Complaining, Longing or Just Observing

[Mavric]

I thought this was an interesting conversation considering some of the "discussions" that have gone on around here in the last two years.


Mike'l Severe‏ @MikelSevere 2h2 hours ago
Just because someone thinks something won't work, doesn't mean they wish for previous thing to come back. What do u want (Blank) coach back?

Mike'l Severe‏ @MikelSevere 2h2 hours agoMore
It's always the same thing. The success of this #Huskers coaching staff will be defined by them, not the previous guys. #FreshStart time.

Mike'l Severe‏ @MikelSevere 2h2 hours agoMore
I heard it with Solich, Callahan and Bo. Criticism is not a reflection of yearning for the past.

Samuel McKewon‏ @swmckewonOWH 42m42 minutes agoMore
Replying to @MikelSevere
And sometimes it's not even criticism. It's merely pointing out the other side. Objectivity is dangerous for the PR patrol.

 

[NUance]

I agree. Sort of. With two possible exceptions. First, I think the manner in which the previous staff left can have an effect on the team buying into the new staff. For example, it probably doesn't help team chemistry if the previous staff rents an off-campus gymnasium and spends an hour bad mouthing the program. And I also think the lack of recruiting success of one staff can and does affect the next staff for a couple or three years. It might even have a large effect for a year or two. But by the fourth year the previous staff's recruiting shortcoming should no longer be an issue. GBR!

 

[SuperBigFan69]

It is interesting because we seem to get stuck with the idea that it is either Coach X or Coach Y...

So then you have people that hate Coach X and still want Y around...Then you have people that force themselves to love Coach X no matter what and they pretend like if Coach X were to get fired that Coach Y would magically come back.

I wanted Bo gone...I sure as heck didn't want Riley hired. With that said I really hope NU goes undefeated every season. I would rather have Riley here for the next 10 years and see major success.

 

[SuperBigFan69]

I agree. Sort of. With two possible exceptions. First, I think the manner in which the previous staff left can have an effect on the team buying into the new staff. For example, it probably doesn't help team chemistry if the previous staff rents an off-campus gymnasium and spends an hour bad mouthing the program. And I also think the lack of recruiting success of one staff can and does affect the next staff for a couple or three years. It might even have a large effect for a year or two. But by the fourth year the previous staff's recruiting shortcoming should no longer be an issue. GBR!

I get what you are saying but I think people need to stop with this idea that the players so mentally fragile. Like, Lightbourne had a hard time punting because SF died...No, that is probably not the case.

 

[NUinID]

Well when it comes to Severe and McKewon, for my taste I think they are kinda negative. They like to point out what the percieve as problems and call it being objective. It is just that I feel it is mostly negative with very little positive. I used to really like to read Sam's stuff a lot. When he used to not work for OWH and did his on line stuff. I really liked reading his weekly stuff about what they needed to do to win the game. It was indepth and told us his keys without really giving any odds no matter how long they were. I guess I like a little hope mixed in with my doom and gloom.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I agree. Sort of. With two possible exceptions. First, I think the manner in which the previous staff left can have an effect on the team buying into the new staff. For example, it probably doesn't help team chemistry if the previous staff rents an off-campus gymnasium and spends an hour bad mouthing the program. And I also think the lack of recruiting success of one staff can and does affect the next staff for a couple or three years. It might even have a large effect for a year or two. But by the fourth year the previous staff's recruiting shortcoming should no longer be an issue. GBR!

I get what you are saying but I think people need to stop with this idea that the players so mentally fragile. Like, Lightbourne had a hard time punting because SF died...No, that is probably not the case.

So.....when players come out and admit there was a "buy in" problem.....we are supposed to assume what exactly?

 

[SuperBigFan69]

I agree. Sort of. With two possible exceptions. First, I think the manner in which the previous staff left can have an effect on the team buying into the new staff. For example, it probably doesn't help team chemistry if the previous staff rents an off-campus gymnasium and spends an hour bad mouthing the program. And I also think the lack of recruiting success of one staff can and does affect the next staff for a couple or three years. It might even have a large effect for a year or two. But by the fourth year the previous staff's recruiting shortcoming should no longer be an issue. GBR!

I get what you are saying but I think people need to stop with this idea that the players so mentally fragile. Like, Lightbourne had a hard time punting because SF died...No, that is probably not the case.

So.....when players come out and admit there was a "buy in" problem.....we are supposed to assume what exactly?

Nothing...because they have to use that as an excuse. They can't say "Well...if our coaches would put us in a good spot to win..." or "Well, they call horrible plays"...or "I have no idea why we passed the ball 55 times vs Purdue when they have the worst run D in the nation"

They also can't say "Well, yeah, we lost because we are not that talented...those other guys are just better than us, faster and stronger..."

So they fall on the sword. Just like coaches do when they say "It is up to the us to make sure we put them in position to win" when they really mean "We need better players."

