Bo Pelini had to go and Mike Riley had to be hired

[TheSker]

 

 

 

I think people just want to counter the "no one can win at Oregon St" argument so they use Erickson who had two good seasons WITH Riley's players. Just a lame argument.

 

 

 

I'd be careful about calling it "lame". A key reason for hiring Riley is his alleged ability at player development.......yet you're agreeing another coach had a better season than Riley ever did "WITH Riley's players". And yes, Erickson showed it is very possible to win at Oregon State.

 

Riley showed that is was possible to win there before Erickson did. Your argument is LAME and DORKY and really serves no purpose other then to stir sh#t up. We have been down this road with the Erickson B.S a couple of times.

 

Riley did not have a winning season in his first stint at Oregon State. And there are many topics we go down the same road on.....it's an internet message board.

[JJ Husker]

 

 

 

I think people just want to counter the "no one can win at Oregon St" argument so they use Erickson who had two good seasons WITH Riley's players. Just a lame argument.

 

I'd be careful about calling it "lame". A key reason for hiring Riley is his alleged ability at player development.......yet you're agreeing another coach had a better season than Riley ever did "WITH Riley's players". And yes, Erickson showed it is very possible to win at Oregon State.

Riley showed that is was possible to win there before Erickson did. Your argument is LAME and DORKY and really serves no purpose other then to stir sh#t up. We have been down this road with the Erickson B.S a couple of times.

Riley did not have a winning season in his first stint at Oregon State. And there are many topics we go down the same road on.....it's an internet message board.

True, some people go over and over and over, repeating the same senseless sh#t, beating the same dead horse. But it's an Internet message board......I suppose stupid sh#t like that should be expected. I know I expect it from certain posters and they seem to keep delivering.

[Stumpy1]

 

 

 

 

I think people just want to counter the "no one can win at Oregon St" argument so they use Erickson who had two good seasons WITH Riley's players. Just a lame argument.

 

 

 

I'd be careful about calling it "lame". A key reason for hiring Riley is his alleged ability at player development.......yet you're agreeing another coach had a better season than Riley ever did "WITH Riley's players". And yes, Erickson showed it is very possible to win at Oregon State.

 

Riley showed that is was possible to win there before Erickson did. Your argument is LAME and DORKY and really serves no purpose other then to stir sh#t up. We have been down this road with the Erickson B.S a couple of times.

 

Riley did not have a winning season in his first stint at Oregon State. And there are many topics we go down the same road on.....it's an internet message board.

 

He didn't have a winning season but the 5 wins he posted in 1998 were the most since 1971. 2 of the losses were by a point and another was on a last minute TD against UCLA. The next year when Erickson took over, they went 7-5 and I have no doubt that riley could have posted that mark also.

[Scratchtown]

I guess it's a good thing we put Dennis Erickson on the Huskerboard Urban Dictionary. He gets plenty of mention around here.

[BIGREDIOWAN]

When you read all of that stuff in one article it's kinda overwhelming all the missteps that Bo took here while he was the head coach. I've been asked by several fans of other teams why we hired Mike Riley. I say that he's here to help "heal the fanbase and bridge the gap between the fans and the team" They don't really understand until I explain the divide that Bo created with his "us vs. them" mentality. I hope Riley is successful as much for him as for us.

[suh_fan93]

 

 

 

 

 

I think people just want to counter the "no one can win at Oregon St" argument so they use Erickson who had two good seasons WITH Riley's players. Just a lame argument.

 

 

 

I'd be careful about calling it "lame". A key reason for hiring Riley is his alleged ability at player development.......yet you're agreeing another coach had a better season than Riley ever did "WITH Riley's players". And yes, Erickson showed it is very possible to win at Oregon State.

 

Riley showed that is was possible to win there before Erickson did. Your argument is LAME and DORKY and really serves no purpose other then to stir sh#t up. We have been down this road with the Erickson B.S a couple of times.

 

Riley did not have a winning season in his first stint at Oregon State. And there are many topics we go down the same road on.....it's an internet message board.

