Run game: striking differences between Riley and Langsdorf

[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.

Wait....

 

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

 

 

No, I've never said that, but I have my doubts that they will ever win a championship with their current system and definitely have doubts that they will ever get back to a consistent level of .700+ seasons.

 

But it's not necessarily inevitable. They could hire a new OC for example. Or there could be a rush of elitely talented players born in Nebraska around 1998. All sorts of variables out there.

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

No, I've never said that, but I have my doubts that they will ever win a championship with their current system and definitely have doubts that they will ever get back to a consistent level of .700+ seasons.

 

But it's not necessarily inevitable. They could hire a new OC for example. Or there could be a rush of elitely talented players born in Nebraska around 1998. All sorts of variables out there.

 

OK....understand.

 

In your first post, you implied that if we would have stayed the course with the old staff, the blow outs were not inevitable to continue.

 

In this post, you imply that changes in the staff very well could be needed to reach the success we want.

 

Now, I could have you mixed up with someone else so correct me if I'm wrong.

But, aren't you one that has said you don't like this staff because they have always been a pass happy offensive staff and coaches don't change over night what they like and understand to do?

[Enhance]

 

 

 

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?

 

 

No, I've never said that, but I have my doubts that they will ever win a championship with their current system and definitely have doubts that they will ever get back to a consistent level of .700+ seasons.

 

But it's not necessarily inevitable. They could hire a new OC for example. Or there could be a rush of elitely talented players born in Nebraska around 1998. All sorts of variables out there.

 

OK....understand.

 

In your first post, you implied that if we would have stayed the course with the old staff, the blow outs were not inevitable to continue.

 

In this post, you imply that changes in the staff very well could be needed to reach the success we want.

 

Now, I could have you mixed up with someone else so correct me if I'm wrong.

But, aren't you one that has said you don't like this staff because they have always been a pass happy offensive staff and coaches don't change over night what they like and understand to do?

 

cm can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his personal belief is that the style of offense these coaches want to run, and relied on at times this year, is not a recipe for sustained success at Nebraska.

[Sargon]

"Consistent" .700 seasons is an important measuring stick?. No. For the record Bo only slithered over that 3 times in 7 years (.69 .71 .71 .69 .71 .69 .69).

[Guy Chamberlin]

CM,

 

I have noticed a genuine attempt to up the quality and objectivity of your posts. It's appreciated. Honestly.

 

But some still have lingering memories -- some going back only a few posts -- that you believed a Pelini coached team would have won 11, maybe 12 games this season (despite never having done so before) and that we shouldn't expect Riley to do better than .500, because that's what his resume says. Your positions on talent and recruiting seem a bit flexible, based on their ability to blame Mike Riley.

 

We will never know if Bo would have won 11 or avoided a blowout this season at Nebraska, but a glimpse of his season finale at Youngstown State makes a strong case for Shawn Eichorst.

 

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/bo-pelini-draws-two-unsportsmanlike-conduct-penalties-in-final-minute/article_a18a6a3e-8b22-11e5-b3ee-1f246cc1deb1.html

[BigRedBuster]

CM,

 

I have noticed a genuine attempt to up the quality and objectivity of your posts. It's appreciated. Honestly.

 

But some still have lingering memories -- some going back only a few posts -- that you believed a Pelini coached team would have won 11, maybe 12 games this season (despite never having done so before) and that we shouldn't expect Riley to do better than .500, because that's what his resume says. Your positions on talent and recruiting seem a bit flexible, based on their ability to blame Mike Riley.

 

We will never know if Bo would have won 11 or avoided a blowout this season at Nebraska, but a glimpse of his season finale at Youngstown State makes a strong case for Shawn Eichorst.

 

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/bo-pelini-draws-two-unsportsmanlike-conduct-penalties-in-final-minute/article_a18a6a3e-8b22-11e5-b3ee-1f246cc1deb1.html

That's exactly what I was saying about Bo and what I felt after the WI game. Instead of being a coach and working to manage the game and help his team win, he chose here to yell at refs and get 30 yards in penalties late in the game.

 

That is not being a leader.

[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?

 

 

No, I've never said that, but I have my doubts that they will ever win a championship with their current system and definitely have doubts that they will ever get back to a consistent level of .700+ seasons.

 

But it's not necessarily inevitable. They could hire a new OC for example. Or there could be a rush of elitely talented players born in Nebraska around 1998. All sorts of variables out there.

 

OK....understand.

