LaunchCode

4 hours ago, jaws said:

Get over it. Some schools do a better job at sending certain position groups to the NFL than others. Do you question a kid for choosing to go to Stanford to get a computer science degree?

I wouldn't anymore than I would question a kid, who's family depends upon him, for shopping the most lucrative college football offer either.

Also, since MR's track record of putting DB's in the leagues is more than solid, your example isn't all that relevant to begin with.   

37 minutes ago, Blackshirt_Revival said:

Once again, the situations and expectations at each program were and are completely different. 

 

Stating that Leach took a dip in year 3 of his tenure at Washington State as some sort of evidence that Moos might or should retain Riley at Nebraska simply because he happened to be the AD there at the time is a spectacular reach at best 

 

Moos hired Mike Leach, for one, so had a vested interest in his success, and their program improved under him the first 2 years of his tenure.  In spite of a dip in year 3 (which still had the team performing at least at or still above the level they had under the previous coach), he has improved since, and evidence existed he would do so, thus the continued faith Moos (correctly) had in Leach.

 

It is a rare situation in that a coach had a setback in year 3 of his tenure (relative to what he had accomplished in years 1 and 2), but still ended up improving the team greatly in succeeding years.  Mike Leach did, but once again, he also had greater success in his first 2 years there than the program had for many years prior.

 

Comparing coaching records is fun, but Mike Riley won 43 conference games in his first 10 years at Oregon State to Mike Leach's 47.  You're (conveniently?) excluding his first 2 years at the program, 1997-1998, where he won 2 conference games total.  Mike Riley also had the benefit of playing one more conference game a year than Mike Leach did from years 6-10 in this specified 10 year window, so he played 5 more conference games than did Mike Leach.  

 

And then there is Mike Riley's 53% win percentage at Oregon State compared to Mike Leach's 66% win percentage at Texas Tech.

 

Washington State has progressed substantially under Mike Leach, while Nebraska has regressed under Mike Riley.

 

There really isn't much more to discuss here.

 

 

 

Again, Leach's success at WSU didn't start until year 4 and beyond.  Year three was a 3-9 nightmare with no evidence the fans could see things would turn around the following year, but they were wrong and things did improve in a big way.

Mark Dantonio's 3rd season produced a 6-7 record, he had back to back 11 wins seasons in years 4 and 5.  Kirk Ferentz won 11 games total over his first three years combined.  He won 11 in year four alone.

As for win percentage comparison, you answered that yourself.  MR only played 3 OOC games a year and happened to have the toughest OOC schedule in the country vs multiple top 10 teams over that time period.  Leach played 4 OOC games every year generally against inferior opponents.  Much easier to boost win percentage playing more games against lessor opponents.  

Before you attempt to suggest that doesn't matter, even now that WSU is playing well, Leach has lost OOC games in the past few years to; Portland State, Nevada, Eastern Washington, Boise, and Rutgers.  None of those teams were ranked.

On 10/31/2017 at 5:24 PM, Mavric said:

 

"but what I hope is that you find it in your heart to understand that I have people that depend on me for their well-being."

I'm not one to make a big deal out of sentences pulled out of context, or read a bunch of things that are not there.  However reading the whole statement in context this sentence really stood out and made me ask what exactly does that mean with regards to choosing Nebraska or somewhere else?  How would that particular decision have an impact on those who depend upon him for their "well-being"?  By well being, does he mean their financial well-being?   I hate to be cynical, but that's the first thought that came to mind.  

The reports he's visiting Bama only strengthen my suspicion. 

Thanks for posting Mavric.

I've been impressed overall with the young players who are seeing the field.  Spielman is a definite bright spot. 

Bryant started off as another bright spot and was a big loss.  Love the effort Ozigbo has been giving lately.  A one two counter punch of Bryant and Ozigbo would be a potent boost to the running game.

