The Bo Must Go Crowd
- Thread starter PaulCrewe
- Start date
zoogs
New member
Exactly.
Bo = still the premier defensive mind in the game. I don't know how you can complain too much about that. But we lost a lot. This was set up to be a down year...
Blaming recruiting always strikes me as lazy.
We have talent on defense. We're very beat up on the defensive line. We have weak depth at linebacker, but our starters are solid. We have a couple holes in the secondary - Thorell, Cassidy, Blatchford - but those guys are starting in front of ballyhooed recruits like Corey Cooper, and in front of proven, experienced players like Courtney Osborne. How is that about recruiting and not about development?
On offense, where are we supposed to recruit better? We're supposed to recruit better RBs than Heard, Abdullah, Green, and Burkhead? Better WRs than Bell, Enunwa, and Turner? I mean, that'd be ideal, but none of those guys suffer from lack of talent, in my opinion. Neither does Martinez. Carnes was a 4 star recruit, so how is our QB recruiting bad?
I could buy that we need way more depth and quality on the offensive line, and maybe that goes back to recruiting... Other than that I think we need to develop guys more and get our best athletes on the field.
We have talent on defense. We're very beat up on the defensive line. We have weak depth at linebacker, but our starters are solid. We have a couple holes in the secondary - Thorell, Cassidy, Blatchford - but those guys are starting in front of ballyhooed recruits like Corey Cooper, and in front of proven, experienced players like Courtney Osborne. How is that about recruiting and not about development?
On offense, where are we supposed to recruit better? We're supposed to recruit better RBs than Heard, Abdullah, Green, and Burkhead? Better WRs than Bell, Enunwa, and Turner? I mean, that'd be ideal, but none of those guys suffer from lack of talent, in my opinion. Neither does Martinez. Carnes was a 4 star recruit, so how is our QB recruiting bad?
I could buy that we need way more depth and quality on the offensive line, and maybe that goes back to recruiting... Other than that I think we need to develop guys more and get our best athletes on the field.
Last edited by a moderator:
Ziebol
New member
I dont think lights out was what people expected but I also don't think people expected to see the piss poor play that is there now either.
MLB 51
Active member
PaulCrewe
New member
nowhereman
New member
Does it occur to anyone that the only thread here that contains the words "fire/must go" and "Bo" is this one? Somebody is awfully insecure and defensive, it seems to me.
Last edited by a moderator:
There might need to be some shakeups in assistants, but as far as getting rid of Bo. Nah. That seems drastic and stupid. This was Bo's first chance at putting together a coaching staff and maybe he just needs to tweak it a little bit more.
And as far as "Teams we shouldn't lose to," I'm not entirely sure that exists as a category any more. There might be a couple of teams like LSU and 'Bama who are unlikely to lose to teams they "shouldn't lose to," the category of teams who have teams to whom they shouldn't be losing is getting smaller and smaller and smaller. I think we should just get rid of that "shouldn't lose to" as a valid label. This weekend alone we've already seen a major "shouldn't lose to" game. There will always be powerhouses, but the gap between the powerhouses, traditional powerhouses or annual powerhouses, and the rest of the field is VERY small. Small enough that saying, "Shouldn't lose to," shows unearned arrogance in the modern era of the game.
We're holding NU to a 1995 standard in a 2011 game. With scholarship limitations, more nationally televised games (I mean, seriously, before the last couple of years, how often did you see Boise State's field on TV? For me, it was once a year during the bowl game they have there), players are going to be attracted to a number of different schools that might have been considered to be on a different "tier" back in the 90s. Maybe an Ahman Green of today, instead of choosing to play behind a LP, goes to a slightly less prestigious program where he is assured playing time and, because of the ubiquity of TV coverage, get national recognition. (not saying that Green didn't get playing time, but you can never be sure when you're stuck behind ANOTHER awesome player). So, what I'm saying is that even the "traditional" scrubby teams might have a couple of future pros. You don't know how great they are until they prove it in a game against a perceived powerhouse.
Long story short-- I don't believe in "should have won"/"Should have lost" any more. The game just doesn't work like that.
And as far as "Teams we shouldn't lose to," I'm not entirely sure that exists as a category any more. There might be a couple of teams like LSU and 'Bama who are unlikely to lose to teams they "shouldn't lose to," the category of teams who have teams to whom they shouldn't be losing is getting smaller and smaller and smaller. I think we should just get rid of that "shouldn't lose to" as a valid label. This weekend alone we've already seen a major "shouldn't lose to" game. There will always be powerhouses, but the gap between the powerhouses, traditional powerhouses or annual powerhouses, and the rest of the field is VERY small. Small enough that saying, "Shouldn't lose to," shows unearned arrogance in the modern era of the game.