 

In your first post, you implied that if we would have stayed the course with the old staff, the blow outs were not inevitable to continue.

 

In this post, you imply that changes in the staff very well could be needed to reach the success we want.

 

Now, I could have you mixed up with someone else so correct me if I'm wrong.

But, aren't you one that has said you don't like this staff because they have always been a pass happy offensive staff and coaches don't change over night what they like and understand to do?

 

cm can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his personal belief is that the style of offense these coaches want to run, and relied on at times this year, is not a recipe for sustained success at Nebraska.

 

Yes....That is how I understand his stance.

 

However, what happens if POB is as good as advertised (or we get Gebia next year and he is)and we get 3-4 really good receivers this year and next (to add to what we already have)? What if our line keeps improving in pass pro?

 

All of those things are possible. THEN, a more passing offense could work here.

[ColoradoHusk]

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

No, I've never said that, but I have my doubts that they will ever win a championship with their current system and definitely have doubts that they will ever get back to a consistent level of .700+ seasons.

 

But it's not necessarily inevitable. They could hire a new OC for example. Or there could be a rush of elitely talented players born in Nebraska around 1998. All sorts of variables out there.

 

OK....understand.

 

In your first post, you implied that if we would have stayed the course with the old staff, the blow outs were not inevitable to continue.

 

In this post, you imply that changes in the staff very well could be needed to reach the success we want.

 

Now, I could have you mixed up with someone else so correct me if I'm wrong.

But, aren't you one that has said you don't like this staff because they have always been a pass happy offensive staff and coaches don't change over night what they like and understand to do?

 

cm can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his personal belief is that the style of offense these coaches want to run, and relied on at times this year, is not a recipe for sustained success at Nebraska.

 

Yes....That is how I understand his stance.

 

However, what happens if POB is as good as advertised (or we get Gebia next year and he is)and we get 3-4 really good receivers this year and next (to add to what we already have)? What if our line keeps improving in pass pro?

 

All of those things are possible. THEN, a more passing offense could work here.

 

This is what bothers me about Riley's offense. The team requires SO MANY good/great players at all these spots that it makes recruiting and player development the biggest thing to make the offense work.

 

Your basically saying "we need 11 great players to be great on offense". Is that realistic?

[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?

 

 

No, I've never said that, but I have my doubts that they will ever win a championship with their current system and definitely have doubts that they will ever get back to a consistent level of .700+ seasons.

 

But it's not necessarily inevitable. They could hire a new OC for example. Or there could be a rush of elitely talented players born in Nebraska around 1998. All sorts of variables out there.

 

OK....understand.

 

In your first post, you implied that if we would have stayed the course with the old staff, the blow outs were not inevitable to continue.

 

In this post, you imply that changes in the staff very well could be needed to reach the success we want.

 

Now, I could have you mixed up with someone else so correct me if I'm wrong.

But, aren't you one that has said you don't like this staff because they have always been a pass happy offensive staff and coaches don't change over night what they like and understand to do?

 

cm can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his personal belief is that the style of offense these coaches want to run, and relied on at times this year, is not a recipe for sustained success at Nebraska.

 

Yes....That is how I understand his stance.

 

However, what happens if POB is as good as advertised (or we get Gebia next year and he is)and we get 3-4 really good receivers this year and next (to add to what we already have)? What if our line keeps improving in pass pro?

 

All of those things are possible. THEN, a more passing offense could work here.

 

This is what bothers me about Riley's offense. The team requires SO MANY good/great players at all these spots that it makes recruiting and player development the biggest thing to make the offense work.

 

Your basically saying "we need 11 great players to be great on offense". Is that realistic?

 

?????

 

No matter what system you run, you have to recruit great players to that system to win championships.

 

Are you telling me that if we would go back to a power run/option attack, we don't need to bother with recruiting great players because that system is so easy to win with that you don't need good talent to do so?

 

If that's what you are saying, I call BS. When we were dominant, we had great players for that system. That's why we were so good. Our players matched the system and they ran it very well.

 

Now, part of the train of thought TO went through was that he was having a hard time recruiting Pro style offensive players to Nebraska, so he went the other direction. He still needed great players. He just found it easier to recruit great duel threat QBs than passing QBs.

 

My above post, implied that....well....what if we now have a staff that is successful in recruiting those really good passing QBs and WRs?

[ColoradoHusk]

BRB, I'm not saying you don't need great athletes and players to be great. However, in order to run a successful pro-style, WCO style offense that focuses on the pass, it is more difficult to do so because of the amount of sheer talent that is needed to make it work consistently.

