NUinID Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Thinking we'd be back to what we used to expect, which varies greatly with the age of the fan, by this time in the Riley era is folly. Our relative talent ceiling is lower and the talent on hand isn't a match for the schemes the new coaches want to install. You'd think it was reasonable to think that Bo was holding our kids back the way people expected Nebraska to beat Wisconsin as soon as a new staff arrived (even one showing a lack of comfort with respect to game management issues). Back to what I used to expect, does very greatly. A lot of you guys really became huge fans during the glory days not all of you but you remember the dominance vividly. They were great years. That I will never forget. I really became a fan in the mid-late 70's and through the 80's. I want to my first game in 1975 at 9 years of age. One thing I really remember is that Nebraska was good, but a lot of the teams that they played were really bad. Most years ISU, KSU, KU, MU, and a lot of the time CU and Okie St were not real good. Combine that with a couple of cup cake non conference games and you have 7-8 easy wins. Those wins aren't there anymore. They are not only not there for Nebraska, they are not there for basically any of the traditional powers You think Alabama was worried about playing Ole Miss, S. Carolina, Miss St., Florida, even Auburn back in 1979? Heck no for the most part those teams were terrible. I know not a great analogy, but Alabama has to show up and play or they will lose to those teams right now. My point is there is a lot fewer gimmies on the schedule whether we are talking about Nebraska, Oklahoma, Michigan, USC or Alabama. Do you think USC gave Stanford or Cal or Oregon any thought back in 1982 as they were crushing them? 3 Quote Link to comment
Bowfin Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 If and when Nebraska fans tear down the goalposts because they beat Iowa...that will be the tipping point! Quote Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 BTW, we didn't crush Minnesota the past 2 seasons. They beat us. So, it isn't too out of place for people to want to celebrate that and be positive about it. It's no secret, Husker football has basically sucked for the last 15 years when compared to the prior 25 years. MR has coached 6 games. Let's not hang the frustration of 15 years of futility around his neck just yet. I don't get the comment about sucking the past 15 years because I quite simply do not see it that way. Whether we deserved to be playing the game or not, we did play for a NC in 01'. In 09' we had one of the most dominant defenses with a DL that should have won the Hypseman. 10' had the makings of a very special season until Martinez got injured. I'll admit we've been on sort of a roller coaster ride the past 15 years, but we've had highs with those lows. Hey, it's just my opinion. I started following the Huskers in the 70's as a young boy, attended UNL in the early 80's during the "scoring explosion" of Gill, Rozier, & Fryar, followed the team closely and travelled to a lot of games in the 80's and 90's.......and then on that fateful day in 2001 in Boulder my football soul was crushed and it has never been the same since. Followed that up with an undeserved appearance in the NC game of 2001, bad timing and coaching decisions made getting rid of Solich, hiring Callahan, Pederson, tearing down the history of the program, distancing the program from former players, destroying our power running identity, going WCO, replacing those mistakes with an a$$hole of a coach in Pelini, winning no games of substance, no championships, getting blown out and embarrassed in any game that mattered , numerous defensive futility records, almost all strings and records broken in the last 15 years. Yeah, there were a few bright spots thrown in there......a few. I'll still stand by my statement that the last 15 years has basically sucked compared to what we once were, and I'm not just talking 94 thru 97, cause nothing is going hang with that comparison. I'm an old geezer I guess but I do feel sorry that many of the younger fans seem to think 9 meaningless wins against average to bad teams actually means something. TO almost always had us one heartbreaking loss away from a natty and perpetually in the top ten. Sorry, but if the height of a persons fandom has been post 1997, that person simply does not understand what it was like to be on top of the CFB world. But I am also jealous of those people because they seem to be able to elicit a bit more joy and happiness out of whatever it is we have been doing on the football field for the last 15 years. And those fans have my respect because I'm pretty sure I would not be the fan I am without the pre 1997 base I have. If I had to start during the Callahan regime, I don't think there is any way in hell I could be a Husker fan. 1 Quote Link to comment
