I Don't Care About Riley's "System" - It will never work!

[Kiyoat Husker]

Look, I think you will agree with me that we both would like Nebraska to be elite again, whatever your definition of that is.

 

Regardless of what system we run, we will still need good or great talent on the roster for that to happen.

 

With the popularity of spread systems in college right now, who says finding an elite dual threat will be easier than pro style?

[TITANIC VS LUSITANIA]

Pass to score, run to win.

-Ron Erhardt

[3NOUT]

This is my first post on the boards. Just recently found them. Really got into Nebraska football around 03-04. My dad filled me in on all the glory days and we watch every game together now. I must say i made an account just to say how dumb this thread is and how sad some of the nebraska fans are. Ive heard great things about our fan base and this website has proven most of that wrong. First MR has been here 6 games. He is taking over one of the least talented teams nebraska has fielded in awhile. We have no playmakers on offense. Tommy is so inconsistent. Always throwing off his back foot. Never makes reads and a lot of the times seems to predetermine where he is throwing before the snap. Decision making is 2/10. I dont know how many times ive seen him just throw up a ball for grabs or worse start to get sacked and just toss the ball. Our oline is terrible and we dont have a top 10 nebraska back to help cover that up. All the penalties on the online i account to a new system most of these guys have never been in. So they are more worried with there line up, stance and executing the plays correctly. All that comes with reps. Our WRs are sporadic at best. We dont have any big bodies who can go up and make plays. Westerkamp and DPE are good but slot wrs at best. that only works if you have an accurate qb. Ofcourse MR could have form fit his playbook to fit this years team but he is trying to establish his playbook through out the whole program. You dont have your starters practice one set of plays and your underclass man practice another set of plays. Need the younger guys to get reps. A lot of people on here act like our defense was good last year?!?!?! i understand some of the bad play clock managment but lets be honest- Tommy screwed us out of the Illinois game. the jet sweep on 3rd and 3 against BYU doesnt seem like that bad of a play call looking back now. Our oline and (insert rb) are no guarantee to get a 3rd and 3 running up the gut or off tackle. Against Wisconsin we made them use all 3 time outs just like your supposed and you rely on your d to make a stop which they didnt. So can we atleast give MR a couple years to get some of his recruits and get his playbook inserted in. Bo wasnt excatly the best recruiter. Some of his best guys where juco players. Which just means they are patchwork for spots you couldnt recruit well in. We gave Bo 7 years and he never won anything expect 9 games.

[Kiyoat Husker]

Welcome, 3nout!

 

Yes the board can get a little crazy when we are losing, or firing, or hiring, or recruiting, or in scandals, or being ignored by ESPN, or being slighted.

 

So... Stick around and post some more, there are plenty of intelligent conversation to have, and trolls to keep things lively.

 

And a sock puppet

[Jeremy]

Look, I think you will agree with me that we both would like Nebraska to be elite again, whatever your definition of that is.

 

Regardless of what system we run, we will still need good or great talent on the roster for that to happen.

 

With the popularity of spread systems in college right now, who says finding an elite dual threat will be easier than pro style?

Absolutely - I agree we both want the same thing. My definition of 'back' is winning a conference title. Then anything goes in the New Year's 7, possibly College Football Playoff. If Riley could just GET us there, I would consider us 'back.'

 

Pelini, to his credit, was as humanly close to that as one could get, but just couldn't pull it out.

 

Honestly, I would rather an offense that didn't put so much pressure on the QB. An effective running game does this and makes for big opportunities in PA passing. Personally, my offense of choice is split-back veer, but I know that offense won't be dug up any time soon.

 

Realistically, Riley will need to a Connor Cook/Matthew Stafford type if we're gonna throw so much. I just don't see that kid coming to Lincoln.

[desertshox]

 

Realistically, Riley will need to a Connor Cook/Matthew Stafford type if we're gonna throw so much. I just don't see that kid coming to Lincoln.

 

 

Patrick O'Brien doesn't fit that mold? Or is he not coming to Lincoln?

[Jeremy]

 

 

Realistically, Riley will need to a Connor Cook/Matthew Stafford type if we're gonna throw so much. I just don't see that kid coming to Lincoln.

 

 

Patrick O'Brien doesn't fit that mold? Or is he not coming to Lincoln?

