In which we bellyache about Bo and/or Riley some more.

[GBRedneck]

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Bo Pelini can win 9-10 games a year with no talent, but Riley will need 1.5 years to get the talent needed to get passed 6 wins?

Any way you slice it, it's hard to get past this point.

Why do you guys consistently try to misrepresent the talent that Bo had on the team and act like we won't notice?

 

He had NFL caliber running backs EVERY YEAR he was here. He had Suh and some of the nastiest DBs early on and one of the best LBs in the NFL. He won 9 games last year and had three most talented players on the team drafted. Three cornerstone players the offense and defense were absolutely built around.

 

But by all means, continue to act like Bo coached with no talent.

Can't give Bo credit for winning 9-10 games every year, but we can sure blame him for only a 5 win team that he didn't even coach.

 

Can't make this stuff up. Some of you actually think this way.

^^^This^^^

 

You guys sound surprised about this stuff. I mean, you have guys like RADAR on here who unabashedly claim that Solich was a horrible coach while they're busy slobbering all over Riley.

 

I don't understand how people can function under such cognitive dissonance, but we see it here every day. It shouldn't be surprising any more.

 

You do realize it's possible to think Riley is a good coach while Solich was not? It's perfectly logically to think Solich, Callahan, Pelini, and Riley are good or bad coaches in any combination. This whole notion that people must be on certain "sides" of the debate is false.

 

For example, I think Pelini had a decent record but was an a-hole, bad representative of the university, and therefore needed to be fired. I also think Riley is good at the CEO type activities but was an uninspired hire and has a bad record, and think we'll fire him in a couple seasons (although I wish we'd never hired him).

 

Yes, I realize it's possible to think that a demonstrably bad coach is better than a demonstrably good coach. I've observed that type of "thinking" here for quite awhile. That's why I made the comment. I just don't understand it.

[Husker from Kansas]

I think Bo would have had a better record this year than MR, the players here fit his system better. With that being said MR only had 1 truly bad loss (Purdue, with a back up QB) every other game he lost we were in it till the closing seconds, not to mention the crazy amounts of injuries we had this year. MR came into a program with a team built to run the zone read, something he said he had never really coached. So yes the offense looked inept sometimes because he was trying to use put his system in place with players who do not really fit. Did he say he was going to adapt himself and run some of the zone read type plays? yes he did. Did he really do this? Kinda but not really, but its hard to run plays offensively that you and your staff are not comfortable with.

 

Bo would have probably somehow won 9 games again this year, but vs. Iowa, Michigan St., Northwestern and Wisconsin I don't think its a stretch to say the wheels would have fallen off against against at least 2 of those teams and we would have gotten the usual blow out. Then Bo would have been an ass to the media, fans, and everyone else. At least with MR I can say I was never ashamed of his actions. But what will the future hold with him at the helm?

 

I understand that according to a post earlier our 2016 recruiting class is ranked 44th. I think its pretty typical of NU to rise in the rankings later as now that the season is pretty much over the coaches can recruit harder. NU can't just walk out it's back door and talk to tons of 4 and 5 star kids. They have to do a ton of traveling. We have a highly rated PP QB coming here for the first time in along time. Stanton was a highly rated QB but he was a duel threat. He currently has 3 OL commits and two of them are at 4 star kids. We have more big name recruits seriously considering us right now because of MR's connections with people like Keyshawn Johnson.

 

I supported Bo when he was here and I support MR now. Give the guy some time to bring in his type of players and build the program how he sees fit. Year 1 was rough, no doubt about that, but I truly believe things will get better. and if they don't then I think finding a quality coach, a "splash hire" if you want to call it that, will be easier because we gave a guy sometime and didn't fire him for winning just 9 games a year.

 

But hey this is just my opinion. GBR

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Bo Pelini can win 9-10 games a year with no talent, but Riley will need 1.5 years to get the talent needed to get passed 6 wins?

Any way you slice it, it's hard to get past this point.

