McKewon on Husker Recruiting

[It'sNotAFakeID]

There is absolutely no reason....none....that Riley shouldn't get the 9+ win mark in his first season. He was not brought in to rebuild. We don't need rebuilt. We need taken to the next level.

Though I agree that Riley should be given that same 9+ win mark, I don't think it's fair to expect that in season 1 when the majority of the talent isn't "his guys" and so they might not fit into the system he eventually wants to run. However, what's great about Riley and this coaching staff, is that they mend the system to the players they have. You only know what kind of talent you have through good observation, and Riley has enough experience to understand how different kinds of talent work into different kinds of systems and how to game plan for different opponents.

I'll be pleasantly surprised and eagerly awaiting the next season--more so than usual--if we can get 9+ wins in Riley's first year. But I don't think we'll know the true ceiling of this coaching staff until aftr Year 3, the typical make-or-break year for most coaches starting in a new place.

 

[Enhance]

My general feeling is that Bo did not maximize his talent. McKewon's comment seems to say that he thinks Pelini did the best he could do with what he had. I don't believe that.

That's what I find confusing as well. If we've managed to win 9 all these years, I don't think the talent has dropped to where we should be expecting 7.

I realize the argument I'm about to make could be debated for just about any game, but, if we look "deeper" at the wins outside of just the losses, we weren't really that far off from being a 7-8 win team under BP. It took overtime to beat Penn State a couple of years ago. In the same season, IIRC, it took a Hail Mary to beat Northwestern. Two games that a couple of plays could've meant the different between a 9 win season and a 7 win season.

My point is raising this issue is, if you look at it this way, Sam's argument is pretty fair. A couple of plays not going our way this year could also end up meaning the difference in a couple of wins or losses.

You can play that game the other way as well though each year. Long pass mis-defended against VT, 1 less TO against ISU, the added second against Texas, the interception that TMagic threw across his body in the endzone vs. OU, the multitude of mistakes and TO's against NW at home to lose by 3 (take 1 TO away inside the 5), giving up the hailmary to USC in the bowl game at the end of the 1st half that killed the great start, inexplicably calling several passes against UCLA down 1 score on the road when they couldn't stop the run and lose by 6; then you move to last year and think about the turn over on the goal line against MINN, one dropped pass in the endzone against MSU, and not running AA on 3rd and 4th down against USC on what was looking like the game winning drive.

Well, that's the point - this team has been close to losing an extra two games or winning an extra two games seemingly every year. How many teams can say they almost went 7-5, or 10-2, in the same year? It happens, sure, but it's not the mark of a very good team, in most cases, in my opinion.

Sometimes it is just chance. Eventually, though, bad/good luck has nothing to do with it anymore when it becomes a trend. And that's what we had become - a trend.

 

[zoogs]

I think that's another thing that is under-valued - the resolve the team often had. We definitely went down in flames too often but we often battled back into contention if not winning after being down early. Most blame the coaches for the former and credit the players for the latter. That's not surprising but it's probably not really fair either.

Definitely. I guess I don't value it in the sense that it seems clear to me that Bo had an unhealthy way of running the team, and you know I feel very strongly about that.

But losing a team -- or failing to secure their full buy-in throughout -- can sink a capable coach running an overall healthy program in just one year. And he may never be able to recover after that.

I don't think that's his arguement. I think he wants to lower the bar in case it is needed later in the season. But that's just my opinion.

I can see that suspicion. I have a similar one about some wanting to raise the bar and then complaining when it's not met. It's year one, guys. Let's understand the scale of transition we're dealing with.

I'd say that's accurate for the '13 team but not for '14. I think there was marked improvement from 13 to 14 - with the one painfully obvious exception.

I don't know. '14 was better than '13, certainly. But we got handled again by Minnesota and clawed our way to an overtime Iowa victory. There was a time when things looked bright. But it felt like a team locked in battle with the Iowas and Minnesotas of the world, not vying for the conference. I think the season started differently, but that's how it ended.

I think the biggest and most meaningful upgrade is in the lines. They're still a ways from proving it but we have a ton of young talent on the OL and at DT. If we can find a couple DEs, we will be in really good shape going forward. We'll have no problem filling in around the lines if they turn out.

I think that's one area, and just numbers in general so we aren't shorthanded. Being flush at QB is another example. Let the battles determine attrition and sort it out, it's a good problem to have.

