Eichorst: Building Football Program is "a Process"

[ColoradoHusk]

The Bo teams and the 2015 Riley team weren't all that far off. I am willing to admit that. Riley had some bad luck, bad coaching decisions, and other factors that led to a 5-7 regular season. I agree that a few of Bo's 9-win teams were very close to being 6, 7, or 8 win teams.

However, my point is that we want NU to get back to being a championship contender every year. In order to do that, NU has to get to the point that they are getting 7,8,9 "easy wins" each year. I know it's more difficult to do in today's college football, but it can be done with recruiting, coaching, development, and scheme.

My point is that NU needs to get those 8 comfortable, regular season wins, and then go from there. The true greatness of the season, then depends on how NU does in those other 4 "close games", which can turn on one play and even luck.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Can't say I agree with Eichorst here:

We were in every ballgame with a chance to win every ballgame, which I think is the standard here.

You may not like the statement, but what he said is true. Of the seven losses that we had the only game I feel they wern't in was Purdue. Whether anyone likes that or not is there opinion. The BYU, Miami, Illinois, Wisconsin, NW, and Iowa games all came down to the wire and Nebraska could have won them. The fact that NU didn't win them sucks, but his statement isn't false.

Nobody said it was false. Good Lord.

The issue people have is that it is a narrow, contextual, and trite summation.

Much like defending Bo by saying, "he always won at least 9 games". That statement is also true, huh?

Oh...that's right....that's why I'm still supposed to be freaking out.....

This spinning in circles and flopping my arms is getting really tiring. Could someone please let me know when I'm supposed to stop freaking out????

 

[BigRedBuster]

The Bo teams and the 2015 Riley team weren't all that far off. I am willing to admit that. Riley had some bad luck, bad coaching decisions, and other factors that led to a 5-7 regular season. I agree that a few of Bo's 9-win teams were very close to being 6, 7, or 8 win teams.

However, my point is that we want NU to get back to being a championship contender every year. In order to do that, NU has to get to the point that they are getting 7,8,9 "easy wins" each year. I know it's more difficult to do in today's college football, but it can be done with recruiting, coaching, development, and scheme.

My point is that NU needs to get those 8 comfortable, regular season wins, and then go from there. The true greatness of the season, then depends on how NU does in those other 4 "close games", which can turn on one play and even luck.

Then...why don't we wait and see what happens.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Can't say I agree with Eichorst here:

We were in every ballgame with a chance to win every ballgame, which I think is the standard here.

You may not like the statement, but what he said is true. Of the seven losses that we had the only game I feel they wern't in was Purdue. Whether anyone likes that or not is there opinion. The BYU, Miami, Illinois, Wisconsin, NW, and Iowa games all came down to the wire and Nebraska could have won them. The fact that NU didn't win them sucks, but his statement isn't false.

Nobody said it was false. Good Lord.

The issue people have is that it is a narrow, contextual, and trite summation.

Much like defending Bo by saying, "he always won at least 9 games". That statement is also true, huh?

Oh...that's right....that's why I'm still supposed to be freaking out.....

This spinning in circles and flopping my arms is getting really tiring. Could someone please let me know when I'm supposed to stop freaking out????

You can stop freaking out whenever you are capable, if you are capable.

I'm not sure who other than you has even started.

 

[cm husker]

Can't say I agree with Eichorst here:

We were in every ballgame with a chance to win every ballgame, which I think is the standard here.

NU "shouldn't be in the ballgame" with teams like Illinois, BYU, Purdue, and even Northwestern. NU should be getting enough talent and coaching so that those are no contests in the 4th quarter and not coming down to the last minutes.

Say that to Stanford or any other program that gets tripped up by Northwestern....they are good for one-three of those types of wins each year.
I get the frustration, but with a new coaching staff I am trying very hard to be patient. This coming up year will be a better measuring stick.

The big question I have (which has probably been asked several times on here) if the BYU game does not end the way it did, does the year go differently? Do they have complete faith in themselves and the system to respond when things are not going well??

It's matter of frequency. It's one thing to get tripped up or even blown out occasionally. Heck, TO had a number of trip ups and very near trip ups as an HC. It happens.

It's quite another proposition to be taken to the wire (or woodshed) by a number of teams in games that shouldn't have been competitive during a single season.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

The Bo teams and the 2015 Riley team weren't all that far off. I am willing to admit that. Riley had some bad luck, bad coaching decisions, and other factors that led to a 5-7 regular season. I agree that a few of Bo's 9-win teams were very close to being 6, 7, or 8 win teams.

However, my point is that we want NU to get back to being a championship contender every year. In order to do that, NU has to get to the point that they are getting 7,8,9 "easy wins" each year. I know it's more difficult to do in today's college football, but it can be done with recruiting, coaching, development, and scheme.

