Best/Worst Case for 2016 Huskers

[NUinID]

A 9-3 record as the high end is IMO a little low. The author is obviously putting an L on the Oregon and OSU games and then having NU lose another conference game, probably Wisconsin. That is plausible, but no team is without question marks not just Nebraska.

I think Oregon has a ton of question marks. They lost a lot including an OC and are switching defensive schemes. I don't see Oregon's talent level as being head and shoulders above what NU has right now.

OSU will be extreamly talented like always, but they only return 6 starters, three each on both sides of the ball. Call me crazy, but I see a 3 loss season this year for Urban's boys. Whether NU is one of those loses is yet to be seen.

Wisconsin lost a starter at QB that was at the least a competent player and they haven't decided who the new guy is yet. and more importantly Dave Aranda is not calling the defense anymore.

No team is without warts. OSU was as close to as a complete team coming back last year and they still didn't get it done.

I always think NU can win. Truthfully the key to winning more games next year is turnovers. Less turnovers by the offense and more by the defense and NU is a vastly better team this year. Nebraska most likely lost 3 games last year because of costly turnovers Purdue, NW and Iowa.

 

[cm husker]

Talent alone is not a big advantage when said talent wasn't directly recruited for the current system in place. Talent helps overcome some obstacles, but that is still the big one in our way.

Overrated excuse, imo. It makes a lot of difference at QB. It makes almost no difference at most other spots. Running backs and receivers can play in any system. You might have linemen that are better run blockers or pass blockers but they still have to do both. Defensive linemen still rush the passer. Linebackers still have to tackle. DBs still have to cover.

The techniques may change. And they may be asked to do different things. But other than QB, you're really not recruiting a different type of player for any other position. You're after the best talent and teaching them how you want to do things.

This is mostly true, yet my point stands based off the following:
QB play is where your chance of winning games centers around. Our current QB struggled in the his 1st year in this system. The WR targets he has make up fo a lot of his shortcomings, but he is still a square peg in a round hole. It's not his fault either and I expect him to make the most of his final year but a square peg can only do so much to fill a circular hole.

That and, ya know our line play is a bit of a mystery heading into the season. Not that that's specifically a talent issue though, on defense talent is huge but experience is thinner.

I pretty much agree with this.

But it's quite a ways from what you posted the first time. We still have a talent advantage on basically everyone we play. Doesn't matter what system they were recruited for, they're still better than the guy across from them. Plus, how may of the guys on other teams are playing with guys their coaches didn't recruit? It didn't seem to hurt Wisconsin, Illinois and Purdue against us last year.

I can't really speak for Illinois/Purdue, but one thing Wisconsin seems to do pretty well is stick with a team identity from coach to coach. You know what you're going to get with Wisconsin and that's strong linemen, a heavy focus on the running game and opportunistic passing. Nebraska hasn't had that identity luxury from coach to coach which, in my opinion, can make it difficult to maintain consistency.
I think best case scenario is 10 wins this year. I don't know think we have the right formula for anything more. I think six or less wins would certainly be a disappointment and an unacceptable season. This team is capable of winning at least 8 games even with talent losses they've sustained.

I think we will see a change in offense to a more passing oriented scheme at Wisconsin, and that will benefit NU greatly during the next few years.

 

[Pedro Guerrero]

Worst case - 0-12

Best case - 15-0

 

[NUinID]

Talent alone is not a big advantage when said talent wasn't directly recruited for the current system in place. Talent helps overcome some obstacles, but that is still the big one in our way.

Overrated excuse, imo. It makes a lot of difference at QB. It makes almost no difference at most other spots. Running backs and receivers can play in any system. You might have linemen that are better run blockers or pass blockers but they still have to do both. Defensive linemen still rush the passer. Linebackers still have to tackle. DBs still have to cover.

The techniques may change. And they may be asked to do different things. But other than QB, you're really not recruiting a different type of player for any other position. You're after the best talent and teaching them how you want to do things.

This is mostly true, yet my point stands based off the following:
QB play is where your chance of winning games centers around. Our current QB struggled in the his 1st year in this system. The WR targets he has make up fo a lot of his shortcomings, but he is still a square peg in a round hole. It's not his fault either and I expect him to make the most of his final year but a square peg can only do so much to fill a circular hole.