My worry about the DEs is that once we secure them, we might not have this group of DTs anymore. Depth can change so much in a couple of seasons. But let's see how it goes!

 

[NUinID]

My general feeling is that Bo did not maximize his talent. McKewon's comment seems to say that he thinks Pelini did the best he could do with what he had. I don't believe that.

That's what I find confusing as well. If we've managed to win 9 all these years, I don't think the talent has dropped to where we should be expecting 7.

I realize the argument I'm about to make could be debated for just about any game, but, if we look "deeper" at the wins outside of just the losses, we weren't really that far off from being a 7-8 win team under BP. It took overtime to beat Penn State a couple of years ago. In the same season, IIRC, it took a Hail Mary to beat Northwestern. Two games that a couple of plays could've meant the different between a 9 win season and a 7 win season.

My point is raising this issue is, if you look at it this way, Sam's argument is pretty fair. A couple of plays not going our way this year could also end up meaning the difference in a couple of wins or losses.

You can play that game the other way as well though each year. Long pass mis-defended against VT, 1 less TO against ISU, the added second against Texas, the interception that TMagic threw across his body in the endzone vs. OU, the multitude of mistakes and TO's against NW at home to lose by 3 (take 1 TO away inside the 5), giving up the hailmary to USC in the bowl game at the end of the 1st half that killed the great start, inexplicably calling several passes against UCLA down 1 score on the road when they couldn't stop the run and lose by 6; then you move to last year and think about the turn over on the goal line against MINN, one dropped pass in the endzone against MSU, and not running AA on 3rd and 4th down against USC on what was looking like the game winning drive.

Well, that's the point - this team has been close to losing an extra two games or winning an extra two games seemingly every year. How many teams can say they almost went 7-5, or 10-2, in the same year? It happens, sure, but it's not the mark of a very good team, in most cases, in my opinion.

Sometimes it is just chance. Eventually, though, bad/good luck has nothing to do with it anymore when it becomes a trend. And that's what we had become - a trend.

Actually I would say it is very common to most teams. Even OSU came close to losing a couple of games that they won. Penn St in OT, Minnesota was close, Indiana gave them everything they wanted. It is very rare for even a championship team to go through a year without a scare or two during the season. Look at FSU last year they could have lost about 6 games that they eventually won. Luck and the bounce of the ball is always a big part of a championship season.

Back to the original premise of SMc article, I still disagree that the talent is somewhere between 7-5 and 9-4. The talent is good enough to win 10+ games.

 

[Landlord]

There is absolutely no reason....none....that Riley shouldn't get the 9+ win mark in his first season. He was not brought in to rebuild. We don't need rebuilt. We need taken to the next level.

There are plenty of reasons.

 

[jmfb]

Do I think NU athletes underperformed under Pelini

Yes, but with the exception of QBs and a few others- individually the skill development wasnt bad for many players. Team execution,scheme management, team development, roster management, game management, team chemistry etc was very poor under Pelini,

Ive seen the study cited, it puts Pelini and Riley on similar ground as far as outperforming their talent. Both performed about where the talent said they would, nothing more, nothing less

So the big advantage we are supposed to get from Riley as far as player development as individuals, there isnt any evidence to say that is true. OTOH one can hope and NU certainly wouldnt expect to get worse when it comes to the things Pelinis teams struggled with- turnovers, meltdowns, untimely penalties, poor roster management etc To say NU automatically with Riley at the Helm is now a 10, 11 or 12 win team- just cant be counted on. Riley has no track record of putting together those type of teams. Dennis Erickson did better at OSU than Riley did and where is Dennis Erickson in the strata of College Coaches?

,

Does NU have the talent to be a 10 win team or maybe even 11? Sure, but many teams can say that and NU has had the talent and not realized it for quite some time.

LOTS of factors beyond talent go into putting together an 11 win season- ask any coach.

But having potential doesnt mean anyone actually realizes it. Coach Riley hasnt shown he can do it either.

The cup isnt overflowing either- we weak/unproven at DE, LB and RB we are unproven and have very little depth at other spots including QB, OL

 

[Enhance]

Actually I would say it is very common to most teams. Even OSU came close to losing a couple of games that they won. Penn St in OT, Minnesota was close, Indiana gave them everything they wanted. It is very rare for even a championship team to go through a year without a scare or two during the season. Look at FSU last year they could have lost about 6 games that they eventually won. Luck and the bounce of the ball is always a big part of a championship season.

