[Husker] BC on Wiki

[Nick Chevance]

On Nov 25, 2007 10:55 AM, Baseballguy <baseballguy at neb.rr.com> wrote:

>
>     This is probably going to be a repeat post on my part.  I will
> definitely
>     admit there were problems on defense.  That was painfully obvious.
>  Among
>     the problems was coaching.  But, I also don't think our talent level
> on
>     defense is as close to what people may feel it is either.  Coaching
> and
>     coaching alone does not give up 40 points in a half and 76 points in a
>     game.  Reasonably good players does not imply great players.  I would
>     venture to say most teams in the top 40-50 have reasonably good
> players,
>

Bob, not trying to bait this conversation, cuz I've said that its done, the
fat lady has sung, and the sun has set on the Callahan era (which implies a
long period of time, which it certainly has felt like it), but Dr. Tom did
say reasonably good players, and by that I think he means players fully
capable of playing Division I football, capable of playing for this team.
No, not great.  But good enough, and good enough to beat some of the teams
we played at the end.  And I don't think anyone thinks Cosgrove was supposed
to go out there and tackle anyone either.  There's lots of blame to go
around, and the players share in that.  But of course that wasn't the issue
we were discussing.  We were replying to your assertion that it was just
wins, and several pointed out that it wasn't just wins.


>
>    Callahan was known for his recruiting four and five star recruits.  The
>    thing is most of that was on offense and it showed.  Our offense was
>    pretty decent.  Almost every game we scored enough points that should
> have
>    won the game.  I am not stumping for the coaches.  I think Cosgrove
> needed
>    to go along with all the defensive coaches.  But, I also believe every
>    point that goes on the board, for or against, is not coaching either.
>  In
>    the TO era in most of the games the Huskers played they had superior
>    talent which had a lot to do why they usually won.  Today things are
> more
>    even.  A lot of teams have the talent NU has and some have more.  It is
> a
>    different day and age.  I personally am glad I lived through the 30 or
> so
>    years of dominance.  It was great to see.  It is just going to be very
>    difficult for any team, NU or otherwise, to ever be that dominant
> again.
>    I doubt in this day and age even Dr. Tom could do it year after year.
>
> <http://romaine.tssi.com/mailman/listinfo/husker>

And here I depart company with you again.  Somebody can look up the stats
from last year and see, other than the defensive line, how we performed last
year and this.  I don't have those stats, and I gotta go to work so I don't
have time.  But I suspect the talent level was comparable over the last
couple of years.  Reasonably good, not great.  Good enough to win more games
(and stop scoring drives) last year than this.  Not all coaching, but not
all talent either.  And as far as the glory years, I disagree.  I think
teams will continue to be very good for long periods of time.  National
Championships every year?  No way.  8 and 9 win seasons repeatedly?  Sure.
Look at Texas.  Look at Oklahoma.  Look at USC.  There are lots of teams
like that.  Not dominant in the number of national championships, but
successful seasons.  That's what I think Husker fans want.

But then I could be wrong - I've proved it here just recently 8^)

Nick
-- 
"Some guy hit my fender, and I told him, 'Be fruitful and multiply,' ... but
not in those words."
Woody Allen