Blackshirt_Revival

2 hours ago, LaunchCode said:

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.

 

 

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.

16 minutes ago, LaunchCode said:

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. 

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.  

10 minutes ago, Bad2theBONES said:

I will. Smart young adults (recruits) know exactly what that slogan has stood for and spreading that stupid slogan and trying to merge it with our football team and university to try and promote the progression of our team is an asinine. And joking or not, people read this stuff and not too smart for even mentioning it. Dude thinks he has the capability of knowing who the next head coach should be, but wants to make a dumb comment like that.... smh

You're replying to HuskerMan as if he is the one suggesting these shirts be made, like the idea for creating them is originating with him...it isn't, the shirts already exist.  It seems he is literally asking who is selling the shirts on the Facebook Marketplace.

Granted, I'm sure realizing the shirts actually exist might be even worse to you, but it seems the venom here is a bit misplaced.   

19 hours ago, saunders45 said:

Maybe Dan Mullen.

I must admit, I didn't consider Dan Mullen before this suggestion, but do think he'd be a great hire for us.

A run first offensive identity, with an emphasis on power where the QB is a threat to both run and pass, with a healthy amount of option sprinkled in, is the way we need to go, IMHO.

Imagine Stanford, Michigan, or Wisconsin's offense if paired with a dual-threat QB with sufficient passing and running abilities, where option plays (be it zone read or under center out of I-formation, whatever) constituted a healthy portion of the offense.

The best example that comes to mind for me is Wisconsin's offense when Russell Wilson was there.  I realize Wilson is an elite QB, but just using that for reference of the sort of style I think would suit us best.

Granted they've only played 2 games, but D.J. Durkin's offense at Maryland so far this year has looked very much like the kind of offense I think would suit us and do well here.

Regardless of scheme, the O-Line play needs to be physical, mean, and nasty.

In order of preference:

1. Scott Frost

2. Chip Kelly

3. Troy Calhoun

4. D.J. Durkin

5. Craig Bohl

I see a lot of coaches listed here who are big names and have been successful who I don't think would be good long term solutions at Nebraska, chiefly because of the offensive styles they employ not matching up with the players we have greatest access to and Nebraska's built-in recruiting disadvantages.  In our most successful years, we ran an offense that embraced and maximized the abilities of the talent we had greatest access to.

I think a coach is needed who employs a run-first offensive mentality with a physical, brutal O-line (yes, I realize me having Kelly at 2 seems contradictory to that), where the QB is also a fixture in the run game.  Nebraska will never consistently out-recruit schools like USC, Miami, Texas, and Alabama, but with the right coach(es), right scheme, and right values/mentality, I don't think it needs to in order to have sustained success.  

Frost #1 because I think he understands what he'd be walking into here--the expectations, what it would take to be successful.  I think he understands the pressure the job would bring, and I think fans would be more patient with the homegrown kid who was a national championship winning QB here and still early into his coaching career than a more established coach we would expect to win big and right away.

Plus this right here shows me he GETS IT:

“I’ve actually been going to work trying to restudy what we used to do at Nebraska. . . . [W]hat we ran at Nebraska in a lot of ways is very similar to what Oregon runs right now — we’re just out of the shotgun versus under center. But a lot of the concepts of the option game are the same. . . . I would love to see somebody go back to doing what Nebraska used to do. Maybe the Huskers are going to do that this year. Personally, I’d love to someday mix a lot of the concepts that Oregon runs with some of the aspects Nebraska used to run. . . . The one thing I wish we could do at Oregon is be a little more physical. I don’t think that’s a secret. I think everybody on our staff wishes we could be a little more physical on offense. That’s what Nebraska’s calling card was. If we could play fast and physical, I don’t think there’s anybody in the country who could stop us.”

http://smartfootball.com/uncategorized/combining-tom-osbornes-nebraska-offense-with-chip-kellys-oregon-offense-the-stuff-dreams-are-made-of#sthash.qJ3zSLh6.dpbs

 

 

 

If the talent is there then we wouldn't be starting a record number of walkons. End of story.

So the walkons have no talent? Are you saying Janovish isn't more talented than a lot of scholarship players on other teams?

