OWH: What Recruiting Says About Husker Offense

[HuskerNBigD]

It was the "then current" 22nd ranked roster in the country and had the talent to beat the eventual conference winner. It also had the talent to be within a score of every team it lost to, except, shockingly, Purdue.

 

Was it "walk off championship talent"? No. But pieces were there for a serious run. They were just squandered.

 

Your comments sounds so much like perlmans "the program just seems tired" statement in '03, which I thought revealed a fundamental misunderstanding about the nature of developing a program. It's rarely perfectly linear. '13 had a massive amount of injuries that derailed a high potential season, for example.

 

That is called growing pains, my man. When an entire program undergoes transition, you are going to have bumps in the road. Should we have played like we did against Purdue, or Illinois, of course not. But no amount of bickering and bitching is going to change that.

I feel like judgement needs to be withheld until after this season, including NSD. Current players and coaches seem to be jiving quite well, based on spring reports. More importantly, recruits seem to really like the coaches in place and that has to count for something.

For those naysayers who continually perpetuate the narrative that Riley is just padding his buddies retirement account, look no further than the fact he canned a long time friend and colleague who could not deliver on or off the field. HCMR is focused and seems to be engaged in trying to build the program into something special.

[cm husker]

I agree with much of your post. And if people would stop scapegoating the former staff and the current players, I wouldn't chime in at all. I'm fine with giving Riley a chance, even if I'm not a fan of his offensive philosophy.

 

One thing, I don't think Hughes was a long time friend of Riley's. He was brought in by baker I thought.

 

Anyway, I don't put much stock in claims of nepotism. Coaches need to hire people they click with and who understand their vision. That's why I've never been a believer in those who think you can "plug and play" a staff of "all star" assistants and reap the best results.

[Hayseed]

Yeah , they're looking down the road when they have an accurate Peyton Manning style passer. I still say the offense has been pretty good and would look far better if not for the hapless defense. Let's concentrate on that instead of trying to figure out how to pull out a 50-49 win.

[HuskerNBigD]

I agree with much of your post. And if people would stop scapegoating the former staff and the current players, I wouldn't chime in at all. I'm fine with giving Riley a chance, even if I'm not a fan of his offensive philosophy.

 

One thing, I don't think Hughes was a long time friend of Riley's. He was brought in by baker I thought.

 

Anyway, I don't put much stock in claims of nepotism. Coaches need to hire people they click with and who understand their vision. That's why I've never been a believer in those who think you can "plug and play" a staff of "all star" assistants and reap the best results.

 

Agreed on the scapegoating the former staff and current players.

 

If you think about it, the 2015 season wasn't anything short of a perfect storm for chaos and a split fan base. So many mixed emotions for not only people heavily involved in the team, both prior to Riley's arrival and after, but for the fans too.

 

I think much of the angst comes from the fact that we were 6-7. Major let down and in times like that, people push blame elsewhere. Where that blame was pushed depended on what side of the line you were on. The Bo-leavers were quickly going to blame the "lack of talent", while the Bo-faithfully were quickly going to blame the ginger and say, "I told you so, see how good those consecutive 9+ win seasons were". On top of that, you have a split of the former where many Bo-leavers felt like they were left with their you know what in their hand when they heard the name Mike Riley, while the others were elated because the guy was a complete 180 personality wise to Bo.

 

There's an old saying in Tennessee, I know it's in Texas, it's probably in Tennessee....."Winning fixes everything".

[Elf]

 

 

I don't agree with Dirk's premise. That is, I don't think Wisconsin says "We're going to run the ball a lot so we're only going to recruit three-star receivers." You always recruit the best WRs you can get. You just have a lot better chance of landing them with a passing offense.

 

However, I do think he's correct that we want to throw the ball a lot. And we're selling WR and QB recruits on that.

 

The big question is how effective will that offense be. As you know, I don't think it will be very effective - in fact, detrimental - with TA under center. I'm more hopeful with POB going forward. We'll see.

I agree with this. As for TA being under center, we'll find out. The recruits certainly won't impact the offense under him this season. However, the extent to which Nebraska has reliable RB talent remains to be seen. Will Ozigbo build upon UCLA? How do we replace Jano? Will Newby assert himself as more, will Wilbon or Trey Bryant make a charge, etc.

 

Tommy's mistake prone, and that has to get fixed, but he can also only run the ball himself so much in a game. And he's in an offense with some of the more dangerous and established receivers in the B1G now.

 

I'm tired of people blaming Tommy for being mistake prone. Among Riley's first year starters, TA has one of the best td to int and int per attempt ratios.

 

Did he make mistakes last year? Yes. Were they the same mistakes at the same or a lower frequency that most of Riley's QBs have made them? Yes.

 

So maybe it's not just a "we need someone less mistake prone" issue.

 

I'm tired of this fallacy. Tommy was a 3 year starter last year, not a first year starter.

[cm husker]

He was a first time starter in that system. Same can be said about Derek Anderson, who was a jr when he entered Riley's system for the first time. There are other examples on that list, too. In fact only a couple were frosh.

[Elf]

He was a first time starter in that system. Same can be said about Derek Anderson, who was a jr when he entered Riley's system for the first time. There are other examples on that list, too. In fact only a couple were frosh.

A three year starter should NOT be making the sheer number of mistakes Tommy made last year. Period.

 

Calling him a first year starter in Riley's offense is nothing more than an excuse. At least Tommy owned up to the fact that he needs to make large strides, in fact, he told his qb coach to treat him like a freshman again. Tommy knows some of his performances were substandard last year or he wouldn't have said those things to his coach.

[Guy Chamberlin]

The offense that both Riley and Tim Beck asked of their quarterback was not overly complicated or demanding.

 

Like every offense it works best with a good decision maker.

