Jump to content


Calling out all Frost Supporters


Recommended Posts

8 hours ago, admo said:

Illinois 5-7 Frost 2-2
Oklahoma 10-1 Frost 0-1

Michigan State 10-2
Michigan 11-1 Frost 0-2
Minnesota 8-4 Frost 1-3
Purdue 8-4 Frost 1-3

Ohio State 10-2
Wisconsin 8-4 Frost 0-4
Iowa 10-2 Frost 0-4

Northwestern 3-9 Frost 2-2

Rutgers 5-7 Frost 1-0

Indiana 2-10 Frost 1-0

 

:dunno

Not really sure how our schedule is easier next year.....Teams in bold we play next year.  Ones in red have losing records.  Only Indy at 2-10 is worse than us.  We got some ground to make up.  Brett in year 1 at 5-7.  He's only going to get better.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

2 minutes ago, lo country said:

Not really sure how our schedule is easier next year.....Teams in bold we play next year.  Ones in red have losing records.  Only Indy at 2-10 is worse than us.  We got some ground to make up.

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 

  • Haha 1
Link to comment
15 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:


yeah, historically tough schedule. But if you want us to admit the truth, Nebraska is simply worse than Purdue, Minnesota, and Illinois, coming in dead last in a weak division. Your argument is essentially that we played a lot of teams better than Nebraska. 

Reword it.  Purdue Minnesota and Illinois are better than us. Not an argument :)

Link to comment
36 minutes ago, runningblind said:

I mean, those teams win a lot of games when playing us. That's how it goes,  one team wins a game and the other loses it.

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 :huh:

Link to comment
14 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

A lot of people think that is just the simple answer to everything going forward.

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.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

55 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

Don’t make excuses for 3-9. Is Florida saying it’s ok you underperformed this year- the SEC is tough so we understand why you lost. Hell no. It truly is amazing how far our program has fallen as well as our fans. 

Lol. 

 

Fallen? What century do you still live in?  :dunno 

Maybe lightning was struck in the 90s for a bit, and in the early 70s.  Is that concept not more plausible?

Link to comment
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??

 

 

 

Link to comment
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?

Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

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.  

Link to comment
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.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
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.

 

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
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.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.





×
  • Create New...