Does MR need to reshuffle the coaching staff or keep it the same?

[4skers89]

2 hours ago, junior4949 said:

If the right coach is hired, losing a good recruiting class will work itself out.  If we keep a bad coach, a good recruiting class will be wasted. 

If the coach is an upgrade, commits will stick.

[Nebhawk]

If the recruits coming are viable, usable, then keep them.  If they are well sought over, big recruits they will go elsewhere.  Thats what happens.  More than likely, we get some flips.  These guys don't sign that actual letter of intent until February.  Verbals mean its likely they come here.  So I don't care about the what ifs of recruiting right now.  Those are nothing but speculators terms.  The sky is falling mentality.

 

Did you see any of Riley's team play at Beaver kingdom?  He had very few all conference players, let alone all-americans on his rosters.  That is why he is .500 ball coach.  So, because some guru in New York City says we are a Top 20 class doesn't mean we have a Top 20 ball team.  

[ColoradoHusk]

1 hour ago, zoogs said:

Some of the best situations for a new coach to walk into are after a coach who recruited well but didn't get on field results is let go after a pretty fair shake of it (i.e, not unusually early for a coach to be let go; i.e, after 4 years or so). There's not that much pressure because the school was patient to the last guy, and the results were maybe not that stellar. There's a lot in the cupboard and given recent results they're likely to be receptive to a new staff, rather than aggrieved about the firing of the previous one.

 

I don't think it's as easy as "right coach, recruiting will work itself out." Fire too early and you make it hard on the next coach. Doubly so when you sacrifice a good recruiting class, the sort that is rare to come by. The new HC and whatever OL coach, coordinators, etc, are going to be feeling the same heat in a few years, and we'll be playing this "but look at the talent" versus "oh yeah, if he's such a good coach, how long does it take" game ad infinitum.

 

So yeah, if you think we need to make a change from Riley at the top, fine. The HC sets the tone and Nebraska lost to Arkansas State. That's pretty extreme. But we can't keep these standards for the coordinators, position coaches, etc, forever. Or we'll never be happy with any of them -- and pay the price for the constant churn there that results.

Your only standards seem to be if the coach is nice or not. 

[84HuskerLaw]

Can one of you Frost lovers please summarize in a few paragraphs, not short phrases, just exactly what you see in Frost that makes him so perfect?    I am very uneasy with Frost at this point.   Exactly how many conference titles has he been the head coach for ?   How many top 20 teams has he fielded?   How many major bowl wins or even appearances has Frost overseen?

 

He may be a hot middle aged commodity in the coaching ranks (he must be around 41 or so which is a good age IF he had been a HC for 6 years or so and or been an OC for a top 7 caliber program so we have some proven track record to go by.   Admittedly he's been a player for a couple of the best coaches of all time, but good grief, so have several hundred other fine players over the past 25 years.   

 

I would feel a lot better about hiring away a top ten coach with 12 years H.C. experience.that betting the entire future of the program on Scott Frost.   I believe strongly that this is OUR LAST H.C. hiring opportunity and it MUST be right.  The memories and the fervant support are fading fast.  Another 3 or 4 and done coaching fail is going to end the program for all practical purposes.

 

Most agree on here that as rough as this year's schedule and season is looking, next year's will a real gauntlet.   I'd almost rather see Riley have to suffer through it rather than bring in the hot, young newbie Frost and have him fall flat on his face in year one.  I know a lot of you may say you'll give him all the time he needs, but I am reading suggestions such as by year 3 he will have us winning the Big Ten.  That is just plain unrealistic and folly.   We'll lose most of the recruiting class we have at this point if we dump Riley.(  Coming off a dismal season, we may lose the cream in the class anyway.)  But if we don't hire a real blue chip recruiting magnet, we will not have much of a class of '18 and after next year's losing season, which seems quite likely when one installs all new offensive and defensive systems, we have several transfers, etc.  

 

Can somebody give me the highlights of Scott Frost's coaching accomplishments.   Please as I really would like to understand why everybody is so enamered of Frost.      

[zoogs]

It's not the only thing, but it's dominant.

 

I think we have some capable coaches here who just don't yet have the results to match. Are they elite? Mm, probably not. But I do think they're quite solid as coaches.

