So this is what the media wants us to be like.

[zoogs]

That's hard to say, but we started out this season getting worked by the likes of Wyoming and Minnesota. We haven't had the opportunity to be tested by any of those teams in the latter half of the year. Hopefully we get a good bowl opponent. I'm really bummed we can't face Ohio State in the CCG. That would be a great, great measuring stick.

 

[admo]

I think if you keep Bo, you let him make all the staff decisions. There's maybe a (non coordinator) assistant or two I'd like to see change, but other than that....keeping Bo means keeping the team he works best with. I think large staff changes are unlikely. And for all you Beck haters, he's one of the best things we have going for us

Paps would be more under fire if we haven't been turning this D around lately. So I think if we give Bo another year, it's fair to not really demand a staff change while doing it.

D has been turning around a lot lately. However, have we been really turning the D around? Or are we just not playing teams with similar speed of UCLA, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Georgia?

It's probably a combination. But no other team with a good defense is doing that week in and week out either.

Yeah probably so.

 

[da skers]

That's hard to say, but we started out this season getting worked by the likes of Wyoming and Minnesota. We haven't had the opportunity to be tested by any of those teams in the latter half of the year. Hopefully we get a good bowl opponent. I'm really bummed we can't face Ohio State in the CCG. That would be a great, great measuring stick.

We should end up with Mizzou or Texas. That should do just fine. (Assuming we beat Iowa.)

 

[The King]

I think if you keep Bo, you let him make all the staff decisions. There's maybe a (non coordinator) assistant or two I'd like to see change, but other than that....keeping Bo means keeping the team he works best with. I think large staff changes are unlikely. And for all you Beck haters, he's one of the best things we have going for us

Paps would be more under fire if we haven't been turning this D around lately. So I think if we give Bo another year, it's fair to not really demand a staff change while doing it.

Disagree, I think you can tell Bo that "Hey, we would like to keep you, with the caveat that there need to be changes made somewhere - clearly, the current system is not working." Clearly, special teams, amongst other things, are piss poor.

 

[zoogs]

King, if the current system really doesn't deserve any more chances, then Bo's the one who needs to go. He's had plenty of chances to assemble the staff he wants. Either they're working towards something good now or they're not. Further changes should neither be mandatory nor offered as a means of extending his own career here.

If Bo wants to make changes here or there on his own, that's all up to him. If recent history is any guide, there will be few, if any of these

 

[knapplc]

I think what King is getting at is something like what happened with Frank in 2002.

 

[Foppa]

That's hard to say, but we started out this season getting worked by the likes of Wyoming and Minnesota. We haven't had the opportunity to be tested by any of those teams in the latter half of the year. Hopefully we get a good bowl opponent. I'm really bummed we can't face Ohio State in the CCG. That would be a great, great measuring stick.

We should end up with Mizzou or Texas. That should do just fine. (Assuming we beat Iowa.)

A part of me hopes it is Texas. I think we could run them into the ground. And the part of me hopes it isn't. Mack Brown somehow gets off on playing Nebraska, whether his team is good or bad. He could replace all his players with cardboard boxes and still find a way to beat Nebraska. It sucks, it usually doesn't make sense, but I'm tired of seeing those idiots.

 

[kchusker_chris]

I think if you keep Bo, you let him make all the staff decisions. There's maybe a (non coordinator) assistant or two I'd like to see change, but other than that....keeping Bo means keeping the team he works best with. I think large staff changes are unlikely. And for all you Beck haters, he's one of the best things we have going for us

Paps would be more under fire if we haven't been turning this D around lately. So I think if we give Bo another year, it's fair to not really demand a staff change while doing it.

D has been turning around a lot lately. However, have we been really turning the D around? Or are we just not playing teams with similar speed of UCLA, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Georgia?

I wanna know why the D has turned around. Schematically it's obviously changed with increase pressure, DL not being 3 yards off the ball, etc. I wanna know if that's because JP took over "coaching" the D from Bo, or Bo took it over from JP. If this was always Bo's defense before, you'd have to assume him getting his nose out of it is what changed right?

 

[StPaulHusker]

I think if you keep Bo, you let him make all the staff decisions. There's maybe a (non coordinator) assistant or two I'd like to see change, but other than that....keeping Bo means keeping the team he works best with. I think large staff changes are unlikely. And for all you Beck haters, he's one of the best things we have going for us

Paps would be more under fire if we haven't been turning this D around lately. So I think if we give Bo another year, it's fair to not really demand a staff change while doing it.

D has been turning around a lot lately. However, have we been really turning the D around? Or are we just not playing teams with similar speed of UCLA, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Georgia?

I wanna know why the D has turned around. Schematically it's obviously changed with increase pressure, DL not being 3 yards off the ball, etc. I wanna know if that's because JP took over "coaching" the D from Bo, or Bo took it over from JP. If this was always Bo's defense before, you'd have to assume him getting his nose out of it is what changed right?

Speed and tackling have been a welcome change this year from last.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

If Bo's career is on the line -- and not just at Nebraska, but for any potential employer -- Bo is going to make whatever changes he deems necessary. His self-interest and the success of the team are one and the same.

If he wants to stand pat, that's his choice and he will live with the consequences.

