cm husker

sure you can. It's called ROSTER MANAGEMENT. Of course it's not fair. Nothing in life is I know as a Bo guy, you have no sense of the concept of roster management. Explain how redshirting OL freshman helps roster management when the claim is that the current roster is too thin. Or are you claiming we won't continue recruiting OL and will need these guys in 5 years?

That's a different disussion. The allegation has been that we have a high school jv line. If true, at least one OL frosh should help.

But, there was an opportunity to say "let's try to fix this year and play the young guys" during the bye week. Instead, Riley and Cav tried to gamble and use walk-ons. I understand that Riley is trying to play the long game, but I wish he would also focus on this year, because there was a strong opportunity to win at least the division. I understand the talent and depth was lacking when Riley took over, but I am sick of the talk of "wait another year or two". Has he said or intimated that? Because my sense is that Cav is starting who he thinks gives NU the best chance to win. The w/o's are further along right now - probably mainly based on pass pro, which is the most important factor for playtime with this staff when referring to the OL and running backs. If it is really a "long game" approach, I think it's crazy and unfair to not play players that could help this team win now. Unless a player isn't ready to play or has specifically requested to redshirt (highly unlikely), they should be playing if they give the Huskers the best chance to be successful. They came out and pretty much said they were going to do everything possible, except for play the group of true freshman linemen this year. They tried to go with the walk-ons when the starters got hurt and the younger scholarship guys "aren't ready" (which Cav deserves criticism). Sam McKewon flat out asked Riley today in his PC if he now thinks he should have gone with some freshman linemen after the injuries hit a few weeks ago. Riley didn't give a direct answer either way, but it sounds like he has been thinking about it, and if they did it incorrectly this year. Sometimes I think that Riley and his staff think about how they did things at Oregon State, and that's how it should be done at NU. They need to rethink this philosophy. Thanks for the summary. I haven't had a chance hear those interviews.

You don't take a long view on redshirting if it's deteremintal to this year's team. It's unfair to the current seniors and smacks of a "one game, one season" attitude that doesn't hold up in CFB. Billy, I don't know why they won't play OL. I would hope it's because they think the starters give them the best chance to win. If that's not the case, that's a problem. I'm giving Cav the benefit of the doubt that the walkons are the best option - and at least in two cases, that wouldn't surprise me. That's different from questioning why other non-freshman scholarship players aren't getting time.

As I've written numerous times, I'm not calling for Riley's head, even after the OSU game. I've even said that a 9-3 season would be solid - I'll go back and try to find the exact language since I'm sure people will call me out on whether I'm recalling my quotes precisely. 10-2 would be above expectations. Hell, I think 10-2 could even gets us into the CCG considering how awful Wisconsin is offensively. And that would be great. But, injuries don't justify the OSU outcome. And it's fair to question our performance against weaker teams, even in wins, from earlier this season. And more than anything I'm sick and tired of people claiming that it's all about bad talent. NU does not have bad talent. No one was claiming that the talent was awful prior to this season. Injuries happen every year. This roster is not so thin that it shouldn't have been able to absorb some injuries. It's like last year when people tried to invent a narrative that NU was less talented than Purdue. Come the f#*k on. Same with the notion that we are so bad this year that 62-3 is on the players and not really on the coaches. It's the Callahan excuses at the expense of our players all over again. If NU finishes this season 9-3, I'll be good with that accomplishment. If they By the way, similarly to your post, if you were one of the many who blamed bad S&C for injuries under Pelini, are you and those people now blaming the new S&C for all of the soft tissue injuries? Or would you blame Cav for failing to substitute, which puts a kid in a more likely fatigued position and susceptible to injury? I blamed the S&C under Pelini cuz it was a f'ing joke. Not because of the injuries. Injuries happen. Part of the game. I did partake in discussions about the possibility cuz is just seemed like we were suffering more than others. But never really knew what to think about it. If Ohio st was gonna handle us anyway (which most expected just now, and before the season), then yeah, injuries can make it a lot worse. i dont recall folks saying we were less talented than Purdue. If so, that's pretty bad for anyone to say. Certainly wasnt me. All I ever said was most of our guys didnt give a flying f#*k that day, with about 3 1/2 hours of tape to back it up. A Shanle tweeted about it. Much like the misinformation being circulated this week after OSU, there were convoluted analyses that said that on game day, we were less talented than Purdue. It was ultimately proved to be bull - kind of like when people point out that, per the ratings, there was less of a gap between OSU and NU than NU and Wisconsin.