 

Could be. We've just had too many misfires with the Harrison Becks and even Sam Kellers of the world. I hope he's every bit as good as everyone says he his.

[Count 'Bility]

Read the first few posts and none thereafter. Has this transpired into the weekly obligatory "Paul Johnson" thread yet?

[Enhance]

 

So, as I'm reading correctly from this thread, OP essentially wants us to go back to 1995 because throwing the football is "wussy."

 

Give me a break. There are several things in OP that make the argument drivel, but one of the most egregious is the idea that outstanding coaches find ways to win regardless of their circumstances. Many of the "outstanding" or even very successful coaches in division one football right now had average teams at lower tier schools. Saban is one of them. You're pumping poison into other posters here by suggesting great coaches have been great forever and that's fundamentally false.

 

And those "sissy" offenses from the coasts have been working our defenses raw for years. Does that still make them sissy? Pretty sure most of those athletes would've destroyed you and most of this board in our prime so don't sit there and spout off about how they're somehow lesser football players because they don't meet some vision in your mind.

 

I actually agree that I think Nebraska should be more of a run-based program. And if you want to argue a different type of scheme is better for Nebraska that's fine, but you can do better than that.

 

Enhance89 -

 

I will clarify again....I said my PREFERENCE is 80/20 (or higher to run the ball) because i love the running game. I did NOT say that my OPINION of passing the ball to be wussy football as the REASON why NU needs to be a running team. There are many reasons why i feel Nebraska's best chance to return to NATIONAL prominence is to run the ball (and a solid defense and special teams), namely weather conditions, recruiting, the walk on program, identity, tradition, etc.

 

Coaches - Saban, Meyer, Devaney, Osborne, they figured it out and WON in the middle and latter stages of their careers. Sure, guys like Saban had a few rough years in the beginning of their head coaching careers, but later on they figured things out and rolled. Guys like Osborne and Meyer (just to name a few) never really had any bad years. My whole point being, Riley, In the last 20 years, has never figured it out. He's never won ANYTHING substantial. I mean, we're talking about a guy who just last year went 5-7 with HIS PLAYERS and his own "SYSTEM". He's been a head coach for a couple decades and been in coaching overall for close to 40 years. That is plenty of time to figure out how to WIN at the highest level. Now if, let's say, he had a few bad years in the beginning but then developed a solid winning career at Oregon State after that, fine. But he hasn't. Not even close. He's been mediocre his entire coaching career, college and NFL.

 

Schemes - sure, we can talk that. Start with inside zone and outside zone blocking, add in Power runs with pulling linemen, traps, isos, counters, options, etc. I could talk all day on running plays. You can have the schemes but you also need to get the horses, which NU could do.

 

I will say this.....in re-watching the Wisconsin game again earlier, it does look like Riley's TRYING to incorporate more running schemes/plays into his arsenal and also allowing Armstrong to run more and even some of the QB-designed runs looked good.

 

That's more reasonable. I think you have valid concerns surrounding the offense and Riley, but if I may add a few things.

 

First, your run/pass preference. I understand your love of the running game and it is my preference, too. But, 80/20 is far too high in general. Even the best Husker offense in the last 25 years, 1995, had a run/pass ratio of 73 percent run, 27 percent pass. Some may mention Paul Johnson, then, who ran just under 80 percent of the time last year at 79.5 percent. That's the same man whose 2-4 this season with 'his players' and his own 'system.'

 

With coaches, again, you make some valid points, but the thing you're ignoring in your analysis is the coaching venues many of those men went to in order to win. Saban struggled at mid-to-lower tier programs but didn't really impress anyone until he got a job where - LSU. Night and day difference from a variety of standpoints compared to a place like Michigan St. at the time, where he was coaching. Riley has spent his entire college coaching career at a place considered to be one of the worst college football programs in the country from a fan, money and resources standpoint. I believe most coaches would struggle to win anything of substance there unless they were one of the few elite coaches. Does that mean Riley will eventually get it all figured out at Nebraska and win big? I don't know. But, I'm still not ready to throw in the towel.

 

I personally believe Nebraska can win with a balanced attack here. A school that doesn't have the same advantages as Nebraska is doing it (Michigan St.) and won the B1G conference and the Rose Bowl in 2013.

