2016 Blowouts - Talent or Coaching?

[GBRHouston]

OSU was not just talent. If it was, they would have thwacked Northwestern and Indiana the same way they did to us. One of few things that bugs me about MR is absolutely no inspiration. He just walks around like a zombie when things aren't going correctly. He did for Purdue last year, and he did for both blowouts this year. No fire whatsoever. We don't want Pelini level of fire, but we don't want no fire either.

 

[MyBloodIsRed16]

OSU was not just talent. If it was, they would have thwacked Northwestern and Indiana the same way they did to us. One of few things that bugs me about MR is absolutely no inspiration. He just walks around like a zombie when things aren't going correctly. He did for Purdue last year, and he did for both blowouts this year. No fire whatsoever. We don't want Pelini level of fire, but we don't want no fire either.

I don't recall TO having tons of fire

 

[AFhusker]

Ohio State: Coaching

• The kids were obviously rattled by what happened. Calming the kids down and getting them focused is where they earn their pay.
• Langsdorf set the kids up to fail as soon as Tommy was knocked out.

Wasn't the team already down like 31 - 3 with wheels coming off in all directions when Tommy got hurt?

No actually they were driving to bring it within striking distance. After Tommy got hurt around tOSU 20 yard line. We were stopped on a 4th down, and tOSU drove the field and went up another TD. It was a 14 point swing in about 2 minutes of gametime. It was a crusher in multiple ways. Then halftime, and tOSU had the ball to start at halftime and the rest is history.

No. They were already down four touchdowns. Tommy stays healthy and the game is perhaps 55 - 10. 48 - 17 at best. The a$$-kicking was well in progress. We were in a similar "striking distance" scenario against Iowa, and the odds against Ohio State were worse.

Nebraska had little margin of error to begin with, and went downhill quick. Also, Ohio State was having a perfect storm of a game, coming off a wake-up call and a loss and totally dialed in at every level.

Not true. They were driving to potentially make it 24-10, and have some momentum. Would they have won the game with Tommy, no. But they wouldn't have lost by 60 points. That was a back breaker of all back breakers. To be driving to potentially bring the game within reach, to losing your starting QB and leader, to not making a 4th and short, to tOSU driving and scoring just before half. It was about 5 minutes of game time that broke their will.

So isn't having no back up QB part of a lack of talent? Honestly I think TA would have been benched in that game if he wasn't hurt as he was playing pathetically in that game. 99% of our issues right now are because of a lack of talent, we don't call certain plays because our QB who has a heart of a champion but can't read a defense to save his life. Our LB's stink, DL gets worn out due to lack of depth, which leads to no pass rush and our DB's having to cover guys forever. Not to mention the 3 walk-ons that we started on the OL for most of the year. And these aren't the All American walk-ons talent level that we had under Tom, these were guys that shouldn't have been used for anything more than a scout team at best.

If in 3-4 years we are still in this situation then feel free to call it coaching, but as of now the only logical answer is the lack of talent that Bo left MR and co.

 

[Saunders]

Ohio State: Coaching

• The kids were obviously rattled by what happened. Calming the kids down and getting them focused is where they earn their pay.
• Langsdorf set the kids up to fail as soon as Tommy was knocked out.

Wasn't the team already down like 31 - 3 with wheels coming off in all directions when Tommy got hurt?

No actually they were driving to bring it within striking distance. After Tommy got hurt around tOSU 20 yard line. We were stopped on a 4th down, and tOSU drove the field and went up another TD. It was a 14 point swing in about 2 minutes of gametime. It was a crusher in multiple ways. Then halftime, and tOSU had the ball to start at halftime and the rest is history.

No. They were already down four touchdowns. Tommy stays healthy and the game is perhaps 55 - 10. 48 - 17 at best. The a$$-kicking was well in progress. We were in a similar "striking distance" scenario against Iowa, and the odds against Ohio State were worse.

Nebraska had little margin of error to begin with, and went downhill quick. Also, Ohio State was having a perfect storm of a game, coming off a wake-up call and a loss and totally dialed in at every level.

Not true. They were driving to potentially make it 24-10, and have some momentum. Would they have won the game with Tommy, no. But they wouldn't have lost by 60 points. That was a back breaker of all back breakers. To be driving to potentially bring the game within reach, to losing your starting QB and leader, to not making a 4th and short, to tOSU driving and scoring just before half. It was about 5 minutes of game time that broke their will.

So isn't having no back up QB part of a lack of talent? Honestly I think TA would have been benched in that game if he wasn't hurt as he was playing pathetically in that game. 99% of our issues right now are because of a lack of talent, we don't call certain plays because our QB who has a heart of a champion but can't read a defense to save his life. Our LB's stink, DL gets worn out due to lack of depth, which leads to no pass rush and our DB's having to cover guys forever. Not to mention the 3 walk-ons that we started on the OL for most of the year. And these aren't the All American walk-ons talent level that we had under Tom, these were guys that shouldn't have been used for anything more than a scout team at best.

If in 3-4 years we are still in this situation then feel free to call it coaching, but as of now the only logical answer is the lack of talent that Bo left MR and co.

