Year 4 Expectations

[Guy Chamberlin]

3 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

 

I would, absolutely. These past 3 teams have been incredibly frustrating with their ability to shoot themselves in the foot, 2017 (at least the second half) just didn't even look like they belonged or wanted to be on the field. 2018-2020 were not good teams. 2017 was an abomination, despite ending up with a similar record.

 

Yeah, that was definitely a dead man walking team, but if the question is "progress" I think Nebraska is still shuffling around on the same rock bottom and we're quibbling about inches. 

 

The reason I brought up last year's Minnesota game is because it felt so much like a 2017 game.  I can't pretend it's about a bare cupboard anymore. 

 

Like I said earlier: good recruiting class, clean slate, super reasonable expectations and optimism, but I need a little more forward and upward motion in year four.  

[TheSker]

2017 was just a showcase of what Mike Riley can do for a program.  It was his 3rd season after taking over for Pelini, a .700 winning percentage coach at Nebraska.

 

In 2017 the last three games were lost by a total of 87 points, including a 42 point drubbing by Iowa.

 

"Rock bottom" may be more than one season, although metrics show progress.

 

We will only know "rock bottom" when it's I'm the rear view mirror.

 

The cupboard left by Riley was embarrassingly bare.  Though I doubt he's embarrassed at all.  The chart posted earlier in the thread shows how small we were in 2017 compared to now.

 

As the offensive line continues to move in the right direction with size and talent, progress in the win column will happen.

 

It's been a long time since talent like Benhart and Corcoran have been signed.  As guys like that mature and get experience, we'll be fine 

[Mavric]

3 hours ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

I get that, they probably are a better football team than when Frost took over. But in the world of CFB, progress or success will never be measured by analytics. Could we use it as a sign of things to come, yeah, I could buy that. My point is, when the things that matter (Wins, Standings) show no progress - It's hard for me to be happy about progress in something irrelevant to our goals. Guess I'm just sick of the moral W's, improving SP+ is great, but lets see some progress relevant to what Frost is trying to accomplish. 

 

The things that matter are showing progress.  The thing that matters most isn't.  Those aren't the same thing.  And the thing that matters most isn't the only thing that matters.

[Canadian Fan]

I'm really looking forward to seeing a full year of Lubick with more say in the offense.  I remember calling it out in a game thread where I saw when the playcalling changed mid-game and my recollection was that immediately you could see "his" called plays were more in the players comfort zone. My sincere hope being more of the offensive book next year is built as a result of assessing what our kids are naturally good at, as opposed to forcing "favourite plays" which require physical traits and skills that they struggle with.  Example: If your offensive guards are strong but with slow feet, asking them to reach block while moving laterally is not setting your players up for the highest likelihood of success.  Fingers crossed.

[J-MAGIC]

18 hours ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

You keep posting the analytics. Analytics are great, but at the end of the day you need to win football games. No coach is given a job because their teams SP+ rankings were impressive. SP+ improved, but we stayed the same relative to our peers - t5th in the West, t5th in the West, 5th in the West. If our SP+ continues to improve, but relative to the B1G West we finish 5th the next two years Frost will be out of a job. College Football is results driven, not analytics driven. 

 

I am aware that winning football games matters. It's also a s#!tty way to judge the quality of a team. I have to keep posting the analytics because people keep saying we've made no progress. I would love to stop posting them if people would stop saying dumb stuff.

[Husker in WI]

17 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

Yeah, that was definitely a dead man walking team, but if the question is "progress" I think Nebraska is still shuffling around on the same rock bottom and we're quibbling about inches. 

 

The reason I brought up last year's Minnesota game is because it felt so much like a 2017 game.  I can't pretend it's about a bare cupboard anymore. 

 

Like I said earlier: good recruiting class, clean slate, super reasonable expectations and optimism, but I need a little more forward and upward motion in year four.  

 

I don't think I really agree with the bold, although I guess it just depends on which 2017 game you're talking about. Minnesota last year felt like a lot of 2018-2020 games - letting a team we should have beat handily build a lead and not being able to work our way all the way back. My lasting memory of 2017 will always be letting a QB who was essentially cut and couldn't even get a QB job at a Juco run rampant.

 

100% agree on the last piece though. I don't think I differ that much from the more pessimistic (realistic?) fans on what I need to see this year - I just do believe we'll see it. I have been wrong before. 

