LaunchCode

44 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

Or maybe there's more to it than just the stats you chose to look at.

 

We out-gained Colorado by 170 yards.  BYU out-gained us by 66 yards

We out-rushed Colorado by 285 yards.  BYU out-rushed us by 6 yards

Against Colorado we averaged 6.8 yards per play.  Against BYU we averaged 5.7 yards per play

Against Colorado we completed 65.5% of our passes.  Against BYU we completed 58.5% of our passes

Against Colorado we had 7 sacks.  Against BYU we had 3 sacks

Against Colorado our starting QB went down with injury when we could have iced the game with a couple more first downs.  Our starting QB played the entire game against BYU.

 

So maybe - just maybe - despite the stats that you chose to point out that make the games seem fairly equal, the fact is that we were actually significantly better than those stats - and the final score - indicate this time around.

I wasn't trying to make the games "seem fairly equal".  The final score and the L in the loss column are identical.  Can you get more equal than that.   

As for dissecting or cherry picking stats let me ask you this.  Would you honestly prefer our stat line over CU's from Saturday?  Me, I'll take CU's "lesser" stats and the WIN.

17 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

You might not be making the point you think you're making.

 

The results of both games were pretty much identical - giving up what should have been a sealed-up win late in the fourth quarter.

 

But the trajectory of the two teams after both of their first games look very different. 

*Edit* Specifically, in 2015 you had a QB that (I'm really sorry to say) had already reached his potential. You had a staff that had no interest in pushing the players as well as possible in the realm of strength & conditioning. And you had a head coach that really didn't have that competitive drive to be the best there is. And I'm not just saying that in hindsight; I'm talking about the attitude towards winning games that Riley had going into that first season.

At any rate...that's all water under the bridge at this point. Shame on me for talking about past coaches.  

Well it's certainly possible to take an additional point from my post, however the point I was making was made otherwise you wouldn't have felt the need for your first sentence above. 

As for the trajectory, that's yet to be determined. Assume you predicted a win over CU and not a loss?  

TA was not a good fit for MR's system.  Martinez is a perfect fit for SF's and result was the same.   I'll repeat, no matter the results, give it time to develop and don't set the bar and expectations so high out of the gate.

MR's first game a 33-28 loss to BYU on a Hail Mary, -1 in turnovers with 90 yards in penalties

SF's first game a 33-28 loss to CU on a long pass,  -3 in turnovers with 95 yards in penalties

One thing I learned; different coaches, different year, nearly identical results.

I will say the same thing I stated during MR's tenure, and Moose basically endorsed this sentiment with SF's contract, a coach needs a full recruiting cycle to establish his program.  

The other thing I learned.  When fans like the coach, player mistakes and lack of discipline are a player problem.  When fans aren't a fan of the coach, player mistakes and lack of discipline are a sign of bad coaching and conditioning.

Give Frost the time and support MR didn't get before raking him over the coals.

I like the message.  Tunnel walk music is in my opinion about building excitement and getting the fans fired up to start the game.  Maybe come together won't accomplish that as well, but if it helps in the slightest of ways to focus the players on a united purpose and leads to better outcomes that's a trade off well worth making.  My 2 cents.

On 4/26/2018 at 6:37 AM, ColoradoHusk said:

The hardest thing to do with kids is to teach them how to use their feet and legs when they throw the ball.  I help coach youth baseball and all the kids with "strong arms" don't want to use their legs and core when they throw the ball.  They want to stand flat footed and whip the ball with their arm.  This causes inaccurate throws and arm trouble.  I am sure a lot of QB coaches have to deal with this when they deal with young QB's.

Plus 100 for youth baseball players.  The kids who had the strongest arms in grade school are the last ones to learn how to use their lower half in middle school.  A big part of the problem is they were rewarded with compliments for so long for throwing the ball hard with just their arm.  All that positive reinforcement and muscle memory is hard to correct and takes a lot of focused coaching and good reps. 

One thing I have noticed in the last 10 years or so is some high school coaches, probably at the demands of the QB's dad/mom, are allowing kids to throw off their back foot as a means of not putting the front leg/knee in jeopardy of getting hit during the follow through motion.  That certainly is a big potential risk when throwing with proper mechanics and why you see more and more pocket passers wearing a knee brace on front leg. 

1 hour ago, Caliborn72 said:

Their DC was a stud, no question. I don’t think their OC has done anything really though and I’m surprised he got another Power-5 job as a coordinator. I didn’t realize they lost him but that might be an upgrade for all I know, they finished pretty low in offensive ranks last year.

