Elf

The acclimation excuse is just that. An excuse that is 'easy' to throw out there while there are other coaches who inherited/took on new teams only to have them miraculously do better. (Scott Frost, Jim Haraugh) and that's just a few off the top of my head. Also while Nebraska might have only had 1 player drafted this year there are a number of guys who are also getting serious looks/interest from NFL teams right now. For me the bottom line is Riley's teams have not been as talentless as McKewon makes them out to be and 2015 especially should never have been that bad. uhhh, Michigan just put 11 players in the draft... So that means Nebraska only had 1 talented player on the entire team last year? It means Michigan was still pulling in guys like Jabrill Peppers (who at one point was considered the top prospect in his class) before Harbaugh was even hired. Per 247, they had 25 four star players and 2 five stars between the '13 and '14 classes (17 of those fours stars being in '13!!). Compare that to our 9 four stars between the '13 and '14 classes (with only 2 of those guys in the '14 class). I get that stars don't mean everything, but come on. To compare Riley situation here to Harbaugh's Michigan tenure thus far is asinine. First off the article isn't about comparing Michigan to Nebraska but if you want to go there then in case you couldn't figure it out Brady Hoke couldn't do what Jim Harbaugh stepped in and did with the very same talent. you were the one who brought up michigan, and my point is that we don't have that kind of talent. You missed the point entirely (acclimation period) with my mentioning of Harbaugh but sure. Harbaugh and Riley inherited two completely different situations, a fact you regularly dismiss out of hand.

There are some folks that you couldn't physically beat this into their heads no matter how long you hit them.

Lots of truth in that article. I personally think we've done pretty well considering the '13 and '14 classes have turned out so poorly. Other articles have mentioned those two classes are hurting us pretty badly as well. We've talked about the attrition in various threads, and while every team experiences some attrition, I'm pretty sure most teams don't experience the kind of attrition we have from those two classes. We only have 37% of those two classes left, 67% of those two classes have already left us. And that doesn't include the 7 still on the team that haven't been contributors. Taking that into consideration, 23% of those two classes are still here and contributing, that's a pretty bad percentage imo. I do believe Riley is taking the correct approach in building for the future and while I don't have the benefit of a crystal ball, I do believe he is on the right path to take us back to greatness.

https://www.nj.com/giants/index.ssf/2017/04/whats_the_difference_between_an_undrafted_free_age.html The main difference is if you're an undrafted free agent, you sign your contract immediately," the agent said. "If you're getting invited for a tryout, you're not signing a contract. You're basically going out there with a two- or thee-day tryout and then they decide out of this pool of 15 or 20 guys they brought in, 'OK, we're going to sign this one or that one.' Then at that point, (tryout players) sign their contract as an undrafted free agent."[/size] Interesting... These guys who got tryouts, they are going to have to work hard to impress, I hope they make it.

We seem to have a lot of guys that didn't quite seem to make the draft. I'm hopeful that each of them that has gotten a tryout or an UDFA contract make their respective teams, but I fear many won't.

Marijuana causes zero chemical dependency. It is not an addictive substance. Maybe I should tell that to all the addicts that tell me marijuana is the one drug they have not been able to stop. I used to lead a addictions and mental health group as part of my job. Did it for about 9 years. Cannabis has one of the lowest addiction rates of any drug and certainly lower than alcohol, cocaine, meth and opiates.

What do you mean by that?

You've been brainwashed. Congratulations. I did that crap for years, and it hurt my family tremendously. Now I see my younger brother going down that same road, and it hurts me tremendously. I wish I had had a wake up call or been deterred early on. It should not be legal; many guys I know, and friends, back then the focus of life was just getting high whenever there was a chance and many are still there. Making it easy to buy just makes more kids buy it. Don't Make it easier! Kids can't legally buy it in any state where it is legal. It sounds like you and your brother abused cannabis and not the other way around. During my life I've known plenty of folks who got stoned 24/7 but I've known far more that only used occasionally. And just because you and your brother couldn't avoid abusing the drug it doesn't mean it shouldn't be available for everyone else. It's not like we ban alcohol just because a few folks can't avoid becoming alcoholics.

I'd say it's probably better to kill your pain than getting high OR winning a national title, but that's just me...

He broke the stupidity meter a while ago.

I would agree with this. I agree also. We haven't had a whole lot of talent for a while now. I'm not saying we didn't have any talent, just saying we absolutely did not have enough.

True but the players know that going in. I agree with both of these sentiments. It is stupid to suspend players for weed. It is really stupid to get suspended for weed when you know that is part of the deal. I agree with all of this. Cannabis shouldn't even be an issue anymore, but it is. As long as you aren't showing up to work high, who gives a damn?

In states where medical cannabis is legal, deaths from prescription pain killers has dropped. In my own state, by 25%.

