Psychology of giving up 70 points

[ZRod]

At the moment, I don't have anything to add to the psychology of giving up 70 points, but I do have something to say regarding the psychology of letting your QB get piled-driven headfirst into the ground on one play and then NOT totally blowing up the opposing D the rest of the game. I don't know about you, but it didn't seem like our guys got fired up nearly as much as I expected. Maybe initially when Long and Turner mixed it up a bit, BUT I expected our guys to either blow them off the line b/c they were pissed that they did that to Martinez, or go after Borland to return the favor.

I know that's cheap to think such a thing. But dammit where was the "Richie Incognito" fire?! I was ready to jump through my TV to tear Borland a new one, and I didn't see any fire like that from our guys. In fact, I believe it was the very next play that they got after Martinez AGAIN, and the only thing that saved him from another bodyslam was the ref (finally) throwing a flag on what became a very bully-like Wiscy defense.

No kidding, that's where as a coach I no longer care if you get 15 yards. Heck you can get yourself thrown out of the game because at that point it didn't matter. But have some pride and protect your teammates. Things get dirty on the line, and if I were an offensive linemen again I'm running over there and shoving that guy away from Taylor and getting in his face, and telling him if he so much as thinks about doing that again I'm going to take his a$$ out and he won't see the field for 6 months.

 

[skersfan]

I have heard over and over we have all this talent coming in next year. I do not follow it that closely so thought it to be true. So we have little talent this year, and it sounds like less next year, and our recruiting is average at best. We have had two 60 plus point blow outs and most likely another one on the way.

How will the staff overcome the past recruiting short falls, and get the kids here this year. If I was a stud young player, and being recruited by most major programs, I think I would have two ideas, where can I go to get prepared for the next level and where could I play and have an impact.

It is obvious, we have room for top players, but do those players feel that Bo can prepare them for the next level now becomes the question. Bo was supposedly instrumental in the development of Suh, it seems we did not capture a lot of recruiting headway after him. What are the reasons for that?

I think most all of our problems are recruiting based, IE the lack of it being the most important job in coaching for this program. Are we changing things on that front, are we doing a better job of closing the deal.

 

[Stickney]

Which players have we hoarded? Fact is, we had some pretty underwhelming recruiting classes and the cupboard isn't chock full of players able to take over. Recruiting hype on this or that guy is nice, but there aren't a ton of guys that we're holding back on right now.

Eric Martin and PJ Smith are two guys I think should have been playing significant minutes in the past two years, but other guys either aren't that good or they're nursing injuries. This staff is horrible about keeping injuries secret, and we have several players who have been banged up for years but they never let on.

I want better players, too, and I want them playing now, too. But they aren't there, sad to say.

The D-Line issues are either talent, missed evaluation, or poor coaching (losing Baker, though huge, shouldn't leave you with the depth chart they listed for Wisconsin (http://www.huskers.com/pdf8/1005791.pdf)). I don't have a solution for that (actually I do, hand out blackshirts to every 4 and 5 star dline recruit in the country).

There are certainly D-Lineman on the roster. The question I have is, can't any of these guys play at ALL??

Eric Martin is a case in point. Is there anyone on this board who couldn't see he could rush the QB as a freshmen? Put him on the field on 3rd down. Instead he was here there and everywhere but on the field much until the end of last season and this.

We used to say Bo is a defensive genius we can't question him on personnel. But, I'm sorry, Cosgrove supposedly had no talent either. If the cupboard is bare then that is as much an indictment of Bo as BC's mismanagement from 2004-2007.

 

[MuskyTCHusker]

This team quits on their coaches. The evidence is too clear. Even when we were on the winning side of all those wild blowouts against inferior Big 8 and Big 12 teams....we didn't put up rushing numbers like Wisconsin or Ohio State did agains us this year. If you disagree with me your basically saying that talent wise Wisconsin vs. N in the Big 10 Championship is about the same as N vs. Kansas, circa 1987. Except it appears that there was a greater talent discrepency in the Wisconsin/NE game, because Kansas was able to hold the Huskers to less than 500 yards rushing and they only gave up 55 points.