 

I don’t know enough about them to say definitively one way or the other. I do think they have a pretty good head coach - I knew about him back when he was coaching in California and I have been hoping someone else would hire him away so I could cheer for him again. That all said, I’m not trying to compliment Colorado as much as I’m saying it would be a good, early season win for our new staff. Looking forward to kicking their teeth in!

I agree, CU would definitely qualify as a very solid win.  I actually wish we could schedule more games against similar caliber power 5 teams.  I don't like playing non-power-5 fbs teams.

They generally have some pretty good athletes and in some cases great coaching.  The added motivation of beating a P5 opponent seems to generate extremely high efforts from them. 

59 minutes ago, Caliborn72 said:

I actually think Colorado will end up being a pretty good OOC win for us from a national perspective next year. They won 10 games two years ago with really bad recruiting classes and have since upgraded that from looking at Rivals and 247. I think they’ll beat up the teams in their bad conference and end up with like 8 wins and it will help our playoff bid  I’ll be at the game.

CU lost both coordinators from the 2016 10 win season.  OC is now at Oregon State and DC at Oregon where he is the highest paid DC in the country I believe, something ridiculous like 1.7 million.

We should win that game easily.  With all the young players who saw the field last year I expect a significant amount of growth in this team going into 2018 season.  I wouldn't say that normally in a year that our system is changing, however SF's system is much simpler than our last so the learning curve is virtually eliminated as evidenced by the rapid turnaround at UCF.

Thanks to MR's recruiting we have several exciting young players for SF to work with.    

32 minutes ago, Nebfanatic said:

Wrong.

1) 5 million a year is the going rate of a quality football coach these days. We weren't getting a quality coach here for anything less than 4 Mil. 

2) 5 million a year is peanuts compared to NUAD annual revenue. This contract will in no way cripple N football.

At the time it was signed it was more than all but two B1G coaches.  Chryst, Fitzgerald, Ferentz, and Dantonia are all quality coaches and don't have as lucrative a contract.  7 years is a sign Moos believes it's going to take some time for a new coach to install and build his program and I agree with him.

What I meant by crippling N football if this doesn't workout for whatever reason was not entirely about the money aspect.  I'm certainly hoping things do work out, but if they don't the psychological blow to the program, fans, and boosters of shooting for the moon and getting the guy we wanted and then seeing it not workout will be a hard blow to overcome. You're right N could afford the buyout and a new coaches salary  as things stand today, but if SF doesn't succeed I'm afraid the toll that will take on the program will be significant in more respects than can be quantified at the moment. 

44 minutes ago, HuskerNBigD said:

You're still wrong. 

The real story here is, few are questioning, or complaining about the fact our newly hired coach was given a 7 year contract at 5 million a year which is the 3rd highest salary in the B1G.

So if you're crying over a couple hundred thousand dollars a year(we may or may not be overpaying MR), and yet not infuriated that we  just entered into an all or nothing deal that will cripple N football if it doesn't work out then it's obvious your true concern is NOT about the money.  It's one thing to be optimistic and confident in SF, entirely another from a business standpoint to bet the farm on it. 

This thread cracks me up.  So many people fired up and demanding action without even questioning or wanting to know what all the facts of the matter are.  Good lord I hope I"m never wrongly accused of a crime and end up with a jury who decides innocence and guilt before the testimony even begins. 

.

MR doesn't use an agent, if he was trying to milk dollars from anyone he'd have an agent.  He also wouldn't have stayed at OSU as long as he did when better more lucrative offers came his way if he put that high a priority on money.  I'm willing to bet he's had communication with N during this process and has no problem with setting an offset for his N contract at a reasonable salary amount for his new position something like 250k even though he's getting paid 50K. 

That said, lets be clear here, it wasn't MR who broke the contract in the first place, it was N who broke it by not honoring the specified contractual period he was to be HC, a time period both agreed upon when signing the contract.  The contract is there to protect both parties.  Once Nebraska decided not to live up to their end of the contract they knew the consequences and the price tag and now need to live up to what they agreed upon. 

41 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

 

Guys, the lowest paid assistant coach at oregon state last year was 200,004 Cory Hall. So how do we explain that. I dont care where they compare to Ohio State or Maryland. Facts say their lowest paid guy last year was 200k. 

I think Corey Hall was their interim HC after Gary Anderson quit mid season so 200k for an interim HC seems pretty low.

Bottom line though, as already pointed out, we don't have all the details and are jumping to conclusions.  It could very well be that MR and N have agreed to an offset that is higher than the 50K he's accepted from OSU.  Until we find that out it's all hot air, but that's what we do on message boards, take a fraction of the story an run with it : )

48 minutes ago, runningblind said:

You're really going to compare Ohio State, maybe the highest salary example, to the average in all of college football?  And she is the one who doesn't understand?

tOSU's athletic revenue is nearly $100,000,000 more than OSU's. 

