Looking Back ... Looking Forward

[Count 'Bility]

And we have a new coaching staff who's installing brand new defense and offense. Even under Bo this year probably would've been a 7 win season.

I agree. Though Ive had a conversation with Landlord i think it was a while back. While it felt like had he been retained, and knowing what we know now about how he-and the team-for that matter felt about the administration as well as just the overall environment around Husker football here (cuz its so much worse than anywhere else remember. It's a b!^@h here

) that the wheels woulda finally fell off in 2015. Their feelings explain so much about the lack of resolve and mental toughness in many instances of adversity on the field, both with the players and coaches. But Landlord brought up a good point. How many times have we sat here in Bo's tenure-more specifically the last 3-4 seasons-and waited for that other shoe to drop and they find a way get back up. It's why that Iowa game last season was just the most perfect microcosm of the entire Bo era. It had EVERYTHING, and when it was all over, we won, so all is supposed to be hunky dorey and we're supposed to ignore all the issues. So using that logic, which I completely understand, and the fact that we had 7 years of 9-4, 10-4, 10-4, 9-4, 10-4, 9-4, 9-4, there's no reason to think that 2015 woulda been any different than 9-4, with a couple of embarrasing losses.

 

[Saunders]

And we have a new coaching staff who's installing brand new defense and offense. Even under Bo this year probably would've been a 7 win season.

So? Everything we've heard says this defense is miles easier to play in. Offense will struggle because we don't have a QB, but the defense has nowhere to go but up. And no chance on 7 wins under Bo, because it's impossible to only lose 4 games with 7 wins!

 

[StPaulHusker]

And we have a new coaching staff who's installing brand new defense and offense. Even under Bo this year probably would've been a 7 win season.

I will preface by saying that I have no real concern about the team next year. 12 wins. 7 wins. Whatever.

But if Bo Pelini can be a first time head coach and install a new defense on a 5-7 team and go 9-4 with a bowl game win, then it shouldn't be difficult to expect Riley, who is perceived to be so much better of a coach than Bo with all his experience, to be able to install an easier to understand defense and a new offense and not do any worse than 9-4.

 

[teachercd]

And we have a new coaching staff who's installing brand new defense and offense. Even under Bo this year probably would've been a 7 win season.

I will preface by saying that I have no real concern about the team next year. 12 wins. 7 wins. Whatever.

But if Bo Pelini can be a first time head coach and install a new defense on a 5-7 team and go 9-4 with a bowl game win, then it shouldn't be difficult to expect Riley, who is perceived to be so much better of a coach than Bo with all his experience, to be able to install an easier to understand defense and a new offense and not do any worse than 9-4.

You know, that is a very good point.

 

[Mavric]

I guess I don't understand the fixation with immediate results. I think if we're all being honest with ourselves, we would agree the immediate future doesn't look particularly bright, and that has more to do with Pelini than it does Riley. Laying it all at Riley's feet reeks of Boliever logic.

I agree and don't think there has to be immediate improvement. But are you expecting the W-L record to get worse?

I would expect it to get worse if Bo & Co were still here. I think Abdullah & Gregory masked a lot of issues we had. I think we were staring down the barrel of a 7-5 season with losses to Miami, Wisconsin, Minnesota, Michigan State, and Iowa. With a couple blowout losses sprinkled in there.
I honestly have no clue what to expect now. If I had a to guess, I'd say probably 9-3 with losses to Miami, Wisconsin, and Michigan State. No blowouts. But that would be a wild guess, maybe it's the optimism talking. From a roster standpoint, 7-5 isn't inconceivable.. We're still not sure who is going to start at QB, RB, and 4/5 of the offensive line. That's a lot of questions at very vital positions.

We'll have a better idea of what to expect after the non-con.

I wouldn't get too upset with people getting excited about these new coaches. They're going out of their way to embrace Husker Nation and showing the fans what they're all about. That's new around here, and there's a lot to be excited about. Maybe the old guys got a bad rap, but that's partially their fault, from hiding away in their bunker and constantly being at odds with fans and media. So, ya' know, f#*k 'em.

I agree. I think 9-3 is a pretty reasonable expectation. If we happen to go 7-5, it doesn't mean that Riley is a failure or that it won't get better. But that would definitely be a step backwards, imo.

