The Mark Richt Campaign

[NUpolo8]

Frost does call the plays.

Rumors are that he does not anymore. Can't find a link, but the rumors are that he doesn't.

Regardless, when you cover up the name on his resume he is nowhere near qualified to be our HC.

How about you apologize to the good people of this board for 100% completely fabricating a story to validate your completely inaccurate point of view.

EZ-E, people value your opinion to the point where we want to hear legitimate reasons why you do not think Scott is ready for the Nebraska job, but making crap up to support it, it is just embarrassing. Here is a link, for you, calling Scott "an outstanding young play-caller." This seems to contradict all your sources you have planted in Eugene, Oregon. I can find supply more links I read earlier today discussing play-calling specific quotes from Frost, too.

http://www.cbssports.com/collegefootball/writer/bruce-feldman/24148008/big-picture-ducks-d-ready-for-stretch-run-best-comeback-story

Did not even in the slightest imply that I have "sources in Eugene." Never one time did I do that. Read it from stump1 on this board. Which is why I said that "rumor is he doesn't call them anymore." Try reading the post exactly how I wrote it

My thoughts about Scott are very well documented in other threads. But one more time for the slow guy:

Cover up the name on his resume and there is no way he is qualified to be the Head Coach at Nebraska. I can't think of anyone even making a case for him.

Except names matter. You cover up Jim Harbaugh's name on his resume, and he doesn't get a PAC-12 coaching gig in 07.

Hell by your rationale, Bo's anonymous resume doesn't land him the Nebraska job. Christ.

 

[ObamaRocks91]

Frost does call the plays.

Rumors are that he does not anymore. Can't find a link, but the rumors are that he doesn't.

Regardless, when you cover up the name on his resume he is nowhere near qualified to be our HC.

How about you apologize to the good people of this board for 100% completely fabricating a story to validate your completely inaccurate point of view.

EZ-E, people value your opinion to the point where we want to hear legitimate reasons why you do not think Scott is ready for the Nebraska job, but making crap up to support it, it is just embarrassing. Here is a link, for you, calling Scott "an outstanding young play-caller." This seems to contradict all your sources you have planted in Eugene, Oregon. I can find supply more links I read earlier today discussing play-calling specific quotes from Frost, too.

http://www.cbssports...-comeback-story

Did not even in the slightest imply that I have "sources in Eugene." Never one time did I do that. Read it from stump1 on this board. Which is why I said that "rumor is he doesn't call them anymore." Try reading the post exactly how I wrote it.

My thoughts about Scott are very well documented in other threads. But one more time for the slow guy:

Cover up the name on his resume and there is no way he is qualified to be the Head Coach at Nebraska. I can't think of anyone even making a case for him.

I personally am completely against both Mark Richt and Scott Frost. The Eugene sources was a sarcastic comment, my bad, I could have clarified.

That last sentence in your post is fair and similar to how I (and probably the majority of this board) feel. The difference is nobody else makes up fake "rumors" saying Frost doesn't call the plays. If you get it from Stumpy's post, then you certainly can provide a link or just say "according to Stumpy1, I'm not sure if he calls plays anymore." Don't try to be cryptic and pretend like you know your sh#t and have secret information and hide them behind "rumors."

 

[In the Deed the Glory]

So, a new staff has a ton of young talent that has won 9-10 games a year since their time here and it isn't a reasonable expectation to expect a CC in year two? Why? Bo took a team that lost 7 games the year before and won 9 and then 10 and played for a CC. If you fire someone you better get someone better than the guy you fired. That isn't unreasonable is it???

I understand the concept of what you're saying, but if Bo is fired, it's not for what he did in 2008-2010. It's for 2011-2013. Similarly, if a new coach is hired, his progress wouldn't be measured in comparison to where Bo had the program in 2009. It would be measured with where he had the program in 2013.

Then that's completely a$$-backwards.

So Bo was compared to where Solich had the team, and not Callahan?

You are going to really have to break this down as to how you came up with that from what was posted.

I knew using Solich was going to be a stretch, but trying to say that we should base the future of our current coach in 2013 and the expectations of a suggested new coach upon the accomplishments of 4 seasons ago makes about as much sense. You keep pointing to the improvements from Callahan in 2007. I think that is valid. You cannot, then, change your parameters to fit what ever spin you are trying to put on this argument.

