LaunchCode

12 hours ago, 3rd and long said:

 

The players buying in wouldn't have stopped a run/pass option call against Illinois (with a QB with a gunslinger mentality and questionable decision making) when one simple run takes care of the clock. 

 

Players buying in wouldn't have changed the fact that we brought no pressure at all, let a QB run around and have time to step into a throw in order to heave it far enough for a fluke to occur against BYU. 

As was clearly covered numerous times after the Illinois game, the play sent in from the sideline was a bootleg with NO pass option attached.  It was run and run only.  If you were under the impression it was a rpo I can see your frustration.  It wasn't, does it change your mind any finding out it wasn't ?

Had everyone given their best effort from day one,  those games don't come down to a "fluke" play.

4 hours ago, lo country said:

 

Dabo built a program quickly and has kept it constant for some years...He took over for Tommy Bowden who had records "comparable" to Bo, in a conference not as tough as the Big XII IMO.......Riley inherited a better "program" than Dabo, but Dabo instilled his culture, buy in and the kids LOVE home (so do the fans)...

 

Dabo was also the lead recruiter of 11 of those kids from the 2008 class and was recognized as one of the top recruiters in the nation....

 

"Riley inherited a better "program" than Dabo"

Clemson had much higher rated talent on the roster and an easier schedule as you point out.

As big if not a bigger factor in determining how fast a new staff can have success is the situation in which they came into power.  Sinney took over a team he already had established relationships with the players and was not only accepted immediately, but embraced.  That's the best possible starting point for a new coach.

MR took over in a much different fashion.  Players have admitted there were those who didn't buy in at the beginning.  That's a much more difficult challenge to overcome than stepping into a locker room where you're already welcome.  If MR had immediate buy in from all the players, would it have made a difference vs BYU, Illinois, and Wisky?  Hard to imagine it wouldn't have.  How much would perceptions be changed right now if they'd won 9 games that first season with wins over Wisky and MSU?

12 hours ago, DrunkOffPunch said:

Swinney is one of the nations best recruiters and a big reason why they had such good classes. He got the interim job over a couple of guys who previously had head coaching experience because of that.

Clemson was recruiting at a high level before Swinney.

16th 2007

14th 2006

15th 2005

Swinney's first full classes:

36th 2009

27th 2010

10th 2011

He didn't win right away with top 15 talent, and he didn't improve recruiting right away either.  In fact there was a very big drop off in recruiting his first couple years as you can see above.  He learned on the job, improved on the field and in recruiting and with time was able to get things headed in the right direction.  The results of his first 3 years were not indicative of where he'd take the program eventually. 

35 minutes ago, El Diaco said:

This sure is a long developing dawn. 16 or so years by my count.

Yes it is, but if we hang the past 15years and counting on every new coach that comes here we'll never have the patience to stand behind one long enough to let him crack the nut. 

39 minutes ago, brophog said:

 

Hiring and firing is all gut. There are all kinds of mistakes in hindsight. I'm, frankly, not interested in "random example to prove a point" because all sides could play that game until the end of time. Would anyone believe me if I told you early on that a coach like Bob Stoops would win only one national title, despite a very productive 18 years? Or that Dean Smith or Tom Osborne would win any titles? You just don't know for sure, so it's a pretty pointless exercise.

 

The best you can do is make an educated guess on if your guy is the right one. I've never felt Riley was the guy if your goal (as was stated) is to exceed that 9 win plateau and win titles. I simply did not, and do not, feel a guy with his track record suddenly becomes that coach. Others disagree, and still others didn't even have a clue who he was (and maybe they still don't). I feel that if your goal is to exceed 9 wins (not a trivial matter) then there is some element of risk. It may take several hirings to get it right. Going from a 9 win standard to 10 sounds like nothing, but each win takes more and more ability; it gets disproportionally harder and harder.

You bring good reason to discussion.  MR may or may not be that guy,  What we know is he's making changes/improvements as needed, works tirelessly, and is completely dedicated to seeing this program improve to conference championship level.  Staying the current course is our quickest path to getting over the hump.   But like you say it's a gamble.  Changing course sets us back another 3 or 4 years.