[Redux]

THIS:

 

https://theathletic.com/2408790/2021/02/24/nebraska-recruiting-misses-top-prospects/?amp

 

is why Frost needs to swallow his pride and win games with the team he has in the short term and not play with the team he WISHES he had.  Over his tenure thus far, I feel like it's fair to say half the losses could and should have been victories.  But mismanagement of some fashion...

[FrantzHardySwag]

2 hours ago, J-MAGIC said:

 

I am aware that winning football games matters. It's also a s#!tty way to judge the quality of a team. I have to keep posting the analytics because people keep saying we've made no progress. I would love to stop posting them if people would stop saying dumb stuff.

I'd argue winning is the best way to judge the quality of the team. I'm sure 8-4 Florida isn't bumping their chest at 9-1 Texas A&M because they finished 3 spots higher in the SP+, even though they lost to A&M. I'm also sure 10-2 Notre Dame isn't wishing they had Wisconsin's 4-3 season because Wisconsin finished with a higher SP+. 

 

As far as progress, give me the end of 2018 Team over the 2020 Team - despite the worse SP+. 2018 Team by a touchdown. Hard for me to believe in "progress" when the team at the end of year one with a freshman QB and entirely new staff, looked better than the team in year three. 

[runningblind]

2 hours ago, J-MAGIC said:

 

I am aware that winning football games matters. It's also a s#!tty way to judge the quality of a team. I have to keep posting the analytics because people keep saying we've made no progress. I would love to stop posting them if people would stop saying dumb stuff.

I understand but if the team doesn't start winning what the heck do the analytics matter? Maybe they are a sign wins are coming sure but that is yet to be seen.

[Decoy73]

As a long time season ticket holder, I admit that I hesitated before writing the check for the required “donation” this year.  The 2021 season is pivotal.   No more excuses.  Another 4 win season showing “improvement “ won’t fill the seats  for 2022.  A bowl eligible team showing improvement will, IMO.  

[All Hail Herbie]

22 hours ago, J-MAGIC said:

 

I feel as if I'm beating my head against a wall. 

 

Riley's last team was 103rd in SP+. That sure seems like rock bottom to me!

 

Year 1: Up to 49th in SP+ with a veteran roster, but blow a bunch of close games early in the year so don't finish with a good record.

Year 2: Slight step back to 55th with one of the most inexperienced teams in the country as attrition hits us hard. You're correct that it's a step back but also not a massive step back.

Year 3: Up to 32nd and look significantly more competitive against our toughest competition, but record isn't good because we play one of the toughest schedules in country and decide to start a WR at quarterback for a game.

 

If you want to only look at the record you don't see progress. But again, there's a difference between a bad record and a bad team.

 

 

My goal is always to generate thought amongst the fanbase as we evaluate the current state of affairs.  While I have little background on SP+ rankings (so I cannot fairly assess), I can see that many place their faith in these analytic models.

 

Having said that, and as you could see by my post, my view is well beyond wins and losses.  Are we competitive week in and week out?  Are we improving as it relates to measurements such as penalties per game, turnovers per game, etc.?  Are we keeping our foundational personnel for future program growth?

 

Losses to teams like Illinois and Minnesota (severely short-handed), and challenging wins against the likes of Purdue and Rutgers illustrated a fair amount.  I suppose I should be thrilled with an SP+ ranking of 20 or better this year even if we are not bowl-bound and not competing for our division.  

 

Incidentally, does anybody know our SP+ ranking from 1993 - 1997?  I presume we have SP+ trophies for a few of those years somewhere in Lincoln.

[All Hail Herbie]

22 hours ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

You keep posting the analytics. Analytics are great, but at the end of the day you need to win football games. No coach is given a job because their teams SP+ rankings were impressive. SP+ improved, but we stayed the same relative to our peers - t5th in the West, t5th in the West, 5th in the West. If our SP+ continues to improve, but relative to the B1G West we finish 5th the next two years Frost will be out of a job. College Football is results driven, not analytics driven. 

Agreed wholeheartedly.  See my latest response.

[All Hail Herbie]

23 hours ago, Hilltop said:

Normal time line for best case scenario complete re-build-

Year one - start recruiting your players.  Try to get buy in from those players you identify as potential fits for your future roster  Start installing your system.

Year two- continue recruiting your players and encourage those that don't fit to leave.  Begin development for your recent recruits and those who you plan to keep. Start refining your system as the roster allows.  Wins are hard to come by at this point but the teaching process is well under way.  

Year three - continue recruiting your players.  Continue development and start refining the details leading up to the season.  This is where the fruits of your labor start to show.  You are a young team but full of potential and starting to win more games.  You make a bowl game and compete well in many tougher contests.  Players and fans start to get excited about the future.

