Year 4 Expectations

[J-MAGIC]

2 hours ago, runningblind said:

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.

 

 

3 hours ago, FrantzHardySwag said:

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. 

 

You two are repeating what I've said in this thread back to me like it's some sort of counterargument. I understand that the sport is arbitrated on wins and losses. That doesn't mean the binary of a win-loss record is the only, or even a good, way to evaluate the quality of teams in the most complex sport in existence. We need to start winning games. The numbers would say that the wins are coming. If they don't come, we should find a new coach. 

[RichardHangslow]

First I think we need to evaluate where Iowa is at. 

[Hilltop]

21 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

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? 

I know not directed at me but I'll offer my 2 cents for free from a coaches perspective.

 

Speaking to the offense-  I think Nebraska spent the majority of game week this year trying to teach the opponent specific game plan to kids who by and large don't know the playbook like experienced players do.  Many times they showed some flashes of greatness in the first half when they got it right.  In the second half, teams would adjust to account for what we were doing.  Due to our lack of experience and knowledge of the playbook, we were unable to adjust on the fly as well as more experienced groups.  That made the 2nd half look pretty bad on many occasions.    

[All Hail Herbie]

46 minutes ago, Hilltop said:

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.    

 

Never would I expect the sort of results you are describing after the 4 year run we have just endured.  A great season now in Lincoln would be 6-6 and a trip to Boise for New Year's. Incidentally, I sadly do not even expect this in Year 4.

 

As I said, let's look at overall progress and measure.  I will take 2 games in a row absent a turnover, or 2 consecutive games with fewer than 5 penalties.  That is progress to me.  Whether we win 37% of the time or 33% of the time against conference foes is mere fodder for discussion.  

 

Your opening is a fine defense of mitigating circumstances as again, we are portrayed as a shorthanded, under-resourced program in comparison to the Northwestern's and Clemson's of the world.  We are not devoid of talent, light on resources, or scarce of facilities.  Let's challenge the status quo thinking we have developed as a fan base, not accept it.

[TheSker]

29 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

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? 

It's a very fair assessment, and one that Frost mentioned a few times during the season.

 

I think it's largely inexperience from our most talented players....and from the staff.

 

Case in point.....Kade Warner.....cerebral player and team captain.

 

......and cost us at least 12 points this season.

 

As our offensive line gains experience, they will as a unit recognize the adjustments the defense is making, and hopefully communicate and execute to those adjustments 

 

In my view our offensive line execution is the biggest missing piece to being really good on offense.  We are pretty good at gaining yards, but things like red zone execution and turnovers still hamper our scoring production.

[TheSker]

20 minutes ago, All Hail Herbie said:

 

Never would I expect the sort of results you are describing after the 4 year run we have just endured.  A great season now in Lincoln would be 6-6 and a trip to Boise for New Year's. Incidentally, I sadly do not even expect this in Year 4.

 

As I said, let's look at overall progress and measure.  I will take 2 games in a row absent a turnover, or 2 consecutive games with fewer than 5 penalties.  That is progress to me.  Whether we win 37% of the time or 33% of the time against conference foes is mere fodder for discussion.  

 

Your opening is a fine defense of mitigating circumstances as again, we are portrayed as a shorthanded, under-resourced program in comparison to the Northwestern's and Clemson's of the world.  We are not devoid of talent, light on resources, or scarce of facilities.  Let's challenge the status quo thinking we have developed as a fan base, not accept it.

Here's a quick view of what Mike Riley did in his 3 year run.

 

Took over a 9-4 team from a coach who won 70% of his games, including beating Iowa his last game as coach.

 

3 seasons later Mike Riley had Nebraska football at 4-8 with a 42 point loss to Iowa.

 

That's a STEEP drop in 3 seasons.

 

I think Frost has Nebraska football on a promising trajectory.

[Hilltop]

50 minutes ago, All Hail Herbie said:

 

Never would I expect the sort of results you are describing after the 4 year run we have just endured.  A great season now in Lincoln would be 6-6 and a trip to Boise for New Year's. Incidentally, I sadly do not even expect this in Year 4.

