LAblackshirt

Thanks nphuskers, ill edit that.

The offense wasn't good, but I still feel Tommy was the biggest element of that. I am confident in Langs and Riley but the jury is still out on Cav.

So now that it's official I did a little digging to figure out what we are working with in Bobby D. I have to be honest I was very whelmed by his hire, and the initial info on this board did nothing but support that sentiment. Below is the research I did to see how well his defense performed and how many high profile recruits he brought in each year. Please note that "high profile" means I only counted 4* and up, and I only attributed defensive recruits to him assuming that he was at-least involved in each players recruiting process. The numbers associated with these stats are national rankings for that season. Also of note is that I have included the teams Time of Possession (TOP) for each season which serves as a leveler of sorts when looking at the defenses rankings. Obviously a team with a low TOP ranking will have their defensive stats suffer as a result of opponent offenses having more chances. 2009- Cincinnati - 67th in Total Defense, 44th in Scoring Defense, 120th in TOP - Two 4* Recruits 2010- Notre Dame - 50th in Total Defense, 23rd in Scoring Defense, 105th in TOP - One 4* Recruit 2011- Notre Dame - 30th in Total Defense, 24th in Scoring Defense, 59th in TOP - Two 5* Recruits, Four 4* Recruits 2012- Notre Dame - 7th in Total Defense, 2nd in Scoring Defense, 23rd in TOP - Four 4* Recruits 2013- Notre Dame - 31st in Total Defense, 27th in Scoring Defense, 84th in TOP - Two 5* Recruits, Four 4* Recruits

Yeah, there is no denying the similarities between this team and the one Pelini got fired from. One important thing is that its a lot of the same players in leadership positions. The argument that a coach must have his own recruited players in leadership spots to ensure a change is a little overworked I can tell on here. That doesn't mean its not at-least partially true though. I guess we will lose this excuse next year. Riley is close to showing his hand.

This is cool, thanks for digging up the research. Definitely interesting. What I have found in my research about which statistics are most indicative of a QB's performance, is that almost all of them offer snapshots with limited perspective. The best thing I have found if you want a real answer, is what Pro Football Focus is doing these days. Assigning numerical values to every play based on every relevant QB controlled element. I'm not sure how much they really do it for College Football right now, but I know they have put out some college player rankings based on their system, For example: Armstrong throws a pass to the flat, but puts it behind Abdullah making him stop his forward motion and go back to get it. He stops on a dime, extends and makes an outstanding catch, despite the poor throw. Abdullah then jukes out the two tacklers who are unblocked (due to the play timing being thrown off by an inaccurate throw), trucks the safety and takes it to the house for 60+ yards. Pro Football Focus takes this play and has a knowledgeable person analyze it and score it between -.5 (worst), and .5 (best). They will note the throw being inaccurate, the bad timing it caused, and the poor mechanics that caused the inaccuracy and assign it (correctly) a bad score. This will then directly affect the rating they give him. Completion %- this play makes Tommy look good. Yards Per Attempt- this play makes Tommy look good. Yards Per Completion- this play makes Tommy look good QB sacked percentage- this play makes Tommy look good This pretty well illustrates the problem with most statistics, but obviously they still stand for something. I am very much in the camp that Armstrong was one of the worst active QB's (in terms of passing) in Power 5 football. Not meant to be a shot at him, he was a terrific athlete, leader, and a great husker to be sure. PFF ranked him the worst in the conference in terms of passing through the first 7 games (his best games really) so that's kind of my base for thinking that. I feel Riley and Langs by all accounts tried to make this as easy of an offense with as easy of throws as they could and he still couldn't find any real success. There were countless great offensive play calls leaving wide-outs completely open that Tommy just couldn't see, or throw to accurately.

I want to see 9+ wins, and 0 blow out losses. I want to see a bowl victory. I want to see the offense we haven't been able to really run on full display. I want the huskers to be good enough to play in nationally televised games, and I want to see them play respectably. I want to see the B1G not get pounded in during the bowl season.

115: Coach Riley is a career .500 guy, and thus cannot take us to a championship (except for the one he has which totally doesn't count because Canada and stuff).

