Run game: striking differences between Riley and Langsdorf

[cm husker]

 

 

 

The best way to argue that winning .700+ over a 7 year stretch (especially the first 7 years of a coach's career) doesn't require being a great coach would be to create a list of coaches who have done that but who are still mediocre/average. I think that's a hard list to come up with.

 

Another way would be for a team to fire that .700+ coach, and see if any other Power 5 school was quick to snap up that great coach who was unjustly fired.

How many fired coaches get hired immediately, regardless of circumstance (that is unless they have a lout like Steve

Pederson ready to desperately grasp at them)?

[Hunter94]

 

 

 

The best way to argue that winning .700+ over a 7 year stretch (especially the first 7 years of a coach's career) doesn't require being a great coach would be to create a list of coaches who have done that but who are still mediocre/average. I think that's a hard list to come up with.

 

Another way would be for a team to fire that .700+ coach, and see if any other Power 5 school was quick to snap up that great coach who was unjustly fired.

How many fired coaches get hired immediately, regardless of circumstance (that is unless they have a lout like Steve

Pederson ready to desperately grasp at them)?

 

Bo was obviously on no one's radar.......

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

The best way to argue that winning .700+ over a 7 year stretch (especially the first 7 years of a coach's career) doesn't require being a great coach would be to create a list of coaches who have done that but who are still mediocre/average. I think that's a hard list to come up with.

 

Another way would be for a team to fire that .700+ coach, and see if any other Power 5 school was quick to snap up that great coach who was unjustly fired.

How many fired coaches get hired immediately, regardless of circumstance (that is unless they have a lout like Steve

Pederson ready to desperately grasp at them)?

 

 

It happens every year. Richt comes to mind.

 

Other coaches lick their wounds for a year, then get the call. Will Muschamp and Rich Rod come to mind.

 

There have been about 30 head coaching vacancies at better schools than Youngstown State since Pelini was fired at Nebraska. No one has yet jumped on the only coach to share the 9+ win streak with Saban and Meyer.

 

It might still happen. And who knows? Pelini might prove himself.

 

But he's not really in the great, or even good, head coach conversation at the moment. I don't think Youngstown State fans are exactly counting their lucky stars to have landed him.

[BigRedBuster]

He was melting down in the Wisconsin game?

 

I don't recall that, except for the Davie yelling, but I don't see how that leads to what happened... I just don't see it.

 

Personally, I think that's a growing experience, and I thought Bo did a lot of growing under TO and will continue to under Tressel.

 

As far as that 2014 season goes (and the 2013 season), I think people forget or don't appreciate just how under fire that staff was. It's one thing to be getting that from the media and message boards. It's quite another to feel you don't have support from your boss. And, based on Eichorst's actions this season, it's very clear he was looking for a way to fire Bo, let alone not supporting him like he could have.

 

Bo was far from perfect. I fully acknowledge that. But I don't think he was as bad as has been portrayed.

And to the blowout issue, that's just a fact of today's systems of offense and rules on offense. These games get out of hand so much easier than they used to. Granted, Wisconsin was particularly awful, but when I look at the bowl results this season, when teams are sort of supposed to be going up against like versus like, you have 16 games won by at least 17 points (and several of them by more than 21), especially among against top p5 programs.

 

I think the blowout issue is overplayed, mainly because it's one of the few objective faults one can point to in Bo's record at NU, along with no conf. championships.

I specifically remember it.

 

I had came home early from deer hunting with my son so we could watch the game. I had supported him wholeheartedly up to that point.

 

I sat there in the first half just absolutely amazed ( in a bad way) at how he was trying to coach that game.

 

We actually started off doing pretty well. Then a couple things bad happened and he lost it.

 

He had absolutely no ability to actually coach and manage the game because all he was going is running around yelling at everyone.

 

I left and couldn't watch the second half.

 

Time for a change.

 

 

PS......I believe this is why what Guy is talking about hasn't happened.

[Landlord]

cm, if you don't think the blowouts were as incredulous or uncommon as the general public does, can you list me any other school that averaged a 9 win clip and also averaged at least one game a year of getting beat by 28+ points? Ever?

[cm husker]

cm, if you don't think the blowouts were as incredulous or uncommon as the general public does, can you list me any other school that averaged a 9 win clip and also averaged at least one game a year of getting beat by 28+ points? Ever?

I'm going off memory, but at least two out of his final four or five years didn't include 28+ losses, right?

[Enhance]

 

cm, if you don't think the blowouts were as incredulous or uncommon as the general public does, can you list me any other school that averaged a 9 win clip and also averaged at least one game a year of getting beat by 28+ points? Ever?

I'm going off memory, but at least two out of his final four or five years didn't include 28+ losses, right?

 

Are we talking about Pelini? He had four losses of 28 or more points in his final four seasons, it appears. Two happened in 2011, one in 2012, 0 in 2013 and one in 2014.

[Landlord]

I said an average. 09, 10, and 13 didn't have any but there were several in other seasons. 28 points is being really generous with a point spread though

 

 

2008 Missouri

2008 Oklahoma

2011 Wisconsin

2011 Michigan

2012 Wisconsin

2012 Ohio State

2014 Wisconsin

[Stumpy1]

I said an average. 09, 10, and 13 didn't have any but there were several in other seasons. 28 points is being really generous with a point spread though

 

 

2008 Missouri

2008 Oklahoma

2011 Wisconsin

2011 Michigan

2012 Wisconsin

2012 Ohio State

2014 Wisconsin

These are the worst losses in Pelini's time here

 

2008: Lost to Mizz. 52-17 (35 pts.) and Oklahoma 62-28 (34 pts.)

2009: Lost to Texas Tech 31-10 (21 pts.)

