BYU

[zoogs]

OK, there are a variety of ways the team could fail to win 8 games. I do find it unlikely for that to be the case if Tommy proves to be great, I mean really great. And isn't that one of the key questions for this season? Will he be another decent player (nothing wrong with this) or will he work his way into the upper echelon of college QBs?

If the latter, I'm sure we'll have a pretty nice season to go with it. But you're right, maybe the issues on defense are just that bad. You never know. If the DL isn't solid, and then the LBs behind them aren't, those are some serious question marks.

 

[NWHuskerfan]

Blame Bo, blame the QB, blame recruiting.....the games are won and lost in the trenches. Always have been and always will be. The Oregon ducks will continue to wow with speed and scoring, but until they figure out you win in the trenches same result. The Huskers have been weak for well over ten years on the line of scrimage. We've had some good players and our moments, but for the most part, not dominating play on either side of the ball regarding line play. Its no big shocker that TO tells Riley his advice of running the ball. TO knows Riley runs and always has run a pass first offense. TO like all great coaches understands that FB games are won in the trenches. He knows if you control the offensive line and run the ball you control the clock and usually win the game., Long sustained drives running the ball will tire the opponets defense, eat the clock and destroy your opponents will. Riley is a Pac 12 guy and its just not the type of Football they play for the most part in the Pac 12. Until that mentality of dominating both sides of the football and the mentality of being able to run the ball on anyone is restablished I don't see much changing. As far as the orginal topic goes BYU is a tough opener. I dont feel its a huge deal if Nebraska loses that game. BYU is well coached they play hard and they have several mature players on the team due to the two year mormon missions. Also the QB they're bringing into Lincoln is one of the best the Huskers will face. He's very dangerous throwing and running. With that said I still feel Nebraska wins the game, but I think it will be very close.

 

[zoogs]

It makes at least some sense to predict when you have a rough idea of what the team will be. Do we, right now?

They can't lose to Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota? These teams won last year.

They can't lose to Iowa? That was a very close game.

They can't lose to Northwestern? (Well, that would be surprising, I admit, but those teams are well coached, too.)

They can't lose to Miami and BYU?

If Tommy stays a 50% thrower, and the defensive front seven gets worked regularly?

I mean, they could also run the table or go 11-1. All those games are possible wins, too, of course.

I understand your point. But based on what we have done and what we know we're capable of there's just no excuse for anything less than a 9-3 regular season. I know it's a new staff and all, but it's not really about what could happen. I'm basing it on what will probably happen, or should happen.
We could go 2-10 too, but it's not gonna happen. It just aint.

But what have "we" done? We as in the Bo Pelini directed defense with Randy Gregory, and the 4th year Tim Beck offense led by Ameer Abdullah and provided its lone vertical threat by Kenny Bell?

That team lost to Michigan State, got stomped by Wisconsin, lost to Minnesota, and nearly lost to Iowa. Without Ameer, an early season letdown against McNeese St. wasn't even out of the question. That could be 4 conference losses right there. Based on what we have done, and what we know we're capable of -- some good games, some absurd slip ups.

I think they're capable of 10 wins next year, for sure, but would 6 or 7 be so stunning?

 

[I AM FOOT FOOT]

we will thump BYU. why? we have game film to watch on them . they have nothing but a miss mash of old NU and OSU film. non of it will be what they see on game day. or at least this is my theory. I been wrong lots of times.

 

[NWHuskerfan]

BYU has plenty of game film on Nebraska with a phone call. College coaches have connections to other coaches all over the country. Plus I believe BYU's coach is 2-1 versus Riley at Oregon State. Everyone that knows Riley well knows he lives and dies by the offense he runs. Since this is the offense they've won against in the past I don't see game preparation as an issue. I think this game comes down to special teams play.

