Buffalo News Article - ANOTHER head coaching thread

G

gratefulhusker

Banned
I want to preface this by saying that I still really want Bo Pelini back at Nebraska. It's just a dirty shame he wouldn't come back as a DC. Thus, I want him back as Head Coach, running the defense, and utilizing an offensive coach/coordinator.

I simply like Pelini's fire and proven history of his defenses' performances.

I believe that Pelini deserves a head coaching position at a good football school. And, I think it will happen after this season. I know it would never happen, but could you imagine Turner Gill as HC and Pelini as DC...or Bo Pelini as HC and Turner Gill as offensive coordinator? It'd be sweet.

Nevertheless, here's an article about TG's role in the turnaround at Buffalo. This is just more ammo for you Turner Gill-ians.

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/college/...ory/194016.html

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Thanks..

For Coach Turner Gill, Winning is More Than Gridiron Glory

coach.jpg


Even made the papers out here in AZ. Gill focused on Buffalo's big game, not Nebraska coach speculation

 
Pellini has ALWAYS coached at a place with great defensive talent! Nebraska, OU, LSU! The old guys at Kansas is a great DC. what about Jimm Leavitt? Brent Venables? You need a guy that can recruit and for some reason I think he's going to COLLEGE STATION!

 
rkhufu7 said:
Pellini has ALWAYS coached at a place with great defensive talent! Nebraska, OU, LSU! The old guys at Kansas is a great DC. what about Jimm Leavitt? Brent Venables? You need a guy that can recruit and for some reason I think he's going to COLLEGE STATION!
Click to expand...

I dont have turner at the top of my list either(though he is on my list)....but I am thrilled with his success so far. he is a tremendous person, so this is not a surprise to me to see him doing well. I wouldnt mind seeing him do well and take a bigger job and then down the road come home, much like roy williams with UNC(its KU week I thought I would throw that in)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I would actually take either Pelini or Gill. both have strengths. Too bad we can't get both.

They are my top 2, but there are others out there I'd like to get as well...Grobe comes to mind first...I still can't figure out beyond a backup QB how NU beat them this year.

If they played again, Wake by 14.

 
I just don't see him staying there, unless booster members are able to significantly up his salary. I know he indicated that money is not a big issue for him, but he makes far less than what he could be making. He would even make more as a OC at a major school.

 
rkhufu7 said:
Pellini has ALWAYS coached at a place with great defensive talent! Nebraska, OU, LSU! The old guys at Kansas is a great DC. what about Jimm Leavitt? Brent Venables? You need a guy that can recruit and for some reason I think he's going to COLLEGE STATION!
Click to expand...
I know that there is such a thing as a stand-out player-- someone who can run a 4.2 and hit like a truck, for example. But when you talk about taking over a team that has "talent," what does that mean, exactly? Would you have said that 7-7 huskers had a lot of talent at the time? I think we might be reasoning through a lot of things backwards regarding talent and coaching in these conversations about those topics. People who are for a coach who has good results say that he can develop players, people who are against that coach say that there was a lot of talent, but what is undeveloped talent that is never displayed? Is it potential? Is there such a thing as potential if it can never be tapped or demonstrated? We only really know that a player has/had potential once it is seen on the field on game day, a player who is only said to have potential or talent that is never actually realized may have never had potential or talent. That's the paradox regarding potential-- it's never observable except by observing past trends and improvement after the potential has been converted to performance. Talent isn't talent unless it's likewise demonstrated and utilized appropriately, so in a way, both potential and talent exist somewhere in the middle of triangle described by the anchor points of player, coach, and team.

There has been a lot of noise made about the recruits that can be seen specifically in the thread that raises the question: "Were our recruits over-rated?" (paraphrasing). I just think it's strange (and improbable) that we could have landed *all* of the over-rated recruits, I think it's more likely that two of the points that create the talent-/potential-realizing triangle are lacking: coaching and team (by this I mean team cohesion, purpose, etc.). The argument about whether the talent lies in the player (which in terms of raw athletic ability it does) or in the coach (which in terms of coherently fitting that talent into a system and teaching that player to mold his athletic ability into a specific position and utility, like chipping away flakes of flint to make an arrowhead, hatchet, or striking flint, it does) or team (and, again, it does in terms of different units under different assistants coordinating their movements and mental states) is moot. There isn't a place that it lies solely, it's an emergent quality from strong qualities in all three points. An outstanding, crazy fast, strong player can make up for a lack in the other two areas, but strength in other points can do likewise.

That's all.

