Nebfanatic

I think we're pretty much the same team we've always been and that includes coaching which has been Nebraska's true weakness and reason why they've been stuck as a team that now suffers embarrassing blowouts every season and is either is unranked or barely ranked at years end every season and for a long time now. We got Oregon State's coaching staff. What in the hell did you expect?????? I was stunned when it went down and have still been stunned ever since that people actually were/(still are???) expecting to field a team that can compete on a semi regular basis for conference or national championships. None of this has been a surprise to me. Riley isn't the answer and never was and to put it simply it was actually shocking that he was even offered. It's just a good thing I don't get upset when we lose or get embarrassed anymore. Thankfully I stopped getting pissed early on in the Pelini era. I fell asleep during the Iowa game for chrissakes... It's kind of crazy when I think about it but hey that's where we are and have been now for a long, long time now. Frost was the clear cut guy imo who was probably about as good of fit for a coach that Nebraska could have asked for and not surprisingly Eichorst whiffed and whiffed hard and instead hired Mike Riley. Now that window of opportunity may never present itself and once again Nebraska will probably hire another sub par coach for much less than programs like Michigan or Ohio State or name your top 10 team are willing to pay. Things don't look good for the program if you're talking about catching up with the top teams in our conference. James Franklin has Penn St going to the Big 10 title game in just his 3rd year as coach and meanwhile we're getting curb stomped by Iowa. Nebraska needs to clean house and that starts with Sean Eichorst and start over if they ever want to have a chance imo because the brand can only get you so far and that's all we're living off of at this point. if we did that right now you can guarantee we put the program in the gutter for 5 years. Riley may not be the guy, but let's give him some time to prove one way or the other. He still had a Bo roster this year, next year it will be more his team and 2018 will really be telling. It took nebraska over a decade to get to the top with one coach and then over a decade again with the next. How are we supposed to ever win anything if we don't give our coaches now even 3 years. No one is patient enough to get to the top. We want it nowas because Michigan and Ohio State can do it. But realistically our only shot of winning anything of consequence is giving one coach the time to do it. And I'm talking at least 10 years. It is a faster world now but you succeed by persistence and strong definite decisions, not by being wishy washy and starting over with something else when things dont go your way

Third hand (at best) information on Facebook is your best source. And where have you seen Lee where you have been able to evaluate him? I saw him play at Jesuit in New Orleans no fewer than a dozen times, and twice at Tulane. Big kid, but never impressed me. Struggled against tough competition. As far as my FB source, I agree it isn't much, but based on multiple conversations with the guy, he seems legit. Once again I point out that LSU passed on him as a transfer, which tells me a lot because they struggled at that position this season and were looking. I mean look who ended up playing the majority of the season for them: a Purdue transfer. LSU passed on this guy when Les Miles was the head coach. When was the last time he hadid a productive QB? Just because LSU didn't take him doesn't mean he isn't talented. They could have been looking for a different style, or plain just misevaluated the QB position. It's not like they are a QB factory

I'm in the camp to keep Banker personally but if we were to replace him we would need a major upgrade and there aren't alot of those coaches out there. I was just naming a few I though would be an upgrade but also I think continuity with the major pieces of the staff like our coordinators is important right now

How good is this guy haven't seen anything about him Just looked and he is pretty damn good 4 star .91 on 247 #209 overall 247 composite had him #118 overall and a .94 Tore it up in the film as well, didn't appear to have incredible speed but he looked very shifty and pretty strong for his size. This is one of those put my best athlete at QB scenarios for his HS but clearly we are looking at this guy as a WR

Go steal Don Brown or whoever Wisconsin has now

That's not surprising given Armstrong was the 2nd least accurate passer in all of college football. Seriously, his accuracy rating was 107th out of 108 QBs. I think that is one of the most telling stats about this entire season, and we were told going into this season that his accuracy was going to be much higher. I fully love Tommy's heart and desire, but I wonder how this team would have done had their been a good bench of backups waiting in the wings. Fortunately starting next year we should have 3 great passers on the roster with O'brien, Lee, and Gebbia. and not a one has played a down in college ball.......starting over again. ??? Tanner Lee has plenty of college ball experience