Look at the evidence! When we get blown out we get blown out in historic fashion....and Saturday night it could have been worse.

 

[knapplc]

This team quits on their coaches. The evidence is too clear. Even when we were on the winning side of all those wild blowouts against inferior Big 8 and Big 12 teams....we didn't put up rushing numbers like Wisconsin or Ohio State did agains us this year. If you disagree with me your basically saying that talent wise Wisconsin vs. N in the Big 10 Championship is about the same as N vs. Kansas, circa 1987. Except it appears that there was a greater talent discrepency in the Wisconsin/NE game, because Kansas was able to hold the Huskers to less than 500 yards rushing and they only gave up 55 points.

Look at the evidence! When we get blown out we get blown out in historic fashion....and Saturday night it could have been worse.

I would definitely agree that there was a lot of quitting out there. Even Sun Belt teams play harder than that against vastly superior talent. There's simply no way we can be that much inferior to Wisconsin's talent.

Some of the quit is on the players, some is on the coaches. It's an opinion as to who's more to blame. Both need to get their S together.

 

[Klondike Cat]

After some more thought over the weekend I am still baffled at the 70 points we gave up. You dont give up 70 points at this level of college football because you have inferior players (we beat them earlier in the year). You dont give up 70 points due to missing one player on the defensive line. You dont give up 70 points due to being out of alignment.

However, you do give up 70 points if you just quit. You do give up 70 points if you dont trust your coach or the other players around you. We have seen the sideline tirades all season between Bo and the players. There are serious cracks in the foundation of this program and it cant be denied at this point. Three embarrasing losses this year and likely another one in the chamber. They all happened the same way, by quitting.

I have actually moved closer to fire Bo train now after time has passed. At first I thought maybe it is something that Bo could address in the off season by getting ideas from other coaches around the country on preperation. However, you cant fix what is already lost and that is trust.

+1

I also moved closer to the fire Pelini camp. I don't know that I'm quite in it, but I'm definitely a lot closer. I saw a team that was ill-prepared. Whatever game plan they had was not a good one. What was worse was they did not adjust. We got burned on the outside with the same play all game long.

I'm starting to think that Pelini is a coach who can put together a pretty good team that can have winning seasons, but fail to win championship games. I don't think there are many Husker fans who would be satisfied with having a pretty good team. The goal is a championship caliber one. If you have a pretty good team that's on its way toward becoming championship material, that's one thing. If you plateau at pretty good, that's not acceptable. The bottom line is if Bo can get this team to the next level, we should keep him. If he's maxed out at pretty good, then there's no point in even continuing. It's time to move on.

 

[It'sNotAFakeID]

This team has to have some get-up and desire to win if they can overcome 4 double digit deficits. Even in the Ohio State loss, the offense was still going, trying to score. Even in this loss, the offense was still going, trying to score. Hell Kenny Bell killed a man. If any unit is guilty of quitting in our two blowout losses (and any blowout loss in the past few years) it's been our defense.

Now it's only been in our two blowout losses. I don't think for one second that this team doesn't have any passion. You don't get comebacks if you don't have passion. You don't bounce back from a 63-38 loss to win 6 straight if you don't have any passion.

Starting the game out in a 14 point deficit within 2 and a half minutes didn't help the defense. I don't know if it pressured them to start making plays instead of staying in their lanes and taking proper angles. But after that touchdown by Taylor the D played really well on the next drive. We scored, cut the lead to 4, 14-10. I think we tried to play to aggressively on defense and that hurt us. Once they started running away with the game (literally) that's when the D quit.

Something that needs to happen between now and then is a change in mentality against teams who will ground and pound it at you, like Wisconsin. I'd much rather have them get 15 4 yard run plays than 3 20 yard run plays. I like that we're aggressive, but that only really works when we play the more athletic spread it out and pass it teams. Hopefully Bo can see that, and we can develop a multi-talented/mindsetted team in the coming years (or even by the time the bowl game rolls around)

But I'm not holding my breath (at least for the bowl game)

 

[Nexus]

I'm not really a pitchfork/doomsday kinda guy. I usually take the "cooler heads will prevail" approach in my own day-to-day life. Having said that, as some have already pointed out in other threads, Clemson gave up 70 in the Orange Bowl last year and fired their DC as a result. I guess my question is, does firing JP really fix the problem going forward if it's Bo that actually calls the plays on defense? I have no dog in this fight so my hypothetical question is, if JP were fired, should Bo hire an experienced DC and surrender complete defensive control to the new DC? There are various scenarios to consider when hiring a DC or OC since both like to bring in their own staff for the sake of continuity. Not always the case, but more often than not.