This argument is deja vu 2004-2005. It's also less factual than it was a decade ago too. Do we have elite talent? No. Are we less talented than Purdue (a real thing that people said), not even remotely true.

 

[I am I]

Talent. All day.

And not just starters. It's talent from top to bottom on the whole team. Talent because it's who you practice against that is giving you looks and providing REAL competition for starting jobs.

Talent, because sometimes you just gotta make a damn play and it takes talent to make plays.

If there's any coaching at fault it's more systemic like "we don't tackle to the ground in practice ever" or "we only have 10 guys on the field for PAT".

Coaches don't make plays. Players make plays. If the players are real great, the plays they're marking won't be that great either.

 

[Enhance]

Talent. All day.

And not just starters. It's talent from top to bottom on the whole team. Talent because it's who you practice against that is giving you looks and providing REAL competition for starting jobs.

Talent, because sometimes you just gotta make a damn play and it takes talent to make plays.

If there's any coaching at fault it's more systemic like "we don't tackle to the ground in practice ever" or "we only have 10 guys on the field for PAT".

Coaches don't make plays. Players make plays. If the players are real great, the plays they're marking won't be that great either.

Texas has more talent than 90-to-95 percent of other division one programs.

Wisconsin pulls in statistically worse talent than Nebraska but nobody would argue which program has been more successful during the last 10 years.

Good coaching has to be in place to help put players in the right positions to make plays. In my opinion, Nebraska has been talented enough to win a conference title or two in the last 10-15 years.

 

[I am I]

They may have had "enough" talent to win a conference title, but they didn't win one.

Think about all the conference championship games we'be been in. Specifically the OU game wherein we blew a 20 pt lead.

If we had more talent we stop the bleeding, regain momentum, make a few plays, and win the game. OU had more talent. They made more plays.

Great, elite talent overcomes some not so great coaching. Case in point: TO was always a pretty great coach. Then he gets elite talent and has his great run. Gene Chizik has Cam Newton--Natty. Doesn't have him? Gets fired.

Urban Meyer has Tebow and crew--Natty. Doesn't have him? Quits for "health" reasons amid a losing season.

Old saying: it's not the x's snd o's it's the jimmy and the joe's

 

[Enhance]

They may have had "enough" talent to win a conference title, but they didn't win one.

Think about all the conference championship games we'be been in. Specifically the OU game wherein we blew a 20 pt lead.

If we had more talent we stop the bleeding, regain momentum, make a few plays, and win the game. OU had more talent. They made more plays.

Great, elite talent overcomes some not so great coaching. Case in point: TO was always a pretty great coach. Then he gets elite talent and has his great run. Gene Chizik has Cam Newton--Natty. Doesn't have him? Gets fired.

Urban Meyer has Tebow and crew--Natty. Doesn't have him? Quits for "health" reasons amid a losing season.

Old saying: it's not the x's snd o's it's the jimmy and the joe's

You can't disregard or mostly ignore where coaching fails (see Texas the last three seasons, Notre Dame in '16, Nebraska in '07, Michigan under Rich Rod, Auburn in Chizik's later years) while simultaneously lauding where you perceive talent to have succeeded.

If the game were as heavily dependent upon talent as you're suggesting then we would almost never see upsets or they'd be uncommonly rare, and we both know that's not true.

 

[84HuskerLaw]

Great coaching of great players produce great teams that often win titles. See about 90% of the last twenty five national champsions.

Good goaching of great players produce excellent teams that now and then win titles. See about 75% of the top ten teams that won their bowl games the past 25 seasons.

Great coaching of good players produce excellent teams that have a chance to pull off upsets and win a title once in a while. See the other 25% that finished in the top ten the past 25 years.

Good coaching of good players produce good teams that pull off upsets of many teams included above Nebraska falls here lately.

Good coaching of average teams win about half their games on average and eventually their coaches are hired by another program as an 'upgrade'.

Average coaching of good teams finish in the upper half of their conferences and play in bowls typically played before New Year's day.

Average coaching of average teams play in the lesser bowls frequently and win more games than they lose about half the time.

Below average coaches of below average teams lose more than they win most of the time. Eventually these coaches are replaced by other similar coaches. These coaches end up on lower division programs or become TV sports commentators or change professions altogether.

 

[GBRHouston]

OSU was not just talent. If it was, they would have thwacked Northwestern and Indiana the same way they did to us. One of few things that bugs me about MR is absolutely no inspiration. He just walks around like a zombie when things aren't going correctly. He did for Purdue last year, and he did for both blowouts this year. No fire whatsoever. We don't want Pelini level of fire, but we don't want no fire either.

I don't recall TO having tons of fire

Because TO never got humiliated. If your team is down by a lot, you have to do something to motivate them. MR does nothing. Not trying to defend Pelini, but the 27-6 comeback in 2011 certainly wasn't 100% the players motivating themselves.

