Run game: striking differences between Riley and Langsdorf

[cm husker]

Whoa. Hadn't popped in here and realized an old post of mine was being referenced. Cool

CM, as to the 62%, then 68%, then 65%, 62% was the original number but per my research and anecdotal assessment, West Virginia seemed like a bit of an anomaly among the schools listed, so I removed them. With them not in it, it was 68%, so then I just averaged the two out for a general number.

Thanks for explanaiton. I don't think that's necessarily the best way to determine a weighted average, but that was a minor critique.

made a point in the thread to say that the research was far from scientific. You bring up a good point on the 4 year thing - but even if we included that, then it would be something else. That's the problem with statistics, they don't provide good context (ie, Mike Riley being a career .500 coach without looking at his decision to stay at a sh**ty mediocre school where he overachieved even though he had opportunities to go to schools where winning would be much easier). I decided to focus on a 4 year cutoff because there's a pretty common thought amongst plebs such as ourselves that any coach needs 4 years to really get to his full ability at a school with his coaches, his players, culture, etc. I figured for all of the awful coaches who get fired before 4 years, there were just as many who were hastily gotten rid of before they had a fully fair shot. Maybe not just as many, but I was just trying to generally provide some context to the numbers.

I'm no mathematician and definitely no scholar or football guru; I'm just a guy with too much time on his hands. Regardless, I've made better posts about this exact same topic in the past.

Again, thank you for the explanation. I don't agree with the methodology, but I take your point.

 

[Landlord]

I don't necessarily 'agree' with the methodology either, but only because I think pretty much all methodology is pretty inadequate for trying to find out something like this.

 

[cm husker]

I don't necessarily 'agree' with the methodology either, but only because I think pretty much all methodology is pretty inadequate for trying to find out something like this.

maybe true.

But I do think that the original assertion that your post was intended to refute stands on its own: it's pretty impressive to win at least 9 games in each of your first 7 years as a head coach.

So, it makes sense if there's not a sound methodology to disprove or diminish that assertion.

 

[Landlord]

I don't necessarily 'agree' with the methodology either, but only because I think pretty much all methodology is pretty inadequate for trying to find out something like this.

maybe true.

But I do think that the original assertion that your post was intended to refute stands on its own: it's pretty impressive to win at least 9 games in each of your first 7 years as a head coach.

So, it makes sense if there's not a sound methodology to disprove or diminish that assertion.

But that sentence is unnecessarily and deceptively restrictive. What if a coach went 9-4, 9-4, 9-4, 7-6, 11-2, 9-4, 9-4? Not as impressive? Moreso? Even?

What that sentence is trying to get at is a coach that is able to win 70% of his games (or 69%, I guess). Certainly that doesn't happen on accident, or while blindfolded. It takes ability to achieve it, sure. I think, looking back, what I was trying to show more than anything is that if you compare Bo to a pool of people that accomplished the same or better (not compared to every coach ever), he's at the very bottom of the pool accomplishment-wise.

 

[cm husker]

I don't necessarily 'agree' with the methodology either, but only because I think pretty much all methodology is pretty inadequate for trying to find out something like this.

maybe true.

But I do think that the original assertion that your post was intended to refute stands on its own: it's pretty impressive to win at least 9 games in each of your first 7 years as a head coach.

So, it makes sense if there's not a sound methodology to disprove or diminish that assertion.

But that sentence is unnecessarily and deceptively restrictive. What if a coach went 9-4, 9-4, 9-4, 7-6, 11-2, 9-4, 9-4? Not as impressive? Moreso? Even?

What that sentence is trying to get at is a coach that is able to win 70% of his games (or 69%, I guess). Certainly that doesn't happen on accident, or while blindfolded. It takes ability to achieve it, sure. I think, looking back, what I was trying to show more than anything is that if you compare Bo to a pool of people that accomplished the same or better (not compared to every coach ever), he's at the very bottom of the pool accomplishment-wise.

That may be true, but part an important part of the compliment is that it acknowledges that those were his first years of HC'ing ever (and not at a very well situated school, both because of the oft discussed recruiting challenges and because of the conference change).

How many first time HC's have maintained a .700+ average during their first 7 years as an HC? Obviously more than 4, but I bet it's not a huge number... I'd wager the over under on 25 in the DIA level since 1960, especially if we limit the count to coaches who had to start at the P5 level.

The best way to argue that winning .700+ over a 7 year stretch (especially the first 7 years of a coach's career) doesn't require being a great coach would be to create a list of coaches who have done that but who are still mediocre/average. I think that's a hard list to come up with.