Before Harbaugh was hired for the 2007 season, Stanford had the #59 (2006), #25 (2005), and #60 (2004) classes, or a #48 average. They just came off a 1-11 season, where 9 of those 11 losses were blowouts. He came in and they immediately improved, and then improved again, and then improved again, and finally improved again before he was hired away. The situation Harbaugh inherited at Stanford and improvement he consistently made there is nothing like Riley at Nebraska. And anyone who says "he's done well all things considered to this point" after a losing season and the curbstompings we've encountered is also not being objective. Ok that's my bad, so not 40, number 48. I used rivals and 247 in combination and made that mistake. So those 8 places represent a whirlwind of difference in your opinion? Jim Harbaugh is an elite Coach at both the college and NFL level. He took over a team with a talent level within the same ballpark as Riley did in the cupboards. He proceeded to win 4 games, then 5 games, then 8 games. He didn't surpass Mike Riley's 1st season win total until his 3rd year. "He inherited a team with a 1 win record" you say, so is he from an objective point of view allowed a couple bad seasons? You prove my point in that sentence. It is of course relevant what the previous coach leaves behind in culture and talent, and that of course plays into Riley's losing season and blowouts. You know what Harbaugh didn't inherit Qmany? A defense that gave up an NCAA record breaking amount of yards rushing in a game, a team accustomed to it's coach receiving penalties and being broadcast throwing fits on the sideline, a team that was pulled aside by the previous coach and told the AD was a p*ssy and they should transfer. Lets be even more objective just to crush your point a little further. Nebraska is the first Major college football program that Riley has coached at. I want to note that I don't count Oregon State due to lack of resources, and unbelievably bad tradition. When he took over at Oregon State, the beavers hadn't been to a bowl game since 1966. There are very few power 5 teams as historically bad as Oregon State. Let's take a look at some of the best coaches in the current era of college football and their record in their first 2 seasons as a head coach of a Major program. Mike Riley- Nebraska- (15-10)- 60% Nick Saban- Michigan State- (12-11-1)- 50% Jim Harbaugh- Stanford- (9-15)- 37.5% Urban Meyer- Utah- (22-2)- 92% Dabo Swinney- Clemson- (13-8)- 62% So lets see, among 4 of the best active College Football Coaches Mike Riley ranks better or about the same as 3 of them. I'm going to go ahead and say its pretty objective to say that he has done nothing in his first two years that proves he can't and wont win a championship. You can continue to pretend his performance his first two years points to the fact he has no chance, but history just doesn't agree. Wow, seriously? You're comparing what Saban took over at MSU, or what Harbaugh took over at Standford, to what Riley took over at Nebraska? Nebraska was a 9 win per season team with the exact same talent that Riley took over. At this point, any fewer wins for Riley than 18 is unacceptable. This season the Huskers literally lost every game against a quality opponent (with the arguable exception of Minnesota). To be sitting here at 15-11 after two years is ridiculous...and we all know that should be 14-11 since Nebraska didn't belong in a bowl at 5-7 last season. So now Riley is sitting here at 57%. That's a huge surprise, said nobody with half a clue. He has been coaching for 30 years and has been a .500 coach the entire time. So here he sits at Nebraska as a .500 coach....okay .576 but it's right around where he has been his entire career. No surprises here. Oh yes seriously, I am comparing those two head coach's at two different programs to Mike Riley in their first two years. And I am sorry to say it but Nebraska has been nothing special for a long time so try not to be so shocked I could compare those two programs to us. There is of course an imbalance between Nebraska where Riley got them, and the other two programs no doubt about it. They are two of the greatest coach's ever however, so even with a disadvantage it seems ok to me to pit Riley against them. Everyone here is still upset about the blowouts and I get it. As I keep saying I'm not here preaching how amazing Riley is and he is the next Saban. I'm just saying its a bit early to completely write him off as a head coach. The reactions i'm getting are that I am unreasonable, which is why I point out a few of the greatest coaches and how their first two years at a major program went. I did it to illustrate sometimes coaches need more than two years, not for any other point. Plenty of coaches have had tons of success their first two years, and we all know it. Like it or not we are all getting another year of Riley. I would just prefer to be optimistic leading into it. I still think there's a chance for a big turn around next year. Yeah, well...you go ahead and try to be optimistic, I'm going to choose reality. Riley is a .500 coach. He has always been a .500 coach. There is no indication that anything other than a weak schedule will change that. And any hope that he can compete against the likes of Harbaugh and Meyer is just fantasy. You aren't choosing reality, I just showed you in reality that amazing coaches have started off worse than Riley and it obviously all worked out. You are choosing to say Mike Riley has no chance without acknowledging that Riley has done some great things in his career and even here. That's pessimism my friend.