Why do you guys consistently try to misrepresent the talent that Bo had on the team and act like we won't notice?

 

He had NFL caliber running backs EVERY YEAR he was here. He had Suh and some of the nastiest DBs early on and one of the best LBs in the NFL. He won 9 games last year and had three most talented players on the team drafted. Three cornerstone players the offense and defense were absolutely built around.

 

But by all means, continue to act like Bo coached with no talent.

Can't give Bo credit for winning 9-10 games every year, but we can sure blame him for only a 5 win team that he didn't even coach.

 

Can't make this stuff up. Some of you actually think this way.

^^^This^^^

 

You guys sound surprised about this stuff. I mean, you have guys like RADAR on here who unabashedly claim that Solich was a horrible coach while they're busy slobbering all over Riley.

 

I don't understand how people can function under such cognitive dissonance, but we see it here every day. It shouldn't be surprising any more.

 

You do realize it's possible to think Riley is a good coach while Solich was not? It's perfectly logically to think Solich, Callahan, Pelini, and Riley are good or bad coaches in any combination. This whole notion that people must be on certain "sides" of the debate is false.

 

For example, I think Pelini had a decent record but was an a-hole, bad representative of the university, and therefore needed to be fired. I also think Riley is good at the CEO type activities but was an uninspired hire and has a bad record, and think we'll fire him in a couple seasons (although I wish we'd never hired him).

 

Yes, I realize it's possible to think that a demonstrably bad coach is better than a demonstrably good coach. I've observed that type of "thinking" here for quite awhile. That's why I made the comment. I just don't understand it.

 

I wonder how Solich could have gone 7-7 in 2002. I mean, there is evidence from 2001 that he should have at least gone 11-2 and played for a national championship...

[GBRedneck]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Bo Pelini can win 9-10 games a year with no talent, but Riley will need 1.5 years to get the talent needed to get passed 6 wins?

Any way you slice it, it's hard to get past this point.

Why do you guys consistently try to misrepresent the talent that Bo had on the team and act like we won't notice?

 

He had NFL caliber running backs EVERY YEAR he was here. He had Suh and some of the nastiest DBs early on and one of the best LBs in the NFL. He won 9 games last year and had three most talented players on the team drafted. Three cornerstone players the offense and defense were absolutely built around.

 

But by all means, continue to act like Bo coached with no talent.

Can't give Bo credit for winning 9-10 games every year, but we can sure blame him for only a 5 win team that he didn't even coach.

 

Can't make this stuff up. Some of you actually think this way.

^^^This^^^

 

You guys sound surprised about this stuff. I mean, you have guys like RADAR on here who unabashedly claim that Solich was a horrible coach while they're busy slobbering all over Riley.

 

I don't understand how people can function under such cognitive dissonance, but we see it here every day. It shouldn't be surprising any more.

 

You do realize it's possible to think Riley is a good coach while Solich was not? It's perfectly logically to think Solich, Callahan, Pelini, and Riley are good or bad coaches in any combination. This whole notion that people must be on certain "sides" of the debate is false.

 

For example, I think Pelini had a decent record but was an a-hole, bad representative of the university, and therefore needed to be fired. I also think Riley is good at the CEO type activities but was an uninspired hire and has a bad record, and think we'll fire him in a couple seasons (although I wish we'd never hired him).

 

Yes, I realize it's possible to think that a demonstrably bad coach is better than a demonstrably good coach. I've observed that type of "thinking" here for quite awhile. That's why I made the comment. I just don't understand it.

 

I wonder how Solich could have gone 7-7 in 2002. I mean, there is evidence from 2001 that he should have at least gone 11-2 and played for a national championship...

 

Here's a fun fact: Solich's .500 winning percentage in his worst single season (by far) at Nebraska is better than Riley's current lifetime average winning percentage as a head coach in over 300 games.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Bo Pelini would have been fired if he went 9-4 again.

 

Unless we saw some progress. Like fewer blowouts and better competition against ranked teams.