 

[Mavric]

And we have a new coaching staff who's installing brand new defense and offense. Even under Bo this year probably would've been a 7 win season.

I will preface by saying that I have no real concern about the team next year. 12 wins. 7 wins. Whatever.

But if Bo Pelini can be a first time head coach and install a new defense on a 5-7 team and go 9-4 with a bowl game win, then it shouldn't be difficult to expect Riley, who is perceived to be so much better of a coach than Bo with all his experience, to be able to install an easier to understand defense and a new offense and not do any worse than 9-4.

And those four losses were to teams that finished the year ranked #15, #19, #12 and #5. This year's schedule could be similar but I'd be shocked if it's tougher.

 

[The Dude]

I guess I don't understand the fixation with immediate results. I think if we're all being honest with ourselves, we would agree the immediate future doesn't look particularly bright, and that has more to do with Pelini than it does Riley. Laying it all at Riley's feet reeks of Boliever logic.

"Boliever logic"
JFC....

All we've heard since Riley has been hired is what a great coach he is, how he did so much with so little at Oregon State, how he maximized the talent he had, how he's a teacher and he and his staff will adapt to the talent on hand, etc...

It's really quite simple to see. Nebraska under Pelini averaged a better class that Riley ever recruited at Oregon State. We also play in the garbage division of the Big Ten (where we also out recruit our peers). We've got more raw talent than he ever had, with a weaker schedule than Oregon State has had in a long time.

Let's not give him the excuses that Bo got (oh Bo just needs to replace Bill's guys with his own) as a crutch.

If Riley is as good as advertised, he'll win, and it will start this year.

And for the record, I think we get to at least #9wins in the regular season.

No, let's do give Mike all the same excuses Bo got. Especially the valid ones. Saying only Bo gets those excuses is the epitome of Boliever Logic. That one is even more valid in this case, I suspect. I don't recall Bo brining in any top 5 recruiting classes.
I think Riley is as good as advertised, but I don't think that necessarily translates into instant success. Those two things don't necessarily contradict each other.

Long term success? Sure. That's a must. I don't get the hang up with instant success, and no one has explained it.

 

[Mavric]

Not to put words is saunders's mouth but I think his point - or at least the point I got from that - was the people who claimed everything with Bo were just excuses shouldn't now but using those excuses for Riley.

 

[Saunders]

Not to put words is saunders's mouth but I think his point - or at least the point I got from that - was the people who claimed everything with Bo were just excuses shouldn't now but using those excuses for Riley.

Exactly. Doing anything to the contrary is hypocritical.

Also, if you use Boliever or Boleaver you should punch yourself in the face.

 

[commando]

How many pages can this thread go when it is essentially the Bo-lievers vs. the Bo-leavers all over again?

 

[zoogs]

Maybe. But "Let's give him time to bring in his own players and install his own system" is not some Bo excuse, it's something that every single coach in the country gets. To argue that Riley alone of all of them should not, is silly.

But, I agree with you that 9-3 is a reasonable expectation, and that should we win 8 or 7, it doesn't mean that it won't get better. If you want to, think of that as a step backwards, I guess, but the way I see it is that Year One *can* be a bumpy transition for any coach for any number of reasons. If this we agree on, then our positions here are the same.

Right now it's the offseason and the kool-aid is swirling all the way around. For some of us, we're just incredibly, maybe irrationally high about Riley and the new guys. For others, it's a curious amount of confidence in roster talent, given what we've seen on the field in the last two years. None of that says we've arrived as a B1G contender, or even that we were headed in that direction.

 

[Mavric]

But, I agree with you that 9-3 is a reasonable expectation, and that should we win 8 or 7, it doesn't mean that it won't get better. If you want to, think of that as a step backwards, I guess, but the way I see it is that Year One *can* be a bumpy transition for any coach for any number of reasons. If this we agree on, then our positions here are the same.

This seems to be thrown around a lot but I'm not sure I buy it. Obviously the biggest hurdle for Riley is finding a QB for his system but many would argue that our QB play has been holding us back for the last several years and we've won at least nine. And it's repeated often that Riley will adjust to his players. And, as saunders aluded to, Pelini came in with his unqualified staff and installed the most complicated defense known to man and made huge strides in year one.

