HuskerExpat

considering Oregon State is an all time .480 program, .500 is over achieving. And NFL success or lack thereof doesn't tell you alot about college success See Nick Saban.

I didn't know that there was a restraining order that prevented this. Is this the same thing as saying grandma can't see the kids after the divorce? No one said that it was illegal. The point is that the nature of the farewell speech, where Pelini told the players that Nebraska sucks and is a bad place to be, do you really think that any player who was in contact with Kaz during this time period heard things that supported the program or the new coaches? Seems unlikely.

Except it wasn't a locker room under Bo Pelini. He was gone by then. It was up to Riley to take ownership of the team at that point and show them that they could be successful under him and his staff. He didn't show that last year, time and again. I have a list, if needed... So you're choosing to ignore the fact that Bo basically told the players on his way out that being at Nebraska sucks. Then he and or members of his staff kept in contact with players last year and furthered the divide. We're just ignoring this? Okay then. I'm definitely ignoring things that were made up, yes. Bo told the players nebraska sucks. Wait. No i think the quoteable term used was "it's a bitch here". This is on audio. Inargueable fact. Kazinski was in contact with players after. hell. he admitted it such on a radio show. So this is fact. it is debateable (not necessarily untrue, since it's also known that Kaz beat his wife, so it's ok to question his character anyway) It is debateable as to whether he "furthered the divide". At first i thought he had. But after hearing his radio interview in januaray he seemed pretty adament that he did nothing wrong. Who knows. Among his quotes of how it sucks at Nebraska: "Because I think you guys feel that. Am I right or wrong? It's a b---- here." "You can’t let this place eat you up, because if you let it, it'll eat you up. Because I've been at LSU, I've been at Oklahoma, I've been to these other places and it ain't quite — the scrutiny, the negativity, it ain’t like that everywhere. But it is what it is."

I am saying that who did or didn't buy in wasn't Pelini's fault. I think that the players were taking a "wait and see" attitude and then optioned out as the losses and dumb finishes to those losses started piling up, Then the two watt light bulb went on over their heads and they saw that they needed to be step up and control their own destiny. Even Armstrong said, "Treat me like a freshman!" For his part, Riley started to use Armstrong as a runner, and (except for the last game) he doesn't automatically see 3rd and 2 as a situation calling for elaborate pass plays with three or four reads and checks. Riley also has been going for it on fourth down instead of repeating the script of last year's Illinois and Wisconsin losses. He also has his team coached up to take advantage of the plays they couldn't run well / didn't understand last year, so he is indeed cleaning up things. But some of the mess was his own making, let's not overlook that. As for what happened with Hughes / Banker / the defensive line, I just see something wasn't right and what little facts we know point to that not being a Pelini thing. Certainly no one can prove a causality between Pelini's "us against the world" approach combined with his farewell speech and the lack of "buy in" from the players. But it is very hard to believe that there was no connection between the two. To suggest that the two things are completely unrelated, as you seem to be, is extraordinary.

