• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

HuskerMax readers can save 50% on  Omaha Steaks .

Does Scott Frost Deserve a 5th Season at Nebraska?





Not too sure he deserves a 5th year, but pretty sure he will get one. N2fl mentioned earlier in the thread about losing all those super seniors and Martinez how we could possibly think we may be better. I think the defense will take a very small step back maybe. Honestly the best thing for this team is a new QB. Love Martinez the kid, not so much the player. If he can't run he can be effective. He is probably the least clutch player I have ever witnessed play the game. Yes some of the play calls have been suspect, but not enough for me to think the lack of clutch plays were on them and not our players, especially Martinez. What stinks is I think he may be the best ambassador we have had for our program in a long time. Just doesn't have IT.
 
jtf said:
NU should best Purdue. We are favored and Purdue has played a couple of rough games.

I’m curious about the comment on MN. You are the 2nd poster I’ve seen say we would have won the game without Yant’s mistake.

Why would it have been an automatic win if we went up 2 points late in the 3rd quarter? You assuming the rest of the game unfolds exactly the way it did?

I’ve got a buddy who regularly does this same kind of thing. He looks at every loss with the thought of if we didn’t make any mistakes and they didn’t make their good plays we are basically undefeated. It makes no sense and he and I can’t even talk Husker football any more.

Reality is based on 50 years of coaching comparisons after coaches 4th year we would be fortunate if Frost could build the Huskers into a perennial 6-8 game winner. Maybe he’s the 1 in 706 coaches who will be special. I hope so.
Click to expand...
I'm not assuming the rest of the game would go exactly the same. Though, the closer you get to the end of the game, the less likely the trajectory will change. OK, maybe that last sentence didn't make sense. By that I mean, if the ball bounces the other way early in the game, it will have less of an effect on the outcome. If the ref misses the call on the ball going over the goal line with 0:00 on the clock, that makes all the difference.

(I think I just complicated what could be a simpler explanation.)

Long story short, I'm basing my conclusion on two things:

1. We have built up the team depth. We've built the culture; guys are fighting to the end now regardless of circumstances (which we didn't see in 2017). While turnovers, penalties, and special teams were atrociously disappointing against Illinois, all areas have improved over the season. Anyone who watches the games with a basic knowledge of football can see improvement over the course of the year.

2. Statistically speaking, we're on the wrong end of probability in one-score games. With the improvement the team is making, that number is statistically bound to turn around.* The close losses will turn to close wins. Then we take the next step.

*I know what you're thinking ("the definition of insanity..."). But we have made steady progress in "competing" against increasingly better competition. It's the progression in turning around a program. First you learn how to compete. Then you learn how to win. Then you learn how to dominate. It's been tougher than it ought to be because of our schedule.
 
Elwood von Kiowa said:
I'm not assuming the rest of the game would go exactly the same. Though, the closer you get to the end of the game, the less likely the trajectory will change. OK, maybe that last sentence didn't make sense. By that I mean, if the ball bounces the other way early in the game, it will have less of an effect on the outcome. If the ref misses the call on the ball going over the goal line with 0:00 on the clock, that makes all the difference.

(I think I just complicated what could be a simpler explanation.)

Long story short, I'm basing my conclusion on two things:

1. We have built up the team depth. We've built the culture; guys are fighting to the end now regardless of circumstances (which we didn't see in 2017). While turnovers, penalties, and special teams were atrociously disappointing against Illinois, all areas have improved over the season. Anyone who watches the games with a basic knowledge of football can see improvement over the course of the year.

2. Statistically speaking, we're on the wrong end of probability in one-score games. With the improvement the team is making, that number is statistically bound to turn around.* The close losses will turn to close wins. Then we take the next step.

*I know what you're thinking ("the definition of insanity..."). But we have made steady progress in "competing" against increasingly better competition. It's the progression in turning around a program. First you learn how to compete. Then you learn how to win. Then you learn how to dominate. It's been tougher than it ought to be because of our schedule.
Click to expand...
I still think we likely lose the MN game but don’t know. Appreciate the rest of your post.
 




CrabHusker said:
We can't all be 100%. You're welcome to challenge.

I don't think you can look at not signing any of these kids in a vacuum.

Two are at positions we didn't need or want to chase in this cycle (TE). That's changed due to defections, injuries, etc., but that's where that position started last year.

Not all four are Nebraska kids. Two of the four are transplants. They don't have Nebraska roots. That matters. I was a Nebraska kid who moved to Colorado and had I had a Nebraska AND a Colorado offer back in the day, I'm picking the Huskers. Piss on choosing the school I was closest to geographically, I had Husker ties. You have to look at these kids through those lenses as well. Do any of them have true Nebraska ties?

Anyway, you can't condemn the staff for this. You can look at it and evaluate, but it's not an automatic 'You should have gotten these kids'. It's just not.
Click to expand...

True but at least should have gotten 25% right?



C
 
nchusker said:
@N2FL
If you want reasons to fire Frost you don’t need work hard at all to find them. Further if you want to ignore the positives that have occurred like the fact we have had no blow outs(blow outs were much to common in previous 20 years) fine you have, I guess your conclusion to support.
But to mislead is going too far. It’s already been brought up how misleading the point about turnovers is. Another example is this statement relative to in-game adjustments.
>
We consistently see questionable play calling, poor clock management and a lack of in-game adjustments.
>
Did the author not actually watch several second half’s such as against MSU were they were held to zero yards in the second half or the lead Michigan had at half time but for that fumble at the end we could have won(arguably the refs should have blown the whistle earlier). Or how about the Minn. game were we down 21-9 and certainly if not for example our rb tripping on the 1 yard line we could have won?

You want Frost fired ok no need to paint a darker picture then we already have by misleading statements.
Click to expand...

Instead of relying on refs maybe AM should just go down after getting the first instead of wasting precious seconds under 2 minutes to go and risking ball security, just to try and get one extra yard. That is like pop warner level crap. Get the first, go down, stop the clock, and get to the line for the next play.



C
 



NY Husker said:
The Nebraska offense ranks 12th in the nation in total offense. Some joke.
Click to expand...

Yet 50th in scoring and 106th in red zone efficiency.

If you read what I wrote, I said the offense is highly inefficient. Lots of empty yards.

To rank 12th in total offense (which is yards produced) yet 50th in scoring (and 106th in scoring within the red zone) there's some serious flaws with the offense.
 
Frank The Tank said:
And the reason they weren't locks is because Nebraska is losing.
Click to expand...

Not entirely. There is more to it than that.

Winning would certainly have made recruiting kids who aren't Nebraska locks by birth more likely to come, but it's still not a guarantee.
 

HuskerWeatherman said:
Yet 50th in scoring and 106th in red zone efficiency.

If you read what I wrote, I said the offense is highly inefficient. Lots of empty yards.

To rank 12th in total offense (which is yards produced) yet 50th in scoring (and 106th in scoring within the red zone) there's some serious flaws with the offense.
Click to expand...
Read em and weep!

scoring offense.jpg
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

GET TICKETS


Get 50% off on Omaha Steaks

Back
Top