11 hours ago, Blackshirt_Revival said:

1. It's not about what expectations get the fans, it's about what meeting them or not meeting them gets the coach. Meeting expectations: more time, raises, prestige, etc. Not meeting expectations: scrutiny, hot seat talks, possibly fired. That's what is meant here by expectations

 

2. Outlier meaning trying to find some rare situation somewhere out there and presenting it as some equivalent situation as evidence that Moos might or should retain Riley, because Mike Leach went 3-9 his 3rd year at Washington State, which is not at all the same thing as RIley being 4-5 in year 3 at Nebraska because...

 

3. Washington State went 9-40 under their previous head coach in 4 years, 30-28 under their coach prior to that in his 5 years there, with his only winning season occuring in his first year which was 2003.  Compare this to Nebraska who went 67-27 in 7 years under their previous head coach (no defense of Bo, mind you), which leads to

 

4. The fact that Leach had a history of making teams consistent winners and competing for conference titles, where Riley has not, and in spite of his bad year there, still had the Cougars performing at a level in year 3 that was at least on-par to where they had before.

 

I see one that trended up, and one that is very clearly trending down with no logical indication at all it will reverse course.  

Looking at what Moos did at his prior job is the exact opposite of a "rare situation somewhere out there".

Leach at TT 47 conference wins in 10 years 2000-2009

MR at OSU 52 conference wins his first 10 years(apples to apples)2003-2012

I think we have different ideas of what "trending up" means.  Leach's first three seasons at WSU:

3-9

6-7

3-9

MR 2-1 vs Leach

Both very good coaches who have proven they can beat more talented teams when their systems and the players to run them are in place.

2 hours ago, Hayseed said:

This thread got me thinking about that cow that can jump over the moon. Why are we shooting rockets up there if we can just load up that cow?

They're bottle rockets.

Gotta put the milk somewhere.

1 hour ago, Mavric said:

 

First - Are expectations at Washington State the same as they are at Nebraska?

 

Second - People like to throw out an outlier here and there as if it means something in the grand scheme.  For each one example there are dozens of counter-examples where it didn't work out.

 

Third - Leach's nine wins in his first two years were as many wins as they had in the four years before he got there.  So I'm somewhat skeptical that there were as many people ready for him to go as you'd like to indicate.

 

Fourth - Even though thery were only 3-9, they were a Top 10 passing team in the country.  It also took a Heisman effort from Marcus Mariotta to keep Wsu from beating then-#2 Oregon.  So there were other signs of hope even if the record didn't show it.

1.  Expectations and a dollar will get you a candy bar at the dollar store.

2.  9 losses is an outlier?  If you're referring to coaches who had trying 3rd seasons and then went onto have a lot of success in the years to come, Leach is hardly the single example or even a rare example.  Installing an entirely new system and fitting players to that system is not a two, or three year job to completion.  Canning a coach right before the fruits of that labor are about to pay off is like brewing a batch of beer and then pouring it out the day before it's ready to drink. 

3.  In year three there absolutely were many detractors and it actually started at the end of year two.  Their bowl loss to Colorado State and his mismanagement of the final minutes of that game which cost them a game they should have won lost any good will he'd built up to that point with many fans.  Ending a season with a bowl loss is deflating even more so when the game is all but locked up and the coach decides to keep passing the ball instead of running the clock down.  Leach took a big hit with fans and local media alike for that game and then followed it up with 9 losses the next season.  There's no reason to be skeptical, you could go ahead and ask Coug fans.

4. Your number four amazes me, because it's you looking at a program you're not attached to emotionally and taking a big picture view.    Be honest, is that something you do with the Nebraska program?  Well plenty of Coug fans certainly couldn't do it with their program at the time.  Instead they lived in the minute and were breaking down individual plays during that season and pointing out every single flaw, the lack of improvement, players put in the wrong positions, the wrong players on the sidelines, the terrible coaching, etc....  Wash rinse repeat it happens withe every fan base not just ones who feel entitled to "bigger" expectations. 

