McKewon on Husker Recruiting

[zoogs]

Are so many expecting 7, or just saying it would be understandable, if the transition proves rocky?

I guess I have seen the 11 number tossed out here and there. Or thought I did. But maybe it's the same as the 7 number: something that a few think likely, and most think at least plausible.

If this is all a kerfuffle over "is 8 more reasonable to expect than 9", I guess it really is the case that we all just need the season to get here ASAP

(Let's split the middle and say they're both equally reasonable.)

 

[Mavric]

I haven't seen anyone really expecting 11. I don't think it's out of the question given our schedule and talent but I'm not expecting it.

But I have seen a lot of talk about tough transition years, lack of talent and the like. As soon as anyone even talks about expecting 9 wins (again) someone is quick to jump in with talk of transition and pointing out other coaches who've only won 6 or 7 games in their first year. Comparing apples to apples as closely as possible, if Pelini and his band of misfits can come in here without any experience and install the most complicated system imaginable and still manage to improve by four wins over the previous year and win 9, I think the talk of the transition year is the thing that is being completely overblown.

So I would say there seem to be more people "expecting" 7 than even "expecting" 9, but it's an argument that can be semanticed to death.

 

[Landlord]

And you still haven't given an example of a coach that had a worse record than the year before he got there.

That's because coaches don't get fired after 9-10 win seasons. But yes I did. Charlie Strong.

 

[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

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.

Here is the study

http://regressing.deadspin.com/chart-which-ncaa-football-teams-outplay-their-recruit-1640831522

There isnt any evidence that Riley has outperformed his recruiting- it's on the same level as Pelini more or less

Dennis Erickson won 64% of his games at OSU- was 8-5 his last year with only his recruits. 8-5 OSU under Riley would have been considered a very good year- so on par with that.

Riley was at 53%

So pretty similar results for both there- Erickson was better even if you take away Rileys first 2 years

Time will tell,. I hope he does it, but there isnt anything out there that says- like Urban Meyer the guy wins everywhere he goes, and does it right away. He's not anywhere near that level at all.

As to luck people are talking about, yeah the Texas loss was a bad deal/. HOWEVER NU has been a huge recipeint of the ball bouncing the right way- Colorado, Northwestern, Iowa, McNeese State, Wyoming etc etc We are so much closer to 8 wins than 11- not worth talking about.

I just dont get the unrealistic optimism so many fans have EVERY YEAR this time of year for NU with little to no factual basis to back it up. Putting the name Riley at the HC spot guarantees us nothing at this point with the exception of better PR. Glad Bos gone, but dont get the 10-11-12 win guys with this coaching staff and roster

 

[AFhusker]

I'd be disappointed, too, but even ignoring the potential volatility of a coaching change, we're:- ?? at QB. check.- Dangerously thin at DE. check.- Dangerously thin at LB. check.- The two previous editions of the team rollercoastered their way to 9-4, and T-3 in the B1G West. Yes, despite the schedule.I don't see where we've made a vault to be a team that should, on paper alone, be expected to be a cut above Minnesota and Iowa. Nebraska will earn that separation when it actually creates it. Right now we're fighting these guys tooth and nail. The road to Indy does not run through Nebraska in the West.

Yea and I used the words extremely disappointed for lack of a better way to put it because I sure as heck don't mean I'd be up in arms or talking about firing coaches (as unrealistic as that sentiment seems, there's always someone out there thinking it)

I will disagree with one point you make.

We aren't ?? at QB in my opinion. Actually I think we have the third best starting QB in the Big.

The rest I agree with. I also preach regularly that Minnesota is deserving of a lot of respect. I think they have a chance to win the West. Iowa, not deserving of anything, (kidding) but yeah, we don't exactly blow them out of the water either.

I'm holding out hope that the reason we struggle, or believe we are not by far and away better than these teams is that we were limited by some of the aspects of the previous staff.

+1 though. I actually made a comment the other day about Nebraska fans tempering expectations and cooling off on the arrogance we can sometimes show. We are not in the position to talk a whole lot right now.

