I saw a collage of some coach being mad so I made my own of Bo Pelini
-
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 .
How Many...
- Thread starter MHKHusker
- Start date
Yep, I just wonder what the true potentials are. I think Garrett Nelson just puts in the work and it takes care of itself in terms of on-field performance
The current players are physically more imposing for all the reason's Mr. Bennett stated. They are probably just as athletic as the guys playing in 1995.
The difference ins't just TO being the head coach. The difference is that in 1995 the program that was Nebraska football was a well oiled machine that had been doing things basically the same way for about 30 years. Sure there was constant tweeks going on, but no wholesale changes taking place.
How many of TO"s assistants had at least 10 years on his staff in 1995. More than half I think. That says a lot. The "Nebraska Way" of doing things was deeply in trenched and passed from player to player and position to position. There was a lot to live up to to be a part of those teams.
If you threw the current players into the fire as freshman and they got to learn from upper class men what is needed and expected to step on the field they would look and act and play just the same in the end.
The difference ins't just TO being the head coach. The difference is that in 1995 the program that was Nebraska football was a well oiled machine that had been doing things basically the same way for about 30 years. Sure there was constant tweeks going on, but no wholesale changes taking place.
How many of TO"s assistants had at least 10 years on his staff in 1995. More than half I think. That says a lot. The "Nebraska Way" of doing things was deeply in trenched and passed from player to player and position to position. There was a lot to live up to to be a part of those teams.
If you threw the current players into the fire as freshman and they got to learn from upper class men what is needed and expected to step on the field they would look and act and play just the same in the end.
TO wasn’t getting more from less. He had a bunch of talented bad asses. Now, you could make a case that players that would normally never see the field then, he got the most out of. Basically, he (they, the coaches) made everyone better. That’s why he was 255-49-3. Apparently, Frost learned nothing from that.
No, but Casey Thompson would NOT be the starter.
Last edited:
Zero
nah, maybe 2, maybe... non of these players have done much if anything, they haven't even sniffed a winning season.
He probably learned a lot. But when you are playing, you aren’t necessarily learning how to coach. There are some coaches out there who are pretty good coaches who hardly played at all (Mike Leach). And there are great players who really struggled to be good coaches. It doesn’t necessarily translate.
I really enjoyed being spoiled, until it started to fall apart I thought we'd always be in the hunt.
Good points. There are few great players who went on to become really good coaches. There are some, but not many. It’s usually the nerds sitting on the bench learning everything they possibly can (Lincoln Riley types). That said, you’d think once you got into coaching, you would look back on what was successful and what wasn’t. Frost built up a reputation of success and had success early on as a head coach. Somewhere along the way (Oregon) he became pass happy and forgot his roots. He is now coaching where he played, and it’s a unique spot. To see what he has tried to do has been frustrating for most everyone. He has a wealth of knowledge by his side and at his disposal (Osborne) and I’m not sure he uses it enough. Oftentimes, people always think they know better instead of proven formulas. That’s where Frost is at right now.
Last edited:
Sigh, throughout the Frost era, we have had the "Jimmies and Joes" to match all but TO's National Championship teams in terms of raw athletic ability.
What you seem to be missing is that the difference is not the "players" but putting those players in a position to be able to win, and have them know how to win at the end of ball games.
-ST teams play has never been emphasized in this era, always was under TO; result: miles of hidden lost yardage to our opponents.
-Turnovers, in large part due to one player, never addressed. Yet this is perhaps the largest factor in losing close games.
-Defense that can not create "big plays" to get off the field to close out games: crucial sacks on 3rd down, create turnovers, or force 4th downs.
-Offense that can not control the clock at the end of the game (Run the ball, d@mn it) to win close games. Defining nature of the TO era, physical play that wears out an opponent to win the 4th quarter.
All these things COULD have been done with the athletes available in the last years and we all know that TO and his staff would have had winning, bowl, and even conference championship seasons in some of those years. One thing the Frost staff can do is get athletes on campus, we have had players to work with, no doubt about it but develop and refine those players........
GBR
What you seem to be missing is that the difference is not the "players" but putting those players in a position to be able to win, and have them know how to win at the end of ball games.
-ST teams play has never been emphasized in this era, always was under TO; result: miles of hidden lost yardage to our opponents.
-Turnovers, in large part due to one player, never addressed. Yet this is perhaps the largest factor in losing close games.
-Defense that can not create "big plays" to get off the field to close out games: crucial sacks on 3rd down, create turnovers, or force 4th downs.
-Offense that can not control the clock at the end of the game (Run the ball, d@mn it) to win close games. Defining nature of the TO era, physical play that wears out an opponent to win the 4th quarter.
All these things COULD have been done with the athletes available in the last years and we all know that TO and his staff would have had winning, bowl, and even conference championship seasons in some of those years. One thing the Frost staff can do is get athletes on campus, we have had players to work with, no doubt about it but develop and refine those players........
GBR
Last edited:
Its really hard to compare players era to era, simply because the abilty and athleticism of players change over time, significant rules change over time, and the strength of competing programs change over time.
I think the best you can do is compare those in a rolling 20 year cycle.
To me the 70-71 team was probably the best one I've seen but those in the 90s could be lableled the best and I wouldn't argue. But as to how many players on the present teams could have played on either of those sets of teams playing under under those rules in those years -- really hard to say. The game has changed so much over the years.
I recall the 1941 Rose Bowl team, ranked very high having lost only one game, that by a touchdown to Minnesota,the national champions. They played Stanford who introduced the T formation that year and it was enough to beat NU by a touchdown. The starting left tackle for the Huskers was 6' 4 and weighed 215 pounds. But he was great for the times. We had a guard who weighed 145 pounds. The Huskers scored on a 33 yard pass and the guy who threw it said he threw it as far as he could. But it was a great team for its time.
The 90s are recent enough that some legitimate comparisons can be made, but of the programs, not the players. The programs are so far apart on coaching that comparisons of individual players simply cannot fairly be made.. The players now have not had the opportunity to develop the way the Devaney/Osborne players did, and therefore in their present state of development hardly any could have made those teams.
Whether some or many of them could have with better coaching and development, who knows.
I think the best you can do is compare those in a rolling 20 year cycle.
To me the 70-71 team was probably the best one I've seen but those in the 90s could be lableled the best and I wouldn't argue. But as to how many players on the present teams could have played on either of those sets of teams playing under under those rules in those years -- really hard to say. The game has changed so much over the years.
I recall the 1941 Rose Bowl team, ranked very high having lost only one game, that by a touchdown to Minnesota,the national champions. They played Stanford who introduced the T formation that year and it was enough to beat NU by a touchdown. The starting left tackle for the Huskers was 6' 4 and weighed 215 pounds. But he was great for the times. We had a guard who weighed 145 pounds. The Huskers scored on a 33 yard pass and the guy who threw it said he threw it as far as he could. But it was a great team for its time.
The 90s are recent enough that some legitimate comparisons can be made, but of the programs, not the players. The programs are so far apart on coaching that comparisons of individual players simply cannot fairly be made.. The players now have not had the opportunity to develop the way the Devaney/Osborne players did, and therefore in their present state of development hardly any could have made those teams.
Whether some or many of them could have with better coaching and development, who knows.
Nelson