 

[RunMickeyRun02]

Blame Bo, blame the QB, blame recruiting.....the games are won and lost in the trenches. Always have been and always will be. The Oregon ducks will continue to wow with speed and scoring, but until they figure out you win in the trenches same result. The Huskers have been weak for well over ten years on the line of scrimage. We've had some good players and our moments, but for the most part, not dominating play on either side of the ball regarding line play. Its no big shocker that TO tells Riley his advice of running the ball. TO knows Riley runs and always has run a pass first offense. TO like all great coaches understands that FB games are won in the trenches. He knows if you control the offensive line and run the ball you control the clock and usually win the game., Long sustained drives running the ball will tire the opponets defense, eat the clock and destroy your opponents will. Riley is a Pac 12 guy and its just not the type of Football they play for the most part in the Pac 12. Until that mentality of dominating both sides of the football and the mentality of being able to run the ball on anyone is restablished I don't see much changing. As far as the orginal topic goes BYU is a tough opener. I dont feel its a huge deal if Nebraska loses that game. BYU is well coached they play hard and they have several mature players on the team due to the two year mormon missions. Also the QB they're bringing into Lincoln is one of the best the Huskers will face. He's very dangerous throwing and running. With that said I still feel Nebraska wins the game, but I think it will be very close.

Good points.

That's why we used to dominate so much when we had the s&c edge. We didn't recruit o-linemen we built them.

Also, don't forget it helps toughen up your own Defense by practicing against your run first offense. Also, keeping your defense off the field with long sustained drives keeps your D fresh.

 

[Hunter94]

Blame Bo, blame the QB, blame recruiting.....the games are won and lost in the trenches. Always have been and always will be. The Oregon ducks will continue to wow with speed and scoring, but until they figure out you win in the trenches same result. The Huskers have been weak for well over ten years on the line of scrimage. We've had some good players and our moments, but for the most part, not dominating play on either side of the ball regarding line play. Its no big shocker that TO tells Riley his advice of running the ball. TO knows Riley runs and always has run a pass first offense. TO like all great coaches understands that FB games are won in the trenches. He knows if you control the offensive line and run the ball you control the clock and usually win the game., Long sustained drives running the ball will tire the opponets defense, eat the clock and destroy your opponents will. Riley is a Pac 12 guy and its just not the type of Football they play for the most part in the Pac 12. Until that mentality of dominating both sides of the football and the mentality of being able to run the ball on anyone is restablished I don't see much changing. As far as the orginal topic goes BYU is a tough opener. I dont feel its a huge deal if Nebraska loses that game. BYU is well coached they play hard and they have several mature players on the team due to the two year mormon missions. Also the QB they're bringing into Lincoln is one of the best the Huskers will face. He's very dangerous throwing and running. With that said I still feel Nebraska wins the game, but I think it will be very close.

Good points.

That's why we used to dominate so much when we had the s&c edge. We didn't recruit o-linemen we built them.

Also, don't forget it helps toughen up your own Defense by practicing against your run first offense. Also, keeping your defense off the field with long sustained drives keeps your D fresh.

you are so right, we built linemen, out of whomever we recruited, we looked at the body type and shoved them into the weight room and 2 years later we had animals!

we used to run the fullbacks too.....i forget the FB we sent to the 49 ers......we used to pound the defenses we played with these guys and wear them down to nothing by the 4th quarter

hell, Imani hardly touched the ball......or any other FB we had in the past 5-6 years, Beck was always trying to hit the home run with speed.....pound the middle relentlessly and you will quickly kill the defense.....Minnesota and Wisconsin get it......

 

[DrunkOffPunch]

It makes at least some sense to predict when you have a rough idea of what the team will be. Do we, right now?

They can't lose to Michigan State, Wisconsin, Minnesota? These teams won last year.

They can't lose to Iowa? That was a very close game.

They can't lose to Northwestern? (Well, that would be surprising, I admit, but those teams are well coached, too.)

They can't lose to Miami and BYU?

If Tommy stays a 50% thrower, and the defensive front seven gets worked regularly?

I mean, they could also run the table or go 11-1. All those games are possible wins, too, of course.

I understand your point. But based on what we have done and what we know we're capable of there's just no excuse for anything less than a 9-3 regular season. I know it's a new staff and all, but it's not really about what could happen. I'm basing it on what will probably happen, or should happen.
We could go 2-10 too, but it's not gonna happen. It just aint.