 

He didn't have a winning season but the 5 wins he posted in 1998 were the most since 1971. 2 of the losses were by a point and another was on a last minute TD against UCLA. The next year when Erickson took over, they went 7-5 and I have no doubt that riley could have posted that mark also.

 

 

 

He also has a losing record the past 5 years (29-33) and after 14 years at Oregon St was only 13 wins above .500.

[Stumpy1]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I think people just want to counter the "no one can win at Oregon St" argument so they use Erickson who had two good seasons WITH Riley's players. Just a lame argument.

 

 

 

I'd be careful about calling it "lame". A key reason for hiring Riley is his alleged ability at player development.......yet you're agreeing another coach had a better season than Riley ever did "WITH Riley's players". And yes, Erickson showed it is very possible to win at Oregon State.

 

Riley showed that is was possible to win there before Erickson did. Your argument is LAME and DORKY and really serves no purpose other then to stir sh#t up. We have been down this road with the Erickson B.S a couple of times.

 

Riley did not have a winning season in his first stint at Oregon State. And there are many topics we go down the same road on.....it's an internet message board.

 

He didn't have a winning season but the 5 wins he posted in 1998 were the most since 1971. 2 of the losses were by a point and another was on a last minute TD against UCLA. The next year when Erickson took over, they went 7-5 and I have no doubt that riley could have posted that mark also.

 

 

 

He also has a losing record the past 5 years (29-33) and after 14 years at Oregon St was only 13 wins above .500.

 

And he is still the winningest coach out of 28 in Oregon State history.

[zoogs]

When you read all of that stuff in one article it's kinda overwhelming all the missteps that Bo took here while he was the head coach. I've been asked by several fans of other teams why we hired Mike Riley. I say that he's here to help "heal the fanbase and bridge the gap between the fans and the team" They don't really understand until I explain the divide that Bo created with his "us vs. them" mentality. I hope Riley is successful as much for him as for us.

Yeah. Even if Riley ultimately doesn't succeed in the hardware/wins aspect, he will at least have succeeded in some other, very important ways. We probably needed the reminder that we don't need to be beholden to a guy with a jerk image just because he delivers us a decent number of wins.

[Mavric]

 

I think people just want to counter the "no one can win at Oregon St" argument so they use Erickson who had two good seasons WITH Riley's players. Just a lame argument.

I'd be careful about calling it "lame". A key reason for hiring Riley is his alleged ability at player development.......yet you're agreeing another coach had a better season than Riley ever did "WITH Riley's players". And yes, Erickson showed it is very possible to win at Oregon State.

 

This isn't necessarily directed at you two but I'm just curious....

 

If Riley has a really good year in the the next 2-3years - 11 wins, conference championship or something along those lines - will it be because he did it with Pelini's players?

[BIGREDIOWAN]

 

When you read all of that stuff in one article it's kinda overwhelming all the missteps that Bo took here while he was the head coach. I've been asked by several fans of other teams why we hired Mike Riley. I say that he's here to help "heal the fanbase and bridge the gap between the fans and the team" They don't really understand until I explain the divide that Bo created with his "us vs. them" mentality. I hope Riley is successful as much for him as for us.

Yeah. Even if Riley ultimately doesn't succeed in the hardware/wins aspect, he will at least have succeeded in some other, very important ways. We probably needed the reminder that we don't need to be beholden to a guy with a jerk image just because he delivers us a decent number of wins.

I think Bo showed us that winning isn't necessarily everything. That doesn't mean I'd be happy with 6 or 7 wins for years. There's just more that goes into it than winning. Being a jerk and winning grows tiring after awhile.

[True2tRA]

 

 

I think people just want to counter the "no one can win at Oregon St" argument so they use Erickson who had two good seasons WITH Riley's players. Just a lame argument.

 

I'd be careful about calling it "lame". A key reason for hiring Riley is his alleged ability at player development.......yet you're agreeing another coach had a better season than Riley ever did "WITH Riley's players". And yes, Erickson showed it is very possible to win at Oregon State.