 

Anyway, anger at position coaches over results is something that will be a constant. We tell ourselves that's not so but you're kidding yourself if Nebraska fires Cavanaugh and Riley that the new OL coach isn't going to be under heat if Nebraska isn't winning everything. And it (might) be totally unfair. 

[Danimal]

On ‎10‎/‎9‎/‎2017 at 11:41 AM, fire mike said:

He had his chance to hire whoever the hell he wanted and yet hitched his wagon to the same group that produced .500 level results for 20+ years. If he was as great of a football mind as people say, he shouldn't be having to fire his hand-selected coaches every year to save face. His time has come.

 

Yes, plus since Eichorst wanted this regime to work he actually got the checkbook out in terms of assistant hires. We are throwing considerable money around with this staff, Riley has no excuses for this program not looking well-coached. 

[Hunter94]

in my opinion, Riley had the chance to retool his assistants when he took the job..........he dragged his feet, finally released Banker and now is faced, if he stays, with cleaning house again.

he kept intact, basically his .500 coaches.......its on  him to make changes.

[ColoradoHusk]

1 hour ago, zoogs said:

It's not the only thing, but it's dominant.

 

I think we have some capable coaches here who just don't yet have the results to match. Are they elite? Mm, probably not. But I do think they're quite solid as coaches.

 

Anyway, anger at position coaches over results is something that will be a constant. We tell ourselves that's not so but you're kidding yourself if Nebraska fires Cavanaugh and Riley that the new OL coach isn't going to be under heat if Nebraska isn't winning everything. And it (might) be totally unfair. 

What kind of records would you expect from a "solid" group of nice coaches? 7-5 or 8-4 with the top being 9-3 and the expectation of 5-7 and 6-6 seasons mixed in?  Congratulations, we are now Oregon State. 

[Branno]

Mike Riley doesn’t need to make any changes. The new AD needs to fire Riley and let his replacement make the changes. 

[zoogs]

13 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

What kind of records would you expect from a "solid" group of nice coaches? 7-5 or 8-4 with the top being 9-3 and the expectation of 5-7 and 6-6 seasons mixed in?  Congratulations, we are now Oregon State. 

I'm not really caught up on records. If after a fair number of years the program is heading in the wrong direction, you make a change at the top. But I think generally if you give more coaches more time, they'll surprise you now and again.

 

I'm OK with that. I'm not sold on Riley being unable. I think I want to see more time for him. This has been a tough year but his first two weren't awful. '16 was par for the course. '15 was fluky and a clearly stronger team than '16, as demonstrated by the highs of that season. This year we're breaking in a lot of new and have been hit hard in a lot of places. On top of that is a tougher schedule.

 

Still shouldn't have lost to Arky State, but s#!t happens. We'll see how bad this season gets, but history shows teams can endure awful ones and bounce back. If Riley doesn't, great. Let Frost or someone else go to work with Bookie and Gebbia's team. 

[HuskerNBigD]

2 hours ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

Can one of you Frost lovers please summarize in a few paragraphs, not short phrases, just exactly what you see in Frost that makes him so perfect?    I am very uneasy with Frost at this point.   Exactly how many conference titles has he been the head coach for ?   How many top 20 teams has he fielded?   How many major bowl wins or even appearances has Frost overseen?

 

He may be a hot middle aged commodity in the coaching ranks (he must be around 41 or so which is a good age IF he had been a HC for 6 years or so and or been an OC for a top 7 caliber program so we have some proven track record to go by.   Admittedly he's been a player for a couple of the best coaches of all time, but good grief, so have several hundred other fine players over the past 25 years.   

 

I would feel a lot better about hiring away a top ten coach with 12 years H.C. experience.that betting the entire future of the program on Scott Frost.   I believe strongly that this is OUR LAST H.C. hiring opportunity and it MUST be right.  The memories and the fervant support are fading fast.  Another 3 or 4 and done coaching fail is going to end the program for all practical purposes.

 

Most agree on here that as rough as this year's schedule and season is looking, next year's will a real gauntlet.   I'd almost rather see Riley have to suffer through it rather than bring in the hot, young newbie Frost and have him fall flat on his face in year one.  I know a lot of you may say you'll give him all the time he needs, but I am reading suggestions such as by year 3 he will have us winning the Big Ten.  That is just plain unrealistic and folly.   We'll lose most of the recruiting class we have at this point if we dump Riley.(  Coming off a dismal season, we may lose the cream in the class anyway.)  But if we don't hire a real blue chip recruiting magnet, we will not have much of a class of '18 and after next year's losing season, which seems quite likely when one installs all new offensive and defensive systems, we have several transfers, etc.  

