I don't see him doing it either. All I was saying is Mickey as HC with this system is way better than bringing in a "proven" coach who runs the same old system we have been running for the last 6 years.
Insane Fact - Puts Things In Perspective
- Thread starter CornHusker_635
- Start date
I dont think anyone is gonna love him when we lose 56-10 Saturday.
So you do want him back? Usually you seem like you don't like him.
Yeah, it would be really hard to hire him if they end the season on a 5-6 game losing streak.
The Mickey guys are ride or die. They are all in regardless!
90s Nebraska ain't coming back. Ever. Osborne himself said he would have changed to a spread offense. TO could win in any era. He was smart, knew how to motivate people, and wasn't afraid of change.
OK, lets just keep doing what we're doing!
Jesus, a power running game with some option and play action passing. What the hell is so hard about that and why do you cling to the current failure? Tell me why that's easier to defend than 4 WRs and the shotgun.
I think they will. Most driving the narrative don't care about the results (or if they do, easy to blame Frost, Whipple, whoever). It will still be "kids love him, he's a straight-shooter, he's a great recruiter, he loves Nebraska, name someone else who is guaranteed to make us great not named Urb."
Osborne would win today with a modern offense. Others success has nothing to do with our failures.
IF Tom would have shown some sack and fired Bo when he refused to can Carl, Tom could have prevented this whole mess. Tom had cause that no court would argue with and he deferred. There wouldn’t have been a Riley hire.
Imagine a world where Mike Riley never coaches at NU??? Those 3 years still don't seem real.
I did kind of like Banker though.
MJ is loved in the same way a walk-on from outstate Nebraska is loved
I don't know, I don't want to be an argumentative prick, but I'm not sure how much I'd agree that he embraced change. I know he has said stuff about the spread, but ultimately I still think he'd be running the ball until it didn't work and then I think he'd run it some more. His guiding principle would still be to bend other teams to our will physically, something that hasn't been true around here for a LONG time.
I think there are still so many bowls that 5-7 can get you an invitation.
So, there is still Husker hope!
So, there is still Husker hope!
nebraska is one more bad coaching hire away from being Colorado. Your already the Indiana basketball of football, but your teetering on becoming Colorado football. BoB could stop that from happening. Rhule probably would too. Freeze would have nebraska in the first B1G championship game within two years. Our division is weak and there for the taking ... until pods that is, but that could end up being even easier for us.
Getting to 5 is still laughable. The Iowa-nebraska game will be a fluffer, but the other two are bending nebraska over
Osborne started off as a pro style oc/HC at NU. He was always evolving. He said he would have gone to a spread offense if he had not retired. I'm convinced he would have been successful in whatever offense he ran.
Hmmmm...sounds like you are trying to pretend to be a Husker fan?
Vince Lombardi ain’t saving the Huskers now. It’s Nebraska and nobody’s coming unless paid. Get that billionaire to throw out some major cash and maybe you can get good enough to again compete against some of the Big Ten West teams. It’s just reality.
Well, prior to that time frame Nebraska owned Iowa, so what time frame do you want to use?
nice, coming from a poster that doesn’t know much history prior to 2014
It’s a tradition right up there with the sell out streak except the “no bowl” tradition is more accurate in terms of its reality.
That's downright scary partner. But your post forces me to change my mind. Thank you for your insight sir!
He had a great opportunity, it's not entirely his fault because he was handed such a bad situation...but to get the job he had to do more with it than he has. It sucks, but he needed to get bowl eligible at least to be taken seriously as a candidate.
Lol!! That's for damn sure as it's fluffball that so very, very many want. Of course we just keep being a losing machine but boatloads of our fans still want more of it.
God help us.
That's the beauty of football. A prolific passing game is fun, but if your passing sucks, you better have something to fall back on. TO trusted his ability to move the ball on the ground while minimizing mistakes and eating up clock. When he got a lead, he forced the other team to change what they wanted to do in order to catch up.
Conversely, in the times we ran up against a good opponent, we worried that we couldn't play catch up with a ground control game. There's simply wasn't enough time in the game.
Modern offenses that spread out the field and rely on great players making things happen in the open field with quick score ability is desirable.
The reason I would favor a run first mentality is because quarterback play is so spotty everywhere. In the NCAA or the NFL, it seems there are never more than 10 guys in either that can really sling it. We've never come close to having a really good passer short of Zac. Taylor.
But dynamic runners who are serviceable passers are more readily available. Same concept. Get them into space and chew up yards with their feet or the guy they are pitching it to. It's never bothered me that the pros turn up their nose at old Nebraska football. Just win
The biggest problem is, we can't move the ball on the ground consistently. That's why we are forced to be "pass happy" because our running game isn't effective.
Yeah, he did it to save his own bacon, I think.
Banker sort of "figured out" the Big Ten and the rush defense was pretty good.
Sure, our current line is very suspect. Equally bad at run blocking and pass protection. But given a choice, those guys want to be moving forward and putting guys on their butt.
I'd love to be strong here. Tackling is so poor in the NCAAs. This explains a lot of Kansas State's success. They are committed to a street fight every play. Most teams want no part of that.
I'm a baseball guy and I love the way smart teams "exploit inefficiencies" i.e. do something different than what everyone else is doing. There are very few teams that are truly committed to a run first mentality. I question whether Nebraska is ever really going to be successful doing the same thing as everyone else. Maybe.
You know what's really scary? We brought Frost in here to replace Riley, and Frost's best year was about the same as Riley's worst year. Riley actually had us in a bowl game 2 of 3 years. Riley beat Michigan State towards the end of a season when they were ranked #6 and barely lost to Iowa when they were #3. Riley actually won a bowl game. That's how low we are now.
Similar threads
