Now is the time for Pelini to finally do this . . .

[Hingle McCringleberry]

Dude, TCU gave up 61 points and you'd advocate keeping their starters on defense in? I don't think even Kevin Cosgrove would advocate that.

This is the Big12 you're talking about here. And our defenses have given up 60+ more than once and people still advocate for JP to keep his job.

61 points is 61 points. At what point do you advocate a change, 100 points? Come on.

You dont sit your #1's when your are losing control of a game. Those are your best players out there, and frankly we dont not know the ability of their #2's. I could see on or two guys if their head was out of the game, but the entire D is crazy.

In the wider scope of this, twenty years ago the norm was sitting the starters once a game was in hand, and play the backups, the thought being getting touches in a game environment was good for them and they would be better prepared when they finally became the starters. This is not the practice now, the current thought is getting touches to your #1's is the most important thing.

 

[Eagle1]

A lot of subbing is left up to positions coaches. Coach P. has some say but position coaches for the most part have final say. Now, that may not be what is portrayed publicly but it is what happens. Unfortunately we have at least one position coach who has said out loud and in front of players that he hates walk ons and they should not play, regardless of position on the depth chart. I would guess because some of those walk ons have out performed his recruited players and he doesn't like it.

Who said this, and do you have a link to the source?

You really think a link exists for this? Most likely 2nd hand from player

No, I don't really think a link exists because I don't think it was actually said. And yeah, most likely second hand from a player who has an overinflated opinion of himself.

As I said, there would be some that discredit, that's fine, you have that right. But don't assume you know anything. Like it or not, you don't know EVERYTHING that goes on in the program, and neither do I. But I can tell you it is true, it has happened. And to satisfy your curiosity, it wasn't information from a player. Players are tight lipped so they don't jeopardize themselves. But you are free to think what you want.

 

[URSS]

With our history with walk-ons, Pelini should talk to that coach and remind him about morale, motivation and the walk-ons who eventually played on Sunday..

 

[JJ Husker]

How about we play the guys that are being most effective? Whether that is the #1position starter or his 3rd string backup......the coaches get paid lots of money, they're at practice every day and see what is going on in games.....if we don't have the players who are being most effective on the field every f'n down, then that is a coaching problem and not some systemic "let's get everyone more play time" BS. Some weeks it will be the starter(s) and, when they're not getting the job done, it might be #2 or #3 or #4 or the waterboy. Sure , everyone wants to see us develop more depth through experience but first and foremost they need to get the job done.

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

With our history with walk-ons, Pelini should talk to that coach and remind him about morale, motivation and the walk-ons who eventually played on Sunday..

Who will talk to Bo. About the blackshirt tradition then??

 

[Count 'Bility]

heh.

Half our projected starting lineup on defense in preseason is out. Our WR are pretty much dessimated again. Our offensive line already rotates pretty regularly. And we're not taking Ameer out unless we're up against an Illinios type that we completely overwhelm early on. Our starting qb is a sophmore. Guys. We're ALREADY doing this.

 

[NUinID]

A lot of subbing is left up to positions coaches. Coach P. has some say but position coaches for the most part have final say. Now, that may not be what is portrayed publicly but it is what happens. Unfortunately we have at least one position coach who has said out loud and in front of players that he hates walk ons and they should not play, regardless of position on the depth chart. I would guess because some of those walk ons have out performed his recruited players and he doesn't like it.

Who said this, and do you have a link to the source?

You really think a link exists for this? Most likely 2nd hand from player

No, I don't really think a link exists because I don't think it was actually said. And yeah, most likely second hand from a player who has an overinflated opinion of himself.

As I said, there would be some that discredit, that's fine, you have that right. But don't assume you know anything. Like it or not, you don't know EVERYTHING that goes on in the program, and neither do I. But I can tell you it is true, it has happened. And to satisfy your curiosity, it wasn't information from a player. Players are tight lipped so they don't jeopardize themselves. But you are free to think what you want.

If you can't prove it why do you come out and throw this crap out here.

Personally I doubt any coach said those exact words. You may have heard something from someone who heard something from someone. Its like the old game where you start at one end of the room and someone says something into one person's ear and then it gets passed on to the other end and what was first said is completely changed.

Coaches joke around a lot maybe one said something in jest and someone heard it and it got passed 10x and by the time you heard it, it had been twisted into coach x hates walk-ons and doesn't want to play them.

Maybe a coach does feel this way, I doubt it. But, if he does he would never say something like that out loud. Cause if it really was said, if would come out a lot faster than you saying it on a message board.

 

[BigRedBuster]

heh.

Half our projected starting lineup on defense in preseason is out. Our WR are pretty much dessimated again. Our offensive line already rotates pretty regularly. And we're not taking Ameer out unless we're up against an Illinios type that we completely overwhelm early on. Our starting qb is a sophmore. Guys. We're ALREADY doing this.

