Quiet Riley Has Fire In His Eyes

[BigRedBuster]

 

Nobody gets to the level of coaching he is at without being extremely competitive. The difference is, you can be extremely competitive while still being respectable and a good representative of the University.

Exactly.

 

I can think of some other coaches who could be called "ruthless a-holes" but those are not words I thought I'd ever see attached to Tom Osborne's name.

 

Sorry Count if I'm misunderstanding you, but if you were trying to say Tom is the ultimate competitor, I don't think there is anyone who would debate that. Calling him a ruthless a-hole was an interesting way of putting it I guess.

 

There is a big misconception some people have with TO's game coaching.

 

Yes, we put a ton of teams away early and it appeared we were running up the score.

 

Couldn't have been farther from the truth. Yes, we had the game won early BUT, when the game was obviously won, he was subbing in his 3-4-5th strings. OK....so, let's say you are running TO's offense of the 80s and 90s with your 4th string in against ISU. What play are you going to run? We dominated the ground game. When teams want to run out the clock, they run the ball. The problem was, teams like ISU couldn't even stop our 4th or 5th strings. So.....what happens??? Even though he is calling simple running plays, we were still scoring.

 

TO was extremely competitive and that showed in his preparation. He recruited the players he wanted (not the ones "experts thought were great). He had programs to make them great players and paid attention to detail. He spoke many many times that if everyone pays attention to the smallest of details, the large goals are met. THAT is what he did well and how he accomplished his goals. It wasn't because he was a "ruthless a-hole".

[True2tRA]

 

 

Nobody gets to the level of coaching he is at without being extremely competitive. The difference is, you can be extremely competitive while still being respectable and a good representative of the University.

 

Exactly.

I can think of some other coaches who could be called "ruthless a-holes" but those are not words I thought I'd ever see attached to Tom Osborne's name.

Sorry Count if I'm misunderstanding you, but if you were trying to say Tom is the ultimate competitor, I don't think there is anyone who would debate that. Calling him a ruthless a-hole was an interesting way of putting it I guess.

There is a big misconception some people have with TO's game coaching.

 

Yes, we put a ton of teams away early and it appeared we were running up the score.

Couldn't have been farther from the truth. Yes, we had the game won early BUT, when the game was obviously won, he was subbing in his 3-4-5th strings. OK....so, let's say you are running TO's offense of the 80s and 90s with your 4th string in against ISU. What play are you going to run? We dominated the ground game. When teams want to run out the clock, they run the ball. The problem was, teams like ISU couldn't even stop our 4th or 5th strings. So.....what happens??? Even though he is calling simple running plays, we were still scoring.

 

TO was extremely competitive and that showed in his preparation. He recruited the players he wanted (not the ones "experts thought were great). He had programs to make them great players and paid attention to detail. He spoke many many times that if everyone pays attention to the smallest of details, the large goals are met. THAT is what he did well and how he accomplished his goals. It wasn't because he was a "ruthless a-hole".

Yes this is actually the exact same point I made above^.

[BigRedBuster]

I was pretty much agreeing with you.

[Count 'Bility]

 

Nobody gets to the level of coaching he is at without being extremely competitive. The difference is, you can be extremely competitive while still being respectable and a good representative of the University.

Exactly.

 

I can think of some other coaches who could be called "ruthless a-holes" but those are not words I thought I'd ever see attached to Tom Osborne's name.

 

Sorry Count if I'm misunderstanding you, but if you were trying to say Tom is the ultimate competitor, I don't think there is anyone who would debate that. Calling him a ruthless a-hole was an interesting way of putting it I guess.

 

Yes it is. That's the whole idea. That's what I do. I guess you dont quite know me as well as I thought you did.

[True2tRA]

 

 

Nobody gets to the level of coaching he is at without being extremely competitive. The difference is, you can be extremely competitive while still being respectable and a good representative of the University.

 

Exactly.

I can think of some other coaches who could be called "ruthless a-holes" but those are not words I thought I'd ever see attached to Tom Osborne's name.

Sorry Count if I'm misunderstanding you, but if you were trying to say Tom is the ultimate competitor, I don't think there is anyone who would debate that. Calling him a ruthless a-hole was an interesting way of putting it I guess.

Yes it is. That's the whole idea. That's what I do. I guess you dont quite know me as well as I thought you did.

You're a shell of the Accountabilty you once were.

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

 

Nobody gets to the level of coaching he is at without being extremely competitive. The difference is, you can be extremely competitive while still being respectable and a good representative of the University.

Exactly.

I can think of some other coaches who could be called "ruthless a-holes" but those are not words I thought I'd ever see attached to Tom Osborne's name.

Sorry Count if I'm misunderstanding you, but if you were trying to say Tom is the ultimate competitor, I don't think there is anyone who would debate that. Calling him a ruthless a-hole was an interesting way of putting it I guess.

Yes it is. That's the whole idea. That's what I do. I guess you dont quite know me as well as I thought you did.

You're a shell of the Accountabilty you once were.

 

My wife says the same thing all the time. What the hell does that even mean?

[True2tRA]

I quit trying to figure women out a long time ago. You're on your own on that one.

[Redux]

Im pretty excited to see what kind of Husker team Mike Riley rolls out this Spring and more importantly this Fall.

 

But, these Dr. Tom comparisons are a little premature. Yes they are both stoic in nature and are both regarded as pleasant men with an attention to detail. And now they even coached the same team. But the difference is Mike Riley has yet to coach a spring game in Lincoln. Once we see Nebraska playing 4 quarters of sound football never letting the opponent breathe, THEN we can make the comparisons.

[BigRedBuster]

The comparison to TO to me is purely on the style of coaching and the type of personality he is. That means a lot to me because that is the type of coach I think is most effective. However, I don't know of anyone who is comparing Riley to TO on success on the football field. I think people think Riley has the chance to be very good with an upgrade in talent and the type of coach and personality he is. But, right now, all we have is excitement over what might happen.

 

I believe he has put together a pretty good group of assistant coaches. I think he is a good manager and motivator.

Let's hope it all comes together with the talent on the team and what will come in the next few years to greatly improve the program.

[Redux]

We are assuming that his coaching traits and style from Oregon State will all carry over. That may not be the case. This is a higher pressure gig and could be more demanding, we could see a completely different coach come game time. Thats my point, we have no idea what we have yet.

 

History says we are getting a charming level headed guy with a knack for getting the most out of his talent and competing at a high level. Will that happen? We dont know yet. I sure as hell hope so. If we get the best out of coach Riley we have likely gotten something pretty special.