Hujan

Neither. And both.

Exactly! You'd think Banker would be tempted to chime in when he sees the offensive coaches flinging the ball downfield, de-emphasizing the run, and trying to force things outside. In Banker's view, this would be playing right into the strength of the "ideal" defense.

Agreed. I was banned for predicting an 9-4 finish and contradicting RR's recruiting predictions. That guy is an absolute joke. The AVERAGE prediction on that site for final regular season record this season was 11-1... that says it all. No negativity or criticism allowed! When Riley ignored Orgeron and hired all his buddies, I said, "This has failure written all over it." I was, in turn, crucified; some people even used my quote as their sig line and couldn't wait to see Riley prove me wrong. I wonder what they're saying now. Sing it, brother! Happened to me a few years ago for criticizing Pelini. Here's my best Red Reign impression: <quotes post from someone with actual knowledge> "Yup." <quotes post from someone with actual knowledge> "Agree"

Definite Wilbon Taylor Bush Possible Darlington Ozigbo Stevenson Watching Nebraska's running backs situation play out this season is like watching that scene in Austin Powers when that security guy refuses to get out of the way of the steamroller even though it's hundreds of feet away. I can easily see Wilbon transferring to another school and emerging as a big-time playmaker for them, and it all could have been avoided if Riley and Langsdorf would have just pulled their heads out of their asses.

I was thinking about the team under Riley today and it struck me that our schemes on offense and defense present an undeniable and inherent contradiction in football theory. Allow me to explain: Defense--Stop the run Our defense scheme is clearly designed to stop the run first and foremost. We pull the safeties up close to the LOS and leave our corners largely in single coverage. The "sign" that our defense is working as designed is that opposing offenses will have little choice but to attempt deep, fade routes to the outside. I have to assume that this schematic shift is predicated on Banker's belief that, against most college teams, when you take away the run, you take away their offense. Banker no doubt feels that few college teams have QBs who are good enough to beat teams with their arms, and therefore selling out to take away the run will win a lot of college football games. And the stats have borne this out: Whereas in recent years Nebraska had a historically embarrassing rushing D, our pass D was pretty good. By contrast, now our rush D is good, but our pass D is porous at best. And yet, to Banker's credit, we have been in every single game thus far despite having a porous D. And even if you point out that this is only because we have yet to play a truly stellar QB, you are only making Banker's point: Most teams lack the elite talent at QB to consistently put up points without the run. Offense--Abandon the run Given that Banker clearly believes stopping the run is imperative to shutting down an opposing offense and does not seem terribly worried about teams beating a defense through the air, one would expect that our offense would focus heavily on ensuring a powerful, unstoppable rushing attack, with a relative de-emphasis on the pass. And yet, what you see is exactly the opposite: We have effectively de-emphasized the run in favor of trying to pickup yards through the air. And we are doing so on the back of a QB who lacks the ability to consistently make the reads and throws needed to move the chains. The result is basically a Mark Banker wet dream: An offense that frequently attempts low-percentage passes downfield, consistently struggles to pick up first downs, and has trouble reliably putting points on the board. Conclusion To summarize: Our defense is built on the belief that an offense cannot put points on the board unless it can run the ball effectively and therefore schemes to take away the run. By contrast, our offense reflects the belief that an offense cannot put points on the board without a powerful passing attack, and voluntarily abandons the run. You could actually take this one step further: In addition to stopping the run, the stated goal of Banker's defense is to "spill" plays to the outside. The middle is solid and the goal is to flush ball carriers to the perimeter. Banker's ostensible rationale is that by forcing plays to the outside, the sideline essentially becomes a 12th defender, thereby making it easier to limit opponents' yards. And yet, what is a staple you see with Riley's offense? Lots of quick bubble screens to the outside and fly motion all of which do what? Force the ball toward the sidelines, exactly where a Mark Banker-coached defense would dream of putting the ballcarrier. I find it shocking that a single team's offense and defense could reflect such diametrically opposing theories of what it takes to succeed at football and I have to believe this is a huge reason for our failure as a team. It is tempting to wonder what is going through Banker's head as he watches Riley and Langsdorf abandoning the run in favor of forcing low-percentage balls downfield or running plays to the sidelines.