We're holding NU to a 1995 standard in a 2011 game. With scholarship limitations, more nationally televised games (I mean, seriously, before the last couple of years, how often did you see Boise State's field on TV? For me, it was once a year during the bowl game they have there), players are going to be attracted to a number of different schools that might have been considered to be on a different "tier" back in the 90s. Maybe an Ahman Green of today, instead of choosing to play behind a LP, goes to a slightly less prestigious program where he is assured playing time and, because of the ubiquity of TV coverage, get national recognition. (not saying that Green didn't get playing time, but you can never be sure when you're stuck behind ANOTHER awesome player). So, what I'm saying is that even the "traditional" scrubby teams might have a couple of future pros. You don't know how great they are until they prove it in a game against a perceived powerhouse.
Long story short-- I don't believe in "should have won"/"Should have lost" any more. The game just doesn't work like that.
knapplc
Active member
Ah, but it isn't. It's just the thread that survived the Darwinian principle of thread longevity. Those other threads were all around when this one was started. Just look a little further down the forum.
Landomatic
New member
HuskerShark
Banned
I definitely wouldn't put that on the coaches. I would put that on the university. I love the Huskers as much as anybody else, but what a lot of people don't realize is that to recruits around America, Nebraska is not a premier college football destination. It is going to take a BCS bowl win, possibly a national championship win with the caliber of players that we have right now, in order for recruits to see Nebraska as an elite program.
Danny Bateman
Donor
Wow I thought I got upset after losses... 
Anyway, two quick points. We've been spoiled on defense up until this year since the Pelini era began. Our first two years we had a freak of nature, once in a generation type of player in Suh that made any scheme we ran damn near work by default... by himself. Combine that with '09 and a secondary who was "getting it," and it's easy to see why those two years, '09 especially, fielded such amazing defenses. And then last year, the aforementioned secondary had grown into their own, and played dominant football all year long. Hell, 3/4 of that secondary got drafted, and both starting CBs from the 2010 defense were/will be 1st round draft picks.
This is the first year we haven't had a Suh-like talent or a stacked secondary, and it shows. Not to mention the fact we've been bitten by the injury bug in a significant way, losing Crick and Fonzie for extended time.
Secondly, I agree with whoever said our losses seem worse this year. I know this year did not stack up well, what with entering a new conference and being thrown to the wolves with the schedule we got. And some of those wins have been sensational... so much so that they damn near put me into cardiac arrest. But this year our losses have really ripped my heart out personally. We've been absolutely embarrassed and gotten throttled twice on national television, including one Gameday game. And we totally failed to show up against a lesser opponent in Northwestern, and lost that game too.
I know it can be said that even the best teams have off weeks. And I know a couple of teams from Oklahoma that would certainly back that up
. Or Wisconsin for that matter. But it just sickens me to see us shoot ourselves in the foot and lose to teams that are worse than us.
Oh well, at least this year I don't have to watch games I know we should have had in the bag (2010 CCG vs. OU, Texas '09 and 10, ISU '09) slip away from us.
Anyway, two quick points. We've been spoiled on defense up until this year since the Pelini era began. Our first two years we had a freak of nature, once in a generation type of player in Suh that made any scheme we ran damn near work by default... by himself. Combine that with '09 and a secondary who was "getting it," and it's easy to see why those two years, '09 especially, fielded such amazing defenses. And then last year, the aforementioned secondary had grown into their own, and played dominant football all year long. Hell, 3/4 of that secondary got drafted, and both starting CBs from the 2010 defense were/will be 1st round draft picks.
This is the first year we haven't had a Suh-like talent or a stacked secondary, and it shows. Not to mention the fact we've been bitten by the injury bug in a significant way, losing Crick and Fonzie for extended time.
Secondly, I agree with whoever said our losses seem worse this year. I know this year did not stack up well, what with entering a new conference and being thrown to the wolves with the schedule we got. And some of those wins have been sensational... so much so that they damn near put me into cardiac arrest. But this year our losses have really ripped my heart out personally. We've been absolutely embarrassed and gotten throttled twice on national television, including one Gameday game. And we totally failed to show up against a lesser opponent in Northwestern, and lost that game too.
I know it can be said that even the best teams have off weeks. And I know a couple of teams from Oklahoma that would certainly back that up
. Or Wisconsin for that matter. But it just sickens me to see us shoot ourselves in the foot and lose to teams that are worse than us.Oh well, at least this year I don't have to watch games I know we should have had in the bag (2010 CCG vs. OU, Texas '09 and 10, ISU '09) slip away from us.
