Shatel's Article

[B.B. Hemingway]

So if you recruit too well you get blamed for not developing talent?

The blanket statement was made that Bo has "developed talent." It's a fair question to ask who was developed.

I think he has proven that when he has adequate talent on the team he is able to develop it. You can only make a guy so good, that's why recruiting is where Bo has failed (seems to be corrected the past couple years).....

 

[knapplc]

So if you recruit too well you get blamed for not developing talent?

The blanket statement was made that Bo has "developed talent." It's a fair question to ask who was developed.

I think he has proven that when he has adequate talent on the team he is able to develop it. You can only make a guy so good, that's why recruiting is where Bo has failed (seems to be corrected the past couple years).....

What would you cite as evidence for that proof? I'm not saying Bo has or hasn't "developed talent," but if we're going to say that he has, there should be proof. And the answer to that question can't be, "There are way too many factors for anyone not at practice every day to say a coach can't develop talent," because the flip side of that is, there are way too many factors for anyone not at practice to say that a coach can develop talent.

 

[Mavric]

I agree Bo needs time. And if nine wins and being in the hunt for the conference title every year is his ceiling for the next few years, I can live with that.

What most people are grumbling about isn't just the fact that he hasn't gotten it done, it's that too often when the wheels fall off, they REALLY fall off. Three times in 2012. Three times in 2011. Twice in 2010. Twice in 2009. Those losses weren't just losses, the team looked inept, completely unprepared to play winning football.

And it's not getting better, it's getting worse. UCLA, Ohio State and Wisconsin last year. Wisconsin, Michigan and South Carolina the year before. Those six losses were abysmal in the way the team floundered about, especially on defense, which is what Bo was brought in to fix. Callahan got fired for fielding an historically bad defense. Bo's job was to fix that, and he did for a couple of years. But it got worse in 2010. It got worse again the next year, and last year it was as bad - at times - as 2007.

The argument that Bo is developing talent is interesting. I'd like to see who Bo has developed from raw into something superlative. The quickest, most obvious answer is Ndamukong Suh. But who else? Matty O'Hanlon? He was decent, but hardly an impactful talent. I'm not seeing that angle of this.

I'm willing to give Bo time, but I'm not willing to completely turn a blind eye to the problems we have.

I agree that probably my biggest complaint about Pelini is that we don't seem to have a "Plan B" such that, when Plan A isn't working - such as the three games last year that you mentioned - we just keep sticking with it and getting burned. I'm sure we would have beaten UCLA with a simple 5 under, 2 deep zone so they couldn't catch a three yard pass and run for 30 yards. Might have even made a difference against Wiscy if we could have made them do anything but run wide.

However, look at those six games you listed. We still had a chance to beat UCLA down to the last three minutes. In 2011, we were leading Wiscy at their place with a couple minutes to go in the half. We were still in the Michigan game in the fourth quarter. We were only down three to SCar to start the fourth. I'm admittedly an optimist (perhaps too much so) but if we can play about as badly as possible and still compete into the fourth quarter, I'm hopeful a few improvements will make a huge difference. Maybe they'll come, maybe they won't but I'm a ways from jumping off the bandwagon at this point.

 

[Mavric]

So if you recruit too well you get blamed for not developing talent?

The blanket statement was made that Bo has "developed talent." It's a fair question to ask who was developed.

I think he has proven that when he has adequate talent on the team he is able to develop it. You can only make a guy so good, that's why recruiting is where Bo has failed (seems to be corrected the past couple years).....

What would you cite as evidence for that proof? I'm not saying Bo has or hasn't "developed talent," but if we're going to say that he has, there should be proof. And the answer to that question can't be, "There are way too many factors for anyone not at practice every day to say a coach can't develop talent," because the flip side of that is, there are way too many factors for anyone not at practice to say that a coach can develop talent.

I agree. I'm not really sure how you can say either way. Same goes for "motivation". A coach can do some on both fronts but I don't think they can do nearly as much as people like to think they can. If you have good talent that works hard, they will develop. If they aren't motivated to get better by themselves, I don't know how a coach is supposed to change that.

 

[Junior]

I agree Bo needs time. And if nine wins and being in the hunt for the conference title every year is his ceiling for the next few years, I can live with that.