2010: Worst loss of season was to Washington by 12

2011: Lost to Wisc 48-17 (31 pts.) and Mich 45-17 (28 pts.)

2012: Lost to tOSU 63-38 (25 pts.) and Wisc 70-31 (39 pts.)

2013: Lost to UCLA 41-21 and Iowa 38-17

2014: Lost to Wisc 59-24

[Landlord]

ah i guess the OSU game doesn't fit my arbitrary 28 point margin but it was still a bit of a sh#t show

[cm husker]

The blowouts definitely needed to get fixed. No doubt. They were unacceptable mainly because I think they ended up beating the team twice on occasion (e.g., losing to Minnesota after the wisky game).

 

I just didn't see them as inevitable if we'd stayed the course with the last staff.

 

Just like there's nothing inevitable about this staff, good or bad.

[beorach]

 

 

 

I don't recognize that you've made a counter argument. I don't think you've shown any substantial fallacy (aside from Donnan being included incorrectly, as I noted above - this is why I qualified this with substantial) and you're reading into Landlord's post to the extent that I think it's fair to say you've got its meaning twisted. Put in the time and make your case if you like but questioning whether altering the research by including bad coaches, going with seven years, etc., is nothing but speculation until then.

 

 

No point in me putting in more time. You won't even consider it, clearly.

 

Out of morbid curiosity, in one sentence, how would you sum up the point of Landlord's post (and yours)?

 

Why wouldn't I consider it? I've clearly explained myself and you're weaseling out on actually providing some substance to back up your hypotheses. I tried summing up repeatedly above and avoided calling you insulting and idiotic (despite your having started with that toward me with your summation) so I don't get the continued attitude. It's all right to have a difference of opinion but you don't get to claim you've refuted something by merely questioning it.

 

p.s. - I guess I will try to sum things up again for you after all. You have taken offense to my appreciation for Landlord's post and have gone so far as to claim it's BS but you won't back that opinion up with any research of your own because of your opinion about me.

 

If you never saw any post I wrote on here outside this thread, I would expect that you might still be able to realize that I value facts given my appreciation for the research Landlord did. If you saw that I mainly share statistics on here, I'd think you'd realize even more the value I place on what's real, tangible, measurable, FACTual, etc. To continue laboring the point, I can make no judgment at this time as to your opinion that Landlord's data sampling obscured the truth about whatever side of whatever issue you think we've been discussing.

 

 

I've already shown that the methodology is flawed and that it's incomplete. I've shown specific incidents of the flaws (e.g., the wrongly included coach) and explained why the methodology itself is designed to support a prior conclusion (e.g., it drops coaches who were there less than 4 years without any real explanation for why and fails to address whether the 49 who are included may actually all be pretty great).

 

It's clear that you have a bias (that winning .700+ games at NU doesn't take a "great coach"), and Landlord's fundamentally flawed and incomplete post provides your desired confirmation of said bias.

 

I'm not going to spend 10+ hours going through and redoing what Landlord already referred to as a "nonscientific" post just so you can dismiss it.

 

I'll simply state that the premise that it's easy to win at the winningest programs ignores the simple fact that the winningest programs may have had the best coaches a lot of the time. For example, of the coaches who helped make their teams the winningest in the nation were successful at lesser programs prior.

 

The more you think about it, the more Landlord's entire post falls apart as either (a) flawed in methodology and application of flawed methodology, and (b) not actually disproving the original argument because he fails to account for the fact that many of those coaches were great coaches. Yes, it's sort of a chicken or egg thing, but guys like Devaney, Bowden and Spurrier built their programs from the ground up.

 

The more I think about it, the more I'm certain you must live under a bridge and that your eyes must be brown. You want me to trust that you're right about something because you: 1) found a mistake regarding 1 coach out of 79; and 2) expressed some general concerns with data sampling that may or may not be valid. On top of all that, you haven't stopped sharing your assumptions as to my character. That should have been my clue to not bother with you from the beginning, I suppose. Go take a flying f*** at a rolling donut, sir. I won't bother with your communications again.

[BigRedBuster]

The blowouts definitely needed to get fixed. No doubt. They were unacceptable mainly because I think they ended up beating the team twice on occasion (e.g., losing to Minnesota after the wisky game).

 

I just didn't see them as inevitable if we'd stayed the course with the last staff.

 

Just like there's nothing inevitable about this staff, good or bad.

Wait....

 

Haven't you proclaimed that this staff will never be successful here?

[flfmrredfan]

 

The blowouts definitely needed to get fixed. No doubt. They were unacceptable mainly because I think they ended up beating the team twice on occasion (e.g., losing to Minnesota after the wisky game).

 

I just didn't see them as inevitable if we'd stayed the course with the last staff.

 

Just like there's nothing inevitable about this staff, good or bad.

Wait....

 

Haven't you proclaimed that this staff will never be successful here?

 

Here's a tip for you.

 

Go do some research, and find some evidence before you make an accusation.

 

Although I encourage you not to, because you won't find anything to back up that false accusation.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

The blowouts definitely needed to get fixed. No doubt. They were unacceptable mainly because I think they ended up beating the team twice on occasion (e.g., losing to Minnesota after the wisky game).

 

I just didn't see them as inevitable if we'd stayed the course with the last staff.

 

Just like there's nothing inevitable about this staff, good or bad.

Wait....

 

Haven't you proclaimed that this staff will never be successful here?

 

Here's a tip for you.

 

Go do some research, and find some evidence before you make an accusation.

 

Although I encourage you not to, because you won't find anything to back up that false accusation.

 

Wow...that was impressive jump to be defensive of someone else.

 

I asked a simple question. I'm not going to meander through threads looking for a post.

 

It's a simple question. If he thinks this staff has a chance to be successful here, then great. If not, then I'm interested in his answer.