Have you seen anybody comparing where we are right now to the 2006 Callahan team? I hope not...as it would make no sense in regards to the state of the program on a continuum.

 

[EZ-E]

Frost does call the plays.

Rumors are that he does not anymore. Can't find a link, but the rumors are that he doesn't.

Regardless, when you cover up the name on his resume he is nowhere near qualified to be our HC.

How about you apologize to the good people of this board for 100% completely fabricating a story to validate your completely inaccurate point of view.

EZ-E, people value your opinion to the point where we want to hear legitimate reasons why you do not think Scott is ready for the Nebraska job, but making crap up to support it, it is just embarrassing. Here is a link, for you, calling Scott "an outstanding young play-caller." This seems to contradict all your sources you have planted in Eugene, Oregon. I can find supply more links I read earlier today discussing play-calling specific quotes from Frost, too.

http://www.cbssports...-comeback-story

Did not even in the slightest imply that I have "sources in Eugene." Never one time did I do that. Read it from stump1 on this board. Which is why I said that "rumor is he doesn't call them anymore." Try reading the post exactly how I wrote it.

My thoughts about Scott are very well documented in other threads. But one more time for the slow guy:

Cover up the name on his resume and there is no way he is qualified to be the Head Coach at Nebraska. I can't think of anyone even making a case for him.

I personally am completely against both Mark Richt and Scott Frost. The Eugene sources was a sarcastic comment, my bad, I could have clarified.

That last sentence in your post is fair and similar to how I (and probably the majority of this board) feel. The difference is nobody else makes up fake "rumors" saying Frost doesn't call the plays. If you get it from Stumpy's post, then you certainly can provide a link or just say "according to Stumpy1, I'm not sure if he calls plays anymore." Don't try to be cryptic and pretend like you know your sh#t and have secret information and hide them behind "rumors."

You are probably right. Should have said "A poster in another thread said this..."

Now that we are over that and it was that big of a deal we can continue the conversation.

 

[Stumpy1]

Frost does call the plays.

Rumors are that he does not anymore. Can't find a link, but the rumors are that he doesn't.

Regardless, when you cover up the name on his resume he is nowhere near qualified to be our HC.

I was relaying what was told to me by a good friend that is a season ticket holder for the Ducks. He told me the Helfrich took over the game planning and play calling the week of the Washington game.

How about you apologize to the good people of this board for 100% completely fabricating a story to validate your completely inaccurate point of view.

EZ-E, people value your opinion to the point where we want to hear legitimate reasons why you do not think Scott is ready for the Nebraska job, but making crap up to support it, it is just embarrassing. Here is a link, for you, calling Scott "an outstanding young play-caller." This seems to contradict all your sources you have planted in Eugene, Oregon. I can find supply more links I read earlier today discussing play-calling specific quotes from Frost, too.

http://www.cbssports...-comeback-story

Did not even in the slightest imply that I have "sources in Eugene." Never one time did I do that. Read it from stump1 on this board. Which is why I said that "rumor is he doesn't call them anymore." Try reading the post exactly how I wrote it.

My thoughts about Scott are very well documented in other threads. But one more time for the slow guy:

Cover up the name on his resume and there is no way he is qualified to be the Head Coach at Nebraska. I can't think of anyone even making a case for him.

I personally am completely against both Mark Richt and Scott Frost. The Eugene sources was a sarcastic comment, my bad, I could have clarified.

That last sentence in your post is fair and similar to how I (and probably the majority of this board) feel. The difference is nobody else makes up fake "rumors" saying Frost doesn't call the plays. If you get it from Stumpy's post, then you certainly can provide a link or just say "according to Stumpy1, I'm not sure if he calls plays anymore." Don't try to be cryptic and pretend like you know your sh#t and have secret information and hide them behind "rumors."

 

[Hercules]

So, a new staff has a ton of young talent that has won 9-10 games a year since their time here and it isn't a reasonable expectation to expect a CC in year two? Why? Bo took a team that lost 7 games the year before and won 9 and then 10 and played for a CC. If you fire someone you better get someone better than the guy you fired. That isn't unreasonable is it???

