ajt1970

Good info. Which leads me to my original question - if there had been no "promise" and Solich was simply content to stay on as an assistant indefinitely (like Tenopir, Mcbride, etc.) and waited until TO REALLY wanted to retire before taking over as head coach, might NU be looking at a few more national championships with TO still at the reins in '98,'99, 2000, 2001? That's the biggest issue I have with Solich. His impatience with wanting to be a head coach, which lead to this promise between he and Osborne back in 1991, ultimately ended an outstanding head coaching career of the best of all time in TO.....and way too soon, in my opinion.

Was Solich the reason Osborne retired early? I believe from what I have read a while back, Solich wanted to pursue a head coach position, but Osborne saw him as his successor so he told Solich he would retire in 5 years and make way for Solich to take over the program (this was around 1991, I believe). Osborne has stated before that he could have kept on coaching and did indeed miss coaching in the years following his retirement. So if Solich had been content to stay as running backs coach, then would Osborne have still retired in 1997 or would he have continued on for at least a few more years (and perhaps more championships)? Does anyone know how exactly this went down? In a sense, is Solich the reason TO retired (way too early, in my opinion) from coaching? Also, I have read many suggest transgressions on Solich's part when he got fired. I was not up on the day to day going-ons with NU at that time. What all did he do off-the-field that was problematic? I have no ill-feeling towards Solich as I can definitely appreciate all that he did for NU as a player and assistant and head coach. But I am genuinely curious about the above two things.

Check out Broderick Thomas, LDE, take on the FB block. From a standstill...he hits and lifts the FB up in the air before making the tackle.... Now that is power! vlc-record-2018-04-18-16h52m52s-1986 Nebraska at Illinois 1 of 1 [360p].mp4-.mp4 Edit

I've ALWAYS preferred the nickname Cornhuskers vs. Huskers. Glad someone in Nebraska feels the same way. :-) Hope NU gets back to that as far as branding and marketing...It's hard to find anything to buy (shirts, hats, etc.) with the full name Cornhuskers on it. Be who you are, be proud of the corn.

I hear the points everyone is making. However, I was more pointing out the fact that Osborne did it all....what I would call a Supercoach. He was not just a figurehead or a non-active participant in games like a lot of the old coaches from back in the day who didnt even wear a headset and stay connected to what was actually going on during the game...x's and o's-wise. Think of Bear Bryant, Paterno, Bowden, Switzer, Woody Hayes, etc. Especially Bear Bryant who always gets the accolades of being some great supercoach of all time. My opinion, if you dont have a headset on, you shouldnt even be considered to be the best of all time. You're just not dialed in enough to now what is happening on each and every play. Sure, If the decision needs to be made to go for it on fourth down, ask Bear. Other than that, he's not actively involved. Which brings me to Osborne and Saban. Yes, they both have headsets on, but Osborne was his own OC and playcaller. Saban is not. Saban delegates that responsibility to other coaches. Doesnt mean Saban is not offering input into what plays should be called (he does have a headset on and uses it...unlike Mike Riley who never seemed to say anything in his headset to his assistant coaches)......I'm sure he is....but Saban is not the one sticking his neck out and making all the playcall decisions. Osborne was. He was dialed in. This is the point I was making as far as comparing coaches. Track record speaks loudly, of course, but HOW they did it speaks just as loud, in my opinion. And nobody did it like Osborne did it. Seriously, just think about it......what head coach EVER ...besides Osborne...was his own OC (or defensive coordinator for that matter) over the ENTIRE time of his head coaching years?..... AND add on top of that how successful Osborne was in doing so (over a lng period of time, and very successfully)......it is just simply way beyond amazing...and no other coach can compare. Ask the question ....who was their own OC or DC for their ENTIRE head coaching career over a long period of time? I am genuinely interested if anyone can think of somebody who was anywhere near as successful over a long period of time while doing both roles as head coach and OC/DC.

