Jump to content


Realistic Coaching Hires with the AD


Recommended Posts

14 hours ago, 4skers89 said:

1 of 13 states I haven't been to. I'll take your word for it since I can't imagine a reason for visiting.

Actually Mountaineer Field was the most fun and intense place I have ever seen a game and I have been all over the country to watch college football.  Their 60,000 fans were louder than over 100,000 at Penn State and Michigan.  Dana Holgorsen is a fun coach and players love him, but I don't see Nebraska tolerant of his methods.  He goes ballistic on the sidelines and will run an offense that will drive fans in Lincoln crazy.  His teams often suffer on special teams and defense but score a lot of points.  He is a perfect fit for WVU as he is getting the most out of players in a tough recruiting region as he does not get a lot of 4 star talent but remains competitive each year.  Like was said, why not get Leach if that is what you desire.

Edited by HuskerPowerVA
Link to comment

On 10/18/2017 at 9:34 PM, El Diaco said:

 

And it produced 0 championships, quite a few blowout losses, numerous records of futility and all time lows and has had us in constant search of the answer. Why are we firing coaches and dissatisfied with results? I’d call your list a bunch of empty stats. I’ll take a team that controls the LOS and the clock. Maybe the problem is the poor man’s version we’ve been running but I’d really like to get back to the brand of ball that made our name, not the one that destroyed it.

 

Take one of Tom Osborne's legendary offenses, back it up with any Nebraska defense from the last 7 years, and suddenly it's not a legendary offense any more. 

 

Give Taylor Martinez or Tommy Armstrong the 1995 or 2009 defense, and suddenly nobody gives a s#!t about their tendency to throw off the back foot, because that team is winning championships. 

 

Appreciate all the debate over offensive identity, but Nebraska's freefall to a bottom dwelling defense is probably the bigger story. The Blackshirts WERE the Husker identity, and it translated to the offensive line and overall attitude. 

  • Plus1 6
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Nebhawk said:

Holgorsen is another version of Leach.  If your going to get a version, you might as well buy the original.  RichRod couldn't get the his spread to take at Michigan and compete against the Big 10 heavies.  We should learn from our mistakes as well as others who tried similiar paths and failed.  Richrod is not a great coach, but has had some success while at all his stops other than Michigan.  B1G recruiting is way different than most other conferences.  Weather is a factor.  SEC. Big 12, ACC, and Pac 12 all have more consistent climate ranges than the east coast and upper midwest.  Even though I don't think the climate is that big of a deal, the football does when its freezing and you can't catch the darn thing because you can't feel your fingers.

 

Ehhhh, not quite.  Holgorsen has shown a much higher propensity to run the ball than Leach ever has.  Holgorsen has seemed to do a good job of adjusting his scheme depending on who he has at the skill position.  When he had Kendall Hunter @ OSU?  Dude was a Doak Walker finalist.  Wendell Smallwood?  1500+ rushing yards.  He had a 1000 yd rusher last year as well.  Did you know that WVU has rushed for more yards than Nebraska these past 3 years?  I know it's easy to see Holgorsen and think, "Mike Leach with a mullet".  The numbers simply suggest otherwise.  I do agree with @HuskerPowerVA that his teams seem to struggle on defense.  That being said, he plays in the Big XII and no one really plays any defense except for TCU. 

 

I understand your point on the weather, at the same time, Morgantown is only 75 miles away from Pittsburgh.  The weather gets pretty crappy there in the winter.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

Appreciate all the debate over offensive identity, but Nebraska's freefall to a bottom dwelling defense is probably the bigger story. The Blackshirts WERE the Husker identity, and it translated to the offensive line and overall attitude. 


I sort of agree. I've always said that Bo was in reality incredibly close to winning back-to-back conference titles in 2009 & 2010. In 2009, if McCoy scrambles for one extra second, that's a conference title.

