Diaco's Best Defense in Country!

[Dansker]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

 

Then your response didn't have anything to do with my question you quoted.  I specifically asked who he thought didn't remember that we won championships with an aggressive defense.  Your posts don't make sense when tied to that question.

 

It's simple you just can't comprehend anything that has more than 1 sentence or a punchline. I don't like our defense. I haven't since Bob arrived. I've said since game 1 our biggest weakness is DL. 

 

Allpreseason we heard stories about how good they were going to be. They suck, that's the best way to put it. It's just like the offense. Why change something that wasn't broken to begin with? Fired Solich and made wholesale changes on offense. Here we are 10 years later making wholesale changes on the other side of the ball when the 4-3 has proven to be successful in Lincoln. Bob's not going to get the time to continue his mediocre "winning strategy" of a defense. If Frost is named the HC or someone else for that matter, odds are the 34 will be gone, too. Already teams have steamrolled Bob's no crease defense. It's no where near as versatile as a 43 defense which won us many conference titles and 3 NC's in the past 30+ years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

[Dansker]

11 minutes ago, BoneyardHusker said:

Using offensive terms to described Diaco's comments. This was a desperate hail mary move of a comment to try and get more time for this staff.

 

Time is up.

 

He probably figured since MR lacks any real leadership and is introverted he ought to stand up and say something. I'd be FINE if this was year 1 under MR and Bob Diaco. The thing that bothers me is this is year 3 and there's no time to start rebuilding. We desperately need a HC and staff that can teach the basics and simple schemes, not a massive overhaul. Someone like SF could probably utilize the talent we have right away.

[BoNeyard]

1 minute ago, FTW said:

 

He probably figured since MR lacks any real leadership and is introverted he ought to stand up and say something. I'd be FINE if this was year 1 under MR and Bob Diaco. The thing that bothers me is this is year 3 and there's no time to start rebuilding. We desperately need a HC and staff that can teach the basics and simple schemes, not a massive overhaul. Someone like SF could probably utilize the talent we have right away.

I remember, and correct me if I am wrong, when Riley was hired we were told there was no rebuild. This was a guy who was going to arrive and start winning right away. Riley has been "rebuilding" for 3 years now and is telling us he needs 4-5 years to get things going.

[teachercd]

Riley is rebuilding...rebuilding to what he normally does...5 or 6 wins

[Dansker]

57 minutes ago, BoneyardHusker said:

I remember, and correct me if I am wrong, when Riley was hired we were told there was no rebuild. This was a guy who was going to arrive and start winning right away. Riley has been "rebuilding" for 3 years now and is telling us he needs 4-5 years to get things going.

 

We know just as much as Bill Moos regarding Riley's vision and plan. Which has been nothing. We don't even have an identity or anything to hang our hats on. And I agree, Riley sold everyone on what he told the media. That when we had TA he wasn't changing much on offense and was going to continue to run the football more.

 

Statistically, I think we ran better the past 2 seasons but now that he has his own QB, he's deviated from what worked in the first 2 seasons that brought 9 wins and a competitive albeit losing season his first year. After the UCLA bowl game, I had hoped that we would run a helluva lot more than we do now and MR led many to believe it by telling us that was his vision all along.

 

I said in a previous post how tired I am of hearing the staff say things but then through their actions we see an entirely different product on the field. The majority of the fan base has given up because they too can see through the BS a mile away. This staffs got no clue and are being led by a clueless CEO.

[timmytbro]

7 minutes ago, FTW said:

 

We know just as much as Bill Moos regarding Riley's vision and plan. Which has been nothing. We don't even have an identity or anything to hang our hats on. And I agree, Riley sold everyone on what he told the media. That when we had TA he wasn't changing much on offense and was going to continue to run the football more.

 

Statistically, I think we ran better the past 2 seasons but now that he has his own QB, he's deviated from what worked in the first 2 seasons that brought 9 wins and a competitive albeit losing season his first year. After the UCLA bowl game, I had hoped that we would run a helluva lot more than we do now and MR led many to believe it by telling us that was his vision all along.

 

I said in a previous post how tired I am of hearing the staff say things but then through their actions we see an entirely different product on the field. The majority of the fan base has given up because they too can see through the BS a mile away. This staffs got no clue and are being led by a clueless CEO.

Totally agree, the UCLA game was a deceptive in many regards. I too had the belief that the game plan was an indication on where we were going as a team. I was very optimistic.  However as we have seen that did not come to fruition. The biggest concern is the lack of a more diverse run game. Never see a pitch, never see lineman pulling... It is line straight up and watch our O-line get handled. It is honestly very depleting to witness.

[timmytbro]

1 hour ago, BoneyardHusker said:

I remember, and correct me if I am wrong, when Riley was hired we were told there was no rebuild. This was a guy who was going to arrive and start winning right away. Riley has been "rebuilding" for 3 years now and is telling us he needs 4-5 years to get things going.

Absolutely, SE even stated that our talent level was not reflecting its potential in the win loss category. I believe he said "we just didn't win the games that mattered the most." While I agree, I don't think that being 0-2 against Iowa and 1-1 against Purdue is what anyone had in mind when Riley was brought in...