Maybe they had no confidence in their present coaches by that time. How many games did the players see p!ssed away by that time? What did Banker say about the mass desertion of a two deep defensive line and the firing of Hank Hughes? Was that all Pelini's toxicity? Banker didn't even know who was staying and who was leaving after last year: http://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/greg-mcmullen-quits-football-kevin-williams-will-transfer-from-nebraska/article_06030d1a-0416-11e6-96df-03d803356493.html What's changed? doesnt seem to be an issue right now? Let's see. Who's gone. Pretty much everyone returned except what? Mcmullen? Valentine? Collins? Alex Lewis? (lol. he was real treat) Seriously. even in those losses. maybe some blame can be put on the players. it's not all the coach's fault there wasnt buy in. It wasnt all players' fault. And it was a toxic situation. how do you lose two NFL starting DT's in the same year, and the defense doesnt take a step back and is actually better? "How do you lose two NFL starting DT's in the same year, and the defense doesnt take a step back and is actually better? " Its not hard when the defense is piss poor. You replace a crappy DL coach with a good one. And the secondary is light years better. That's how. so. we got rid of a coach and a couple players who left because of the coach. Weird. sounds like a toxic situation. And it's been clearly improved upon. The issue of the "buy in" from the players is totally different than the question you asked. Nate Gerry has admitted there wasn't buy in from the defensive players last year until November. How much more evidence do you need? So there's different degrees of buy in? That's a hell of a spin. Either your heart's all in or it isnt. And when it isnt (for whatever reason, and whoever's fault) things dont go the best. Now let me ask you something. If Bo goes into that meeting and says... "Look guys. I'm sorry this went down like this. I'm sorry I let you down we've all been put in this situation. But it would be best for you to continue to give your all for this university and finish your career the proper way. These new coaches will do their best. And it's best for you as a player and person to work for the best regardless of the coach"..... do you think there still woulda been this known buy in issue? Who said there's degrees of "buy in"? I sure didn't. So now you're admitting that "buy in" was an issue but arguing that wasn't Pelini's fault? No one can know if there would have been as big of an issue if Pelini had gone out classy, but I think it is fair to assume that it wouldn't have been worse. You said buy in was different than the question I asked. That's where I brought up degrees of buy in. it just sounded like you were trying to make the deal i was speaking different, when I dont see it that way. it's all one engine with many parts. And my question regarding the DT's leaving are one part of this whole situation. one little part. Where two guys left cuz of a coach, the coach was fired, and htere seems to be more harmony. With that group, it was never gonna be as good as could be cuz of the toxicity. As far as arguing it not being Pelini's fault, please read and understand. I've been saying it this way all along. it's not just pelini's fault. But it a little bit is. It's not just the players fault. but it a little bit is. it's not just the current coaches fault but it a little bit is. And even a little bit of the fans fault as well. The blame can go around, as certainly no help was done from any part to help out what was already a tricky situation. There is a middle ground here folks. but when one part or another is completely absolved, it has to be shown that it's not. And for whatever reason, theres some folks that still wont leave the extreme one sided opinion, and come to the middle where the real answer is. yes im pissed at Bo for how he handled it. But i'm also come to terms that the situation was due to many things I agree with most of that. I'm not sure what evidence there is that Collins and Valentine were part of the "toxicity" problem. Perhaps they were, but I like to think that most of the problem with the DL last year was a separate and distinct problem - that the DL coach sucked. That was my point. Was there something the Riley staff could have done earlier last year to get buy in earlier? I'm not sure, but maybe. My guess is that when the team hit rock bottom after the Purdue game, the coaches had a conversation that went something like, "If we don't all get with the program it is going to keep going like this." That sort of thing doesn't work until you hit rock bottom. And Gerry's quote above implies to me that hitting rock bottom is what spurred the change. What could the coaches have done earlier that would have worked? I don't know, none of us know what they tried. I don't put a whole lot on the average player who didn't buy in. That's the point of those, including me, pointing to Pelini. He created a toxic environment and that speech he gave to the team on the way out created an enormous issue. Most of the players who didn't buy in, like Gerry, were simply guilty of loyalty to their ex-coach. Not a bad thing, but Pelini abused that loyalty. Toxic players like Lewis are a different story entirely....

Maybe they had no confidence in their present coaches by that time. How many games did the players see p!ssed away by that time? What did Banker say about the mass desertion of a two deep defensive line and the firing of Hank Hughes? Was that all Pelini's toxicity? Banker didn't even know who was staying and who was leaving after last year: http://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/greg-mcmullen-quits-football-kevin-williams-will-transfer-from-nebraska/article_06030d1a-0416-11e6-96df-03d803356493.html What's changed? doesnt seem to be an issue right now? Let's see. Who's gone. Pretty much everyone returned except what? Mcmullen? Valentine? Collins? Alex Lewis? (lol. he was real treat) Seriously. even in those losses. maybe some blame can be put on the players. it's not all the coach's fault there wasnt buy in. It wasnt all players' fault. And it was a toxic situation. how do you lose two NFL starting DT's in the same year, and the defense doesnt take a step back and is actually better? "How do you lose two NFL starting DT's in the same year, and the defense doesnt take a step back and is actually better? " Its not hard when the defense is piss poor. You replace a crappy DL coach with a good one. And the secondary is light years better. That's how. so. we got rid of a coach and a couple players who left because of the coach. Weird. sounds like a toxic situation. And it's been clearly improved upon. The issue of the "buy in" from the players is totally different than the question you asked. Nate Gerry has admitted there wasn't buy in from the defensive players last year until November. How much more evidence do you need? So there's different degrees of buy in? That's a hell of a spin. Either your heart's all in or it isnt. And when it isnt (for whatever reason, and whoever's fault) things dont go the best. Now let me ask you something. If Bo goes into that meeting and says... "Look guys. I'm sorry this went down like this. I'm sorry I let you down we've all been put in this situation. But it would be best for you to continue to give your all for this university and finish your career the proper way. These new coaches will do their best. And it's best for you as a player and person to work for the best regardless of the coach"..... do you think there still woulda been this known buy in issue? Who said there's degrees of "buy in"? I sure didn't. So now you're admitting that "buy in" was an issue but arguing that wasn't Pelini's fault? No one can know if there would have been as big of an issue if Pelini had gone out classy, but I think it is fair to assume that it wouldn't have been worse.