In 2010, we were beating Oklahoma at halftime but then if memory serves couldn't score a single point on offense in the second half.

Those two defenses were roughly on par with what we had from '93 - '99. Even still, our offensive lines limited some of what were were able to do in the zone read (even though were were admittedly very high nationally in rushing rank under Bo most seasons).

Link to comment
7 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Take one of Tom Osborne's legendary offenses, back it up with any Nebraska defense from the last 7 years, and suddenly it's not a legendary offense any more. 

 

Give Taylor Martinez or Tommy Armstrong the 1995 or 2009 defense, and suddenly nobody gives a s#!t about their tendency to throw off the back foot, because that team is winning championships. 

 

Appreciate all the debate over offensive identity, but Nebraska's freefall to a bottom dwelling defense is probably the bigger story. The Blackshirts WERE the Husker identity, and it translated to the offensive line and overall attitude. 

 

Well yeah, it takes at least a remedial level on both sides of the ball. Sure that 95 defense could cover  up a lot of deficiency on the O side. I’m not sold on that statement about the 09 defense. They were not enough on their own or they would have accomplished something. And if you remove Suh, probably not that special at all.

 

You must’ve missed my prior posting acknowledging that defense wins championships. I think lately both sides of the ball have fallen and that makes it extremely tough. For most of our recent games I would argue that our offense has been the larger problem. Sure when you give up 56 you’re going to have problems but in something like 6 of our most recent losses we’ve scored fewer than 24 points (and in some of our wins). That isn’t going to get the job done in today’s game.

 

I also take a bit of an isssue with saying TO’s legendary offenses wouldn’t be legendary with these defensive woes. He had numerous offenses that would’ve simply outscored a lackluster defensive performance. The early 80’s scoring explosion comes to mind. He had all sorts of exceptional teams that didn’t have the type of defense of those mid 90’s teams.

 

In short, it takes both sides of the ball but I would agree that defense is usually more critical for winning things that matter.

 

Edit- And yes I know I maybe don't give that 2009 defense enough credit. They had absolutely no support from the O. They likely would have had cc with any offense. I've had trouble giving any credit since about 2001. That's me.

Edited by El Diaco
Link to comment

Bo reminds me of Dabo Swinney. I mean, year 4 Swinney won a championship. It took him, what, 9 years to play for a NC? That's a lot of recruiting. I think they finished within the top 15 in recruiting nearly every year, too. Bo had a chance his second and third year to win a championship. Had we won one or both of those, he's still our HC, IMO. Then maybe tape gate doesn't happen. Maybe some of the bad losses don't happen and our recruiting improves dramatically. Maybe he doesn't have one foot out the door from 2011-2014 looking at other jobs.

 

The "What If?" game always has the same old ending :bang

 

 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

Yeah, the good old what if game.  When we actually hire a new head coach, I hope its a splash, otherwise were all in for another rude awakening.

 

My fear is we all throw out names, and some are really good names, but they are just names on a message board.  I just hope this time we interview a few more than one, and we find the one who wants to put Nebraska first.  Unless we just interview Frost, and hire him.  We will never know who and how many get interviews, but I hope its more than one guy this time.

Link to comment

2 minutes ago, SECHusker said:

1) 8-4 Mike Riley with the promise he'll make the needed coaching changes.

2a) Matt Campbell

2b) Justin Fuente

3) Scott Frost

4) Chip Kelly

Curious as to why you list Riley as your number 1 under those circumstances? Even under those circumstances I don't see that as the best option IMO. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
Just now, BIGREDIOWAN said:

Curious as to why you list Riley as your number 1 under those circumstances? Even under those circumstances I don't see that as the best option IMO. 

Because I think more damage would be done to the program if we get rid of him with that record. 

 

I also think we aren't that far from being where we want to be. We have the athletes but we are an OC, OL coach, and TE coach from consistently winning the West (granted there are other coaches that I would like to see go but those need to go).

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...