Year four - Your system is fully in place and the players who know your system are really helping new players along.  Your in contention to compete for championships.  You may not get there during this season but the players and fans all believe it's possible.

 

Now take Scott's time line and throw out most of the year 3 development and detail teaching.  It wasn't allowed to happen, period.  Also, remove a larger than normal percentage of the recruits to attrition due to the pandemic.  Add in extraordinarily long recruiting dead period and consider our teams proximity to recruits. 

 

It really becomes easier to understand if you can step back and really look at the situation.  

 

This coming season will be more like a normal year three without the continuity in learning from a standard year 2. 

 

I think it is reasonable to expect what a best case scenario year three would be for this upcoming season.  We will win more games, compete better against the tough opponents, and make a bowl game.  

  

 

I understand that you want this to work.  So do I.  That said, I want to be careful about discarding a year here or there due to extenuating circumstances.  Every program encounters unexpected obstacles along the way (key personnel injuries, suspensions, staff departures, tougher than anticipated scheduling, etc.).  Every program dealt with Covid and interruptions this year, period.  Somehow, the top programs were able to cobble together a league title and / or playoff appearance.  Look at what Northwestern accomplished.  Credit to Coach Fitzgerald on that effort.

 

If Dabo Swinney had a 7-5 season this year, would their fans have accepted a "lost" Covid year? Very unlikely.

 

Let's restrain these courtroom arguments for "mitigating circumstances" and just hold the program to a simple standard (non-SP+), are we improving?  At this moment, my answer must be no.  Year 4, who can say as of yet. 

[Hilltop]

10 minutes ago, All Hail Herbie said:

 

I understand that you want this to work.  So do I.  That said, I want to be careful about discarding a year here or there due to extenuating circumstances.  Every program encounters unexpected obstacles along the way (key personnel injuries, suspensions, staff departures, tougher than anticipated scheduling, etc.).  Every program dealt with Covid and interruptions this year, period.  Somehow, the top programs were able to cobble together a league title and / or playoff appearance.  Look at what Northwestern accomplished.  Credit to Coach Fitzgerald on that effort.

 

If Dabo Swinney had a 7-5 season this year, would their fans have accepted a "lost" Covid year? Very unlikely.

 

Let's restrain these courtroom arguments for "mitigating circumstances" and just hold the program to a simple standard (non-SP+), are we improving?  At this moment, my answer must be no.  Year 4, who can say as of yet. 

I'm not discarding anything at all but rather taking it at face value.  We did not have Clemson's or Northwestern's experience level or well established system.   If we were in Clemson or Northwestern's situation, and had a 3-5 season, this thread would look drastically different.

 

Even aside from the "mitigating circumstances", we were a better team in 2020 than we were in 2019 in almost every measurable way, including win % against conference opponents- 2020 = 37.5%  2019 = 33.3%.   

 

Everyone is entitled to their opinion.  By all means, you can view Nebraska through the lens of we should be a top 20 team and demand those results.  I believe I am more realistic by thinking we are a top 50 team right now that is trying to get better.  It's easier to notice the little victories when you don't have high expectations.  I do think we will get back to being a regular top 20 team in the next few years if the powers that be will allow this staff enough time.    

[Guy Chamberlin]

21 hours ago, TheSker said:

2017 was just a showcase of what Mike Riley can do for a program.  It was his 3rd season after taking over for Pelini, a .700 winning percentage coach at Nebraska.

 

In 2017 the last three games were lost by a total of 87 points, including a 42 point drubbing by Iowa.

 

"Rock bottom" may be more than one season, although metrics show progress.

 

We will only know "rock bottom" when it's I'm the rear view mirror.

 

The cupboard left by Riley was embarrassingly bare.  Though I doubt he's embarrassed at all.  The chart posted earlier in the thread shows how small we were in 2017 compared to now.

 

As the offensive line continues to move in the right direction with size and talent, progress in the win column will happen.

 

It's been a long time since talent like Benhart and Corcoran have been signed.  As guys like that mature and get experience, we'll be fine 

 

Honest question: how do you feel about Husker team performance in the second half? We've certainly seen glimpses, including the first quarter of Ohio State this year, where it looks like Nebraska's talent and Scott's schemes are able to hang with good teams and dominate lesser teams. But in the second half, our opponent makes the better adjustments and either a sluggish Nebraska first half performance doesn't improve, or the solid first half performance turns sluggish. 

 

Or is that an unfair assessment of Husker tendencies?