SAFETY NATE GERRY On the team’s improvement: “Everyone kind of looked each other in the eye and we decided we were going to buy in and things are going to start cooking.” http://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/they-said-it-nebraska-coach-mike-riley-players-after-rutgers/article_51d73c6e-8b3c-11e5-9a20-67e84d5e6c44.html November 14, 2015

Maybe they had no confidence in their present coaches by that time. How many games did the players see p!ssed away by that time? What did Banker say about the mass desertion of a two deep defensive line and the firing of Hank Hughes? Was that all Pelini's toxicity? Banker didn't even know who was staying and who was leaving after last year: http://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/greg-mcmullen-quits-football-kevin-williams-will-transfer-from-nebraska/article_06030d1a-0416-11e6-96df-03d803356493.html What's changed? doesnt seem to be an issue right now? Let's see. Who's gone. Pretty much everyone returned except what? Mcmullen? Valentine? Collins? Alex Lewis? (lol. he was real treat) Seriously. even in those losses. maybe some blame can be put on the players. it's not all the coach's fault there wasnt buy in. It wasnt all players' fault. And it was a toxic situation. how do you lose two NFL starting DT's in the same year, and the defense doesnt take a step back and is actually better? "How do you lose two NFL starting DT's in the same year, and the defense doesnt take a step back and is actually better? " Its not hard when the defense is piss poor. You replace a crappy DL coach with a good one. And the secondary is light years better. That's how. so. we got rid of a coach and a couple players who left because of the coach. Weird. sounds like a toxic situation. And it's been clearly improved upon. The issue of the "buy in" from the players is totally different than the question asked. Nate Gerry has admitted there wasn't buy in from the defensive players last year until November. How much more evidence do you need?

Maybe they had no confidence in their present coaches by that time. How many games did the players see p!ssed away by that time? What did Banker say about the mass desertion of a two deep defensive line and the firing of Hank Hughes? Was that all Pelini's toxicity? Banker didn't even know who was staying and who was leaving after last year: http://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/greg-mcmullen-quits-football-kevin-williams-will-transfer-from-nebraska/article_06030d1a-0416-11e6-96df-03d803356493.html What's changed? doesnt seem to be an issue right now? Let's see. Who's gone. Pretty much everyone returned except what? Mcmullen? Valentine? Collins? Alex Lewis? (lol. he was real treat) Seriously. even in those losses. maybe some blame can be put on the players. it's not all the coach's fault there wasnt buy in. It wasnt all players' fault. And it was a toxic situation. how do you lose two NFL starting DT's in the same year, and the defense doesnt take a step back and is actually better? "How do you lose two NFL starting DT's in the same year, and the defense doesnt take a step back and is actually better? " Its not hard when the defense is piss poor. You replace a crappy DL coach with a good one. And the secondary is light years better. That's how.

Any links to substantiate this, or should I file this right next to the "The cupboard was bare when Riley arrived" urban legend? Watch the games from 2015. That's all you have to do. lack of effort? LOL. Banker's confirmed it twice that the Purdue game was the worst effort since these guy have been here. It doesnt take a genius or a player coming out and saying "yeah, we dont give a sh#t" for ppl to know. Just watch and trust your eyes. you think Armstrong was all in against iowa? With the constant rogue play and his sideline antics with Langsdorf? i hate to revisit that, cuz Armstrong has done a fabulous job of getting right and making necessary and positive changes. He's obviously become more coacheable. But it's necessary to make the point. We had guys who's heart wasnt in it. hence why some left when they didnt have to. One gave up football. One transferred to a rival school. 2 went to the NFL. One of which was told by EVERYBODY it was a mistake. Any fault on the coaches? Hughes? Sure. That would qualify as "toxic lockerroom" yes? Watch Nate Gerry film from this year and 2014. Then watch last year prior to the Mich St game. Then try to tell me he was giving a sh#t last year. it goes all they way back to his lack of passion on the BYU hail mary. And all this does and add proof to the widely used notion that there were some serious changes made after that Purdue loss. Cuz we've lost one game since. I agree with all of this, except I'm not sure Armstrong's performance in the Iowa game was a result of not buying in. There was, after all, a police investigation taking place the week before the game regarding an incident that took place at his house. Sure, he was not the suspect, but it HAD to be a very serious distraction.