 

Silly statement. "End of story" makes it even more comical/

There are always exceptions. Walkons have talent. But do they have enough talent to win a championship? Win against teams like Ohio State or Alabama? If you haven't noticed the teams that recruit top classes every year are the ones winning championships.

How many of the 97 team who had at least one start were from Nebraska?

 

I believe 9 or 10 of the 11 regular offensive starters were from Nebraska.

I'm not sure how many walk-ons in particular started at any point during that season, but I did find this:

https://sites.google.com/site/nebraskafootballhistory/walk-ons-page-5

Bear in mind that many of those who had become scholarship players by that point also started their careers as walk-ons.

So, anyways, from Nebraska, a very high amount, in addition to many of the contributors being walk-ons or starting their careers as walk-ons.

(Yes, I realize things are different today and it is a bit more difficult to implement such a system today than it was then. Simply trying to help answer Joe's question).

The talent or lack thereof on this team is one thing, but I thought one of the big points of praise for Riley was his ability to maximize talent and get the most of the teams he coached? Riley himself even made comments that this was one of the more talented teams he had coached, and that the team was particularly deep in talent on both the offensive and defensive lines.

Do these comments now amount to platitudes? The comments about working in their system and tailoring it to the talent we had on the team, do those amount to platitudes as well?

Bottom line is Riley took over a program that won 9 games the year before. Nobody in the local or national media, nobody on this site or any message board I'm aware of, and no Husker fan I know in real life predicted this team to be this poor right now. So what is the issue? Could it be coaching?

Maybe the issue is this staff is not at all a fit for Nebraska or right for the job. Maybe if talent matching such a different scheme is such an issue, we should have brought in a coach who ran a scheme that did match the talent we had on hand, or was legitimately interested and able to tailor schemes to fit that talent, and/or didn't try forcing a square peg in a round hole so much.

There is no evidence to suggest Riley can or will have success here, and we have decades of evidence to utilize for this conclusion (beyond that, the man is 62 years old). While we don't have a lot of examples (of a coach taking over a solid winning team after a firing or non-retirement related resignation), there are literally no examples to my knowledge of a coach doing substantially worse than his predecessor in his first year and then going on to have a successful tenure at that school.

If you were to objectively look at the coaching hires made this past offseason, which would you had said was the biggest head-scratcher and had the highest probability of failure? If that seems too daunting or difficult a question to answer at this point, simply look objectively at the coaching carousel between us, Oregon State, Wisconsin, and Pitt and tell me who do you think pulled the shortest straw?

When I see teams like Navy, Air Force, Memphis, Temple, Kansas State, and Pitt who I don't feel are more talented than us, but I think would beat us, that whole lack of talent thing kind of goes right out the window.

I think Nebraska fans have a right to be concerned and even outraged. I really think we are looking at a very small window of time to get this train back on track before it goes completely off the rails. We haven't won a conference championship since 1999. There are literally 2 generations of fans who have little or no memory of Nebraska ever being a very good team. Think what we may now, but I personally believe Nebraska is much closer to Minnesota, circa 1978 than it is to Alabama, circa 2008.

I live in Colorado and people have been telling me for years now that Nebraska is a 2nd tier team now. Heck this year we are a bottom tier team.

 

It's going to take time to fix this mess.

What I get a lot down in Kansas (from JAYHAWK fans, nonetheless) is "back when Nebraska had a football team" (not just this year, in prior years as well).

Of course I reply with "at least we had one."

K-State fans are, in my experience, sincerely more knowledgeable, sympathetic, and honestly more appreciative of Nebraska and its program than most Jayhawk fans.

Likely a bad half-hearted hire, similar to the Michigan situation, a bit of an identity crisis really. He might get another year to put he's system in place, but there were just fundamental coaching mistakes in many of the losses that dont give me confidence regarding he's coaching. Pelini was not the answer either, he usually had a decent amount of wins(9!) but did not win the important games. Who knows though, maybe he will pull something out of he's hat, though I cant see what.

Thanks for an outside perspective, Michiganball!

from the Oregonians online newspaper.

