Coaches knew we were going to be bad...

[Florida Husker Watcher]

1 minute ago, Alabama Husker Watcher said:

I'm new here. I've been watching Nebraska football for many years, though I'm not a fan of the team. I like Nebraska and I remember watching those dominant Husker teams from the 1990's. I'll never forget the greatness of Tommie Frazier. College football is better when Nebraska is playing well.

 

I've heard so many times that Nebraska cannot compete anymore because they don't recruit as well as the top teams anymore. The people who say this must not be paying attention to recruiting. Nebraska has averaged a national recruiting ranking of 20th and a Big Ten recruiting ranking of 4th over the last 6 years. Sure, the team doesn't recruit like Ohio State or Alabama, but not many schools do. Nebraska has had the talent level over the last 6 years to have 8-10 win seasons and to be ranked in the top 25 each year.

This is one of my basic points.  You can recruit well enough to win 10-ish games most years.  And to compete on a national level for all the marbles at least once a decade.  But you are trying to build the wrong sort of machine.

 

-There's what variety of machine you are attempting to build.

-Then there's how you operate the machine you have, in fact, built.

-And then there's how you maintain the machine you've built.

 

You guys are failing on the first point. 

[Alabama Husker Watcher]

4 minutes ago, Florida Husker Watcher said:

This is one of my basic points.  You can recruit well enough to win 10-ish games most years.  And to compete on a national level for all the marbles at least once a decade.  But you are trying to build the wrong sort of machine.

 

-There's what variety of machine you are attempting to build.

-Then there's how you operate the machine you have, in fact, built.

-And then there's how you maintain the machine you've built.

 

You guys are failing on the first point. 

 

I'm not sure I know the difference between what a top 5 program is doing and what a top 25 program is doing. Aren't they both just trying to be as good as they can be?

[teachercd]

Seriously, people need to realize that this is really just a coaching issue.

 

Riley had the team 8-0 (I think)

Bo was 9/10 wins every single year and basically 1/2 in the division

 

They are simply an organized coach away from being right back at 9/10 wins and 1/2 in the division again.  They hired the guy everyone wanted and it is not working out.

 

With what a coach has to work with at NU and the fact that they will have the best recruiting class in the division each year and also be in the weakest division in P5, they are simply a new hire away from being right where we would like to be.

[Dogs In A Pile]

2 hours ago, teachercd said:

The fumble for a TD, again, AM should not fumble but it is bad luck that the ball pretty much just bounced to a guy that was not near anyone at all.

 

You put the ball on the carpet as much as AM does and it is only a matter of time before a defender is in position to scoop & score. Not bad luck, just that probability catches up to you eventually.

 

2 hours ago, teachercd said:

The roughing the passer call, that is a 50/50 call for the ref, the defender did nothing wrong but the ref either needs to make a call or not, he decided to make the call.

 

BS. That roughing call was a text book example of the rule. You could take the video of the play and use it as an example of the violation. Bad luck? No. Either poor coaching or more likely just another in a long string of bone headed plays by a Nebraska player.

 

The NCAA says this is prohibited:

Quote

Forcibly driving the passer to the ground and landing on him with action that punishes the player.

 

 

 

[teachercd]

8 minutes ago, Dogs In A Pile said:

 

You put the ball on the carpet as much as AM does and it is only a matter of time before a defender is in position to scoop & score. Not bad luck, just that probability catches up to you eventually.

 

 

BS. That roughing call was a text book example of the rule. You could take the video of the play and use it as an example of the violation. Bad luck? No. Either poor coaching or more likely just another in a long string of bone headed plays by a Nebraska player.

 

The NCAA says this is prohibited:

 

 

 

Thanks 

[Florida Husker Watcher]

3 minutes ago, Alabama Husker Watcher said:

 

I'm not sure I know the difference between what a top 5 program is doing and what a top 25 program is doing. Aren't they both just trying to be as good as they can be?

Let's just focus on the "variety of machine" aspect for a moment.  And let's take Wisconsin as an object lesson.