Any links to substantiate this, or should I file this right next to the "The cupboard was bare when Riley arrived" urban legend? Don't have a link but I recall a number of players saying a significant percentage of the team wasn't buying into the new coaches until sometime after the Purdue game. I think Gerry said this, among others.

That's part of it, but I think it is way more than that. Add in the embarrassment on a national level for his meltdowns; the way he treated the fans as a burden rather than an asset; his getting blown out on a regular basis and blaming the players instead of the coaches failure to adjust; the vitriol in the way he left the program.In short, it is far more than just crushed hopes. What finally pushed me off the Bo bandwagon was the 2014 Wisconsin game. For the 3rd time in 4 tries we got absolutely embarassed by them. And we had a good team, one thay could and should have won. I couldn't care less about the sideline antics or the secret tapes. With a conference trophy that issue is null and void mostly. It was the constant disappointment via embarassing losses and the absolute reluctance to take responsibility for it by admitting fault or adjusting his staff to actually try and advance the team. I'm on record and will continue to be that I like Bo as person and a humanitarian, hell I rven like him as a coach. But his tenure here had to end unless some drastic changes were made. That game was where I got off the bandwagon as well. Unfortunately I was at the stadium to witness it....

For "Pros" I would add: Players seem to love him (have never heard a player say anything bad against him); has been a champion at defensive coordinator level For Cons I would clarify that: "Gets angry" is an extreme understatement and not really descriptive of his problem. For Cons I would add: Not a good in game manager/failure to adjust (jet sweeps, etc); prone to making coordinator hires based upon loyalty rather than merit and experience; alienates fans; seems to be a lazy recruiter; never a champion as a head coach of anything but a conference division; aforementioned "anger" will cost team one game a year with an unsportsmanlike penalty (related to your "gets angry" con).

That's part of it, but I think it is way more than that. Add in the embarrassment on a national level for his meltdowns; the way he treated the fans as a burden rather than an asset; his getting blown out on a regular basis and blaming the players instead of the coaches failure to adjust; the vitriol in the way he left the program. In short, it is far more than just crushed hopes.

So the question for Sam is does he not think Riley and Co can't coach up their players to the same degree? I also don't get how someone who reports on recruiting can downplay the past recruiting of NU so much. I don't understand. He said the talent matchup is decent. Is this not true? He said we have the edge. Is this not true? Are you guys saying we have a much greater talent edge than Sam is implying? I don't doubt we have more talent, but I'd argue that the talent gap between Nebraska and say Ohio State is larger than Nebraska and Indiana (at this point anyway) Yes. http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite Injuries can screw with those numbers, but as we've heard forever, every team has injuries, so we just gotta overcome them. Thanks for sharing the talent composite rankings link. That essentially proves my point. We're much closer to Indiana (+134.55) than we are Ohio State (-225.09), like I imagined we would be. I think Sam's assessment is fair. Just because we're closer to them than Ohio State doesn't mean that it's a "decent talent matchup". We're also closer to Arkansas State and Kansas than tOSU. Would you try to give the impression that they have similar talent to Nebraska? The top five teams in that metric are quite a ways ahead of the field. Can you explain why it's not a decent talent matchup? If we're closer to Arkansas State and Kansas than tOSU, then are you saying the metric is bogus? Is it just based on the eye test? If so, then how can you criticize Sam for his comment? That's all I wanted to understand. It seems like, based on the data that was linked in the previous post, the matchup could certainly be defined as "decent". I'm not trying to argue, I just have a lot of respect for most of Sam's opinions on Husker football and wanted to understand exactly where you were coming from. Obviously it's all going to be in how you semantic "decent." That comment all by itself doesn't mean much. But Sam has been beating the "Nebraska doesn't have enough talent" drum since Riley was hired. And he's not talking about winning national championships. He's talking about winning 10-11 games per year. And that's despite every single objective evaluation of talent showing that tOSU is the only team on our schedule that has any sort of a talent advantage on us. But to answer your question, given the metric linked above, I would say a total rating of within 75 points or so would be pretty comparable. For Nebraska - raked #24 at 697.45 - that would be up to #20 Oregon (748.26) and down to #40 Arizona (628.53). Ohio State would be above that range, Oregon and Wisconsin would be in that range and the rest of our schedule would be below that. According to those rankings, Nebraska has 18 four-star player on the roster (not counting CJax) - 17 with Westy being injured. Indiana has one and he's hurt so they won't be suiting up any Saturday. I would say that is a decided talent advantage for the Huskers. Is Dan Feeney the one Indiana player you reference and has it been confirmed he's not playing this week?

