Shatel's Callahan Interview

[DJR313]

i think what most folks are driving at here is this.

winning the north, absolutely necessary, a big disappointment if we don't win it every year, from this point forward. no good excuse for NOT getting this accomplished.

winning the big 12, time to start getting this accomplished or being damn close to it every year, from this point forward. eventually, this too should be consistently achievable, or damn close to it, every year. if your program is a s good as you say, you should get this done at least 3 out of a possible 6 years, consistently, 50% of the time, minimum.

anything over and above that is truely gravey. it is very hard to get beyond that point and being a true national contender every year.

you need a top notch recruiting program, depth and truely above average talent, coaches and damn sure a bit of luck to go along with all the above.

I'd agree with that assesment.

I guess I look at things too systematically. You have to go from 'A' to 'B' before you can get to 'C', you just don't arrive at 'B' and go from there. It's science. dedhoarse :moreinteresting :nanalama

 

[DaveH]

It's science. dedhoarse :moreinteresting :nanalama

Awesome.

 

[kc_husker]

i think what most folks are driving at here is this.

winning the north, absolutely necessary, a big disappointment if we don't win it every year, from this point forward. no good excuse for NOT getting this accomplished.

winning the big 12, time to start getting this accomplished or being damn close to it every year, from this point forward. eventually, this too should be consistently achievable, or damn close to it, every year. if your program is a s good as you say, you should get this done at least 3 out of a possible 6 years, consistently, 50% of the time, minimum.

anything over and above that is truely gravey. it is very hard to get beyond that point and being a true national contender every year.

you need a top notch recruiting program, depth and truely above average talent, coaches and damn sure a bit of luck to go along with all the above.

I'd agree with that assesment.

I guess I look at things too systematically. You have to go from 'A' to 'B' before you can get to 'C', you just don't arrive at 'B' and go from there. It's science. dedhoarse :moreinteresting :nanalama

What about 2001 we almost went from A to C

 

[DJR313]

i think what most folks are driving at here is this.

winning the north, absolutely necessary, a big disappointment if we don't win it every year, from this point forward. no good excuse for NOT getting this accomplished.

winning the big 12, time to start getting this accomplished or being damn close to it every year, from this point forward. eventually, this too should be consistently achievable, or damn close to it, every year. if your program is a s good as you say, you should get this done at least 3 out of a possible 6 years, consistently, 50% of the time, minimum.

anything over and above that is truely gravey. it is very hard to get beyond that point and being a true national contender every year.

you need a top notch recruiting program, depth and truely above average talent, coaches and damn sure a bit of luck to go along with all the above.

I'd agree with that assesment.

I guess I look at things too systematically. You have to go from 'A' to 'B' before you can get to 'C', you just don't arrive at 'B' and go from there. It's science. dedhoarse :moreinteresting :nanalama

What about 2001 we almost went from A to C

Yep, almost. That wasn't the goal though. :wacko:

 

[NUpolo8]

It is science.

Hopefully after the XII championship the Husker can help build the Effiel Tower with nothing but metal and brawn

 

[Sugalean]

The stats answered quite a bit for me. 4 turnovers on the first drive of the 3rd quarter. Missed FG. 6 times the opponent started with the ball in the 3rd quarter. More or less Callahan's answer was we lost momentum for one reason or another going into the 3rd. The admited lack of execution in the second half makes adjustments about meaningless. It doesnt matter what the play is if the reciver drops the ball, or someone fumbles, or blows a block. The two previous years, we played better in the second half than the first. Really makes me think more execution than adjustments.

It would have been good to have Shatel ask about the special teams, but I do remember Callahan making a mention to the return game being a focus in spring ball, and looking at a few of the new arrivails as return specialists

Maybe you have some points with the misques and execution part. Still the staff shares responsibility for inadequate execution. When you lose momentum, usually the other team and their actions play a large part. I also still think teams made better 2nd half adjustments many of times last season. KU game comes to mind. We were winning going away until that 3rd qtr. They did some things found out some things and we were slow to adjust. Cornish running that counter time after time comes to mind. Then they would pass off it. I also looked at those 3rd qtr stats and every yr the point total has been much lower than other qtrs. That more than execution if you ask me. As for the special teams, I don't think the return guys are the gist of the problems but schemes and techniques in all areas. Only really nice part was our punter having a habit of pinning em deep.

 

[Sugalean]

The stats answered quite a bit for me. 4 turnovers on the first drive of the 3rd quarter. Missed FG. 6 times the opponent started with the ball in the 3rd quarter. More or less Callahan's answer was we lost momentum for one reason or another going into the 3rd. The admited lack of execution in the second half makes adjustments about meaningless. It doesnt matter what the play is if the reciver drops the ball, or someone fumbles, or blows a block. The two previous years, we played better in the second half than the first. Really makes me think more execution than adjustments.

It would have been good to have Shatel ask about the special teams, but I do remember Callahan making a mention to the return game being a focus in spring ball, and looking at a few of the new arrivails as return specialists

Maybe you have some points with the misques and execution part. Still the staff shares responsibility for inadequate execution. When you lose momentum, usually the other team and their actions play a large part. I also still think teams made better 2nd half adjustments many of times last season. KU game comes to mind. We were winning going away until that 3rd qtr. They did some things, found out some things and we were slow to adjust. Cornish running that counter time after time comes to mind. Then they would pass off it. I also looked at those 3rd qtr stats and every yr the point total has been lower than other qtrs. Thats more than execution if you ask me. As for the special teams, I don't think the return guys are the gist of the problems but schemes and techniques in all areas. Only really nice part was our punter having a habit of pinning em deep.

