Nathan Gerry

[Mavric]

 

I'm hardly stretching. It's stretching to think Riley would hire Banker if he thought he wasn't any good. Riley told us why he fired Banker and adding anything else to it, like "Banker just wasn't very good" is simply projecting your own opinion into the facts. Riley kept Banker with him for years when he didn't think he was a very good coach? Yeah, I'm not buying that one at all. Lol

Or Banker was adequate to good when he was hired, but then he didn't adjust his philosophy as offenses innovated, and he became a mediocre DC. Oregon State fans wanted him gone for years. Hell, they came over to this board told us he wasn't going to be good enough.

 

Or he was seen as good enough for a lower-tier team in the defense-optional Pac-10 and Riley wanted to be loyal to a long-time friend but was exposed when the situation changed.

[teachercd]

 

Geez...you think Riley would have kept Banker especially since all the toxic loafing sandbagging players are gone now.

When your boss tells you that you need to improve in certain areas, you'd best improve if you value your job. Banker didn't do that so now he is gone.

 

But he couldn't improve because the best players on the team were loafing and sandbagging...and toxic. I mean...if we all know that how could the coaches miss it?

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

https://twitter.com/eagles/status/858410879771181060

Yeah, Nebraska tried Gerry at LB...he's not tough, or physical, enough to play LB.

 

He's Charmin. A soft, weak, half-speed, player.

 

Sorry fellow Nebraska fans, I'm just not a Nate Gerry fan. I think he embodied and carried forward for two years, every thing wrong about the former coach.

 

If he excels with the Eagles, terrific, I'll congratulate him. But I'll never root for, or like, him as person or player.

 

dude, you have a grudge problem, this kid is the sh#t!....he will play a role for the Eagles!

 

I'm not saying he won't.

 

I'm saying not a fan of his. His words, after the loss to Purdue in 2015, still rankle me. He flat out admitted that they hadn't "bought in." The extremely poor play we saw against BYU, Illinois, Purdue, etc, painfully highlighted the lack of "buy in."

 

In football speak, not "buying in" means you go half speed, you don't care, and you're holding a grudge because the coach who recruited you got fired.

 

And then he didn't do his school work and wasn't eligible for the bowl game his senior year--which was 100% inexcusable.

 

So yeah...not a fan of the former #25.

 

The lack of buy-in was on Riley. His job was to coach and inspire this team to win games.

 

We lost most of those games because of a poor scheme, not because the players weren't trying hard enough. If it was that easy, we wouldn't have just hired two new coordinators.

 

It's 100% understandable to be upset that his inability to go to class resulted in his suspension, but that kid played hard for us.

 

 

Dude, buy in is on the kids...not the coaches. The coaches are already bought in to their program and how they run things. Kids have to step on the bus. You can't make kids you coach do anything...they have to want to do it. You can't force kids you coach to do anything more than I could force a liberal to 'buy in' on conservatism.

 

We lost those games because the players lacked focus because they didn't care enough....they were still pissed that Pelini was gone...and they admitted they did that.

 

.... and because our defensive coordinator and special teams coordinator were terrible.

 

 

Were they terrible because they were terrible or were they terrible because the kids didn't buy in?

 

What you said isn't a fact...it's just an opinion. Just like what I said.

 

Well, my opinion was apparently shared by Riley so.....

 

Maybe with Reed it was, but it wasn't with Banker. Riley told us why he fired Banker, he was given things to improve upon and those improvements didn't happen. So he's gone. It really is that simple. Just because you want the reason to be different, doesn't mean it is.

 

And I've got some oceanfront property in Arizona to sell you. Trust me. If I tell you that's what it is, you can just believe it at face value.

 

LMFAO!!!

 

You have zero connection to the program, so your opinion is no better or worse than anyone elses here. And, it's just an opinion. If that hurts your feelings, to damn bad because its the truth.

 

So what connections to the program do you have to know it's the truth?

[DrunkOffPunch]

What's the point in bringing up Oregon State and San Diego? They have no impact on what he had to do at Nebraska. The simple fact that he was fired should be proof enough that he wasn't adequate at his job. And Riley pretty much said that in the most coach speak way he could. It's not like he's going to come out and say, 'Yea Banker was a bad coach.'

[Elf]

What's the point in bringing up Oregon State and San Diego? They have no impact on what he had to do at Nebraska. The simple fact that he was fired should be proof enough that he wasn't adequate at his job. And Riley pretty much said that in the most coach speak way he could. It's not like he's going to come out and say, 'Yea Banker was a bad coach.'

That isn't necessarily true. There can be many reasons someone gets fired.

[DrunkOffPunch]

 

What's the point in bringing up Oregon State and San Diego? They have no impact on what he had to do at Nebraska. The simple fact that he was fired should be proof enough that he wasn't adequate at his job. And Riley pretty much said that in the most coach speak way he could. It's not like he's going to come out and say, 'Yea Banker was a bad coach.'

