Turn Around - How long?

[Saunders]

1 minute ago, ColoradoHusk said:

That's what happened when NU hired Riley, and a lot of people seemed to give Riley a free pass in his first year.  Many of the same people wanted to give Riley a pass on this year.

Whoever takes over for Riley will have a bigger mess to clean up than when Riley took over. But some people still defend Riley like it's not his fault.

[NUinID]

7 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I think Michigan State and Iowa are definitely winnable.  They have been much better than NU as of late, but let's not act like they are world beaters.  

 

Didn't say they aren't winnable, I said which ones are sure wins.  

[ColoradoHusk]

Just now, Saunders said:

Whoever takes over for Riley will have a bigger mess to clean up than when Riley took over. But some people still defend Riley like it's not his fault.

I agree that the football program is a complete mess, and Eichorst/Riley/Devaney are all to blame.  I think the biggest thing the new coach will have to deal with is getting those players to play with toughness and respond to demands from the coaches.  That's always not a bad thing because that will weed out the weak players, and the new coach can get some roster turnover.

 

I think there are some talented, young players on the roster.  It will be up to them if they want to commit to playing for the University of Nebraska and have pride for the N on the helmet.

[ColoradoHusk]

Just now, NUinID said:

 

Didn't say they aren't winnable, I said which ones are sure wins.  

Going through the schedule here is how I see it:

 

Should be sure wins:  Akron, Troy, Purdue, Minnesota, Illinois

Probably sure losses:  Michigan, Wisconsin (would have preferred to play them later in the season), and Ohio State

Toss up games:  Colorado (probably a win, but early in season), Northwestern, Michigan State, Iowa

 

My comments about the "early season" games is that the new coach may take some time to see a turnaround on the field, but I expect the team to be peaking near the end of the season.

[teachercd]

8 minutes ago, Saunders said:

Whoever takes over for Riley will have a bigger mess to clean up than when Riley took over. But some people still defend Riley like it's not his fault.

Shoot, amen!

It will be toxic in its own way...

 

Prediction:  New coach = at least 8 players quitting/leaving.  That will not be a bad sign.

[ColoradoHusk]

Just now, teachercd said:

Shoot, amen!

It will be toxic in its own way...

 

Prediction:  New coach = at least 8 players quitting/leaving.  That will not be a bad sign.

Roster turnover is not a bad thing during a coaching change.

[Mavric]

9 hours ago, LaunchCode said:

These coaches produced 9 wins and about as close to a 10th as you can come in the OT thriller vs the division champ last year.

 

New QB this year, a lot of freshman playing all over the field.  All will be vastly improved next year.  9 wins should be the bare minimum otherwise we've gone backwards and hired a less competent coach.

 

[tyrone_biggums]

Looking at 2019, That has to be our year right??

Get all the tough ones at home and the easy ones on the road.

No Michigan or Michigan state

 

Make a bowl game next year and then tear it up in 2019.

Also, that would be our 4th time in a row playing ohio state with the 5th and 6th in 2020 and 2021.

[NUinID]

31 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Going through the schedule here is how I see it:

 

Should be sure wins:  Akron, Troy, Purdue, Minnesota, Illinois

Probably sure losses:  Michigan, Wisconsin (would have preferred to play them later in the season), and Ohio State

Toss up games:  Colorado (probably a win, but early in season), Northwestern, Michigan State, Iowa

 

My comments about the "early season" games is that the new coach may take some time to see a turnaround on the field, but I expect the team to be peaking near the end of the season.

 

In order to win 9 as so many are talking, they have to win all the toss ups in 2018.  I am not saying they can't I am saying it is not likely.  I would say Colorado is closer to a win than a toss up, but at this point I would put Minnesota in the toss up category. 

 

This was their adjustment year, they will be better in 2018.  I actually wouldn't be surprised if NU's season next year wasn't similar to Minnesota's this year.  Not necessarily record wise when I say that.  Minnesota is 5-5 right now, but they lost 2-3 games that could have gone the other way.  They were in a few games that they lost.  I see NU being in a lot of games that they could win or lose next year.  It depends a lot on how the ball bounces.   

[cheekygeek]

We have talented players on the roster. But we have a combination of things happening right now that could be changed quickly by a competent coaching staff: 

 

• Good coaches match their schemes to their personnel. I feel like Diaco's first mistake was coming in with a scheme and trying to make the existing personnel fit that. As was said at the start of the season, it effectively turned everybody on defense into Freshmen.

 

• We also need to get back to basics on both lines. Everything starts there. Your "skill" players don't get much of a chance on offense if the line doesn't do its job. 

 

• When it comes to motivation, I feel like it is a combination of knowing that this coaching staff's evaluation of their play is not going to affect their position on the depth chart NEXT year **and** going into "don't want to get injured" mode. I don't have a better explanation for how Minnesota could rush only 3 and still sack a mobile QB at the end of that debacle of a game. 

 

• Finally, we need a coach on the sideline that understands human psychology. A lot of people forget that Tom Osborne had both a Masters and a PhD in Educational Psychology. If you don't think that influenced his coaching then you missed a lot. Now our next coach doesn't need a PhD in psychology, but they do need to understand how to push players buttons and motivate them. And they need to understand how important it is to dominate your opponent psychologically. You don't do things in a game that give hope to the other side (like go for it on 4th down in your own territory when there is a lot of game left to play and the score means that it is still anybody's game).