What most people are grumbling about isn't just the fact that he hasn't gotten it done, it's that too often when the wheels fall off, they REALLY fall off. Three times in 2012. Three times in 2011. Twice in 2010. Twice in 2009. Those losses weren't just losses, the team looked inept, completely unprepared to play winning football.

And it's not getting better, it's getting worse. UCLA, Ohio State and Wisconsin last year. Wisconsin, Michigan and South Carolina the year before. Those six losses were abysmal in the way the team floundered about, especially on defense, which is what Bo was brought in to fix. Callahan got fired for fielding an historically bad defense. Bo's job was to fix that, and he did for a couple of years. But it got worse in 2010. It got worse again the next year, and last year it was as bad - at times - as 2007.

The argument that Bo is developing talent is interesting. I'd like to see who Bo has developed from raw into something superlative. The quickest, most obvious answer is Ndamukong Suh. But who else? Matty O'Hanlon? He was decent, but hardly an impactful talent. I'm not seeing that angle of this.

I'm willing to give Bo time, but I'm not willing to completely turn a blind eye to the problems we have.

This +1000

 

[B.B. Hemingway]

So if you recruit too well you get blamed for not developing talent?

The blanket statement was made that Bo has "developed talent." It's a fair question to ask who was developed.

I think he has proven that when he has adequate talent on the team he is able to develop it. You can only make a guy so good, that's why recruiting is where Bo has failed (seems to be corrected the past couple years).....

What would you cite as evidence for that proof? I'm not saying Bo has or hasn't "developed talent," but if we're going to say that he has, there should be proof. And the answer to that question can't be, "There are way too many factors for anyone not at practice every day to say a coach can't develop talent," because the flip side of that is, there are way too many factors for anyone not at practice to say that a coach can develop talent.

I suppose you never really know how much of a player's development is a result of their own work, or the coaches (in any given situation). There is an assumption, and probably an accurate one, that coaches have plenty to do with the development of their players. I would point to the 2009 defense as evidence of proof. Those players were there the year before with Billy C, and were an embarrassment. The question is, could those same players turn into one of the best single-season defenses we've ever seen in one year's time on their own? I would say no, and suggest there was ample development of the players made by the coaching staff. As I said before, you can't make just any player really good. The players must have talent in order for the coaches to properly development them. I'm not so sure the failures on defense over the past couple years weren't a development problem, but more so a talent problem. Either way it's on Bo, because both (recruiting/developing) matter....

 

[knapplc]

So if you recruit too well you get blamed for not developing talent?

The blanket statement was made that Bo has "developed talent." It's a fair question to ask who was developed.

I think he has proven that when he has adequate talent on the team he is able to develop it. You can only make a guy so good, that's why recruiting is where Bo has failed (seems to be corrected the past couple years).....

What would you cite as evidence for that proof? I'm not saying Bo has or hasn't "developed talent," but if we're going to say that he has, there should be proof. And the answer to that question can't be, "There are way too many factors for anyone not at practice every day to say a coach can't develop talent," because the flip side of that is, there are way too many factors for anyone not at practice to say that a coach can develop talent.

I agree. I'm not really sure how you can say either way. Same goes for "motivation". A coach can do some on both fronts but I don't think they can do nearly as much as people like to think they can. If you have good talent that works hard, they will develop. If they aren't motivated to get better by themselves, I don't know how a coach is supposed to change that.

And to further bolster Bo here, think about how much timing has played a role in his first five years. He was one recruiting cycle off of having a top-tier defense and a top-tier offense. If 2009's offense wasn't so abysmal, or 2012's defense so porous, we're looking at major contenders for a BCS bowl win both years. As it was, we got to the conference championship games both years.

He puts an offense with a defense once, I'm of the opinion he can get a championship here. Doesn't even have to be 2009's defense with 2012's offense. Somewhere in the middle.

 

[Frida's Boss]

apparently the part where I said I have a hotel room booked in Indy already was overlooked. That being said I will still follow the team daily from afar. My point was that it costs a lot to got to games and I am taking a year off after spending so much to watch us get blown out the past few years. Went to Wisconsin, CCG, UCLA, Michigan the past few years. Then again maybe its me and me staying home is the key to winning . The trust part that I am speaking of is simple...I can handle losing 28-24 in a tough grind out type of game. Its the 20+ blowout stuff where we looked overmatched in several categories and things steamroll once adversity hits...that needs to stop

 

[NUance]

Were DeJon Gomes, Eric Hagg, Prince Amukamara, Alfonzo Dennard, Lavonte David, and Jared Crick "developed" by Pelini or were they just good players who got better? When I think of developing players I think of under-the-radar guys who surprised us, much like Osborne did throughout his career with walk-on offensive linemen and fullbacks. I don't recall anyone who wasn't already highly-regarded flourishing unexpectedly under Bo. We all felt like Hagg, Gomes, Amukamara, Dennard, David & Crick were something special when they walked in the door.