This is the post that was quoted in this post are two of the best posts I have seen in a long time on here. For now I will have to side with Zoogs on the QB situation. I like TA, but if he is going to be a good to great college QB will depend on how this new staff develops him. And until he has progress from what he was under the previous staff, I will also count the QB position as a ?.

 

[True2tRA]

I haven't seen anyone really expecting 11. I don't think it's out of the question given our schedule and talent but I'm not expecting it.

But I have seen a lot of talk about tough transition years, lack of talent and the like. As soon as anyone even talks about expecting 9 wins (again) someone is quick to jump in with talk of transition and pointing out other coaches who've only won 6 or 7 games in their first year. Comparing apples to apples as closely as possible, if Pelini and his band of misfits can come in here without any experience and install the most complicated system imaginable and still manage to improve by four wins over the previous year and win 9, I think the talk of the transition year is the thing that is being completely overblown.

So I would say there seem to be more people "expecting" 7 than even "expecting" 9, but it's an argument that can be semanticed to death.

The conversation has been pretty fair and balanced really, and not Fox news fair and balanced.
If I had to say off the top of my head, I know for a fact teachercd and TheSker have both made multiple comments about an immediate improvement on the nine wins. Teahercd has specifically said the number 11.

I don't think its impossible by any means, but it is unreasonable to expect it.

It's almost ridiculous to put a number on anything in the first year in my opinion. There's just so many variables. If anybody is tempering expectations, which I agree there are some trying to do so, myself included, it's because this mentality fans have where they put "ultimatums" on coaches can turn into an ugly thing. It's contagious too.

Look at the "know it alls" in that Aphonso Thomas thread. It takes one guy to open his mouth and suddenly the room is full of recruiting guru's.

Well the same applies to Riley's first year. This first year could resemble the future of the offense and defense, it easily might not. Its a buiding year. These guys are going to go through their first fall camp together. Every guy out there is trying to figure out what they've got, and how it all fits in the puzzle.

If they reach 11 wins it should be seen as a group of coaches and players overcoming the odds. If they don't reach 11 wins, I would see it as the expected outcome. It should not be seen as a failure. The more people that understand that, the smoother and more enjoyable the process is for everyone, here at Huskerboard or elsewhere.

Of course, I'll acnowledge that I can't see any reason we would drop to 7 wins. Will I give up on watching Husker football and throw a little temper tantrum if we do, nah....I doubt it.

Is it also not possible that maybe Riley and his staff have gained favor with the fans for their overall mentality, likeability, and the changes they've already brought to the program? I like the guy. I'm not saying this is a reason to dismiss a let down or to come to accept mediocrity, I'm not saying that. I'm saying that right now these guys have my support and I'd like to give them time to see where they can take us.

When I say I'd like to give them time to see where they can take us, I don't mean one year.

These sattellite camps and some of the other changes he's made make a lot of sense. There's a logical almost common sense approach that Riley brings. I'd really like to see a good sample size of how this is all gonna work out. I get the impression that we are steering the ship in the right direction I just don't know how long it will take to turn her around.

Let's not forget this part either, we know there are issues on this football team. We've seen them on the field and off the field. We've watched a team that makes a lot of mistakes mentally and functionally. We've questioned the strength and conditioning of the team, especially on the offensive line. We've questioned depth, experience, development and so forth. We also know there were some guys who were ready to fight the demons at the gates of hell for Bo. There was hurt and anger when their coach got fired. These things don't all just vanish. It takes time to heal and fix the things you can fix.

I find it funny when the same people who witnessed all these issues, then refuse to acknowledge that the new coach may have his work cut out for him a bit when it comes to dealing with this stuff.

I also get the impression that theres still a strange loyalty to Bo or a resentment from his firing when a guy says "well, if the new staff is so much better than Bo, then they should immediately win more games".......as if it's that simple. It doesn't work that way, anyone that thinks so is a fool.

And remember, the other team is trying to win too.

 

[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.

Here is the study

http://regressing.deadspin.com/chart-which-ncaa-football-teams-outplay-their-recruit-1640831522

There isnt any evidence that Riley has outperformed his recruiting- it's on the same level as Pelini more or less

Dennis Erickson won 64% of his games at OSU- was 8-5 his last year with only his recruits. 8-5 OSU under Riley would have been considered a very good year- so on par with that.

