Mandel's Mailbag: The State Of Nebraska

[Saunders]

I think you're both kinda right @knapplc @Mavric.

 

When it's first announced, it was seen as a good hire, maybe just ok, but definitely not bad.

 

But when the post-season hires are over, and people objectively look at it after some time, it doesn't look as good as when it was announced.

[Mavric]

@knapplc like I said, most media guys are quick to call everything a great hire.  Almost everyone hits "home runs".

 

But as @saunders45 said, when they have to sit down and decide which ones they think are really the best, Riley was a ways down the list, as seen in the links I posted.

[VectorVictor]

6 minutes ago, saunders45 said:

I think you're both kinda right @knapplc @Mavric.

 

When it's first announced, it was seen as a good hire, maybe just ok, but definitely not bad.

 

But when the post-season hires are over, and people objectively look at it after some time, it doesn't look as good as when it was announced.

 

Whoa...let's make sure we separate the hire of Riley himself from Riley's decision to bring most of his assistants from Oregon State with him.

 

I think pundits applauded the Riley hire because:

1. They assumed with the resources at Nebraska's disposal, Riley would go out and assemble an elite staff and go lasso a conference title (something he couldn't do at lowly Oregon State).
2. They like rooting for the good guy (hate seeing good guys finish last).

Instead, Riley brought most of his assistants from Oregon State with him, and (unsurprisingly) the Oregon State losing mentality followed. Had Riley went and assembled a who's who of staffs, he would have won this conference already with the talent we had back in 2015. 

 

If we end up with a sub-.500 season, I believe we will see Eichorst terminated and Riley 'asked' to terminate Langsdorf and Cavanaugh (and maybe one or two more position coaches), and to bring in assistants/coordinators that has had a history of success...especially if the defense continues to improve under Diaco (as it has so far). But it's going to be an uphill climb with the Oregon State mentality and culture that's currently entrenched in the minds of our players.

 

Not impossible...just rather difficult. 

 

 

 

    

 

 

 

 

[BoNeyard]

If you terminate Eichorst and ask Riley to change more assistants what does that give us for 2018? The same thing it has given us for 2017 so far with the defense. We lose 2-3 games and are told, "Well it's a whole new system so we have to be patient." We lose 3-4 games next year and the following year probably 2-3 if we improve. Then we all get fed up with the mediocrity and lack of overall progress and fire him and we are back to square one of rebuilding with a new coach and new system.

 

Bottom line is, Riley isn't getting us anywhere. As a head coach you are judged on your wins and losses and those come with the decisions you made with your staff. Riley put all his faith into his guys from Oregon State and it cost him wins and losses; therefore he gets judged by those decisions. If you keep Riley but ask him to change up his staff you are just delaying the inevitable and giving more excuses as to another reason to keep him another year.

 

He is a nice guy and I see how people have a hard time letting him go because he is such a nice guy and so well respected, but I think everyone knows if they are being honest with themselves, Nebraska is not winning any Big Ten titles under Riley.

[VectorVictor]

1 minute ago, BoneyardHusker said:

If you terminate Eichorst and ask Riley to change more assistants what does that give us for 2018? The same thing it has given us for 2017 so far with the defense. We lose 2-3 games and are told, "Well it's a whole new system so we have to be patient." We lose 3-4 games next year and the following year probably 2-3 if we improve. Then we all get fed up with the mediocrity and lack of overall progress and fire him and we are back to square one of rebuilding with a new coach and new system.

 

Bottom line is, Riley isn't getting us anywhere. As a head coach you are judged on your wins and losses and those come with the decisions you made with your staff. Riley put all his faith into his guys from Oregon State and it cost him wins and losses; therefore he gets judged by those decisions. If you keep Riley but ask him to change up his staff you are just delaying the inevitable and giving more excuses as to another reason to keep him another year.

 

He is a nice guy and I see how people have a hard time letting him go because he is such a nice guy and so well respected, but I think everyone knows if they are being honest with themselves Nebraska is not winning any Big Ten titles under Riley.

 

And the defense, so far, has shown improvement. Granted, we're only 25% through the season, but there's reason to be optimistic about the defense, and it's because we're seeing improvement. 

 

I think if we got a name OC and quality position coaches in the offseason, we may have some growing pains during non-con, but we would see a steady improvement come conference play. And as long as we're actually seeing improvement and progress, I think folks are willing to try sticking with Riley. 

 

 

[Saunders]

Riley's had the chance to make changes after the last 2 seasons, but he's done nothing on the offensive side, so he's married to that system. It either works, and we have a miraculous turnaround.... or it's over.

[knapplc]

33 minutes ago, saunders45 said:

I think you're both kinda right @knapplc @Mavric.

 

When it's first announced, it was seen as a good hire, maybe just ok, but definitely not bad.

