Benning's Thoughts. Worth Your Time.

[Kernal]

 

Some of you make me laugh...

 

Coaching at Oregon State =/= Coaching at Nebraska

 

What evidence/data (anectdotal or otherwise) can you provide that suggest Riley will be successful here simply becasue it's Nebraska and not Oregon State and the football budget is larger?

 

People like you want us to beleive a narrative (he'll succeed now that he's at Nebraska! With access to more money and talent!) that is pure conjecture and speculation based on zero supporting data. You realize how looney that notion reads, right?

 

 

Apples to oranges.

[Bball1091]

It doesn't matter because Riley is the coach. We can be supportive or we can be crybabies.

Can't we be both? I mean you would have to define "crybabies," but I think one can support the team while also critiquing blatant coaching errors.

[zoogs]

^Indeed, I think you can.

 

What evidence/data (anectdotal or otherwise) can you provide that suggest Riley will be successful here simply becasue it's Nebraska and not Oregon State and the football budget is larger?

 

People like you want us to beleive a narrative (he'll succeed now that he's at Nebraska! With access to more money and talent!) that is pure conjecture and speculation based on zero supporting data. You realize how looney that notion reads, right?

Zero supporting data? Good, respected coaches have not fared poorly or cut their teeth at one place only to succeed in another? And vice versa?

 

What's the objective, non-conjecture, non-looney, data-supported approach to predicting future coach performance based on past performance? Who was the scientifically correct choice?

[It'sNotAFakeID]

Zero supporting data? Good, respected coaches have not fared poorly or cut their teeth at one place only to succeed in another? And vice versa?

 

What's the objective, non-conjecture, data-supported approach to predicting future coach performance based on past performance? Who was the scientifically correct choice?

 

Jim Harbaugh. DUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUUHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHHH

 

And wouldn't you believe it? All we had to do was throw briefcases of money at him and he'd come here in a heartbeat, because who wouldn't want to coach at their former school?

[Danny Bateman]

 

 

Some of you make me laugh...

 

Coaching at Oregon State =/= Coaching at Nebraska

 

What evidence/data (anectdotal or otherwise) can you provide that suggest Riley will be successful here simply becasue it's Nebraska and not Oregon State and the football budget is larger?

 

People like you want us to beleive a narrative (he'll succeed now that he's at Nebraska! With access to more money and talent!) that is pure conjecture and speculation based on zero supporting data. You realize how looney that notion reads, right?

 

 

Apples to oranges.

 

I've been saying that a lot recently.

 

I've formed my opinion on Riley based on not only statistics and evidence he's provided from his coaching career, but my own intellect and intuition regarding the situation. I don't operate strictly in black and white based on past numbers, because they're admittedly one-sided and in my opinion a poor comparison to make. Nor would I recommend anyone judge Riley based strictly on numbers. But you've chosen to, and that's your right.

 

I have no statistical evidence to prove that Riley will be succesful here. There is very little, unless you consider years of coaching experience a good platform for success given the right situation, which I do. I just don't believe this is the type of situation you figure out on a spreadsheet.

[GBRedneck]

^Indeed, I think you can.

 

What evidence/data (anectdotal or otherwise) can you provide that suggest Riley will be successful here simply becasue it's Nebraska and not Oregon State and the football budget is larger?

 

People like you want us to beleive a narrative (he'll succeed now that he's at Nebraska! With access to more money and talent!) that is pure conjecture and speculation based on zero supporting data. You realize how looney that notion reads, right?

Zero supporting data? Good, respected coaches have not fared poorly or cut their teeth at one place only to succeed in another? And vice versa?

 

What's the objective, non-conjecture, non-looney, data-supported approach to predicting future coach performance based on past performance? Who was the scientifically correct choice?

 

 

ABR

[Stumpy1]

 

Some of you make me laugh...

 

Coaching at Oregon State =/= Coaching at Nebraska

 

But coaching=coaching. Either you got it or you don't.

I call bullsh#t on this. A coach can be sh**ty at one place and wonderful at another. It could be opposite also.

[Bball1091]

And my comment isn't directed just at you, Kernal. Within the fan base, I feel as if a line has been drawn where you are either on the coaches side or you want them fired immediately. However, I think it isn't so "black and white." A "gray" area exists where you can be supportive of the team but also be suspect of the coaching staff. I'm sure you and many others would agree with this.

[GBRedneck]

 

 

Some of you make me laugh...

 

Coaching at Oregon State =/= Coaching at Nebraska

But coaching=coaching. Either you got it or you don't.

I call bullsh#t on this. A coach can be sh**ty at one place and wonderful at another. It could be opposite also.

 

That doesn't change my equation.

 

Sure, you can have bad coaches that get lucky circumstances and do well. You can also have good coaches who get stuck in bad situations and don't do well. But you either got it or you don't. Sub500 has a long track record showing he is simply not a very good coach.

[Stumpy1]

 

 

 

Some of you make me laugh...

 

Coaching at Oregon State =/= Coaching at Nebraska

 

But coaching=coaching. Either you got it or you don't.

I call bullsh#t on this. A coach can be sh**ty at one place and wonderful at another. It could be opposite also.

That doesn't change my equation.

 

Sure, you can have bad coaches that get lucky circumstances and do well. You can also have good coaches who get stuck in bad situations and don't do well. But you either got it or you don't. Sub500 has a long track record showing he is simply not a very good coach.