 

Here's the biggest point, though - Eichorst is not getting fired by season's end. And he's going to be extremely reluctant to fire Riley, his own choice, by the end of the season. So, we all might as well buckle down and just hope the team gets better. There's literally nothing else we can do. Talking about coaching changes and how wrong a coach is during the season does little but spread poison. We're halfway through the season. I'd rather evaluate the entire product then make rash judgement halfway through the first season.

[Saunders]

"Three things can happen when you pass and two of them are bad" -Tom Osborne

 

 

Darrell Royal said this.

[ajt1970]

 

 

So, as I'm reading correctly from this thread, OP essentially wants us to go back to 1995 because throwing the football is "wussy."

 

Give me a break. There are several things in OP that make the argument drivel, but one of the most egregious is the idea that outstanding coaches find ways to win regardless of their circumstances. Many of the "outstanding" or even very successful coaches in division one football right now had average teams at lower tier schools. Saban is one of them. You're pumping poison into other posters here by suggesting great coaches have been great forever and that's fundamentally false.

 

And those "sissy" offenses from the coasts have been working our defenses raw for years. Does that still make them sissy? Pretty sure most of those athletes would've destroyed you and most of this board in our prime so don't sit there and spout off about how they're somehow lesser football players because they don't meet some vision in your mind.

 

I actually agree that I think Nebraska should be more of a run-based program. And if you want to argue a different type of scheme is better for Nebraska that's fine, but you can do better than that.

 

Enhance89 -

 

I will clarify again....I said my PREFERENCE is 80/20 (or higher to run the ball) because i love the running game. I did NOT say that my OPINION of passing the ball to be wussy football as the REASON why NU needs to be a running team. There are many reasons why i feel Nebraska's best chance to return to NATIONAL prominence is to run the ball (and a solid defense and special teams), namely weather conditions, recruiting, the walk on program, identity, tradition, etc.

 

Coaches - Saban, Meyer, Devaney, Osborne, they figured it out and WON in the middle and latter stages of their careers. Sure, guys like Saban had a few rough years in the beginning of their head coaching careers, but later on they figured things out and rolled. Guys like Osborne and Meyer (just to name a few) never really had any bad years. My whole point being, Riley, In the last 20 years, has never figured it out. He's never won ANYTHING substantial. I mean, we're talking about a guy who just last year went 5-7 with HIS PLAYERS and his own "SYSTEM". He's been a head coach for a couple decades and been in coaching overall for close to 40 years. That is plenty of time to figure out how to WIN at the highest level. Now if, let's say, he had a few bad years in the beginning but then developed a solid winning career at Oregon State after that, fine. But he hasn't. Not even close. He's been mediocre his entire coaching career, college and NFL.

 

Schemes - sure, we can talk that. Start with inside zone and outside zone blocking, add in Power runs with pulling linemen, traps, isos, counters, options, etc. I could talk all day on running plays. You can have the schemes but you also need to get the horses, which NU could do.

 

I will say this.....in re-watching the Wisconsin game again earlier, it does look like Riley's TRYING to incorporate more running schemes/plays into his arsenal and also allowing Armstrong to run more and even some of the QB-designed runs looked good.

 

That's more reasonable. I think you have valid concerns surrounding the offense and Riley, but if I may add a few things.

 

First, your run/pass preference. I understand your love of the running game and it is my preference, too. But, 80/20 is far too high in general. Even the best Husker offense in the last 25 years, 1995, had a run/pass ratio of 73 percent run, 27 percent pass. Some may mention Paul Johnson, then, who ran just under 80 percent of the time last year at 79.5 percent. That's the same man whose 2-4 this season with 'his players' and his own 'system.'

 

With coaches, again, you make some valid points, but the thing you're ignoring in your analysis is the coaching venues many of those men went to in order to win. Saban struggled at mid-to-lower tier programs but didn't really impress anyone until he got a job where - LSU. Night and day difference from a variety of standpoints compared to a place like Michigan St. at the time, where he was coaching. Riley has spent his entire college coaching career at a place considered to be one of the worst college football programs in the country from a fan, money and resources standpoint. I believe most coaches would struggle to win anything of substance there unless they were one of the few elite coaches. Does that mean Riley will eventually get it all figured out at Nebraska and win big? I don't know. But, I'm still not ready to throw in the towel.