Riley was at 53%

So pretty similar results for both there- Erickson was better even if you take away Rileys first 2 years

Time will tell,. I hope he does it, but there isnt anything out there that says- like Urban Meyer the guy wins everywhere he goes, and does it right away. He's not anywhere near that level at all.

As to luck people are talking about, yeah the Texas loss was a bad deal/. HOWEVER NU has been a huge recipeint of the ball bouncing the right way- Colorado, Northwestern, Iowa, McNeese State, Wyoming etc etc We are so much closer to 8 wins than 11- not worth talking about.

I just dont get the unrealistic optimism so many fans have EVERY YEAR this time of year for NU with little to no factual basis to back it up. Putting the name Riley at the HC spot guarantees us nothing at this point with the exception of better PR. Glad Bos gone, but dont get the 10-11-12 win guys with this coaching staff and roster

Erickson was there for 2 years. Riley was there for 14? Not a real good statistical analysis.

I have seen that graph and article before. OSU actually does perform a little over its recruiting. If NU moves off that line as much as OSU is off the line we are more than likely looking at 1 more win a year on average.

As far as unrealistic optimism goes its called being a fan. What fun is it to be doom and gloom all the time. I don't get people predicting a 7 loss season, because past results says we should win 9 games this year.

 

[TheSker]

I find it funny when the same people who witnessed all these issues, then refuse to acknowledge that the new coach may have his work cut out for him a bit when it comes to dealing with this stuff.

Did the coach with "all these issues" ever win less than 9?

 

[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

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.

Here is the study

http://regressing.deadspin.com/chart-which-ncaa-football-teams-outplay-their-recruit-1640831522

There isnt any evidence that Riley has outperformed his recruiting- it's on the same level as Pelini more or less

Dennis Erickson won 64% of his games at OSU- was 8-5 his last year with only his recruits. 8-5 OSU under Riley would have been considered a very good year- so on par with that.

Riley was at 53%

So pretty similar results for both there- Erickson was better even if you take away Rileys first 2 years

Time will tell,. I hope he does it, but there isnt anything out there that says- like Urban Meyer the guy wins everywhere he goes, and does it right away. He's not anywhere near that level at all.

As to luck people are talking about, yeah the Texas loss was a bad deal/. HOWEVER NU has been a huge recipeint of the ball bouncing the right way- Colorado, Northwestern, Iowa, McNeese State, Wyoming etc etc We are so much closer to 8 wins than 11- not worth talking about.

I just dont get the unrealistic optimism so many fans have EVERY YEAR this time of year for NU with little to no factual basis to back it up. Putting the name Riley at the HC spot guarantees us nothing at this point with the exception of better PR. Glad Bos gone, but dont get the 10-11-12 win guys with this coaching staff and roster

Erickson was there for 2 years. Riley was there for 14? Not a real good statistical analysis.

I have seen that graph and article before. OSU actually does perform a little over its recruiting. If NU moves off that line as much as OSU is off the line we are more than likely looking at 1 more win a year on average.

As far as unrealistic optimism goes its called being a fan. What fun is it to be doom and gloom all the time. I don't get people predicting a 7 loss season, because past results says we should win 9 games this year.

Wrong Erickson was there for 4 years, my analysis at least knows how many years the guy coached there

Even taking out Rileys first 2 years- Rileys next 12 werent better than Ericksons EVEN if you take out Rileys recruiting classes from Erickson. Someone here also stated Erickson brought in a bunch of contributors on his own in that 11-1 season in his second year

Right after Rileys first 2- so not even after OSU kind of got righted

NU and OSU were in the very same grouping- performed about same as recruiting, nothing more or less

I havent seen anyone predicting 7 losses- but our team has consistently won 9, some very lucky 9 win seasons

The new guys stats say he performs about same as the old guys-That doesnt make us a 10-11-12 win team unless youre a coolaid drinker/blinders IMO especially with a group in its first year in the Big

 

[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.