But, there was an opportunity to say "let's try to fix this year and play the young guys" during the bye week. Instead, Riley and Cav tried to gamble and use walk-ons. I understand that Riley is trying to play the long game, but I wish he would also focus on this year, because there was a strong opportunity to win at least the division. I understand the talent and depth was lacking when Riley took over, but I am sick of the talk of "wait another year or two". Has he said or intimated that? Because my sense is that Cav is starting who he thinks gives NU the best chance to win. The w/o's are further along right now - probably mainly based on pass pro, which is the most important factor for playtime with this staff when referring to the OL and running backs. If it is really a "long game" approach, I think it's crazy and unfair to not play players that could help this team win now. Unless a player isn't ready to play or has specifically requested to redshirt (highly unlikely), they should be playing if they give the Huskers the best chance to be successful.

I agree about the fact that the bad OL blocking limits the ability for Tommy to scramble or an outside run. But, the playcalling has still been atrocious. Langs should be able to see that and call more plays that are suitable for the situation. Please provide 3 suitable plays that work for our current OL situation (1 starter out for season - 3 others injured - mostly underclassmen that haven't developed YET) well, we ran the ball with our IBs pretty effectively against OSU. but I doubt our line will get any credit for that. and don't confused hurt, which everyone is at this point in a season, with injured.

So many strawmen, so little time, but the second bold is ridiculous because I haven't seen anyone all for Riley to be fired this year. The first bold is unfounded because very few had to spend time railing on Callahan because Bo actually took his roster and started producing immediately. A roster, by the way, that had multiple walkons starting during the season. But, let's just put it out there that Bo left Riley a much better program than Callahan left Bo. And anyone who argues otherwise is either clueless or a revisionist. And personally, I'd be happy to stop talking about Bo if people would stop pooping on the kids who volunteered to put on Husker Red.

As I've written numerous times, I'm not calling for Riley's head, even after the OSU game. I've even said that a 9-3 season would be solid - I'll go back and try to find the exact language since I'm sure people will call me out on whether I'm recalling my quotes precisely. 10-2 would be above expectations. Hell, I think 10-2 could even gets us into the CCG considering how awful Wisconsin is offensively. And that would be great. But, injuries don't justify the OSU outcome. And it's fair to question our performance against weaker teams, even in wins, from earlier this season. And more than anything I'm sick and tired of people claiming that it's all about bad talent. NU does not have bad talent. No one was claiming that the talent was awful prior to this season. Injuries happen every year. This roster is not so thin that it shouldn't have been able to absorb some injuries. It's like last year when people tried to invent a narrative that NU was less talented than Purdue. Come the f#*k on. Same with the notion that we are so bad this year that 62-3 is on the players and not really on the coaches. It's the Callahan excuses at the expense of our players all over again. If NU finishes this season 9-3, I'll be good with that accomplishment. If they By the way, similarly to your post, if you were one of the many who blamed bad S&C for injuries under Pelini, are you and those people now blaming the new S&C for all of the soft tissue injuries? Or would you blame Cav for failing to substitute, which puts a kid in a more likely fatigued position and susceptible to injury?

So...it is OK to trash our coaches? It's definitely more acceptable to be critical of paid professionals, yes. Hey....I've been preached to for two years now about how horrible it is to even say a peep that is bad about Bo and company. God forbid we would ever be critical of him. So....I thought that rule probably carried forward. Guess not??? PS....it just dawned on me. The difference is that even though Bo was paid....he wasn't professional. Is that it? You have to be both "paid" and "professional". Haha - like I said, you're a funny guy.

So...it is OK to trash our coaches? It's definitely more acceptable to be critical of paid professionals, yes.

It's been posted quite a few times. NU has 5 healthy scholarship players sitting right now. And that doesn't include 4 well regarded freshmen who are supposedly sitting because of redshirt considerations. But really, based on Cav's stated and demonstrated approach, they are likely sitting because they aren't one of the top 5 and will continue to sit until they break into that top 5.