I just don't want to see someone who is not the head coach and not even a football person making football decisions. That's why you hire a head coach. You pay him $3 million to make head coaching decisions.

If Bo wants to hang his future on Papuchis, let it roll. He doesn't need any ultimatum from the university administration or fan base. He will be second-guessed either way, so give him the authority to succeed or fail as he sees fit.

 

[The King]

King, if the current system really doesn't deserve any more chances, then Bo's the one who needs to go. He's had plenty of chances to assemble the staff he wants. Either they're working towards something good now or they're not. Further changes should neither be mandatory nor offered as a means of extending his own career here.

If Bo wants to make changes here or there on his own, that's all up to him. If recent history is any guide, there will be few, if any of these

There have been coaches that have been told to make changes or they'd be canned as well as the rest of the staff. It's happened before, and it can happen again.

I am sorry, but at this point Bo's blind loyalty to people is starting to hinder his performance greatly. I get it - he is a man and makes his own decisions - but I think sometimes people need a nudge in the right direction.

 

[RedDenver]

If Bo's career is on the line -- and not just at Nebraska, but for any potential employer -- Bo is going to make whatever changes he deems necessary. His self-interest and the success of the team are one and the same.

If he wants to stand pat, that's his choice and he will live with the consequences.

I just don't want to see someone who is not the head coach and not even a football person making football decisions. That's why you hire a head coach. You pay him $3 million to make head coaching decisions.

If Bo wants to hang his future on Papuchis, let it roll. He doesn't need any ultimatum from the university administration or fan base. He will be second-guessed either way, so give him the authority to succeed or fail as he sees fit.

Jay Foreman mentioned this one the radio today. A boss can't come in and tell a guy how to do his job and then expect to hold the guy accountable later. Because then if Eichorst makes Bo replace the OC, for example, and the O under performs next year, Bo will say, "I just did what you told me to do." Then Eichorst should be taken to task for making changes. What Eichorst needs to do is sit down and ask Bo what he plans to do and let Bo tell him how things are going to be fixed. Then if things aren't working out, Eichorst simply points to that discussion and can say, "You didn't accomplish what you said you would." This same reasoning applies to a new coach Eichorst might hire as well.

 

[Foppa]

If Bo's career is on the line -- and not just at Nebraska, but for any potential employer -- Bo is going to make whatever changes he deems necessary. His self-interest and the success of the team are one and the same.

If he wants to stand pat, that's his choice and he will live with the consequences.

I just don't want to see someone who is not the head coach and not even a football person making football decisions. That's why you hire a head coach. You pay him $3 million to make head coaching decisions.

If Bo wants to hang his future on Papuchis, let it roll. He doesn't need any ultimatum from the university administration or fan base. He will be second-guessed either way, so give him the authority to succeed or fail as he sees fit.

Jay Foreman mentioned this one the radio today. A boss can't come in and tell a guy how to do his job and then expect to hold the guy accountable later. Because then if Eichorst makes Bo replace the OC, for example, and the O under performs next year, Bo will say, "I just did what you told me to do." Then Eichorst should be taken to task for making changes. What Eichorst needs to do is sit down and ask Bo what he plans to do and let Bo tell him how things are going to be fixed. Then if things aren't working out, Eichorst simply points to that discussion and can say, "You didn't accomplish what you said you would." This same reasoning applies to a new coach Eichorst might hire as well.

I like that. But it's funny...the first part is probably what Stevie Pud did, and NU's interim coach eventually became our now coach.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I'm sure Eichorst will have a conversation with Bo. Neither one want to be having the conversation, so I'm betting it's brief and non-specific.

I'm also guessing that Bo Pelini has picked up on the vibe that the University of Nebraska would like more out of its football team.

 

[Mavric]

I think if you keep Bo, you let him make all the staff decisions. There's maybe a (non coordinator) assistant or two I'd like to see change, but other than that....keeping Bo means keeping the team he works best with. I think large staff changes are unlikely. And for all you Beck haters, he's one of the best things we have going for us

Paps would be more under fire if we haven't been turning this D around lately. So I think if we give Bo another year, it's fair to not really demand a staff change while doing it.

D has been turning around a lot lately. However, have we been really turning the D around? Or are we just not playing teams with similar speed of UCLA, Wisconsin, Ohio State, Georgia?

I wanna know why the D has turned around. Schematically it's obviously changed with increase pressure, DL not being 3 yards off the ball, etc. I wanna know if that's because JP took over "coaching" the D from Bo, or Bo took it over from JP. If this was always Bo's defense before, you'd have to assume him getting his nose out of it is what changed right?

Speed and tackling have been a welcome change this year from last.

This is the big thing. We've been bringing more pressure all year - it hasn't just been in the last few games. We brought some sort of pressure (twist, blitz, zone blitz) on about half the plays in the first half against Wyoming (I didn't get around to charting the second half) but it wasn't nearly as effective as it has been lately. We were so out of position early in the year that we didn't even give ourselves a chance. Now that we are much more sound in our responsibilities, the entire defense is better and the extra pressure has a much better chance of working.

Some of the difference may be due to the system being "too complicated" (although I think that line of thinking has taken a bit of a hit this year as Banderas and Gerry have been able to come in and contribute from game one as true freshmen) but I think it also gives credence to the idea that we had a lot of inexperience on that side of the ball that is really starting to come together.