But, that doesn't support the constant complaining and trying to convince everyone that we suck.

 

[Scratchtown]

A lot of subbing is left up to positions coaches. Coach P. has some say but position coaches for the most part have final say. Now, that may not be what is portrayed publicly but it is what happens. Unfortunately we have at least one position coach who has said out loud and in front of players that he hates walk ons and they should not play, regardless of position on the depth chart. I would guess because some of those walk ons have out performed his recruited players and he doesn't like it.

Who said this, and do you have a link to the source?

You really think a link exists for this? Most likely 2nd hand from player

No, I don't really think a link exists because I don't think it was actually said. And yeah, most likely second hand from a player who has an overinflated opinion of himself.

As I said, there would be some that discredit, that's fine, you have that right. But don't assume you know anything. Like it or not, you don't know EVERYTHING that goes on in the program, and neither do I. But I can tell you it is true, it has happened. And to satisfy your curiosity, it wasn't information from a player. Players are tight lipped so they don't jeopardize themselves. But you are free to think what you want.

If you can't prove it why do you come out and throw this crap out here.

Personally I doubt any coach said those exact words. You may have heard something from someone who heard something from someone. Its like the old game where you start at one end of the room and someone says something into one person's ear and then it gets passed on to the other end and what was first said is completely changed.

Coaches joke around a lot maybe one said something in jest and someone heard it and it got passed 10x and by the time you heard it, it had been twisted into coach x hates walk-ons and doesn't want to play them.

Maybe a coach does feel this way, I doubt it. But, if he does he would never say something like that out loud. Cause if it really was said, if would come out a lot faster than you saying it on a message board.

This is the stance of envy because fans think they are entitled to every piece of info going on. Get over it, there are always things that go on in programs that never get revealed.

I don't know if it's true, but, I think is extremely naive of people to demand a source. Haha the reason anyone stays anonymous is so they don't feel the repercussions themselves OR the source feeling the repercussions.

Guarantee there are people associated to the program who are looking on message boards to find out who leaks what. C'mon dude this is america. We are a land of secrets.

 

[Enhance]

The way to win is to take out your best players and insert players that aren't as good? Ive now heard it all...

What's better: A guy who only has 70% strength, or, a guy with 100% strength? Simple as that. Also, the drop off between ones and twos is minimal at most positions. Putting the ones on the sideline will make them want to get back in the game that much more.

I was watching Baylor's comeback over TCU the other day. During the entire 4th quarter, Baylor lit up TCU's defense as if Kevin Cosgrove was coaching them. It was 100% apparent that TCU had ZERO CHANCE in stopping Baylor. At that juncture, why not put the backups in? Guys on the bench have tons of attitude and can help change a game. Heck, look at Gangrich. First two games Randy Gregory was out, the guy played lights out. Since then, he's basically not seen the field. Are you telling me he has nothing to add to the game?

Same goes for the O-Line. If we rotate 8 or 10, that's 8 or 10 hungry, fresh bodies. It works early in the season, why not continue the pattern?

I don't think you can blanket statement that a 70% strength player isn't as good as a 100% player, and call it that "simple." It's nowhere near that simple. There's a reason you play your best players the vast majority of the game, and it should go without saying - they're more likely to make big plays for you and be more consistent.

Using your own example, Randy Gregory. Gregory is very likely a future first round NFL draft pick, potentially, even Top 10. You want that dude on the sideline because he's a little tired and perhaps not as fresh as a back-up? Giving a guy a breather is one thing, but I'd MUCH rather have Gregory on the field than sitting off to the sidelines for a couple series.

This isn't 1995 anymore. We don't have the kind of depth, coaching or system here that we once did.

 

[Count 'Bility]

The way to win is to take out your best players and insert players that aren't as good? Ive now heard it all...

What's better: A guy who only has 70% strength, or, a guy with 100% strength? Simple as that. Also, the drop off between ones and twos is minimal at most positions. Putting the ones on the sideline will make them want to get back in the game that much more.

I was watching Baylor's comeback over TCU the other day. During the entire 4th quarter, Baylor lit up TCU's defense as if Kevin Cosgrove was coaching them. It was 100% apparent that TCU had ZERO CHANCE in stopping Baylor. At that juncture, why not put the backups in? Guys on the bench have tons of attitude and can help change a game. Heck, look at Gangrich. First two games Randy Gregory was out, the guy played lights out. Since then, he's basically not seen the field. Are you telling me he has nothing to add to the game?

Same goes for the O-Line. If we rotate 8 or 10, that's 8 or 10 hungry, fresh bodies. It works early in the season, why not continue the pattern?