Nebraska comes out an runs the ball for 7 yards on 2 carries. Then throws a slant that's deflected for a pick 6. After that, NU put together a 72 yard drive that resulted in a FG. NU ran it with IBs only 3 for 7 yards (one of those was a 1 yard loss on 1st and goal from the 2 yardline). We then threw it on 2nd and 3rd downs from the 3 yard line and came away with only a field goal. Armstrong did add 7 yards on two carries, but iirc those were scrambles. The remaining yards came on 3 of 8 passing and a 15 yard PI. The rest of the game, NU backs got 14 carries, even though two of them averaged over 4 yards per carry with no carries of more than 20 yards to skew the average. But instead of grinding, NU asked Rife to throw it 18 times, including on a 4th and 1 from the OSU 15 when a TD that drive would have brought NU within 2 TDs. That's suspect play calling - or maybe moreso, suspect game planning.

This goes to my point in the Navy Thread. Are NU coaches and fans willing to swallow pride and win ugly (i.e., minimize possessions and grind out outcomes) even if the card says this X should beat that O. Hell, with Langs, it seems he sometimes runs what the card says even if this X shouldn't beat that O.

You don't get credit for getting a .700+ program "back on track" when you ran them off the rails to begin with.

I don't think firing Riley is realistic or appropriate either, but if you advocate firing two coordinators, why would you not fire the "CEO type" head coach? you're not saying he should be fired....but he should be fired? No. I'm saying that he shouldn't be fired, but asking for those who want his coordinators fired, why would they want Riley retained? It may be based on some valid reasons, such as Riley has a nice temperament and handles the press and fans very well. I just don't think a coach who is forced to clean house on his career long assistants would be very well positioned to continue as the HC.

I'll grant that we look about as well coached and prepared as a JV team. Why does Cav suck so much at developing talent? Does he need more assistance on the OL?

I don't think firing Riley is realistic or appropriate either, but if you advocate firing two coordinators, why would you not fire the "CEO type" head coach?

That's fair. but it's also fair to say that it's no where near the level it needs to be. it's the worse position group of this team right now. Not even close. And yet it's not a bad position group in comparison to most other teams. It's not our players' fault if Cavanaugh is an average, at best, developer of talent. We have guys who are highly recruited athletes available but sitting. If you can't win with this roster of OLmen, then you have some problems. Because NU isn't going to suddenly get massively better across the line. I just don't get why these coaches are cut so much slack - they are .500 guys doing what they've always done, but people are quicker to throw our guys under the bus than to consider that maybe, just maybe, coaching deficiencies are as much to blame for a lack of production.

If you want to put the blame on both, cool. But most aren't. Most are saying "these coaches came into a bare cupboard." If that's the case, then Bo and his staff were amazingly good coaches.

If you want to sell out former coaches for current ones, you should be listing garrison over cotton. But I get that cotton is a fun target for many. Reality is, compared to most other teams, NU had recruited quite well on the OL. And the walkons don't suck as much as armchair folks pretend.

No but they have more developed players on the line. We are 1 to 2 years away from having talented and developed players on the line. If you can't develop guys after two springs and two falls, you're in the wrong profession.

Not transitive at all. The point is, NU will not be as consistently talented across the board as the top 10 to 15 most talented rosters. So, how do we stay consistently more successful than the other similarly talented programs while also taking a bite out of top 10 talented programs too? In my opinion, we look at schools like Navy and Briles' Baylor (and Nebraska from the 80s and 90s) and think about modeling our system after theirs. Be hard nosed, be mobile at the QB spot, minimize opponent possessions when necessary, etc. Stop trashing our players. You miss the important part of my post - these players are good enough to win if they have proper coaching. But some of you would rather a frontal assault against Alabama, USC and Ohio St than using an "uncool" system that might actually flank those better situated programs. No...you said we will never be as talented. You are trashing our players and I want you to stop right now. I'm tired of you trashing our players. Haha. Good one. I'm serious. I am sick and tired of you trashing our players. Oh, I know you're serious. You're a funny guy. Oh...so....you are OK with trashing our players.....and coaches. Got it. you need to lighten up dude. This is big boy football. They know when they sign on the dotted line to play for nebraska that everything that happens on the field is fair game. If they suck, it is not "trashing" to say they suck. He's busting my chops because I actually find it ridiculous to say our guys suck. But a reasonable assessment does indicate that the roster is in the 25 +/- 10 spots segment of team talent. That's far from sucking. It's actually pretty much in line with NU historically, except for a few special alignments. We have plenty of talent to win.