Hayseed Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Is the OP a sock? This thread looks like nothing but trolling. Quote Link to comment
RedRex Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 Is the OP a sock? This thread looks like nothing but trolling. Atta boy, disregard the content of the post and go straight to attacking the poster. Are YOU a sock? If you're thinking Walks is just a troll it might just work out best if you keep your billygoat a$$ off his bridge. Just sayin... 1 Quote Link to comment
huskers15 Posted October 20, 2015 Share Posted October 20, 2015 I miss the Lyell Bremser days. Smash mouth football and a lot of celebrating. Quote Link to comment
Sargon Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 Interpret this how you want, this is just what I see... I think many fans are settling for Riley, because he's not his predecessor. I see a lot folks are seeing, "glimpses of hope" from this past weekends win. Should we be searching for glimpses of hope against a team that this program has crushed for many years? Many of us settled for Bo for many years, myself included, because he wasn't Callahan. Thanks for your invitation for interpretation that was very sporting of you. Settling....that is a strawman. "a lot folks" and "many of us" are false claims (appeal to the people) I'd like to take this opportunity to repeat my encouragement to you to change your username to "talksalone" and make it so. Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted October 21, 2015 Author Share Posted October 21, 2015 Is the OP a sock? This thread looks like nothing but trolling. I am the Keyser Soze of sock puppets... I created this account 11+ years ago to troll Riley now... #nextlevel 2 Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted October 21, 2015 Author Share Posted October 21, 2015 Interpret this how you want, this is just what I see... I think many fans are settling for Riley, because he's not his predecessor. I see a lot folks are seeing, "glimpses of hope" from this past weekends win. Should we be searching for glimpses of hope against a team that this program has crushed for many years? Many of us settled for Bo for many years, myself included, because he wasn't Callahan. Thanks for your invitation for interpretation that was very sporting of you. Settling....that is a strawman. "a lot folks" and "many of us" are false claims (appeal to the people) I'd like to take this opportunity to repeat my encouragement to you to change your username to "talksalone" and make it so. 1 Quote Link to comment
jsneb83 Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 but we are 45 seconds from being 6-1 and 12 points away from being undefeated LOL My bank statement says I'm only a handful of zeros away from being a millionaire. You only have $10 in your bank account? Quote Link to comment
admo Posted October 21, 2015 Share Posted October 21, 2015 I find myself curious as to the outcome of the games, but I'll be honest, I'm not real interested in watching them. It's not entertaining to me, which is what football is supposed to be. Sad to say it but until they run the ball as a major focus and play an attacking style of defense, I'll probly not cancel more entertaining plans to tune in. Still love the Cornhuskers tho. And therein lies the danger of settling for mediocrity. People start tuning out, and Nebraska football stops becoming the event that it was/is. As for the assertion that people that dislike the current regime are pining for '94, '95, or '97...that's a hell of an unsubstantiated leap, to say the least. Most of us realize that the 90s will likely never happen again, and the only reason they happened for 'Bama is because they cheated their way there--otherwise, it still wouldn't be replicated. That doesn't mean we should relax our standards for this program--this program should compete, get division championships regularly (or be Top 2/3, depending), and the occasional conference title. This team has the kids and talent to have won the West--our coaching staff bungled it, bottom line, and that should give pause to folks that are paying attention, as it does not mean there's a rosy upside to this staff in year 2, 3, or beyond. It means we hired a .500 staff, and we're getting .500 results. But hey, if you're fine with Nebraska at .500 and striving for a toilet bowl, then hip hip hooray for you then, I suppose? I don't know how you are able to say this with 100% confidence. There is literally zero data backing your claim that "a coach's first seven games at a program will tell you how well he will do in year 2, year 3, and beyond." Bo was 4-3 (just one game better against a similar schedule) after his first 7 games, and we know he never did worse than 9-4. But, I digress; no two coaching situations are the same, because there are so many factors that play a role. You have to consider the talent left by the previous coaching staff, the depth left by the previous coaching staff, the number of injuries/missed games, the resources available