It is just coach/player speak. Just like in about 3 months we are going to hear/read how this years team is closer than ever, tougher than ever, lifting harder than ever, in the best shape ever and are all basically brothers that would do anything for each other. You (us) won't assume that is true.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

The new coaches have made veiled comments about the lack of overall talent, but they can't make vast comments about crappy talent, because that would totally lose the team. Riley can't come out and say "You guys just aren't good enough to compete with Ohio State, so it would take a miracle to beat them", but he and Langsdorf can have a game plan that includes throwing it deep nearly every play because getting a big play or two is the only way NU was going to score.

The players can't call themselves untalented, so the easy thing for them to blame is the previous coaching staff.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I think Mike and Sam are talking shop as sports reporters, based on the feedback they get from fans.

The people who write directly to their sports reporters are going to be combative by nature, and if they're anything like the folks who fill up the Comments section on the internet, slightly batshyt.

The Huskerboard crew seems pretty clear-eyed to me, whether optimists, skeptics or a little of both.

 

[SuperBigFan69]

Well when it comes to Severe and McKewon, for my taste I think they are kinda negative. They like to point out what the percieve as problems and call it being objective. It is just that I feel it is mostly negative with very little positive. I used to really like to read Sam's stuff a lot. When he used to not work for OWH and did his on line stuff. I really liked reading his weekly stuff about what they needed to do to win the game. It was indepth and told us his keys without really giving any odds no matter how long they were. I guess I like a little hope mixed in with my doom and gloom.

I wonder sometimes if they feel like they have to either be negative or positive. Like, they have to take one of those stances and sort of stick with it so that they can do their job.

On the radio, Matt Perrualt was the first one I remember that tried to antagonize the Husker fan base and I think he thought it would work out well for him but it didn't. Nick Bahe tries it to a lesser extent and it seems to work for him a little bit. I also think that Husker fans are hyper sensitive to anything they read/hear and feel is negative. Most Husker shows seemed like they were hosted by "good old boys" and it was all positive.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

It's funny, because a lot of people who go negative on Nebraska football really hate it when sports reporters agree with them.

There's a corollary to how we consume politics in this country, but let's save that for another folder.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I have no problem with a reporter or a fan pointing out negative issues within the program. However, it becomes annoying and I stop reading what a reporter (or fan) writes when that's all they do. There are good things happening in the program. There were good things happening in the program when Bo, Callahan, Solich..etc were here. Sports are supposed to be fun and constantly pointing out negatives without acknowledging and discussing the positives.....well.....makes it not fun.

 

[NUinID]

I have no problem with a reporter or a fan pointing out negative issues within the program. However, it becomes annoying and I stop reading what a reporter (or fan) writes when that's all they do. There are good things happening in the program. There were good things happening in the program when Bo, Callahan, Solich..etc were here. Sports are supposed to be fun and constantly pointing out negatives without acknowledging and discussing the positives.....well.....makes it not fun.

I agree completely.

 

[SuperBigFan69]

I have no problem with a reporter or a fan pointing out negative issues within the program. However, it becomes annoying and I stop reading what a reporter (or fan) writes when that's all they do. There are good things happening in the program. There were good things happening in the program when Bo, Callahan, Solich..etc were here. Sports are supposed to be fun and constantly pointing out negatives without acknowledging and discussing the positives.....well.....makes it not fun.

I agree...I really think some of them really do feel like they have to act one way or the other.

 

[NUinID]

Well when it comes to Severe and McKewon, for my taste I think they are kinda negative. They like to point out what the percieve as problems and call it being objective. It is just that I feel it is mostly negative with very little positive. I used to really like to read Sam's stuff a lot. When he used to not work for OWH and did his on line stuff. I really liked reading his weekly stuff about what they needed to do to win the game. It was indepth and told us his keys without really giving any odds no matter how long they were. I guess I like a little hope mixed in with my doom and gloom.

I wonder sometimes if they feel like they have to either be negative or positive. Like, they have to take one of those stances and sort of stick with it so that they can do their job.

On the radio, Matt Perrualt was the first one I remember that tried to antagonize the Husker fan base and I think he thought it would work out well for him but it didn't. Nick Bahe tries it to a lesser extent and it seems to work for him a little bit. I also think that Husker fans are hyper sensitive to anything they read/hear and feel is negative. Most Husker shows seemed like they were hosted by "good old boys" and it was all positive.

Matt Perrualt was a sports shock jock Jim Rome wannabe. People don't want to here about how crappy you think things are all the time. Which is sad because he could do some very good interviews. Nick Bahe is a Bluejay that is all you have to say about him.

I don't mind hearing negative, when it is warranted. Its the off season and Sam and Severe really push the negative angle right now. They both are really pushing the O-line sucks which I think is overly pessimistic. The O-line needs work and growth. But I think the big problem is they have a certain vision of what the offensive line should look like and it doesn't exactly fit what MR, DL, and Cav invision for the line.

The off season is the time to be optomistic or at least have a wait and see look at things. I am excited about what may play out this fall, but I am also waiting to see what it will look like.