 

Can somebody give me the highlights of Scott Frost's coaching accomplishments.   Please as I really would like to understand why everybody is so enamered of Frost.      

 

Every program in the world would love to hire a top ten coach with 12 years HC experience, but that s#!t doesn’t happen. Those type of coaches aren’t on the market, figured that’s pretty obvious. 

 

As for frost. He’s got the right type (i.e. not Bo’s) of fiery emotion to get players buying in and creating change. Look at what he’s done at UCF in a few years. Oh, he’s also a Nebraska guy, that never hurts.

 

I tell you what. Go listen to his press conferences versus Riley’s and let me know who you’d rather play for / who would do a better job of getting player buy-in. So sick and tired of hearing people need umpteen years of experience. No, the university needs to s#!t or get off the pot. Tennessee and Florida are about to go knock on Scott’s front door and I’d rather beat them to the punch (‘97 style)

[ColoradoHusk]

4 minutes ago, zoogs said:

I'm not really caught up on records. If after a fair number of years the program is heading in the wrong direction, you make a change at the top. But I think generally if you give more coaches more time, they'll surprise you now and again.

 

I'm OK with that. I'm not sold on Riley being unable. I think I want to see more time for him. This has been a tough year but his first two weren't awful. '16 was par for the course. '15 was fluky and a clearly stronger team than '16, as demonstrated by the highs of that season. This year we're breaking in a lot of new and have been hit hard in a lot of places. On top of that is a tougher schedule.

 

Still shouldn't have lost to Arky State, but s#!t happens.

Losing to teams like NIU (not Arky State) happens all the time to Riley coached teams.  Those losses are unacceptable. 2015 was not a better season than 2016, that's not debateable. Riley again found numerous ways to lose games rather than win them. 2016, he was smarter and actually played to the strengths of the roster. This year, Riley took his offense back to his way, and its a complete train wreck.  Again, history has shown that 3 years is the baseline amount of time to know if a coach is going to be successful or not. Riley is in year 3, and he's showing no progress on the field. 

[zoogs]

Oh, my bad, haha.

 

It's happened once here. This is a team that also nearly lost to Wyoming and nearly lost to McNeese State in 2013 and 2014, respectively. Look around, too. I'd say it just happens. There's a good argument that maybe when we schedule these weaker OOC teams we just need to schedule the really awful ones. Not the ones that do well at their lower division, which are the types that come in and upset the P5 teams now and again.

 

I don't think it's debatable that '15 was better than '16; just look past the W's and L's. The '16 team whimpered and limped to a pretty bad finish and got blown out by Iowa. I think injuries played a role but they only serve to explain the weaker performance. In 2015 they competed with everyone, beat Michigan State, and had a resounding win over UCLA.

 

And if you always use year 3 as a hard and fast rule, you're ignoring the amount of change that happened this year. 

[ColoradoHusk]

4 minutes ago, zoogs said:

Oh, my bad, haha.

 

It's happened once here. This is a team that also nearly lost to Wyoming and nearly lost to McNeese State in 2013 and 2014, respectively. Look around, too. I'd say it just happens. There's a good argument that maybe when we schedule these weaker OOC teams we just need to schedule the really awful ones. Not the ones that do well at their lower division, which are the types that come in and upset the P5 teams now and again.

 

I don't think it's debatable that '15 was better than '16; just look past the W's and L's. The '16 team whimpered and limped to a pretty bad finish and got blown out by Iowa. I think injuries played a role but they only serve to explain the weaker performance. In 2015 they competed with everyone, beat Michigan State, and had a resounding win over UCLA.

 

And if you always use year 3 as a hard and fast rule, you're ignoring the amount of change that happened this year. 

I am using the year 3 rule because there is still one constant to the average to poor performance the past 3 years and that is Mike f'ing Riley. And his record the past 3 years at Nebraska is very similar to the last 5 crappy years at Oregon State. The problem starts at the top, and that's your nice grandpa Mike. 

[Hayseed]

What have we got, one 3 star in two months?

Why does this matter if you’re taking a beating against every good team and the staff does the same stuff every game? 

Do you think recruits are blind?

Do you think recruits are stupid?

Bring in Frost!