Nathan Gerry

[Redux]

Gerry didn't "buy in" his whole collegiate career if we are being honest. Good kid, good player. Coulda been a great one.

[Mavric]

 

I mean.... if we're going to put all this weight on one comment, then we have to believe that the "not buying in" only applied to the first half of 2015, right? Because that's what he said. He said there wasn't full buy-in up to the 7th or 8th game (whenever it was) and then they decided to be full go. So - again, if we're putting our whole argument on one comment - then we have to believe that they were all totally bought in from that point forward.

Would you agree that a player getting suspended at the beginning of his senior season and following that up by not attending class the whole season en route to a bowl game suspension is part of "not buying in."

 

Not necessarily. He's not the first to do something like that. Doesn't mean it had to be a protest against the coaches or something to that effect.

 

And - again - this whole line or argument continues to ignore that he was statistically and analytically one of the best players we had the entire time. So it seems like there is an incredible amount of weight being put on one comment while disregarding the significantly larger amount of evidence of what was actually going on during the games. That seems to me like wanting to invent or at least exaggerate a storyline more than taking an objective look at things.

 

That's not giving Gerry a pass. That's saying that there is a difference between "he could have done things better" and "he was going half speed, didn't care and sabotaged his new coaches."

[Mavric]

Gerry didn't "buy in" his whole collegiate career if we are being honest. Good kid, good player. Coulda been a great one.

 

But that's not what he said. So are we believing what he said or are we only using whatever side fits our own narrative?

[Mavric]

Devil's Advocate:

 

Look at this from the other way. Gerry wanted to say something that helped explained the team's poor performance so far that year.

 

Which would have been better for him to say?

- "The players weren't bought in so we need to do better?"

- "We don't think these new coaches know what they're doing?"

 

Now, how would everyone have reacted had he said the latter, even if it was the truth?

 

And Riley's firing of Banker more or less said that Riley agreed with the second point of view, at least to some significant extent. So if you looked at it from the other way, perhaps Gerry was trying to take the blame even if he thought it really should be placed everywhere. And I don't really think that's all that far-fetched when they were coming from being one of the best pass defenses in the country to one of the worst. It seems odd to believe that all those players all of the sudden suddenly got worse. Yes, if they weren't doing all they were supposed to that would make the defense worse. But it's not like we were playing against NFL QBs and WRs either. It was a bunch of average-at-best QBs who kept having career days against us. So if you know you should be better but the scheme keeps putting you in poor positions, I don't know how you can help but be frustrated and hesitant. It would suck to keep getting beat like we were.

 

And the complete change of coverage scheme the next year followed by Banker's firing should really leave no doubt that the 2015 scheme was much more to blame than anything else.

[Redux]

 

Gerry didn't "buy in" his whole collegiate career if we are being honest. Good kid, good player. Coulda been a great one.

 

But that's not what he said. So are we believing what he said or are we only using whatever side fits our own narrative?

I don't even know what you're talking about.

[JJ Husker]

This back and forth is hysterical.

 

Has anyone figured out that they don't have to be mutually exclusive?

Banker's scheme was weak AND some of the players had not bought in and/or were more suited to the prior regime's system.

It's not rocket science fellas. We've sucked for more than one reason for a long time and IMO Nate Gerry's play was not at the forefront of reasons why.

 

BTW, if I recall correctly, what Gerry actually said was that some of the players had not bought in. He didn't say he had not bought in or that he wasn't playing as hard as he could. So get your facts straight if you're going to use your faulty recollection to throw players under the bus.

[KingBlank]

Devil's Advocate:

 

Look at this from the other way. Gerry wanted to say something that helped explained the team's poor performance so far that year.

 

Which would have been better for him to say?

- "The players weren't bought in so we need to do better?"

- "We don't think these new coaches know what they're doing?"

 

Now, how would everyone have reacted had he said the latter, even if it was the truth?

 

And Riley's firing of Banker more or less said that Riley agreed with the second point of view, at least to some significant extent. So if you looked at it from the other way, perhaps Gerry was trying to take the blame even if he thought it really should be placed everywhere. And I don't really think that's all that far-fetched when they were coming from being one of the best pass defenses in the country to one of the worst. It seems odd to believe that all those players all of the sudden suddenly got worse. Yes, if they weren't doing all they were supposed to that would make the defense worse. But it's not like we were playing against NFL QBs and WRs either. It was a bunch of average-at-best QBs who kept having career days against us. So if you know you should be better but the scheme keeps putting you in poor positions, I don't know how you can help but be frustrated and hesitant. It would suck to keep getting beat like we were.

 

And the complete change of coverage scheme the next year followed by Banker's firing should really leave no doubt that the 2015 scheme was much more to blame than anything else.