Before Harbaugh was hired for the 2007 season, Stanford had the #59 (2006), #25 (2005), and #60 (2004) classes, or a #48 average. They just came off a 1-11 season, where 9 of those 11 losses were blowouts. He came in and they immediately improved, and then improved again, and then improved again, and finally improved again before he was hired away. The situation Harbaugh inherited at Stanford and improvement he consistently made there is nothing like Riley at Nebraska. And anyone who says "he's done well all things considered to this point" after a losing season and the curbstompings we've encountered is also not being objective. Ok that's my bad, so not 40, number 48. I used rivals and 247 in combination and made that mistake. So those 8 places represent a whirlwind of difference in your opinion? Jim Harbaugh is an elite Coach at both the college and NFL level. He took over a team with a talent level within the same ballpark as Riley did in the cupboards. He proceeded to win 4 games, then 5 games, then 8 games. He didn't surpass Mike Riley's 1st season win total until his 3rd year. "He inherited a team with a 1 win record" you say, so is he from an objective point of view allowed a couple bad seasons? You prove my point in that sentence. It is of course relevant what the previous coach leaves behind in culture and talent, and that of course plays into Riley's losing season and blowouts. You know what Harbaugh didn't inherit Qmany? A defense that gave up an NCAA record breaking amount of yards rushing in a game, a team accustomed to it's coach receiving penalties and being broadcast throwing fits on the sideline, a team that was pulled aside by the previous coach and told the AD was a p*ssy and they should transfer. Lets be even more objective just to crush your point a little further. Nebraska is the first Major college football program that Riley has coached at. I want to note that I don't count Oregon State due to lack of resources, and unbelievably bad tradition. When he took over at Oregon State, the beavers hadn't been to a bowl game since 1966. There are very few power 5 teams as historically bad as Oregon State. Let's take a look at some of the best coaches in the current era of college football and their record in their first 2 seasons as a head coach of a Major program. Mike Riley- Nebraska- (15-10)- 60% Nick Saban- Michigan State- (12-11-1)- 50% Jim Harbaugh- Stanford- (9-15)- 37.5% Urban Meyer- Utah- (22-2)- 92% Dabo Swinney- Clemson- (13-8)- 62% So lets see, among 4 of the best active College Football Coaches Mike Riley ranks better or about the same as 3 of them. I'm going to go ahead and say its pretty objective to say that he has done nothing in his first two years that proves he can't and wont win a championship. You can continue to pretend his performance his first two years points to the fact he has no chance, but history just doesn't agree. Wow, seriously? You're comparing what Saban took over at MSU, or what Harbaugh took over at Standford, to what Riley took over at Nebraska? Nebraska was a 9 win per season team with the exact same talent that Riley took over. At this point, any fewer wins for Riley than 18 is unacceptable. This season the Huskers literally lost every game against a quality opponent (with the arguable exception of Minnesota). To be sitting here at 15-11 after two years is ridiculous...and we all know that should be 14-11 since Nebraska didn't belong in a bowl at 5-7 last season. So now Riley is sitting here at 57%. That's a huge surprise, said nobody with half a clue. He has been coaching for 30 years and has been a .500 coach the entire time. So here he sits at Nebraska as a .500 coach....okay .576 but it's right around where he has been his entire career. No surprises here. Oh yes seriously, I am comparing those two head coach's at two different programs to Mike Riley in their first two years. And I am sorry to say it but Nebraska has been nothing special for a long time so try not to be so shocked I could compare those two programs to us. There is of course an imbalance between Nebraska where Riley got them, and the other two programs no doubt about it. They are two of the greatest coach's ever however, so even with a disadvantage it seems ok to me to pit Riley against them. Everyone here is still upset about the blowouts and I get it. As I keep saying I'm not here preaching how amazing Riley is and he is the next Saban. I'm just saying its a bit early to completely write him off as a head coach. The reactions i'm getting are that I am unreasonable, which is why I point out a few of the greatest coaches and how their first two years at a major program went. I did it to illustrate sometimes coaches need more than two years, not for any other point. Plenty of coaches have had tons of success their first two years, and we all know it. Like it or not we are all getting another year of Riley. I would just prefer to be optimistic leading into it. I still think there's a chance for a big turn around next year.

There is some truth to this, it's only been one class though and it was 25th which is decent. Pelini was only top 25 in recruiting classes (17) in one of his last 3 seasons though. Riley definitely needs to finish this year's class well.

Just searched, this is the very first thread about a blow out bowl loss contributing to Riley only getting one more year. Perhaps it's the first with this title, but you'll find the exact conversation and debate in any of the following threads (and these are just the ones that have activity this week): http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81913-good-grief/ http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81992-eichorst-statement-about-football-program/page-3&do=findComment&comment=1791131 http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81985-we-have-a-longs-ways-to-go/ http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81969-hot-seat/ http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81922-what-bo-pelini-taking-ysu-to-a-title-game-means-for-nu/ http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81960-best-worse-case-scenerio-2017/ http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81634-what-must-the-2017-team-do/ http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/81954-blackshirts-made-progress-still-have-work-to-do/ Yeah, its the first with this title and the first one centered around our bowl game performance. Using your logic we should never talk about Mike Riley as a head coach at all because "Its just beating a dead horse". I could show you a million threads that mention that subject, does it mean we can't talk about it? We should probably stop bringing up our 5 national titles as well huh NM? Can't be talking about those in different threads. If you could actually just write-up what subjects haven't been covered before more than once we can all go ahead and just consult your list prior to posting. Great work

Just searched, this is the very first thread about a blow out bowl loss contributing to Riley only getting one more year.