Here is the study

http://regressing.deadspin.com/chart-which-ncaa-football-teams-outplay-their-recruit-1640831522

There isnt any evidence that Riley has outperformed his recruiting- it's on the same level as Pelini more or less

Dennis Erickson won 64% of his games at OSU- was 8-5 his last year with only his recruits. 8-5 OSU under Riley would have been considered a very good year- so on par with that.

Riley was at 53%

So pretty similar results for both there- Erickson was better even if you take away Rileys first 2 years

Time will tell,. I hope he does it, but there isnt anything out there that says- like Urban Meyer the guy wins everywhere he goes, and does it right away. He's not anywhere near that level at all.

As to luck people are talking about, yeah the Texas loss was a bad deal/. HOWEVER NU has been a huge recipeint of the ball bouncing the right way- Colorado, Northwestern, Iowa, McNeese State, Wyoming etc etc We are so much closer to 8 wins than 11- not worth talking about.

I just dont get the unrealistic optimism so many fans have EVERY YEAR this time of year for NU with little to no factual basis to back it up. Putting the name Riley at the HC spot guarantees us nothing at this point with the exception of better PR. Glad Bos gone, but dont get the 10-11-12 win guys with this coaching staff and roster

Erickson was there for 2 years. Riley was there for 14? Not a real good statistical analysis.

I have seen that graph and article before. OSU actually does perform a little over its recruiting. If NU moves off that line as much as OSU is off the line we are more than likely looking at 1 more win a year on average.

As far as unrealistic optimism goes its called being a fan. What fun is it to be doom and gloom all the time. I don't get people predicting a 7 loss season, because past results says we should win 9 games this year.

Wrong Erickson was there for 4 years, my analysis at least knows how many years the guy coached there

Even taking out Rileys first 2 years- Rileys next 12 werent better than Ericksons EVEN if you take out Rileys recruiting classes from Erickson. Someone here also stared Erickson brought in a bunch of contributors on his own in that 11-1 season in his second year

Right after Rileys first 2- so not even after OSU kind of got righted

NU and OSU were in the very same grouping- performed about same as recruiting, nothing more or less

I havent seen anyone predicting 7 losses- but our team has consistently won 9, some very lucky 9 win seasons

The new guys stats say he performs about same as the old guys-That doesnt make us a 10-11-12 win team unless youre a coolaid drinker/blinders IMO especially with a group in its first year in the Big

Fine with me you win the statistical pissing match.

 

[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

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.

Here is the study

http://regressing.deadspin.com/chart-which-ncaa-football-teams-outplay-their-recruit-1640831522

There isnt any evidence that Riley has outperformed his recruiting- it's on the same level as Pelini more or less

Dennis Erickson won 64% of his games at OSU- was 8-5 his last year with only his recruits. 8-5 OSU under Riley would have been considered a very good year- so on par with that.

Riley was at 53%

So pretty similar results for both there- Erickson was better even if you take away Rileys first 2 years

Time will tell,. I hope he does it, but there isnt anything out there that says- like Urban Meyer the guy wins everywhere he goes, and does it right away. He's not anywhere near that level at all.

As to luck people are talking about, yeah the Texas loss was a bad deal/. HOWEVER NU has been a huge recipeint of the ball bouncing the right way- Colorado, Northwestern, Iowa, McNeese State, Wyoming etc etc We are so much closer to 8 wins than 11- not worth talking about.

I just dont get the unrealistic optimism so many fans have EVERY YEAR this time of year for NU with little to no factual basis to back it up. Putting the name Riley at the HC spot guarantees us nothing at this point with the exception of better PR. Glad Bos gone, but dont get the 10-11-12 win guys with this coaching staff and roster

Erickson was there for 2 years. Riley was there for 14? Not a real good statistical analysis.

I have seen that graph and article before. OSU actually does perform a little over its recruiting. If NU moves off that line as much as OSU is off the line we are more than likely looking at 1 more win a year on average.

As far as unrealistic optimism goes its called being a fan. What fun is it to be doom and gloom all the time. I don't get people predicting a 7 loss season, because past results says we should win 9 games this year.

