Turning Point for Pelini

junior4949 said:
I find it particularly interesting that the OP used Norm Chow as an example considering his head is on the chopping block as we speak at UCLA because UCLA's offense has been AWOL this year. We've not at a crossroads. However, I don't agree with the poster that said we wouldn't have a 6-6 or 7-7 season any time under Bo. OU lost what 5 last year with Stoops. I'm sure with all the 10 win seasons Mack Brown has had a Texas that Texas fans never thought they'd see the day when they stayed home for the holidays. Most of the great coaches have had subpar seasons. It's somewhat naive to think Nebraska will never have a subpar season under Bo.
Click to expand...
Yes and no...OU/Texas are both programs that base their winning on offensive production. A QB injury (OU), or a QB flop (Texas) and everything your program is built on crumbles. I think what the poster was pointing out was that with a defense like Bo fields (no matter the talent) we will always be able to scrounge up 9-10 wins, 8 at the worst. I'd say after watching 09' (10' to a lesser degree) and the fact that we almost didn't have an offense at all...and still came out with 10 wins...saying we'll always get at least 8-9 isn't that far off. We'll rarely be out of the game, and when you only need 17 or so points to win a game (and the defense often provides 7-10 of those) then I think we'll be fine.

 
Outside of Nebraska, Muschamp is thought of in the same light as Bo. Yet, Texas won only five games this year. Texas thinks so much of him that they named him Mack's successor even though that might be years away, and if memory serves me correctly he's the highest paid DC in the D1. Last year, we had possibly a once in a coaching career player. Take this year for instance, how many games would we have lost had we not scored more than 17 points?

 
Blackshirtsguru said:
The only problem is that Watson isn't Bo's old friend...so he doesn't have to break ties. Tom Osborne told Bo that he wanted Watson to say. This decision is actually on Dr Tom's shoulders if you get down to it.
Click to expand...
Just curious, where's the proof of this? I've heard several people say this, but found nothing to back it up.

 
The program is not at a crossroad in my opinion. We lost three very close games this year and 2 out of 3 of those teams are top 20. 7 dropped passes instead of 8 and we beat Texas. Maybe 14 penalties instead of 16 A&M is a win too. No interception of Martinez, and a couple throw aways instead of sacks, this team is Undefeated and probably in the National Championship game.I have faith that the errors will be cleaned up as some of our young players mature. One year can make a huge difference in a player. Players win championships! I guess everybody forgot how boring and predictable Osbornes play calling was for many years.We didnt win the big one til Tommie Frazier,Lawrence Phillips, and an offensive line that opened hole you could drive a truck through, etc. showed up. Also must have forgotten the God-awful Callahan years of getting beat by 4 touchdowns, looking totally clueless on defense, and players seemingly giving up on the field. Not scared of the big ten schedule either. Clean up the offense a bit, keep dominating on defense and well be fine.

 
junior4949 said:
Outside of Nebraska, Muschamp is thought of in the same light as Bo. Yet, Texas won only five games this year. Texas thinks so much of him that they named him Mack's successor even though that might be years away, and if memory serves me correctly he's the highest paid DC in the D1. Last year, we had possibly a once in a coaching career player. Take this year for instance, how many games would we have lost had we not scored more than 17 points?
Click to expand...
4 games (2 of which were Washington/Idaho which we actually destroyed) But regardless...17 points would have won us 9 games (not messing w/ ties). That's my point. Thanks.

 
First off, we would have lost five games: Washington-21, Texas-20, Okie State-41, Iowa State-30, and OU-23. We would have tied in three other games by scoring 17 points. All of a sudden, we easily lose 5-8 games. This is the point. It's very naive to think we'll never see a 6-6 or 7-7 season with Bo at the helm unless we join the Big East.

 
junior4949 said:
First off, we would have lost five games: Washington-21, Texas-20, Okie State-41, Iowa State-30, and OU-23. We would have tied in three other games by scoring 17 points. All of a sudden, we easily lose 5-8 games. This is the point. It's very naive to think we'll never see a 6-6 or 7-7 season with Bo at the helm unless we join the Big East.
Click to expand...
Sorry I was going off memory. Good thing we'll have Watson to get us 18 (somehow) then. Back to 8 wins...Hurray! Maybe he can even get us 20 in a game and we can pick up another win. Yay!. See, really that's how simple it is as an OC at Nebraska. Get within 60 yards...kick a field goal. Doesn't matter if it's 1st down or 4th down. Kick the field goal. :)

 
The problem is that everyone wants to throw the OC under the bus at any given time. Take Texas for instance. They just got rid of their OC who up until this year was money every year. He's had their offense near the top each and every season. One bad year, boom he's gone. Then we look at UCLA with Norm Chow. Chow's historically been a great OC, but now since UCLA had a bad season lets think about getting rid of him. Texas barely averaged 23 points per game, and they finished with just five wins. This is from an OC that in the past decade has had his offense near the top. I'd be willing to bet if Watson is replaced it would be by Cotton. I don't see us getting a high profile OC in here. Back in 2003, Pud told us we needed a change. What he forgot to tell us is that sometimes change can be bad. I for one see Watson being replaced by Cotton as a change for the bad.

 
I think our offensive woes will only grow with Alex gone next year. He single handidly kept us in tight low scoring (gee...what a surprise...) games offensively.

He's gone after one more game. We keep SW, we better pray Tmart develops "and" stays healthy or we're going from six to twelve pts to three or zero in the Big10.

 
Hujan said:
If you want me to admit that this is my opinion, then yes, this is my opinion. What the f*ck is your point? My opinion is that right now the program has many ingredients to be something special, and that there are a few missing ingredients holding us back. If we don't make the changes now and strike while the fire is hot, this program could very easily dissolve into something completely ordinary.
Click to expand...
Meh. I don't have much of a point, probably. Just that the term "crossroads" seems a bit strong.

I won't be surprised if Watson's gone before next season starts. I won't be upset, either. All the same, I won't be surprised or terribly upset if he's here next year, too. As upset as I am with some of his decisions and lack of progress, I think everyone, Watson included, can change.

For all those stats everyone is so happy to toss around showing mediocre production for Watson over the past several years, I could show similar stats for Charlie McBride in the 80s and early 90s. Of course, McBride turned it around and we revere him like a god, and he's the Gold Standard to which Bo's defenses are compared. But he was nearly run out of town on a rail in about 1991/1992, just like Osborne was nearly run out of here in 1978.

 
knapplc said:
...just like Osborne was nearly run out of here in 1978.
Click to expand...
I really hope we don't have to wait 15 years for another MNC though. He sniffed it in the 80's I guess, which would be good enough for me right now.

Every topic is kind of hijacked by a "fire watson" theme, but in regards to the OP - I don't think this is a "turning point" - because if he doesn't do anything the program continues down it's path of 9-10 wins w/ a mediocre offense which plenty are content with. It's definately the first time we're going to see Bo make a CEO decision though, whatever that might be.

This isn't like letting Paul play after getting into trouble, or setting up the unity council and bringing back some traditions. This is hardcore hiring/firing which he hasn't had to do yet. Maybe he won't do anything...but you have to admit the Callahan era had some of these defining CEO moments, and I'd say he failed in most. What if he'd have fired Cosgrove after 06', brought in someone and ended up with a top-50 defense? He might just still be here. Decisions like these define a program.

 
Back
Top