 

I personally believe Nebraska can win with a balanced attack here. A school that doesn't have the same advantages as Nebraska is doing it (Michigan St.) and won the B1G conference and the Rose Bowl in 2013.

 

Here's the biggest point, though - Eichorst is not getting fired by season's end. And he's going to be extremely reluctant to fire Riley, his own choice, by the end of the season. So, we all might as well buckle down and just hope the team gets better. There's literally nothing else we can do. Talking about coaching changes and how wrong a coach is during the season does little but spread poison. We're halfway through the season. I'd rather evaluate the entire product then make rash judgement halfway through the first season.

 

 

Enhance89 - Good points and I respect your opinions on this.

 

I would "settle" for 75/25...hell, even 70/30 at this point as far as a running game. But I think you need the right running game technician/coaches in place. With Osborne you had him and Milt Tenopir. With OU's Switzer Wishbone teams you had him and Galen Hall (amongst others)......with any great running team you gotta have the right coaches that can feed ideas off each other and where they would all bring something to the table for designing and creating solid running schemes and then be able to make adjustments during the game. With Riley and Langsdorf, I would say that is NOT a dynamic duo of run-the-ball coaches in place for implementing a powerful running attack. You mentioned Paul Johnson....I do like him and his running schemes, what NU would call their double-wing set (except NU never ran the true triple option as Georgia Tech does). I don't know what's up with GT this year but I am a fan of their team and watch them when I can. I'd love to see Paul Johnson in Lincoln and running that offense with Nebraska.

 

 

Coaches - I see your points and they are valid, to a point. I'll add this....Bill Snyder turned around Kansas State (talk about a downtrodden program with a lack of resources and facilities back when he took over compared to what it is now), and then there are other coaches as well that have taken poor programs and made them into winners, especially over the last 10 years or so. Look at programs like Baylor, TCU, Boise State, Utah, etc. Plenty of teams who hired the right coaches and got their program turned around. Riley and Oregon State? Nope. Not a conference title/Rose Bowl, not a consistent top 10 program. And he is now 2-4 at Nebraska and here's the thing....Nebraska hasn't even played anyone yet (not even a top 30 team, although I don't put too much credence in mid-season rankings).....still, to be 2-4 at Nebraska and have yet to play any team in the top 30.....what would they be if they played a couple strong teams like Baylor or Alabama on their non-conference schedule.....0-6?

 

 

Anyways, you're right in that we are stuck with Riley and Eichorst for a while longer (although maybe after Perlman retires and the new chancellor comes in he'll re-evaluate and make the necessary changes swiftly if needed). To me, it's more than just the won-loss record....it's how you play the game, and I am just no fan of Riley's X's and O's style, although as I mentioned before, I did see some improvement in the rushing creativity and attack in the Wisconsin game so maybe there's hope yet.

[Enhance]

I think we can both agree there are examples of just about every scenario imaginable in college football. I just happen to be a bit lenient when it comes to coaching changes.

 

I know you mentioned Bill Snyder and that's a great example of a coach turning things around. Hell, at one point, Kansas State was known as "Futility U" because of how terrible their program was. He won conference titles and did some great things. But, again one fallacy with comparing coaches at any time is assuming that all situations are created equal. Kansas State's situation, coaches, talent, support, facilities, etc., are different than that of Riley's situation, coaches, talent, support, facilities, etc. I'm not saying you're making that assumption, of course. I just think we have to be careful with what we're comparing and how.

 

I'm personally not a fan of Riley's offense either, so I'm with you there. When you grow up in Nebraska and root for the Huskers, it's hard to not fall in love with a punishing run game. But, I also think people can win at Nebraska in more than one way. I personally believe we would struggle if we focused more on passing than running, but, for example, I never had a problem with Pelini's/Beck's approach to offense in terms of balance. We threw roughly 40 percent of the time. We can argue about his playcalling and ability, sure. But, from a balance standpoint, I liked what Nebraska brought to the table.

[huskerfan333157]

 

 

 

 

 

 

So, as I'm reading correctly from this thread, OP essentially wants us to go back to 1995 because throwing the football is "wussy."

 

Give me a break. There are several things in OP that make the argument drivel, but one of the most egregious is the idea that outstanding coaches find ways to win regardless of their circumstances. Many of the "outstanding" or even very successful coaches in division one football right now had average teams at lower tier schools. Saban is one of them. You're pumping poison into other posters here by suggesting great coaches have been great forever and that's fundamentally false.