 

well for whatever reason I cant post the link. Oregonlive.com But basically Oregon sports writer write about the failure of riley at Nebraska. Most Oregon State fans post comments on there saying they saw this coming and Riley has been on a downhill since 2006. Most Beaver fans feel bad for Nebraska and realize he brought a mediocre staff to Nebraska.

 

Also most see him gone after next season. ​

​

Would this be the one?

http://www.oregonlive.com/collegefootball/index.ssf/2015/11/thursday_morning_news_notes_li_27.html

And yes, I have also noticed as much from many Oregon State fans on their forums, even going back months ago.

But like I said, I'm trying to remain as impartial as possible in this thread.

Since we Husker fans have been at each other's throats on this board for the past few weeks, I am really curious to hear what some of the members of the board who are from fanbases outside of Husker nation think about situation NU finds itself in today.

I got to thinking about this topic more after a great conversation I had with a co-worker who is a big time OU fan and grew up in Oklahoma (he misses our old rivalry dearly). I realize there are probably some Husker fans on here who couldn't care less about what a fan of another team thinks about ours, and I'm sure many of the members who are fans of other teams perhaps haven't been paying close enough attention to NU to really offer a strong opinion one way or another, but I (and I think many fans here) would be interested to hear some thoughts from an outside perspective after beating up on each other now for so long, and would appreciate the insight.

I'm going to try to prevent injecting my opinion here, as I'm not interested at all in influencing the opinions of others who may respond to this or reinforcing mine, but for a brief synopsis of what's happening with Nebraska today:

*Mike Riley, our first year coach, currently has Nebraska sitting at 3-6

*Many fans are upset with this, and with Riley, our AD, and Chancellor

*Many feel that Riley needs to be give more time to recruit to his system and develop players, as we don't quite have the players to match his system, have been thin at several positions, and have sustained many injuries

*Many feel Riley is dealing with the results of a toxic culture left behind by his predecessor, Bo Pelini

*Many feel Riley took over the reins of a 9-4 program and has them playing substantially worse football

*AD Shawn Eichorst comes out with a letter of support for Mike Riley early in the week after a 55-45 loss to Purdue

*Chancellor Harvey Perlman publicly states his support for Shawn Eichorst as Nebraska's AD, and speaks about extending his contract

*Many think our AD's letter of support was an embarrassing "kiss of death," and think extending our AD's contract is a ludicrous idea

*Many think the AD's letter of support shows a strong commitment from our AD to his coach, and think extending our AD's contract would lead to greater stability within our program

*Many think Mike Riley is the wrong hire for Nebraska, will never win us a conference championship, and needs to be let go immediately (along with possibly our AD), or else our program will be set back even further

*Many think we need to be patient with Coach Riley and our AD, that the process will take time, and any drastic moves at this point will set our program back even further

I realize there are specifics I have left out or skipped over, but if one wants/needs a deeper analysis or outlook, I'm sure you can find this in the many threads we currently have up on this board.

I know for a fact we have very knowledgeable Fighting Irish fans, Buckeyes, Spartans, Wolverines, Badgers, Gophers, Wildcats (KSU and Northwestern), Tigers (Missouri and Clemson), Cyclones, Sooners, Cowboys (Wyoming and Okie State), Buffaloes, Aggies, and even Beavers now (and surely more I missed) who chime in on this board from time to time.

I'm quite curious to see what they think about the state of Nebraska football today. Is Riley the right guy for the job? What do you think about the actions of our AD and Chancellor? Are fans justified in being angry and/or wanting them gone, or completely insane? Would we be setting ourselves up for disaster getting rid of them so soon? Are we setting ourselves up for failure by keeping them around any longer? Should we exercise more patience? What should the expectations be at Nebraska? What do you think Nebraska should do or needs to do to meet these expectations?

No need to answer every single question, but just interested in getting a bit more of an outside perspective. And while I can't dictate who can or can't post in this thread, this is directed at those members from outside fanbases; we have about a million other threads to duke it out amongst ourselves in.

Thanks a lot!

 

The site has Norm Chow at #60. And Chow was just canned from Hawaii today.