I can't see myself actively rooting for a loss. I will admit, though, that in the waning ends of both Callahan and Pelini's tenures here, I did feel a tinge of relief during some of the blowouts insofar as I thought it would at least hasten their firings. So, for example, my mindless rage at the 2014 Wisconsin game was tempered by a hope it might at least cost Pelini his job. But that's more "silver lining" than rooting against. That was my hope when Riley was hired: That he as coming here to bring a stable, wholesome presence to the program, and that he was such a knowledgeable coach that he could easily transition into a more power-run oriented offense. But then he surrounded himself with the same old re-treads from OSU and I thought, "Ruh roh." Still had hope I would be wrong and tried to stay positive, but things are not looking good.

The OP would probably be better served checking out HuskerMax. There he'll find dozens of soft, old men who, golly, if the Huskers keep losing the next few years, might just be brought to a momentary point of frustration where they--gasp!--might even utter a discouraging word.

Agreed that Newby is horrible. But rather than abandon the run, why not plug in an actual running back instead of a glorified pass blocker?

Any thoughts as to why Eichorst ended up with Riley and not one of your picks?...because understanding the problem is an almost mandatory step in finding a solution. Mind you, I'm just spitballin' here, but I think a lot of coaches see the "Frank Solich-Steve Pederson-Tom Osborne-Bill Callahan-Harvey Perlman-Nebraska Fanbase-Bo Pelini-Shawn Eichorst-Secret Taping-Tommie Frazier Rant-Mandatory Nine Wins Guaranteed-Nine Wins Not Good Enough-We used to be somebody" ongoing fifteen year train wreck that and say to themselves, "I don't really need that". A lot of that will go away when Perlman, Eichorst, and Riley get flushed. Perlman is resigning in 6 months. New Chancellor will can Eichorst in November 2016 or 2017, and Riley a month later. An AD with strong Nebraska ties will be found and he will find a solid coach who will make us into Stanford of the plains.

Agreed.

I would actually argue that Pelini didn't do what you say he did. Most of the people on that staff were new to him, with the exception of Cotton, Brown, and Saunders. Eckler and Papuchis were GAs or interns at LSU with Bo. And Carl! Yep. Bo had about as many buddies on his initial staff as Riley. It's a totally normal thing to do. Just about every coach does it, and it's not going to stop when Riley goes. The next coach will bring in "his guys" as will the next. The only time "hiring your buddies" is a problem is when your buddies don't get the job done, and you don't fire them. But that also seems to be a pretty common theme amongst coaches. Fair enough. I guess my beef is that Riley seems to have guys who were simply his friends instead of finding "known" entities who happened to be high caliber. It's reasonable for guys to want to hire known entities that share their schematic goals, etc., but I'm not sure how common or acceptable it is to hire guys who are mediocre just because they're your friends. As someone else pointed out, Riley has a very wide network of coaches he "knows" and has some relationship with. Snuggling up to his woobie assistants just because they are his binkies is a bullsh#t, weak move. The Nebraska job gave Riley the opportunity and, frankly, an expectation to push the reset button, and shift from the play-calling HC to a CEO HC who relies on coach-in-waiting type coordinators. Let's be honest: The one and only coaching qualification that Riley, at age 62, had for the Nebraska job was his demeanor. He's friendly, respectful, calming, nice to the media, etc. Fine. I get it. You want the Riley to rinse the taste of Bo out of the program's mouth. But if that's the plan, then if you're Eichorst, you tell Riley: "But your friends are coming with you. The checkbook is open. Go out and hire top-flight coordinators who can manage the Xs and Os while you be the face of the program. Don't just use this gig as an opportunity to bring your entourage up to the penthouse." That didn't happen and now we have Mr. Rogers and his stoned, loser friends putting their feet all up on the couches and eating all our food and drinking all our drink with nothing to show for it. I understand the point you are making but I feel it is unfair and goes too far. We can't say all of the staff are doing that poorly frankly. There are some aspects of this team, despite the win/loss numbers stinking that are reasonably good. Overall, our tackling is better and there have been decent periods of O Line play. Our RBs are simply not great so we are not getting the something out of nothing runs we got so much of from Ameer last year. Those are hurting and are putting us in too many 2nd and 8 or more. Yeah, I'm exaggerating for effect, no doubt. Bray is a solid coach. Williams, too. But other than that, I am very underwhelmed by the staff. Not sure where you're seeing solid o-line play. Also, our RBs are fine. It's Newby who is terrible. I think there's decent chance that a steady diet of Wilbon, Ozigbo. and Janovich would cure what ails us.