I just had a listen to Adam's latest. While I agree on his assessment that Osborne is the best, I feel he missed a very important reason for why Osborne was the best. Osborne was his own offensive coordinator and playcaller. For 25 years (plus more as an assistant), he called EVERY offensive play, which meant he studied all the film (both of his opponents gamefilm PLUS his own team's practices....which amounted to 30+ hours a week just on this one task alone of film study)....he formulated gameplans from this - figured out what plays might work and which ones might not, etc. It's a HUGE task for any OC, but to do it as a head coach....for 25 years.....and to be as successful as he was....this is unheard of (in the past or present) and simply an outrageously incredible accomplishment! He was an Xs and Os genius head coach, not a figurehead. To me, this BY FAR makes him the best coach of all time. He was an ACTIVE PARTICIPANT in all the games, each and every play dialed in - what's the opponent's defense doing? what's going to work against this defensive front? Will 42 countersweep work here or should we go with 38 option? etc.......He was not just standing on the sidelines watching the game like a spectator in the crowd like so many other head coaches (Bryant, Paterno, etc.) Name one head coach who did what Osborne did...own OC, wore the headset, called every play...AND did all the other typical figurehead head coach duties (handle the press, recruiting, etc.) AND was as successful as he was..... Answer: NOONE. Osborne DID IT ALL! Nobody did anywhere close to all that Osborne did and accomplished. Not even Saban (who wears the headset but is not his own OC and playcaller). This one major reason (own OC/playcaller for the entire time he was head coach), amongst all the other reasons Adam stated, makes Osborne the greatest coach in college football....and there is not even a close second.

Farmington Hills has 3 high schools and with decreased enrollment and budget issues in the district, and since Harrison high school is in the middle of the city (as opposed to the 2 opposite end schools), Harrison was chosen as the school to close. It's really a shame.

Yeah, Coach Herrington and his staff are awesome. 48 years at Harrison high school, ever since the school first opened in 1970. Unfortunately the school is closing after next year so he only gets to coach one more season and then will retire.

http://www.hometownlife.com/story/sports/high-school/2018/01/06/harrisons-dave-thorne-makes-football-coaches-hall-fame/1002588001/ The first 20 seconds in the video from this article has a Michigan high school football powerhouse team saying the Nebraska prayer. A very nice surprise to see in my local paper in a land of Wolverines and Spartans.