Lol...so if a coach starts out with a sh**ty career, he will always be sh**ty? I find that logic of thinking very stupid and it doesn't surprise me coming from you.

[admo]

Thanks for the link. I understand what Benning and the other guy are saying. And I agree with DB about HCMR is a good coach and has inherited a tougher situation than we might have thought originally. The results have fallen short in the W-L column and it's been disappointing to see.

 

I see a team that battles and competes. Sometimes it looks good. Sometimes it's ugly and head scratching. But ultimately though, they just do not know how to finish off their opponent when time is ticking down in the fourth quarter. On both sides of the ball. IMO the team needs to figure out how to close out a game. And ultimately, the way they perform, the decisions they make, the effort and execution happens to be in the hands of the players on the field. I want to believe that they can do it. But from here on out I would like to see them take the next step and actually do it. Stop an offense when you need to make a stop. If it takes all 11 guys to accomplish that - great - get in unison. Offensively, convert third downs and move the chains when you absolutely have to. If you need a FG to do it, then line up and kick it through the posts.

 

I just think the opportunity has been there for the taking. They've been in position. Guys on the field need to calmly step up and make the plays in order to keep the real pressure on the other team. Finish it off and win.

[wiuhusker]

 

 

Some of you make me laugh...

 

Coaching at Oregon State =/= Coaching at Nebraska

But coaching=coaching. Either you got it or you don't.

I call bullsh#t on this. A coach can be sh**ty at one place and wonderful at another. It could be opposite also.

 

Agreed with this. Perfect example is Rich Rod. Great at WVU horrible at Michigan and has turned around a very down Arizona program.

[Danny Bateman]

Admo, you're right. Learning to win, learning to close are both processes. This year's roster is starkly different from last year. We lost our #1 WR, #1 RB (not to mention heart and soul of the team and focal point of the entire offense), and our best defensive playmaker from last year.

 

I personally believe it takes time for all these guys to learn how to gel and do those things together, as well as the coaches. None of these guys are really used to closing without an AA to hand the ball to to salt away a game, or without a Randy Gregory looming and disrupting everything the opposing offense wants to do. They've got to learn how to do it on their own, and I think they're getting there.

 

I think once they do get there and start to have some confidence in themselves and the system-- start to play fast and aggressive and within the system-- the sky is the limit.

[grandpasknee]

For those of you that are questioning the direction of this team, this coach, this program, or anything else Nebraska related, please do yourself a service and listen to Benning's rant at the beginning of this podcast after yesterday's game. This is coming from a coach and a former player. I know most of us love to hear former player's thoughts on the program, and he's certainly one of the most vocal and most accessible.

 

I think we'd all like for it to be as simple as just "Insert good coach. Win. Restore glory. Win Championships." Unfortunately, that's not the situation we're up against here. You can argue that Harbaugh or McElwain are undefeated at Michigan or Florida. Those are VERY DIFFERENT situations than Riley inherited here. On top of installing completely new systems on both sides of the ball (that we're currently ill-equipped to run), he's also got to try to find a way to piece together the shattered psyche of this team courtesy of our former coach.

 

The guy deserves a chance to acclimate himself to coaching at NU. I don't give two rips about past experience. Coaching here is different than coaching at OSU. Coaching here is different than coaching in the NFL. Have there been clock mismanagement, play-calling, strategy issues? Hell yeah there have been. Can't excuse those away.

 

But you're living in a pipe dream if you expect it to be simple to fix all the issues this guy has on his plate with this team while churning out a W every week.

 

https://soundcloud.com/1620-the-zone-1/wisconsin-seg-4-mike-riley-is-a-good-coach

As much as I'd like to put all the blame for bad psyche on the last coaching group, I really think it goes back to when T.O. left. The team psyche, mentality and identity have all been battered for 15 years or more. Not something that is fixed in 9 months. I am the biggest of sunshine pumping, koolaid swilling fans there is, and I have serious concerns about coaching decisions I've seen the last several weeks. But I also know I only have the tiniest of views into what is going on in terms of the big picture.

 

I knew a young lad that suffered from multiple demons in his life, depression, bad family environment, social outcast after moving to a new school as a freshman. For folks seeing him in public, it was easy for them to criticize he awkwardness and introverted nature. For the few of us who knew the whole thing, him even leaving the house was a victory in the largest sense. Perspective. Might not be the case here, as I said, I don't know. But I do know I can give some time to see what shakes out.

 

How often do we find out at the end of the season that a player who"sucked" was playing with a bad ankle, or torn tendons and just toughed it out. Wouldn't be surprised after the season to learn just how bad thing were for this team after the transition.

[GBRedneck]

 

 

 

 

Some of you make me laugh...

 

Coaching at Oregon State =/= Coaching at Nebraska

But coaching=coaching. Either you got it or you don't.

I call bullsh#t on this. A coach can be sh**ty at one place and wonderful at another. It could be opposite also.

That doesn't change my equation.

 

Sure, you can have bad coaches that get lucky circumstances and do well. You can also have good coaches who get stuck in bad situations and don't do well. But you either got it or you don't. Sub500 has a long track record showing he is simply not a very good coach.

Lol...so if a coach starts out with a sh**ty career, he will always be sh**ty? I find that logic of thinking very stupid and it doesn't surprise me coming from you.

 

And that's the exact opposite of what I said. Not surpising coming from you.