Undone

Might be noteworthy, but doesn't answer the question I had.

Oh for sure, we won't. Just looking for patterns in the logic. I'm wondering if the narrative would have been that Riley would have gotten all of the credit for "motivation" if we were 7-2 right now, but the players get the blame 100% if we're 3-9. It's all completely subjective. But I'm not seeing much from Mike in the realm of keeping the bottom from falling out of his team's attitude. Can he completely control it? No, he can't. But is it his job - I'd say it is, yes.

And will you say the same thing if at the same point next season we're 3-9? Serious question.

Since we'll finish this season with a losing record, and going .500 is better than having a losing record, I'd say "yes."

Ha, zoogies, you seem to be chastising me with that post. Can you be specific about what you're chastising me for? If you look at my posts since the BYU loss forward, I've never been remotely even in the same area code as the "let's fire Mike" crowd. I don't want him fired now, and I don't want him fired at the end of the season. That wasn't my point with that post that I made. The point I'm trying to make is that it's disingenuous to concoct this narrative that a trial by fire (meaning, a 3-9, 4-8, or 5-7 season) was necessary to fix us; that it's the only way things could have gone in order to change the "stuck in 9 wins" spiral. McKewon's diatribe seems to speak to that narrative. It's stupid. Is it obvious that we as fans can do (and should) do nothing more than support the guy we're stuck with? Sure, yes. But is it interesting and noteworthy to dissect McKewon's take on Bo's firing? Also yes.

The point that McKewon is making is extremely obvious. So obvious in fact that it's dull. And so many people keep saying that as if it's some kind of revelation. These same people like McKewon also seem to almost paint this picture that there were only two options: Keep Bo around indefinitely, or bring in Mike Riley. That's just ridiculous. There were multiple other options, such as firing Bo in 2014 and hiring someone other than Riley, or waiting another year while you went on a detailed hunt for someone considerably better than Riley. It's time to stop this. Debating whether Bo should or shouldn't have been fired is dull. Bo wasn't going to win titles of any kind; that seems obvious. But it seems relatively clear that, given Mike's resume as a known variable, we should have gotten someone considerably better than him.

GC - You put it very well. Pelini was a jackass, and there was good cause due to all of the above to let him go. The biggest question to me is, was Riley the best we could do in the calendar year of 2014? If that's really the case, it's depressing. So maybe waiting another year for The Guy might have been wise in the medium term outlook. That's what's on my mind currently. I don't despise Riley, I don't want him fired tomorrow. I just think it's relatively obvious that his resume lacks the luster to make one think that he can bring championship football back to Lincoln.

My take is that if you're going to fire the "nine wins a year guy," you absolutely *have to* have The Guy sitting there in waiting to come in that gives you full confidence that as far as the W/L columns are concerned, that he can at least do as well as the Nine Wins guy. Riley didn't and doesn't give me that feeling. At all. His career .500 record seems to be starkly staring us in the face as a guy who is *not likely* to be able to pull in championships. And that's where a lot of people start to straw man the argument - The argument isn't that he's absolutely incapable of being The Guy, the point is that given his resume, he seems much less likely to get it done over a guy that has more of a Jim McElwain type of resume. But if he was actually the best we could do...then it is what it is, and we're at where we're at.

It fits the narrative so people will push that agenda. Tom Osborne was around Pelini a lot. He had an opportunity to hire Gill and he had an opportunity to fire Pelini. Instead, he doubled down on him and also endorsed him for subsequent jobs. Why do some Husker fans insist believing they know more about Nebraska football success than Tom Osborne? What sort of arrogance does that require? cm husker, this was an excellent post. +1.

I was talking about this a month ago, also. To add to it, and maybe I'm overthinking this, but it just seems so ridiculous especially in light of the fact that this is a sport where you're quite literally trained to f*** up the other guy so hard that he has to leave the stadium in an ambulance. WFT does "nice" have to do with anything?

I think at this point, this is where I land as well. So what if on first down you've got Ozigbo, and the other team knows you're going to hand it off to him? It'd surely be at least worth a shot compared to continuing to do what we're doing now...

The whole season offensively is just a complete cluster****. Riley doesn't have the type of QB he wants for his system. So we're running a hybrid of last season with some of Riley's system. When we do drop back to pass, our offensive line is honestly just pretty bad at pass blocking, and Tommy's not getting much time to throw. And I hate making that comment - I know our guys are trying their hardest. This season feels like 2010 without the stellar defense.

And this is again why I say that our offensive situation isn't quite as simple as saying, "Let's just hand it off to Janovich." To overlook just how dangerous our offense could be if we can just find high percentage ways to get the ball into the hands of these playmakers in space is very shortsighted. I really think we can score 35 against Michigan State. I think we'll crack 40 again this week.

In yet, we usually ranked very high nationally in run offense... And really, it's still a 'grab bag' offense, as long as Tommy is the QB. But I'm not complaining at all - I like this offense. Saturday showed just how good it can be.

This s*** makes my blood boil. You don't understand how much pride Tommy has for the 'N' on his helmet? You really don't? Go back and watch the second half of that Miami game.

So, like, what exactly did you do to come up with the 0 - 1 numbers?

The current consensus is that it's also the reason that Ozigbo isn't our starter though also. So the same goes for Mike Riley.

Absolutely, zoogs. I've made that comment many times so far this season; it's a good comparison. I think it's all the more important in the Big 10 to have a sturdy back that finishes runs hard. Most defenses in the conference are still built to stop the run.

Your posts really do seem like you're a troll account. And your signature image takes the cake. But tell us, what is your subjective cutoff point for "younger generation," age-wise?

I believe you. You've got a better eye for this stuff than I do. Believe me, if it's really as simple as, "All we need to do is call more run plays," I'm good with it.

Looking back at BYU and Miami, I'd really have to disagree in those two games. Our line's run blocking was not good at all in those contests, in my opinion. Now against Illinois...I completely agree. It was play calling to a large extent. But in that game, Wisconsin, and even BYU if our line gets a strong push on first & second downs on our last offensive series and we get five yards in two downs...we get into victory formation and run out the clock. So I agree with the idea that we needed a stronger ratio of running in our play calling. But I really don't think it can be stated as the only factor in our offense's woes resulting in our 3-4 record. I know you didn't say that specifically of course. But I do think our line has struggled over the course of a lot of key moments in our first five games that has put our record where we're at now.

This post is a complete failure. Congratulations!

Yes, exactly. +1. For our constant whiners that are stuck in 1994 complaining about not running enough, another question I have for them is, what do you want to do with Pierson-El, Westerkamp, and Moore? Three seriously talented receivers. Do you want to just let them block and never give the ball to them in space?

Agreed. It's a pretty great addition to a mix of play calling that honestly isn't that much different than what we had last year, except for occasionally looking deep down the field on first down (which, as we've discussed ad nauseum, we all hate...).

The thing is, in our first four games our line played really badly. That first long run by Newby - That was all done by our line. We've ran similar plays many, many times in the first six games. And that was the first time our line actually executed the play to spring Newby free for a track race. Also, Newby is finding holes and finishing his runs better than he did in the first five games. No matter how badly you want it to be true, it's just not as simple as you're making it. And Armstrong threw the ball more accurately on Saturday and gave Minnesota a lot to worry about on the edges. That's how it's done in this offense. And it put up 41 points.