Who needs to go?

[ndobney]

20 minutes ago, M.A. said:

To me (it's seeming) that Scott doesn't have a strong enough supporting cast. At least in some areas. And, that he isn't managing it well enough. There needs to be stronger delegation backed up with more competencies. It doesn't make these people bad people. It's possibly that they don't have enough experiences collectively at this level to function well enough despite their intentions however earnest. Is that unreasonable to consider? It operates in a disjointed way out of sync not firing smoothly. What is so frustrating is that it's fairly close yet so far away at the same time. The guy is overwhelmed attempting to control so many things at once then there's sort of a grasping that occurs. That affects the team's play as well from a mental standpoint. Scott is no dummy. One of his strengths is his creativity. Except, that he has to be the director of creativity through his staff. Highly competent professionals he can trust and then does. More delegating and more "lead managing". It might require permitting his scheme to evolve too. Can it function as is in the Big 10? Is it too sophisticated? Or does it not fit the players he can acquire? Enough of them?  How well can he adjust and adapt and how quickly can it happen? I don't know that he can do it fast enough or how willing he is to do it. It's sometimes less complicated looking from a different perspective. I don't know how accurate this is. It's just sort of an impression I'm getting. 

 

A good read here on what caused Tom Osborne's staff to successfully work from Trev Albert's perspective. Sorry, I'm new here so if not permitted moderators feel free to omit this or I'll edit it out. 

https://www.si.com/college/nebraska/football/trev-alberts-why-tom-osbornes-staff-worked-through-these-gates

I seriously doubt if Trev Albert's See's Frost as a guy that can put together a great staff

[thexyz]

4 minutes ago, BoNeyard said:

This coaching staff would be one spot lower on most other P5 teams. For instance, offensive and defensive coordinators would be positional coaches as opposed to coordinators. Frost didn't have the coaching network when he was hired to support himself with well experienced coaches, so he stuck with friends and coaches he worked with in his short coaching career. I guess this is the major drawback to hiring a young head coach that still has growing pains to go through. 

 

But as much as you can point to Frost and his inexperienced coaching staff as a problem, you can go to Riley and his coaching staff and see there is almost zero differences. Riley was a 30 year long coach and all of his assistants had decades worth of coaching, both in college and in the NFL, and what did that get us? Well, it got us here. 

 

 

The only thing I'd add, is that assembling a more competent staff might have it's challenges. Riley and other head coaches here did (to some extent) attempt to fill positions with alternates. Better alternates seemingly weren't available or didn't want to join the staffs. That said, one could argue that attracting the most qualified position coaches and coordinators might be less challenging than acquiring the most sought after head coaching candidates. What might work is getting a head coach with superior managing skills at a lower cost then assemble a staff with those having high competencies with a budget that can compensate them well. 

[thexyz]

9 minutes ago, ndobney said:

I seriously doubt if Trev Albert's See's Frost as a guy that can put together a great staff

It sure indicates what he's expecting and would be looking for. If there's reluctance to make changes, I'd say Scott Frost's last days are closing in. 

[BoNeyard]

1 minute ago, M.A. said:

The only thing I'd add, is that assembling a more competent staff might have it's challenges. Riley and other head coaches here did (to some extent) attempt to fill positions with alternates. Better alternates seemingly weren't available or didn't want to join the staffs. That said, one could argue that attracting the most qualified position coaches and coordinators might be less challenging than acquiring the most sought after head coaching candidates. What might work is getting a head coach with superior managing skills at a lower cost then assemble a staff with those having high competencies with a budget that can compensate them well. 

Isn't that essentially what we did with Riley? On paper Riley was a perfect CEO type. He was a great guy who could connect with the fan base, he had a lifetime of coaching experience and he delegated the offense and defense to his well experienced coordinators, who again on paper should have been very good coaches and should have been able to develop players well. 