Back to the original premise of SMc article, I still disagree that the talent is somewhere between 7-5 and 9-4. The talent is good enough to win 10+ games.

You're probably right, but, it still just sits funny with me. It seems like Nebraska is typically always just one play away from either winning or losing several games. Parody in college football is so much crazier now more than ever, but, I think ours was definitely more than luck or bounce of a ball. Those types of games happened at least once or twice a year for years around here, and we stayed right on the 9-win platform. In our case, I think bad luck eventually ruled itself out.

Also, I do think most people here would agree the talent is capable of 10 + wins, but this relies on coaching and potential. I think Sam is seeing no Gregory on the edge, a missing Abdullah, a shaky-at-times QB, an OL that needs work and lack of depth in some parts of the defense. Coaching can improve all these things, but going off just the talent, he's seeing ~8 wins.

 

[Enhance]

One thing I'll add - going off preseason All-Conference/All-American lists, Sam certainly isn't alone. I know Phil Steele, for example, only has one Husker on his All-American AND All-Conference list - DPE. He's got Westerkamp on 2nd team All-Conference and then a smattering of players filling out the third and fourth team.

The season can change perceptions and players can emerge, without question. But, even now, the perception of our roster's talent isn't great. I'm having a hard time imagining many players sneaking into 2nd team, let alone 1st team all conference. There's a couple of guys who I think could emerge but that's about it, personally.

 

[NUinID]

Actually I would say it is very common to most teams. Even OSU came close to losing a couple of games that they won. Penn St in OT, Minnesota was close, Indiana gave them everything they wanted. It is very rare for even a championship team to go through a year without a scare or two during the season. Look at FSU last year they could have lost about 6 games that they eventually won. Luck and the bounce of the ball is always a big part of a championship season.

Back to the original premise of SMc article, I still disagree that the talent is somewhere between 7-5 and 9-4. The talent is good enough to win 10+ games.

You're probably right, but, it still just sits funny with me. It seems like Nebraska is typically always just one play away from either winning or losing several games. Parody in college football is so much crazier now more than ever, but, I think ours was definitely more than luck or bounce of a ball. Those types of games happened at least once or twice a year for years around here, and we stayed right on the 9-win platform. In our case, I think bad luck eventually ruled itself out.

Also, I do think most people here would agree the talent is capable of 10 + wins, but this relies on coaching and potential. I think Sam is seeing no Gregory on the edge, a missing Abdullah, a shaky-at-times QB, an OL that needs work and lack of depth in some parts of the defense. Coaching can improve all these things, but going off just the talent, he's seeing ~8 wins.

The reason why you see it happening with Nebraska is that you watch the team more closely and root for the team. You have a vested interest in what happens. That is why you see a close game against McNeese St for Nebraska and it upsets you. But, you see Penn St. take OSU to OT and don't think much of it.

As far as Phil Steele is concerned, I think he is crazy to not have Gerry or Collins on his first team. I think they both made some 2nd teams last year.

 

[NUinID]

Do I think NU athletes underperformed under Pelini

Yes, but with the exception of QBs and a few others- individually the skill development wasnt bad for many players. Team execution,scheme management, team development, roster management, game management, team chemistry etc was very poor under Pelini,

Ive seen the study cited, it puts Pelini and Riley on similar ground as far as outperforming their talent. Both performed about where the talent said they would, nothing more, nothing less

So the big advantage we are supposed to get from Riley as far as player development as individuals, there isnt any evidence to say that is true. OTOH one can hope and NU certainly wouldnt expect to get worse when it comes to the things Pelinis teams struggled with- turnovers, meltdowns, untimely penalties, poor roster management etc To say NU automatically with Riley at the Helm is now a 10, 11 or 12 win team- just cant be counted on. Riley has no track record of putting together those type of teams. Dennis Erickson did better at OSU than Riley did and where is Dennis Erickson in the strata of College Coaches?

,

Does NU have the talent to be a 10 win team or maybe even 11? Sure, but many teams can say that and NU has had the talent and not realized it for quite some time.

LOTS of factors beyond talent go into putting together an 11 win season- ask any coach.

But having potential doesnt mean anyone actually realizes it. Coach Riley hasnt shown he can do it either.