I understand the concept of what you're saying, but if Bo is fired, it's not for what he did in 2008-2010. It's for 2011-2013. Similarly, if a new coach is hired, his progress wouldn't be measured in comparison to where Bo had the program in 2009. It would be measured with where he had the program in 2013.

Then that's completely a$$-backwards.

You looked at it this way yourself. When you talk about Bo, you said, "Bo took a team that lost 7 games the year before and then won 9 and then 10 and played for a CC." You don't compare Bo to Callahan's best year, you compare him to the season he was fired for.

You also didn't say, "Bo's a failure because he didn't win a conference championship by year 3." Which, using your logic, is what you should be saying. Callahan made it to the Big 12 championship game in his 3rd year as coach. So, according to your logic, the fact that Bo didn't win a conference championship by his 3rd year means that his hire wasn't worth it.

 

[Stumpy1]

I was told by a good friend who is a season ticket holder for the Ducks that Helfrich took over the game planning and play calling the week of the Washington game. He didn't say why, just that it was what he was told by guys in the know. He also said it is no secret that Frost wants to come home and coach.

 

[suigeneris]

Frost does call the plays.

Rumors are that he does not anymore. Can't find a link, but the rumors are that he doesn't.

Regardless, when you cover up the name on his resume he is nowhere near qualified to be our HC.

. . .

Did not even in the slightest imply that I have "sources in Eugene." Never one time did I do that. Read it from stump1 on this board. Which is why I said that "rumor is he doesn't call them anymore." Try reading the post exactly how I wrote it.

My thoughts about Scott are very well documented in other threads. But one more time for the slow guy:

Cover up the name on his resume and there is no way he is qualified to be the Head Coach at Nebraska. I can't think of anyone even making a case for him.

Next time try saying "one of the other posters said he doesn't call the plays anymore," instead of making a vague reference to rumors. It's not any harder to type and, by doing so, you substantiate your source and let the rest of us know that your reference to "rumors" is baseless. These are the type of posts that irk other posters, since they make it appear as if you are being deliberately vague to cover for your lack of knowledge.

 

[EZ-E]

I see what you are saying and my point is tough for me to find the right words for. I've said it enough, but I think everyone can agree that in a hypothetical coaching search you would be looking for someone who is better than the last guy. Right now our program has struggled to "take the next step." That next step being winning a conference championship and winning 11+ games. I guess my overall point is, our current guy took a team and made a four game improvement in the win column his first year and then won ten games the next. Our program currently is FAR from the shambles that it was in 07. There is actually a solid foundation off the field and we have a good program, but not great. So why fire a guy that runs a good program to hire a guy that won't have more success in a shorter amount of time?? Hard for me to type my thoughts, but I hope you understand what I am saying and where I am coming from when I say that a new coach needs to win a conference championship in his first two years. Do we take a step backwards to go forwards in a situation like the current one???

 

[Hercules]

I was told by a good friend who is a season ticket holder for the Ducks that Helfrich took over the game planning and play calling the week of the Washington game. He didn't say why, just that it was what he was told by guys in the know. He also said it is no secret that Frost wants to come home and coach.

Oregon DC Nick Aliotti disagrees. After the Washington game, he said, "Scott is driving that car real fast and it looks real pretty. Scott Frost, I'm tickled for him, a young rising star."

 

[NUpolo8]

Because the best/healthiest players don't play in his system.

Because his teams have regressed.

Because he steadfastly refuses to hold himself accountable, but demands that from his kids he's charged to mold.

Because there are better options out there.

Because this is a win now business, and Bo knew that going in.

If I answer you enough, does it make a sound?

 

[EZ-E]

Frost does call the plays.

Rumors are that he does not anymore. Can't find a link, but the rumors are that he doesn't.

Regardless, when you cover up the name on his resume he is nowhere near qualified to be our HC.

. . .

Did not even in the slightest imply that I have "sources in Eugene." Never one time did I do that. Read it from stump1 on this board. Which is why I said that "rumor is he doesn't call them anymore." Try reading the post exactly how I wrote it.