31 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Funny how you make sure to point out two teams that they blew out to try to discredit some of the wins but neglected to state that some of their losses were to eventual national champion Auburn in overtime, as well as two other Top 25 teams by five and three points and six their seven losses were by a total of 31 points.  That's not a great season but they played respectable.  Not to mention that the actual comparison to our performance this year would be the following year (third full season) when they went 10-4, won the conference and made a New Year's Six game.  Doesn't appear to be the track that we're on.

 

And there are always exceptions to the rule.  For each one example you can site, how many counter-examples do you want to see?  10?  20?  50?  Wouldn't be tough.

With top 15 talent, he coached some good losses .  That's the point you feel I conveniently left out?   

30 minutes ago, El Diaco said:

Possibly but that is not the only standard I apply. This is year 3 and I expect to see some form of progress being made. I cannot in good conscience say that anything I've seen in these first 3 games signifies progress. If there were any bright spots, anything at all, my preference would be to give it more time because staff changes are disruptive and usually add more time to get to where you want to be. Maybe you disagree with me or just aren't as far along in the recognition process as I am. That's fine. I won't be douching up every topic on the board demanding his removal. But yes, I've seen enough to know this dog won't hunt.

I hear you, but keep in mind It's darkest before the dawn.

1 hour ago, El Diaco said:

8 or 9 wins with no ccg appearance is a failure. 9 wins with a good showing or victory in the cig will do the trick.

 

This is year 3, time to do something or move on. 9 meaningless wins didn't satisfy me with Pelini and it won't with MR. He's had his 2 adjustment years.

Swiney's first 3 seasons:

4-3

9-5

6-7 (including wins vs N. Texas and Presbyterian)

Following your satisfaction standards would have cost a National Championship.  Pretty steep price wouldn't you say.    

Swiney also inherited a team that had been bringing in top 15 classes prior to his arrival.  Compared to what MR walked into, shouldn't Swiney's record have been better than MR's?     

59 minutes ago, junior4949 said:

What once might have been a rule in college football probably isn't any longer because that's how much things have changed.  Brian Kelly is setting on an extremely hot seat right now.  By year three, he had Notre Dame playing for a NC.  I just read an article today saying that problems at Notre Dame probably go much deeper than Brian Kelly.  Since Holtz, every coach at Notre Dame has gravitated towards a 60% win/loss record.  While Kelly is around 65% at Notre Dame, a year like last year will definitely put him close.  Kelly's resume is pretty impressive from his to NCs in D2 all the way to his time at Cincinnati where by year four he had them in the top 10 and undefeated before losing in a bowl game.  It was Cincinnati's best year in their football history.  The guy can flat out coach, but it's likely he's gonna get fired by Notre Dame. 

 

While Notre Dame is a bit different than other programs because it's independent, there are other programs going through the same struggles.  Texas is a program struggling right now.  Their struggles began under their NC winning coach.  I highly doubt Mack Brown woke up one day and magically forgot how to coach.  I think Charlie Strong is a pretty good coach, yet he failed to ever post a winning record at Texas.  Will Herman turn things around? 

 

We're witnessing a changing landscape where hiring a successful coach doesn't necessarily translate into success.  Rich Rod was pretty successful at West Virginia where his teams finished in the top 10 his final three years there.  He's posted a 50% win/loss record since.  It's almost like college football has gravitated closer to the NFL where a coach will be a big success one place and not very good at another.  Maybe the big money in college football is changing things?   

Great examples.

MR  is the right man to get it done here at this time.  

1 hour ago, Moiraine said:

If this topic was a joke, it wasn't nearly funny enough to make it worth the time and effort that went into it.

You're discounting the responses it generated.  Pretty funny if you ask me.

51 minutes ago, Pedro Guerrero said:

The true test of how good Lincoln Riley is will come next year when he no longer has maybe the best player in the nation leading his team.

Mayfield looks like Houdini in the pocket.  His ability to extend a play and throw strikes while scrambling is fun to watch. 