 

As I said, let's look at overall progress and measure.  I will take 2 games in a row absent a turnover, or 2 consecutive games with fewer than 5 penalties.  That is progress to me.  Whether we win 37% of the time or 33% of the time against conference foes is mere fodder for discussion.  

 

Your opening is a fine defense of mitigating circumstances as again, we are portrayed as a shorthanded, under-resourced program in comparison to the Northwestern's and Clemson's of the world.  We are not devoid of talent, light on resources, or scarce of facilities.  Let's challenge the status quo thinking we have developed as a fan base, not accept it.

Where did I ever mention we were devoid of talent, under-resourced, or scarce of facilities?  If you are drawing those conclusions from what I typed, you are not reading what was written. 

 

You can have the most talented kids in the world but if they doesn't know the plays, a mediocre group who does can win many of the battles.  My one, and only argument- We were very inexperienced last year and our coaches hands were tied a majority of the year.  This severely limited development and did no favors to team continuity on a fragile program in the middle of a re-build.

 

I don't accept when we are underperforming.  Neither does the majority of the rest of our fan base.  However, a good percentage of our fan base is reasonable enough to understand the circumstances surrounding why we are, who we are, right now, has been somewhat out of our coaches control.  If they don't show real improvement next year, the same argument won't fly and many more people surrounding the team will be unhappy, and rightfully so.       

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, TheSker said:

Here's a quick view of what Mike Riley did in his 3 year run.

 

Took over a 9-4 team from a coach who won 70% of his games, including beating Iowa his last game as coach.

 

3 seasons later Mike Riley had Nebraska football at 4-8 with a 42 point loss to Iowa.

 

That's a STEEP drop in 3 seasons.

 

I think Frost has Nebraska football on a promising trajectory.

 

If you are using season records as your metric  -- and you are -- you're still stuck with 4-8, 5-7 and 3-5 as your trajectory.

 

I think we can both agree that another couple seasons will better confirm the trajectory, and that better offensive linemen is a great place to start. 

 

But you're gonna have to pick a year when it's not Mike Riley's fault. 

[GamingGlen]

2 hours ago, RichardHangslow said:

First I think we need to evaluate where Iowa is at. 

 

Um, somewhere east of Nebraska?       

[TheSker]

29 minutes ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

If you are using season records as your metric  -- and you are -- you're still stuck with 4-8, 5-7 and 3-5 as your trajectory.

 

I think we can both agree that another couple seasons will better confirm the trajectory, and that better offensive linemen is a great place to start. 

 

But you're gonna have to pick a year when it's not Mike Riley's fault. 

Regardless of fault, it's Frost's responsibility.

 

The big thing is when "no excuses" is said, it's not true.  There are some excuses, and some very valid ones why our record is t better.

 

And it's fine to just compare records, but it doesn't show the progress that's actually being made.  With some glaring hiccups along the way.

 

Mike Riley's 2017 team couldn't even force a punt in a drubbing by Ohio State.

 

Even if for most of a half, we looked better this past season.

 

Those losses are different 

 

Riley's team couldn't have been any more outclassed than that Saturday evening.

 

Then look at Iowa.  Iowa beat Riley coached Nebraska teams 3 times by a combined 80....yes 80....points.

 

Frost has lost to Iowa by 3, 3 and 6 for a combined 12 points.

 

As the poster J-Magic has shown, there are.other metrics that show some progress.

 

We all want the wins to start coming....and I think Frost is getting us closer.

 

We have looked sloppy and inexperienced many games under Frost.....but Mike Riley did a lot of damage to the program that Frost is diligently trying to fix.  And it's Frost's responsibility to do so.

[Decoy73]

35 minutes ago, Lightfighter214 said:

And in rileys defense, he dealt with more crap then frost has.

 

Eichorst, perlman, had diaco forced on him, and Pelini souring the well before he left.

Good points.  Another big difference is how the whole "reception" went down when they first arrived.   I'd say Riley's was pretty lukewarm with a lot of "who's this guy, again?".  Not too lofty expectations.  