My thoughts about Scott are very well documented in other threads. But one more time for the slow guy:

Cover up the name on his resume and there is no way he is qualified to be the Head Coach at Nebraska. I can't think of anyone even making a case for him.

Next time try saying "one of the other posters said he doesn't call the plays anymore," instead of making a vague reference to rumors. It's not any harder to type and, by doing so, you substantiate your source and let the rest of us know that your reference to "rumors" is baseless. These are the type of posts that irk other posters, since they make it appear as if you are being deliberately vague to cover for your lack of knowledge.

I realize the error of my ways and how big of a deal it was. I also realize the seriousness of this issue and will get it corrected. Nobody is more angry about it than I am. One simple question for elaborations all it took. At the end of the day, was it the wrong word to use? Stumpy referenced "rumors" did he not?

 

[Hercules]

I see what you are saying and my point is tough for me to find the right words for. I've said it enough, but I think everyone can agree that in a hypothetical coaching search you would be looking for someone who is better than the last guy. Right now our program has struggled to "take the next step." That next step being winning a conference championship and winning 11+ games. I guess my overall point is, our current guy took a team and made a four game improvement in the win column his first year and then won ten games the next. Our program currently is FAR from the shambles that it was in 07. There is actually a solid foundation off the field and we have a good program, but not great. So why fire a guy that runs a good program to hire a guy that won't have more success in a shorter amount of time?? Hard for me to type my thoughts, but I hope you understand what I am saying and where I am coming from when I say that a new coach needs to win a conference championship in his first two years. Do we take a step backwards to go forwards in a situation like the current one???

I don't disagree with the notion that if coaching changes are made, the expectation should be for the program to improve immediately. I'm not interested in watching someone come in and overhaul the offense like Callahan did, putting players in a position to fail and leading us to a 5-7 season while they try to get "their players" in place.

However, I disagree with the idea that the only way to measure progress is through wins/championships. I want to see a team that plays hard week in and week out, that doesn't take games off, that plays smart and aggressive and fundamentally sound, that doesn't get out-toughed by inferior programs or blown out on a regular basis. That's not too much to ask for at Nebraska, and you can have all of that without winning a conference championship. I would be pretty happy with that compared to what we have right now, because I think that program would be a lot closer to winning a conference championship than this one is.

 

[TheSker]

Because this is a win now business, and Bo knew that going in.

Pelini won "now".....immediately elevating the program.

 

[EZ-E]

I see what you are saying and my point is tough for me to find the right words for. I've said it enough, but I think everyone can agree that in a hypothetical coaching search you would be looking for someone who is better than the last guy. Right now our program has struggled to "take the next step." That next step being winning a conference championship and winning 11+ games. I guess my overall point is, our current guy took a team and made a four game improvement in the win column his first year and then won ten games the next. Our program currently is FAR from the shambles that it was in 07. There is actually a solid foundation off the field and we have a good program, but not great. So why fire a guy that runs a good program to hire a guy that won't have more success in a shorter amount of time?? Hard for me to type my thoughts, but I hope you understand what I am saying and where I am coming from when I say that a new coach needs to win a conference championship in his first two years. Do we take a step backwards to go forwards in a situation like the current one???

I don't disagree with the notion that if coaching changes are made, the expectation should be for the program to improve immediately. I'm not interested in watching someone come in and overhaul the offense like Callahan did, putting players in a position to fail and leading us to a 5-7 season while they try to get "their players" in place.

However, I disagree with the idea that the only way to measure progress is through wins/championships. I want to see a team that plays hard week in and week out, that doesn't take games off, that plays smart and aggressive and fundamentally sound, that doesn't get out-toughed by inferior programs or blown out on a regular basis. That's not too much to ask for at Nebraska, and you can have all of that without winning a conference championship. I would be pretty happy with that compared to what we have right now, because I think that program would be a lot closer to winning a conference championship than this one is.

Not much to disagree with here. The only thing I'll add is that I think it would be very interesting to sit and watch film with guys and have them explain what they are doing. In sports, sometimes lack of effort is mistaken for confusion. I always give everybody I meet the benefit of the doubt and I would really like to believe that it is confusion over assignment rather than lack of effort.