 

• A new coach is not going to make next year's schedule any less daunting, but they CAN affect the product on the field and way the players approach each game (and the amount of effort we see there).

 

This is not, by any means, an exhaustive list but just the things I see "off the top".

 

 

 

Edited November 14, 2017 by cheekygeek
typos

[grandpasknee]

6 minutes ago, cheekygeek said:

We have talented players on the roster. But we have a combination of things happening right now that could be changed quickly by a competent coaching staff: 

 

• Good coaches match their schemes personnel. I feel like Diaco's first mistake is coming in with a scheme and trying to make the existing personnel fit that. As was said at the start of the season, it effectively turned everybody on defense into Freshmen.

 

• We also need to get back to basics on both lines. Everything starts there. Your "skill" players don't get much of a chance on offense if the line doesn't do its job. 

 

• When it comes to motivation, I feel like it is a combination of knowing that this coaching staff's evaluation of their play is not going to affect their position on the depth chart NEXT year **and** going into "don't want to get injured" mode. I don't have a better explanation for how Minnesota could rush 3 and sack a mobile QB at the end of that debacle of a game. 

 

• Finally, we need a coach on the sideline that understands human psychology. A lot of people forget that Tom Osborne had both a Masters and a PhD in Educational Psychology. If you don't think that influenced his coaching then you missed a lot. Now our next coach doesn't need a PhD in psychology, but the do need to understand how to push players buttons and motivate them. And they need to understand how important it is to dominate your opponent psychologically. You don't do things in a game that give hope to the other side (like go for it on 4th down in your own territory when there is a lot of game left to play and the score means that it is still anybody's game).

 

• A new coach is not going to make next year's schedule any less daunting, but they CAN affect the product on the field and way the players approach each game (and the amount of effort we see there).

 

This is not, by any means, an exhaustive list but just the things I see "off the top".

 

 

 

Good analysis CheekyGeek

[NUinID]

24 minutes ago, cheekygeek said:

We have talented players on the roster. But we have a combination of things happening right now that could be changed quickly by a competent coaching staff: 

 

• Good coaches match their schemes personnel. I feel like Diaco's first mistake is coming in with a scheme and trying to make the existing personnel fit that. As was said at the start of the season, it effectively turned everybody on defense into Freshmen.

 

• We also need to get back to basics on both lines. Everything starts there. Your "skill" players don't get much of a chance on offense if the line doesn't do its job. 

 

• When it comes to motivation, I feel like it is a combination of knowing that this coaching staff's evaluation of their play is not going to affect their position on the depth chart NEXT year **and** going into "don't want to get injured" mode. I don't have a better explanation for how Minnesota could rush 3 and sack a mobile QB at the end of that debacle of a game. 

 

• Finally, we need a coach on the sideline that understands human psychology. A lot of people forget that Tom Osborne had both a Masters and a PhD in Educational Psychology. If you don't think that influenced his coaching then you missed a lot. Now our next coach doesn't need a PhD in psychology, but the do need to understand how to push players buttons and motivate them. And they need to understand how important it is to dominate your opponent psychologically. You don't do things in a game that give hope to the other side (like go for it on 4th down in your own territory when there is a lot of game left to play and the score means that it is still anybody's game).

 

• A new coach is not going to make next year's schedule any less daunting, but they CAN affect the product on the field and way the players approach each game (and the amount of effort we see there).

 

This is not, by any means, an exhaustive list but just the things I see "off the top".

 

 

 

Yes the new coach should effect the product on the field.  You hope the product looks better, but that doesn't mean it results in wins.  Case in point is Indiana.  The product that they are putting on the field looks pretty good. They are playing sound fundamental football with a lot of energy, but it has only resulted in 1 conference win.  

 

Diaco's mistake was that he thought he could implement a very complicated passive defense and do it very slowly.  It is the style and way he coaches the 3-4 is why it looks so bad.  I thought it was going to looks something like what Wisconsin runs very aggressive high risk get into the backfield.  It is the complete opposite.  Sit on our heels bend don't break don't give up the big play.  Which they have not done really.  They have just given up a lot of 10 yard plays.  

 

I am sorry, but our team is not that unathletic.  Line up Nebraska's lbs and Wisconsin's lbs and have them run pro agility and do a forty time.  They would probably test out pretty close to the same.  It is the way he is doing things.  This is like watching Pelini's defense 2.0 except BP was actually better at implementing it.  

[Mavric]

46 minutes ago, Husker_Bohunk said:

The current state of the program has nothing to do with my comment, unless of course it was your intent to take it out of context.

 

The current state of the program has everything to do with a difference in how much time Frost would be given compared to your comments about Osborne.

[moveitforward]

2 hours ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I think Michigan State and Iowa are definitely winnable.  They have been much better than NU as of late, but let's not act like they are world beaters.  

“... Michigan State and Iowa are definitely winnable”? ... you must be referring to 20 years ago. We aren’t even close today. Did you not see what Iowa did to Ohio State two weeks ago? Did you forget how they embarassed us last year? 

[ColoradoHusk]

Just now, moveitforward said:

“... Michigan State and Iowa are definitely winnable”? ... you must be referring to 20 years ago. We aren’t even close today. Did you not see what Iowa did to Ohio State two weeks ago? Did you forget how they embarassed us last year? 

Again, I said that they have been better than NU as of late, but both programs aren't miles ahead of us, and the talent among those teams and NU are relatively equal.  NU just needs a coach that can get the talent playing hard and to the level of their talent.  By the end of next season, that doesn't seem unreasonable.