I think a lot of people are pumping up Indiana based upon their games against Michigan State and Ohio State. Michigan State is garbage this year, so I don't give that much weight. Indiana played Ohio State relatively tough, but they had a decent plan, defensively, against Ohio State. Indiana decided to try and shut down the running game at the expense of giving OSU opportunities in the pass game, because OSU has the 85th best passing offense in the nation (not a stat you hear very often). But then OSU countered with 22 QB runs, which is the weakness of a lot of run defenses (including ours). If Indiana takes a similar approach, defensively, against us, TA will get his yards running but will more effectively punish the Indiana secondary in pass game. It might seem weird, but TA and Nebraska is more effective in the passing game than OSU and JT Barrett.

Explain to me again this "cupboards were bare" legend. Three linemen (Collins, Valentine, and Gregory) that would have been seniors this year are good enough to play in the NFL. The other two defensive linemen that left were good enough to play or start on many teams and a third is starting at Nebraska now. Nebraska has the same starting quarterback in Tommy Armstrong (who Riley has now figured out). The starting running back (Newby) was in the cupboard. Westerkamp and Reilly are from the previous staff, as is Alonzo Moore. Combined with #15 below, I would say that's a pretty full cupboard at wide receiver. Riley's three deep tight ends are all from before, with Cethan Carter having a shot at the NFL. They also left the top punt returner in the nation (Pierson-El) here when Riley took over, although he's not getting many opportuniites now. Sam Foltz was one of the best punters in the country and would probably be heading to the NFL after his Senior year. Now, the offensive line had only Alex Lewis, who played "not very well" at Nebraska his last year but went to the NFL, so I don't know whether to put him in the plus or minus column. So most of the movers and shakers on offense in this now Top Ten team were ones "in the cupboard" when Riley rolled in from Oregon State. I guess this is how urban legends get started... As for the DL, yes those guys went to the NFL, but where are their replacements? We have little to no depth on the DL right now. The LB depth is terrible, but the DB's are in pretty good shape. As for the offense, the OL also lacks depth, the QB was from Bo's staff with no quality depth behind him (Sorry Fyfe). The best part for TA is that this staff is actually coaching him on how to be a QB, the last staff just told athletes to go make a play with little guidance. RB's are ok, no studs, but they are not bad either. The WR's/TE's are in excellent shape which is odd since Bo liked to run the ball more than pass it. You win by having quality depth at all positions and that was never the case while Bo was here. Hopefully that changes with what looks like the first of many outstanding recruiting classes that Riley is bringing in. Yeah, it is wrong to say "the cupboards were bare." More accurate to say that the roster was terribly mismanaged. The state of the LBs when Riley took over was embarrassing and there were other definite issues as well.

Thanks. I could be not happier seeing BYU beat Michigan State.

Wait...weren't kidnapped thrown in the back of the trunk of a car drove out to the field beaten and crucified? You seem to have no understanding of what personal experience is and how it applies to a group on the whole. 99% of our fans who went to Camp Randall could have had a bad experience. If 10,000 of our fans went, that means 100 did not have a bad experience. Just because yours was great doesn't mean everyone else is making sh#t up. No, you said having a good experience was in the minority. I'm saying it was not. I live in Chicago and my neighbors are Wisconsin fans. I was recently talking to them and mentioned that I had gone to games at CR and likely would again this year. The first thing they said was that their fans were complete d-bags at CR, which I told them I knew. Anyway, the point is that when the home fans acknowledge their horrible reputation, it is very likely true.

IU fans not likely to be hostile. Most of the time there is an inverse relationship between the hostility of the fans and the quality of the team. The worse the team, the nicer the fans. I'm going to the game and am not sitting in the Nebraska section. Not worried at all, and I'm also confident there will be many Nebraska fans around us. There seem to be a fair number of fans from Chicago going to the game.

Badger fans are the worst. Be prepared to be heckled, a lot. Last time I was there I gave it back as much as I got it. Seemed to surprise a lot of them. It will be fun as long as you have the right attitude. I'm looking for tickets for the game this year as well.

My wife and I are going, from Chicago.

Flipped my vote to us. Just have a feeling that he doesn't go to Oregon after his visit...

My wife and I just got tickets to the Indiana game the other day. We live in Chicago and are driving in on Saturday morning. We're staying near the Indianapolis airport and taking a shuttle to the game and back in Bloomington; because all the hotels in Bloomington require a two night stay.

Egg-zactly. You guys realize the spread is only about 7 points right? Right, but all we care about is the win, which is represented not by the spread but the moneyline, which is -285, representing a 75% likelihood of a Nebraska victory. Now perhaps the moneyline is wrong, but that's just where the market has set it.