QB Brett Hundley

[AndyDufresne]

After seeing them play against K-St, he probably thinks that he can start right away.

After seeing them vs K-ST, I think he probably CAN start right away! :LOLtartar

Very doubtful. Prince missed fall camp due to injury, which explains a lot of the rust and inconsistency you saw vs K-St. But the WRs didn't do Prince any favors with all of their drops and it certainly didn't help that the O-line was decimated with injuries during camp. The main problem, however, was the run D.

Hundley reminds me a lot of Josh Freeman. This is a big get for the Bruins.

There is no way UCLA should have lost to KSU if you go by the recruiting rankings. 4 out of the last 5 recruiting classes for UCLA have been ranked in the top 20. KSU hasn't had a top 25 class in their last 5 and 3 out of these have been outside of the top 40.

I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a huge get for UCLA as long as Neuheisel is coach, as I just don't see him doing much with whatever talent they bring on board.

 

[ADS]

After seeing them play against K-St, he probably thinks that he can start right away.

After seeing them vs K-ST, I think he probably CAN start right away! :LOLtartar

Very doubtful. Prince missed fall camp due to injury, which explains a lot of the rust and inconsistency you saw vs K-St. But the WRs didn't do Prince any favors with all of their drops and it certainly didn't help that the O-line was decimated with injuries during camp. The main problem, however, was the run D.

Hundley reminds me a lot of Josh Freeman. This is a big get for the Bruins.

There is no way UCLA should have lost to KSU if you go by the recruiting rankings. 4 out of the last 5 recruiting classes for UCLA have been ranked in the top 20. KSU hasn't had a top 25 class in their last 5 and 3 out of these have been outside of the top 40.

I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a huge get for UCLA as long as Neuheisel is coach, as I just don't see him doing much with whatever talent they bring on board.

I would have to agree with Andy. UCLA has been a top 20 recruitng class for the last 3 years. Theres no reason this team should look like a joke on the field.

 

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

Hundley

How long has Skippy been at UCLA? Three years now? They're due for an NCAA investigation and sanctions any time now.

It was his fourth year at both Colorado and Washington

 

[EZ-E]

I would have to agree with Andy. UCLA has been a top 20 recruitng class for the last 3 years. Theres no reason this team should look like a joke on the field.

A team is a direct reflection of their coach.

 

[ADS]

I would have to agree with Andy. UCLA has been a top 20 recruitng class for the last 3 years. Theres no reason this team should look like a joke on the field.

A team is a direct reflection of their coach.

Good point. You could look at Notre Dame under Charlie Weis, Nebraska under BC

 

[kchusker_chris]

I would have to agree with Andy. UCLA has been a top 20 recruitng class for the last 3 years. Theres no reason this team should look like a joke on the field.

A team is a direct reflection of their coach.

Good point. You could look at Notre Dame under Charlie Weis, Nebraska under BC

I'd argue the reason (partially) Nebraska didn't perform on the field is that we weren't a direct reflection of the coach. We (the state/fans) and the players clashed with BC's culture from day 1, right up to the end. BC is a solid coach (crucify me for saying so if you will), he just had a different idea of how it should be done. It might have flown at USC, or UCLA...just not so much in NE.

 

[EZ-E]

I would have to agree with Andy. UCLA has been a top 20 recruitng class for the last 3 years. Theres no reason this team should look like a joke on the field.

A team is a direct reflection of their coach.

Good point. You could look at Notre Dame under Charlie Weis, Nebraska under BC

I'd argue the reason (partially) Nebraska didn't perform on the field is that we weren't a direct reflection of the coach. We (the state/fans) and the players clashed with BC's culture from day 1, right up to the end. BC is a solid coach (crucify me for saying so if you will), he just had a different idea of how it should be done. It might have flown at USC, or UCLA...just not so much in NE.

He is a solid NFL positions coach IMO. He never embraced our tradition and I just don't think that he knew how to deal with college kids. I see Sherman being the same way at aTm.