 

It's a funny game.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Bo Pelini can win 9-10 games a year with no talent, but Riley will need 1.5 years to get the talent needed to get passed 6 wins?

Any way you slice it, it's hard to get past this point.

Why do you guys consistently try to misrepresent the talent that Bo had on the team and act like we won't notice?

 

He had NFL caliber running backs EVERY YEAR he was here. He had Suh and some of the nastiest DBs early on and one of the best LBs in the NFL. He won 9 games last year and had three most talented players on the team drafted. Three cornerstone players the offense and defense were absolutely built around.

 

But by all means, continue to act like Bo coached with no talent.

Can't give Bo credit for winning 9-10 games every year, but we can sure blame him for only a 5 win team that he didn't even coach.

 

Can't make this stuff up. Some of you actually think this way.

^^^This^^^

 

You guys sound surprised about this stuff. I mean, you have guys like RADAR on here who unabashedly claim that Solich was a horrible coach while they're busy slobbering all over Riley.

 

I don't understand how people can function under such cognitive dissonance, but we see it here every day. It shouldn't be surprising any more.

 

You do realize it's possible to think Riley is a good coach while Solich was not? It's perfectly logically to think Solich, Callahan, Pelini, and Riley are good or bad coaches in any combination. This whole notion that people must be on certain "sides" of the debate is false.

 

For example, I think Pelini had a decent record but was an a-hole, bad representative of the university, and therefore needed to be fired. I also think Riley is good at the CEO type activities but was an uninspired hire and has a bad record, and think we'll fire him in a couple seasons (although I wish we'd never hired him).

 

Yes, I realize it's possible to think that a demonstrably bad coach is better than a demonstrably good coach. I've observed that type of "thinking" here for quite awhile. That's why I made the comment. I just don't understand it.

 

I wonder how Solich could have gone 7-7 in 2002. I mean, there is evidence from 2001 that he should have at least gone 11-2 and played for a national championship...

 

Here's a fun fact: Solich's .500 winning percentage in his worst single season (by far) at Nebraska is better than Riley's current lifetime average winning percentage as a head coach in over 300 games.

 

But that doesn't explain how he managed only 7 wins with all the "evidence" saying he was destined to be better..

[GBRedneck]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Bo Pelini can win 9-10 games a year with no talent, but Riley will need 1.5 years to get the talent needed to get passed 6 wins?

Any way you slice it, it's hard to get past this point.

Why do you guys consistently try to misrepresent the talent that Bo had on the team and act like we won't notice?

 

He had NFL caliber running backs EVERY YEAR he was here. He had Suh and some of the nastiest DBs early on and one of the best LBs in the NFL. He won 9 games last year and had three most talented players on the team drafted. Three cornerstone players the offense and defense were absolutely built around.

 

But by all means, continue to act like Bo coached with no talent.

Can't give Bo credit for winning 9-10 games every year, but we can sure blame him for only a 5 win team that he didn't even coach.

 

Can't make this stuff up. Some of you actually think this way.

^^^This^^^

 

You guys sound surprised about this stuff. I mean, you have guys like RADAR on here who unabashedly claim that Solich was a horrible coach while they're busy slobbering all over Riley.

 

I don't understand how people can function under such cognitive dissonance, but we see it here every day. It shouldn't be surprising any more.

 

You do realize it's possible to think Riley is a good coach while Solich was not? It's perfectly logically to think Solich, Callahan, Pelini, and Riley are good or bad coaches in any combination. This whole notion that people must be on certain "sides" of the debate is false.

 

For example, I think Pelini had a decent record but was an a-hole, bad representative of the university, and therefore needed to be fired. I also think Riley is good at the CEO type activities but was an uninspired hire and has a bad record, and think we'll fire him in a couple seasons (although I wish we'd never hired him).

 

Yes, I realize it's possible to think that a demonstrably bad coach is better than a demonstrably good coach. I've observed that type of "thinking" here for quite awhile. That's why I made the comment. I just don't understand it.