I would be in favor of trying to get Charlie Strong as a DC. It's been said numerous times that he'd be an awesome DC. I for one am an advocate for this although, this got me thinking about Will Muschamp. Awesome DC at Texas, goes to be the HC at Florida, gets fired after a short tenure and then hops on to the Auburn staff as a DC for one year, not really improving their defense I might add, before bolting to SC. I do not want to hire Charlie Strong for a 1 year pit stop as a DC.But if you want great coordinators, that's a chance you have to be willing to take. You don't want to stop hiring talented people with the fear they might leave in a year.the problem is in the case of Muschamp especailly, he wasn't a great coordinator for the time they had him, then a year later they are scrambling for someone else. I'm fine if Strong comes here for a year and coaches the defense up to top 3 in our conference and then leaves. But he can just go elsewhere if we were to hire him, see no markable improvement and he leaves after a year. Not worth it imo unless he brings in the best defensive recruiting class we have ever had in his one year. You have to be willing to make gambles like this. It's what being a good HC is all about. You can't just hire a nobody and expect him to lead your team to the top. That is true, but you can stick with what you have and try to build continuity and consistency with your coaching, that can lead to success too. Scrapping what you have and starting over can definitely work. You can play great defense with 3 different coordinators in 3 years if you are landing the home runs coaches. But I think for our defense right now, going through 3 DC changes in 3 years could also leave us in ruins because we have no direction with it. If your keep your coaches and go with the continuity approach you have more clear direction. Is it the right direction? The on field results will show that. It it's not that's definitely a sign for a new DC and you have wasted time when your could have tried to get a great DC in there a few years earlier. I think Strong is a great coach and would probably be great for us, but I'm also not hell bent on firing Banker, I am open to giving him more time.

I would be in favor of trying to get Charlie Strong as a DC. It's been said numerous times that he'd be an awesome DC. I for one am an advocate for this although, this got me thinking about Will Muschamp. Awesome DC at Texas, goes to be the HC at Florida, gets fired after a short tenure and then hops on to the Auburn staff as a DC for one year, not really improving their defense I might add, before bolting to SC. I do not want to hire Charlie Strong for a 1 year pit stop as a DC.But if you want great coordinators, that's a chance you have to be willing to take. You don't want to stop hiring talented people with the fear they might leave in a year. the problem is in the case of Muschamp especailly, he wasn't a great coordinator for the time they had him, then a year later they are scrambling for someone else. I'm fine if Strong comes here for a year and coaches the defense up to top 3 in our conference and then leaves. But he can just go elsewhere if we were to hire him, see no markable improvement and he leaves after a year. Not worth it imo unless he brings in the best defensive recruiting class we have ever had in his one year.

besides Scott Frost who was an unproven commodity at the time (still is at this point) who else could we have landed, if we were willing to give any amount to our top candidate?

I would be in favor of trying to get Charlie Strong as a DC. It's been said numerous times that he'd be an awesome DC. I for one am an advocate for this although, this got me thinking about Will Muschamp. Awesome DC at Texas, goes to be the HC at Florida, gets fired after a short tenure and then hops on to the Auburn staff as a DC for one year, not really improving their defense I might add, before bolting to SC. I do not want to hire Charlie Strong for a 1 year pit stop as a DC.