My point is that NU needs to get those 8 comfortable, regular season wins, and then go from there. The true greatness of the season, then depends on how NU does in those other 4 "close games", which can turn on one play and even luck.

Then...why don't we wait and see what happens.

Yes, we can only wait and see what happens. But, if Riley/Eichorst has the thought of "we just need to turn around some of those close losses and NU will be fine" that's already a losing proposition.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Can't say I agree with Eichorst here:

We were in every ballgame with a chance to win every ballgame, which I think is the standard here.

You may not like the statement, but what he said is true. Of the seven losses that we had the only game I feel they wern't in was Purdue. Whether anyone likes that or not is there opinion. The BYU, Miami, Illinois, Wisconsin, NW, and Iowa games all came down to the wire and Nebraska could have won them. The fact that NU didn't win them sucks, but his statement isn't false.

Nobody said it was false. Good Lord.

The issue people have is that it is a narrow, contextual, and trite summation.

Much like defending Bo by saying, "he always won at least 9 games". That statement is also true, huh?

Oh...that's right....that's why I'm still supposed to be freaking out.....

This spinning in circles and flopping my arms is getting really tiring. Could someone please let me know when I'm supposed to stop freaking out????

You can stop freaking out whenever you are capable, if you are capable.

I'm not sure who other than you has even started.

NO NO....WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO FORGET PUR.... FREAKING..... DUE.........

Can I really trust you that I can stop freaking out about PUR.....FREAKING.....DUE.......??????

 

[cm husker]

reading his quotes, it's fairly clear that Eichorst still thinks NU fans are stupid. And he continues to expose what a two faced lying jerk he is, and that's fine. He can continue to be that way.

Just don't ask me to support the guy. I hope he's summarily fired during the next year. Maybe once his emperor is gone. Cause clearly eich only got the job because he'd do perly's bidding. He had almost no other legitimate credentials for Nebraska.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Can't say I agree with Eichorst here:

We were in every ballgame with a chance to win every ballgame, which I think is the standard here.

You may not like the statement, but what he said is true. Of the seven losses that we had the only game I feel they wern't in was Purdue. Whether anyone likes that or not is there opinion. The BYU, Miami, Illinois, Wisconsin, NW, and Iowa games all came down to the wire and Nebraska could have won them. The fact that NU didn't win them sucks, but his statement isn't false.

Nobody said it was false. Good Lord.The issue people have is that it is a narrow, contextual, and trite summation.

Much like defending Bo by saying, "he always won at least 9 games". That statement is also true, huh?

Oh...that's right....that's why I'm still supposed to be freaking out.....

This spinning in circles and flopping my arms is getting really tiring. Could someone please let me know when I'm supposed to stop freaking out????

You can stop freaking out whenever you are capable, if you are capable.I'm not sure who other than you has even started.

NO NO....WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO FORGET PUR.... FREAKING..... DUE.........

Can I really trust you that I can stop freaking out about PUR.....FREAKING.....DUE.......??????

Where in the posts you quoted here is there a freak out about purdue? (Other than yours)Are there other things you want to fabricate to draw attention to yourself?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Can't say I agree with Eichorst here:

We were in every ballgame with a chance to win every ballgame, which I think is the standard here.

You may not like the statement, but what he said is true. Of the seven losses that we had the only game I feel they wern't in was Purdue. Whether anyone likes that or not is there opinion. The BYU, Miami, Illinois, Wisconsin, NW, and Iowa games all came down to the wire and Nebraska could have won them. The fact that NU didn't win them sucks, but his statement isn't false.

Nobody said it was false. Good Lord.The issue people have is that it is a narrow, contextual, and trite summation.

Much like defending Bo by saying, "he always won at least 9 games". That statement is also true, huh?

Oh...that's right....that's why I'm still supposed to be freaking out.....

This spinning in circles and flopping my arms is getting really tiring. Could someone please let me know when I'm supposed to stop freaking out????

You can stop freaking out whenever you are capable, if you are capable.I'm not sure who other than you has even started.

NO NO....WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO FORGET PUR.... FREAKING..... DUE.........

Can I really trust you that I can stop freaking out about PUR.....FREAKING.....DUE.......??????

Where in the posts you quoted here is there a freak out about purdue? (Other than yours)Are there other things you want to fabricate to draw attention to yourself?

Hey....I read earlier I was supposed to just let it sink in for a minute that WE LOST TO PUR....FREAKING....DUE......

I let it sink in now I'm freaking out......

I guess I had jus never let it sink in before.........

OMG....this spinning and flopping is getting tiring.

 

[Red Dead Redemption]

Can't say I agree with Eichorst here:

We were in every ballgame with a chance to win every ballgame, which I think is the standard here.

You may not like the statement, but what he said is true. Of the seven losses that we had the only game I feel they wern't in was Purdue. Whether anyone likes that or not is there opinion. The BYU, Miami, Illinois, Wisconsin, NW, and Iowa games all came down to the wire and Nebraska could have won them. The fact that NU didn't win them sucks, but his statement isn't false.

