't that the Nebraska way? 

 

It's not given to us just because we Nebraska.  That s#!t ended 20 years ago

[runningblind]

1 minute ago, admo said:

It was clearly implied though.

 

Why is it so horrific to admit that these teams are better than us? 

 

When the day comes when we acknowledge that, accept it, and believe it, that's when we will actually put in the work to be better than all these mofos, and prove it on the field. I mean, Isn't that the Nebraska way? 

 

It's not given to us just because we Nebraska.  That s#!t ended 20 years ago

Nearly every team is better than us,  that's easy to admit. The thought that we're only 3-9 because all the teams on our schedule are really good is what I didn't agree with. 

[admo]

1 hour ago, runningblind said:

Nearly every team is better than us,  that's easy to admit. The thought that we're only 3-9 because all the teams on our schedule are really good is what I didn't agree with. 

Ok, about those 9 losses. We would need 3 more wins for bowl eligibility. Why should we expect it (at minimum) against the teams that have these records? Where are those 3-4 extra wins coming from? 

 

Illinois 5-7

Oklahoma 10-2

Michigan State 10-2

Michigan 11-1

Minnesota 8-4

Purdue 8-4

Ohio State 10-2

Wisconsin 8-4

Iowa 10-2

[runningblind]

34 minutes ago, admo said:

Ok, about those 9 losses. We would need 3 more wins for bowl eligibility. Why should we expect it (at minimum) against the teams that have these records? Where are those 3-4 extra wins coming from? 

 

Illinois 5-7

Oklahoma 10-2

Michigan State 10-2

Michigan 11-1

Minnesota 8-4

Purdue 8-4

Ohio State 10-2

Wisconsin 8-4

Iowa 10-2

I'm not even sure what you're getting at now. I feel like you're using the fact that other teams have good records as an excuse that we're 3-9. Tell me if I'm wrong. We're bad at football,  doesn't matter if they're good,  it's still on our coaches to make us a good football team that won't lose 9 games a year.

[admo]

1 hour ago, runningblind said:

I'm not even sure what you're getting at now. I feel like you're using the fact that other teams have good records as an excuse that we're 3-9. Tell me if I'm wrong. We're bad at football,  doesn't matter if they're good,  it's still on our coaches to make us a good football team that won't lose 9 games a year.

It does matter if they are good.  The opponents W-L record tells a lot about those teams.  I agree we are bad and we have coaching issues.