I thought I would share some thoughts since the season is over and while we're all waiting for NU to sign Frost. Many might not agree with my assessment and that's ok. But I always tend to think outside the box and often challenge the conventional thinking out there, so in this case...I just gotta sound off on how much I despise the forward pass. Everyone that knows me personally knows I can't stand the forward pass in football. Some actually agree. Blocking, tackling, running. It is how football was originally meant to be played. Over time, they have designed the rules to make the game more and more passive (ie. less and less hitting). Now the game is so NON-physical, so NON-rugged, that I can barely watch it anymore. I watch NU (sometimes, but mainly during the TO and Solich era when they ran the ball consistently and frequently)) and mainly now I watch Army, Navy, and Georgia Tech that run the ball most of the time. And in fact, Army has had a few games this year that did not even ATTEMPT a pass all game. Now THAT is football. I also follow ANY team that runs the ball.....like Arizona this year and New Mexico last year. I follow the teams on this website and mainly just focus on teams in the top ten off this list. Notice NU is WAY down the list. http://www.footballdb.com/college-football/stats/teamstat.html?group=O&cat=R&yr=2017&lg=FBS Here's my issues with throwing the ball.... What really happens on a pass play.....linemen backpedal, receivers run their routes, QB drops back and looks for targets...who's actually hitting? Maybe the guy who tackles a receiver (if the pass is complete). Watch the gamefilm on an ALL-22 video. Check out a pass play and ask yourself, who is really aggressively hitting someone? Maybe a DL on a QB if there is a sack, and a cover guy on a receiver, but that is what...potentially 2 guys hitting out of 22...The rest of the time the defensive linemen are merely trying to get to the QB, the offensive linemen are backpedaling to form a nice cushy pocket for their precious (please don't hit him) QB, the rest are running routes or the defenders are chasing and covering them. Sissy football. So on probably at least half the plays of a game maybe a couple guys are hitting...is that really football? I hate it. They have made the rules into such a soft sport...and most fans have bought into it. Now what really happens on a run play? Linemen fire off the ball (no backpedal, unless they're pulling) and look to smash their intended targets (pancake city!). Runners run hard thru the hole (or make their own hole) and then lower the shoulder and try to make more yards after contact. Defenders are fighting off blocks and looking to level the runner. THAT'S football how it was meant to be played! And EVERYONE participates....not everyone but the QB. When was the last time Tanner Lee really blocked or tackled someone? Or ran the ball and lowered his shoulder to run somebody over? Why does he get a free pass and not have to block and tackle and hit like everyone else? No special treatment for QBs (or kickers for that matter). Everyone blocks, everyone tackles! QBs are told that if they must scramble...to slide or run out of bounds rather than take a hit. Wussy football. Lower your shoulder and try to run over somebody, Tanner! No special consideration just because you're a QB! You participate and hit just like everyone else. No prima donnas! Here are some thoughts on the rules as it pertains to passing and running the ball.... Running the ball has become mainly a way for clock management than any strategic or physical means. Why does an incomplete pass stop the clock and a running play for zero gain (or any gain) keeps the clock running? Why are they treated differently? Whether a running play or passing play, why make how it runs the clock any different? A pass is incomplete...keep the clock running (or at the very least, stop the clock until the ball is spotted and then start running it again). Conventional thinking is if you're winning the game to run the ball and milk the clock...and if you're losing to throw the ball more and save on time....my opinion: it shouldn't matter....run or pass, the clock should run the same way! Why after an incomplete pass is the ball spotted back at the line of scrimmage? Why not from where he last had possession of the ball? If the LOS is at your own 30 yard line and the QB drops back and throws from the 20 and the pass is incomplete, why would the ball not be spotted there at the 20 on the proceeding down? Why is that team given those extra ten yards back to the original LOS at the 30 .....considering where he threw that ball (and hence, last had possession of it) 10 yards back. Spot the ball there at the 20....10 yard loss! My suggestion....put toughness, ruggedness, physicalness back into the game and eliminate the forward pass completely. But since I realize it is a pipe dream, I would at least like to see these two rule changes and make it fair and even rules for running and passing plays....... 1) make the clock run exactly the same for running and passing plays. No stopping the clock for one type of play and not stopping the clock for the other, and 2) spot the ball where the ball was in last possession for an incomplete pass....so in other words, back where the QB threw the ball behind the LOS. If he throws the ball 7 yards behind the LOS and it is incomplete, then it is a 7 yard loss. Some would say the game would be boring if there were no forward pass. I say it would become exciting. Look at it this way, if there were no forward pass, it would force offensive coordinators to be much more creative in designing and implementing running plays. It would perhaps create many different formations, running schemes, and have much more QB and wingback run games, etc. BTW - the 1984 Orange Bowl...for those who simply think it was kick the extra point and tie and win a national championship.....Miami still had 48 seconds left (and timeouts) to march down the field and score. Plenty of time. So it is not so cut and dry as just kicking the extra point and winning it all... or getting the two point play and winning the national championship. Miami had time to score! Plus, ties suck. I don't care about any repercussions. I want to win EVERY game. To me, it is a simple and easy decision...go for two and the POSSIBLE win (again, provided Miami can be stopped from scoring in the last 48 seconds). TO did the right thing, in my opinion. Back then, in a world of no overtime.....be aggressive and ALWAYS play for the win. FInal thought: I HATE the forward pass! It takes away the ruggedness of the sport. It takes away the dominate-and-flatten-the-man-across-from-you attitude. I'd rather see a 4 yard power run play than a 50 yard pass play. Unfortunately I don't see the forward pass leaving the game anytime soon. In the meantime, I'll just keep watching NU (been a fan since '82) and hoping for better days of rushing and also continue watching Army, Navy, and Georgia Tech weekly.

Hi Everyone, I am looking for some old VHS tapes by the NU coaches from 1996. Does anyone have them or perhaps know where I can find them? Quarterback technique in the option game with Turner Gill Running back drills & fundamentals with Frank Solich Running game fundamentals for the offensive line with Milt Tenopir Dominate the perimeter : blocking and catching skills development for receivers with Ron Brown Anthony