 

[Landlord]

The best way to argue that winning .700+ over a 7 year stretch (especially the first 7 years of a coach's career) doesn't require being a great coach would be to create a list of coaches who have done that but who are still mediocre/average. I think that's a hard list to come up with.

Sure. But say you make that list, and then all other 24 (assuming for a second that there would be 25) coaches are good, have won championships, have had top ten classes, have made it to major bowls, etc. Is that still not an indictment on Pelini, or at least more evidence that his results were more than anything an anomaly?

 

[cm husker]

The best way to argue that winning .700+ over a 7 year stretch (especially the first 7 years of a coach's career) doesn't require being a great coach would be to create a list of coaches who have done that but who are still mediocre/average. I think that's a hard list to come up with.

Sure. But say you make that list, and then all other 24 (assuming for a second that there would be 25) coaches are good, have won championships, have had top ten classes, have made it to major bowls, etc. Is that still not an indictment on Pelini, or at least more evidence that his results were more than anything an anomaly?

Not sure what you're getting at there... I think everyone acknowledges that Pelini came up short in the championship department (1 second short, to be precise). If he wins that B12C does that really mean he's an empirically better coach than he is without that win? I don't think so. Yet in your analysis, I guess it does?

That's why I tend to defer to guys like Osborne, Tressel and Ron Brown, who have all been around long enough to recognize promise in a coach. Osborne and Tressel care far too much about their respective programs to have gifted an average coach the job.

I truly don't believe that being .700+ (9.5 wins a season) is a anomaly, especially in today's age of conference championship games making a 13th win that much tougher and an additional loss that much more likely, whether or not we look at other factors like top 10 finishes, conference championships and recruitnik rankings. I think it's strong evidence that you have a great coach who has the potential to make a jump, particularly when those were the results during only his first 7 years as an HC.

I guess neither of us will ever change our minds on whether it was a good or bad decision to fire Pelini and what sort of promise he showed prior to that firing, but I appreciate the respectful discussion on the point.

 

[Landlord]

I don't think you can call Bo "average" or "mediocre". I think you can call him good with a more-than-likely realized ceiling. 7 years is a long time to show a good chance at taking the next step, or to at least get lucky, and also a long time to slip up. You can look at his tenure from all sorts of different positive and negative perspectives, but at the end of the day, he wasn't really any further or any closer to championship level football than when he got here, which is wild to think about.

 

[cm husker]

Sometimes it seems people read "pro-Bo" or "pro-.700+ coach" arguments as meaning we think that Bo was the greatest coach in the world or that .700 with no chance at championships is ok.

Really, my central argument going all the way back to Solich is whether NU can find success firing good/great coaches (say a coach among the top 10 to 30 of his peers) in hopes of hiring an elite coach (one of the top 10 guys).

Personally, I don't think so, and I think the last two firings and hirings are further evidence of that.

If Mike Riley gets things turned around and goes .700+ between Years 2 and 6, but without a conf. championship, I truly hope he doesn't get fired (though he'll likely be nearing retirement by Year 6... which has always been my biggest problem with that hire... fire a promising coach in his 40s to bring in a "on paper" mediocre/average 60+ coach).

 

[cm husker]

I don't think you can call Bo "average" or "mediocre". I think you can call him good with a more-than-likely realized ceiling. 7 years is a long time to show a good chance at taking the next step, or to at least get lucky, and also a long time to slip up. You can look at his tenure from all sorts of different positive and negative perspectives, but at the end of the day, he wasn't really any further or any closer to championship level football than when he got here, which is wild to think about.

I really don't understand how you make the jump to the bolded. This was a guy in his first 7 years as an HC. If anything he established what appeared to be his floor (or at least average level of performance). We know that experience tends to lead to better results after more time from our very own Husker history.

Under your analysis, Osborne would have seemed to have stagnated as a coach. Bobby Bowden would have been considered average at best having gone 42-26 at WVU after taking over a program that was 10-1 the previous season and then having ups and downs at FSU while they were independent.

Football, especially in college, is never as linear as what you and others who were looking for "progress" or "a next step" would hope for in a 7 year span. And winning a conference championship is NEVER about luck.

I also disagree that he wasn't closer to winning a championship when he was fired than when he got here. I think the roster this year is far better balanced and in shape than it was in '08 (yes, yes, I know Suh was on that roster). I also think he'd gained valuable experience. The one negative in my mind is that he'd always suffered too much assistant turnover. But other than that, I think NU would have had a break out year this season against this schedule had he stayed. As it is, this was one of the weakest schedules in years, and if NU had put beaten even just 4 of the teams that it lost to, that schedule strength would have dropped further.