Its 14-0 in the first quarter and Ryker just got sacked. It appears another blowout is imminent, and I have gathered many people on this board are already done with Riley. I have been pretty clear that I still am optimistic, and this game doesn't change that a whole lot. Regardless of whether Riley is the real deal or is not, there is a bright side. After a blowout bowl loss (not completed but likely) we can all now take solace that Riley will have likely only one last year to turn this thing around completely and start impressing. Next year we will get to watch a QB battle like one we haven't seen in 8 years, and we will get to learn Riley's fate. So hold on tight Husker fans, I don't think we will have to wait long for a conclusion (not like Pelini). Eichorst fired Pelini stating specifically blowouts as a reason, and here we are with 2 (3?). He will be forced into action if Riley doesn't dramatically turn it around. Does the board agree? Only one more year to find out Riley's fate?

Good point, the reason is he coached at one of the worst Div.1A programs in history. While he was there he got them to their first bowl game since 1965 (he took them to 9), they were ranked in the top 25 8 of the 14 seasons, and finished ranked in the top 25 4 times. His bowl record was 7-2. How do good football fans look at Mike Riley's record at Oregon State being .500 and just ignore all that he accomplished? This guy is a good coach, i'm not saying hes our savior and the next Tom Osborne. He definitely feels a lot better than Callahan and Pelini. I love how in his second year after installing a completely different offensive and defensive system he had an almost spot on "Pelini" season (9-4, 2 Blowout Losses) and somehow he is worse than Pelini. He did that with Pelini's players, and Pelini's roster depth. Obviously there is a correlation.

I cant tell if this was a response to my post or another, I definitely didn't mention anything about Riley's experience making him a good hire. I do stand by the point I made, Riley's first two year record in no way means we should be freaking out right now. It's in line with the first two years of some of the greatest coach's of all time, that's a fact. Teachercd, Riley definitely took over a team with a better winning average than any of the other Coach's I mentioned. I'm not sure what that is supposed to change about my point though, the first two years are a rebuilding and changing time for every coach regardless of the previous years for the program. All these coaches had the same job, to tear down the previous regimes culture and install their own. A difficult task indeed. I simply wanted to show you how some of the greatest coach's around had fared in their first two years, to point out Mike Riley isn't far off the mark. We can talk wins and losses all day and end up with the same argument over and over again. The fact is Mike Riley's first two year record does not bare any significant evidence he is an incapable coach. Next year will certainly be different though.

Before Harbaugh was hired for the 2007 season, Stanford had the #59 (2006), #25 (2005), and #60 (2004) classes, or a #48 average. They just came off a 1-11 season, where 9 of those 11 losses were blowouts. He came in and they immediately improved, and then improved again, and then improved again, and finally improved again before he was hired away. The situation Harbaugh inherited at Stanford and improvement he consistently made there is nothing like Riley at Nebraska. And anyone who says "he's done well all things considered to this point" after a losing season and the curbstompings we've encountered is also not being objective. Ok that's my bad, so not 40, number 48. I used rivals and 247 in combination and made that mistake. So those 8 places represent a whirlwind of difference in your opinion? Jim Harbaugh is an elite Coach at both the college and NFL level. He took over a team with a talent level within the same ballpark as Riley did in the cupboards. He proceeded to win 4 games, then 5 games, then 8 games. He didn't surpass Mike Riley's 1st season win total until his 3rd year. "He inherited a team with a 1 win record" you say, so is he from an objective point of view allowed a couple bad seasons? You prove my point in that sentence. It is of course relevant what the previous coach leaves behind in culture and talent, and that of course plays into Riley's losing season and blowouts. You know what Harbaugh didn't inherit Qmany? A defense that gave up an NCAA record breaking amount of yards rushing in a game, a team accustomed to it's coach receiving penalties and being broadcast throwing fits on the sideline, a team that was pulled aside by the previous coach and told the AD was a p*ssy and they should transfer. Lets be even more objective just to crush your point a little further. Nebraska is the first Major college football program that Riley has coached at. I want to note that I don't count Oregon State due to lack of resources, and unbelievably bad tradition. When he took over at Oregon State, the beavers hadn't been to a bowl game since 1966. There are very few power 5 teams as historically bad as Oregon State. Let's take a look at some of the best coaches in the current era of college football and their record in their first 2 seasons as a head coach of a Major program. Mike Riley- Nebraska- (15-10)- 60% Nick Saban- Michigan State- (12-11-1)- 50% Jim Harbaugh- Stanford- (9-15)- 37.5% Urban Meyer- Utah- (22-2)- 92% Dabo Swinney- Clemson- (13-8)- 62% So lets see, among 4 of the best active College Football Coaches Mike Riley ranks better or about the same as 3 of them. I'm going to go ahead and say its pretty objective to say that he has done nothing in his first two years that proves he can't and wont win a championship. You can continue to pretend his performance his first two years points to the fact he has no chance, but history just doesn't agree.