This isn't necessarily directed at you two but I'm just curious....

 

If Riley has a really good year in the the next 2-3years - 11 wins, conference championship or something along those lines - will it be because he did it with Pelini's players?

Boy, that's a pretty broad statement and there's a reason why NOT EVERYBODY uses that line -"he did it with his players argument.

 

Why do we try to cover an entire globe of a discussion with just one simplified rule around here. We do it with everything it seems. Nothing is black and white but here, we make it seem as if everything is. Its all got to be extreme one side or extreme the other.

 

Its hogwash.

 

If Riley wins, credit will go to Riley coaching. If Riley does win with Bo's recruits, Bo has already been credited with recruiting them.

 

What if Bo's players are coached up, developed, and playing in an entirely different scheme that benefits them? Yes, they're still Bo's recruits so I guess Bo gets credit. Whoop dee f'ing doo. I'm sure Bo gives a crap and will appreciate that.

 

What if Riley completely changes the depth chart and doesn't use many of Bo's "players"? What if Riley wins in four years, after all Bo's players are gone, and we suck for the next four years? Does Bo get the blame for that?

 

Here's the point. These aren't Bo's players anymore. Bo's players are at Youngstown. Credit to the former staff for recruiting some of these guys, we've got some good ones on this team, but after that, nothing Bo is doing is effecting them anymore.

 

The same applies to this argument with Erickson. Good for him, he won at Oregon St. So did Mike Riley. They've both shown they can coach and people smarter than us have said as much.

 

Who gives a damn whose recruits they were, recruiting is the very first step in a long process of developing, teaching, and coaching a college football player.

[Mavric]

 

 

 

I think people just want to counter the "no one can win at Oregon St" argument so they use Erickson who had two good seasons WITH Riley's players. Just a lame argument.

I'd be careful about calling it "lame". A key reason for hiring Riley is his alleged ability at player development.......yet you're agreeing another coach had a better season than Riley ever did "WITH Riley's players". And yes, Erickson showed it is very possible to win at Oregon State.

This isn't necessarily directed at you two but I'm just curious....

 

If Riley has a really good year in the the next 2-3years - 11 wins, conference championship or something along those lines - will it be because he did it with Pelini's players?

Boy, that's a pretty broad statement and there's a reason why NOT EVERYBODY uses that line -"he did it with his players argument.

 

Why do we try to cover an entire globe of a discussion with just one simplified rule around here. We do it with everything it seems. Nothing is black and white but here, we make it seem as if everything is. Its all got to be extreme one side or extreme the other.

 

Its hogwash.

 

If Riley wins, credit will go to Riley coaching. If Riley does win with Bo's recruits, Bo has already been credited with recruiting them.

 

What if Bo's players are coached up, developed, and playing in an entirely different scheme that benefits them? Yes, they're still Bo's recruits so I guess Bo gets credit. Whoop dee f'ing doo. I'm sure Bo gives a crap and will appreciate that.

 

What if Riley completely changes the depth chart and doesn't use many of Bo's "players"? What if Riley wins in four years, after all Bo's players are gone, and we suck for the next four years? Does Bo get the blame for that?

 

Here's the point. These aren't Bo's players anymore. Bo's players are at Youngstown. Credit to the former staff for recruiting some of these guys, we've got some good ones on this team, but after that, nothing Bo is doing is effecting them anymore.

 

The same applies to this argument with Erickson. Good for him, he won at Oregon St. So did Mike Riley. They've both shown they can coach and people smarter than us have said as much.

 

Who gives a damn whose recruits they were, recruiting is the very first step in a long process of developing, teaching, and coaching a college football player.

 

 

I just see a lot of that argument thrown around. Erickson won with Riley's players. Pelini best teams were with Callahan's players. Solich won with TO's players.

 

I don't necessarily buy it - there's probably something to it but I'm not sure how much - but I was curious if that's what most people think.

[zoogs]

There's probably something to it, but not that much.