 

I wonder how Solich could have gone 7-7 in 2002. I mean, there is evidence from 2001 that he should have at least gone 11-2 and played for a national championship...

 

Here's a fun fact: Solich's .500 winning percentage in his worst single season (by far) at Nebraska is better than Riley's current lifetime average winning percentage as a head coach in over 300 games.

 

But that doesn't explain how he managed only 7 wins with all the "evidence" saying he was destined to be better..

 

Are you struggling with the difference between evidence and proof?

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Bo Pelini can win 9-10 games a year with no talent, but Riley will need 1.5 years to get the talent needed to get passed 6 wins?

Any way you slice it, it's hard to get past this point.

Why do you guys consistently try to misrepresent the talent that Bo had on the team and act like we won't notice?

 

He had NFL caliber running backs EVERY YEAR he was here. He had Suh and some of the nastiest DBs early on and one of the best LBs in the NFL. He won 9 games last year and had three most talented players on the team drafted. Three cornerstone players the offense and defense were absolutely built around.

 

But by all means, continue to act like Bo coached with no talent.

Can't give Bo credit for winning 9-10 games every year, but we can sure blame him for only a 5 win team that he didn't even coach.

 

Can't make this stuff up. Some of you actually think this way.

^^^This^^^

 

You guys sound surprised about this stuff. I mean, you have guys like RADAR on here who unabashedly claim that Solich was a horrible coach while they're busy slobbering all over Riley.

 

I don't understand how people can function under such cognitive dissonance, but we see it here every day. It shouldn't be surprising any more.

 

You do realize it's possible to think Riley is a good coach while Solich was not? It's perfectly logically to think Solich, Callahan, Pelini, and Riley are good or bad coaches in any combination. This whole notion that people must be on certain "sides" of the debate is false.

 

For example, I think Pelini had a decent record but was an a-hole, bad representative of the university, and therefore needed to be fired. I also think Riley is good at the CEO type activities but was an uninspired hire and has a bad record, and think we'll fire him in a couple seasons (although I wish we'd never hired him).

 

Yes, I realize it's possible to think that a demonstrably bad coach is better than a demonstrably good coach. I've observed that type of "thinking" here for quite awhile. That's why I made the comment. I just don't understand it.

 

I wonder how Solich could have gone 7-7 in 2002. I mean, there is evidence from 2001 that he should have at least gone 11-2 and played for a national championship...

 

Here's a fun fact: Solich's .500 winning percentage in his worst single season (by far) at Nebraska is better than Riley's current lifetime average winning percentage as a head coach in over 300 games.

 

But that doesn't explain how he managed only 7 wins with all the "evidence" saying he was destined to be better..

 

Are you struggling with the difference between evidence and proof?

 

As you are with Pelini?

[zoogs]

The previous 82 posts were shipped out of the Boyd Epley thread.

 

This topic is locked because I'm confident the fine folks who started and fed this yet again will find another every thread in which to continue this. Perhaps it's necessary for them to find another board, too.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Bo Pelini can win 9-10 games a year with no talent, but Riley will need 1.5 years to get the talent needed to get passed 6 wins?

Any way you slice it, it's hard to get past this point.

Why do you guys consistently try to misrepresent the talent that Bo had on the team and act like we won't notice?

 

He had NFL caliber running backs EVERY YEAR he was here. He had Suh and some of the nastiest DBs early on and one of the best LBs in the NFL. He won 9 games last year and had three most talented players on the team drafted. Three cornerstone players the offense and defense were absolutely built around.

 

But by all means, continue to act like Bo coached with no talent.

Can't give Bo credit for winning 9-10 games every year, but we can sure blame him for only a 5 win team that he didn't even coach.

 

Can't make this stuff up. Some of you actually think this way.

^^^This^^^

 

You guys sound surprised about this stuff. I mean, you have guys like RADAR on here who unabashedly claim that Solich was a horrible coach while they're busy slobbering all over Riley.