Haha! End thread.

 

He was #3 earlier today before being fired.

You're looking at the expanded rating list. I'm not sure why he is still showing up at #60 on there, but he was indeed #3 earlier today before being removed from the top 30 list altogether after his firing (the guys at the top of the page with the accompanying photos). As a result everyone but Riley and Richt moved up on the list, and Kingsbury earned a spot in the top 30.

 

 

 

 

Personally, I like when new posters start threads and stick their necks out with bold rumors. I like the title, "Mike Riley is Done" ... like it's a fact ... then the rumor is stated with a "solid" reference to a prior situation.

 

I'm not bashing the post ... trust me ... but it will give me a chance to see if FTW is legit.

 

I'll be watching with interest for sure FTW. Thanks for the post.

That would be why he posted it in RUMORVILLE, and he is professing it to be nothing more than that, a rumor.

 

It's clear you're not bashing the post, you're employing a 'worthiness/belonging clause' (basically a form of 'poisoning the well' ad hominem) to bash the poster, as you have done in nearly every post you have made on this board in the past couple of weeks, trying to somehow trumpet your apparent worthiness or belonging to some Huskerboard social stratosphere via your post count, and how this makes you some authority figure on a message board, while demeaning/writing off those with less.

 

There are obviously posters who make great contributions to this board who have a high post count, and they usually are the ones most likely to make the most meaningful contributions to this board.

 

However, there are also posters with high post counts who do little to make meaningful contributions to this board and offer next to nothing in quality thoughts and discussion, just as there are posters who do not have many posts who offer very quality thoughts and discussion, and meaningful contributions, while less numerous.

 

I'm trying to wrap my mind around what you just said and how it is relevant to anything Baker just said.

 

"Personally, I like when new posters start threads and stick their necks out with bold rumors. I like the title, "Mike Riley is Done" ... like it's a fact ... then the rumor is stated with a "solid" reference to a prior situation."

 

Ya I know what he said. I'm just not sure why you are so mad about it. I'm not seeing anything in there that warrants such an emotional response that you gave...

 

 

Edit: I guess I haven't really paid attn. to what he's been saying in previous posts the last couple weeks that you must have paid attn. to.

 

In any case, in what I've noticed with post count is that generally if someone has been around here for a while and have a high post count they are generally pretty level headed unless you say something to piss them off or intentionally call them out.

 

To me 1800 posts isn't all that much considering he joined in 2005. Hell. I don't consider myself to have a high post count at 3200 since 08.

 

My point is, again in what I've noticed, is that if you are around a ton, your voice seems to get a little bit more attention...not clout, just attention. Everyone knows the tones of True, Zoogs, Saunders, Knapp, LOMS, etc....

 

Not everyone is accustomed to Blackshirt_Revival yet (Not that it matters in the first place)....maybe I'm off base but that's just an observation I have made the last couple years.

 

I agree with this. In the same breath, being an active poster on a message board will never be as profound a part of the lives of many (or most) people as it is to some of the most prolific and solid contributors on this site.

I understand this frequency is also part of what contributes to credibility (ie, rep point), and how this may cause some to exercise caution and pause with information or opinions expressed by those who do not contribute as much, but obviously there have been quality contributions made on this site from those with fewer post counts, just as I understand there has been plenty of garbage contributed by those with fewer post counts.

I guess my point is, post count alone should not be and is not the sole determiner of the quality of post or poster or the ability to formulate a solid opinion, insight, or to share information. It is not reason enough alone to dismiss someone or what they might share. I think we can also all agree there is also plenty of nonsense posted on here daily from more frequent posters who are upping their post counts by contributing posts of little substance, as well.

 

 

 

 

Personally, I like when new posters start threads and stick their necks out with bold rumors. I like the title, "Mike Riley is Done" ... like it's a fact ... then the rumor is stated with a "solid" reference to a prior situation.

 

I'm not bashing the post ... trust me ... but it will give me a chance to see if FTW is legit.

 

I'll be watching with interest for sure FTW. Thanks for the post.

That would be why he posted it in RUMORVILLE, and he is professing it to be nothing more than that, a rumor.