OU has been a consistent top 20 recruiter.  That's where we need to go to be relevant again.  MR has done a good job improving our recruiting and while this years class might be smaller and therefor not ranked as high, having six 4 stars(out of ten players committed) is more than several classes ranked in the top 20, including OU and UCLA who are both top 10 right now and only have five 4 stars a piece. 

35 minutes ago, Crusader Husker said:

It just seems to get worse.  I have good friends who are big boosters for Northern Illinois.  They stick with them through thick and thin.  No matter if they win or lose they are supportive of them.  I admire that.  I thought we were those type of fans too?  I guess not.  BTW, my friends are taking my two daughters to the game Saturday.

Don't let a few very vocal message board negative nancy's lead you into believing that's a representation of our great fan base as a whole.  In fact it wouldn't surprise me one bit at all to find out a few of them aren't even Husker fans to begin with. 

14 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

How in the heck do we get away with this alignment?  3rd & 1 and we don't have anyone on the line between the Center's shoulder and a yard outside the tackle?  Somehow we actually managed to stop this.  I'll give credit to Carlos for clogging it up but it's really Freeman that screwed it up for Oregon by running straight ahead instead of where there is an obvious GAPING hole - especially knowing he only needed one yard for a first down.

 

Again, this isn't confusion.  Obviously everyone knew they were supposed to line up where they did.  But wow.  That's not a great way to have success stopping short yardage runs.  You can see the huge hole in the second pic.  Freeman just didn't ... somehow. 

 

 

It's not a mistakes on Freeman's part if he went where the play was designed to go or where we tricked him into going by confusing their read.

I would be more likely to conclude Oregon film study found some tendencies that prompted how we defended this situation.  I would suggest our alignment is in part designed to make it tough on the QB and RB to make their reads and confuse them a bit into running where you want them to run instead of where they might normally run if you lined up in an easy to read traditional alignment. 

Looking at the bottom screen shot it appears to me every gap is defended with an extra defender off the line in the middle to provide support.  I assume the "big" hole you are referring to is boundary side B gap.  If that's the case I would disagree as the defender has outside leverage on the block and could easily defend his gap.  If it's the boundary side A gap the nose is head up on block and can shed to make a tackle as his job description requires.  If you look where the TE sets up after the snap in bottom pic, it's a strong indicator the play was designed to go field side c gap all the way and got blown up with good up field penetration and a solid edge being set outside the tackle.  I can't tell who it is, I think field side middle backer, flies up and sets the edge.  The play side is taken away and backside gaps are all pretty well clogged up.

Thanks for actually providing some real x and o content.  Without knowing all the details we could go back and forth on this with all sorts of assumptions and both be right, wrong, or neither. LOL, but I think I'm right ; )

45 minutes ago, ZRod said:

The n was supposed to be a comma, I didn't hold the button long enougho my phone. And I'm talking about the first game.

 

In a game against Arky st? I think the backups could definitely use the reps to improve those skills.

Seems you're ignoring a big detail from the Arky St. game. The score. 

It also looks like you're suggesting it's more important to give backups learning reps than playing to win?

I respectfully disagree and I'm also still curious what your number of carriers Tre should be limited to is.  I find it odd you have such a strong opinion the coaches gave him way to many, yet don't have a strong opinion on what the number should be. 

1 hour ago, ZRod said:

No, I assume the coaching staff is intelligent enough to think about the big picture. I should know they're not though. I like these guys, and Langs is not a bad OC, but they just lack attention to detail in so many areas. It's a simple thing. Have a guy keep an eye on number of carries and pull him early. RBs don't make it through a whole season without missing some games, we all know that. Son why wouldn't you protect one of your best players, who happens to be a RB, a little better?

Lacking in your post is any mention of other very important details when considering who's in at back like; ball protection, pass blocking ability, receiving out of the backfield, and average yards per carry? 

Tre is averaging 25 carriers through two games.  What's the number you'd like to see?  How many fumbles, missed blocks, less yards per carry, and dropped passes are you willing to live with to get it there?

31 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

The other problem with that is not only watching for the fake but if they're punting from near mid-field a lot it doesn't lead to much chance for returns because they can kick it near the end zone or hang it up high enough for the coverage to get there.