 

[HuskerBruin]

After seeing them play against K-St, he probably thinks that he can start right away.

After seeing them vs K-ST, I think he probably CAN start right away! :LOLtartar

Very doubtful. Prince missed fall camp due to injury, which explains a lot of the rust and inconsistency you saw vs K-St. But the WRs didn't do Prince any favors with all of their drops and it certainly didn't help that the O-line was decimated with injuries during camp. The main problem, however, was the run D.

Hundley reminds me a lot of Josh Freeman. This is a big get for the Bruins.

There is no way UCLA should have lost to KSU if you go by the recruiting rankings. 4 out of the last 5 recruiting classes for UCLA have been ranked in the top 20. KSU hasn't had a top 25 class in their last 5 and 3 out of these have been outside of the top 40.

I'm not sure that there is such a thing as a huge get for UCLA as long as Neuheisel is coach, as I just don't see him doing much with whatever talent they bring on board.

Obviously UCLA shouldn't have lost to KSU if you go by recruiting rankings, but that's not what I said. I was responding to the notion that Hundley picked UCLA after seeing the KSU game because he was convinced he could start right away. I was just pointing out that what you saw from Prince in that game very likely won't be a good reflection of how he will look later in the season after he knocks off the rust that other QBs did during fall camp. Prince is a good QB who will probably start as long as he's at UCLA and healthy. Hundley will also certainly redshirt next year, not start.

And yes, this is a big get for the Bruins considering they badly needed a QB in this class after Brett Nottingham decommitted for Stanford late in the process last year. And they got a very good QB who was offered by a bunch of good programs, including Nebraska. Rick might not be the coach in four years, but Hundley will be the QB. And that's a good thing.

 

[dylan]

I'd argue the reason (partially) Nebraska didn't perform on the field is that we weren't a direct reflection of the coach. We (the state/fans) and the players clashed with BC's culture from day 1, right up to the end. BC is a solid coach (crucify me for saying so if you will), he just had a different idea of how it should be done. It might have flown at USC, or UCLA...just not so much in NE.

so....he lost games because the fans and players didn't like his ways? i'm sorry, but even if that were true, it would just be further proof of how bad of a head coach he was that he couldn't even win over his players. no, the truth is that he is a poor leader of men.

 

[kchusker_chris]

I'd argue the reason (partially) Nebraska didn't perform on the field is that we weren't a direct reflection of the coach. We (the state/fans) and the players clashed with BC's culture from day 1, right up to the end. BC is a solid coach (crucify me for saying so if you will), he just had a different idea of how it should be done. It might have flown at USC, or UCLA...just not so much in NE.

so....he lost games because the fans and players didn't like his ways? i'm sorry, but even if that were true, it would just be further proof of how bad of a head coach he was that he couldn't even win over his players. no, the truth is that he is a poor leader of men.

i think you misunderstood my statement. perhaps he was a good leader of men, he just didn't realize that most of the people he was trying to lead weren't yet men?

 

[dylan]

I'd argue the reason (partially) Nebraska didn't perform on the field is that we weren't a direct reflection of the coach. We (the state/fans) and the players clashed with BC's culture from day 1, right up to the end. BC is a solid coach (crucify me for saying so if you will), he just had a different idea of how it should be done. It might have flown at USC, or UCLA...just not so much in NE.

so....he lost games because the fans and players didn't like his ways? i'm sorry, but even if that were true, it would just be further proof of how bad of a head coach he was that he couldn't even win over his players. no, the truth is that he is a poor leader of men.

i think you misunderstood my statement. perhaps he was a good leader of men, he just didn't realize that most of the people he was trying to lead weren't yet men?

so...he's a poor sculptor and leader of young men. kind of a key skill to be a "solid coach" in college.

and considering he had meltdowns in both of his HC gigs, i'd say he's just a poor leader period. it's one thing to lose, it's another entirely to lose your team.