So, would a complete defensive coaching staff overhaul satisfy the masses or not? Or do we stick to the "patchwork" method we've been seeing these past 5 years?

 

[sd'sker]

if JP were fired, should Bo hire an experienced DC and surrender complete defensive control to the new DC?

this would be the only reason to fire pap. bo has had the same problems on defense for awhile now and either needs to change his personnel on the field or his schemes to fit the personnel. right now they are incompatible.

 

[FriendlyLurker2007]

they might have thought they were gunna roll wiscy...on the coaches...they got hit in the mouth repeatedly hopefully the coaches can have them more prepared for UGA...i am not seeing cracks in the coaching staff tho, it was a terrible display by the coaches and players, might not be the end of the world just yet

 

[3rd and long]

I'm not really a pitchfork/doomsday kinda guy. I usually take the "cooler heads will prevail" approach in my own day-to-day life. Having said that, as some have already pointed out in other threads, Clemson gave up 70 in the Orange Bowl last year and fired their DC as a result. I guess my question is, does firing JP really fix the problem going forward if it's Bo that actually calls the plays on defense? I have no dog in this fight so my hypothetical question is, if JP were fired, should Bo hire an experienced DC and surrender complete defensive control to the new DC? There are various scenarios to consider when hiring a DC or OC since both like to bring in their own staff for the sake of continuity. Not always the case, but more often than not.

So, would a complete defensive coaching staff overhaul satisfy the masses or not? Or do we stick to the "patchwork" method we've been seeing these past 5 years?

I don't think Bo would ever give over control of the defense, I think that's why he passed on Stoops (if that truly is the case). He strikes me a a awfully stubborn person, this is his defense and by God, he's going to make it work and he's not changing. Anyway, that's just the impression I have.

I think we had/have enough good players on the defensive side of the ball. If we can simply hold the other teams to just four TD's, just 28 points, we scored enough to win every game. Just a competent defense would have been enough (I guess kind of like a few years back, just a competent offense would have been enough). I just wonder how many of our missed tackles, bad angles, missed assignments were a result of all the confusion at the line of scrimmage. We had guys jumping around and waving their arms trying to get people into position when the ball was snapped. At this level, if you're just a split second late with your read or reaction because you're trying to get lined up, it's too late and you've missed the play. My personal wish would be to really simplify the defense, just line the guys up and tell them to go make plays. Are we going to get burned on occasion, sure, but that's happening now. But lets try to instigate some things on defense instead of always trying to play catch-up.

 

[mwj98]

I'm not really a pitchfork/doomsday kinda guy. I usually take the "cooler heads will prevail" approach in my own day-to-day life. Having said that, as some have already pointed out in other threads, Clemson gave up 70 in the Orange Bowl last year and fired their DC as a result. I guess my question is, does firing JP really fix the problem going forward if it's Bo that actually calls the plays on defense? I have no dog in this fight so my hypothetical question is, if JP were fired, should Bo hire an experienced DC and surrender complete defensive control to the new DC? There are various scenarios to consider when hiring a DC or OC since both like to bring in their own staff for the sake of continuity. Not always the case, but more often than not.

So, would a complete defensive coaching staff overhaul satisfy the masses or not? Or do we stick to the "patchwork" method we've been seeing these past 5 years?

I don't think Bo would ever give over control of the defense, I think that's why he passed on Stoops (if that truly is the case). He strikes me a a awfully stubborn person, this is his defense and by God, he's going to make it work and he's not changing. Anyway, that's just the impression I have.