If you want to evaluate a coach's first 2 year performance based on just win-loss record and blowouts then you would have been the guy telling everyone Jim Harbaugh "was never going to get Stanford to a championship" after going 4-8, and 5-7. Stanford of course has nowhere near the tradition as us, but they recruited with an average recruiting ranking of about 40 the three years prior to Harbaugh. Bo Pelini the 3 years prior to Riley had an average recruiting class of 29. Not much of a gap at all, even without considering the point that of the highest ranked players in those three classes (4*) a third of them never even played meaningful snaps for the Huskers. All I'm trying to say is we need to give Riley more time, and honestly I think hes done well all things considered to this point. Anyone saying these first two years are evidence he can't get the job done is probably just a worried fan not being objective, which I can be at times as well.

In recruiting rankings Nebraska consistently has an edge, no doubt about it. So why would Iowa beat us by 30? Is it because the Huskers are cursed? Is it because Bo Pelini was our only chance? Is it because Mike Riley has a career .500 record? It's most likely because recruiting rankings are proven to be accurate, for teams in the top 10 positions. After that recruiting rankings are much less reliable. They only account for individual talent within a class, with nothing to say for: recruiting needed positions, player attitude/work ethic, depth acquired, system fit, team chemistry. This years talent and depth are all on Pelini. He did a terrible job assessing the teams recruiting needs, and attracting talented young men to Lincoln with good attitudes. This is why this years Draft output will be tied for the worst in 8 years. Our best player didn't even bother to pass his classes so he could play in a bowl. Say what you want about this season, Riley got us (atleast) 9 wins with an average at best talent team with poor depth. As well as a QB that should not be starting as a QB in power 5 football.

Gerry was a beast, and made a ton of plays for Nebraska. He will get his looks in the NFL but he isn't an elite prospect due to some physical limitations. Lamar Jackson? he could be an elite NFL prospect.

I didn't know we had so much musical talent at Nebraska.

We were one win (overtime loss to Wisconsin) away from playing in the title game this year. This was the a second year of a new system, with a Husker team that will probably end up tied for the least talented (in terms of draft output) in the last 8 Years. I think that any objective analysis of this team would be that we should contend for a B1G championship birth next year with what we return.

This is a great topic imo. If we can't compete in local area talent (which we won't) we have to be different absolutely. Not by running gimmicky offenses though, in the way we evaluate and recruit prospects. We have to do what Wisconsin seems to do year in and out, take 2 and 3 star prospects and develop them into all conference players. That along side our brand being able to grab 4 star and the occasional 5 star and we will be talking championships.

There could definitely be a case made for the Oline. Your opinion is understandable.

Colorado, yeah a lot of blame is being put on TA. This is because he was a quarterback who was a terrible passer. We aren't running the option like we used to, we run an offense that requires passing to be effective like most major programs in the NCAA power 5. He again should and will be a celebrated Husker for the rest of his days, but he was the biggest problem with our offense this year no doubt. Your point is true though, Langsdorf really threw out a lot of the playbook to prevent the 5 interception games. That just illustrates to me more how hard it was to run an offense with Tommy as a QB. They made the playbook ultra vanilla and he finished one of the worst in completion percentage. I'm with Langsdorf. If it's between a inept offense leaning on the defense or 5 interception games I have to go with the first option.

NUance here you go - https://www.profootballfocus.com/college-football-7-stats-to-know-about-the-undefeated-nebraska-cornhuskers/ That's correct, the rankings were passer rating. What's interesting is he was actually ranked the worst, and the rankings were when we were undefeated. This means at his best this season he was the worst Passer in one of the weaker Power 5 QB conferences. I think that illustrates even further how bad the QB situation was this year. 9 wins was a lot to ask and we got it.