33 minutes ago, DrunkOffPunch said:

I'm calling BS. In Leach's first 2 years there, he had the same number of wins as the last coach who had a 4 year stint (9 wins). Wazzou hadn't had a winning season since 2003 and he took them to a bowl game in his second season. Wazzou had only been to 10 bowl games in it's entire history as a program before Leach took over.

 

Think what you want, but believe it or not Nebraska doesn't have a monopoly on fans who think their teams should be far greater than they are at the minute.  Leach generally rubbed a lot of people the wrong way the first few years with his antics and when the losses were piling up in his third year he had plenty of detractors.   You don't lose 9 games anywhere you are paying a coach more than you've ever paid a coach and not have a lot of people up in arms.  

I personally find his act entertaining, but I can understand why some who take things way to seriously would take offense. 

31 minutes ago, neepster said:

 

This isn't one of those times.  Leach at least had a history of performing at elite levels... and not a Gray Cup 20 years ago.  Also WSU's fans limits are not Nebraska's fans limits.  WSU has never been an elite team (at least as long as I've been alive)... not the same here.

This is his 6th season at WSU with no titles and Leach coached at TT for 10 years without winning a conference title.  What's your basis for saying he performed at elite levels?

I think he's a very good coach and titles are a lazy way of judging coaches.  Talent and timing has a lot more to do with winning titles than coaching, Gene Chizik proved that point.   

After Leach's 3rd season at WSU boosters were threatening to pull their support if he was retained.  Fans threatened to cancel season tickets and not come back.  I know the story well, my cousin's a Coug and he cried about how bad their coaching was that whole year.  They couldn't see any signs of good coaching, their line was terrible, the D was terrible, the losses kept piling up, Leach had to go and was clearly "not the right man for the job".

Leach went 3-9 that year.  Moos made a highly unpopular decision and kept Leach because he knew there was a lot more to the story than what the fans see.

The Cougs won 9 games the following year and Moos came out looking like a genius. 

4 hours ago, Mavric said:

 

I didn't see the game so maybe some came from the defense, but NWesrtn scored 39points  on MSU in regulation.

If all those points were scored vs MSU's defense then no matter where they rank stats wise it would appear our D did a much better job at the  most important stat IMO points allowed.

35 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I understand you are one of the few holding out hope for Riley, but I (and most others) don't see the improvement and progression that you think is happening.  Riley has the team performing to the level that most of his teams performed prior to coming to NU.  Riley isn't going to all of a sudden become a championship level coach.

 

Mike'l Severe had a great point yesterday on his TBL radio show.  When have you seen a coach be at his best at the end of his career?  I can only think of one coach (Dick Vermeil) at the NFL level who left at his peak coaching career.  Yes, Tom Osborne left at the top, but most people thought that he could have coached another 5-10 years.  He didn't want to "hang on too long".  Riley's teams hit their peak nearly 10 years ago.  His teams have been on a steady decline since 2011.    

ColoradoHusk,

The team showed a lot of heart and character winning on the road last week the way they did.  It saddens me there are some amongst us who were actually hoping the team would lose, and others who went out of there way to disparage the win any way they could. 

You don't see the improvement and progression in Lee?  We have a lot of blemishes to hide until we are healthy.  The best chance of hiding them is with a difference maker at QB and Lee did just that in the clutch and on the road.  The offense looked like a well oiled machine on that final drive.  A little over a week ago I watched a ranked Stanford team, minus their top running back, have to pull out a similar one point last minute victory over a one win team on the road and Stanford's O-line is in much better shape than our is.

1 hour ago, ladyhawke said:

I respectfully disagree. It was so refreshing to have a calm influence on the sidelines. I’m sure the refs were glad not to have Bo in their faces all the time. Riley reached out to the fans and was indeed a healing influence on Husker Nation. He hasn’t panned out as a coach but I have appreciated his demeanor and I know I’m not alone in that assessment. 

