Hujan

Bingo. This is the perfect response to everyone demanding that Riley be, ironically, given "more time." A coach doesn't need to be on campus for 4 years to figure out how to run out the goddamn clock. "More time" is last the thing Mike Riley needs.

Sock, maybe you need to start a new thread for the Riley firing/resignation or at least re-post how this works. A lot of people may not remember your role as a mere conduit for information from people with inside info who want to remain anonymous.

In my mind, Pelini forced Nebraska to fire him, so I'm not one of those guys that could even envision him here this year. This also isn't about Riley being hired or fired. This is about Eichorst getting up, getting out, and doing HIS job. Because itt is possible for someone to: Think Pelini's time to move out had come Think Riley should get more time Think Eichorst needs to put on Big Boy AD pants and engage the people who make it possible for him to draw a paycheck. Well, you won't get any arguments from me on bullets one and three. I am unsure on two. I think it's only fair that he get's more time. If a third of the roster was walk ons, then we have to at least let him have a chance to compete with a full deck. In order to get rid of Riley after this season, we would have to admit that he was a bad choice to begin with and that would lead to Eichorst getting fired. With Perlman stepping down this summer, I just don't think logistically it's possible to hire a new chancellor, AD, and football coach in time for next season. So I am taking the cup is 1/10 full attitude and hoping that he will get things turned around. More time is not going to convince Riley to suddenly play the best running back on the team. More time is not going to convince Riley not to sling the goddamn ball all over the yard in the wind late in the fourth with a lead. More time is not going to convince Riley to rotate offensive linemen. More time is not going to convince Riley we're wasting half a mil on a special teams coach that has done nothing but make special teams worse. More time is not going to make Riley fire our guys up and inspire them to greatness. Riley is an NFL-minded coach and a soft one at that. There is no reason to give this dumpster fire of an experiment more time. We didn't want him when he was hired and we certainly don't want him at 3-6. Bye, Felicia.

"Mike, the only difference between last year's 9-3 team and this year's likely 3-9 team is you and your assistants. Have you considered resigning at this point?"

Eh. I've always had my doubts about Gerry's ability to make tackles in open space. He takes poor angles very often. I think Pelini's D masked his (and the other secondary players') inabilities a lot. Everything is on full display with Banker's scheme.

Dreams. Crushed.

That rule only holds true if the coach demonstrates competency in game management and firing up the team, but needs time to implement his system to greater effect with his guys. A sign of coach that deserves more time is progress from game to game, year to year. The game management under Riley has been a total disaster, unlike anything I've ever seen at the college or pro level. Clock management is terrible. The running back rotation is a joke. The OL rotation is completely insane. The play-calling is horrendous. And the passing defense is an unmitigated disaster. We are committing penalties at an insane rate. Meanwhile, the team looks lost and uninspired more and more as each game goes by. We are a worse team now than when we started by far. These are all coaching problems. These problems aren't going to go away with more time because they are manifestations of who Riley is as a coach and the schemes he prefers to run. He's a very, very bad fit for this program and fan base and should never have come here. It was a unilateral decision by an AD who is badly out of touch with this program and the sooner we pull the plug on an experiment that should never have started the better we will all be, Riley included. He doesn't need this sh#t and neither do we.

Exactly right. If you are pretty sure Riley is just not going to be successful here--and you'd have to be dumb or blind not to be---it makes sense to pull the trigger now than sweeping it under the run for the next couple of years.

I can see this going down in one of two ways: One is that the President skips over lame-duck Perlman and tells Eichorst directly that it's either him or Riley. At that point, I can see Eichorst doing it, though I think he would probably try to get Riley to resign. Two is that the President basically "fires" Perlman by stripping him of any authority regarding the athletic department between now and June. President informs Eichorst he is not to do anything regarding the football program without the President's direct consent. President then gets with incoming Chancellor and they pick the next Athletic Director. Together, the three dudes (President, incoming Chancellor, incoming AD) all conduct a coaching search in secret. The day after the last game, Eichorst and Riley are fired. New coach and AD are announced next day. Done.

Put me down for this as well. Players? Yes. Staff? No. And I would argue that to the extent the players haven't completely bought in, it's not because of loyalty to Bo so much as not digging Riley & Co. for the same reasons that the fans have now abandoned the coaches.

There is literally zero percent chance that Eichorst has the authority to give contract extensions at this point. Eichorst is undoubtedly in a zippered leather outfit with a ball gag. He is the "Gimp" from Pulp Fiction at this point. There but not really there, if you know what I'm saying.