[JJ Husker]

11 hours ago, BIG ERN said:

Diaco is a true politician. His best attribute at getting coaching jobs. He will talk for 30 minutes using big words and get absolutely nowhere. Also promises things that never come to fruition 

 

Hey fella....interpolating that expression causes me immense chagrin. I'll own this place someday, I promise.

[zoogs]

That's a Stephen A impression  

Edited October 26, 2017 by zoogs

[KingBlank]

5 hours ago, Kiyoat Husker said:

 

I agree with your point about the 5 athletes you listed.  Pelini did have some talent on the D-line, and Riley/HH should have done more to keep Valentine/Collins/McMullen in the fold.  Hughes should have never been hired.

 

We will never know if Pelini would have kept those three in the fold.  He might have even advised Collins to go.  Maybe Valentine or McMullen would have stayed.  Who cares?  Pelini and the fans/media/university basically hated each other at that point, recruiting was dropping off, and he needed to go.

 

As for Moss and Gregory,  they weren't even on campus when Riley was hired.  And nobody was "forced out" as Pedro already discussed with you.

 

As for Coach Kaz texting D-line players, and trying to poison the well?  Jason Peter and Adam Carriker both confirmed this was happening, and spoke out about it.  Why would they both independently just make that up?  It happened.

They are forced to leave because of the lack of coaching they received.  Again I don't care how you want to phrase it.

 

Never said he wasn't talking to players.  Players probably came to him because Hughes was a joke like stated earlier, I would have gone to talk to Kaz too. 

 

Nope I never hated Bo, never made me mad once with his personality.  Coaching yes irritated at certain aspects, but my fan group never hated Bo.  At least he had extreme passion, also he was right about the scum SE.  

[BoNeyard]

1 hour ago, FTW said:

 

We know just as much as Bill Moos regarding Riley's vision and plan. Which has been nothing. We don't even have an identity or anything to hang our hats on. And I agree, Riley sold everyone on what he told the media. That when we had TA he wasn't changing much on offense and was going to continue to run the football more.

 

Statistically, I think we ran better the past 2 seasons but now that he has his own QB, he's deviated from what worked in the first 2 seasons that brought 9 wins and a competitive albeit losing season his first year. After the UCLA bowl game, I had hoped that we would run a helluva lot more than we do now and MR led many to believe it by telling us that was his vision all along.

 

I said in a previous post how tired I am of hearing the staff say things but then through their actions we see an entirely different product on the field. The majority of the fan base has given up because they too can see through the BS a mile away. This staffs got no clue and are being led by a clueless CEO.

 

Thanks to Armstrong's ability to run, Nebraska probably won a couple games last year that they should have lost.

[BigRedBuster]

2 hours ago, FTW said:

 

It's simple you just can't comprehend anything that has more than 1 sentence or a punchline. I don't like our defense. I haven't since Bob arrived. I've said since game 1 our biggest weakness is DL. 

 

Allpreseason we heard stories about how good they were going to be. They suck, that's the best way to put it. It's just like the offense. Why change something that wasn't broken to begin with? Fired Solich and made wholesale changes on offense. Here we are 10 years later making wholesale changes on the other side of the ball when the 4-3 has proven to be successful in Lincoln. Bob's not going to get the time to continue his mediocre "winning strategy" of a defense. If Frost is named the HC or someone else for that matter, odds are the 34 will be gone, too. Already teams have steamrolled Bob's no crease defense. It's no where near as versatile as a 43 defense which won us many conference titles and 3 NC's in the past 30+ years. If it ain't broke, don't fix it.

 

I simply asked who you think doesn’t remember that we won championships with an aggressive defense. Somehow in some weird way you turned that around to me not understanding a post that is more than a sentence.  Pretty strange response to a simple question. 

[brophog]

2 minutes ago, BoneyardHusker said:

 

Thanks to Armstrong's ability to run, Nebraska probably won a couple games last year that they should have lost.

 

Maybe. Tough to say that specifically. But I can say, that was a poor 9 win team, actually not much better than the previous 6 win team, when you look at the kinds of stats I've posted recently. Nebraska posted negative differentials in pass pct, rushing ypc, and yards per play. That's unusual for a 9 win team. 

[Dansker]

10 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

 

I simply asked who you think doesn’t remember that we won championships with an aggressive defense. Somehow in some weird way you turned that around to me not understanding a post that is more than a sentence.  Pretty strange response to a simple question. 

 

Well, now you get it. The important people employed at DONU running things however don't. You will see in the coming weeks what having little to no versatility in a 3-4 scheme will do to a defense. My argument is simple, they should have never abandoned the 4-3. 

 

We've had success in the past running it and it's a little bit easier to recruit to it as more HS teams run it. Should have eliminated the rugby tackling and quarters coverage and brought in an aggressive 4-3 coach to spice things up. That's much safer than overpaying a guy to come in and overhaul the entire defense in MR's 3rd year.

[BigRedBuster]

55 minutes ago, FTW said:

Well, now you get it.

 

My question has never changed.