Bo Pelini Negative Achievements

[NUpolo8]

Do you not see how youre toeing the line between concerned fan and troll? Your a solid poster. But damn, not everything needs your dose of "But Bo...."

You don't think the wrestling thread needs a dose of Bo discussion?

 

[The Dude]

Do you not see how youre toeing the line between concerned fan and troll? Your a solid poster. But damn, not everything needs your dose of "But Bo...."

If he makes you that sad, you could block him. I'm just saying.

 

[NUpolo8]

Do you not see how youre toeing the line between concerned fan and troll? Your a solid poster. But damn, not everything needs your dose of "But Bo...."

If he makes you that sad, you could block him. I'm just saying.

Then he'd miss all my ghoulies posts. Gotta take the good with the bad.

 

[Elbow Bursitis]

I despise the "yes-men" hire talk. To me, it's something that is just thrown in there to make it look worse than it really is. Have we hired inexperienced coaches? Yes. But there is simply just no way to confidently say that they are "yes-men" without being some deep level insider who is able to be a part of coaching staff meetings.

Sure there is. Is there a single person on staff that can challenge Bo's expertise? Maybe Brown, but he was a holdover. Our two coordinators are still "swimming in it," and got a huge pay raise thanks to Bo. They can't tell him nothin.
We got rid of Watson because Bo didn't like his offense. The only other person that has challenged Bo was his big brother, and we all know the story there. Marrow demanded a full-time job. Bo said no. Marrow leaves and takes recruits. He thought Ekeler was a distraction so he's not here anymore. Marvin Sanders was another experienced guy, but he's gone.

Bo has dictator-level control of the program.

I'm sorry, how does any of that second paragraph equate to Bo hiring "yes-men"? Is Bo not supposed to have a vision for the team? An offensive philosophy? A defensive philosophy?

Again, how do you know that the current coaching staff doesn't challenge Bo's expertise?

Well Bo isn't an offensive guy so I think hamstringing Watson was counterproductive and a waste of three years. If they challenge Bo often, and provide valuable counsel, that is great. If that were the case you would think we would have seen some sort of measurable improvement by now. I call guys like papuchis and els yes men because there is not a single good argument you can make that says they are deserving of their positions. We have the "tightest staff in the country." These guys aren't here because they are experienced, qualified coaches. They can't teach Bo anything about football that he does not already know. Look at each of their resumes. Not overly impressive.

As far as his "vision" goes, after 6 years I don't think he even has a clue what that is. We have horrendous special teams, commit penalties, turn the ball over, BUT were really good at....? What exactly?

We may not have solid quarterback play but you can count on Nebraska have 2 mid to late round NFL draft picks per year.

 

[NUpolo8]

I despise the "yes-men" hire talk. To me, it's something that is just thrown in there to make it look worse than it really is. Have we hired inexperienced coaches? Yes. But there is simply just no way to confidently say that they are "yes-men" without being some deep level insider who is able to be a part of coaching staff meetings.

Sure there is. Is there a single person on staff that can challenge Bo's expertise? Maybe Brown, but he was a holdover. Our two coordinators are still "swimming in it," and got a huge pay raise thanks to Bo. They can't tell him nothin.
We got rid of Watson because Bo didn't like his offense. The only other person that has challenged Bo was his big brother, and we all know the story there. Marrow demanded a full-time job. Bo said no. Marrow leaves and takes recruits. He thought Ekeler was a distraction so he's not here anymore. Marvin Sanders was another experienced guy, but he's gone.

Bo has dictator-level control of the program.

I'm sorry, how does any of that second paragraph equate to Bo hiring "yes-men"? Is Bo not supposed to have a vision for the team? An offensive philosophy? A defensive philosophy?

Again, how do you know that the current coaching staff doesn't challenge Bo's expertise?

Well Bo isn't an offensive guy so I think hamstringing Watson was counterproductive and a waste of three years. If they challenge Bo often, and provide valuable counsel, that is great. If that were the case you would think we would have seen some sort of measurable improvement by now. I call guys like papuchis and els yes men because there is not a single good argument you can make that says they are deserving of their positions. We have the "tightest staff in the country." These guys aren't here because they are experienced, qualified coaches. They can't teach Bo anything about football that he does not already know. Look at each of their resumes. Not overly impressive.

As far as his "vision" goes, after 6 years I don't think he even has a clue what that is. We have horrendous special teams, commit penalties, turn the ball over, BUT were really good at....? What exactly?

