cm husker

As I suspected, these lists are generated with an agenda. Assigning a 5.0 to walkons is ridiculous. Each of the starters listed in NU's depth chart are clearly as good as at least a low three star. Just because they are from farms with little exposure and don't play the recruiting games of committing, decommitting and recommitting, they aren't going to get a rating. But no one can tell me that Jano is a worse talent than a lot of 3 and 4 star players. So that alone unfairly drags an average down versus low low three stars who get a rating because they got an offer from Purdue and no one else (i.e., would have been a walk on most other places). So, stupid methodology. But with that said, have a look at MSU's starters: QB – 5.7 RB – 6.0 WR – 5.9 WR – 5.7 WR – 5.7 TE – 5.7 OL – Walkon OL – 5.5 OL – 5.8 OL – 5.6 OL – 5.7 Their average is 5.66. But looking closer, their average along the OL is exactly the same as NU's. They get an overall bump because their depth chart list an additional 5.7 WR, rather than our outstanding walkon fullback (who was arbitrary assigned only 5.0). If this methodology is sound, where's the actual talent difference? Control for the walkons, and the number tightens even more. 5.72 for MSU versus 5.72 for NU. By comparison, Purdue has no walkons and their average is 5.58. But again, the entire methodology is flawed because the decimal system is neither accurate nor does it reflect actual separation (it just creates a false sense of separation so that recruitniks can create a 1 to 120 ranking and further monetize college football). I'm so completely sick and tired of these superficial, transparent "analyses" that are designed to do nothing more than tear down our players to bolster a career sub .500 staff. It's just gross.

Out of all of NU's opponents, which roster would you trade for the Huskers?

I wonder which board... Out of curiosity, I also wonder what the separation is between all of the depth charts across the B10. How much more talented is Michigan or MSU than Purdue, for example. Rivals decimal rankings are a ridiculous way to compare because they simply aren't precise. You have a hack, can't even be a real journalist, recruitnik basically throwing darts at a board to assign points. It's a sham.

Why is tanner farmer on that list? Why are a number of other guys who contributed or are still in the roster on that list? It's a chicken sh#t list. And, the methodology is that it adjusts for attrition.

People who call out a dropped pass (which was on a TD drive anyway) and a dropped interception are desparate apologists looking for any excuse they can find. Missing the forest for the trees is what that is.

I believe his methodology uses an attrition based calculation. In other words, talent today. Not talent based on signing day.

Laughable that you don't think Pelini is fostered a negative attitude to the team. "Us against the world" "F*** the fans. F*** all of them. They can kiss my a** when I leave" "The AD is a c***" I've read you musings on another site (that you've been chased off of), so just for the record so all of huskerboard knows your M.O., can you tell us why you think that Bo shouldn't have been fired? 1. Mainly because a guy whose opinion I trust implicitly when it comes to NU football would not have fired him. 2. Also because I recognize that winning at a program like NU requires a sheer force of will that is pretty rare in coaches. It sometimes brings along with it some unsavory aspects, which were actually quite tempered in 2013 and 2014 if anyone were honest. Things improve dramatically after 2010 in that regard, again, if people were honest. 3. I think Pelini gained valuable experience while maintaining a minimum threshold of performance that would have positioned him and his program to take a step up between years 8 and 12. 4. I didn't think that at the time there was a viable upgrade available (that has definitely borne itself out). Feel free to disagree, but firing a coach is always a 2 step process, and I don't think that Step 2 was going to be up no matter who was hired among the realistically attainable candidates. If Step 2 is lateral, or worse, down, then you don't take Step 1. End of story. Same will apply when it comes time to evaluate a change in the current HC.

Obviously this is on Pelini. If he hadn't recruited so well, Riley wouldn't be eligible for the list.

Exactly. Just like Bo's attitude permeated the team the same goes for Riley. Those shots of him with his hands on his knees just staring at the ground a few games ago. He looked like an old guy who just didn't have it anymore and was pondering what to do next. We went from one extreme to the exact opposite. College kids especially feed off of their coaches especially the head coach. As for the picture by Benning those are probably a lot of backups or reserves. The offensive and defensive linemen always sit. Anyway I don't buy into the picture much in terms the effort the starters are giving. Whatever it is I think the effort is there but the enthusiasm has been lost. At 3-5 I wonder if some of the players have full confidence in the head coach and his assistants. I agree. Why can't we have an explosive nutjob like TO on the sidelines. Geez, those damned unflappable coaches just drive me nuts. TO had a ton of fire on the sideline. He may not have cursed, but he was as intense as any coach out there. Anyone who doesn't remember him arguing calls and going red is simply only recalling his last couple of years (after being advised by doctors to monitor his stress levels).