Nobody said it was false. Good Lord.The issue people have is that it is a narrow, contextual, and trite summation.

Much like defending Bo by saying, "he always won at least 9 games". That statement is also true, huh?

Oh...that's right....that's why I'm still supposed to be freaking out.....

This spinning in circles and flopping my arms is getting really tiring. Could someone please let me know when I'm supposed to stop freaking out????

You can stop freaking out whenever you are capable, if you are capable.I'm not sure who other than you has even started.

NO NO....WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO FORGET PUR.... FREAKING..... DUE.........

Can I really trust you that I can stop freaking out about PUR.....FREAKING.....DUE.......??????

Where in the posts you quoted here is there a freak out about purdue? (Other than yours)Are there other things you want to fabricate to draw attention to yourself?

Hey....I read earlier I was supposed to just let it sink in for a minute that WE LOST TO PUR....FREAKING....DUE......
I let it sink in now I'm freaking out......

I guess I had jus never let it sink in before.........

OMG....this spinning and flopping is getting tiring.

Please refrain from sharing with us your masturbation habits

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

The Husker football team is taking on an image under Riley where a middle of the pack finish in the league and a bowl game of any kind represent high times and a win in the bowl is icing on the cake.

In fairness, the Husker football team had already taken on that image before Riley was hired.

And I don't recall anyone calling these "high times"

I don't understand how anyone can deny that building a football program is a process, or that any AD wouldn't utter the same optimistic PR schtick that Eichorst did.

It will take three seasons to see if this degree of hand-wringing is warranted. I wouldn't put money on any prediction. And since every college football dynasty has endured and survived seasons like this, I see no harm in remaining optimistic.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Can't say I agree with Eichorst here:

We were in every ballgame with a chance to win every ballgame, which I think is the standard here.

You may not like the statement, but what he said is true. Of the seven losses that we had the only game I feel they wern't in was Purdue. Whether anyone likes that or not is there opinion. The BYU, Miami, Illinois, Wisconsin, NW, and Iowa games all came down to the wire and Nebraska could have won them. The fact that NU didn't win them sucks, but his statement isn't false.

Nobody said it was false. Good Lord.The issue people have is that it is a narrow, contextual, and trite summation.

Much like defending Bo by saying, "he always won at least 9 games". That statement is also true, huh?

Oh...that's right....that's why I'm still supposed to be freaking out.....

This spinning in circles and flopping my arms is getting really tiring. Could someone please let me know when I'm supposed to stop freaking out????

You can stop freaking out whenever you are capable, if you are capable.I'm not sure who other than you has even started.

NO NO....WE ARE NOT SUPPOSED TO FORGET PUR.... FREAKING..... DUE.........

Can I really trust you that I can stop freaking out about PUR.....FREAKING.....DUE.......??????

Where in the posts you quoted here is there a freak out about purdue? (Other than yours)Are there other things you want to fabricate to draw attention to yourself?

Hey....I read earlier I was supposed to just let it sink in for a minute that WE LOST TO PUR....FREAKING....DUE......
I let it sink in now I'm freaking out......

I guess I had jus never let it sink in before.........

OMG....this spinning and flopping is getting tiring.

Please refrain from sharing with us your masturbation habits

But...we lost to PURDUE!!!!!!

 

[BigRedBuster]

The Husker football team is taking on an image under Riley where a middle of the pack finish in the league and a bowl game of any kind represent high times and a win in the bowl is icing on the cake.

In fairness, the Husker football team had already taken on that image before Riley was hired.

And I don't recall anyone calling these "high times"

I don't understand how anyone can deny that building a football program is a process, or that any AD wouldn't utter the same optimistic PR schtick that Eichorst did.

It will take three seasons to see if this degree of hand-wringing is warranted. I wouldn't put money on any prediction. And since every college football dynasty has endured and survived seasons like this, I see no harm in remaining optimistic.

Exactly.

 

[cm husker]

Except Eichorst, when he had a coach that was 18-7 under his watch, couldn't be found in support of his coach and staff.

Now that he has "his guy," he is laying down all kinds of cover (while taking shots at the last guy).

The problem I have with Pedey, Eichorst and Perlman and the sorts like them is they lack any real integrity. Both of those ADs came in with an agenda and the intent to fire their coaches, and they weren't going to be dissuaded no matter the result. All that could be done in '14 was delay him, unlike the jerk in '03.

Those three couldn't be more of the opposite of TO, who when he was hired had a forthright discussion with his coach about the expectations and benchmarks he needed to hit to retain his job. When he failed to do that, TO acted decisively. None of those meely mouthed garbage. And I have no doubt that if BC had salvaged 8 wins in '07, he would have kept his job.