* handsomely *excel Way to cast a freaking broad ass net. I get it, based off your user name I assume you graduated from law school 32 years ago, placing you in the 55-60 age category, but good lord man. You don't know enough about any of these kids to definitively state that they can't EXCEL at a physical sport. Don't have the same heart, desire, or hunger? BS..... I'm willing to be there is the same number of kids that come from broken families, or poverty, and see football as their way out playing the sport today, as there was 30-40 year ago. Hell, there are probably more. But keep on keeping on with the greatest generation spiel. We will be sure to stay off your lawn, Walt Kowalski. I'm a head coach at a high school, and he is pretty close to spot on in the bolded. It didn't change 30 or 40 years ago either. It changed about 6-8 years ago. And I am not 55-60. I'm 35. What exactly would you say changed? Players don't have the same heart or desire that they once did? I would say that is partly true, but it is a terrible by product of wins and losses not meaning as much because of the "participation trophy" generation. We are going through a time in this country where we were/are so afraid to hurt somebodies feelings that we don't allow kids to feel the pain of a loss and therefore the desire to not feel that again is not instilled in them. It will hurt us far beyond the playing field/court soon, it is going to infect our society. The PC focus we are on now is the problem. You can't improve if nobody ever tells you what you are bad at because they will be told they are "judging" you. It is an epidemic, and it will change. I hope it is cyclical. This is not all kids, some still have that fire. It just used to be that the kid without the desire was the exception, now when a kid goes hard everyday and fights to win they are the exception. My personal perception of (most of) the kids in my high school - assistant coach for football and basketball for 7 years, ref high school basketball - is there are simply too many other things for kids to do. When one thing is over, you move on to the next thing. They haven't put enough work into anything to make it mean enough to them. It's not that they don't want to win. It's that they don't hate to lose. Not that I think that applies to the Huskers. The vast majority - if not all - of them have put in so much time, effort and work to get where they all I don't by the "don't care" on that level. High school coaches go to a lot of clinics and camps with Division 1 coaches. I'm sure you've been asked, because I know I have been multiple times, "how do you motivate this generation of kids? How do you get a fire under their ass?" If it isn't a problem, why would they ask? I think it applies to quite a few - possibly even a vast majority - of kids at the high school level. I'm not sure it really applies to the top 1% who've obviously put in the time and effort to be great. At least not to the same extent. motivation and desire is something that must be cultivated. No one can cultivate motivation in an individual to one one hundredth of the degree the individual can cultivate it within themselves. I think alot of kids in high school either don't have this figured out yet or are cultivating their desire for something other than football. The motivated football player is going to give so much in exchange for a win when they don't get it, it stings badly. A motivated individual will do the same for the achievement of their goals but things outside of this will be somewhat unimportant, including winning and losing ball games. And therein lies the unmeasurable with the recruiting "stars". That's why coaches are good (or not) at what they do. The best an find that internal drive in a recruit - a there star with that immeasurable is a diamond in the rough. And I've been surprised at the number of comments by high school kids referencing how they're working to buy momma a house, or bring in the big bucks. So I think money (sadly) is coming into their goals pretty early on now, and I kinda feel that takes away from their focus on college ... who cares about playoffs when you're shooting to leave early for the NFL as your main goal. agreed, money does come into play earlier now and not just for those looking to go to the NFL. In high school, who cares if you win or lose Friday when you just got a $10,000 check from selling livestock, you're winning already. Not to say that specific scenario happens often but kids more than ever now have real world goals at an early age. Never thought about the leaving early angle, I think that kind of thinking would result more in some rouge play trying whatever you can to look good for scouts then not being motivated to play though

Completely possible. But what the hell are we looking for then? A lot of great coaches have looked average (or even worse) for stretches. Great question! I think we Bo we knew because of his body of work. With Riley, we do know but a lot of fans want to pretend like his time at OSU doesn't count or something like that. With Frank everyone just says "Well, now he is coaching where he belongs" No one is pretending it doesn't count, some just see what he did for most of his time at OSU as an accomplishment not a detriment.

At least we can all agree on something!

* handsomely *excel Way to cast a freaking broad ass net. I get it, based off your user name I assume you graduated from law school 32 years ago, placing you in the 55-60 age category, but good lord man. You don't know enough about any of these kids to definitively state that they can't EXCEL at a physical sport. Don't have the same heart, desire, or hunger? BS..... I'm willing to be there is the same number of kids that come from broken families, or poverty, and see football as their way out playing the sport today, as there was 30-40 year ago. Hell, there are probably more. But keep on keeping on with the greatest generation spiel. We will be sure to stay off your lawn, Walt Kowalski. I'm a head coach at a high school, and he is pretty close to spot on in the bolded. It didn't change 30 or 40 years ago either. It changed about 6-8 years ago. And I am not 55-60. I'm 35. What exactly would you say changed? Players don't have the same heart or desire that they once did? I would say that is partly true, but it is a terrible by product of wins and losses not meaning as much because of the "participation trophy" generation. We are going through a time in this country where we were/are so afraid to hurt somebodies feelings that we don't allow kids to feel the pain of a loss and therefore the desire to not feel that again is not instilled in them. It will hurt us far beyond the playing field/court soon, it is going to infect our society. The PC focus we are on now is the problem. You can't improve if nobody ever tells you what you are bad at because they will be told they are "judging" you. It is an epidemic, and it will change. I hope it is cyclical. This is not all kids, some still have that fire. It just used to be that the kid without the desire was the exception, now when a kid goes hard everyday and fights to win they are the exception. My personal perception of (most of) the kids in my high school - assistant coach for football and basketball for 7 years, ref high school basketball - is there are simply too many other things for kids to do. When one thing is over, you move on to the next thing. They haven't put enough work into anything to make it mean enough to them. It's not that they don't want to win. It's that they don't hate to lose. Not that I think that applies to the Huskers. The vast majority - if not all - of them have put in so much time, effort and work to get where they all I don't by the "don't care" on that level. High school coaches go to a lot of clinics and camps with Division 1 coaches. I'm sure you've been asked, because I know I have been multiple times, "how do you motivate this generation of kids? How do you get a fire under their ass?" If it isn't a problem, why would they ask? I think it applies to quite a few - possibly even a vast majority - of kids at the high school level. I'm not sure it really applies to the top 1% who've obviously put in the time and effort to be great. At least not to the same extent. motivation and desire is something that must be cultivated. No one can cultivate motivation in an individual to one one hundredth of the degree the individual can cultivate it within themselves. I think alot of kids in high school either don't have this figured out yet or are cultivating their desire for something other than football. The motivated football player is going to give so much in exchange for a win when they don't get it, it stings badly. A motivated individual will do the same for the achievement of their goals but things outside of this will be somewhat unimportant, including winning and losing ball games.