 

If a coach starts off rough, it could be his own abilities, or the starting situation he inherited and the amount of transition required. Or, some combination of the two.

 

If a coach starts out great, it could be his own abilities and also more likely than not at least some reflection of what he was bequeathed.

 

A coach who starts out great but later sputters -- in most cases, this is bound to happen. Success is hard to sustain, especially in these days. You don't have just a few legendary coaches helming the Goliaths of the college football world for ages. There are a lot of good coaches out there, and anyone from Baylor to Boise State can find a way to turn things around. You stay somewhere long enough, you probably a) had a good run at some point early on, and b) are unlikely to duplicate that.

[True2tRA]

 

 

 

 

I think people just want to counter the "no one can win at Oregon St" argument so they use Erickson who had two good seasons WITH Riley's players. Just a lame argument.

 

I'd be careful about calling it "lame". A key reason for hiring Riley is his alleged ability at player development.......yet you're agreeing another coach had a better season than Riley ever did "WITH Riley's players". And yes, Erickson showed it is very possible to win at Oregon State.

This isn't necessarily directed at you two but I'm just curious....

 

If Riley has a really good year in the the next 2-3years - 11 wins, conference championship or something along those lines - will it be because he did it with Pelini's players?

Boy, that's a pretty broad statement and there's a reason why NOT EVERYBODY uses that line -"he did it with his players argument.

Why do we try to cover an entire globe of a discussion with just one simplified rule around here. We do it with everything it seems. Nothing is black and white but here, we make it seem as if everything is. Its all got to be extreme one side or extreme the other.

Its hogwash.

If Riley wins, credit will go to Riley coaching. If Riley does win with Bo's recruits, Bo has already been credited with recruiting them.

What if Bo's players are coached up, developed, and playing in an entirely different scheme that benefits them? Yes, they're still Bo's recruits so I guess Bo gets credit. Whoop dee f'ing doo. I'm sure Bo gives a crap and will appreciate that.

What if Riley completely changes the depth chart and doesn't use many of Bo's "players"? What if Riley wins in four years, after all Bo's players are gone, and we suck for the next four years? Does Bo get the blame for that?

Here's the point. These aren't Bo's players anymore. Bo's players are at Youngstown. Credit to the former staff for recruiting some of these guys, we've got some good ones on this team, but after that, nothing Bo is doing is effecting them anymore.

The same applies to this argument with Erickson. Good for him, he won at Oregon St. So did Mike Riley. They've both shown they can coach and people smarter than us have said as much.

Who gives a damn whose recruits they were, recruiting is the very first step in a long process of developing, teaching, and coaching a college football player.

I just see a lot of that argument thrown around. Erickson won with Riley's players. Pelini best teams were with Callahan's players. Solich won with TO's players.

 

I don't necessarily buy it - there's probably something to it but I'm not sure how much - but I was curious if that's what most people think.

Yea I see a lot of that too.

Like I said, there is something to it. They are Bo's/Riley's recruits, but as I pointed out, recruiting is merely the first step in a long process.

 

I know I credit Bo and staff for recruiting DPE, it took his staff half a season to figure it out maybe they ought to utilize him and how to do so. Obviously Riley and staff have the benefit of knowing what they have in DPE but I think they will discover and utilize other mismanaged talent on this roster as well.

[huKSer]

There's probably something to it, but not that much.

 

If a coach starts off rough, it could be his own abilities, or the starting situation he inherited and the amount of transition required. Or, some combination of the two.

 

If a coach starts out great, it could be his own abilities and also more likely than not at least some reflection of what he was bequeathed.

 

A coach who starts out great but later sputters -- in most cases, this is bound to happen. Success is hard to sustain, especially in these days. You don't have just a few legendary coaches helming the Goliaths of the college football world for ages. There are a lot of good coaches out there, and anyone from Baylor to Boise State can find a way to turn things around. You stay somewhere long enough, you probably a) had a good run at some point early on, and b) are unlikely to duplicate that.

**cough,cough** Stoops **cough, cough**