The latest figures I can find from USA Today show only one Power 5 conference school with lower revenue than Oregon State and that would be the program our AD came from.  So if you're going to look at average salaries, realize Oregon State's revenue is closer to Central Florida's than Marylands'.

14 hours ago, MichiganDad3 said:

I don't understand the negativity either. Is is especially puzzling given that so many were so sure MR would bring us conference titles .

In Frost's intro press conference he made some telling comments I thought.  Said TO had been advising him that the pieces to win were not in place until after Moos and some other changes had been made.  SF said that N now had the right pieces in place to succeed and the timing was right. 

If TO was telling him the time wasn't right prior to Moos's hire, just how bad were things behind the scenes?  How hamstrung was MR from doing his job the way he wanted to?  Will we ever know if Diaco was forced on MR after a 9 win season.  Yes we played a lot of youngsters this year on D, but would the D have performed at a much higher level had their been continuity in the system?  

In any event timing is everything.  It remains to be seen how the players respond, but from the administration to the fans, SF will have a lot more support from day 1 than his predecessor and that should make a difficult job easier.  The one thing I think gets overlooked though is the level of coaching in the B1G compared to the AAC.  All it takes is for one coaching staff to figure out a way to stop you, or expose your weaknesses and others will copy it.  Your flaws are much more likely to be exploited.  Going up against a much higher level of coaching week in and week out with good players at their disposal is a much tougher road than what he had in the AAC. 

. 

11 hours ago, Mavric said:

I realize not everyone goes into the Recruiting Forum but the Huskers put on quite an event for in-state kids this evening.  A bunch of walk-on offers went out and a few accepted already.  Here's a link to the thread.  By the way, by Sean Callahan's calculations, Frost has spent over 20 hours in a plane the last three days.  All while conducting two practices and making multiple in-home visits.

 

 

Great idea, I hope they do a few of these around the state for the kids who can't get to Lincoln with short notice on a Wednesday night.

1 hour ago, Nebhawk said:

If we are comparing apples to oranges, I guess all applies here.  Seriously though, Riley didn't rrecruit B1G talent.  He was recruiting Pac 12 talent and trying to make them B1G players.  No matter.  Systems are systems.  With any system, you need players with speed.  We haven't had speed on this campus for years.  When we play the Top 15 teams in the nation, we get beat because we don't have comparable speed on both sides of the ball.  This is all about to change.  Frosty is recruiting speed and athletes who have speed.  Coaches can find a spot for a player who can fly.

That doesn't jive at all with the fact so many players in MR's last two classes had multiple BIG offers?   

Tyjon Lindsey's shuttle time in the sparq challenge would have been the 2nd fastest in the nfl combines.  Seems we do have speed and since he was also originally committed to Ohio State, we have B1G players as well.  The last two classes were full of them based on the number of other B1G offers.

8 hours ago, TAKODA said:

I am impressed with the thought process by all here in this thread. Much appreciated as I was hoping that would be the case, rather than the same old rhetoric  being repeated that we have heard from past leadership (titles, championships, will not gravitate towards mediocrity). We all listened to that hype with each coach an AD, and hoped they would have the answers and results they touted. However, deep inside of us all,  most of us felt that our previous coaching selections wouldn’t know the ‘Nebraska Way’ if it bit them in the bum. Carry on with your thoughts. Like someone said, it will be interesting to revisit this thread next year at this time. Wish there was a way to +1 a large group here.

 

The comments so far, are much more rational than those in our previous or should I say recent, coaching changes. 

 

Therefore, SF has already had a successful impact on Husker Football. GBR!

 

Quick edit: I am not saying we shouldn’t have high expectations, just rational ones in a timely manner!

This thread got me thinking about what SF's incoming strategy should be.  Maybe this would be better as the start of a new topic.

Should he do everything he can to win next year by adapting his system to the players on the roster even if that means delaying the longer term development of his system/program?  Or should he keep an eye on the longer range goal of winning the division and conference and with that in mind not waste a season holding back on the full implementation of his system even if the players he has don't fit it right now.  Should he put all other considerations aside and get it off the ground and running right off the bat so when he does bring in his guys, everything is already in place and set to blast off.

Personally I think this was MR's biggest mistakes.  I think he tried to bridge the gap with the older players and limiting the full implementation of his system.  When he could have thrown a bunch of the young guys out on the field instead right from the get go, taken a lot of heat for it, but then in year three had a veteran group of players in his system who likely would have had a lot of success and going into the 4th year the buildup and excitement would completely override all the criticism he would have received gutting it out the first two. 