* handsomely *excel Way to cast a freaking broad ass net. I get it, based off your user name I assume you graduated from law school 32 years ago, placing you in the 55-60 age category, but good lord man. You don't know enough about any of these kids to definitively state that they can't EXCEL at a physical sport. Don't have the same heart, desire, or hunger? BS..... I'm willing to be there is the same number of kids that come from broken families, or poverty, and see football as their way out playing the sport today, as there was 30-40 year ago. Hell, there are probably more. But keep on keeping on with the greatest generation spiel. We will be sure to stay off your lawn, Walt Kowalski. I'm a head coach at a high school, and he is pretty close to spot on in the bolded. It didn't change 30 or 40 years ago either. It changed about 6-8 years ago. And I am not 55-60. I'm 35. What exactly would you say changed? Players don't have the same heart or desire that they once did? I would say that is partly true, but it is a terrible by product of wins and losses not meaning as much because of the "participation trophy" generation. We are going through a time in this country where we were/are so afraid to hurt somebodies feelings that we don't allow kids to feel the pain of a loss and therefore the desire to not feel that again is not instilled in them. It will hurt us far beyond the playing field/court soon, it is going to infect our society. The PC focus we are on now is the problem. You can't improve if nobody ever tells you what you are bad at because they will be told they are "judging" you. It is an epidemic, and it will change. I hope it is cyclical. This is not all kids, some still have that fire. It just used to be that the kid without the desire was the exception, now when a kid goes hard everyday and fights to win they are the exception. My personal perception of (most of) the kids in my high school - assistant coach for football and basketball for 7 years, ref high school basketball - is there are simply too many other things for kids to do. When one thing is over, you move on to the next thing. They haven't put enough work into anything to make it mean enough to them. It's not that they don't want to win. It's that they don't hate to lose. Not that I think that applies to the Huskers. The vast majority - if not all - of them have put in so much time, effort and work to get where they all I don't by the "don't care" on that level. bingo. I'm 20 years old and I know alot of kids care more about making money and the "hate to lose" passion is more "hate to be broke" alot of kids at my old high school think sports are fun and that's why they play but are much more devoted towards their futures outside of sports and losing or winning the game isn't that important.

clock is ticking? Urgent desperate times? College football will be played for another 100 years, I think we have some time. And in that 100 years what if we don't win a single game? What will happen? What are you going to do about it? Fire another coach after a year or two and start over? Throw a check at the big name that will do it. Realistically, building a dominate program can take time. It took Tom Osborne 15 years. Maybe we should just be happy with where we are and support our team going forward and trust that maybe stability will get us somewhere worth going. Also, it's not that important to say we are in desperate times, come on man people are ok with this because A) there is nothing we can do about it and B) at the end of the day it's just a game and most of us spend 85% of our time on other things.

let's just fire everybody!!

Good post

Glad Read is gone. Having no punt return and really sh**ty special teams all around was a problem but I could deal with it. I couldn't deal with giving up 1st downs because you have too many guys on the field, not having enough guys on the field and all of those awful completely on the coach gaffs.

Ayyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyyy!!!!

That was my first thought when I heard about this story. also Tommy Armstrong right behind the center there Not saying this didn't happen and I am not trying to invalidate this guy's experience though. It seems odd but it probably happened unfortunately

Under an obscure title to boot

They did something similar in year 1 of the playoff. How can they justify leaving out a conference champ for someone that conference champ beat? Just because they are #2 now and beat #3 does not mean a team can't jump them after conference championship week. There are arguments both ways for sure and I'm not sure what the right answer is but we will see soon enough.

I hate to say it but Riley was a proven career .504 commodity before coming here. Hiring friends and blowout losses kind of reaffirm that. At a historically .400 school before he arrivedHe hasn't only coached at OSU. And iirc, he never bested the best season of the guy he succeeded. and the NFL isn't a predictor of college success (Nick Saban) and that was a team he helped put together.

I hate to say it but Riley was a proven career .504 commodity before coming here. Hiring friends and blowout losses kind of reaffirm that. At a historically .400 school before he arrived