Link Frost was a guy who orchestrated such an identity as a player. I imagine if he were to run his own program, he would make his team play with intensity and a physical prowess that Lincoln hasn't seen in years. While I support splash hires and guys who are successful right now in CFB, its hard to imagine getting anyone on the outside to come here. Since we're in "rebuilding mode" according to Shawn Eichorst, this just leaves me flabbergasted as to why he chose a 62 year old who is in over his head and not a young rising coach like Scott Frost. Agreed FTW. I like the way you think. I'd be all for Frost as I do think he would bring back the tenacity, physicalness, and viciousness of past NU teams. He'd also bring a lot of energy to the job, much more so than a 62 year old on his last legs as far as coaching. I recall reading about just how tough Frost was by the poundings he used to take by likes of the Peter brothers, Wistrom, etc. in his first couple years in Lincoln. Plus, just his sure running tenacity is clearly evident they way he challenged the tacklers and even tried to be the one giving out punishment on contact rather than taking it. Check out any 1997 game of him running the option, the way he instantly flips that ball out there to the trailing I-back is a thing of beauty. There is no hesitation of backwards step back towards to the I-back like they do now in option football....it was BAM - instant flip to the back. It was awesome.

B1GBrutus - Heck yes I would take Paul Johnson and his offense at Nebraska, especially over what is there now (Riley), and I think it would work. Like you said, NU will probably never get the top tier talent in typical pro style offenses, so why not have a unique niche and recruit to that. I love the running game and would highly welcome any opportunity for Nebraska to get back to that hardnosed physical style of play.

In the running game there are so many subtle differences to each play. The run blocking schemes, etc. For instance, most fans probably see one run up the middle as the same as the next. But it's not. Isolation plays are different than inside zone blocking, which is different to trap plays, counters, etc. So when someone like myself says it is HOW they are running the ball, I am saying that based on what I am seeing, this coaching staff does not have what it takes to understand and implement the SUBTLE DIFFERENCES in each play to 1) call the right play, 2) have an audible sytem in place to check out of dead running plays and into good running plays based on the defensive front at the line of scrimmage just prior to snap, 3) be able to make adjustments as the game goes on to collaborate with the coaching staff to figure out what running plays will work and what won't, to adjust on the fly during the heat of a game. To do all this you must be TECHNICIANS of the running game, not just casual dabblers in it, which is what Riley and Langsdorf do....dabble in it but are definitely not true technicians. It's one thing to run it up the gut on a simple inside zone and go nowhere and say "see, I run the ball" It's another to be an expert technician and run it up the middle (or outside) and be effective and creative and do it right.

True2tRA - I see your points. Yes, NU should be able to line up and smashmouth up the middle to get a few yards. However, in the running game there are so many subtle differences to each play. The run blocking schemes, etc. For instance, most fans probably see one run up the middle as the same as the next. But it's not. Isolation plays are different than inside zone blocking, which is different to trap plays, counters, etc. So when someone like myself says it is HOW they are running the ball, I am saying that based on what I am seeing, this coaching staff does not have what it takes to understand and implement the SUBTLE DIFFERENCES in each play to 1) call the right play, 2) have an audible sytem in place to check out of dead running plays and into good running plays based on the defensive front at the line of scrimmage just prior to snap, 3) be able to make adjustments as the game goes on to collaborate with the coaching staff to figure out what running plays will work and what won't, to adjust on the fly during the heat of a game. To do all this you must be TECHNICIANS of the running game, not just casual dabblers in it, which is what Riley and Langsdorf do....dabble in it but are definitley not true technicians. It's one thing to run it up the gut on a simple inside zone and go nowhere and say "see, I run the ball" It's another to be an expert technician and run it up the middle (or outside) and be effective and creative and do it right.

http://forum.huskermax.com/vbbs/content.php?1013-Stryker-Hard-nosed-Husker-heritage-is-sinking-into-bog-of-%91balance%92 This guy nails it.

Hujan - I agree with you. "rather than abandon the run, why not plug in an actual running back instead of a glorified pass blocker?" But that is just how this staff chooses to see the game, thru the lens of pass-the-ball-around NFL style, so everything revolves around that basic philosophy. Hence, I-backs and fullbacks are graded on their route running and pass protection blocking, Not on their running abilities of finding running lanes, breaking tackles, etc. If someone is happy with a pass-first mentality and very little DETAIL to running the ball, this is the kind of coach for you (though I feel it will never lead NU back to elite status). However, for guys like me that know and appreciate a punishing runshing attack, these Oregon State guys with their limited knowledge in being technicians at committing and establishing the running game, they will never be the answer.