 

Tommy isn't the best decision maker. That's the thing you believe will come with time. So far it hasn't.

 

And the reason you can't just give up on Tommy is because he will have games where it all comes together and you realize what a total package he could be. You can't even call him a bad passer because he can be an excellent passer. Even when his decisions are sketchy, he's a leader at heart. Can't teach that part and it counts for a lot. We've learned not to doubt him with the game on the line. We've also learned to doubt him in games we should win.

 

So he has one season to seal his legacy.

 

Or maybe it's more like the first six games.

 

Let's not argue whether Tommy has talent. He has sh#tloads of talent. But at this point it's up to him to deliver on his promise.

[Moiraine]

The offense that both Riley and Tim Beck asked of their quarterback was not overly complicated or demanding.

 

Like every offense it works best with a good decision maker.

 

Tommy isn't the best decision maker. That's the thing you believe will come with time. So far it hasn't.

 

And the reason you can't just give up on Tommy is because he will have games where it all comes together and you realize what a total package he could be. You can't even call him a bad passer because he can be an excellent passer. Even when his decisions are sketchy, he's a leader at heart. Can't teach that part and it counts for a lot. We've learned not to doubt him with the game on the line. We've also learned to doubt him in games we should win.

 

So he has one season to seal his legacy.

 

Or maybe it's more like the first six games.

 

Let's not argue whether Tommy has talent. He has sh#tloads of talent. But at this point it's up to him to deliver on his promise.

 

 

That's what makes watching it so frustrating. You could give him 20 yards of open space in front of him and instead of running he'll throw it into triple coverage. Or he'll do the same thing if his check down has 20 yards of open space in front of him. But then he'll make amazing plays.

[AFhusker]

 

The offense that both Riley and Tim Beck asked of their quarterback was not overly complicated or demanding.

 

Like every offense it works best with a good decision maker.

 

Tommy isn't the best decision maker. That's the thing you believe will come with time. So far it hasn't.

 

And the reason you can't just give up on Tommy is because he will have games where it all comes together and you realize what a total package he could be. You can't even call him a bad passer because he can be an excellent passer. Even when his decisions are sketchy, he's a leader at heart. Can't teach that part and it counts for a lot. We've learned not to doubt him with the game on the line. We've also learned to doubt him in games we should win.

 

So he has one season to seal his legacy.

 

Or maybe it's more like the first six games.

 

Let's not argue whether Tommy has talent. He has sh#tloads of talent. But at this point it's up to him to deliver on his promise.

 

 

That's what makes watching it so frustrating. You could give him 20 yards of open space in front of him and instead of running he'll throw it into triple coverage. Or he'll do the same thing if his check down has 20 yards of open space in front of him. But then he'll make amazing plays.

 

There is no doubt that he has talent. It's his decision making and his "hero" ball that puts the team in bad position with turnovers/horrible game management. As Guy said, if he ever gets "it" then he could lead NU to big things to include at least a division and maybe a conference championship. If he doesn't, then we will have another very frustrating season where we will struggle to have a winning record.

[cm husker]

Tommy being set up as the scape goat.

[Ric Flair]

Tommy is a mixed bag. I like his leadership, moxie, character, and playmaking ability. But he has a tendency to make mind-numbingly stupid decisions. Coming on the heels of "TMagic," we have now had seven consecutive years with a starting QB who was incapable of consistently making good decisions. Was that all their fault? Of course not. But you simply can't make terrible decisions as often as they have and consistently win games and compete for championships.

 

Simply put, Tommy needs to make better decisions. If he doesn't, it will be a long year. And we need to prioritize recruiting experienced QBs with high football IQs and who consistently make good decisions. I'm hopeful that O'Brien will prove to be one.

[desertshox]

Tommy being set up as the scape goat.

 

god am i sick and tired of this incessant bullcrap of yours. the players aren't infallible nor are they above criticism. the game is played by young men who if they can't accept the criticism then they probably shouldn't be playing. they don't need to be coddled by someone on a message board they most likely don't read. when they screw up it is on them and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out, especially when praise is heaped on to the player at the same time. learn the difference between constructive criticism and just blaming someone.

[84HuskerLaw]

Many good posts in this discussion. Debate and argument are fine as that is what this Board is all about in my opinion. Leave out the name calling and accusations and focus on winning the 'debate' instead of slinging arrows. The idea is to show why your ideas are better and not your aim.

 

I think Tommy will play well this year (better that last year) but will still have a few places where the ball goes the wrong place. For whatever reasons. Players are not perfect. A freshman will do likewise. Remember that

[cm husker]

 

 

Tommy being set up as the scape goat.

god am i sick and tired of this incessant bullcrap of yours. the players aren't infallible nor are they above criticism. the game is played by young men who if they can't accept the criticism then they probably shouldn't be playing. they don't need to be coddled by someone on a message board they most likely don't read. when they screw up it is on them and there is nothing wrong with pointing that out, especially when praise is heaped on to the player at the same time. learn the difference between constructive criticism and just blaming someone.

You're absolutely right in your first sentence. No players are infallible. Not even Tommie Frazier. That's why it's a coach's job to minimize the risk/exposure presented by a player's weaknesses. It's probably a coach's most important job on a tactical level. Last year, I think the staff did a horrendous job in that department, and not just with Tommy. Purdue is a prime example of that failing.

 

NU had the talent last year to win 10+ games against that schedule and their failure to do so was mostly on the coaches, not Tommy Armstrong. They look to have at least as good of a chance to win 10 this year, and a failure to do so would be mainly on the coaches. Because you have to manufacture wins sometimes. And I haven't seen much evidence that this staff can check its offensive play calling ego at the door and do that.

 

As to the rest, I'm sure your and others' message board "constructive" criticism is super helpful to these players.