 

It's clear you're not bashing the post, you're employing a 'worthiness/belonging clause' (basically a form of 'poisoning the well' ad hominem) to bash the poster, as you have done in nearly every post you have made on this board in the past couple of weeks, trying to somehow trumpet your apparent worthiness or belonging to some Huskerboard social stratosphere via your post count, and how this makes you some authority figure on a message board, while demeaning/writing off those with less.

 

There are obviously posters who make great contributions to this board who have a high post count, and they usually are the ones most likely to make the most meaningful contributions to this board.

 

However, there are also posters with high post counts who do little to make meaningful contributions to this board and offer next to nothing in quality thoughts and discussion, just as there are posters who do not have many posts who offer very quality thoughts and discussion, and meaningful contributions, while less numerous.

 

I'm trying to wrap my mind around what you just said and how it is relevant to anything Baker just said.

 

"Personally, I like when new posters start threads and stick their necks out with bold rumors. I like the title, "Mike Riley is Done" ... like it's a fact ... then the rumor is stated with a "solid" reference to a prior situation."

 

Ya I know what he said. I'm just not sure why you are so mad about it. I'm not seeing anything in there that warrants such an emotional response that you gave...

 

 

I'm not mad about anything, actually.

There was nothing emotional at all about the response I typed. You're welcome to disagree with the conclusion I reached, but I called it quite as I saw it. Nothing more, nothing less.

 

 

Personally, I like when new posters start threads and stick their necks out with bold rumors. I like the title, "Mike Riley is Done" ... like it's a fact ... then the rumor is stated with a "solid" reference to a prior situation.

 

I'm not bashing the post ... trust me ... but it will give me a chance to see if FTW is legit.

 

I'll be watching with interest for sure FTW. Thanks for the post.

That would be why he posted it in RUMORVILLE, and he is professing it to be nothing more than that, a rumor.

 

It's clear you're not bashing the post, you're employing a 'worthiness/belonging clause' (basically a form of 'poisoning the well' ad hominem) to bash the poster, as you have done in nearly every post you have made on this board in the past couple of weeks, trying to somehow trumpet your apparent worthiness or belonging to some Huskerboard social stratosphere via your post count, and how this makes you some authority figure on a message board, while demeaning/writing off those with less.

 

There are obviously posters who make great contributions to this board who have a high post count, and they usually are the ones most likely to make the most meaningful contributions to this board.

 

However, there are also posters with high post counts who do little to make meaningful contributions to this board and offer next to nothing in quality thoughts and discussion, just as there are posters who do not have many posts who offer very quality thoughts and discussion, and meaningful contributions, while less numerous.

Those of us that have been around for two firings and three hirings have seen our fair share of threads like these. It remains to be seen if the person will be a good poster in the future, but previous experience doesn't bode well.

 

I understand that, but I also see that this is posted in Rumorville with the caveat "take it for what its worth, a rumor."

Beyond that, some may disagree, but I think FTW has made some good contributions in his/her posts thus far.

That doesn't mean I believe this rumor, but I'm not placing a lot of stock in it or the poster for this being posted in Rumorville one way or the other, either.

 

 

Personally, I like when new posters start threads and stick their necks out with bold rumors. I like the title, "Mike Riley is Done" ... like it's a fact ... then the rumor is stated with a "solid" reference to a prior situation.

 

I'm not bashing the post ... trust me ... but it will give me a chance to see if FTW is legit.

 

I'll be watching with interest for sure FTW. Thanks for the post.

That would be why he posted it in RUMORVILLE, and he is professing it to be nothing more than that, a rumor.

 

It's clear you're not bashing the post, you're employing a 'worthiness/belonging clause' (basically a form of 'poisoning the well' ad hominem) to bash the poster, as you have done in nearly every post you have made on this board in the past couple of weeks, trying to somehow trumpet your apparent worthiness or belonging to some Huskerboard social stratosphere via your post count, and how this makes you some authority figure on a message board, while demeaning/writing off those with less.

 

There are obviously posters who make great contributions to this board who have a high post count, and they usually are the ones most likely to make the most meaningful contributions to this board.