 

This is exactly correct, the narrative of sabotage and that the buy in was not there is hilarious. Why did the pass coverage suffer, well because it was the incorrect way to play. As proven by Mike firing Banker, Mike didn't buy in either after he saw continuous and repeated breaks in the defense. Mike didn't buy in so why is the notion of Gerry thinking it was awful a terrible thing? The problem was the over matched coach with an outdated and non aggressive scheme. I do not agree with this poster very much, but this is a great post.

[zoogs]

Criticizing players is one thing, but calling one of them 'Charmin' and then referencing yet-to-be-verified quotes is going to draw some ire, MC.

Yes. And let's please not have P&R friction boiling over into football talk. Be mindful to disagree with posts, not posters here. Thanks

[Redux]

This back and forth is hysterical.

Has anyone figured out that they don't have to be mutually exclusive?

Banker's scheme was weak AND some of the players had not bought in and/or were more suited to the prior regime's system.

It's not rocket science fellas. We've sucked for more than one reason for a long time and IMO Nate Gerry's play was not at the forefront of reasons why.

BTW, if I recall correctly, what Gerry actually said was that some of the players had not bought in. He didn't say he had not bought in or that he wasn't playing as hard as he could. So get your facts straight if you're going to use your faulty recollection to throw players under the bus.

Fair points^

 

All I can say about Gerry is I enjoyed watching him play here. I thought he was really good, but I thought he could have been better. He proved that theory by making himself ineligible due to lack effort. He was the only Husker drafted this year, that says a lot about his potential that I believe he never reached here.

[KingBlank]

 

This back and forth is hysterical.

Has anyone figured out that they don't have to be mutually exclusive?

Banker's scheme was weak AND some of the players had not bought in and/or were more suited to the prior regime's system.

It's not rocket science fellas. We've sucked for more than one reason for a long time and IMO Nate Gerry's play was not at the forefront of reasons why.

BTW, if I recall correctly, what Gerry actually said was that some of the players had not bought in. He didn't say he had not bought in or that he wasn't playing as hard as he could. So get your facts straight if you're going to use your faulty recollection to throw players under the bus.

Fair points^

 

All I can say about Gerry is I enjoyed watching him play here. I thought he was really good, but I thought he could have been better. He proved that theory by making himself ineligible due to lack effort. He was the only Huskerboard drafted this year, that says a lot about his potential that I believe he nevef reached here.

 

 

That's what I say when I read your posts......

[Redux]

[teachercd]

What does "not buying in" mean to people?

[dvdcrr]

I like Nate Gerry because he was too mean for the NCAA. Which is right about where football should be.

[Redux]

What does "not buying in" mean to people?

I think it differs player to player in question. Say Valentine didn't buy into the new staff, so he enteted draft. If the narative were that Gerry didn't "buy in" you could back it up by the fact he allowed himself to become ineligible.

 

I don't think Gerry had an "I don't buy in" mindframe. I think he had an attitude problem and used the staff change as a way to justify slacking off a bit. I'm not saying he didn't try, because he did. He came super close to breaking a record. The reason he didn't is on his ineligibility.

[JJ Husker]

 

This back and forth is hysterical.

Has anyone figured out that they don't have to be mutually exclusive?

Banker's scheme was weak AND some of the players had not bought in and/or were more suited to the prior regime's system.

It's not rocket science fellas. We've sucked for more than one reason for a long time and IMO Nate Gerry's play was not at the forefront of reasons why.

BTW, if I recall correctly, what Gerry actually said was that some of the players had not bought in. He didn't say he had not bought in or that he wasn't playing as hard as he could. So get your facts straight if you're going to use your faulty recollection to throw players under the bus.

Fair points^

All I can say about Gerry is I enjoyed watching him play here. I thought he was really good, but I thought he could have been better. He proved that theory by making himself ineligible due to lack effort. He was the only Husker drafted this year, that says a lot about his potential that I believe he never reached here.

I agree, I felt he could've been better also. There were instances where I thought he could've/should've made the play and he didn't. Some of those appeared to be effort whiffs and some were likely scheme flaws. But there were many others where he made great plays. It's probably hard to be optimum all the time when the whole unit is struggling and there are apparent scheme problems (which I'm sure the players sensed just like we did). I just didn't get the sense Nate was a Pelini holdout (I could be wrong) but, to some degree, it would be hard to "buy in" to the Banker scheme. I sure didn't. To answer teach's question- there are different kinds of buy in issues. The most critical ones were the guys pining away for Pelini. The unavoidable ones were a result of recognizing that the coaches weren't putting you in a position to succeed.

 

I like Gerry but I was disappointed in his commitment at times to remain eligible. But, as the draft showed us, he was maybe the best D player we had so that speaks volumes about the rest of our talent, effort and the scheme.