I started thinking to day about all the people that want bo gone. I often wonder why and then at times when i watch the team i can see why but after rational thinking i go back to its better to hang in there for i little while longer than just run to another coach. Toms biggest loss was by 31 points and bos biggest loss is by 39 points. When i seen toms biggest loss i was suprised cause alot of people talk about how he never lost buy more than 14. Toms average was 11 points a loss and bos average loss was 15 points. I think its crazy that their average is so close. If bo would scale it back in all the tight games i bet he would be right were tom was at this point. Just my :2cents:
-
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 .
Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked TO losses vs bo losses
- Thread starter trentwalz
- Start date
- Status
I don't like the comparison. Hall of Fame baseball manager, Sparky Anderson (only in baseball can a grown man be called "Sparky") once responded to a reporter who was making a comparison between some mortal catcher and all-time-great Johnny Bench by saying, " Now why would you want to embarrass someone by comparing them to Johnny Bench?" I feel the same way about Tom Osborne.
Yea cause tom was so great when he first started and he took over a team that had a loosing record didnt he. Sad thing is alot of people my age just remember how great he was at the end of his coaching career not what it was like when he took over a nationalmchampionship team. I also remember hearing alot of ans calling for his head because he ran such a vanilla offence. Sad thing is if he didnt run that vanilla offense back then he would of lost by alot more than he did in a lot of those games. So whats was so great about tom when he first started. Thats who im comparing bo to not the coach he became.
Except that Tom Osborne was not a slam dunk choice, especially after five straight losses to Oklahoma and a 1-7 record versus Switzer after seven years.
Nothing that's said about Pelini hasn't already been said about Osborne. Although most of that was probably before many of you were aware of those conversations.
Nothing that's said about Pelini hasn't already been said about Osborne. Although most of that was probably before many of you were aware of those conversations.
Huskerborn
Scout Team
Are you a person that backs Bo? just asking because I don't want to misrepresent your position.
I, like most other fans, support the Nebraska Cornhuskers. That includes the players and coaches, as long as they're in Lincoln.
That being said, I am a discerning fan. I see things I don't appreciate, as well as solid indications that the team has overachieved on numerous occasions. I could get specific, but not now.
I think he has shown a real genius at getting his defenses to play at the utmost of their abilities, however limited those may be. I've seen great offensive play and great defensive play, but unfortunately not always at the same time.
That being said, I am a discerning fan. I see things I don't appreciate, as well as solid indications that the team has overachieved on numerous occasions. I could get specific, but not now.
I think he has shown a real genius at getting his defenses to play at the utmost of their abilities, however limited those may be. I've seen great offensive play and great defensive play, but unfortunately not always at the same time.
Comparing losses requires comparing who they lost to...wouldn't ya think.
I wouldn't make the comparison to TO, though I understand who a qualified one could be made. As in, obviously Bo isn't as good as TO, but there are some factors that seem fairly similar, so let's not yank the ejection cord just yet.
A better comparison, and evidence to look at, may be to other coaches who started their coaching careers with 70%+ winning percentages over their first 5/6 years.
Can anyone name a single coach that put up those stats but ended up failing to win a championship?
Someone said it in another thread... Bo is likely to win a championship as a head coach, whether he does it here or after he ends up somewhere else will depend a lot on Nebraska fans/boosters.
A better comparison, and evidence to look at, may be to other coaches who started their coaching careers with 70%+ winning percentages over their first 5/6 years.
Can anyone name a single coach that put up those stats but ended up failing to win a championship?
Someone said it in another thread... Bo is likely to win a championship as a head coach, whether he does it here or after he ends up somewhere else will depend a lot on Nebraska fans/boosters.
Are you sqying he isnt as good as tom at the end of toms years or isnt as good as tom was at the begining? To me i think and this is based on what ive heard cause i am not near old enough to remember the begining of toms years. I think they are about the same. The only thing is tom liked to play consevitive and bo lays it all on the line. Bo is the type of coach that doesnt care weather he gets beat by one or a hundred he is going to play every down like he needs a touch down. Tom was more of amcoach that would slow the game down and try to keep it close.
Can we get a list of coaches that are likely to win a championship as a head coach? Are we talking conference or national championship? It must be conference as that is the only one you could say Bo is likely to win. Very few coaches are likely to win a national championship.
It just becomes so complex and arcane to compare individual teams from vastly different eras. It's really pointless.
I was referring to conference championships.
I think that based purely on resumes, Tom's first 6 year resume was superior to Bo's. However, I acknowledge that they each stepped into much different situations.
What's interesting is that :01 is the difference between some talking about firing Bo versus saying he's arguably better than TO in the each of their first 6 years.
I don't know that I agree with your assessment of the two's style (Bo can be very very conservative at times, see for example the punt return game) and Tom definitely wasn't conservative, even though his demeanor suggested he was.
That's not quite accurate. Tom employed a pro passing offense through his first six seasons and the defense used a five man front for longer than that. It wasn't until 1979 that he started to change the offense to an option attack which was more conservative. A predominant pass offense has never really worked on the plains during wintry November's.
- Status