 
Glendower said:
rkhufu7 said:
Pellini has ALWAYS coached at a place with great defensive talent! Nebraska, OU, LSU! The old guys at Kansas is a great DC. what about Jimm Leavitt? Brent Venables? You need a guy that can recruit and for some reason I think he's going to COLLEGE STATION!
Click to expand...
I know that there is such a thing as a stand-out player-- someone who can run a 4.2 and hit like a truck, for example. But when you talk about taking over a team that has "talent," what does that mean, exactly? Would you have said that 7-7 huskers had a lot of talent at the time? I think we might be reasoning through a lot of things backwards regarding talent and coaching in these conversations about those topics. People who are for a coach who has good results say that he can develop players, people who are against that coach say that there was a lot of talent, but what is undeveloped talent that is never displayed? Is it potential? Is there such a thing as potential if it can never be tapped or demonstrated? We only really know that a player has/had potential once it is seen on the field on game day, a player who is only said to have potential or talent that is never actually realized may have never had potential or talent. That's the paradox regarding potential-- it's never observable except by observing past trends and improvement after the potential has been converted to performance. Talent isn't talent unless it's likewise demonstrated and utilized appropriately, so in a way, both potential and talent exist somewhere in the middle of triangle described by the anchor points of player, coach, and team.

There has been a lot of noise made about the recruits that can be seen specifically in the thread that raises the question: "Were our recruits over-rated?" (paraphrasing). I just think it's strange (and improbable) that we could have landed *all* of the over-rated recruits, I think it's more likely that two of the points that create the talent-/potential-realizing triangle are lacking: coaching and team (by this I mean team cohesion, purpose, etc.). The argument about whether the talent lies in the player (which in terms of raw athletic ability it does) or in the coach (which in terms of coherently fitting that talent into a system and teaching that player to mold his athletic ability into a specific position and utility, like chipping away flakes of flint to make an arrowhead, hatchet, or striking flint, it does) or team (and, again, it does in terms of different units under different assistants coordinating their movements and mental states) is moot. There isn't a place that it lies solely, it's an emergent quality from strong qualities in all three points. An outstanding, crazy fast, strong player can make up for a lack in the other two areas, but strength in other points can do likewise.

That's all.
Click to expand...
:yeah

Great coaching and motivation makes up for a lot. John Cooper at Ohio State year in and year out had the best talent, but he never won a NC with it. I've said forever that I'll take a great coach with average talent any day over an average coach with great talent because the great coach will win most of the time. This is how a Bob Stoops or an Urban Meyer step into a program that has been losing and turns them around so fast. They had the same talent as the previous staff, but they knew how to utilize it. Great coaching and some luck is what separates most NFL teams because of the parity of all the teams.

 
Glendower said:
rkhufu7 said:
I know that there is such a thing as a stand-out player-- someone who can run a 4.2 and hit like a truck, for example. But when you talk about taking over a team that has "talent," what does that mean, exactly? Would you have said that 7-7 huskers had a lot of talent at the time? I think we might be reasoning through a lot of things backwards regarding talent and coaching in these conversations about those topics. People who are for a coach who has good results say that he can develop players, people who are against that coach say that there was a lot of talent, but what is undeveloped talent that is never displayed? Is it potential? Is there such a thing as potential if it can never be tapped or demonstrated? We only really know that a player has/had potential once it is seen on the field on game day, a player who is only said to have potential or talent that is never actually realized may have never had potential or talent. That's the paradox regarding potential-- it's never observable except by observing past trends and improvement after the potential has been converted to performance. Talent isn't talent unless it's likewise demonstrated and utilized appropriately, so in a way, both potential and talent exist somewhere in the middle of triangle described by the anchor points of player, coach, and team.

There has been a lot of noise made about the recruits that can be seen specifically in the thread that raises the question: "Were our recruits over-rated?" (paraphrasing). I just think it's strange (and improbable) that we could have landed *all* of the over-rated recruits, I think it's more likely that two of the points that create the talent-/potential-realizing triangle are lacking: coaching and team (by this I mean team cohesion, purpose, etc.). The argument about whether the talent lies in the player (which in terms of raw athletic ability it does) or in the coach (which in terms of coherently fitting that talent into a system and teaching that player to mold his athletic ability into a specific position and utility, like chipping away flakes of flint to make an arrowhead, hatchet, or striking flint, it does) or team (and, again, it does in terms of different units under different assistants coordinating their movements and mental states) is moot. There isn't a place that it lies solely, it's an emergent quality from strong qualities in all three points. An outstanding, crazy fast, strong player can make up for a lack in the other two areas, but strength in other points can do likewise.