I never said these kids quit or aren't showing effort. I believe they are and am tired of the player blaming that's going on to justify (a) people's belief in a .500 coach, and (b) people's belief that we should have fired the last coach (because he's responsible for the negative attitude). This team plays extremely hard. They are just put in terrible positions by the staff, so of course there are plays where they are going to look like they aren't giving effort... it's tough to look "fast" when your system puts you out of position.

I've seen this idea brought up a couple different places. Can someone tell my why Trev Alberts would be qualified to be an AD at Nebraska? And "he played at Nebraska" doesn't count. How long has he been an AD at UNO? I honestly don't know. All I know is that the next guy that's AD needs to understand coaching. I mean really understand it.

Bullcrap. If Riley and his staff exercised even a bit of coaching competence and ground out half of the very winnable games that NU has lost, there would be no crisis in confidence. The toxicity is a result of players knowing their coaches have snatched defeat from the jaws of victory against awful competition who should have been out of the game by the third quarter. As far as the rest of the program, this AD has done nothing to override the cluster that he's created in football.

But in "Good Will Hunting," wasn't the janitor really good at complex math equations? Or maybe I'm just missing your point. My thought too. I think Eichorst needs to go before Riley, that's for sure. He can't be allowed to hire another coach. Frankly, I don't think he can be left in a position where he's asked to fairly evaluate his own coach. That's why he needs to go. I don't agree with those who say a new AD is a guarantee that a coach will be fired. Countless examples run counter to that claim, and if we get the right guy (i.e., not an ego manic or a lap dog to Perlman, who personally disliked Bo), then we can move forward in an intelligent way. I remember when TO gave Callahan a set of very achievable benchmarks to save his job. He failed and he was fired, but I sincerely believe that if he'd fulfilled the requirements, TO would have retained him. I don't believe that about guys like Perlman, Eichorst and Pederson; they are snakes in the grass who make a determination and then hope that results break in their favor so they are justified in retrospect. But regardless of results, they are going to carry out their agenda. Leadership matters, and NU football is struggling as a direct result of awful administrative leadership.

Did you not see all the missed tackles by the defense? This highlights the most common misconception among fans (and I guess guys like Benning now, too). Missed tackles are rarely do to a lack of effort. 95% of the time its due to being out of position and losing fundamentals. All of these guys work way too hard 364 days a year to show up on 1 day and "not care enough to give effort." The two other points that no one who is blaming players will address are: 1. if the effort was so bad, why were the result so good, minus a couple of plays? 2. if the effort and "buy in" is so bad, how is NU even in these games at all?

The last 3 RB's are currently in the NFL. Not one on the roster today fills that role. I think there is a significant talent downgrade. Those three NFL RBs were two two-stars and one four-star recruits before they got here. Many wanted Ameer to play in the secondary. We have four four-star talents on the RB depth chart. What is the difference? Coaching. Because we know that as long as they are ranked higher in HS, they immediately are better in college? C'mon. You're right, I prefer the StPaulHusker unbiased eye-test over professional recruiting services in evaluating "talent." This is your logic: Three star Ameer Abdullah was coached to be an elite back by the previous staff. Four star Newby (despite two years of coaching by that same staff) has been coached for half a season by the current staff and isn't as good as Abdullah. Conclusion: these coaches suck. That's not really his logic. 1. Go back and look at Ameer's stats as a rFR and SO. He was showing flashes of his athleticism, but he was far from an elite back. He didn't step out on the field a finished product. He was developed over a number of seasons. 2. Play calling matters. Creativity in the run game produces mismatches, overmatches (i.e., more blockers than defenders at POA) and space for RBs to pick up chunk plays. I sincerely believe that if we were still running last year's system, NU would look a ton better at RB and OL right now. This version of the WCO is just a mess. I honestly watch the games and have no idea what Riley and Langs are trying to accomplish play in and play out in terms of manipulating a defense. Newby is not, was not, and won't be better than Abdullah. It doesn't matter who is calling any play. Who ever claimed he would be? Abullah's level of production was generational at NU. I hope he can get it going for a terrible Lions team.