UCF conference Rank / N's conference rank

1st in passing offense / 2nd in passing offense

6th in rushing offense / 13th in rushing offense

4th in rushing defense / 13th in rushing D

6th in passing defense / 11th in passing D

Installing entirely new systems on both sides of the ball with players who were not recruited to fit those systems is not an ideal formula for winning a lot of games.

I expect our run game to be a focus and our rank to improve and be among the top 8, passing to hold steady in top 3.  Rushing D improve to top 7, passing D to stay same.

I will trade wins next year for building a strong running game and rushing D foundation if that's what it takes.

4 hours ago, Moiraine said:

 

 

 

There aren't any problems with my post, seeing as I wasn't claiming it was a direct comparison to Michigan. I didn't even talk about Harbaugh. I just gave his class rankings in response to someone else's post.

 

I said (didn't imply) we lost recruits due to a crappy season. Your reply doesn't refute that. There were rumors of Riley's firing because of the crappy season.

If you've ever topped a ball badly in front of a lot of people on the tee, you know how I feel right now.  I misread sorry.

3 hours ago, Moiraine said:

50th in 2015
4th in 2016

4th in 2017

Mike Riley's 1st class was ranked 31st. But he had the benefit of not having a bunch of the previous coach's players dropping off during the season due to a crappy season.

This is also a different situation because of the early signing period. I think that puts us further behind. We have some players who want to sign in December who won't even listen to new teams at this point.

There are a few problems with your post.  First off, Harbuagh didn't get named coach until the end of December.  Second he wasn't coming from another college job where he had already been out recruiting and building relationships, he was coming from the nfl with zero knowledge about that years high school prospects.

Second you imply we had a bunch of players decommit due to a bad season.  I think you'll find it had little to do with our record and a lot more to do with the rumors the guy recruiting them wasn't going to be here.  If it was simply about record then SF should be pulling guys in right and left correct? 

The one thing SF has going for him Harbaugh didn't, is that he and his staff have been on the recruiting trail since last year's class was finalized, they know the prospects out there, and should have a lot of good relationships built up with high school coaches and players.  I expect we'll see a strong finish before it's over.   That said, not sure there's good evidence one way or the other of how good his staff is at recruiting and we still may not know when this class is done.

57 minutes ago, RedDenver said:

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, so let me pose the question to you. Is it possible for the Huskers to win the B1G multiple times in a decade without consistent top 18 recruiting classes? For example, if the Huskers had recruiting classes ranked #20 every year, it would be impossible to win the conference more than once every ten years.

I never made the argument we needed classes ranked inside a certain range.  Rankings can also be misleading in a lot of ways.  A team could have a highly rated class, but not fill any of the position needs they have.  That's probably an extreme example however not so uncommon for classes to miss on positions where depth is needed the most.  Outside of QB when we played Wiscy I'm not sure there were any positions I saw we had a clear talent advantage.  Not sure what class rank will be required, but we have some work to do just to be on par with them up front.

2 hours ago, RedDenver said:

 

You guys have to be joking. Someone says, and I quote, "The only way we will be winning this conference multiple times in a decade is if we are consistently pulling top 15-18 recruiting classes." I show a counter example from the last decade, and that's not enough to say that the quoted statement is false? Another team can do it but Nebraska can't? Or somehow another team being an outlier means it didn't happen?

 

Are you two really signing on to the notion that the only way Nebraska can win the conference multiple times in a decade is consistently pulling top 15-18 recruiting classes?

What you showed is an example of a team we would have to beat to accomplish what they've accomplished in the past.  They are also one of the 6 founding members of what is now the BIG 10 and don't think for a minute that doesn't matters in a lot of ways.  We're the Johnny come lately in comparison. 

I'm not trying to be confrontational and hope you don't take it that way.  I may be wrong, and you may disagree and be right, however I think we will need to be better than Wisconsin not just equal to even have a chance at a division title.  To win the conference, barring some strange circumstances, I think we will need to be significantly better talent wise.

1 hour ago, RedDenver said:

 

Wisconsin has won the B1G three times in the last decade; therefore, the statement "The only way we will be winning this conference multiple times in a decade is if we are consistently pulling top 15-18 recruiting classes." is provably false. I guess @Dr. Strangelove is right, not debatable.

Actually that doesn't make any sense at all. 