 

Basically, you need a great passing QB, great WR's to get open, great o-linemen to block consistently, etc. If there are deficiencies in any of these positions, the offense is going to struggle. That type of recruiting is more difficult, especially where Nebraska is in the geography of the country.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

 

 

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?

 

 

No, I've never said that, but I have my doubts that they will ever win a championship with their current system and definitely have doubts that they will ever get back to a consistent level of .700+ seasons.

 

But it's not necessarily inevitable. They could hire a new OC for example. Or there could be a rush of elitely talented players born in Nebraska around 1998. All sorts of variables out there.

 

OK....understand.

 

In your first post, you implied that if we would have stayed the course with the old staff, the blow outs were not inevitable to continue.

 

In this post, you imply that changes in the staff very well could be needed to reach the success we want.

 

Now, I could have you mixed up with someone else so correct me if I'm wrong.

But, aren't you one that has said you don't like this staff because they have always been a pass happy offensive staff and coaches don't change over night what they like and understand to do?

 

cm can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his personal belief is that the style of offense these coaches want to run, and relied on at times this year, is not a recipe for sustained success at Nebraska.

 

Yes....That is how I understand his stance.

 

However, what happens if POB is as good as advertised (or we get Gebia next year and he is)and we get 3-4 really good receivers this year and next (to add to what we already have)? What if our line keeps improving in pass pro?

 

All of those things are possible. THEN, a more passing offense could work here.

 

This is what bothers me about Riley's offense. The team requires SO MANY good/great players at all these spots that it makes recruiting and player development the biggest thing to make the offense work.

 

Your basically saying "we need 11 great players to be great on offense". Is that realistic?

 

 

Again, the power running game of Tom Osborne and the high degree of discipline and execution option football required were probably more complicated and talent reliant than most offenses run today.

[Landlord]

CM,

 

I have noticed a genuine attempt to up the quality and objectivity of your posts. It's appreciated. Honestly.

 

 

Yep, same.

[BigRedBuster]

BRB, I'm not saying you don't need great athletes and players to be great. However, in order to run a successful pro-style, WCO style offense that focuses on the pass, it is more difficult to do so because of the amount of sheer talent that is needed to make it work consistently.

 

Basically, you need a great passing QB, great WR's to get open, great o-linemen to block consistently, etc. That type of recruiting is more difficult, especially where Nebraska is in the geography of the country.

And, with a power run/option attack, you need a great running QB, great RBs, great WRs that are good at blocking along with catching a ball every once in a while and great O linemen who run block consistently.

 

My point is, the number of great players doesn't change much. The TYPE of player changes. TO became fantastic at recruiting the players needed for his system. What if this staff is great at recruiting players for their system? Does that still make their system suck in Nebraska?

[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?

 

 

No, I've never said that, but I have my doubts that they will ever win a championship with their current system and definitely have doubts that they will ever get back to a consistent level of .700+ seasons.

 

But it's not necessarily inevitable. They could hire a new OC for example. Or there could be a rush of elitely talented players born in Nebraska around 1998. All sorts of variables out there.

 

OK....understand.

 

In your first post, you implied that if we would have stayed the course with the old staff, the blow outs were not inevitable to continue.

 

In this post, you imply that changes in the staff very well could be needed to reach the success we want.

 

Now, I could have you mixed up with someone else so correct me if I'm wrong.

But, aren't you one that has said you don't like this staff because they have always been a pass happy offensive staff and coaches don't change over night what they like and understand to do?

 

cm can correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe his personal belief is that the style of offense these coaches want to run, and relied on at times this year, is not a recipe for sustained success at Nebraska.

 

Yes....That is how I understand his stance.

 

However, what happens if POB is as good as advertised (or we get Gebia next year and he is)and we get 3-4 really good receivers this year and next (to add to what we already have)? What if our line keeps improving in pass pro?

 

All of those things are possible. THEN, a more passing offense could work here.

 

This is what bothers me about Riley's offense. The team requires SO MANY good/great players at all these spots that it makes recruiting and player development the biggest thing to make the offense work.

 

Your basically saying "we need 11 great players to be great on offense". Is that realistic?

 

 

Again, the power running game of Tom Osborne and the high degree of discipline and execution option football required were probably more complicated and talent reliant than most offenses run today.

 

Especially when we saw fewer and fewer top talent players wanting to play in that type of system.