But what have "we" done? We as in the Bo Pelini directed defense with Randy Gregory, and the 4th year Tim Beck offense led by Ameer Abdullah and provided its lone vertical threat by Kenny Bell?
That team lost to Michigan State, got stomped by Wisconsin, lost to Minnesota, and nearly lost to Iowa. Without Ameer, an early season letdown against McNeese St. wasn't even out of the question. That could be 4 conference losses right there. Based on what we have done, and what we know we're capable of -- some good games, some absurd slip ups.

I think they're capable of 10 wins next year, for sure, but would 6 or 7 be so stunning?

Looking at the conference, wisky loses basically entire offense in Gordon leaving, MSU loses their top rb, top wr, and like 85% of their defense from two years ago is gone. Minnesota loses their best rb in a decade and a game changing TE. All of those games were winnable. Our problems over the Pelini era were an offense with no identity, and a defense that looked lost. Those led to our mental mistakes that had some fans watching their cholesterol levels sky rocket. Riley just seems like the kinda guy that always has an answer. Really excited for this season.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Lets see, new offense, unbalanced position alignment, poor tackling, undisciplined O-Line & dough boy syndrome. This is just a few issues and this is supposed to be fixed in 6 months?

I would expect a slightly better team than the one that lost a close game to USC two months ago.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Blame Bo, blame the QB, blame recruiting.....the games are won and lost in the trenches. Always have been and always will be. The Oregon ducks will continue to wow with speed and scoring, but until they figure out you win in the trenches same result. The Huskers have been weak for well over ten years on the line of scrimage. We've had some good players and our moments, but for the most part, not dominating play on either side of the ball regarding line play. Its no big shocker that TO tells Riley his advice of running the ball. TO knows Riley runs and always has run a pass first offense. TO like all great coaches understands that FB games are won in the trenches. He knows if you control the offensive line and run the ball you control the clock and usually win the game., Long sustained drives running the ball will tire the opponets defense, eat the clock and destroy your opponents will. Riley is a Pac 12 guy and its just not the type of Football they play for the most part in the Pac 12. Until that mentality of dominating both sides of the football and the mentality of being able to run the ball on anyone is restablished I don't see much changing. As far as the orginal topic goes BYU is a tough opener. I dont feel its a huge deal if Nebraska loses that game. BYU is well coached they play hard and they have several mature players on the team due to the two year mormon missions. Also the QB they're bringing into Lincoln is one of the best the Huskers will face. He's very dangerous throwing and running. With that said I still feel Nebraska wins the game, but I think it will be very close.

Good points.

That's why we used to dominate so much when we had the s&c edge. We didn't recruit o-linemen we built them.

Also, don't forget it helps toughen up your own Defense by practicing against your run first offense. Also, keeping your defense off the field with long sustained drives keeps your D fresh.

you are so right, we built linemen, out of whomever we recruited, we looked at the body type and shoved them into the weight room and 2 years later we had animals!

we used to run the fullbacks too.....i forget the FB we sent to the 49 ers......we used to pound the defenses we played with these guys and wear them down to nothing by the 4th quarter

hell, Imani hardly touched the ball......or any other FB we had in the past 5-6 years, Beck was always trying to hit the home run with speed.....pound the middle relentlessly and you will quickly kill the defense.....Minnesota and Wisconsin get it......

No, that was more like 4-5 years later we had animals. And, the players now days could probably rival them in strength. The difference is the guys on the other side of the line are now just as strong because their weight training is top notch also.

 

[Mavric]

I don't think winning only 8 games would be a failure but I have a hard time figuring out why so many are almost expecting fewer wins. We have basically the same schedule as last year. BYU is an upgrade over Fresno but it's at home instead of on the road. We also get Wisconsin, Michigan State and Iowa at home after traveling last year. Barely more than a wash, if that. We lost about the least amount of players as is possible - though we admittedly lost the best player on both sides of the ball. And if it was really so much the coaches' fault the last few years, surely even average coaching would at least make up for any difficulties in transition.

And I'm not so sure I buy the tough transition argument very much anyway. It's well documented that Harbaugh has improved every place he's gone. Saban didn't have any trouble. Those are pretty high standards but can anyone site any examples of teams that got noticeably worse after a coaching change where that same coach in that same job eventually got them significantly better? I'm not saying we should expect significant improvements in year one but surely we can at least expect similar success.