We are not Wisconsin.  We would need to beat Wisconsin before getting a chance to play for the conference championship. What Wisconsin, a longtime and connected member in the Big 10 has accomplished, is no guarantee of what we can accomplish if we were even with them in talent.  We don't get the benefit of calls in head to head games, as was easily identifiable this year, so we actually need to be quite a bit better than Wisconsin just to win the division let alone the conference.  Matching their talent is a formula for letdown.

42 minutes ago, Making Chimichangas said:

 

I'm not saying recruiting isn't important.

I'm not saying Nebraska shouldn't be going after the best talent they can.

 

 

What I am saying is that: a) recruiting rankings are just a guess, b) where a player is "ranked" is largely dependent on what part of the country he lives in and who is recruiting him, and c) the system is corrupted by players who can buy higher star ratings.

 

As to the part in bold...here's how that works: (This is exactly what happened at Wisconsin) A team has a recruiting class ranked 60th.  This team plays opponents tough.  As the seasons go by, and they start consistently winning 10, 11, and (this year) 12 games in a season, their team class rankings rise dramatically from the 60's into 15th nationally range.  Why, what a coincidence that Wisconsin's "class ranking" has risen to match their on the field performance, despite recruiting the exact same types of players.

 

Or...

 

Recruiting services see Alabama, Ohio State, Clemson, etc is interested in a kid.  Because of those schools immense on the field successes, those kids are by default going to be some of the highest rated players nationally because recruiting sites know that those coaching staffs are pretty darn good evaluators of talent.  Also, where a player is "ranked" by position and nationally: 1st, 2nd, 3rd,...12th,...35th, etc is largely dependent on who is offering them.  And, since recruiting targets are often known 2-3 years in advance of them signing with a particular team, recruiting sites have lots of time to adjust their player rankings, to slide them up or down, to fit their greedy, pay us for our opinion, self-serving narrative.

 

In summary, recruiting rankings are literally nothing more than someone's opinion and yet there are extremely intelligent folks who take these opinions as holy writ.

 

You watch, if Coach Frost and Nebraska has the kind of on-field success I think they will, you'll see a "shocking" rise in Nebraska's recruiting class rankings--despite Nebraska recruiting the same types of players to fit Frost's system.  Because as Nebraska has on field success, kids that we're interested in will start to be rated higher.  Say Nebraska is going after a 3* who is  rated 5.6 or 81.  With future on field success, that 3* 5.6 or 81rated kid suddenly "jumps" to a 5.8 or 91 rating.  We're talking decimals here, but those decimals mean the difference between a 50th rated class and 15th rated class, especially if we're factoring it out over a class of 22-25 prospects.

 

   

You make some good points, especially about the region an athlete being from impacting their recruiting rank.  I would add the position they play has an impact too and if they're also from an outlying location it's a double hit.  Ranking a 3 star vs 4 star Olinemen is much more difficult than a RB, WR, or LB especially if they're from a rural area and don't attend any camps.

For those two reasons I don't buy Wisconsin's class ranking as being very accurate.  They pull a lot of in state O and D-linemen who are undervalued by the services because they aren't being evaluated the same as athletes in other areas are.  JJ Watt was a 2 star for example.  Wisconsin does consistently go out and get top rated skill players from TX, FL, GA, etc.. to  at DB, WR, LB, and especially RB to compliment their instate hogs.

3 hours ago, runningblind said:

I think we are on the same page, I just don't put as much stock in ranking numbers as you. It depends on how you use talent, and the schools in the playoff have very good coaching as well. 

 

If it were solely based on numbers where are Tennessee, Michigan, Texas, Florida, etc in the playoff?

It's not SOLELY based on talent numbers.  Whoever said that.

Just like you can NOT make oatmeal cookies with oatmeal alone, you need other ingredients as well, but you absolutely do need oatmeal to make oatmeal cookies.  In other words you can't win a title with talent alone, however there's not much proof you can win one without top rated talent as one of your ingredients either.

It's become harder than ever before in college football to pull off a cinderella season.  More total games in regular season, 12 instead of 11 like before.  9 conference games in the BIG, then if you do win a division you have to play a 13th game against a great team and if you get past that then have to wait for a jury to decide your fate.  Then if that works out you'd have to beat two more great teams.  That really weeds out the over achieving cinderella teams.    

3 hours ago, runningblind said:

Riley was in on all DB and WR's. That is not solely the right type of guys. 

 

 

Last years class 8 line and 3 LB commits, compared to 3 receivers and 1 DB.  The receivers and DB were all four start, maybe that's what you're getting at and not numbers of players?

The 16' class featured 4 star O linemen; Farniok and Raridon, 3 star OL Brokop and Wilson.

I don't see the evidence the O or D line was ignored.  I think we have a lot of young talent on both lines and need to keep adding to it with each class.