This is exactly it. People may point to the quick parting with Mike Riley and say, "These Nebraska fans will never be happy!" But the reality is that we were given a coach we never would have picked, did not want, and predicted would fail from the outset, but decided to put that aside and give him our full support until it became clear that we were spot on from the get-go. Push reset. Riley should never have come here in the first place. Everyone knew it was going to be a bad fit and it is. If you have the wrong tree in your yard, you pull it out immediately after you planted it. You do not wait for the tree to start putting down roots. Yank this coaching staff out, and go get us the coaching staff we should have gotten 12 months ago. For f#*k's sake.

Get rid of everyone: Riley, staff, and Eichorst. They're all worthless bums.

He gets paid whether we cut him loose or not. So you want wins with others' millions or not?

Bump.

Firing Riley will never be easier to do than after this season. Firing him will only be more disruptive and problematic for the program 2-3 years down the road. Easy come, easy go. Fire Riley.

Chryst beat Riley with a walk-on QB.

You know it's good when Purdue declines a penalty that would have given them a safety in order to punch the ball in for a TD.

RUCK FILEY!!!!

We need to just forfeit the rest of the season at this point. Shut it down, disconnect the batteries, and retool for next year with a new coaching staff. It wouldn't shock me if Riley & Co. just took a knee at this point and resigned. Even they know they're not getting it done.

I actually kinda like the D scheme. I think we're a solid corner and a legit pass rusher away from having a very salty D. (Would definitely agree the secondary coach should be replaced, though.) I think the offense is a bigger issue. It could get better with a legit QB, but the running game is a total disaster.

This. There's lots of self-entitlement, yes. Listen, I still don't think MR is the guy for the job. Only time will tell us if that is true or not. That being said - a coach can only motivate a player so much. Players must be self-motivated to do what needs to be done. I'd agree with what Carricker said in his FB post about the team buying into MR's system, though. I'm a WCO kind of guy, and I keep going back to this one argument: Look at the teams that have won National championships all the way back to 2000. How many ran a WCO/Pro Style offense? 2000: OU - WCO/Pro Style 2001: DA U - WCO/Pro Style 2002: Buckeyes - WCO/Pro Style 2003: LSU/USC - both WCO/Pro Style 2004: USC - WCO/Pro Style 2005: TExPN - Spread/Zone 2006: Florida - Spread/Zone 2007: LSU - WCO/Pro Style 2008: Florida - Spread/Zone 2009: Bammer - WCO/Pro Style 2010: Auburn - Spread/Zone 2011: Bammer - WCO/Pro Style 2012: Bammer - WCO/Pro Style 2013: Free Shoes - WCO/Pro Style 2014: Buckeyes - Spread/Zone It's not that the WCO/Pro Style offense is any better than the Spread/Zone offense. But the WCO/Pro Style offense attracts players that wish to play at the next level, period, end of story. I think we need to define "Pro" style offense a little better. The hallmarks of a "pro-style" offense is not about passing to the exclusion of running. It's about QBs under center (which actually helps the run game), pocket passing, huddling, and a QB that checks into and out of plays depending on what he sees at the LOS.A WCO is a subset of a pro system. It uses highly complex route combinations, de-empahsizes the traditional run game favoring instead short screen passes to to the WR and RB, relies on precise timing of routes, and generally throws the ball a lot. Wisconsin runs a pro-system as traditionally defined. Stanford does too. LSU also. But all of them are power-run forms, not WCO forms, of the pro-style. I'm not sure I'd agree that Bama runs a WCO. Point being, it's possible to run a "pro-system" without running the highly complex and difficult to execute WCO. It's also possible to run a "pro-system" that is very run dominant. I would be all for a "pro-style" run oriented system at Nebraska. But the QBs who can effectively run a WCO at the college level are rare as hens' teeth. Agreed up to the point where you said, "throws the ball a lot". Not necessarily - this depends on the coach and the talent level he has (see Les Miles running Jacob Hester all the time). Totally disagree. I just rattled off a bunch of teams that all had average at best QBs. They were efficient in throwing the ball. Sims was in the top 10 in Passing efficiency last year, McCarron was ninth in 2013, first in 2012, and McElroy was 4th in 2010. And I'm just looking at Bammer QBs on that stat. I'd argue that spread QBs are more rare than pocket passers are. I'm not sure we agree what a "West Coast Offense" is. There's probably no more than 10 college teams running it, if even that many. You seem to think that "not spread" equals "WCO." That's wrong. There is no way in hell Ohio State's offense would even remotely be considered a WCO. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/West_Coast_offense