 

If you pointed out to Alvarez that Wisconsin aims to build a type of football team that, by virtue of how it is constructed, will win 9 or 10 games each year, but cannot win them all, he'd privately tell you: "no sh!t?"  He knows they are not trying to win every game.  They are trying to win 9 or 10 games.  And here's why: the risk in trying to build a machine that is capable of winning all your games is that you win very few games.  If you are willing to build a machine that by virtue of its construction cannot win certain games, then you will win much more often than you lose.  But you will lose - reliably and by design - those particular games that require your team to operate outside of the operating capabilities of the machine you built.

 

Let me be less abstract.  Will Wisconsin recruit 2 true #1 NFL-caliber receivers?  No.  Not as the result of failure, but by design.  They value receivers that block for the run game.  Period.  And #1 type receivers won't go to Wisconsin.  But Wisconsin doesn't care - they know what sort of machine they are building.

 

You guys have an opportunity to build a species of machine that, by design, is better than Wisconsin's.  But you're not going about it the correct way.  To be clear: the machine you are trying to build would, in fact, be superior to Wisconsin's.  The problem is that the machine cannot be built on anything like a year-in, year-out basis.  But there is a type of machine that you could build on a nearly annual basis that would top Wisconsin's.  You should build that machine, instead of hunting for Milton McKenzie.

[lo country]

12 minutes ago, teachercd said:

Seriously, people need to realize that this is really just a coaching issue.

 

Riley had the team 8-0 (I think)

Bo was 9/10 wins every single year and basically 1/2 in the division

 

They are simply an organized coach away from being right back at 9/10 wins and 1/2 in the division again.  They hired the guy everyone wanted and it is not working out.

 

With what a coach has to work with at NU and the fact that they will have the best recruiting class in the division each year and also be in the weakest division in P5, they are simply a new hire away from being right where we would like to be.

100%.  It's not the players.  We got Frost thinking he would be the guy.  He is not.  No harm, no foul.  Get a coach in with a system that will work here.  Scheme with what you have , not what you want and we will get much closer to where we want to be.

[Alabama Husker Watcher]

11 minutes ago, Florida Husker Watcher said:

Let's just focus on the "variety of machine" aspect for a moment.  And let's take Wisconsin as an object lesson.

 

If you pointed out to Alvarez that Wisconsin aims to build a type of football team that, by virtue of how it is constructed, will win 9 or 10 games each year, but cannot win them all, he'd privately tell you: "no sh!t?"  He knows they are not trying to win every game.  They are trying to win 9 or 10 games.  And here's why: the risk in trying to build a machine that is capable of winning all your games is that you win very few games.  If you are willing to build a machine that by virtue of its construction cannot win certain games, then you will win much more often than you lose.  But you will lose - reliably and by design - those particular games that require your team to operate outside of the operating capabilities of the machine you built.

 

Let me be less abstract.  Will Wisconsin recruit 2 true #1 NFL-caliber receivers?  No.  Not as the result of failure, but by design.  They value receivers that block for the run game.  Period.  And #1 type receivers won't go to Wisconsin.  But Wisconsin doesn't care - they know what sort of machine they are building.

 

You guys have an opportunity to build a species of machine that, by design, is better than Wisconsin's.  But you're not going about it the correct way.  To be clear: the machine you are trying to build would, in fact, be superior to Wisconsin's.  The problem is that the machine cannot be built on anything like a year-in, year-out basis.  But there is a type of machine that you could build on a nearly annual basis that would top Wisconsin's.  You should build that machine, instead of hunting for Milton McKenzie.

 

So, it sounds like you are talking about teams needing to have an identity and stick to that identity. Is that right?

 

Wisconsin knows that they are a power-running team and they stick to that. All of their players are selected to play in that system and they do well with this system. I'm not sure that I could pinpoint what Nebraska's identity is or what system they are trying to run.

[thexyz]

Old news. Days following his arrival Frosty was saying that he didn’t think that he could get the players needed and wasn’t optimistic about being successful here. 

[RedSavage]

5 minutes ago, M.A. said:

Old news. Days following his arrival Frosty was saying that he didn’t think that he could get the players needed and wasn’t optimistic about being successful here. 

Well, that would've required him to actually work and from all accounts, that seems to be pretty much the opposite of what he did.

[thexyz]

4 minutes ago, RedSavage said:

Well, that would've required him to actually work and from all accounts, that seems to be pretty much the opposite of what he did.

Nothing was mentioned about compensation or benefits associated with the position.  

[Crusader Husker]

I feel like it was a job he didn't want, but felt obligated.