 

[Sugalean]

Ugh,

Good interview, but that whole "win the North and close the gap on the South" is not a high enough goal.

I know this might touch off an old debate but IMO he needs to aim higher.

Duh! His goal is to win the national championship. Winning the north, etc are steps that need to be taken to reach that goal. You have to reach the little goals first before you can reach the big one. Obviously the team last year wasn't capable of reaching the BIG ONE.

I don't mind those qoutes as much as I mind Cos and defensive players saying we waz good enough to win 9 games. Like 9 games was this lofty goal. Might of been peachy keen at Wisc. but this is dear old Nebraska U. Lets don't forget our last coach won 9 before many were saying get a rope and he was let go.

The expectations here are big and it is what separates us from the other Big XII north teams. In Colorado they are more concerned about the Broncos. All those other schools ... 9 wins and they party like its 1999. 9 wins around here is just okay but you will have to do better in the future.

 

[MadcatNU]

I don't mind those qoutes as much as I mind Cos and defensive players saying we waz good enough to win 9 games.

I don't believe it was Coz that said that. I think it was Elmo. And i don't think he was saying that because nine is a lofty goal. But if you heard all the criticism the secondary got, you'd think we'd of won about three games. In truth, how many games did the defense or secondary cost us? Only one i can think of is OSU. I think that is the point that Elmo was trying to make: no it wasn't that good, but is it really as bad as every makes it seem? My read was that he finally got fed up with the constant criticism and bit back at the reporter... that was just my take. It could be i'm wrong.

 

[Sugalean]

I don't mind those qoutes as much as I mind Cos and defensive players saying we waz good enough to win 9 games.

I don't believe it was Coz that said that. I think it was Elmo. And i don't think he was saying that because nine is a lofty goal. But if you heard all the criticism the secondary got, you'd think we'd of won about three games. In truth, how many games did the defense or secondary cost us? Only one i can think of is OSU. I think that is the point that Elmo was trying to make: no it wasn't that good, but is it really as bad as every makes it seem? My read was that he finally got fed up with the constant criticism and bit back at the reporter... that was just my take. It could be i'm wrong.

Well who ever said it needed to put a sock in it (Grix said it too). I don't care if it was to defend the secondary's rep. Its not NU like and a nanny/nanny boo-boo like reponse that makes me wonder if you are NU material or not IMO. I can think of 1000 responses better than well it was good enough to win 9 games.

 

[MadcatNU]

I don't mind those qoutes as much as I mind Cos and defensive players saying we waz good enough to win 9 games.

I don't believe it was Coz that said that. I think it was Elmo. And i don't think he was saying that because nine is a lofty goal. But if you heard all the criticism the secondary got, you'd think we'd of won about three games. In truth, how many games did the defense or secondary cost us? Only one i can think of is OSU. I think that is the point that Elmo was trying to make: no it wasn't that good, but is it really as bad as every makes it seem? My read was that he finally got fed up with the constant criticism and bit back at the reporter... that was just my take. It could be i'm wrong.

Well who ever said it needed to put a sock in it (Grix said it too). I don't care if it was to defend the secondary's rep. Its not NU like and a nanny/nanny boo-boo like reponse that makes me wonder if you are NU material or not IMO. I can think of 1000 responses better than well it was good enough to win 9 games.

if i'm remembering correctly, the conext of Elmo's response was far from boo hoo. and they have given many responses before this one... i think he just got fed up at answering the same question.

But for the players sake, this may not have been such a bad move. Wether you think Grixby is terrible or doing the best he can while out of position, the truth is their wasn't many other options. They had to keep this unit's confidence up somehow.

i hope that this isn't the same line they used in spring camp or are using for the summer.

 

[hoyamannn]

Does anybody have a copy of this article?

Someone I was talking to the other day mentioned one of the last questions asked. Basically Shatel asked Callahan about not being able to game-plan in the 2nd half, and Callahan pulled out a list and mentioned that they always changed things up as needed but it didn't show because the players didn't execute.

I didn't read the article, but the way it was described to me made it sound like BC was throwing the players under the bus and not taking any of the blame. So if anybody can post the article or find it, I would greatly appreciate it.

 

[Husker J]

Does anybody have a copy of this article?

Someone I was talking to the other day mentioned one of the last questions asked. Basically Shatel asked Callahan about not being able to game-plan in the 2nd half, and Callahan pulled out a list and mentioned that they always changed things up as needed but it didn't show because the players didn't execute.

I didn't read the article, but the way it was described to me made it sound like BC was throwing the players under the bus and not taking any of the blame. So if anybody can post the article or find it, I would greatly appreciate it.

Read post #11.

 

[Ohio Pete]

the way it was described to me made it sound like BC was throwing the players under the bus and not taking any of the blame.

I initially got that impression as well, but I think it is probably more a motivational tatic. Guys who drop passes or fumble (and haven't taken the steps to improve) should definitely get called out. If that doesn't work, there are always new guys ready to step in.