I think we had/have enough good players on the defensive side of the ball. If we can simply hold the other teams to just four TD's, just 28 points, we scored enough to win every game. Just a competent defense would have been enough (I guess kind of like a few years back, just a competent offense would have been enough). I just wonder how many of our missed tackles, bad angles, missed assignments were a result of all the confusion at the line of scrimmage. We had guys jumping around and waving their arms trying to get people into position when the ball was snapped. At this level, if you're just a split second late with your read or reaction because you're trying to get lined up, it's too late and you've missed the play. My personal wish would be to really simplify the defense, just line the guys up and tell them to go make plays. Are we going to get burned on occasion, sure, but that's happening now. But lets try to instigate some things on defense instead of always trying to play catch-up.

AMEN TO THAT!

 

[Hooked on Huskers]

So let me get this straight. After the Ohio State loss, everyone was saying there were cracks in the foundation, no trust in Bo or the coaching staff, and they had lost the team. Then we won six straight

Good argument BUT if Michigan without Shoelace and Gardner (Bellomy=Bauserman), last second victory against MSU, 29 to 28 Northwestern club, Penn St (controversy call) and even cruddy Iowa was in danger of losing 3 out of 5 games, then definitely Bo's hot seat.

I say Bo's and Bo's lieutenants classified warm seats because mostly so called "defense geniuses" put 70 points against 7-5 team, actually more. However myself, I am still undecided verdict, it depends on Lou Holtz and Palmer prophecies in Georgia game...... Hot or Cold seat? Wait until January 1st.

 

[True2tRA]

So let me get this straight. After the Ohio State loss, everyone was saying there were cracks in the foundation, no trust in Bo or the coaching staff, and they had lost the team. Then we won six straight and everyone agreed that wasn't really the case after all. Now we lose big and all the sudden it's true again?

Either you guys were right the first time or you were right the second time. Either way, one of those times you were wrong, which makes me ask why your thoughts have any merit at all.

Listen, I see what your getting at with this comment because I've seen the same flip flopping here. The fact is, it's human nature. When things are good, people tend to overlook the negatives. When we are winning, unfortunately, the common fan doesn't seem to care how. I don't like to call the average fan an idiot, but approaching the game with a win is a win mentality is just too easy. This game takes more thought than that. There is more to this game than just winning. Far more so in college than the pro game. Progression and improvement is vital. Development and teaching are crucial to success. I have not and never will just be satisfied with simply winning. Hell I can even handle losing. It's the "how" this team loses that is so very troubling. In the same token, the way this team won was also just as troubling.

The troublesome thing is that so many fans, coaches and players have a ton of really valid concerns with this team and nobody, including the coaches, seem to have any solutions. It would make me feel better if we knew where to start and what changes are needed to make this right, but seriously, where do we begin.

 

[Klondike Cat]

So let me get this straight. After the Ohio State loss, everyone was saying there were cracks in the foundation, no trust in Bo or the coaching staff, and they had lost the team. Then we won six straight and everyone agreed that wasn't really the case after all. Now we lose big and all the sudden it's true again?

Either you guys were right the first time or you were right the second time. Either way, one of those times you were wrong, which makes me ask why your thoughts have any merit at all.

Listen, I see what your getting at with this comment because I've seen the same flip flopping here. The fact is, it's human nature. When things are good, people tend to overlook the negatives. When we are winning, unfortunately, the common fan doesn't seem to care how. I don't like to call the average fan an idiot, but approaching the game with a win is a win mentality is just too easy. This game takes more thought than that. There is more to this game than just winning. Far more so in college than the pro game. Progression and improvement is vital. Development and teaching are crucial to success. I have not and never will just be satisfied with simply winning. Hell I can even handle losing. It's the "how" this team loses that is so very troubling. In the same token, the way this team won was also just as troubling.

The troublesome thing is that so many fans, coaches and players have a ton of really valid concerns with this team and nobody, including the coaches, seem to have any solutions. It would make me feel better if we knew where to start and what changes are needed to make this right, but seriously, where do we begin.

Exactly. Even in the wins there have been troubling signs. The team plays sloppily. It makes dumb mistakes, dumb penalties. Taylor makes great plays, but he also throws desperation passes into coverage. The team does not make quality adjustments mid-game to what the other team is doing.