That's all.
Click to expand...
FOOTBALL, You bet! :bonez
Click to expand...
 
rkhufu7 said:
Pellini has ALWAYS coached at a place with great defensive talent! Nebraska, OU, LSU! The old guys at Kansas is a great DC. what about Jimm Leavitt? Brent Venables? You need a guy that can recruit and for some reason I think he's going to COLLEGE STATION!
Click to expand...
You got that backwards, pelini has MADE teams with great defense. He has never coached at a school that hasn't been #1 in defense for at least 1 year of his time on staff.

TURNER GILL IS NOT THE RIGHT GUY. He's not having a good season, and even if he does, at the level he is playing it doesn't mean alot. Nebraska is a different level. We need to play and beat teams like Oklahoma, USC, LSU etc... Maybe in a few years, but right now is not a good time to use nebraska as a guinea pig. BO PELINI.

 
We might as well put all these "rumor" threads in the soccer forum...very few will read any of these anymore. Not that I believe my thread is good, great, etc., but seriously...though, I have respect for the moderators and admins.

 
are_you_serious? said:
TURNER GILL IS NOT THE RIGHT GUY. He's not having a good season...
Click to expand...
actually, by buffalo standards they're having a GREAT season. yes, 4 and 5 but they've been b*tched-up by team outside the MAC. right now, the bulls have a very good chance of winning their division.

sad but true.

are_you_serious? said:
... and even if he does, at the level he is playing it doesn't mean alot. Nebraska is a different level. We need to play and beat teams like Oklahoma, USC, LSU etc... Maybe in a few years, but right now is not a good time to use nebraska as a guinea pig.
Click to expand...
okay, i agree with that. we shouldn't just hand the keys over to someone with no head coaching experience.

are_you_serious? said:
BO PELINI.
Click to expand...
stop! just freakin' stop right there before you hurt yourself.

you first rail-on about how we need someone to take over the program who has experience 'at the highest level' you're then gonna toss the whole kit 'n caboodle to a guy that has coached O N E game as D1 head coach?

by using your criteria above, you just made a better case for turner gill than you could have *EVER* done for pelini.

gill has two years has a HC under his belt and he's got the people up there believing that the don't suck as bad as they used to from previous season. i know, but you take your victories where you find them. pelini has been an assistant. a *good* assistant, but still an assistant.

how does being a good assistant from a hot program qualify him as sh*t hot, surefire replacement for callahan?

and before you answer that, let's look at ole miss and ed orgeron.

here's a guy who's been all over the board, and he's seen more than his share of success. under his leadershipt to date he's only got a 9-23 record and he's won only THREE games in the SEC.

"but.. but... but... he's not BO!!!1!" screams the bogastic crowd. "and it's not fair to compare nebraska to mississippi! the SEC is like, rily RILY tuff! AS RAIN!!!1!"

and the big xii ain't? and i'm not even talking about oklahoma and texas. we got a resurgent north now and all bets are off.

you say you don't use nebraska as a guinea pig and then you advocate handing our beloved program over to a guy who may or may not be ready for the big seat: gotta tell you, i'm not diggin' the vibe.

but whatever. i'm just a fan.

on the internet.

what do i know?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
gratefulhusker said:
I want to preface this by saying that I still really want Bo Pelini back at Nebraska. It's just a dirty shame he wouldn't come back as a DC. Thus, I want him back as Head Coach, running the defense, and utilizing an offensive coach/coordinator.

I simply like Pelini's fire and proven history of his defenses' performances.

I believe that Pelini deserves a head coaching position at a good football school. And, I think it will happen after this season. I know it would never happen, but could you imagine Turner Gill as HC and Pelini as DC...or Bo Pelini as HC and Turner Gill as offensive coordinator? It'd be sweet.

Nevertheless, here's an article about TG's role in the turnaround at Buffalo. This is just more ammo for you Turner Gill-ians.

http://www.buffalonews.com/sports/college/...ory/194016.html
Click to expand...
Wow, how's that for a disclaimer??? Don't get me wrong, I love Gill. But I don't want him as the next NU coach for two reasons. First, I think Pelini or Paul Johnson would be better. Second, I don't want to hear him talking about God after every win. I'm a Christian who got a master's degree in theology, but I hate it when people try to pull God into sports. Gill's an amazing and humble person, but I don't want to hear him talking about how God helped him call that play-action pass to win the game.

 
Back
Top