We may not have solid quarterback play but you can count on Nebraska have 2 mid to late round NFL draft picks per year.

I wholeheartedly agree with the "vision" comment.

 

[Saunders]

As far as his "vision" goes, after 6 years I don't think he even has a clue what that is. We have horrendous special teams, commit penalties, turn the ball over, BUT were really good at....? What exactly?

We may not have solid quarterback play but you can count on Nebraska have 2 mid to late round NFL draft picks per year.

Let's address this.

Horrendous special teams: Over Bo's tenure, we're actually one of the better special teams units overall (see phil steele's data). We've just struggled in the punt game the last 2 years. The other areas were at least above average in 2012-2013).

Penalties: Last year was our least amount of penalties since 2007. We finished 82nd in penalty yardage, 5 spots behind MSU.

Turnovers: I'll give you that. It's the defining stat of Bo's tenure.

What are we good at? We'll stick with on the field stuff. The pass defense his entire tenure has been good to excellent. Defense was trending up last year (bad start). They played well against in the last 1/3 of the season. On offense, we can actually run the ball on good teams, something we hadn't done since like 2001. We've played well in close games too.

His "vision" is simple. Run the ball, play good defense. Fix the turnovers (which is causing the blowouts) and I think we'll make a jump. That's the kicker.

 

[Saunders]

I despise the "yes-men" hire talk. To me, it's something that is just thrown in there to make it look worse than it really is. Have we hired inexperienced coaches? Yes. But there is simply just no way to confidently say that they are "yes-men" without being some deep level insider who is able to be a part of coaching staff meetings.

Sure there is. Is there a single person on staff that can challenge Bo's expertise? Maybe Brown, but he was a holdover. Our two coordinators are still "swimming in it," and got a huge pay raise thanks to Bo. They can't tell him nothin.
We got rid of Watson because Bo didn't like his offense. The only other person that has challenged Bo was his big brother, and we all know the story there. Marrow demanded a full-time job. Bo said no. Marrow leaves and takes recruits. He thought Ekeler was a distraction so he's not here anymore. Marvin Sanders was another experienced guy, but he's gone.

Bo has dictator-level control of the program.

I'm sorry, how does any of that second paragraph equate to Bo hiring "yes-men"? Is Bo not supposed to have a vision for the team? An offensive philosophy? A defensive philosophy?

Again, how do you know that the current coaching staff doesn't challenge Bo's expertise?

Well Bo isn't an offensive guy so I think hamstringing Watson was counterproductive and a waste of three years. If they challenge Bo often, and provide valuable counsel, that is great. If that were the case you would think we would have seen some sort of measurable improvement by now. I call guys like papuchis and els yes men because there is not a single good argument you can make that says they are deserving of their positions. We have the "tightest staff in the country." These guys aren't here because they are experienced, qualified coaches. They can't teach Bo anything about football that he does not already know. Look at each of their resumes. Not overly impressive.

As far as his "vision" goes, after 6 years I don't think he even has a clue what that is. We have horrendous special teams, commit penalties, turn the ball over, BUT were really good at....? What exactly?

We may not have solid quarterback play but you can count on Nebraska have 2 mid to late round NFL draft picks per year.

I wholeheartedly agree with the "vision" comment.

You would wholeheartedly agree with a verifiably false statement just because it's negative?

No wai...

 

[NUpolo8]

What's false about it? The coaches at Nebraska will tell you that they aren't a running team, common sense tells you that they aren't a defensive squad when you give 40+ at least once a year.

What's Bo's vision for NU? If he had a concrete one and had it from day one, he'd be a lot more successful.

 

[True2tRA]

As far as his "vision" goes, after 6 years I don't think he even has a clue what that is. We have horrendous special teams, commit penalties, turn the ball over, BUT were really good at....? What exactly?

We may not have solid quarterback play but you can count on Nebraska have 2 mid to late round NFL draft picks per year.

Let's address this.
Horrendous special teams: Over Bo's tenure, we're actually one of the better special teams units overall (see phil steele's data). We've just struggled in the punt game the last 2 years. The other areas were at least above average in 2012-2013).

Penalties: Last year was our least amount of penalties since 2007. We finished 82nd in penalty yardage, 5 spots behind MSU.

Turnovers: I'll give you that. It's the defining stat of Bo's tenure.