That isn't necessarily true. There can be many reasons someone gets fired.

This isn't some company getting rid of jobs to try and cut expenses. He's a football coach and there's only 3 reasons any coach gets fired.

 

1. AD/Head coaching change

 

2. Scandal

 

3. Not good at your job

[KingBlank]

 

What's the point in bringing up Oregon State and San Diego? They have no impact on what he had to do at Nebraska. The simple fact that he was fired should be proof enough that he wasn't adequate at his job. And Riley pretty much said that in the most coach speak way he could. It's not like he's going to come out and say, 'Yea Banker was a bad coach.'

That isn't necessarily true. There can be many reasons someone gets fired.

Um but this is exactly why he was fired

[Elf]

 

 

What's the point in bringing up Oregon State and San Diego? They have no impact on what he had to do at Nebraska. The simple fact that he was fired should be proof enough that he wasn't adequate at his job. And Riley pretty much said that in the most coach speak way he could. It's not like he's going to come out and say, 'Yea Banker was a bad coach.'

That isn't necessarily true. There can be many reasons someone gets fired.

 

Um but this is exactly why he was fired

 

Prove it.

[teachercd]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

I'm hardly stretching. It's stretching to think Riley would hire Banker if he thought he wasn't any good. Riley told us why he fired Banker and adding anything else to it, like "Banker just wasn't very good" is simply projecting your own opinion into the facts. Riley kept Banker with him for years when he didn't think he was a very good coach? Yeah, I'm not buying that one at all. Lol

Or Banker was adequate to good when he was hired, but then he didn't adjust his philosophy as offenses innovated, and he became a mediocre DC. Oregon State fans wanted him gone for years. Hell, they came over to this board told us he wasn't going to be good enough.

 

Or he was seen as good enough for a lower-tier team in the defense-optional Pac-10 and Riley wanted to be loyal to a long-time friend but was exposed when the situation changed.

 

Riley had him on his staff at San Diego, keep believing your fantasies.

 

Which was a lot of years ago, which goes to saunders' point.

 

And for a lot of years after that, Banker was kept on Riley's staff. Obviously, Riley didn't view Banker as a bad coach for all those years or he wouldn't have kept him.

 

And we know for a fact that Riley is capable of firing his friends if they aren't performing up to expectations.

 

I get what you are saying but at Oregon State he COULD keep those guys on staff because lets face it, there was really not the pressure from fans/press. It is kind of like Northwestern...the Chicago press is not spending a lot of time and resources on NW coverage and even though I have never checked I am guessing that the NW message boards are pretty dead.

 

At Oregon State...an upset of Oregon, USC, UCLA or Washington ALMOST buys you a free pass for the season.

 

Riley, not until his last season at OSU, didn't really have a ton of pressure to change assistants. Basically if he made a bowl game every other year he was pretty much fine.

 

I get what you're saying here and I believe Riley himself has spoke about the difference in expectations here at NU. And in fact, I believe he told all of his assistants when they got here that things had to be done differently because the expectations were so much higher. (Paraphrasing that last sentence.) At least two of those assistants imo, Reed and Banker, did not live up to their increased expectations.

 

I would imagine he told them that too. I am 100% positive he did not want to can two long time friends, clearly he did what he thought would be best. It had to be hard to be (probably) close to retirement and fire your "best" friends...I mean...who knows if they will ever be buds again.

[Saunders]

Keep the personal attacks out of it guys.

[Redux]

Geez...you think Riley would have kept Banker especially since all the toxic loafing sandbagging players are gone now.

Why keep dead weight? Fresh new/better coach and hopefully no more toxicicity or sandbagging, what's not to love?

 

Cue response of what there is to not love...

[teachercd]

 

Geez...you think Riley would have kept Banker especially since all the toxic loafing sandbagging players are gone now.

Why keep dead weight? Fresh new/better coach and hopefully no more toxicicity or sandbagging, what's not to love?

 

Cue response of what there is to not love...

 

But what if Diaco is going to sandbag and be toxic?!?!

 

Cue the scary 1920's music.

[Redux]

Lol, if Diaco sandbags we can fire him. He has a monetary interest in not sandbagging. The difference between players and staff.

[JJ Husker]

But what if Diaco is going to sandbag and be toxic?!?!

 

Cue the scary 1920's music.

 

 

Lol, if Diaco sandbags we can fire him. He has a monetary interest in not sandbagging. The difference between players and staff.

Hey! I don't sandbag and just try to fire me

[Mavric]

 

But what if Diaco is going to sandbag and be toxic?!?!

 

Cue the scary 1920's music.

 

 

Lol, if Diaco sandbags we can fire him. He has a monetary interest in not sandbagging. The difference between players and staff.

Hey! I don't sandbag and just try to fire me