 

[NUance]

All this talk about talent—we have great talent at some positions but are not so great at other positions. We have great WRs right now, and a top notch stable of RBs. Tommy is great as a running quarterback, but not so great as a passing—making him somewhat one dimensional. Our CBs and safeties are very talented. But we are thin on the offensive line—thin and young. We are even more thin on the D-line, Both our interior D-line and our DEs. All in all, I think the thing that hurts us the most is our lack of lineman due to injury, attrition and recruiting misses over the past few years. I know our offensive line will be better next year. We'll be healed up, and have a couple guys coming off redshirt who may help out at well. Not sure what's in store for our D-line next season. The attrition of last spring really screwed the pooch for us at the D-line position.

 

[Enhance]

OSU was not just talent. If it was, they would have thwacked Northwestern and Indiana the same way they did to us. One of few things that bugs me about MR is absolutely no inspiration. He just walks around like a zombie when things aren't going correctly. He did for Purdue last year, and he did for both blowouts this year. No fire whatsoever. We don't want Pelini level of fire, but we don't want no fire either.

I don't recall TO having tons of fire

Because TO never got humiliated. If your team is down by a lot, you have to do something to motivate them. MR does nothing. Not trying to defend Pelini, but the 27-6 comeback in 2011 certainly wasn't 100% the players motivating themselves.

I'd say going on the road in '96 and getting shut out by Arizona St. was pretty humiliating no matter how you slice it, but I digress.

Honest question, though - are you criticizing MR for "doing nothing" to motivate his players when they're down by a lot while simultaneously praising Pelini for helping to motivate the team in the 2011 comeback? Seems pretty unfair given Pelini's affinity for humiliating losses later in his Nebraska tenure.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

OSU was not just talent. If it was, they would have thwacked Northwestern and Indiana the same way they did to us. One of few things that bugs me about MR is absolutely no inspiration. He just walks around like a zombie when things aren't going correctly. He did for Purdue last year, and he did for both blowouts this year. No fire whatsoever. We don't want Pelini level of fire, but we don't want no fire either.

I don't recall TO having tons of fire

Because TO never got humiliated. If your team is down by a lot, you have to do something to motivate them. MR does nothing. Not trying to defend Pelini, but the 27-6 comeback in 2011 certainly wasn't 100% the players motivating themselves.

Not sure how old you are, but Tom Osborne teams were humiliated several times, and people were having conversations like this around the watercooler instead of the internet.

 

[GBRHouston]

OSU was not just talent. If it was, they would have thwacked Northwestern and Indiana the same way they did to us. One of few things that bugs me about MR is absolutely no inspiration. He just walks around like a zombie when things aren't going correctly. He did for Purdue last year, and he did for both blowouts this year. No fire whatsoever. We don't want Pelini level of fire, but we don't want no fire either.

I don't recall TO having tons of fire

Because TO never got humiliated. If your team is down by a lot, you have to do something to motivate them. MR does nothing. Not trying to defend Pelini, but the 27-6 comeback in 2011 certainly wasn't 100% the players motivating themselves.

Not sure how old you are, but Tom Osborne teams were humiliated several times, and people were having conversations like this around the watercooler instead of the internet.

Fair enough, I was making an assumption. Not old enough to even be alive for the TO years.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

OSU was not just talent. If it was, they would have thwacked Northwestern and Indiana the same way they did to us. One of few things that bugs me about MR is absolutely no inspiration. He just walks around like a zombie when things aren't going correctly. He did for Purdue last year, and he did for both blowouts this year. No fire whatsoever. We don't want Pelini level of fire, but we don't want no fire either.

I don't recall TO having tons of fire

Because TO never got humiliated. If your team is down by a lot, you have to do something to motivate them. MR does nothing. Not trying to defend Pelini, but the 27-6 comeback in 2011 certainly wasn't 100% the players motivating themselves.

Not sure how old you are, but Tom Osborne teams were humiliated several times, and people were having conversations like this around the watercooler instead of the internet.

I don't know what your definition of humiliation is. I don't remember a lot of truly embarrassing losses in the Osborne years. Yes, there were plenty of disappointing losses, but not "several humiliations".

I went through Osborne's records and here are what I would consider "bad" losses (losses by 20+ or losses to unranked teams)

1973 - #3 Oklahoma 27-0

1974 - unranked Missouri 21-10

1975 - #7 Oklahoma 35-10

1976 - unranked Iowa St 37-28

1977 - unranked Iowa St 24-21; #3 Oklahoma 38-7

1978 - unranked Missouri 35-31

1979 - none

1980 - none

1981 - unranked Iowa

1982 - none

1983 - none

1984 - unranked Syracue

1985 - #5 Oklahoma 27-7

1986 - unranked Colorado

1987 - none

1988 - #2 Miami 23-3

1989 - #5 Florida State 41-17

1990 - Unranked Oklahoma 45-10; #2 Georgia Tech 45-21

1991 - #1 Miami 22-0

1992 - Unranked Iowa State 19-10

1993 - none

1994 - none

1995 - none

1996 - unranked Texas 37-27

1997 - none

Basically most of these "bad" losses were in two different eras for Osborne: 1) Early in his career where OU was dominating him under Switzer & where Osborne would suffer 1 upset loss each year and 2) Late 1980's when teams were going to more speed (especially on defense) and Osborne was behind the curve on that trend.

So, yes, there were "bad" losses, but I don't know about "several humiliating losses" come to my mind under Osborne.