The last 3 RB's are currently in the NFL. Not one on the roster today fills that role. I think there is a significant talent downgrade. Those three NFL RBs were two two-stars and one four-star recruits before they got here. Many wanted Ameer to play in the secondary. We have four four-star talents on the RB depth chart. What is the difference? Coaching. Because we know that as long as they are ranked higher in HS, they immediately are better in college? C'mon. You're right, I prefer the StPaulHusker unbiased eye-test over professional recruiting services in evaluating "talent." This is your logic: Three star Ameer Abdullah was coached to be an elite back by the previous staff. Four star Newby (despite two years of coaching by that same staff) has been coached for half a season by the current staff and isn't as good as Abdullah. Conclusion: these coaches suck. That's not really his logic. 1. Go back and look at Ameer's stats as a rFR and SO. He was showing flashes of his athleticism, but he was far from an elite back. He didn't step out on the field a finished product. He was developed over a number of seasons. 2. Play calling matters. Creativity in the run game produces mismatches, overmatches (i.e., more blockers than defenders at POA) and space for RBs to pick up chunk plays. I sincerely believe that if we were still running last year's system, NU would look a ton better at RB and OL right now. This version of the WCO is just a mess. I honestly watch the games and have no idea what Riley and Langs are trying to accomplish play in and play out in terms of manipulating a defense.

It may not have been drawn up that way, but for all we know, Bando went to the wrong gap or shouldn't have blitzed there. that's what makes evaluating this stuff so difficult. you really need to have the playsheet.

Which player? defense Are you saying it's the whole D or a player on the D? Name the name. I'm really tired of the innuendo and broad accusations that cast aspersions on an entire team. If you think one guy is lacking, call that guy out. Or don't say anything at all.

Apparently in Riley's doghouse. Cramped quarters with Ozigbo in there as well. Hey, if you can't "pass protect" in this offense, you're a liability at RB. Ameer Abdullah would have struggled to see the field in this offense.

I don't think you're wrong. I do think fans, and apparently even some ex players, see a lackluster performance and believe that "effort" is the issue. Teams don't "effort" their way to wins (almost ever). It's about execution. And execution is about coaches preparing players during the week and then running their system in a way that leads to a higher probability of success. "Effort" isn't really as big of a factor as many want it to be. I will have to disagree with this. Execution is a direct result of effort. I couldn't disagree more if you're defining "effort" as "selling out for the play" attitude. I love the latter when combined with proper execution, but if you're going 100 mph the wrong way, you're still going the wrong way. In other words, a lack of effort may get you beat, but a lack of execution will always get you beat.

Figured that would be the response. He has said watch the last drive and it will be obvious. If I had the ability/time/know how, I would love to rewatch the last drive and make gifs to illustrate. Maybe someone here can? It's on watchESPN. I just fired it up. I'm not seeing the obviousness. Here's the play progression: 1. QB scramble up the middle after the DL got pressure and I saw at least two guys make great effort in term diving to make plays. No obvious lack of effort. 2. 1 yard run with a solid tackle. Play was over in about 2 seconds. No obvious lack of effort. 3. Long pass. Some poor tackling. Rose-Ivey chased him down and 7 blackshirts in the frame at the time of the tackle 20+ yards downfield. I do think Newby let up a bit when he thought the play was made. Is that who Benning means? 4. Run play up the middle where there was either a miscommunication or a poor play when Collins attacked outside shoulder and Banderas blitzed same gap. That's not an effort thing. Newby did a poor job on that play and let himself get taken out, but I'm not sure if I call that and effort issue. I'm not seeing obvious effort issues there. 5. Short run (about 2 seconds). Collins picks up the PF on a retaliation play. No obvious lack of effort. 6. QB rollout and slide down. No obvious lack of effort. 7. Victory formation. Before that drive, the D had played with great effort and execution (save a couple of long runs by the QB). People need to stop taking Benning's commentary as though it's gospel.

Why should these guys or any guys play for "X State"? They should be playing for each other. That's where real motivation and accountability comes from. As far as players "mocking" the program, I don't think they are mocking fans (which seems to be the really offensive thing to some around here). I think they are pointing out the ineptitude of our administration. That's a completely fair point to make. I remember when players went to bat for Osborne and McBride and called people out for their stupidity when criticizing those two. Were those players wrongly playing for a coach rather than the peanut gallery who was calling out their coaches?

It's almost worse that he won't name names and give exact examples. He makes these broad proclamations and innuendos. So instead of calling out the offenders, he effectively casts doubt on the whole team.

My other frustration is with the constant subbing out of Westerkamp. I know you have to moderate his snaps, but in key situations, he needs to be out there. He's probably the only WR we have who is going to truly influence coverages. I love our other guys, too, but don't think they get coverage rolled to them like he has. Why not have him on the field if for no other reason than to help simply TA's reads?

Agreed. Hell, with the amount of money and accolades this system has caused to fall out of his pockets, I'd be pretty frustrated, too. I think Collins has improved his pro stock this year for sure. Alot of the time he's doubled, but even so, he's been a disruptive force most of the time. We are top 10 in rushing D and he's the main cause of that stat. What he's being asked to do in this scheme is not what the pros want to see. Not saying the pros care that much about what scheme a kid comes out of (talent is talent), but Collins isn't honing his craft for the pros in this system.