I have said this repeatedly on this board and other places, Riley and Langsdorf and company are not, and will never be, the ones to bring Nebraska back to glory, and certainly not with a powerful rushing attack. Just listen to them in their press conferences. The running game is barely mentioned, maybe as a quick comment on the running game (I laughed to myself when Langsdorf said they did a good job running the ball when all the team had was a paltry 150 yards or so...really? That is a "good job" running? Try 300+). All their focus and attention is on the passing game. It is what they know, what they are comfortable with. Just listen to them...it is always about "routes, coverage, throwing the ball, pass protection, QB made some good throws"...even when talking about running backs, more of their choice of words (hence, focus) is on "running routes" and "pass protection" than it is actually running the ball. These are dead giveaways of showing just how committed this staff is to the passing game and how little they are committed to the running game. And I still have yet to see any kind of audible system on running plays for getting out of dead plays and checking into good running plays. If the playcall from the huddle is I-back inside zone and clearly the defense has the middle clogged up based on their formation, check out of it into an outside stretch play away from the free safety, QB counter or bootleg, etc. It's all about the numbers game at the point of attack. If you have 5 guys versus their 7 in that area, not a good idea. Yet, it looks to me like Nebraska sticks with the huddle playcall regardless of what defensive front is shown. Dumb if that is true. I get it when fans say to RUN THE BALL. I say the same thing every gameday this season. But this staff is very limited in what they know about building a solid running attack. They aren't capable. To execute the running attack CORRECTLY and in a DOMINANT way, you have to have the talent (which I feel NU has, it is good enough) and you need the right coaching staff technicians for knowing and understanding the running game, and that at the moment Nebraska does not have. Langsdorf and Riley want to gunsling the ball around 50 times a game if they can (49 today) and to fans like me, that really really sucks. So if Riley and Langsdorf aren't the answer, then what is....unfortunately until NU gets a new coaching staff in that DOES understand and place a huge emphasis on the running attack, we are stuck with a has-been-that-never-was coaching staff and their gunslinging ways. And that is a travesty.

This is really great stuff IA State Husker. Thank you for sharing. I always appreciate this sort of insight into the offense and defensive schemes and playcallng. I especially like his mentioning of the run play call sequences using the same action. "I'll really go bonkers pretty soon if we --- D.B., what would you do if we ran "midline teeth" off of that?" I think he's saying..."...if we see the wall option off of ???? action, D.B., what would you do if we ran the midline keep off of that."

I think we have to stop babying QBs. They're a part of the team just like everyone else...and it's a hit and be hit game. QBs should not be stopped from doing what they do best (Armstong's case, running the ball) just because someone's afraid of injury. That isn't what football is about. It's a brutal game and if you choose to step out on that field in any position (even kickers) you have accepted that hitting, and the possibility of being injured, is there on every play. Hit and be hit, blocking and tackling.....that is the name of the game. No special exceptions from this rule just because someone is a QB or a kicker or whatever. To me it's all about old school - QBs will not slide, they will not run out of bounds.....I wouldn't ask Newby, Cross, or Janovich to slide or look to run out of bounds, so I certainly wouldn't expect Armstrong (or any other QB) to do that either. Besides, ColoradoHusk makes an excellent point - a QB can just as easily, or maybe even easier, get injured standing in the pocket and getting creamed as a stationary target. At least when he runs he has a fighting chance to lower his shoulder and absorb the hit and even administer a little punishment to the would-be tackler.

I have now watched the Wisconsin game 4 times and knew there was a new look to these QB runs. Here's a very nice breakdown by Ganz and gives hope that maybe this coaching staff somewhat gets it and will get the ground game going, including running the QB. http://studio.omaha.com/Play-Breakdown--QB-Counter-29812481?vcid=29812481&freewheel=91341&sitesection=omahawh

Enhance89 - I think we are in agreement on most things. I can appreciate Beck's offense certainly more than I can Riley's at the moment. Who knows, maybe Riley will grow as a coach and move outside his comfort zone and really become a skilled technician on the running game AND hire the right guys to collaborate with on it. I have now watched the Wisconsin game several times and I do see progress with the play designs and playcalling sequences, so there is hope yet for these guys. :-) huskerfan333157 - I would indeed much prefer Paul Johnson over Mike Riley. Reasons: If we're looking at overall head coaching records, Johnsons' is much better, even if you take out his great Georgia Southern record, it's still way better than Riley's. But most importantly to me, from a personal preference standpoint, I like Johnsons' STYLE of play on the offensive side of the ball. I could literally watch a running play on every single down, no passes over an entire game, so obviously that points me towards Johnsons' offense since he runs probably the most rushing-attack based offense in the country (along with the service academies).................and not only that, I feel Nebraska would stand much better chances of winning under that scheme than Riley's current one.