The cup isnt overflowing either- we weak/unproven at DE, LB and RB we are unproven and have very little depth at other spots including QB, OL

Erickson did that with the players that Riley put into place. Whether Riley could have done the same thing at OSU with those players we will never know.

I agree with the first part of the bolded statement. The skill player development has not been bad at all. Even at QB you are only going to do so much when you take an athlete that is not a great passer and make him pass 25+ times a game.

The second part of the bolded are all things that BP was poor at that I think Riley will improve upon. To me those things that Riley can improve may be worth an increase of at least 1 win a year.

I would like to see the study you speak about. Because I think for the most part MR has outperformed his talent most years. The last couple of years no, but I have always felt he puts a competitive product on the field.

You coach FB I think, I coached for 20 plus years the last 15 at Norfolk HS. We never had the most talent, we never had the most size, but we always came to play and our head coach IMO was the most innovative offensive mind in the state. The Millards and LSE of the world never liked playing us because it was going to be a dogfight. They most likely would win, but they would be licking their wounds.

Most the PAC 12 coaches really didn't to want to play OSU. You always got a dog fight from a Riley coached team.

I am excited to see what Riley can do with a lot more talent.

 

[VectorVictor]

It starts with winning your division. Nebraska has a consensus recruiting advantage over the rest of the West (base on rankings). With a grace period for this year, NU should (at minimum) win the division every other year with above average coaching, and 2 out of 3 years with good coaching. If we can push the average class 10-15 spots, that puts us in the upper teens/lower twenties range. IMO, that's where we need to be to compete for the B1G crown annually, and be considered for the playoff.

Really, there shouldn't be a grace period for this year. Save for Wisky, we have better talent than the teams in our division.

And save for Kill, better coaching than anyone in our division, too.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

We've seen Nebraska play pretty well with the talent we've had.

We've seen them struggle against better teams, which shouldn't be surprising.

We've seen them play pretty well against better teams -- for one half -- which should have been encouraging.

But we also saw the entire team — offense, defense, special teams, skill players, seniors and leaders — meltdown in the same game, seemingly unable to remember what they do well and unwilling to make adjustments. We've heard coaches, players and broadcasters genuinely baffled why the Nebraska defense insisted on a scheme that was constantly being exploited.

Bo Pelini's teams really wanted to win for him. Or to make him happy. Or to not get yelled at. Maybe they even played harder for him, but they didn't play smarter or better. Bo Pelini's teams had terrible body language on the sideline.

We haven't had Top 10 talent, but we've definitely had Top 20 talent. Recruiting aside, we've underperformed and all signs point to coaching.

So yeah, I've got one foot in the camp that expects immediate improvement from Riley and Associates. Even with major changes -- like we adopted in the four short weeks leading up to the Holiday Bowl.

But I'm not attaching a required win total yet. Just looking forward to the season and a more invigorating and hopefully fun brand of football.

 

[Landlord]

It starts with winning your division. Nebraska has a consensus recruiting advantage over the rest of the West (base on rankings). With a grace period for this year, NU should (at minimum) win the division every other year with above average coaching, and 2 out of 3 years with good coaching. If we can push the average class 10-15 spots, that puts us in the upper teens/lower twenties range. IMO, that's where we need to be to compete for the B1G crown annually, and be considered for the playoff.

Really, there shouldn't be a grace period for this year. Save for Wisky, we have better talent than the teams in our division.

And save for Kill, better coaching than anyone in our division, too.

It's not really a very uncommon thing for good coaches with a lot of talent to have a transitioning first year.

Texas has a ton of talent and the opinions of unproven-at-his-current-stop Charlie Strong are much higher than the opinions of unproven-at-his-current-stop Mike Riley, yet he went 5-7 last year.

Stoops went 7-5 his first year with a loaded roster before winning the championship in year two.

Same with Carroll at USC. 6-6 in year one, 11-2 ranked #4 in year two.

This happens frequently.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Urban Meyer had a mess to clean up when he took over at Ohio State in 2011, but the mess came with a solid roster of talent.

He was allowed to go 6 - 7 that year.

 

[Landlord]

Urban Meyer had a mess to clean up when he took over at Ohio State in 2011, but the mess came with a solid roster of talent.

He was allowed to go 6 - 7 that year.

Luke Fickel coached that team. Urban Meyer was commentating for ESPN. He commentated one or two of our games, even.