I agree and disagree. I mean, Prince was an athletic freak (we all knew that) who didn't have a place. I don't care how athletic you are, it takes good development to turn you into a top-10 caliber draft pick.

I don't remember having much thought about Gomes other than knowing he existed until he took everyone by surprise in the Missouri game.

Crick was another I didn't have much thought towards until 2009. What happened with him - he played sparingly in 9 games with 2 total tackles in 2008, then exploded in 2009.

I would maybe put Hagg in the "developed by Pelini" category by those standards, too. Hagg was athletically gifted but he didn't have a natural fit. Too small for a linebacker and a bit too big/slow for a Safety. So Bo created a position for him and fired up his Peso Defense.

It takes a special situation to be able to point to a guy and say the coach developed his talent. SJB would be one example, given that he switched over to defense in 2011.

 

[Junior]

I agree Bo needs time. And if nine wins and being in the hunt for the conference title every year is his ceiling for the next few years, I can live with that.

What most people are grumbling about isn't just the fact that he hasn't gotten it done, it's that too often when the wheels fall off, they REALLY fall off. Three times in 2012. Three times in 2011. Twice in 2010. Twice in 2009. Those losses weren't just losses, the team looked inept, completely unprepared to play winning football.

And it's not getting better, it's getting worse. UCLA, Ohio State and Wisconsin last year. Wisconsin, Michigan and South Carolina the year before. Those six losses were abysmal in the way the team floundered about, especially on defense, which is what Bo was brought in to fix. Callahan got fired for fielding an historically bad defense. Bo's job was to fix that, and he did for a couple of years. But it got worse in 2010. It got worse again the next year, and last year it was as bad - at times - as 2007.

The argument that Bo is developing talent is interesting. I'd like to see who Bo has developed from raw into something superlative. The quickest, most obvious answer is Ndamukong Suh. But who else? Matty O'Hanlon? He was decent, but hardly an impactful talent. I'm not seeing that angle of this.

I'm willing to give Bo time, but I'm not willing to completely turn a blind eye to the problems we have.

I agree that probably my biggest complaint about Pelini is that we don't seem to have a "Plan B" such that, when Plan A isn't working - such as the three games last year that you mentioned - we just keep sticking with it and getting burned. I'm sure we would have beaten UCLA with a simple 5 under, 2 deep zone so they couldn't catch a three yard pass and run for 30 yards. Might have even made a difference against Wiscy if we could have made them do anything but run wide.

However, look at those six games you listed. We still had a chance to beat UCLA down to the last three minutes. In 2011, we were leading Wiscy at their place with a couple minutes to go in the half. We were still in the Michigan game in the fourth quarter. We were only down three to SCar to start the fourth. I'm admittedly an optimist (perhaps too much so) but if we can play about as badly as possible and still compete into the fourth quarter, I'm hopeful a few improvements will make a huge difference. Maybe they'll come, maybe they won't but I'm a ways from jumping off the bandwagon at this point.

Well, if you want to play the "close" game, we were damn close to losing at Northwestern last year, some questionable officiating from losing to MSU, getting housed at home by Wisconsin the first time last year, a Joe Bauserman away from being destroyed by OSU in '11, and a Brady Hoke backup QB decision from making last year's Michigan game a whole lot different.

 

[Mavric]

I agree Bo needs time. And if nine wins and being in the hunt for the conference title every year is his ceiling for the next few years, I can live with that.

What most people are grumbling about isn't just the fact that he hasn't gotten it done, it's that too often when the wheels fall off, they REALLY fall off. Three times in 2012. Three times in 2011. Twice in 2010. Twice in 2009. Those losses weren't just losses, the team looked inept, completely unprepared to play winning football.