I have a ton of respect for what the '95 Huskers did and the leadership that team had. Truly unparalleled, and by conjunction, helped lead them to be considered the single best team in college football history. That said, I'm getting sick and tired of hearing from guys like Tommie Frazier, like Jason Peter, like Matt Vrzal, in relation to how things used to be when they were playing. I have been for years. Nebraska's history is probably the biggest blessing, and greatest curse, this program has. We're so enamored with that era that it quite literally permeates every thing. It's as if we'd rather live in and operate in the mid-90's mindset than understanding that it's 2015. How the '95 team did things is how the '95 team did things. It's a great example, but not the only one. We can respect and appreciate what they did without hanging onto it at every turn for reference as the team moves forward. This right here is why some fans are so enamored with the run game and insist that is the only way to play Nebraska football. These folks either never knew an Osborne offense that threw quite often and was considered "pro-style" or have forgotten it. That offense won 6 conference titles and 2 national titles. It even sent one quarterback to the NFL that played in the 1979 Superbowl. I loved watching Osborne's offenses, pro-style, option and power running. Not me. When I clamor for a run-oriented offense, I'm looking at Stanford and Wisconsin. And again, "pro-style" and "power running" are NOT mutually exclusive.

This. There's lots of self-entitlement, yes. Listen, I still don't think MR is the guy for the job. Only time will tell us if that is true or not. That being said - a coach can only motivate a player so much. Players must be self-motivated to do what needs to be done. I'd agree with what Carricker said in his FB post about the team buying into MR's system, though. I'm a WCO kind of guy, and I keep going back to this one argument: Look at the teams that have won National championships all the way back to 2000. How many ran a WCO/Pro Style offense? 2000: OU - WCO/Pro Style 2001: DA U - WCO/Pro Style 2002: Buckeyes - WCO/Pro Style 2003: LSU/USC - both WCO/Pro Style 2004: USC - WCO/Pro Style 2005: TExPN - Spread/Zone 2006: Florida - Spread/Zone 2007: LSU - WCO/Pro Style 2008: Florida - Spread/Zone 2009: Bammer - WCO/Pro Style 2010: Auburn - Spread/Zone 2011: Bammer - WCO/Pro Style 2012: Bammer - WCO/Pro Style 2013: Free Shoes - WCO/Pro Style 2014: Buckeyes - Spread/Zone It's not that the WCO/Pro Style offense is any better than the Spread/Zone offense. But the WCO/Pro Style offense attracts players that wish to play at the next level, period, end of story. I think we need to define "Pro" style offense a little better. The hallmarks of a "pro-style" offense is not about passing to the exclusion of running. It's about QBs under center (which actually helps the run game), pocket passing, huddling, and a QB that checks into and out of plays depending on what he sees at the LOS. A WCO is a subset of a pro system. It uses highly complex route combinations, de-empahsizes the traditional run game favoring instead short screen passes to to the WR and RB, relies on precise timing of routes, and generally throws the ball a lot. Wisconsin runs a pro-system as traditionally defined. Stanford does too. LSU also. But all of them are power-run forms, not WCO forms, of the pro-style. I'm not sure I'd agree that Bama runs a WCO. Point being, it's possible to run a "pro-system" without running the highly complex and difficult to execute WCO. It's also possible to run a "pro-system" that is very run dominant. I would be all for a "pro-style" run oriented system at Nebraska. But the QBs who can effectively run a WCO at the college level are rare as hens' teeth.

Definitely. And I'd wager the fans care far more about the losses than the wins. Meaning, we win and it's "ho-hum, we should have won that game." Very little excitement, very little praise. We nitpick wins because they aren't good enough, then quickly move on and forget them. Losses, though. Whoa boy. A loss fuels every conversation for years. We talk more about our losses to Wisconsin than our wins against Michigan. We talk more about our losses to Minnesota than our wins over Northwestern. Losses are the focus. Just look at the post counts skyrocket after a loss. I dunno. After the Minnesota game, many were doing calculations to see if beating MSU and Iowa would get us to Indianapolis. The team was "improving," Armstrong was the best QB in the BIG, we'd turned the corner, etc. The losses tend to bring out a little more hyperbole because I think people need to vent after a loss. It's the same reason why people who have a bad experience with a product or service are more likely to leave a review than someone who had a good experience.