This year was a definite missed opportunity.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I don't think you can call Bo "average" or "mediocre". I think you can call him good with a more-than-likely realized ceiling. 7 years is a long time to show a good chance at taking the next step, or to at least get lucky, and also a long time to slip up. You can look at his tenure from all sorts of different positive and negative perspectives, but at the end of the day, he wasn't really any further or any closer to championship level football than when he got here, which is wild to think about.

I really don't understand how you make the jump to the bolded. This was a guy in his first 7 years as an HC. If anything he established what appeared to be his floor (or at least average level of performance). We know that experience tends to lead to better results after more time from our very own Husker history.

Football, especially in college, is never as linear as what you and others who were looking for "progress" or "a next step" would hope for in a 7 year span. And winning a conference championship is NEVER about luck.

I also disagree that he wasn't closer to winning a championship when he was fired than when he got here. I think the roster this year is far better balanced and in shape than it was in '08 (yes, yes, I know Suh was on that roster). I also think he'd gained valuable experience. The one negative in my mind is that he'd always suffered too much assistant turnover. But other than that, I think NU would have had a break out year this season against this schedule had he stayed. As it is, this was one of the weakest schedules in years, and if NU had put beaten even just 4 of the teams that it lost to, that schedule strength would have dropped further.

This year was a definite missed opportunity.

Most people don't lose their jobs because they can't do the job.

The Wisconsin loss last year is a perfect example of why he was fired. He was here for 7 years because he won at least 9-10 games each year. He was on the hot seat the last few because of everything else.

Again...I said this earlier today somewhere. His actions in that game proved to me he was not the leader we needed. No...I'm not one of those guys that cries because he was "mean". Football coaches yell at people. Every successful coach has yelled at people.

He just simply wasn't a leader when his team was in the heat of battle. Instead of working to fix the problems on the field, he was melting down and everyone else around him was trying to have success in spite of him.

I fully supported the guy up till that point.

I actually think he is a very good coach. Well above average and no where close to "mediocre". He just can't handle the pressure in battle to be the one who pushes the team past it's struggles.

Actually, if he learns that leadership skill, he could be a very good HC at a major school. He just didn't have that skill here.

 

[cm husker]

He was melting down in the Wisconsin game?

I don't recall that, except for the Davie yelling, but I don't see how that leads to what happened... I just don't see it.

Personally, I think that's a growing experience, and I thought Bo did a lot of growing under TO and will continue to under Tressel.

As far as that 2014 season goes (and the 2013 season), I think people forget or don't appreciate just how under fire that staff was. It's one thing to be getting that from the media and message boards. It's quite another to feel you don't have support from your boss. And, based on Eichorst's actions this season, it's very clear he was looking for a way to fire Bo, let alone not supporting him like he could have.

Bo was far from perfect. I fully acknowledge that. But I don't think he was as bad as has been portrayed.

And to the blowout issue, that's just a fact of today's systems of offense and rules on offense. These games get out of hand so much easier than they used to. Granted, Wisconsin was particularly awful, but when I look at the bowl results this season, when teams are sort of supposed to be going up against like versus like, you have 16 games won by at least 17 points (and several of them by more than 21), especially among against top p5 programs.

I think the blowout issue is overplayed, mainly because it's one of the few objective faults one can point to in Bo's record at NU, along with no conf. championships.

 

[Enhance]

I really think Riley will get it done here beginning next year so this point is moot but if it gets to year 3 and were 5-7/6-6 You pay Tom Herman whatever it takes to get him here.

That's very easy to say as someone who doesn't actually have the responsibility to come up with the money.

Let's say Saban retires and Texas decides to get a new coach that same year.

How much do you think it would take to get him to come to Nebraska over those two schools and why would he come here instead of one of those?

I guess nobody has why Tom Herman would come here instead of Alabama or Texas????

If all three were open at the same time, he likely wouldn't choose Nebraska, imo. One of the few things that may interest him more about Nebraska than Alabama would be expectations - ours are quite a bit lower right now, unfortunately, than what Alabama would expect/demand in his first few seasons.

Otherwise, Texas/Alabama are certainly better jobs overall.

OK....you have Alabama which I would agree. He might not want to go there. Being the guy who replaces a legend usually doesn't work out well.

Then you have Texas. Texas is sort of in the same boat we are. They haven't done squat for some time. The fan base would love to at least be competing for championships. They haven't done that for a while (not as long as us but still...a while). They are starting to play second fiddle to aTm in the state. That won't sit well. That's even worse in their minds than Iowa beating Nebraska.

So, I would say the expectations of Texass fans are on par with Nebraska. They have all the talent in the world right around them. They have great weather that the wife and family might like and they can pay what ever is needed.