Excellent point, every punt situation is different.  Not all situations are perfect for setting up a return and against at team with the speed Oregon has, it's that much more difficult when the right situation does present itself.    

58 minutes ago, huskerfan120889 said:

7 guys in white are within 10-13 yards of DPE...where there hell is any support for him? Same crap was happening at Oregon. It is stuff like this that makes people's patience wear thin.

Not as thin as if they'd allowed Oregon a first down on a fake punt, something they've been known to do.

Oregon's punt situations:

4th and 3 from Nebraska 45 (fair caught at 5)

4th and 9 from Nebraska 43 (kicked into endzone)

4th and 6 from Oregon 29 (fair catch interference penalty)

4th and 6 from Oregon 43  (pooch 27 yards downed by Oregon)

4th and 14 from Oregon 21 (good blocking, returnable punt)

55 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

They also ran a lot more plays in the 1st half, so you'd want to go by percentage:

1st Quarter: Oregon had 9 rushes and 12 passes (57% passes)

2nd: 11 rush, 13 pass (54%)

3rd: 8 rush, 7 pass (47%)

4th: 16 rush, 1 pass (6%)

 

So 3rd quarter was slightly less than the first half, but the 4th quarter they were clearly try to milk the clock and not throw.

Oregon lost a 31-0 halftime lead to TCU in the 2016 Alamo bowl.  They can thank their lucky stars Saturday's game was at home and not a neutral or away sight otherwise it's a repeat performance. 

When you see a pattern of high and low, makes you wonder what they might be on.

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

So they called 55% passes in the first half.  The fact that they called 33% passes early in the second half is proof to you that nothing changed.

 

OK.

They passed 7 of 17 plays in the third quarter.  That's 42% not 33%.  Seriously, that's a lot of passing for a team "playing it conservative, especially when the second pass of the 3rd quarter was an INT. 

Results of those 7 pass plays: 1 INT 2 Incompletions 4 receptions

35 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

I mean .... I guess I hope they considered us a bit more of a threat to come back from a big deficit than Southern Utah.  So I'm not sure that really carries much weight.

 

Royce Freeman had 11 carries in the first half.  He carried it on four of their first five plays in the second half.  I would say they thought they had a good enough rushing attack - with one of the better back in the nation - that they could still get some yards running the ball and no take as many chances throwing it.  And then after they threw the interception they decided to mainly stick to running it and throwing safe passes instead of pushing it down the field like they did in the first half.

Their second play in the 3rd quarter was a completed pass.

Their 6th offensive play of 3rd quarter was an INT. 

2 of their first 6 plays were passes, certainly not evidence suggesting "they come out conservative".   In fact the score was 28-42 by the ducks second possession of the second half.  Only a two score lead with 9 minutes left in the third and they were trying to salt the game away? lol that doesn't even make sense. 

Two things happened in the second half were N tightened on D and whatever "high" duck players were on in the first half had worn off in the second.

9 hours ago, HuskerJax said:

At least one was on the receiver (right through Morgan's hands bounced to d), one was on the last drive, which was totally a bad throw by him (game decided at that point). I don't really remember the other two to be honest, I went fuzzy and started multitasking to avoid having a stroke 

I think it was the last INT, not 100% sure, the DE hit Lee's arm as he was in the process of throwing the ball which caused the ball to be way off target and an easy pick.

I go back to the first pick, which was not Lee's fault.  That gets caught as it should have been and we're not down 14-0 early.  We then run the ball more and have Oregon's D guessing.  Instead we had to play catch up so they were able to take chances with a big lead, and be more aggressive defensively.

Two things from yesterday.  Riley crushing Meyer in the shoe.

Instead of a 1st and 10 at midfield to open the game, ball goes through hands bounces of facemask right to Duck defender.  I told my my buddies after the ensuing score, that would be the difference in the game.  They gave a lot of sh!t at halftime about that, but turns out at the end of the game spotting them 14-0 lead was 7 to many to overcome.

Down 44-10, what UCLA fan was confident their team would win? 

I bet a lot of aTm fans were feeling pretty good the game was in the bag.  Oooops.