Only one year since 2004 have we had more draft picks than we had last year. Which would include all Callahan's classes. But whatever makes you feel better. Doesn't change the fact that we won't have that many this year and he was clearly referencing this season. We had a senior laden team with no depth behind them that could maybe get 2 drafted. I think he has a point. Eh, the story last year was we didn't have as much talent as Purdue and that didn't really turn out to be the case. And what Pelini left clearly includes last year's team so it's pretty obvious that not all the struggles can be blamed on talent. And #9Wins used to be guaranteed by the schedule. Now it's apparently pretty impressive. People weren't expecting as many or as high of draft picks as we got last year so I guess I'll wait until it's actually over before casting judgement. There is so much bs in your post. You take artist liberties pretty seriously. I seriously think you are the biggest troll here. I guess this doesn't seem like trolling it just seems like what all of us actually think but that some don't want to say. 9 wins was made fun of...over and over...a monkey could get 9 wins...the schedule is a joke and so on but now last years 9 wins was really impressive... And we really did have posters posting how Purdue had more talent and/or higher ranked players than NU...shoot we still have people pretending like that loss to Purdue was "okay" even though Purdue has like 2 conference wins in the last 4 years. Lets face it...the SECOND that BYU caught the Hail Mary pass...was the same exact second that 9 wins became impressive and it was also the same exact second that the word "toxic" became part of the message boards. Agreed, but it was refuted very quickly, it was hardly "The Story" around here. Mavric is pretty darn smart imo, and there is simply no way he believes that was "The Story". That's taking some pretty serious "artistic liberty" imo. I consider the troll comment to be a pretty big compliment. I frequent an unmoderated forum where we discuss everything and anything. Trolling is a given there and almost everyone has participated to some degree or another and I've seen really bad trolling to great trolling.

Only one year since 2004 have we had more draft picks than we had last year. Which would include all Callahan's classes. But whatever makes you feel better. Doesn't change the fact that we won't have that many this year and he was clearly referencing this season. We had a senior laden team with no depth behind them that could maybe get 2 drafted. I think he has a point. Eh, the story last year was we didn't have as much talent as Purdue and that didn't really turn out to be the case. And what Pelini left clearly includes last year's team so it's pretty obvious that not all the struggles can be blamed on talent. And #9Wins used to be guaranteed by the schedule. Now it's apparently pretty impressive. People weren't expecting as many or as high of draft picks as we got last year so I guess I'll wait until it's actually over before casting judgement. There is so much bs in your post. You take artist liberties pretty seriously. I seriously think you are the biggest troll here.

why do you say that? Because Riley's not the a**hole Pelini was. If Riley had identical records to Pelini he would never be fired as long as SE is in charge. Yep...and if Riley keeps going 9-4 he will stay here until he wants to retire. And because he is a nice guy, fans will still think Riley has the program trending upward. I call BS on that. The fans got tired of going 9-4 under Bo. What was once praise for a fiery coach became an excuse to lynch him. If Riley can't get us over the 4 loss hump in say 5-6 years, nice guy won't matter. It will be the excise to lynch him too. Yeah, maybe the fans weren't satisfied with 9-4 but I don't think Bo's overall record on the field is what got him fired. I think Bo got fired because of his childish tantrums on and off the field. And because he routinely got blown out of the water in big games. If Pelini has fixed those two things he would still be our coach. But he didn't. And he got canned as a result. /jmho I don't think this is just your opinion, I think its what actually happened. Some folks try to make it seem like his record just wasn't good enough somehow and they can't seem to grasp that if you are an a-hole towards your superiors, you're not going to be employed for long. The tolerance level for bad behavior would have likely gone up if he hadn't kept getting blown out in big games. Regardless, I was never convinced he was the right coach in the beginning.

Well...she was... Word was that she slept with nearly every member of the football team at some point or another. And she did it because she was rebelling against her father. At least, that's the story that has circulated out here a few times.

If this was his third year coaching, sure. But it is his 25th year coaching. So he can't have a crap season...he can't lose to crap teams. I agree with that but we need to assess progress differently in this case because while on the field we have made no progress over our last HC I would argue as a program we have definitely moved the needle. I do agree we cannot justify a 6 win season and that is not acceptable, but I think we can't label a 9 win season as more of the same because as a program we seem to be doing more of the things the champions do Depends how the 9 wins happen. If we have blowout losses (ala '16) or lose to bad teams ('15), then it's pretty easy to say it's more the same. But close losses to say, @ Oregon, OSU, and @ PSU could be a positive thing, depending how their seasons go. So far, we're hanging our hat on improved recruiting, which is important, but you gotta win games too. Still don't think that should take away from the improvement in the program image and culture as a whole. That's fine, but it's not reality. The fans show up to see a winning product. Most fans show up to watch/cheer their team and they hope it wins, not everyone has an entitlement attitude. Lmao.... It's been 18 years since Nebraska last won a conference title, 16 since NU was nationally relevant. Wanting a successful program isn't entitlement. Not even close. I think there's a huge difference between what you said and what I said.