Now....let's talk if it's down to a school like Georgia and Nebraska. I have no data on this but I would assume Georgia has about the same resources as far as money as Nebraska. BUT, they are sitting in the middle of a lot of talent. VERY close to Florida to tap into that market. Their fans haven't had a conference championship for a while. A chance to coach in the vaunted SEC....OMG....

OK...why would he come here instead of Georgia?

If I were going to make the case for Nebraska, I'd say (briefly summarized)...

Hey man, look. We don't have the recruiting base that you'll have in Georgia. Division one athletes are so close to you that you could sneeze and cover 10 of them in the spores of your knowledge. I'll be straight with you - recruiting isn't easy in Nebraska.

But, you're not going to find a more supportive fan base in the entire country. Husker fans are the best in the nation, and the sellout streak speaks for itself. The tradition outweighs that of Georgia. Second, our facilities and financial support are some of the best in the country. You ask for it and we'll get it. You'll have top of the line training facilities and experts in the athletic field. Third, the Big Ten West is a much easier path to a conference title and national championship contention. You know how competitive the SEC is and the stranglehold certain teams have on the conference.

So, that'd be my pitch. Realistically speaking, I'd really argue the only real, substantive advantage Georgia has over Nebraska is recruiting. I'm sure you could argue some others but that's the only one that stands out to me. Granted, it's a significant advantage.

 

[Dansker]

Ah a mod is needed to wipe out some of the thread hijackers who continue to post off-topic in every single thread. The main point of this thread is about Riley and Langsdorf having different visions of the run game. While one has a defeatist attitude the other (Riley) believes Nebraska should continue to work on their run game and make it their forte. This shouldn't be a thread about hiring new coaches or other coaches retiring/getting fired. There are plenty of other threads for that.

While Riley has been quoted as saying the run game is a common denominator in winning championships it still comes off as coach speak as Tommy Armstrong only completed 55% of his passes for the year and 16 interceptions, the most since Joe Dailey (19) in 2004. The forced passing game could be attributed to a sophomore OC, the HC, Tommy's passing ability or all of them, could be anyone's guess. These coaches knew when they got here that their current roster on offense fared much better in 2014 by a run first, pass second mentality. They really screwed the pooch in games against Illinois and Purdue where those games and the weather conditions called for a run first game plan.

In the 6 victories this year, Nebraska averaged: 42 rushing attempts for 233 YPG, 29 pass attempts for 269 YPG

In the 7 losses this year, Nebraska averaged: 35 rushing attempts for 137 YPG, 41 pass attempts for 265 YPG

Of the 6 victories, Nebraska threw 1 INT on average

Of the 7 losses, Nebraska threw 2 INT's on average

What do these stats tell me? They tell me that the staff does strive for balance however, in all of our losses, they were more inclined to give up on the run game first and continue to air it out to a point where 40+ attempts by Armstrong all resulted in 5 losses. I believe these coaches know what they're doing and they know they made mistakes. They know we're weak on the offensive line and that has equated to a stronger recruiting approach for OL. We have to take Boyd Epley's assessment of our current talent in that we need to get better up front first. Combine that with coach Cavanaugh calling out his offensive line to play better and it's pretty simple.

Nebraska needs to go back to its roots and bring back that pipeline or perhaps a reflection of it. We can have success with 3 studs on the OL and we have some promising prospects. The bottom line is, in order for you to have a good run game, you have to work at it each and every day. This requires decent talent up front, hard work ethic and being physical in practice! This goes for both sides of the ball not just offense. Nebraska needs to bust their butts in the off season during winter conditioning along with being a more physical team when spring practice arrives. Whether or not Riley or Langsdorf truly believe a run game equates to championships is anyone's guess at this point. I recommend they jump into old Husker lore and look back at the following seasons: 1971, 1972, 1994, 1995, 1997. That's the blueprint for championships.

The current model would be Stanford. They destroyed Iowa with their physicality and how many times have we seen them upend Oregon and USC with their physical play? They recruit stud offensive lineman coupled with exceptional running backs and smart quarterback play. David Shaw has averaged nearly 11 wins and just under 3 losses in only 5 seasons at Stanford while appearing in 4 conference championship games and winning 3 of them. They have also appeared in 4 major bowls with 3 of them being the Rose Bowl. Nebraska has to go back to being physical, stop talking about it and do it in practice then it will begin to show on the field.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

The best way to argue that winning .700+ over a 7 year stretch (especially the first 7 years of a coach's career) doesn't require being a great coach would be to create a list of coaches who have done that but who are still mediocre/average. I think that's a hard list to come up with.

Another way would be for a team to fire that .700+ coach, and see if any other Power 5 school was quick to snap up that great coach who was unjustly fired.