What are we good at? We'll stick with on the field stuff. The pass defense his entire tenure has been good to excellent. Defense was trending up last year (bad start). They played well against in the last 1/3 of the season. On offense, we can actually run the ball on good teams, something we hadn't done since like 2001. We've played well in close games too.

His "vision" is simple. Run the ball, play good defense. Fix the turnovers (which is causing the blowouts) and I think we'll make a jump. That's the kicker.

Yes. +1 good post.

This season can be special. I just feel like we have the talent finally. I really like the potential of this defense. Everyone knows how I feel about TA running this offense. He's gonna be excellent to watch. We fix the turnovers, we maybe lose two this year. That's my thoughts anyway. So I'm with ya.

I acknowledge Bos faults, but I'm a sucker every time for the off season optimism also. I just look forward to watching Husker football.

 

[sd'sker]

Do you not see how youre toeing the line between concerned fan and troll? Your a solid poster. But damn, not everything needs your dose of "But Bo...."

If he makes you that sad, you could block him. I'm just saying.

it is hilarious that challenging the pro-bo echo chamber is considered "trolling". is this a message board for discussion or a symposium for bo apologists.

the only threads that get any action are the ones where people are debating, yet they are the ones that are apparently ruining this board. pretty sure there are tons of threads about how good spring practice went and things like that, but they fall to the wayside because no one is discussing in them. then a thread comes up where an argument arises, gets a lot of play, and everyone begrudges it. good lord, get over it.

 

[True2tRA]

Do you not see how youre toeing the line between concerned fan and troll? Your a solid poster. But damn, not everything needs your dose of "But Bo...."

If he makes you that sad, you could block him. I'm just saying.

it is hilarious that challenging the pro-bo echo chamber is considered "trolling". is this a message board for discussion or a symposium for bo apologists.
the only threads that get any action are the ones where people are debating, yet they are the ones that are apparently ruining this board. pretty sure there are tons of threads about how good spring practice went and things like that, but they fall to the wayside because no one is discussing in them. then a thread comes up where an argument arises, gets a lot of play, and everyone begrudges it. good lord, get over it.

Hey bud, I've had plenty of discussions that included Nupolo. I am far from Bo Jock rider like some of these guys here. Trust me. A lot of these Bo supporters refuse to even acknowledge some of the absolute atrocities we've witnessed since Bo has been coach. I tend to point out more bad than good probably, but I do had a few good things to point out. There are good things going in. I won't add NUPolo to my ignore list because I see a lot of his points. I am Nebraska fan, not Bo fan. If Bo doesn't get sh#t fixed, his a$$ can go and it bothers me none. I get the impression some of these guys here put Bo above the program. I hope they follow Bo when he goes, he will go eventually. It is not a requirement to support the coach. You can love Nebraska without being a Boliever. Still, I see where NUPolo comes off as a troll since he rarely has suggestions of how to fix any issues. He rarely suggests anyone does anything well. He rarely discusses any wins by Nebraska. He hardly acknowledges that there are players out there who have to do their part. He mainly just blames Bo. Sometimes he's right, sometimes he's wrong. Would be interesting to hear his take on something else maybe for a bit.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Apologists? My, my, what language. I don't apologize for anything Bo Pelini has done.

 

[The Dude]

Do you not see how youre toeing the line between concerned fan and troll? Your a solid poster. But damn, not everything needs your dose of "But Bo...."

If he makes you that sad, you could block him. I'm just saying.

it is hilarious that challenging the pro-bo echo chamber is considered "trolling". is this a message board for discussion or a symposium for bo apologists.

the only threads that get any action are the ones where people are debating, yet they are the ones that are apparently ruining this board. pretty sure there are tons of threads about how good spring practice went and things like that, but they fall to the wayside because no one is discussing in them. then a thread comes up where an argument arises, gets a lot of play, and everyone begrudges it. good lord, get over it.

I disagree for the sake of debate.

 

[sd'sker]

I disagree for the sake of debate.

the funny thing is that a lot of probably agree a lot more than we care to admit. we all probably agree more than we disagree.

 

[The Dude]

I disagree for the sake of debate.

the funny thing is that a lot of probably agree a lot more than we care to admit. we all probably agree more than we disagree.

Agreed.

But no I agree with what you're saying up there. The forum would be excruciatingly boring if everyone agreed on everything. Not sure why so many people wish for that.