Fans are fickle.  For example we keep hearing year 3, year 3 it has to work by year 3.  The problem with that is:

It's not Lee's 3rd year starting.

It's not Diaco's or the D's 3rd year running the 3-4.

It's not even year 3 for half of our current O-line starters playing together.

We've been without our starting back for weeks.  The line has been a rotation of musical chairs along with the defensive backfield and we're fielding a lot of young players.  With youth and inexperience on the field there will be mistakes, missed assignments, and some brain farts.  The bright side is, going forwards you have a much more intelligent and polished team in the seasons to come. 

Actual veteran MR QB's this season are doing fine elsewhere:(QB's he recruited, coached, and were on the OSU roster when MR came to N)

Kyle Kempt 4-0 as starter at Iowa State

Luke Del Rio 2-0 as Florida starter

Marcus McMarion 4-1 as Fresno State starter

10-1

Lee has improved a ton., Gebbia and O'Brien are in the wings.  The future is bright, patience is golden.

He has a point on the fans acting emotionally and changing their opinion with the direction of the wind.

Remember all the posts the past two years saying "if only we had Tom Herman" Nebraska would be so much better.  Against  the garbage defenses in the Big 12 he's clinging to the 48th offense in the country and lost to a crappy BIG team and he's got a loaded roster to work with. 

Strong had a ton of success then went to Texas and didn't.  Herman had  a ton of success, goes to Texas and so far is struggling too.  At some point you have to look at the common ingredient and consider maybe it aint the coach.  

1 hour ago, Rike Miley said:

Hoppes and Jaimes

The only thing that could make that any funnier is if one of them was called for holding.  I wonder if that's ever happened.

I guess they really bought into the idea, if you're not sure who to block, block the first guy you see.  lol

3 hours ago, runningblind said:

I'd rather it dry up, the California kids have proven to be not as tough minded as Texas and Midwestern kids. I would rather get back to hitting those aread hard, and then some coastal speed, particularly from FL and the N. East.

 

The mindset is what is missing here, you haven't arrived already, you need to want to work to play.

That strikes me as funny considering the softest of west coast teams, UCLA, looked much more mentally tough than aTm in the opener.  They came back and beat aTm after being down to by 500 at the half.

For those questioning why Moos would leave at this point in his career.  Here's another possibility, what if he looked at this job as the perfect opportunity to higher a coach that helps Us and Washington State at the same time?  I would guess anything he could do to weaken the Huskies would make his day.  Are we willing to pay over 5 mil a year for Petersen? 

7 hours ago, huskerfan74 said:

Why do we keep hiring people from the PAC12? They are insignificant at best compared to all the other power five leagues. The only person I would take from that league is Scott Frost who is a product of Tom Osborne. I do not know the guy but having experienced what the PAC12 offers, I am not sure he is the answer. We will see if he is depending on what he does with the HC of the football team. 

Because they always beat our best teams in the Rose Bowl?

Nobody has better athletes than Nebraska in the BIG.  Not even arguable, every true fan knows this already.  It's a fact.

3 hours ago, Coach Power'T said:

1 scholarship per year for 3 years. He didn't have to clean up anything. 

 

Helfrich leaned heavily on Mariota being a phenom and talent around him. He couldn't bring in that same talent or develop any kind of qb. Attitudes got stale under Helfrich. Do some homework. You'll find the quotes from players.

Aren't you leaving out the restriction on coaches who could officially recruit, and the contact restrictions among other things.

Think about what you're saying.  When Oregon was NOT on any NCAA recruiting restrictions, Chip Kelly needed a Street Agent to get talent to Oregon.  So you can't turn around and say, with recruiting restrictions and no Street Agent directing talent to Oregon. were minor details.  Sorry any reasonable person sees that for what it is. 

Helfrich was hamstrung compared to Chip. 

35 minutes ago, Isle of View said:

Everything.  Which item did you list that you believe isn't a result of coaching?