 

And those "sissy" offenses from the coasts have been working our defenses raw for years. Does that still make them sissy? Pretty sure most of those athletes would've destroyed you and most of this board in our prime so don't sit there and spout off about how they're somehow lesser football players because they don't meet some vision in your mind.

 

I actually agree that I think Nebraska should be more of a run-based program. And if you want to argue a different type of scheme is better for Nebraska that's fine, but you can do better than that.

Enhance89 -

 

I will clarify again....I said my PREFERENCE is 80/20 (or higher to run the ball) because i love the running game. I did NOT say that my OPINION of passing the ball to be wussy football as the REASON why NU needs to be a running team. There are many reasons why i feel Nebraska's best chance to return to NATIONAL prominence is to run the ball (and a solid defense and special teams), namely weather conditions, recruiting, the walk on program, identity, tradition, etc.

 

Coaches - Saban, Meyer, Devaney, Osborne, they figured it out and WON in the middle and latter stages of their careers. Sure, guys like Saban had a few rough years in the beginning of their head coaching careers, but later on they figured things out and rolled. Guys like Osborne and Meyer (just to name a few) never really had any bad years. My whole point being, Riley, In the last 20 years, has never figured it out. He's never won ANYTHING substantial. I mean, we're talking about a guy who just last year went 5-7 with HIS PLAYERS and his own "SYSTEM". He's been a head coach for a couple decades and been in coaching overall for close to 40 years. That is plenty of time to figure out how to WIN at the highest level. Now if, let's say, he had a few bad years in the beginning but then developed a solid winning career at Oregon State after that, fine. But he hasn't. Not even close. He's been mediocre his entire coaching career, college and NFL.

 

Schemes - sure, we can talk that. Start with inside zone and outside zone blocking, add in Power runs with pulling linemen, traps, isos, counters, options, etc. I could talk all day on running plays. You can have the schemes but you also need to get the horses, which NU could do.

 

I will say this.....in re-watching the Wisconsin game again earlier, it does look like Riley's TRYING to incorporate more running schemes/plays into his arsenal and also allowing Armstrong to run more and even some of the QB-designed runs looked good.

That's more reasonable. I think you have valid concerns surrounding the offense and Riley, but if I may add a few things.

 

First, your run/pass preference. I understand your love of the running game and it is my preference, too. But, 80/20 is far too high in general. Even the best Husker offense in the last 25 years, 1995, had a run/pass ratio of 73 percent run, 27 percent pass. Some may mention Paul Johnson, then, who ran just under 80 percent of the time last year at 79.5 percent. That's the same man whose 2-4 this season with 'his players' and his own 'system.'

 

With coaches, again, you make some valid points, but the thing you're ignoring in your analysis is the coaching venues many of those men went to in order to win. Saban struggled at mid-to-lower tier programs but didn't really impress anyone until he got a job where - LSU. Night and day difference from a variety of standpoints compared to a place like Michigan St. at the time, where he was coaching. Riley has spent his entire college coaching career at a place considered to be one of the worst college football programs in the country from a fan, money and resources standpoint. I believe most coaches would struggle to win anything of substance there unless they were one of the few elite coaches. Does that mean Riley will eventually get it all figured out at Nebraska and win big? I don't know. But, I'm still not ready to throw in the towel.

 

I personally believe Nebraska can win with a balanced attack here. A school that doesn't have the same advantages as Nebraska is doing it (Michigan St.) and won the B1G conference and the Rose Bowl in 2013.

 

Here's the biggest point, though - Eichorst is not getting fired by season's end. And he's going to be extremely reluctant to fire Riley, his own choice, by the end of the season. So, we all might as well buckle down and just hope the team gets better. There's literally nothing else we can do. Talking about coaching changes and how wrong a coach is during the season does little but spread poison. We're halfway through the season. I'd rather evaluate the entire product then make rash judgement halfway through the first season.

Enhance89 - Good points and I respect your opinions on this.