Whereas Frost was probably inappropriately seen as the "Savior" or "Chosen One" who will quickly fix this 15 year debacle we've gotten ourselves into.

 

I'd say Frost's situation was probably way more difficult, irregardless of other factors like what was left in the cupboard by the previous staffs.  Perhaps too much pressure put on HCSF to right the ship and duplicate UCF success.  I think Frost knew a "quick fix" was not the way to approach his new job and I believe this was the correct approach.  As difficult and stressful as these first few years were/are, I still truly do believe that Frost is the right guy for the job.  

 

But, all that being said.  As fans and boosters, we all reserve the right to appropriately criticize.  It means we still care.

[hskrfan4life]

On 2/25/2021 at 10:21 AM, Redux said:

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...

To be honest, I don't think a kid who wants to get out Nebraska will even stay in Nebraska if they're winning. Heck one of those kids' families just lived here, didn't grow up here. It's not like every kid's parents are die-hard husker fans.

[Redux]

2 hours ago, hskrfan4life said:

To be honest, I don't think a kid who wants to get out Nebraska will even stay in Nebraska if they're winning. Heck one of those kids' families just lived here, didn't grow up here. It's not like every kid's parents are die-hard husker fans.

 

We just lost how many transfers the last 4yrs because the kid wanted to be closer to home.  The players want to play for a winning team, if the home town team wins they'll stay.  That simple, win games keep the in state.

[Guy Chamberlin]

15 hours ago, Decoy73 said:

Good points.  Another big difference is how the whole "reception" went down when they first arrived.   I'd say Riley's was pretty lukewarm with a lot of "who's this guy, again?".  Not too lofty expectations.  

Whereas Frost was probably inappropriately seen as the "Savior" or "Chosen One" who will quickly fix this 15 year debacle we've gotten ourselves into.

 

I'd say Frost's situation was probably way more difficult, irregardless of other factors like what was left in the cupboard by the previous staffs.  Perhaps too much pressure put on HCSF to right the ship and duplicate UCF success.  I think Frost knew a "quick fix" was not the way to approach his new job and I believe this was the correct approach.  As difficult and stressful as these first few years were/are, I still truly do believe that Frost is the right guy for the job.  

 

But, all that being said.  As fans and boosters, we all reserve the right to appropriately criticize.  It means we still care.

 

As I remember it, Riley was most definitely expected to win more and better games than Bo Pelini. That's what he was hired. 

 

And when Riley tanked, Scott Frost was literally the only choice. Had the former Husker star coming off an undefeated season at UCF gone to any other team, we would have blamed 4-8, 5-7, and 3-5 seasons on not having Frost as our head coach.

[All Hail Herbie]

19 hours ago, Hilltop said:

Where did I ever mention we were devoid of talent, under-resourced, or scarce of facilities?  If you are drawing those conclusions from what I typed, you are not reading what was written. 

 

You can have the most talented kids in the world but if they doesn't know the plays, a mediocre group who does can win many of the battles.  My one, and only argument- We were very inexperienced last year and our coaches hands were tied a majority of the year.  This severely limited development and did no favors to team continuity on a fragile program in the middle of a re-build.

 

I don't accept when we are underperforming.  Neither does the majority of the rest of our fan base.  However, a good percentage of our fan base is reasonable enough to understand the circumstances surrounding why we are, who we are, right now, has been somewhat out of our coaches control.  If they don't show real improvement next year, the same argument won't fly and many more people surrounding the team will be unhappy, and rightfully so.       

 

My prior assessment of comments was based on what I see to be a general program portrayal by many these days (not a specific comment).  That whatever our shortcomings on the field are, they are simply outside of our control and that they are permanent and structural (not circumstantial).  

 

With the ongoing personnel attrition issues, one could make the argument that we will remain inexperienced in years to come.  My greatest concern is that we now tolerate failure in terms of our on-field performance and then rationalize it through various lines of argument (lack of experience, staff turnover, recruiting, personnel departures, etc.)

 

So long as our fanbase agrees that 5 years is adequate to measure whether or not the path we are on is the correct one, I can accept that.  In the short-term however, let's avoid rationalizing underperformance.