Enhance89 - I will clarify again....I said my PREFERENCE is 80/20 (or higher to run the ball) because i love the running game. I did NOT say that my OPINION of passing the ball to be wussy football as the REASON why NU needs to be a running team. There are many reasons why i feel Nebraska's best chance to return to NATIONAL prominence is to run the ball (and a solid defense and special teams), namely weather conditions, recruiting, the walk on program, identity, tradition, etc. Coaches - Saban, Meyer, Devaney, Osborne, they figured it out and WON in the middle and latter stages of their careers. Sure, guys like Saban had a few rough years in the beginning of their head coaching careers, but later on they figured things out and rolled. Guys like Osborne and Meyer (just to name a few) never really had any bad years. My whole point being, Riley, In the last 20 years, has never figured it out. He's never won ANYTHING substantial. I mean, we're talking about a guy who just last year went 5-7 with HIS PLAYERS and his own "SYSTEM". He's been a head coach for a couple decades and been in coaching overall for close to 40 years. That is plenty of time to figure out how to WIN at the highest level. Now if, let's say, he had a few bad years in the beginning but then developed a solid winning career at Oregon State after that, fine. But he hasn't. Not even close. He's been mediocre his entire coaching career, college and NFL. Schemes - sure, we can talk that. Start with inside zone and outside zone blocking, add in Power runs with pulling linemen, traps, isos, counters, options, etc. I could talk all day on running plays. You can have the schemes but you also need to get the horses, which NU could do. I will say this.....in re-watching the Wisconsin game again earlier, it does look like Riley's TRYING to incorporate more running schemes/plays into his arsenal and also allowing Armstrong to run more and even some of the QB-designed runs looked good. That's more reasonable. I think you have valid concerns surrounding the offense and Riley, but if I may add a few things. First, your run/pass preference. I understand your love of the running game and it is my preference, too. But, 80/20 is far too high in general. Even the best Husker offense in the last 25 years, 1995, had a run/pass ratio of 73 percent run, 27 percent pass. Some may mention Paul Johnson, then, who ran just under 80 percent of the time last year at 79.5 percent. That's the same man whose 2-4 this season with 'his players' and his own 'system.' With coaches, again, you make some valid points, but the thing you're ignoring in your analysis is the coaching venues many of those men went to in order to win. Saban struggled at mid-to-lower tier programs but didn't really impress anyone until he got a job where - LSU. Night and day difference from a variety of standpoints compared to a place like Michigan St. at the time, where he was coaching. Riley has spent his entire college coaching career at a place considered to be one of the worst college football programs in the country from a fan, money and resources standpoint. I believe most coaches would struggle to win anything of substance there unless they were one of the few elite coaches. Does that mean Riley will eventually get it all figured out at Nebraska and win big? I don't know. But, I'm still not ready to throw in the towel. I personally believe Nebraska can win with a balanced attack here. A school that doesn't have the same advantages as Nebraska is doing it (Michigan St.) and won the B1G conference and the Rose Bowl in 2013. Here's the biggest point, though - Eichorst is not getting fired by season's end. And he's going to be extremely reluctant to fire Riley, his own choice, by the end of the season. So, we all might as well buckle down and just hope the team gets better. There's literally nothing else we can do. Talking about coaching changes and how wrong a coach is during the season does little but spread poison. We're halfway through the season. I'd rather evaluate the entire product then make rash judgement halfway through the first season. Enhance89 - Good points and I respect your opinions on this. I would "settle" for 75/25...hell, even 70/30 at this point as far as a running game. But I think you need the right running game technician/coaches in place. With Osborne you had him and Milt Tenopir. With OU's Switzer Wishbone teams you had him and Galen Hall (amongst others)......with any great running team you gotta have the right coaches that can feed ideas off each other and where they would all bring something to the table for designing and creating solid running schemes and then be able to make adjustments during the game. With Riley and Langsdorf, I would say that is NOT a dynamic duo of run-the-ball coaches in place for implementing a powerful running attack. You mentioned Paul Johnson....I do like him and his running schemes, what NU would call their double-wing set (except NU never ran the true triple option as Georgia Tech does). I don't know what's up with GT this year but I am a fan of their team and watch them when I can. I'd love to see Paul Johnson in Lincoln and running that offense with Nebraska. Coaches - I see your points and they are valid, to a point. I'll add this....Bill Snyder turned around Kansas State (talk about a downtrodden program with a lack of resources and facilities back when he took over compared to what it is now), and then there are other coaches as well that have taken poor programs and made them into winners, especially over the last 10 years or so. Look at programs like Baylor, TCU, Boise State, Utah, etc. Plenty of teams who hired the right coaches and got their program turned around. Riley and Oregon State? Nope. Not a conference title/Rose Bowl, not a consistent top 10 program. And he is now 2-4 at Nebraska and here's the thing....Nebraska hasn't even played anyone yet (not even a top 30 team, although I don't put too much credence in mid-season rankings).....still, to be 2-4 at Nebraska and have yet to play any team in the top 30.....what would they be if they played a couple strong teams like Baylor or Alabama on their non-conference schedule.....0-6? Anyways, you're right in that we are stuck with Riley and Eichorst for a while longer (although maybe after Perlman retires and the new chancellor comes in he'll re-evaluate and make the necessary changes swiftly if needed). To me, it's more than just the won-loss record....it's how you play the game, and I am just no fan of Riley's X's and O's style, although as I mentioned before, I did see some improvement in the rushing creativity and attack in the Wisconsin game so maybe there's hope yet.