 

I would "settle" for 75/25...hell, even 70/30 at this point as far as a running game. But I think you need the right running game technician/coaches in place. With Osborne you had him and Milt Tenopir. With OU's Switzer Wishbone teams you had him and Galen Hall (amongst others)......with any great running team you gotta have the right coaches that can feed ideas off each other and where they would all bring something to the table for designing and creating solid running schemes and then be able to make adjustments during the game. With Riley and Langsdorf, I would say that is NOT a dynamic duo of run-the-ball coaches in place for implementing a powerful running attack. You mentioned Paul Johnson....I do like him and his running schemes, what NU would call their double-wing set (except NU never ran the true triple option as Georgia Tech does). I don't know what's up with GT this year but I am a fan of their team and watch them when I can. I'd love to see Paul Johnson in Lincoln and running that offense with Nebraska.

 

 

Coaches - I see your points and they are valid, to a point. I'll add this....Bill Snyder turned around Kansas State (talk about a downtrodden program with a lack of resources and facilities back when he took over compared to what it is now), and then there are other coaches as well that have taken poor programs and made them into winners, especially over the last 10 years or so. Look at programs like Baylor, TCU, Boise State, Utah, etc. Plenty of teams who hired the right coaches and got their program turned around. Riley and Oregon State? Nope. Not a conference title/Rose Bowl, not a consistent top 10 program. And he is now 2-4 at Nebraska and here's the thing....Nebraska hasn't even played anyone yet (not even a top 30 team, although I don't put too much credence in mid-season rankings).....still, to be 2-4 at Nebraska and have yet to play any team in the top 30.....what would they be if they played a couple strong teams like Baylor or Alabama on their non-conference schedule.....0-6?

 

 

Anyways, you're right in that we are stuck with Riley and Eichorst for a while longer (although maybe after Perlman retires and the new chancellor comes in he'll re-evaluate and make the necessary changes swiftly if needed). To me, it's more than just the won-loss record....it's how you play the game, and I am just no fan of Riley's X's and O's style, although as I mentioned before, I did see some improvement in the rushing creativity and attack in the Wisconsin game so maybe there's hope yet.

So you'd like Paul johnson here, who is 2-4 yet complaining about Riley who is 2-4?

[ajt1970]

Enhance89 - I think we are in agreement on most things. I can appreciate Beck's offense certainly more than I can Riley's at the moment. Who knows, maybe Riley will grow as a coach and move outside his comfort zone and really become a skilled technician on the running game AND hire the right guys to collaborate with on it. I have now watched the Wisconsin game several times and I do see progress with the play designs and playcalling sequences, so there is hope yet for these guys. :-)

 

 

huskerfan333157 - I would indeed much prefer Paul Johnson over Mike Riley. Reasons: If we're looking at overall head coaching records, Johnsons' is much better, even if you take out his great Georgia Southern record, it's still way better than Riley's. But most importantly to me, from a personal preference standpoint, I like Johnsons' STYLE of play on the offensive side of the ball. I could literally watch a running play on every single down, no passes over an entire game, so obviously that points me towards Johnsons' offense since he runs probably the most rushing-attack based offense in the country (along with the service academies).................and not only that, I feel Nebraska would stand much better chances of winning under that scheme than Riley's current one.

[Hunter94]

Enhance89 - I think we are in agreement on most things. I can appreciate Beck's offense certainly more than I can Riley's at the moment. Who knows, maybe Riley will grow as a coach and move outside his comfort zone and really become a skilled technician on the running game AND hire the right guys to collaborate with on it. I have now watched the Wisconsin game several times and I do see progress with the play designs and playcalling sequences, so there is hope yet for these guys. :-)

 

 

huskerfan333157 - I would indeed much prefer Paul Johnson over Mike Riley. Reasons: If we're looking at overall head coaching records, Johnsons' is much better, even if you take out his great Georgia Southern record, it's still way better than Riley's. But most importantly to me, from a personal preference standpoint, I like Johnsons' STYLE of play on the offensive side of the ball. I could literally watch a running play on every single down, no passes over an entire game, so obviously that points me towards Johnsons' offense since he runs probably the most rushing-attack based offense in the country (along with the service academies).................and not only that, I feel Nebraska would stand much better chances of winning under that scheme than Riley's current one.

his O in the hands of a much more complete, technical QB would look somewhat better........Tommie ain't that guy, his mechanics and decision making still suck. yes, he can tote the ball, but his percentage of completions is horrible.