[Husker] A Word In Edgewise, If You Please...

[Steve Reichenbach]

> Bingo.  Nail on the head.  Spot on.  Whatever you want to call
> it you nailed it.  Why can't we once, just once, instead of blaming the
> coaches and/or players just admit the other team was better than we
> are/were?  USC is just on another level.  It was no different in the
> 90's with some of our teams.  There was no way, barring major upset, NU
> was going to lose to most teams.  The same is true today of USC.  Bob
> Davie said while he was at Notre Dame, "It is not about X's and O's but
> about Jims and Joes".  Our very own Tom Osborne said, "Coaches don't
> beat coaches, players beat players".  Our players are not as good as is
> USC's overall and our depth is not even close.

Sheesh, I guess the coaches aren't really responsible for their teams.
It's just the players needing to "make plays".  You're spouting Cos's
mantra, but nobody really believes the coaches don't matter or they
wouldn't be making millions of dollars per year.  Some coaches, like
Osborne, have the highest levels of success, others, like Davies, don't;
and it isn't just that the successful coaches have the "players".

On the other hand, you don't seem to be buying Callahan's stated
opinion that NU's players aren't so far from the level needed.
Personally, I think the truth is somewhere in between: yes, USC has
more talent, but NU didn't play to the level of their talent or
potential.  But, I guess in your book that's their fault, not the
coaches.  I do think that the poor performance of the team --- the
worst home whipping in at least 50 years --- says something about the
coaching.

> And as far as the coaches being discussed, I had been thinking about
> that as well.  It is just about as profitable to discuss whether or not
> we would want Bo Pelini for Head Coach as it was to discuss where NU
> was going to be should they go undefeated this year.  Neither are/were
> ever going to happen anyway so we are basically discussing moot
> points.  I plead guilty to discussing a moot point.

You're missing the point, Bob.  We're not _really_ discussing "Pelini
for Head Coach".  We're discussing Cosgrove.  Pelini is just a
foil ("One that by contrast underscores or enhances the distinctive
characteristics of another for that discussion." The Free Dictionary).
Pelini is a good foil because he was NU fired him to hire Cosgrove.

You seem to be working very hard to avoid that crux of the matter.
Yes, USC is good.  Yes, Pederson isn't going to ask Pelini to come in
as DC or HC.  So, why don't you quit dancing around the real issue:
Tell us what a great job Cosgrove is doing as defensive coordinator.