 

I don't understand how people can function under such cognitive dissonance, but we see it here every day. It shouldn't be surprising any more.

 

You do realize it's possible to think Riley is a good coach while Solich was not? It's perfectly logically to think Solich, Callahan, Pelini, and Riley are good or bad coaches in any combination. This whole notion that people must be on certain "sides" of the debate is false.

 

For example, I think Pelini had a decent record but was an a-hole, bad representative of the university, and therefore needed to be fired. I also think Riley is good at the CEO type activities but was an uninspired hire and has a bad record, and think we'll fire him in a couple seasons (although I wish we'd never hired him).

 

Yes, I realize it's possible to think that a demonstrably bad coach is better than a demonstrably good coach. I've observed that type of "thinking" here for quite awhile. That's why I made the comment. I just don't understand it.

 

I wonder how Solich could have gone 7-7 in 2002. I mean, there is evidence from 2001 that he should have at least gone 11-2 and played for a national championship...

 

 

If we can believe Boyd Epley's comments about the talent difference between this year and the 90's players (which I have no reason to doubt), I wonder how the 2002 team would have fared? I wonder how much the talent level dropped off, if any, during three year's of Frank's recruiting?

 

 

You mean guys like Tenopir's lack of recruiting. All I know is that we can't expect 90s talent every year, and Frank left more talent on the roster for Callahan (at least based on NFL draftees and their position in the respective drafts) than Callahan left for Pelini.

[StPaulHusker]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

So Bo Pelini can win 9-10 games a year with no talent, but Riley will need 1.5 years to get the talent needed to get passed 6 wins?

Any way you slice it, it's hard to get past this point.

Why do you guys consistently try to misrepresent the talent that Bo had on the team and act like we won't notice?

 

He had NFL caliber running backs EVERY YEAR he was here. He had Suh and some of the nastiest DBs early on and one of the best LBs in the NFL. He won 9 games last year and had three most talented players on the team drafted. Three cornerstone players the offense and defense were absolutely built around.

 

But by all means, continue to act like Bo coached with no talent.

Can't give Bo credit for winning 9-10 games every year, but we can sure blame him for only a 5 win team that he didn't even coach.

 

Can't make this stuff up. Some of you actually think this way.

^^^This^^^

 

You guys sound surprised about this stuff. I mean, you have guys like RADAR on here who unabashedly claim that Solich was a horrible coach while they're busy slobbering all over Riley.

 

I don't understand how people can function under such cognitive dissonance, but we see it here every day. It shouldn't be surprising any more.

 

You do realize it's possible to think Riley is a good coach while Solich was not? It's perfectly logically to think Solich, Callahan, Pelini, and Riley are good or bad coaches in any combination. This whole notion that people must be on certain "sides" of the debate is false.

 

For example, I think Pelini had a decent record but was an a-hole, bad representative of the university, and therefore needed to be fired. I also think Riley is good at the CEO type activities but was an uninspired hire and has a bad record, and think we'll fire him in a couple seasons (although I wish we'd never hired him).

 

Yes, I realize it's possible to think that a demonstrably bad coach is better than a demonstrably good coach. I've observed that type of "thinking" here for quite awhile. That's why I made the comment. I just don't understand it.

 

I wonder how Solich could have gone 7-7 in 2002. I mean, there is evidence from 2001 that he should have at least gone 11-2 and played for a national championship...

 

 

If we can believe Boyd Epley's comments about the talent difference between this year and the 90's players (which I have no reason to doubt), I wonder how the 2002 team would have fared? I wonder how much the talent level dropped off, if any, during three year's of Frank's recruiting?

 

 

You mean guys like Tenopir's lack of recruiting. All I know is that we can't expect 90s talent every year, and Frank left more talent on the roster for Callahan (at least based on NFL draftees and their position in the respective drafts) than Callahan left for Pelini.

 

And what did any of this get us? Not a f'ing thing. So who cares?