 

However, there are also posters with high post counts who do little to make meaningful contributions to this board and offer next to nothing in quality thoughts and discussion, just as there are posters who do not have many posts who offer very quality thoughts and discussion, and meaningful contributions, while less numerous.

 

I'm trying to wrap my mind around what you just said and how it is relevant to anything Baker just said.

 

"Personally, I like when new posters start threads and stick their necks out with bold rumors. I like the title, "Mike Riley is Done" ... like it's a fact ... then the rumor is stated with a "solid" reference to a prior situation."

Personally, I like when new posters start threads and stick their necks out with bold rumors. I like the title, "Mike Riley is Done" ... like it's a fact ... then the rumor is stated with a "solid" reference to a prior situation.

 

I'm not bashing the post ... trust me ... but it will give me a chance to see if FTW is legit.

 

I'll be watching with interest for sure FTW. Thanks for the post.

That would be why he posted it in RUMORVILLE, and he is professing it to be nothing more than that, a rumor.

It's clear you're not bashing the post, you're employing a 'worthiness/belonging clause' (basically a form of 'poisoning the well' ad hominem) to bash the poster, as you have done in nearly every post you have made on this board in the past couple of weeks, trying to somehow trumpet your apparent worthiness or belonging to some Huskerboard social stratosphere via your post count, and how this makes you some authority figure on a message board, while demeaning/writing off those with less.

There are obviously posters who make great contributions to this board who have a high post count, and they usually are the ones most likely to make the most meaningful contributions to this board.

However, there are also posters with high post counts who do little to make meaningful contributions to this board and offer next to nothing in quality thoughts and discussion, just as there are posters who do not have many posts who offer very quality thoughts and discussion, and meaningful contributions, while less numerous.

While I don't particularly care for him as a coach or the style of football he employs, Leach had a history of legitimate success before he started coaching at Washington State. Riley's resume pales in comparison to Leach's.

Washington State was a horrid program before Leach took over there. I don't really think I'd consider it to be a great gig for a coach, but Leach has them going in the right direction for sure.

Regardless of how much we want to argue about the state of Husker football when Mike Riley took over, I don't think there is any comparison at all to the program Leach took over in Pullman to the program Riley took over in Lincoln.

Like it or not, this is why Leach gets more latitude in a place like Pullman than Riley gets in Lincoln.

Perhaps some will find these useful:

Administration:

hperlman1@unl.edu; mboehm@huskers.com; seichorst2@unl.edu

Regents:

tclare@nebraska.edu; hhawks@nebraska.edu; jpillen@nebraska.edu; bwhitehouse@nebraska.edu; rschafer@nebraska.edu; kschroeder@nebraska.edu;kschroeder@nebraska.edu; hdaub@nebraska.edu

Maybe the Nebraska Cornhuskers could use a few more guys that really want to play for Nebraska, as in ones who grew up dreaming to do so and would do about anything to do so. Motivation probably wouldn't be such a concern, then.

That's my takeaway from reading this thread, anyways.

Is that to say we shun recruiting studs nationally? Absolutely not, but this thread just totally reinforces to me why we should have a greater presence of local talent on the team.

Instant identity and instant character. Recruiting then compliments your built-in strengths. Built-in motivation, in addition to a sanctuary and support system for the out-of-area guys. Build your OL, DL, LBs, TEs, FBs with mostly local guys. You can build the foundation for a quality a class with kids at these positions within a roughly 500 mile radius of Lincoln. Target the best skill position players nationally who you think will suit what it is we want to do. You will probably have to rely on the bulk of your skill position guys coming from out of that region, but that is not to say you cannot or will not find very good skill position players within that region, either.

Seems like a strange way to recruit to some, but once you forge an identity, I think recruiting instantly becomes much better overall (and dare I say, easier?) and more of a match for what it is we want to do as a team. See Stanford who has very high hurdles to jump to get kids on campus to play there due to their admission standards, in spite of their Bay Area location, yet still finds a way to field quality teams with quality players. And by the way, this would basically amount to a slightly updated version of how we recruited and had success here for years.