 

[Landlord]

And I'm not so sure I buy the tough transition argument very much anyway. It's well documented that Harbaugh has improved every place he's gone. Saban didn't have any trouble. Those are pretty high standards but can anyone site any examples of teams that got noticeably worse after a coaching change where that same coach in that same job eventually got them significantly better? I'm not saying we should expect significant improvements in year one but surely we can at least expect similar success.

Harbaugh went 4-8, 5-7, 8-5 in his first three years at Stanford, inheriting a team that went 4-7, 5-6, 1-11 before him.

Saban went 7-6 his first year at Bama, following a team that went 10-2 and 6-7 the years before him.

Strong went 6-7 last year, after Mack's last two teams went 9-4 and 8-5.

Dabo Swinney went 9-5, 6-7, 10-4 after following a team that went 8-4, 8-5 and 9-4 before him.

There's plenty of data for coaches that have struggled earlier and gotten better later, and there's also evidence of coaches that had huge success early on and couldn't sustain it. Hell, Hoke went 11-2 his first season. There might not be a ton of data for your very specific parameters, but that's because we are kind of unique in our propensity to fire 9/10 win coaches. Most new head coaches don't have as much room to get 'noticeably worse' because their predecessor wasn't getting 9 wins.

There's plenty of argument for transitional struggles. At the end of the day, people need to face the reality that it is possible that Mike Riley simply won't do as good as Bo Pelini. There is no way of telling if he will or won't, but both are possible. As much as people want to get on board the feel-good train that makes our former staff out to be a bunch of middle school assistant volunteers, you don't get 9-10 wins each season by not knowing how to coach at all.

 

[Mavric]

And I'm not so sure I buy the tough transition argument very much anyway. It's well documented that Harbaugh has improved every place he's gone. Saban didn't have any trouble. Those are pretty high standards but can anyone site any examples of teams that got noticeably worse after a coaching change where that same coach in that same job eventually got them significantly better? I'm not saying we should expect significant improvements in year one but surely we can at least expect similar success.

Harbaugh went 4-8, 5-7, 8-5 in his first three years at Stanford, inheriting a team that went 4-7, 5-6, 1-11 before him.

Saban went 7-6 his first year at Bama, following a team that went 10-2 and 6-7 the years before him.

Strong went 6-7 last year, after Mack's last two teams went 9-4 and 8-5.

Dabo Swinney went 9-5, 6-7, 10-4 after following a team that went 8-4, 8-5 and 9-4 before him.

There's plenty of data for coaches that have struggled earlier and gotten better later, and there's also evidence of coaches that had huge success early on and couldn't sustain it. Hell, Hoke went 11-2 his first season. There might not be a ton of data for your very specific parameters, but that's because we are kind of unique in our propensity to fire 9/10 win coaches. Most new head coaches don't have as much room to get 'noticeably worse' because their predecessor wasn't getting 9 wins.

There's plenty of argument for transitional struggles. At the end of the day, people need to face the reality that it is possible that Mike Riley simply won't do as good as Bo Pelini. There is no way of telling if he will or won't, but both are possible. As much as people want to get on board the feel-good train that makes our former staff out to be a bunch of middle school assistant volunteers, you don't get 9-10 wins each season by not knowing how to coach at all.

But none of those examples you gave got worse in their first year. Except Strong but it's yet to be seen if he'll actually make them better. If there's plenty of data, it should be hard to show some examples, right?

I know there's plenty that got better over time but I'm talking about the transition from one to the next.

 

[TheSker]

Most new head coaches don't have as much room to get 'noticeably worse' because their predecessor wasn't getting 9 wins.

Exactly correct and a reason why the Riley tenure has a real shot at being Callahan v.2

 

[Landlord]

But none of those examples you gave got worse in their first year. Except Strong but it's yet to be seen if he'll actually make them better. If there's plenty of data, it should be hard to show some examples, right?

I know there's plenty that got better over time but I'm talking about the transition from one to the next.

Show me teams that had 9 wins in their last two years with their head coach and then we can look to see if there are examples of new coaches that came in and got worse.

It's a lot easier to get worse from 9-4 than it is to get worse from 6-6.