Nice try. lol

59 minutes ago, LaunchCode said:

 

I get your sarcasm, but I also know you agree there's a lot more to an O-line than talent and coaching.  It's not a coincidence you don't actually say anywhere you disagree with the assessment "swap O-lines and we win the game". 

 

Things that can make one O-line superior to another outside of talent, effort, and coaching?

 

1.  Individual games played(experience).

2.  Total games played together(unit experience).

3.  Communication

4.  Leadership

5.  Size

6.  Explosiveness, quickness, and ability of back they're blocking for.

 

LT  6' 6-338 Dieter 31 starts

RT 6' 7-315 Edwards 30 starts

RG 6' 6-317 Benzschawal 26 starts

LG 6' 6-336 Dietzen 9 starts 13 games played

C   6' 3-316 Biadez 4 starts

 

1,622 lbs.  104 combined starts

 

LT 6' 5-295 Nick Gates 27 starts

LG 6' 3-310 Jerald Foster 9 starts

RG 6' 4-305 Tanner Farmer 16 starts

RT 6' 5-280 Brenden Jaimes  2 starts

C 6' 4-305 Mike Decker 2 starts

 

1,495 lbs.  56 combined starts

 

To be hones I thought our o-line actually outplayed Wisconsin's for the first few quarters.  They did a better job protecting the QB and that was with great coverage by badger secondary.  Ultimately our lack of fresh d-linemen late in the game going up against their bigger, and vastly more experienced o-line was the difference.

 

 

 

 

 

34 minutes ago, Isle of View said:

. . . and then you listed a bunch of stuff that is a direct result of coaching. smh

Such as?

2 hours ago, Coach Power'T said:

 

Oregon players had a “why” back then. Under Helfrich they lost their “why” and their “care”. Resulted in them going 4-8 and him getting canned.

 

That’s what Riley is

Wow talk about a creative narrative.  Helfrich played in the national championship game did he not?

Helfrich also suffered from the recruiting violation penalties imposed on the program due to Chip Kelly's use of Street Agents to find "emotional players". 

He had to clean up the mess his predecessor left behind.  Chip was smart to get out, he knew exactly where the program was heading once his under the table supply of talent was put to an end.

2 hours ago, Saunders said:

Yeah.....

 

 

 

Clearly it's only a talent issue. 

 

I get your sarcasm, but I also know you agree there's a lot more to an O-line than talent and coaching.  It's not a coincidence you don't actually say anywhere you disagree with the assessment "swap O-lines and we win the game". 

Things that can make one O-line superior to another outside of talent, effort, and coaching?

1.  Individual games played(experience).

2.  Total games played together(unit experience).

3.  Communication

4.  Leadership

5.  Size

6.  Explosiveness, quickness, and ability of back they're blocking for.

LT  6' 6-338 Dieter 31 starts

RT 6' 7-315 Edwards 30 starts

RG 6' 6-317 Benzschawal 26 starts

LG 6' 6-336 Dietzen 9 starts 13 games played

C   6' 3-316 Biadez 4 starts

1,622 lbs.  104 combined starts

LT 6' 5-295 Nick Gates 27 starts

LG 6' 3-310 Jerald Foster 9 starts

RG 6' 4-305 Tanner Farmer 16 starts

RT 6' 5-280 Brenden Jaimes  2 starts

C 6' 4-305 Mike Decker 2 starts

1,495 lbs.  56 combined starts

To be hones I thought our o-line actually outplayed Wisconsin's for the first few quarters.  They did a better job protecting the QB and that was with great coverage by badger secondary.  Ultimately our lack of fresh d-linemen late in the game going up against their bigger, and vastly more experienced o-line was the difference.

3 hours ago, Coach Power'T said:

This is why you have to have a vision, identity, and recruit hard working intrinsically motivated guys.

 

I don't believe NU has a whole lot of those dudes. College football is full of emotion. Completely opposite of the NFL business model. Guys need to be excited to play football.

So that's why Chip Kelly hired Street Agents,    He needed their help to find emotional players.