 

Maybe a place like Nebraska is you have to overpay everything. Overpay for a good head coach, overpay for top quality coordinators. Really what we should try to do is poach Wisconsin's coordinators. Wisconsin has a problem of not investing money into their coordinators and positional coaches, it's one of, if not the biggest gripe of head coaches of that program. We should offer Leonhard something like 1.5 million to come coach defense here. It's unheard of money, but that may be what it takes to be competitive here at Nebraska in 2021 and beyond. It also may be cheaper than recycling coaches every 4 years and continuing to pay two head coaches at once.

[Husker in WI]

Just curious, who are people realistically thinking of when they say we should be hiring "top" coordinators? Most of those guys become head coaches, and wouldn't take a lateral move for more money. IMO if we're paying top dollar for coordinators they would either be from the G5 conferences or coordinators who failed as head coaches. Who might be fine - but I don't think there are home run coordinator hires out there any more than head coaches. And we hired who was widely considered the home run there a couple years ago.

[TheSker]

25 minutes ago, ndobney said:

I seriously doubt if Trev Albert's See's Frost as a guy that can put together a great staff

Alberts comes from the Osborne philosophy of keeping a staff intact.

 

Alberts has said as much.

[NebraskaHarry]

6 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Alberts comes from the Osborne philosophy of keeping a staff intact.

 

Alberts has said as much.

If the coaches are proven to be good. I'm not sure make Mario a good quarterback coach.

[Undone]

25 minutes ago, BoNeyard said:

On paper Riley was a perfect CEO type. He was a great guy who could connect with the fan base, he had a lifetime of coaching experience and he delegated the offense and defense to his well experienced coordinators, who again on paper should have been very good coaches and should have been able to develop players well. 

 

When you have a career 53% winning percentage as a college head coach you should never even be given a first thought as the head coach of NU.

 

And Langsdorf wasn't a proven coordinator at all, IMO. Banker was "experienced" but also went into making Riley's career winning percentage above what it was.

[JJ Husker]

10 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Alberts comes from the Osborne philosophy of keeping a staff intact.

 

Alberts has said as much.

Of course he does, and SF seems to also have that philosophy. He brought almost his entire staff with him and most are still here. I think that pretty much proves that philosophy alone is not the key component. It would seem getting a good head coach and good assistants and then keeping the staff intact is the way to go. Continuity of the wrong guys is just as bad as having no continuity.

[TheSker]

7 minutes ago, NebraskaHarry said:

If the coaches are proven to be good. I'm not sure make Mario a good quarterback coach.

Keeping Charlie McBride was going to cost Osborne his job.

[NebraskaHarry]

Osborne was winning at least 9 games a year and making bowls. Nebraska cant even make a bowl now. I'm just asking why one coach, Mario, is worth keeping when his position on the staff has a huge impact on how well the offense functions. He struck gold with a heck of an athlete in Milton while at UCF. But in year 4, can someone show me how well he's developed Nebraska QBs and recruiting studs? I'm just not seeing it from those guys in year 4. So I wonder, is it worth moving Mario?

[TheSker]

9 minutes ago, JJ Husker said:

Of course he does, and SF seems to also have that philosophy. He brought almost his entire staff with him and most are still here. I think that pretty much proves that philosophy alone is not the key component. It would seem getting a good head coach and good assistants and then keeping the staff intact is the way to go. Continuity of the wrong guys is just as bad as having no continuity.

When change is forced, Diaco happens 

[Undone]

10 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Keeping Charlie McBride was going to cost Osborne his job.

 

Yeah...but Dr. Tom was running that show.

 

 

2 minutes ago, TheSker said:

When change is forced, Diaco happens 

 

Nah. Those two things are mutually exclusive. What if we had brought in Brent Venables?

[Xmas32]

16 page thread and no one thought to use the easiest most slam dunkiest gif ever?!  Thank goodness I'm here.  The thread is called Who Needs to Go.  Allow me:

 

[TheSker]

3 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

Yeah...but Dr. Tom was running that show.

 

 

 

Nah. Those two things are mutually exclusive. What if we had brought in Brent Venables?

It's a joke man.....

 

Venables as Riley's DC?  Venables would have chosen retirement