 

But when the post-season hires are over, and people objectively look at it after some time, it doesn't look as good as when it was announced.

 

17 minutes ago, Mavric said:

@knapplc like I said, most media guys are quick to call everything a great hire.  Almost everyone hits "home runs".

 

But as @saunders45 said, when they have to sit down and decide which ones they think are really the best, Riley was a ways down the list, as seen in the links I posted.

 

Agree with you both, which is why I qualified that with "a lot of." There was a lot of stuff like the tweets I posted, but there was a lot of "......WTF?!?" with the hire too, both locally and nationally. 

 

I've found several tweets from sportswriters who were in the WTF category and I'll post them if you like, but I'm sure you remember those pretty well - they were basically what we were all thinking.  

[knapplc]

1 minute ago, saunders45 said:

Riley's had the chance to make changes after the last 2 seasons, but he's done nothing on the offensive side, so he's married to that system. It either works, and we have a miraculous turnaround.... or it's over.

 

I'm betting it's over.  And the relief is, at least we know.  Barring a miracle, this experimental, hope-for-the-best hire is done.  It's off to the next one.  Just gotta rip the band-aid off this regime.

[BoNeyard]

2 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

 

And the defense, so far, has shown improvement. Granted, we're only 25% through the season, but there's reason to be optimistic about the defense, and it's because we're seeing improvement. 

 

I think if we got a name OC and quality position coaches in the offseason, we may have some growing pains during non-con, but we would see a steady improvement come conference play. And as long as we're actually seeing improvement and progress, I think folks are willing to try sticking with Riley. 

 

 

 

Like saunders points out in the post below yours. Riley is married to this offensive system, it is his system. He's ran it for as long as I can remember his time at Oregon State. I don't see that offense changing much at all.

 

Riley could be further more like Callahan and when asked to fire Langs and Co on the offense he declines, just like Callahan did with Cosgrove. He did get rid of Banker which was a shock, but not so sure he would agree to give the boot to all of his friends just so he can keep his job for maybe 2 more years.

[junior4949]

19 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

 

And the defense, so far, has shown improvement. Granted, we're only 25% through the season, but there's reason to be optimistic about the defense, and it's because we're seeing improvement. 

 

I think if we got a name OC and quality position coaches in the offseason, we may have some growing pains during non-con, but we would see a steady improvement come conference play. And as long as we're actually seeing improvement and progress, I think folks are willing to try sticking with Riley. 

 

 

 

Didn't I read somewhere that Riley at one time took play calling duties away from Langs when they were at Oregon State?  If so, one really has to wonder why he was even brought here as the OC in the first place.  This would seem even more suspect than bringing along Banker. 

[khaake]

Given the time frame Riley had to work with, I don't fault him bringing his OSU crew along with him. I do fault him with holding on to them for as long as he has. As for letting Riley go due to the results after three games: the grass on the other side usually looks greener than what it is. Be careful what you ask for.

[brophog]

39 minutes ago, VectorVictor said:

nd the defense, so far, has shown improvement. Granted, we're only 25% through the season, but there's reason to be optimistic about the defense, and it's because we're seeing improvement. 

 

Just a game before, it was the offense that was the "good" side. We just love to pick one side to blame.

 

Both sides suck on tape right now, and we are no more than a couple of games away from everyone wanting Diaco's head again.

[knapplc]

16 minutes ago, khaake said:

Given the time frame Riley had to work with, I don't fault him bringing his OSU crew along with him. I do fault him with holding on to them for as long as he has. As for letting Riley go due to the results after three games: the grass on the other side usually looks greener than what it is. Be careful what you ask for.

 

Didn't he have on the larger end of the time frame that basically every newly-hired coach has?

 

Coaching changes are made in November & December, usually late November, barring some egregious circumstance.  So Riley's time frame was basically the same as everyone else's, and he chose to bring his guys in.

 

[Saunders]

31 minutes ago, knapplc said:

 

Didn't he have on the larger end of the time frame that basically every newly-hired coach has?

 

Coaching changes are made in November & December, usually late November, barring some egregious circumstance.  So Riley's time frame was basically the same as everyone else's, and he chose to bring his guys in.

 

Yeah, Riley was hired before Conference championships had been played. He was one of the first hires of the season, and it was weeks before Harbaugh went to Michigan.

[lo country]

6 hours ago, beorach said:

 

NIU is not an FCS program.  Eastern Washington and Sacramento State were not in the top division Nebraska and Oregon State are in, though.  I don't recall when the top division started going by FBS but that's not really the point.  When Michigan lost to Appalachian State, they were 1-AA as I recall...because there was some joke about batteries.  When Ameer Abdullah saved us against Alcorn, no, McNEESE State, that was another example of a lower division program.

I should have specified MAC. My point being a lower conference school even though they are FBS.....ie an opponent that NU shouldn't lose to.