I'd say, that's exactly where we want them.

Wait...the QB ran???? And when he was able to run the passing game got better? No, Montana was just having a really bad day. And Steve Young was a pretty darn good runner in his own right.

Yes, there will be more screen plays called, but every report I saw said that the team and o-line really struggled in the screen game. I agree that focusing on an arbitrary number for the run game production isn't the best thing to do, but I don't think it's far-fetched to believe that the team needs to be able to run the ball successfully to have a successful season. If the success of the offense depends too much on the right arm of Tanner Lee, the offense may not be as successful as we would like. It is no different than the offense being dependent on TA being effective running the ball. As we saw after he was hurt he was not worth a crap because he couldn't move and he couldn't throw the ball so that really hurt the production. Yes, you are correct. But that's the exact point that Sam is trying to make. If the team can't run the ball effectively using the RB's (or WR in jet sweep) than the offense could struggle. If the team can only average 125 YPG running, it puts a lot of pressure on Lee to be "great". Sure possibly, but it is possible that a good passing game can open up the run. Throwing the ball at a 65% clip is going to loosen up the defense and allow for more running lanes. Teams dared Nebraska to throw last year, because they were only a 50% passing team. They loaded the box and dared TA to beat them with his arm which he couldn't do. I don't buy the premise of the passing game opening up the run. Also, the QB run game takes away a defender to stop the RB run game, just like a quality passing game does. There is no sense going around and around on this. We each have our opinions. Sam has questions and concerns about the offense, and I think they are viable concerns. I think a lot of fans are saying "The offense will be fine with a new QB" and I don't think it's that easy to say. Well you should buy the premise the pass can open up the run because alot of successful offenses were built on that premise Not really, almost all coaches would rather hand the ball off all game if they could get 5-6 yards a carry. Most pass a lot becuase they can't run a lot. Coaches want to win and they want to win with the easiest and safest method possible. Yes the great Bill Walsh was an idiot Yeah...they never ran the ball. But like I said they want to win the easiest way possible and Montana to Rice is pretty easy. Never ran the ball? Learn your history man in '87 Bill's second to last year they ran the ball nearly 100 more times than they attempted to pass it that season. The pass can set up the run and if you try and argue otherwise I will bury you with stats from successful offenses that did just that. That was me being sarcastic. They ran the ball a ton. Riley will not be able too. You can bury me if you want...I don't care and neither do you. It's a message board At least you're not still calling it a "post board".

What turnaround?! Armstrong went from being a 53.3% completions/12 int/24 TD/133.04 QB efficiency rating. passer in 2014 to 55%/16 int/22 TD/128.64 effic in 2015. Yeah, he had about 300 more passing yards, but statistically that's almost purely from more attempts, and it came at the expense of about 300 rushing yards. You presented a rankings argument, not specific stats surrounding a player. Nebraska went from being the 76th ranked passing team to the 33rd ranked passing team after Bo left. Now, explain to me why you can also diminish more passing yards 'purely from more attempts' in 2015 while seemingly ignoring that we had more rushing yards in 2014 while having more rushing attempts. You do see the obtuse nature of that argument, yes? Yes, I see it plain as day. Good job shining the light on this poor excuse of an argument.

A 70% completion would be awesome but I'd be happy to see 65ish.

Tommy ran a lot of Run Pass Option plays to success last year. That requires making a pre-snap read, and making the correct decision, with 3 possible outcomes (pass, QB run, and RB run). Let's not have revisionist history and make it seem like Tommy couldn't make the right decisions. Where Tommy struggled was physically making the throw on time and accurately. I don't know what audibles Tommy was/wasn't making pre-snap. That said, his decision making was often criticized, far to often he threw the YOLO when he could have thrown a higher percentage pass to a different, open, reciever, for example. *Edit* What Moiraine said too.

If this was his third year coaching, sure. But it is his 25th year coaching. So he can't have a crap season...he can't lose to crap teams. I agree with that but we need to assess progress differently in this case because while on the field we have made no progress over our last HC I would argue as a program we have definitely moved the needle. I do agree we cannot justify a 6 win season and that is not acceptable, but I think we can't label a 9 win season as more of the same because as a program we seem to be doing more of the things the champions do Depends how the 9 wins happen. If we have blowout losses (ala '16) or lose to bad teams ('15), then it's pretty easy to say it's more the same. But close losses to say, @ Oregon, OSU, and @ PSU could be a positive thing, depending how their seasons go. So far, we're hanging our hat on improved recruiting, which is important, but you gotta win games too. Still don't think that should take away from the improvement in the program image and culture as a whole. That's fine, but it's not reality. The fans show up to see a winning product. Most fans show up to watch/cheer their team and they hope it wins, not everyone has an entitlement attitude.