That and, ya know our line play is a bit of a mystery heading into the season. Not that that's specifically a talent issue though, on defense talent is huge but experience is thinner.

I pretty much agree with this.

But it's quite a ways from what you posted the first time. We still have a talent advantage on basically everyone we play. Doesn't matter what system they were recruited for, they're still better than the guy across from them. Plus, how may of the guys on other teams are playing with guys their coaches didn't recruit? It didn't seem to hurt Wisconsin, Illinois and Purdue against us last year.

I can't really speak for Illinois/Purdue, but one thing Wisconsin seems to do pretty well is stick with a team identity from coach to coach. You know what you're going to get with Wisconsin and that's strong linemen, a heavy focus on the running game and opportunistic passing. Nebraska hasn't had that identity luxury from coach to coach which, in my opinion, can make it difficult to maintain consistency.
I think best case scenario is 10 wins this year. I don't know think we have the right formula for anything more. I think six or less wins would certainly be a disappointment and an unacceptable season. This team is capable of winning at least 8 games even with talent losses they've sustained.

I think we will see a change in offense to a more passing oriented scheme at Wisconsin, and that will benefit NU greatly during the next few years.

I think you may be right about Wisconsin and IMO it would be a big mistake. I think Cryst does like to sling the ball around though. Wisconsin's identity is what makes them successful. They arn't flashy on the surface, but winning 10 games most years is alwyas flashy.

 

[Redux]

Talent alone is not a big advantage when said talent wasn't directly recruited for the current system in place. Talent helps overcome some obstacles, but that is still the big one in our way.

Overrated excuse, imo. It makes a lot of difference at QB. It makes almost no difference at most other spots. Running backs and receivers can play in any system. You might have linemen that are better run blockers or pass blockers but they still have to do both. Defensive linemen still rush the passer. Linebackers still have to tackle. DBs still have to cover.

The techniques may change. And they may be asked to do different things. But other than QB, you're really not recruiting a different type of player for any other position. You're after the best talent and teaching them how you want to do things.

This is mostly true, yet my point stands based off the following:QB play is where your chance of winning games centers around. Our current QB struggled in the his 1st year in this system. The WR targets he has make up fo a lot of his shortcomings, but he is still a square peg in a round hole. It's not his fault either and I expect him to make the most of his final year but a square peg can only do so much to fill a circular hole.

That and, ya know our line play is a bit of a mystery heading into the season. Not that that's specifically a talent issue though, on defense talent is huge but experience is thinner.

I pretty much agree with this.

But it's quite a ways from what you posted the first time. We still have a talent advantage on basically everyone we play. Doesn't matter what system they were recruited for, they're still better than the guy across from them. Plus, how may of the guys on other teams are playing with guys their coaches didn't recruit? It didn't seem to hurt Wisconsin, Illinois and Purdue against us last year.

My OP was mostly centered around Tommy, I just didn't convey that feeling outright to begin with.
Other than Tommy the talent vs system only really applies to our RB stable. Personally, Devine Ozigbo is our most talented/highest ceiling RB on the team. But will he get a bulk of the carries? Only if he can beat out The other guys as a pass blocker. That is a talent vs system directly effecting on field results.

 

[Scratchtown]

Worst case - 0-12

Best case - 15-0

While this is true. I always hate these comments. It's like running away from confrontation.

However, 0-12 is more likely than 15-0.

But we all know that NEITHER of those are going to happen. 6-6 to 9-3 is the appropriate range given the issues NU has with new personnel and lets set the record straight and realize that the offense NU put out in the UCLA game is not going to be the staple offense of the 2016 season.

 

[cm husker]

6-6 to 8-4 is never an appropriate range for NU.

I'd submit that if Riley fails to win at least 8 reg season games this year, he will never win a championship. At least that's what history indicates. He's already behind the historical curve based on his first season. Another average to below average season will hurt him and NU deeply, especially in recruiting.