Are things different and harder recruiting this way for Nebraska now? Yes, but I'd counter it's difficult to recruit to Nebraska in any other fashion, as well (relative to most other power programs). Just because it may be difficult (at least at first) to do it this way doesn't stop it from being better than having no real direction or identity (as far as I can tell), mired in a bog of futility, and it's definitely no excuse to abandon the foundation of what truly made our program so great and special and unique for so long. Then again, to do something like this, we'd need a coach and an administration/AD that would have that sort of vision, and who would want/try to forge that identity. Not sure I can identify what Mike Riley's vision for Husker football is, and don't think I care to know what Perlman or Eichorst's vision is.

But regardless, even if what you think I'm saying is total rambling nonsense, a coach needs to hold his team accountable, regardless of what kind of system we are running or what players constitute our team--a coach that, while not being an authoritarian by any means, needs to exert his authority and take control of his team, period. And yes, the kids need to be motivated, tuned-in, and have desire to succeed here. Whether that is purely on them to provide that or on the coaches, or both, if I'm the coach of this team, it's definitely something I'm addressing, whether that means looking at my motivational skills/demeanor, my staff's motivational skills/demeanor, disciplining or sitting a player if the effort and attitude is not there, or whatever--it needs to be addressed. Send a message, take control of the team. If Riley can't do that, then what is his function again, exactly?

I keep telling my family and friends that next year we could be a really special team. I truly believe that is possible.

 

But my gut has the same feeling it did when they announced that Riley was our new coach. I'm more and more afraid we are in for a year sinilar to this one next year. If that happens and we are again searching for a new coach heading into 2017, Nebraska will be 15 years without a conference title. That is just unacceptable on so many levels for a fan base as devoted as ours and a university as well endowed as ours is.

Not to nitpick on your post, because I mostly agree with the spirit of it, but...

...1999 was the last year we won a conference title.

So it has already now been 16 years since we have won a conference title.

But yeah, the longer Riley is here, the longer we will go without one for sure.

In 4-5 years that would mean over 20 years without a conference title.

Yet this amounted to a paltry 42% of the offensive plays we called.

But heck, what do I know? I'm just a 'derper'. Let's stick with that ratio for the rest of the season and/or call 50 pass plays a game for Tommy Armstrong and see where that gets us.

Either way, keep on keepin' on with the cute Hank Hill ad hominems, I guess.

Talk to us about those running stats from today.

Please tell me, what is so difficult to grasp about this?

THEY DON'T KNOW HOW TO RUN THE BALL OR COMMIT TO THE RUN. THE RUN IS MERELY WINDOW-DRESSING FOR AND COMPLIMENTARY TO THE PASSING GAME WITH THIS STAFF.

The reason our rushing game is unsuccessful is because we have ZERO COMMITMENT TO IT. There is no creativity to our running game, and no technique or toughness instilled into these kids to foster a running game. Our starting running back isn't our starter because he is our best runner, but because he is our "best all around back" (Riley's words in his presser a couple of weeks ago), ie: He catches the ball and pass protects the best.

How many different types of ways did we attack Northwestern's defense with our rushing game? Did you see a lot of variety besides Newby and/or Cross up the gut? I remember 1 option play with TA (when he scored a TD), 1 bootleg run with TD (also a TA TD), 1 jet sweep attempt, 2 rushes by Jano up the gut. Did you see anything else that I missed? Were there any counter plays? Did we run any zone read? Any other traditional option looks besides the 1 TA scored on? Any more bootleg rushes besides the one TA scored on? Any sprint-outs? Any halfback sweeps/tosses? Did any of our other running backs besides the aforementioned get a shot to carry the ball when Newby and Cross clearly weren't getting it done? Like oh, I don't know, those 2 freshman who looked good earlier in the season, Wilbon and Ozigbo, who have seemingly COMPLETELY disappeared from this team?

