SBNation: If Vegas is right about these 8 college football teams, will they fire their coaches?

[Kiyoat Husker]

I agree that hearing so much about how tough 2018 is going to be is kind of like setting up an excuse in advance. I mean, we play in one of the weakest power-5 divisions. Nebraska needs to be a team that doesn't have to keep talking about how difficult their schedule is.

 

[Saunders]

Regarding talent; I don't think anyone on here has argued we have playoff talent. But I do think the (valid) argument was that we have the talent to win our division, and not get blown out by Purdue and Iowa.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Since for some reason this thread has morphed into a Jim Harbaugh thread. He did have 2 consecutive losing seasons at Stanford before finally going 8-5 in year 3 and then 12-1 in year 4. Funny how those last 2 years came around when the eventual #1 overall pick in the NFL draft was QB.

 

[SuperBigFan69]

Since for some reason this thread has morphed into a Jim Harbaugh thread. He did have 2 consecutive losing seasons at Stanford before finally going 8-5 in year 3 and then 12-1 in year 4. Funny how those last 2 years came around when the eventual #1 overall pick in the NFL draft was QB.

Yeah, but didn't he bring in Luck?

 

[StPaulHusker]

Since for some reason this thread has morphed into a Jim Harbaugh thread. He did have 2 consecutive losing seasons at Stanford before finally going 8-5 in year 3 and then 12-1 in year 4. Funny how those last 2 years came around when the eventual #1 overall pick in the NFL draft was QB.

Yeah, but didn't he bring in Luck?

Well yes. That's my point. It wasn't until Harbaugh got his players(especially Luck) 4 years into it that he "built" them into a top 10 team. This year will mark Riley's first year where "his guy" will be at QB and arguably more of his recruits will have a more prominent role on the team.

 

[Mavric]

Since for some reason this thread has morphed into a Jim Harbaugh thread. He did have 2 consecutive losing seasons at Stanford before finally going 8-5 in year 3 and then 12-1 in year 4. Funny how those last 2 years came around when the eventual #1 overall pick in the NFL draft was QB.

Yes, he did. But they were 1-11 the year before he got there and hadn't had a winning season in five years. So it depends on your frame of reference.

And I'm not going to argue that good/great QB play can make a difference. But it's also up to the coach(es) to recruit and develop them. They didn't have Andrew Luck to get them to 10-3 the last two years.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Since for some reason this thread has morphed into a Jim Harbaugh thread. He did have 2 consecutive losing seasons at Stanford before finally going 8-5 in year 3 and then 12-1 in year 4. Funny how those last 2 years came around when the eventual #1 overall pick in the NFL draft was QB.

Yes, he did. But they were 1-11 the year before he got there and hadn't had a winning season in five years. So it depends on your frame of reference.

And I'm not going to argue that good/great QB play can make a difference. But it's also up to the coach(es) to recruit and develop them. They didn't have Andrew Luck to get them to 10-3 the last two years.

So Harbaugh couldn't develop a QB in his first 2 years at Stanford but could the last 2 years?

 

[Mavric]

Since for some reason this thread has morphed into a Jim Harbaugh thread. He did have 2 consecutive losing seasons at Stanford before finally going 8-5 in year 3 and then 12-1 in year 4. Funny how those last 2 years came around when the eventual #1 overall pick in the NFL draft was QB.

Yes, he did. But they were 1-11 the year before he got there and hadn't had a winning season in five years. So it depends on your frame of reference.

And I'm not going to argue that good/great QB play can make a difference. But it's also up to the coach(es) to recruit and develop them. They didn't have Andrew Luck to get them to 10-3 the last two years.

So Harbaugh couldn't develop a QB in his first 2 years at Stanford but could the last 2 years?

No. I think it was more than just a QB problem with that roster.

 

[StPaulHusker]

Since for some reason this thread has morphed into a Jim Harbaugh thread. He did have 2 consecutive losing seasons at Stanford before finally going 8-5 in year 3 and then 12-1 in year 4. Funny how those last 2 years came around when the eventual #1 overall pick in the NFL draft was QB.

Yes, he did. But they were 1-11 the year before he got there and hadn't had a winning season in five years. So it depends on your frame of reference.