Helmets looked sweet. Numbers looked bad and the names were impossible to read. Adidas is horrible and I can't wait until we go Nike. We'll probably be Nike unis the first year under whoever replaces Riley.

When in God's name did voicing legitimate displeasure at a bunch of horse-sh#t coaching start to make someone a "bad fan"? Said differently, why is the definition of a "good fan" someone who stands like a robot in the face of some of the worst football that's ever been played inside of Memorial Stadium and just smiles a creepy Stepford smile, like "Aw, geez. Doncha worry fellas, everything is going to be A-OK! Riley and dem boys will have this all figured out in a jiffy. You'll see!"

Agreed. I think the firing after 2013 would have been a lot more understandable, too, on the heels of his behavior during that Iowa game. Hell, for most of the talking heads around college football, it was not a question of "if" but "when" we would fire Bo. And then Eichorst came out in support and it was a disaster. Anyway, I agree it's not a Bo v. Riley thing. I think Bo is a pretty low-class human being and am VERY glad he's gone. I was very, very underwhelmed when we named Riley as the new head coach, but hoped he'd surround himself with a cast of big-time assistants. Even as OSU re-tread after OSU re-tread came onboard, I was still hopeful that maybe we were wrong about Banker and Hank Hughes and that things would be good here. Looks like I was wrong.

You and I just posted the EXACT same thing at nearly the EXACT same time. I couldn't agree more. Besties forever?

Major fail, OP. "Committing to the run" means more than the number of running plays. It also means (1) running the ball with your best running back (not pass blocker), (2) placing an emphasis on run blocking in practice, and (3) coming up with more innovative running plays than "Run into Pile" and "Run to Sideline." Say what you will about Beck and his tendency to see something shiny in the stands and lose focus, but the dude knew how to draw up some clever running plays and blocking schemes, and knew who his playmakers were. If Beck had run the ball 38 times with the punter while Rex Burkhead was on the sideline, healthy, would you have said we had "committed to the run"? Of course not. With Langsdorf, you almost get the feeling that he is just running vanilla run plays to appease the fans so he and people like you can point to the run/pass split and say, "SEE? WE 'COMMITTED TO THE RUN.' ARE YOU HAPPY NOW?"

Duke, I think you should consider changing your screen name to 'The CONSCIENCE'. Your posts are consistently right on the money and have been throughout (at least) this football season. There is no, and I mean absolutely NO reason to continue this little experiment any longer. Heads need to roll. The house needs to be cleaned. Things have gotten very, very ugly. This hire was a spectacular botch on so many levels. We have completely abandoned the concepts which made Husker football HUSKER FOOTBALL. There is nothing special or unique about our football team anymore, other than the passion and continued support of our fanbase filling up that stadium for every home game. Well, this fanbase has been absolutely taken,deceived, and ripped off. Wake up people. We are witnessing the destruction of Husker football happening before our very eyes. I remember everyone thinking a monkey could take us to 9 wins. I wanted Bo gone as bad as anyone, I think he was a cancer, I think he had hit his ceiling, had a God complex, and a horribly ugly demeanor and attitude. Yet we traded him in for a career .500 coach in a completely reactionary move, who runs a system completely antithetical to Husker football, which is very similar to a system which has failed here before, who has shown he does not have the ability to adapt, and who seems to have extreme loyalty to his staff, a flaw which Bo was rightly criticized for. We have an administration and athletic department who are killing, absolutely KILLING Husker football. The longer we allow this to happen, the worse it is going to get. Something needs to be done immediately. If this post were an elixir, I would gulp it down. Ah! Delicious!