When this came up awhile ago, my contention was it really didn't hold water with history. I asked for any examples of coaches who went backwards in year one but recovered to have significantly more success than their predecessor. Despite many examples being thrown out, the only one that really fit that criteria was Bobby Petrino at Arkansas. They took a big step back his first year but he recovered to have a couple pretty good seasons by Arky standards. But if the transition year is really that much of a worry, I would think there would be examples all over the place. But as far as I can see, if you struggle out of the gate it more than likely just means that it's not going to happen.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

It will be hard to replace Ameer Abdullah, but the cupboard isn't bare.

We might miss Kenny Bell, but that cupboard is pretty full.

I don't think we're going to miss Randy Gregory as much as we think.

Beyond that, everything is an upgrade.

So yes, of course, I'm expecting the Nebraska of Mike Riley to look better than the Nebraska of Bo Pelini. That's the whole point of the coaching change.

I just don't have a number for it. It's going to be an eye test.

For at least three seasons.

 

[zoogs]

many would argue that our QB play has been holding us back for the last several years and we've won at least nine.

That was the system we played, though -- one that didn't run through the QB because we just had them look at sideline cards and ran 35-45 times a game.

Also, *again* we're going back to "won at least nine." Yeah, as a second-fiddle B1G West team jockeying with Iowa and Minnesota for the 2/3/4 spots in division. That is the reality.

And, as saunders aluded to, Pelini came in with his unqualified staff and installed the most complicated defense known to man and made huge strides in year one.

Would we feel MUCH better if we could all just say, or rather shout from every corner and every hilltop... "Bo Pelini was SUPER qualified and so were some of his coaches!" ????

I mean, come on, Wats, Beck, Brown, Sanders, these guys were heavy hitters. Even Gilmore -- we didn't like him, but he wasn't short on experience, or on opportunity after he left.

We can go on about how it wasn't the greatest staff ever, and how most feel it held the team back to an extent. But I think most recognize that Brown, Beck, Warren, Kaz, and Bo himself were important and capable assets. Maybe not? But that's not my fight.

But if the transition year is really that much of a worry, I would think there would be examples all over the place. But as far as I can see, if you struggle out of the gate it more than likely just means that it's not going to happen.

Again, I think this is a weird fixation with a strict comparison of "Last Year of Predecessor" with "First Year of New Guy" -- rather than a more straightforward view of "Where Is This Team Right Now?" and "Where Are They Going?"

The landscape is littered with coaches who didn't win 9 games in their first years, but then proceeded to build a very successful program. You might argue #9wins, so Nebraska has such a better starting point. But Nebraska is on par with the Iowas and Minnesotas of the world right now. Heck, Rutgers went 8-5 in the B1G East. We're not on some higher plane than a well-recruited Texas, Florida, or California school that fired a coach who didn't pull #9wins in his last year.

I'd bring up Jim Tressel again just because the situations are so similar. John Cooper was a .700 coach as Bo was, and Tressel won fewer games in his first year, going 7-5 in the Big Ten. Does this not count because Cooper's last season was only #8wins (8-4)?

So, while comparing two individual season records may be cute, I completely disagree that it means anything. Starting off with 7 or 8 wins in a Power 5 conference is hardly a death sentence. But you agree with this, too -- at least if it's 8, 9, or 10, and not 7. Are we splitting hairs, perhaps?

To me, this whole argument also supposes some kind of weird continuity, despite total staff turnover, from year to year. That is an assumption that I have never seen ascribed to any other head coach, ever. And it still seems rooted in two things: 1) people dare to call Bo's staff "unqualified", and 2) Riley's guys are supposed to be "all that" and anyway, they said "they'll adapt", so he alone, of all the coaches in the world, has full ownership of his year one team.

 

[Mavric]

many would argue that our QB play has been holding us back for the last several years and we've won at least nine.

That was the system we played, though -- one that didn't run through the QB because we just had them look at sideline cards and ran 35-45 times a game.

Also, *again* we're going back to "won at least nine." Yeah, as a second-fiddle B1G West team jockeying with Iowa and Minnesota for the 2/3/4 spots in division. That is the reality.

So if winning nine games is only good enough to be a second-fiddle B1G West team jockeying with Iowa and Minnesota for the 2/3/4 spots in the division, it really shouldn't be that hard of a standard to continue, right?

And I think you missed my sarcasm in the second part you quoted.