Starting at 29:00 http://huskerdoctalk.podbean.com/e/2014-episode-12-if-rob-could-sit-down-with-mike-riley-and-danny-langsdorf/ I agree wholeheartedly with Rob's view on this. Riley and Langsdorf are simply uncomfortable running the ball, hence they have a hard time sticking with the run when a few plays aren't successful, and on the other hand, they would rather stay with throwing the ball, even when it is not being successful, due to passing the ball is what they are comfortable with, which for guys like me that love the running game, it's a shame and hopefully will change at some point once Riley sees he cannot go big-time and win without a solid rushing attack. Although, as I mentioned in another post, in the Wisconsin name it does look like Riley's trying to get the running game going more than before, especially from what I have seen on desgned QB runs.....so maybe he's starting to get it and will continue furthering along his running game tactics.

Enhance89 - I will clarify again....I said my PREFERENCE is 80/20 (or higher to run the ball) because i love the running game. I did NOT say that my OPINION of passing the ball to be wussy football as the REASON why NU needs to be a running team. There are many reasons why i feel Nebraska's best chance to return to NATIONAL prominence is to run the ball (and a solid defense and special teams), namely weather conditions, recruiting, the walk on program, identity, tradition, etc. Coaches - Saban, Meyer, Devaney, Osborne, they figured it out and WON in the middle and latter stages of their careers. Sure, guys like Saban had a few rough years in the beginning of their head coaching careers, but later on they figured things out and rolled. Guys like Osborne and Meyer (just to name a few) never really had any bad years. My whole point being, Riley, In the last 20 years, has never figured it out. He's never won ANYTHING substantial. I mean, we're talking about a guy who just last year went 5-7 with HIS PLAYERS and his own "SYSTEM". He's been a head coach for a couple decades and been in coaching overall for close to 40 years. That is plenty of time to figure out how to WIN at the highest level. Now if, let's say, he had a few bad years in the beginning but then developed a solid winning career at Oregon State after that, fine. But he hasn't. Not even close. He's been mediocre his entire coaching career, college and NFL. Schemes - sure, we can talk that. Start with inside zone and outside zone blocking, add in Power runs with pulling linemen, traps, isos, counters, options, etc. I could talk all day on running plays. You can have the schemes but you also need to get the horses, which NU could do. I will say this.....in re-watching the Wisconsin game again earlier, it does look like Riley's TRYING to incorporate more running schemes/plays into his arsenal and also allowing Armstrong to run more and even some of the QB-designed runs looked good.