I just look at this schedule and the respective rosters and would be absolutely dismayed if NU found a way to lose 5 or more regular season games. We'd be in the territory of certain Texas and Florida schools (eg, UF under zoom) in terms of wasted talent if that were to happen

 

[marko polo]

To clarify my point, NU will be the more talented, and usually much more talented, team on the field in at least 9 of 12 regular season games. I understand that talent alone doesn't win games, but I would expect NU's coaches to win either al of those 9 games or drop one but pull an "upset" against Oregon or OSU.

That's how I arrived at 9 wins as an expected win total. And would be impressed if they hit 10.

As to "system change" excuses, I don't really buy them. If you can't implement and maximize talent with your system within year 2, then something is flawed in the system or the way you're teaching it.

Exactly! I would say there is a high probability that the defense will be the thing that prevents this team from having the season we would all like to see. So 8-9 wins Max!

 

[marko polo]

6-6 to 8-4 is never an appropriate range for NU.

I'd submit that if Riley fails to win at least 8 reg season games this year, he will never win a championship. At least that's what history indicates. He's already behind the historical curve based on his first season. Another average to below average season will hurt him and NU deeply, especially in recruiting.

I just look at this schedule and the respective rosters and would be absolutely dismayed if NU found a way to lose 5 or more regular season games. We'd be in the territory of certain Texas and Florida schools (eg, UF under zoom) in terms of wasted talent if that were to happen

Couldn't agree more.

 

[huKSer]

Worst case - 0-12

Best case - 15-0

Damn, I was going to post that

 

[huKSer]

Worst case - 0-12

Best case - 15-0

While this is true. I always hate these comments. It's like running away from confrontation.

However, 0-12 is more likely than 15-0.

But we all know that NEITHER of those are going to happen. 6-6 to 9-3 is the appropriate range given the issues NU has with new personnel and lets set the record straight and realize that the offense NU put out in the UCLA game is not going to be the staple offense of the 2016 season.

How about most likely best case and most likely worst case?

Luck and injuries play so much into the equation. Royals are a case in point - last year very few injuries, this year EVERYBODY is hurt. Bo's last year had plenty of miracle wins, Reilly had plenty of miracle losses.

 

[badgers007]

I think the best case is way too low. NU should win at least 9 regular season games based on roster talent advantages alone. OSU and Oregon are the only two teams on the regular season schedule who outpaced NU per the recruiting ranking the past few years, right? Wisconsin has fallen far during the past couple of years, especially with the coaching changes (downgrades). Even Oregon is down at this point due to player and coaching turnover.

I'd say the low is probably right. I just can't see this team failing to win at least 6 games this season.

I'd put 9-3 as the reasonable expected value and 11-1 as an amazing accomplishment. 10-2 would be outstanding, too, especially if NU were to split the CCG and bowl.

Wisconsin has a coaching staff in place that is largely familiar with the university. There are over a dozen on staff that can call themselves UW-Madison alumni. The Head Coach, Paul Chryst, grew up in Madison, went to college in Madison, and is now in his second-stint as a member of the coaching staff. He is as familiar as anyone with the stringent admission standards for athletes, the foundation of Wisconsin football (largely reflective of Nebraska), and the culture of the city/university. This has resulted in a 2016 class that is Wisconsin's highest-ranked class ever, according to 247. The 2017 class is starting off beautifully, too. With limited spots, however, the current ranking (No. 21 nationally) may not reflect NSD ranking.

I don't think it is fair to say that Wisconsin has "fallen far," especially with an uptick in recruiting under the new staff.

 

[badgers007]

Talent alone is not a big advantage when said talent wasn't directly recruited for the current system in place. Talent helps overcome some obstacles, but that is still the big one in our way.

Overrated excuse, imo. It makes a lot of difference at QB. It makes almost no difference at most other spots. Running backs and receivers can play in any system. You might have linemen that are better run blockers or pass blockers but they still have to do both. Defensive linemen still rush the passer. Linebackers still have to tackle. DBs still have to cover.

The techniques may change. And they may be asked to do different things. But other than QB, you're really not recruiting a different type of player for any other position. You're after the best talent and teaching them how you want to do things.

This is mostly true, yet my point stands based off the following:
QB play is where your chance of winning games centers around. Our current QB struggled in the his 1st year in this system. The WR targets he has make up fo a lot of his shortcomings, but he is still a square peg in a round hole. It's not his fault either and I expect him to make the most of his final year but a square peg can only do so much to fill a circular hole.