Wrong Erickson was there for 4 years, my analysis at least knows how many years the guy coached there

Even taking out Rileys first 2 years- Rileys next 12 werent better than Ericksons EVEN if you take out Rileys recruiting classes from Erickson. Someone here also stared Erickson brought in a bunch of contributors on his own in that 11-1 season in his second year

Right after Rileys first 2- so not even after OSU kind of got righted

NU and OSU were in the very same grouping- performed about same as recruiting, nothing more or less

I havent seen anyone predicting 7 losses- but our team has consistently won 9, some very lucky 9 win seasons

The new guys stats say he performs about same as the old guys-That doesnt make us a 10-11-12 win team unless youre a coolaid drinker/blinders IMO especially with a group in its first year in the Big

Fine with me you win the statistical pissing match.

When you are attempting to debate facts- stats, it's best if you actually have them- or at least dont tell the guy who does have them, that he is wrong when a simple google search shows he isnt

Kind of important- since many are saying Riley did such a great job at OSU that no one could ever replicate

Well Erickson did and did a better job- statistically right inbetween Rileys stints

Or I guess we can just go by gut feel, intuition, emotion

or the like

 

[zoogs]

I haven't seen anyone really expecting 11. I don't think it's out of the question given our schedule and talent but I'm not expecting it.

But I have seen a lot of talk about tough transition years, lack of talent and the like. As soon as anyone even talks about expecting 9 wins (again) someone is quick to jump in with talk of transition and pointing out other coaches who've only won 6 or 7 games in their first year. Comparing apples to apples as closely as possible, if Pelini and his band of misfits can come in here without any experience and install the most complicated system imaginable and still manage to improve by four wins over the previous year and win 9, I think the talk of the transition year is the thing that is being completely overblown.

So I would say there seem to be more people "expecting" 7 than even "expecting" 9, but it's an argument that can be semanticed to death.

I don't think it's unfair to talk about transition, especially when people don't consider it an issue. This year more than most it's hard to know what in the world to expect.

Pelini and his band of misfits were actually soaring stars in their first two to three years here. He didn't do miracle work in his first year, but it was a pretty solid job -- AND he had continuity on one side of the ball, with the Wats/Ganz show lighting up the Big 12. If Riley pulls 9 wins together in 2015, I'd say it's similarly a pretty solid job.

I think it feels that 9 wins is being expected to the point that this should be bare minimum for Riley, rather than a commendable (albeit not amazing) opening act. I don't agree with that.

 

[jmfb]

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.

Several here on this forum predicting quite a few Huskers in the 2 deep- and reason why NU beats Wisconsin

I guess they know more than the experts

 

[jmfb]

I haven't seen anyone really expecting 11. I don't think it's out of the question given our schedule and talent but I'm not expecting it.

But I have seen a lot of talk about tough transition years, lack of talent and the like. As soon as anyone even talks about expecting 9 wins (again) someone is quick to jump in with talk of transition and pointing out other coaches who've only won 6 or 7 games in their first year. Comparing apples to apples as closely as possible, if Pelini and his band of misfits can come in here without any experience and install the most complicated system imaginable and still manage to improve by four wins over the previous year and win 9, I think the talk of the transition year is the thing that is being completely overblown.

So I would say there seem to be more people "expecting" 7 than even "expecting" 9, but it's an argument that can be semanticed to death.

But Pelini, and most of his staff had NU or Big 12 Experience

Both coordinators- Watson and Pelini had plenty of experience in the Big 12- Pelinis D was good fit there

Watson, Gilmore, Brown, Pelini, Cotton, Sanders all Big 12 Guys- 6 coached at NU

Beck coached in Big 12 at KU so 7

Even Eckler and Paps had Big 12 ties

None of Rileys staff has coached in the Big IIRC

Not the same deal and we dont have a Suh

Callahan/Blake could recruit

 

[zoogs]

Several here on this forum predicting quite a few Huskers in the 2 deep- and reason why NU beats Wisconsin

I guess they know more than the experts

Even Sam thinks NU beats Wisconsin. And he thinks they could have trouble with Illinois.

It's kinda interesting. Really, just nobody knows what to expect. We're all over the map. Riley's very well regarded in coaching circles, but he's never really been at the Big Time. Well, here he is now, and it's the last act of his career. Crash or Soar, it could go either way for him. We'll see what he's made of.