I would actually argue that Pelini didn't do what you say he did. Most of the people on that staff were new to him, with the exception of Cotton, Brown, and Saunders. Eckler and Papuchis were GAs or interns at LSU with Bo. And Carl! Yep. Bo had about as many buddies on his initial staff as Riley. It's a totally normal thing to do. Just about every coach does it, and it's not going to stop when Riley goes. The next coach will bring in "his guys" as will the next. The only time "hiring your buddies" is a problem is when your buddies don't get the job done, and you don't fire them. But that also seems to be a pretty common theme amongst coaches. Fair enough. I guess my beef is that Riley seems to have guys who were simply his friends instead of finding "known" entities who happened to be high caliber. It's reasonable for guys to want to hire known entities that share their schematic goals, etc., but I'm not sure how common or acceptable it is to hire guys who are mediocre just because they're your friends. As someone else pointed out, Riley has a very wide network of coaches he "knows" and has some relationship with. Snuggling up to his woobie assistants just because they are his binkies is a bullsh#t, weak move. The Nebraska job gave Riley the opportunity and, frankly, an expectation to push the reset button, and shift from the play-calling HC to a CEO HC who relies on coach-in-waiting type coordinators. Let's be honest: The one and only coaching qualification that Riley, at age 62, had for the Nebraska job was his demeanor. He's friendly, respectful, calming, nice to the media, etc. Fine. I get it. You want the Riley to rinse the taste of Bo out of the program's mouth. But if that's the plan, then if you're Eichorst, you tell Riley: "But your friends are coming with you. The checkbook is open. Go out and hire top-flight coordinators who can manage the Xs and Os while you be the face of the program. Don't just use this gig as an opportunity to bring your entourage up to the penthouse." That didn't happen and now we have Mr. Rogers and his stoned, loser friends putting their feet all up on the couches and eating all our food and drinking all our drink with nothing to show for it.

Hmmm: nep·o·tism ˈnepəˌtizəm/ noun the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=nepotism Ah ha! I counter with: cro·ny·ism ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ nounderogatory the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications. Hmmm: nep·o·tism[/size] ˈnepəˌtizəm/ noun the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=nepotism Ah ha! I counter with: cro·ny·ism ˈkrōnēˌizəm/ noun derogatory the appointment of friends and associates to positions of authority, without proper regard to their qualifications. I think he's got you Hujan. The "durogatory" in the definition of cronyism is more appropriate today. Shee-it. I think you win, It'sNotAFakeID. Hat tip to you, sir.

+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?

+1 Keep banging the drum Hujan! This is the offensive philosophy Nebraska MUST bring back. Read an article about programs that had fallen form glory and were trying to get back. IIRC, all of them save one went with hires that are reminiscent of the "style" that won. The only school that didn't...... NU. The identity of NU is blue collar. Farm kids. Walk ons. Physical. We haven't had a definitive identity since Frank got fired in 2003. Hire a coach with a recognized "brand" or "scheme". One who knows the Nebraska way. Get that guy and his style here. NU will never recruit the traditional "pro style" schools for QB's, receivers etc that make those schemes work. We can recruit road graders on the OL, speed skill guys and running QB's. Martinez and TA would have been very serviceable in TO's offense IMO. Throw 10-12 per game and run the option or hand off. Now zone reads etc.... Some great names have come up. Add Moneken at Army. Willie Fritz, Calhoun..... Any coach who knows how to pound the rock. Exactly. Our recruiting should focus heavily on OL first and foremost, DL close behind that, LB and TE a distant third. Build the team from the trenches upwards. Most of the lines and LB/TE can be recruited with the 500-mile radius. Go to Florida, Louisiana, Texas, etc. to find your skill players (WR, CB). Find a decent QB who can game manage; doesn't need to be a hero. QB can be local product or a hot hand from the South. Ditto for RB. The effectiveness of the offense will be dictated by the play of the OL, TE, and RB, in that order. The effectiveness of the defense will be dictated by the play of the DL and LB.

+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.

IMO, the starting linebackers next year need to be Weber, M. Newby, and maybe Rose-Ivey if he can stay healthy. It would have been better for everyone if Banderas had been kicked off the team when he stole those bikes. If you dropped him in a lake, he would surely drown with those cement shoes. The starting RB needs to be anyone but T. Newby if the running game is going to have a snowball's chance in hell.

Hmmm: nep·o·tism ˈnepəˌtizəm/ noun the practice among those with power or influence of favoring relatives or friends, especially by giving them jobs. https://www.google.com/?gws_rd=ssl#q=nepotism

I would actually argue that Pelini didn't do what you say he did. Most of the people on that staff were new to him, with the exception of Cotton, Brown, and Saunders. Pete Carroll basically went and assemble a crack coaching staff when he took over at USC rather than relying on the same old, same old. I doubt Harbaugh brought everyone from USD to Stanford and I can't imagine he took his cronies from the 49ers to Michigan. Riley said he was going to scour the country to hire "experts" in their respective positions and at teaching young men. It must be a coincidence that all the experts were already in Corvallis.