"Oh, we got stuffed, time to go back to the air!" THAT is the mentality of this staff. Watch the Iowa-Northwestern game and observe how Iowa's run was kept in check at first, and then proceeded to wear down and then dominate Northwestern with their rushing attack and physicality. That is what commitment to the running game is. This team simply is not coached or taught how to have a physical running game. It is a technique and mentality which these coaches simply do not possess or understand--it is completely foreign to them. This has become quite clear. If a run gets stuffed, we go straight to the pass. How many times did we even run the ball twice in a row? Let alone three times in a row.

Here are some stats for you: There were at least 50 pass plays called in this game (if you count the plays Tommy was sacked) out of 86. That is calling for a pass play on 58% of your offensive plays. Please tell me in what alternate universe it makes sense for Tommy Armstrong to EVER be asked to throw 50 passes in a game? Or in what alternate universe a Tommy Armstrong led Nebraska team has over 50 pass plays and expects to win?

To paraphrase Dan Hawkins: "This ain't Corvallis, brother."

 

 

 

 

Someone who runs a power-run, run-first offense that uses the run to setup the pass and not the other way around.

 

Basically, someone who will look at Stanford and copy that recipe over and over and over and over again.

 

+1

 

Keep banging the drum Hujan! This is the offensive philosophy Nebraska MUST bring back.

 

 

For sure. But it's more than just a power-run versus fun-and-gun. Stanford is beating the pants off people with a team full of guys like Janovich and Chris Weber. (Not making this a race thing, btw.) They are playing solid, aggressive defense, and smash-mouth offense. They are high on tenacity and will.

 

Sprinkle electrifying skill-position players like DPE, Morgan, and Moore on top of a foundation consisting of guys like Janovich, Webber, and Gangwish, combine it with a power-run scheme and a punishing D and you'll have a team that will win a lot of games.

 

^ Here is the answer.

 

My only twist on the formula would be using a quarterback with more dual threat ability than what Stanford's QBs and the QBs of most other current power teams have shown over the past few years.

 

And by dual threat, I don't really mean Taylor Martinez or Michael Vick. Think more Russell Wilson. If that seems too ambitious, think more like Joe Ganz, even. A QB who can distribute the ball but who can also make defenses account for his legs.

 

 

Absolutely. But I wouldn't make it a focal point of the recruiting focus. There is no denying that Wisconsin became nigh unstoppable with a guy like Wilson at the helm. But even a *3 ho-hum QB who doesn't have a ton of elusiveness would be highly effective in such an offense so long as he has solid fundamentals and can be taught to make smart decisions. I'm thinking someone like Zac Taylor.

 

Build the team around high-quality OL/DL play, add some solid LB/TE play, and the rest is pretty much details. Add in a talented dual-threat QB and/or an exceptional RB and the team becomes a playoff contender instantly.

 

Also, how come you no give me +1?

 

I have been giving you tons of +1s, and you are totally right on with practically every point you have made!

Ask people who are, at a minimum, somewhat knowledgeable about college football (historically) and the Nebraska Cornhuskers, to tell you what Nebraska's identity is, or what comes to mind when you mention the Nebraska Cornhuskers and their style of play. See what kind of answers you get.

It was no accident we played the style of football we played for so long here. It was built upon, first and foremost, what we had available to us. This served as the foundation of Nebraska's identity. Everything after that was supplemental. Some years our playing style may have looked slightly different than other years, depending on what kind of players we had, but there was a general foundation of strong, physical running game with an O-line that was going to pound you into submission, and a swarming defense that was going to hit you and hurt you.

For whatever reason, this way of doing things was perceived by some (particularly some with a lot of money, I'm guessing) to be outdated and obsolete. So instead we started doing what about every other generic, half-a$$ed program out there was doing, and now there is absolutely nothing distinguishable about Nebraska or the brand of football it plays. The only thing distinguishable about it now is the support and passion of its fanbase relative to its population and location. What is else is distinguishable, at all, about Husker football today?

Now, am I saying we do things exactly as we did in the 90s with our play selection and offensive scheme? Not exactly. But as far as the general style of a physical, hard-nosed O-line and running game, and vicious, swarming D with a team built on the backs of talent roughly from within a 500 mile radius, supplemented with "high star" guys from out of region to help round us out at the skill positions and any other positions of need? Heck yes that's what I'm saying.