I don't think you can blanket statement that a 70% strength player isn't as good as a 100% player, and call it that "simple." It's nowhere near that simple. There's a reason you play your best players the vast majority of the game, and it should go without saying - they're more likely to make big plays for you and be more consistent.

Using your own example, Randy Gregory. Gregory is very likely a future first round NFL draft pick, potentially, even Top 10. You want that dude on the sideline because he's a little tired and perhaps not as fresh as a back-up? Giving a guy a breather is one thing, but I'd MUCH rather have Gregory on the field than sitting off to the sidelines for a couple series.

This isn't 1995 anymore. We don't have the kind of depth, coaching or system here that we once did.

Oh lord....

 

[NUpolo8]

heh.

Half our projected starting lineup on defense in preseason is out. Our WR are pretty much dessimated again. Our offensive line already rotates pretty regularly. And we're not taking Ameer out unless we're up against an Illinios type that we completely overwhelm early on. Our starting qb is a sophmore. Guys. We're ALREADY doing this.

But, that doesn't support the constant complaining and trying to convince everyone that we suck.

Well the team apparently can't stay healthy and has poor depth. Not exactly a hallmark of championship teams.

 

[NUance]

A lot of subbing is left up to positions coaches. Coach P. has some say but position coaches for the most part have final say. Now, that may not be what is portrayed publicly but it is what happens. Unfortunately we have at least one position coach who has said out loud and in front of players that he hates walk ons and they should not play, regardless of position on the depth chart. I would guess because some of those walk ons have out performed his recruited players and he doesn't like it.

Was it because his kids who play for NU got beat out by a couple of walk-ons?

 

[74Hunter]

The way to win is to take out your best players and insert players that aren't as good? Ive now heard it all...

What's better: A guy who only has 70% strength, or, a guy with 100% strength? Simple as that. Also, the drop off between ones and twos is minimal at most positions. Putting the ones on the sideline will make them want to get back in the game that much more.

I was watching Baylor's comeback over TCU the other day. During the entire 4th quarter, Baylor lit up TCU's defense as if Kevin Cosgrove was coaching them. It was 100% apparent that TCU had ZERO CHANCE in stopping Baylor. At that juncture, why not put the backups in? Guys on the bench have tons of attitude and can help change a game. Heck, look at Gangrich. First two games Randy Gregory was out, the guy played lights out. Since then, he's basically not seen the field. Are you telling me he has nothing to add to the game?

Same goes for the O-Line. If we rotate 8 or 10, that's 8 or 10 hungry, fresh bodies. It works early in the season, why not continue the pattern?

I don't think you can blanket statement that a 70% strength player isn't as good as a 100% player, and call it that "simple." It's nowhere near that simple. There's a reason you play your best players the vast majority of the game, and it should go without saying - they're more likely to make big plays for you and be more consistent.
Using your own example, Randy Gregory. Gregory is very likely a future first round NFL draft pick, potentially, even Top 10. You want that dude on the sideline because he's a little tired and perhaps not as fresh as a back-up? Giving a guy a breather is one thing, but I'd MUCH rather have Gregory on the field than sitting off to the sidelines for a couple series.

This isn't 1995 anymore. We don't have the kind of depth, coaching or system here that we once did.

It would be nice to not have to rely on your #1's to take every snap of every game. Towards the end on the year, that wear and tear can get really ugly.

See Rex in 2011, Ameer in 2012, and our defense in the B1G CCG.

 

[74Hunter]

A lot of subbing is left up to positions coaches. Coach P. has some say but position coaches for the most part have final say. Now, that may not be what is portrayed publicly but it is what happens. Unfortunately we have at least one position coach who has said out loud and in front of players that he hates walk ons and they should not play, regardless of position on the depth chart. I would guess because some of those walk ons have out performed his recruited players and he doesn't like it.

Who said this, and do you have a link to the source?

You really think a link exists for this? Most likely 2nd hand from player

No, I don't really think a link exists because I don't think it was actually said. And yeah, most likely second hand from a player who has an overinflated opinion of himself.

As I said, there would be some that discredit, that's fine, you have that right. But don't assume you know anything. Like it or not, you don't know EVERYTHING that goes on in the program, and neither do I. But I can tell you it is true, it has happened. And to satisfy your curiosity, it wasn't information from a player. Players are tight lipped so they don't jeopardize themselves. But you are free to think what you want.

This is another time when a poster needs to understand how to relay information. Did one of the assistants day that? Perhaps. But unless you heard it with your own ears, you can't say that's it's true and definitely happened.

Listen, I've posted stuff I've heard, things said, rumors, etc. But I'm not going to insist that it's true and get all huffy when someone questions me about it. This is the interwebs where everything you see is true, right?