And I'm not going to argue that good/great QB play can make a difference. But it's also up to the coach(es) to recruit and develop them. They didn't have Andrew Luck to get them to 10-3 the last two years.

So Harbaugh couldn't develop a QB in his first 2 years at Stanford but could the last 2 years?

No. I think it was more than just a QB problem with that roster.

Which I would say Nebraska (and Riley) have faced his first 2 years as well.

 

[Mavric]

Since for some reason this thread has morphed into a Jim Harbaugh thread. He did have 2 consecutive losing seasons at Stanford before finally going 8-5 in year 3 and then 12-1 in year 4. Funny how those last 2 years came around when the eventual #1 overall pick in the NFL draft was QB.

Yes, he did. But they were 1-11 the year before he got there and hadn't had a winning season in five years. So it depends on your frame of reference.

And I'm not going to argue that good/great QB play can make a difference. But it's also up to the coach(es) to recruit and develop them. They didn't have Andrew Luck to get them to 10-3 the last two years.

So Harbaugh couldn't develop a QB in his first 2 years at Stanford but could the last 2 years?

No. I think it was more than just a QB problem with that roster.

Which I would say Nebraska (and Riley) have faced his first 2 years as well.

To some extent, yes. But not nearly the same extent. Five years of losing records - including 1-11 the year prior - compared to six years of winning 9-10 games and three CCG appearances are not equal.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Since for some reason this thread has morphed into a Jim Harbaugh thread. He did have 2 consecutive losing seasons at Stanford before finally going 8-5 in year 3 and then 12-1 in year 4. Funny how those last 2 years came around when the eventual #1 overall pick in the NFL draft was QB.

Yeah, but didn't he bring in Luck?

Well yes. That's my point. It wasn't until Harbaugh got his players(especially Luck) 4 years into it that he "built" them into a top 10 team. This year will mark Riley's first year where "his guy" will be at QB and arguably more of his recruits will have a more prominent role on the team.

Stanford was also a complete program turnaround. Harbaugh started a pipeline and scheme that he was able to hand off to his successor. Stanford has maintained a pretty solid level of success without QBs named Luck.

 

[Saunders]

To circle back to the original post/article... The national guys don't seem to be sold on what NU is doing right now. Sure, there's recruiting hype, but NU still needs to win games. I've been surprised at how many of the guys I read/listen to were so lukewarm on the Diaco hire. Maybe that trepidation on behalf of the media is what lead to the initial Vegas predictions of 6-7 wins. And make no mistake, a 6 or 7 win season is a massive failure.

On that note, I'm waiting for all the rest of the pre-season previews to come out... but it's not looking pretty so far. If I had to bet right now, we're going to be predictied to finish in the 3-4 range in our division, which is pretty bad.

So, it's not just Mavric, or me, or any of the others here who aren't full of sunshine, being pessimists. I guarantee that every person on this board wants to see NU succeed. It seems that nobody outside the state of Nebraska believes in NU. And right now, all we as fans have to go on is hope, which is the same thing we've been doing for nearly 2 decades. At some point, reality starts to kick in.

 

[StPaulHusker]

I guess people could be luke warm on the Diaco hire for a couple of reasons.

1. They don't think he can turn around the defense in a year given the players we have

2. They are attributing his head coaching resume to his ability to coach a defense.

 

[Saunders]

I guess people could be luke warm on the Diaco hire for a couple of reasons.

1. They don't think he can turn around the defense in a year given the players we have

2. They are attributing his head coaching resume to his ability to coach a defense.

Yeah, IDK. I haven't heard any of the national guys give the hire the praise that NU fans have, which I found intriguing.

The big one for me was listening to Bill Connelly talk about the hire. He seemed very meh about it. He's smart enough to not do #2, so maybe it's #1? I'm not really sure.

I know he'll expand on it when he does the Nebraska preview in a couple weeks, and I'm really looking forward to it.

 

[Toe]

I'm sure there will be some growing pains with Diaco, but I think that this transition will be smoother than the transition to Banker. For one, I don't think the players were nearly as attached to Banker as they were to Bo - I don't expect nearly as many buy-in problems. And two, I'd say Diaco is probably a better coach overall than Banker.