Sports Illustrated: Why Mike Riley sees a bright future after the Huskers' 2015 nightmare

[Saunders]

More cameras than usual swarmed in just as Nebraska's practice wrapped Friday. The people toting those cameras did not come to hear how the Cornhuskers could improve on a 6–7 season—including a 5–7 regular season record—that followed the firing of a staff that had won at least nine a year for seven consecutive years. They came to hear coach Mike Riley explain how he would handle another screw-up.

 

http://www.campusrush.com/nebraska-cornhuskers-mike-riley-punt-pass-pork-1982460986.html

 

 

[Landlord]

Riley seems comfortable with that kind of statline going forward. "We are probably in some fashion primarily a running team that's going to take advantage of our quarterback's ability on first and second down to fake running the ball and get out of the pocket and throw," Riley said. "He's one of the best throwers on the run that I've ever been around."

[drfish]

That was an interesting read. It would appear that perhaps there was a little more "disharmony" on the team last year than let on and that perhaps the quote by Nate Gerry referenced in the Erin Sorensen article for Hail Varsity had more too it than originally appreciated. That being said, results on the field this year are what matter. Nobody outside the program will be "buying stock" until the product proves itself where it counts.

[cm husker]

I truly dislike Banker as a coach at this point. He seems awful as a coach.

[Redux]

Why ya gotta poop our coaches?

[ZRod]

I truly dislike Banker as a coach at this point. He seems awful as a coach.

Wtf are you on about?

[84HuskerLaw]

I feel good about our chances to perform much better this year. I expect the team to take off and play somewhere close to where it left off in the bowl game. That was a top 20 level UCLA team with top 15 talent. We overpowered them along the line of scrimmage. Our blitzing was much better and the LBs and secondary should be much improved. We played better, although not perfect admittedly vs. UCLA and Rosen. He was likely the best QB we faced last year. He had success but not as much as he would have had in October. The team improved considerably. I think we went from being about a number 55 team to playing at a number 20 team by the bowl. If we make further improvement as this year goes by, we can be a top 15 level team. We need a bunch more depth but that will take several more recruiting classes and a dozen extra walk ons in the key areas.

[BIG ERN]

I truly dislike Banker as a coach at this point. He seems awful as a coach.

I've heard directly from some secondary players that they like to play for Banker, and have learned a lot more this off-season than they did last year mainly with just Stewart helping the DBs. I think at times though, Banker and Langs can be bone heads on some of their play calls and schemes.

[Landlord]

That was a top 20 level UCLA team with top 15 talent.

 

 

No it wasn't.

[cm husker]

 

I truly dislike Banker as a coach at this point. He seems awful as a coach.

Wtf are you on about?

His quotes and general approach to motivation, as described in that article, compounded by what I've observed of him during press conferences.

 

He appears to be the weakest link on this staff.

[cm husker]

 

 

I truly dislike Banker as a coach at this point. He seems awful as a coach.

I've heard directly from some secondary players that they like to play for Banker, and have learned a lot more this off-season than they did last year mainly with just Stewart helping the DBs. I think at times though, Banker and Langs can be bone heads on some of their play calls and schemes.

Ok, that's good to know. If the players like playing for him, then I'll defer to them over my impression based on his interviews.

[84HuskerLaw]

In my view, UCLA could have won the west division last year. They will be about as good this year too. I guess time will tell.

[Count 'Bility]

 

That was a top 20 level UCLA team with top 15 talent.

 

 

No it wasn't.

 

Agreed. not at the time we played them. MASH unit up front. Eye crossing defensive philososhy (or Bo-ish as I like to call it) for what we were doing. And lastly, an apparent like of interest from a team that was obviously playing down. See Nebraska/Washington 2010

[Elf]

That was an interesting read. It would appear that perhaps there was a little more "disharmony" on the team last year than let on and that perhaps the quote by Nate Gerry referenced in the Erin Sorensen article for Hail Varsity had more too it than originally appreciated. That being said, results on the field this year are what matter. Nobody outside the program will be "buying stock" until the product proves itself where it counts.

The "disharmony" was evident to those who looked. The former Husker volleyball coach talked about it one time as well.

 

And everyone realized how 5–7 could have easily been 8–4 or 9–3. "Just look at the missed opportunities we had last year," Rose-Ivy said. "Everyone talks about the close games we lost and the margins of the losses we had. A lot of times it came down to us making a play and getting off the field on defense. It was always just one or two guys." Those lapses receded as the season went on as players and coaches began speaking the same language. Before, Banker said, "It was an ESL program." Now, after two spring practices and a full season, the players and coaches understand one another enough that Banker can crack wise with his defenders about how dire things were at the start of last season. "He told us how handicapped they were in playcalling," Rose-Ivy said. "We could barely run our base coverage right."

The bolded part illustrates the learning curve associated with the new defense that was apparent on the field. We did slowly get better as the year progressed and we made large strides after the Purdue game. Since the Purdue game I've said that "something" happened to the team when they lost to Purdue. It's like a whole new team showed up after that loss.

 

"Losing to Purdue on the road was absolutely the bottom," Banker said. "When you look back, it was the best thing that could have happened. There was nowhere to go but up. We had everybody's attention." And with the players watching, what did the coaches do? Nothing different. They didn't yell more. They didn't completely overhaul the scheme. That lack of panic, players and coaches believe, had a calming effect on the team. "The players saw that these guys aren't changing because of this," Riley said. "They saw the same guys. I think players just have to see how you're going to make it better."

 

Linebacker Michael Rose-Ivy noticed that the resistance from the older players melted after that loss. They, too, realized they had reached the bottom. But they hadn't reached the season's end. "We can salvage something," Rose-Ivy said of the attitude in the locker room. The Huskers scored two touchdowns in final 1:47 the following week to squeak out a 39–38 win against Michigan State. The deciding score may have been controversial, but after all those heartbreakers, Nebraska may have been due to get lucky.

Didn't we have two players quit that same week? That transfer rb from Wisconsin(?) and a senior iirc?

 

After reading this article I'm convinced that we will see a much better product on the field this year. I think every team that experiences a coaching change goes through a transition period. Some of them go very smoothly and you hardly notice it happened, and for a variety of reasons others are pretty rough. Unfortunately, we had one of the rough ones. I would've preferred that our transition had gone smoother but it didn't and I'm over it.

 

All that said, the coaches know another losing season is not an option if they want to keep their jobs.

[skersfan]

Ucla had a lot of injuries when we played them, but that has never worked as an excuse for Nebraska or any other program to their fans.

 

It is a team that the previous head coach could not beat no matter the talent, so if all that matters is wins, we are one up there.