That and, ya know our line play is a bit of a mystery heading into the season. Not that that's specifically a talent issue though, on defense talent is huge but experience is thinner.

I pretty much agree with this.

But it's quite a ways from what you posted the first time. We still have a talent advantage on basically everyone we play. Doesn't matter what system they were recruited for, they're still better than the guy across from them. Plus, how may of the guys on other teams are playing with guys their coaches didn't recruit? It didn't seem to hurt Wisconsin, Illinois and Purdue against us last year.

I can't really speak for Illinois/Purdue, but one thing Wisconsin seems to do pretty well is stick with a team identity from coach to coach. You know what you're going to get with Wisconsin and that's strong linemen, a heavy focus on the running game and opportunistic passing. Nebraska hasn't had that identity luxury from coach to coach which, in my opinion, can make it difficult to maintain consistency.
I think best case scenario is 10 wins this year. I don't know think we have the right formula for anything more. I think six or less wins would certainly be a disappointment and an unacceptable season. This team is capable of winning at least 8 games even with talent losses they've sustained.

I think we will see a change in offense to a more passing oriented scheme at Wisconsin, and that will benefit NU greatly during the next few years.

I think you may be right about Wisconsin and IMO it would be a big mistake. I think Cryst does like to sling the ball around though. Wisconsin's identity is what makes them successful. They arn't flashy on the surface, but winning 10 games most years is alwyas flashy.

Some seem to forget that Paul Chryst is as familiar with the foundation of Wisconsin football as anyone not named Barry Alvarez. He was an Offensive Coordinator at Wisconsin for several seasons before taking the head job at Pitt. He orchestrated tremendous rushing attacks with the likes of Brian Calhoun, PJ Hill, John Clay, James White, and Montee Ball.

Not sure what makes your fan base think Wisconsin becomes a pass-oriented scheme...? Paul Chryst has always adapted to the talent available. In 2015, with Corey Clement sidelined and a converted defensive back and Freshman (RS) at running back, we saw more usage (single-season school record in pass attempts and completions) out of a competent, though below-average Joel Stave. In 2010, with a game-manager in Scott Tolzien, Chryst had two RB's that rushed for 1,000+ yards and another that was four yards short of. In 2011, with a generational-talent like Russell Wilson at QB, Wisconsin still only passed about 38% of the time.

Again, with a head coach that has a better understanding of how Wisconsin football was built than just about anyone not named Barry Alvarez, I highly doubt you'll see a fundamental change in offensive philosophy.

 

[cm husker]

I think Wisconsin will take a hit because (a) they recruited poorly starting in around 2013, at least from a pure numbers perspective, and (b) they don't have Alvarez and Bielema to keep the reins pulled in on Chryst.

If you look at his years at Pitt, he was very "pro style" oriented, with QBs throwing almost 400 passes during each of his first two seasons (more than 30 attempts per game). And this past year he threw it more than 30 times a game.

 

[badgers007]

I think Wisconsin will take a hit because (a) they recruited poorly starting in around 2013, at least from a pure numbers perspective, and (b) they don't have Alvarez to keep the reins pulled in on Chryst.

If you look at his years at Pitt, he was very "pro style" oriented, with QBs throwing almost 400 passes during each of his first two seasons (more than 30 attempts per game). And this past year he threw it more than 30 times a game.

Wisconsin recruiting is fine. They consistently rank outside the Top-30, if not Top-40. It is what it always has been, and has seen an uptick under Paul Chryst.

Tom Savage threw nearly 400 passes in 2013 with a very talented Tyler Boyd at WR. Why not take advantage of that? In 2014, with a much-improved James Conner (RB) and OL, Pittsburgh ran the ball over 60% of the time. Again, Paul Chryst adapts to the talent around him. He has done it his entire coaching career, from Oregon State, to Wisconsin, to Pittsburgh.

Joel Stave set school records in pass attempts/completions in 2015 because Corey Clement was sidelined. His backups? A converted defensive back, a converted linebacker, and a freshman (RS). It's no wonder why Wisconsin threw the ball so much!