to the coach at other schools, the relative talent level of school A in conference A versus school B in conference B, the strength of opponents, adjustment to new schemes, and the list can go on and on. Not to mention, the probability of us being 3-4 right now is incredibly, incredibly low, so we're really better than our record indicates. Yes, we played a role in creating our own bad luck, but two teams play the game; Mangum could've misfired, Tommy could've thrown the football a little further, or the Miami CB could've been playing a little deeper, Alex Lewis could have not made a boneheaded decision, Ozigbo could've caught the ball, or Tommy could've kept the ball, the Illinois player could've dropped the long pass and the TD pass, Gaglionone could've missed the FG... It just amazes me how ignorant people are with regards to the number of factors that play a role in a team's record (factors that can't be controlled by the current coaching staff). This lowering standards is a made-up storyline used by fans who just want to be mad at something. Nobody has lowered their standards, some just understand that it's a process and that there isn't just a single path that leads to where we want to be. QUOTED FOR TRUTH +100k Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted October 25, 2015 Author Share Posted October 25, 2015 It just amazes me how ignorant people are with regards to the number of factors that play a role in a team's record (factors that can't be controlled by the current coaching staff). This lowering standards is a made-up storyline used by fans who just want to be mad at something. Nobody has lowered their standards, some just understand that it's a process and that there isn't just a single path that leads to where we want to be. QUOTED FOR TRUTH +100k If you run on 3rd and 3, that's just one of many factors that can be controlled by a coaching staff... Quote Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 It just amazes me how ignorant people are with regards to the number of factors that play a role in a team's record (factors that can't be controlled by the current coaching staff). This lowering standards is a made-up storyline used by fans who just want to be mad at something. Nobody has lowered their standards, some just understand that it's a process and that there isn't just a single path that leads to where we want to be. QUOTED FOR TRUTH +100k If you run on 3rd and 3, that's just one of many factors that can be controlled by a coaching staff... Sure. But running it doesn't guarantee an automatic first down. Hell...even being diverse in your running game doesn't guarantee an automatic first down. Neither does passing it. I'm with you though, during the course of the game, if we face 8 3rd and shorts (3 or less), we should run it 75% of the. There's more room for freedom on 2nd and short, but on 3rd and short if you have a guy who can get 3 yards up the gut most of the time, it just makes sense to give it to him. Quote Link to comment
zoogs Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 We threw on our first four (might have been only four) 3rd & 3s, but in their defense, how they got to 3rd & 3 was getting stuffed on 2nd & 4. 3rd & 2 on the other hand was viewed as a running down. I think that was fair. As Mavric noted, running right at them was a failed proposition. Not something the team could do well and something Northwestern was taking away. With the way Tommy was throwing balls at Northwestern DL helmets, though, maybe sprinkle in more creative outside type runs on 3rd & 3. To be honest, I'm not sold on that idea either. But you may as well consider the option, etc, or try to find something - anything! - more reliable here. Quote Link to comment
MichiganDad3 Posted October 25, 2015 Share Posted October 25, 2015 It just amazes me how ignorant people are with regards to the number of factors that play a role in a team's record (factors that can't be controlled by the current coaching staff). This lowering standards is a made-up storyline used by fans who just want to be mad at something. Nobody has lowered their standards, some just understand that it's a process and that there isn't just a single path that leads to where we want to be. QUOTED FOR TRUTH +100k If you run on 3rd and 3, that's just one of many factors that can be controlled by a coaching staff... Sure. But running it doesn't guarantee an automatic first down. Hell...even being diverse in your running game doesn't guarantee an automatic first down. Neither does passing it. I'm with you though, during the course of the game, if we face 8 3rd and shorts (3 or less), we should run it 75% of the. There's more room for freedom on 2nd and short, but on 3rd and short if you have a guy who can get 3 yards up the gut most of the time, it just makes sense to give it to him. And several of those 3rd and shorts were in four down territory. I saw Jano sitting on the bench. Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.