I'm not at all suggesting dog house theory. Just the opposite. And the notion that time as a freshman and redshirt freshman is equal to time as a redshirt sophomore and junior is just not at all reasonable.

Radio appears to be wrong. Stats are below. NU has 15 legitly (sic) recruited OL, unless people have quit mid-season and I missed it. As far as "JV/High School" I suppose in some "fans" worlds that's a funny jab, but not at all reflective of reality. But, if we are "trotting out" w/o OL, then it's by the coaches' choice, because they either don't want to play scholarship players or the w/o's legitimately beat them out (completely possible considering our rich history of walkon OL). Because right now, it looks like NU is choosing to sit 5 scholarship players in favor of all three starting w/o's. And these aren't slouch scholarship guys - I listed their offers per the Husker bio after their names. If people think that NU is going to have an appreciably better run of OL recruiting, I think they are in for a rude awakening. Nebraska's not going to field a roster with 20+ OLmen. Even this year, Riley's staff is looking at about 4 OLmen. Any staff at NU needs to be able to retain and win with this quality of players. If there are too many injuries, then one has to ask, why are we suffering so many? Bad S&C? A misguided approach to substitution that leaves guys in and over-fatigued, leading to injury? Starting Lineup against OSU: LT - Nick Gates (4*) LG - Sam Hahn (w/o transfer from NDSU in class of '13 who played in 4 games prior to this season) C - Dylan Utter (w/o class of '12 who played in 6 games as a sophomore and started every game in '15 and has been on scholarship since his sophomore year) RG - Corey Whitikar (3*) RT - Conrad Cole (w/o class of '14) 2016 John Rairdon (4* from Iowa) - apparently redshirting Matt Farinok (4* from SD) - apparently redshirting Bryan Brokop (3* from Illionos) - apparently redshirting Boe Wilson (3* from Missouri) - apparently redshirting 2015 Jalin Barnett (4* from Oklahoma) - available ("No. 4 offensive guard in the country by ESPN and visited Arkansas and Oklahoma and considered Oklahoma State before choosing the Huskers.") Christian Gaylord (3* from Kansas) - available ("He had numerous offers including Kansas State, Minnesota, Missouri, Ohio State, Oklahoma State and Texas.") Michael Decker (3* from Nebraska) - available (" Decker was ranked among the top 50 offensive guards in the country by several outlets, while Scout listed him as the nation’s No. 7 center prospect and also visited KSU") 2014 Tanner Famer (4* from Illinois) - starter who is injured Nick Gates (4* from Nevada) - starter Jerald Foster (3* from Nebraska) - starter who is injured 2013 David Knevel (3* from Canada) - starter Zach Hannon (3* from Missouri) - available ("had offers from Arkansas, Colorado, Missouri, Kansas State, Kansas, Northwestern, Iowa State and Illinois to name a few") Matt Finnin (3* from JUCO) - left program prior to senior season in '15 Dwayne Johnson (3* from Texas) - available ("Johnson chose Nebraska over offers from Arkansas, Colorado, Oklahoma, Virginia, Washington State and Purdue") Chongo Kondolo (3* from Juco) - exhausted eligibility in '15 2012 Paul Thurston (4* from Colorado) - transferred prior to senior year of '16 (unclear to me why, but sounds like personality conflict with Cav) Corey Witaker (3* from California) - starter good stuff. I'm thinking I heard it wrong, or they meant it as 10 AFTER the redshirts. Pretty much has to be that way. it was said ten. And that would make sense. If it's 10 after the redshirting (and it's actually 11, and should have been 12 if they hadn't lost Thurston to a SR year transfer), I doubt that compares unfavorably to about 90% of CFB teams. It's ten. You have ten "available" guys listed aside from the 4 redshirts. And the transfers/elig exhauseted players dont counts as ifs. Leave them out. They are not here. Which is the main point. Last I checked, freshman are available. Pretty sure Ohio State started a few on saturday, including one on the OL. Just stop. You do this sh#t all the f'ing time. Challenge bullsh#t attacked leveled at our players by the media and fanboard posters? Nah, I don't think I will stop. NU has 9 healthy scholarship athletes that these coaches aren't playing. That's either because they hate scholarship athletes or the w/o's are more productive. I'm going with the latter. I'm tired of people seeing "NE w/o" and thinking "JV athlete." It's not an accurate assessment at all.