And it's not getting better, it's getting worse. UCLA, Ohio State and Wisconsin last year. Wisconsin, Michigan and South Carolina the year before. Those six losses were abysmal in the way the team floundered about, especially on defense, which is what Bo was brought in to fix. Callahan got fired for fielding an historically bad defense. Bo's job was to fix that, and he did for a couple of years. But it got worse in 2010. It got worse again the next year, and last year it was as bad - at times - as 2007.

The argument that Bo is developing talent is interesting. I'd like to see who Bo has developed from raw into something superlative. The quickest, most obvious answer is Ndamukong Suh. But who else? Matty O'Hanlon? He was decent, but hardly an impactful talent. I'm not seeing that angle of this.

I'm willing to give Bo time, but I'm not willing to completely turn a blind eye to the problems we have.

I agree that probably my biggest complaint about Pelini is that we don't seem to have a "Plan B" such that, when Plan A isn't working - such as the three games last year that you mentioned - we just keep sticking with it and getting burned. I'm sure we would have beaten UCLA with a simple 5 under, 2 deep zone so they couldn't catch a three yard pass and run for 30 yards. Might have even made a difference against Wiscy if we could have made them do anything but run wide.

However, look at those six games you listed. We still had a chance to beat UCLA down to the last three minutes. In 2011, we were leading Wiscy at their place with a couple minutes to go in the half. We were still in the Michigan game in the fourth quarter. We were only down three to SCar to start the fourth. I'm admittedly an optimist (perhaps too much so) but if we can play about as badly as possible and still compete into the fourth quarter, I'm hopeful a few improvements will make a huge difference. Maybe they'll come, maybe they won't but I'm a ways from jumping off the bandwagon at this point.

Well, if you want to play the "close" game, we were damn close to losing at Northwestern last year, some questionable officiating from losing to MSU, getting housed at home by Wisconsin the first time last year, a Joe Bauserman away from being destroyed by OSU in '11, and a Brady Hoke backup QB decision from making last year's Michigan game a whole lot different.

Agreed. It's called parity. Hopefully people remember that when they complain about "only" winning 9 or 10 games each year.

Also, in each game you listed save Michigan last year, we played poorly for a half or better before turning it on. I'd much rather have to fix a problem of not playing up to our potential than not having the talent or scheme to compete.

 

[TAKODA]

He puts an offense with a defense once, I'm of the opinion he can get a championship here. Doesn't even have to be 2009's defense with 2012's offense. Somewhere in the middle.

I believe this ↑ as well Knapplc and hope this proves to be fact this season. I am betting this D will be better than a year ago and our O should be awesome. Barring dumb turnovers or mental meltdowns, I think we could be BCS bound.

 

[True2tRA]

It sure is hard to imagine that replacing so many players on defense that this year could be the year. No question the offense is ready. Still, with our schedule, you just have to wonder if we can just get enough from our defense to make it interesting. It really is intriguing.

 

[TAKODA]

It sure is hard to imagine that replacing so many players on defense that this year could be the year. No question the offense is ready. Still, with our schedule, you just have to wonder if we can just get enough from our defense to make it interesting. It really is intriguing.

I know what you are saying here and hope the athleticism and flying around reacting rather than the over-thinking are marked or major improvements.

 

[I am I]

So if you recruit too well you get blamed for not developing talent?

The blanket statement was made that Bo has "developed talent." It's a fair question to ask who was developed.

I think he has proven that when he has adequate talent on the team he is able to develop it. You can only make a guy so good, that's why recruiting is where Bo has failed (seems to be corrected the past couple years).....

What would you cite as evidence for that proof? I'm not saying Bo has or hasn't "developed talent," but if we're going to say that he has, there should be proof. And the answer to that question can't be, "There are way too many factors for anyone not at practice every day to say a coach can't develop talent," because the flip side of that is, there are way too many factors for anyone not at practice to say that a coach can develop talent.

Pretty much anyone we could name in the top 20-25 players Bo has coached he has developed. Everyone in the top 60-70 that has played for Bo has been developed. Every single player that has stuck out their commitment to the univ Bo has developed.

From high school to college, there is literally not one person who doesn't get developed into being a better player. The jump from high school to pros is so significant, even at small or lower div schools. Development is key.

The best players like Adrian Peterson and Barry Sanders and Willie Roaf are already great because they are athletic freaks. But to actually realize ANY potential gift a player has or doesn't have into becoming a playing member of a college or pro team takes TREMENDOUS development.