Everybody just needs to settle down and...

Mavric said:
Which is what we were told after his first year because he had to get better players.

Which is what we were told after "no blowout" losses turned out to be bunk because he needed a QB for his system.

Which is what we were told when his first recruiting class turned out to be not so hot because the 2017 class was going to be special.

Which is what we were told after the 2017 recruiting class turned out to be solid but nothing spectacular.

Which is what we were told after our defense against Arkansas State was supposedly just playing vanilla and the DC thought played "fantastic"

Lather, rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...


It honestly baffles me that you dump as much time into recruiting as you do to be this jaded.

 
zoogs said:
A perspective grounded in "we were sold a false bill of goods regarding this coaching staff" explains a lot about the tone in which current events get described.
Click to expand...


Not gonna lie.  This does not help my level of disappointment.

I honestly can only think of one thing about Riley that people were really trumpeting when he was hired that turned out to be true.  He's a nice guy.  

Like you said, perhaps it will turn out differently.  But I'm not holding my breath at this point.

 
1995 Redux said:
It honestly baffles me that you dump as much time into recruiting as you do to be this jaded.
Click to expand...


"Jaded" implies not seeing things as they really are.  

I don't think there isn't anything in my post that is not factually correct.

As to spending that much time on it, you can probably thank my (undaignosed) OCD for that.   ;)

 
Mavric said:
"Jaded" implies not seeing things as they really are.  

I don't think there isn't anything in my post that is not factually correct.

As to spending that much time on it, you can probably thank my (undaignosed) OCD for that.   ;)
Click to expand...
Mav, you pay attention to recruiting much more than I do.  So, if the recruiting has improved under Riley, and the results don't pan out in terms of wins and losses, it would be fair to say that Riley and the other coaches aren't very good at developing the talent, game planning, and game management.

I know that talent is the trump card most is the time, but good coaching can turn teams into winners, as well. That's what we are missing with Riley and his staff. 

 
Mavric said:
Which is what we were told after his first year because he had to get better players.

Which is what we were told after "no blowout" losses turned out to be bunk because he needed a QB for his system.

Which is what we were told when his first recruiting class turned out to be not so hot because the 2017 class was going to be special.

Which is what we were told after the 2017 recruiting class turned out to be solid but nothing spectacular.

Which is what we were told after our defense against Arkansas State was supposedly just playing vanilla and the DC thought played "fantastic"

Lather, rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...
This post 100%. I am tired of the excuses, I am tired of the hype, I am tired of the kool aid, I am no longer thirsty.

Even this week after giving up over 400 yards in a half and 42 points in a half they tried to spin it as a positive because of what was done in the second half. Bogus! The reason we lost the game was because of the epic collapse in the first half. Football is a 2 half game so if you crap the bed in one half, it's part of the full game.

I am just tired of it. We probably win next week and get told how great of an improvement the defense is. We probably beat Illinois because they are horrible and get told we have momentum. Then Wisconsin will come in and punch us in the mouth and we will lose and be told "Its a new defensive scheme, give it time" rhetoric again.

All awhile having to pay to read these articles that feed us hope and promise, just to get us by week after week.

Enough already. Lets start winning games to prove what we are worth.

 
Mavric said:
Which is what we were told after his first year because he had to get better players.

Which is what we were told after "no blowout" losses turned out to be bunk because he needed a QB for his system.

Which is what we were told when his first recruiting class turned out to be not so hot because the 2017 class was going to be special.

Which is what we were told after the 2017 recruiting class turned out to be solid but nothing spectacular.

Which is what we were told after our defense against Arkansas State was supposedly just playing vanilla and the DC thought played "fantastic"

Lather, rinse, repeat.
Click to expand...
While this is all true, as a fan, you are always hoping for the best and things get better. For some, it's believing that this is all part of the process by overemphasizing the positives and downplaying/making excuses for the negatives. For others, they just hope it eventually clicks and all comes together. And others just want to hit reset and start over.

 
ColoradoHusk said:
Mav, you pay attention to recruiting much more than I do.  So, if the recruiting has improved under Riley, and the results don't pan out in terms of wins and losses, it would be fair to say that Riley and the other coaches aren't very good at developing the talent, game planning, and game management.

I know that talent is the trump card most is the time, but good coaching can turn teams into winners, as well. That's what we are missing with Riley and his staff. 
Click to expand...


My own personal opinion - which I have numbers to back up - is that Riley's first two classes were basically average classes that Bo put together.  They were better than Bo's last couple classes but definitely not as good as a couple of his middle classes.

Now, since Bo's last couple classes were not as good, it's fair to say that the upper-classmen we've had haven't been our best.  However, it's equally fair to say that Riley's three years have followed a steady patter when it comes to roster talent - one team on our schedule (probably two this year) have more talent than us, one team has about the same talent we have and we have noticeably more talent than the rest of our schedule.  So it's not like we have a huge hill to climb to be competitive in most all our games.

I've always thought that judging "player development" is really just in the eye of the beholder.  If you think a coach is under-performing, it's because they're not developing talent.  If they have good success, they're great at developing talent.  And there could be some of that.  But you're always going to have under-rated players who shine (Ameer Abdullah) and higher-rated players who "bust" so it's really hard to know.  

I put a lot more value in schemes - mainly because we can actually get a look at them to get a little better idea if the players are being put in a position to succeed.  For as critical as I sometimes am of Langsdorf, I've always said I don't necessarily think he's a bad OC.  I'm just not sure if he's a good fit.  I think he tends to like to throw more than will lead to a lot of success with the players that we have.  He can draw up some great plays - I noted a couple in the "What Did We Learn" thread from this week. But I think he needs NFL-level QB play to really make it go and that's hard to do for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is practice time to implement it.

I think by far Riley's biggest failing is being able to find a DC who can formulate a competent game plan.  Banker was just flat terrible all the way around.  I think Diaco's issue is he's trying to be too cute in a basic - albeit contradictory - way.  He appears to be convinced that he can play his base package all the time.  And he's so sure his scheme will work that he doesn't bother to have guys line up in a way that puts them in the best position to succeed.  Basically, he's out-thinking himself.

So I think our game planning is definitely lacking, especially on the defensive side.  And game management is also poor.  Diaco has made a couple tweaks in the second half of both games but I can't for the life of me figure out why the tweaks he made against Arkansas State weren't part of the original plan against Oregon when it was obvious from the Arky St game that the base plan doesn't work.  Well, it was obvious to basically everyone but Diaco anyway.  And why could we not make any of those adjustments after their second score - or the third, or the fourth - instead of waiting until after half time?  I don't get it.

 
commando said:
you guys have convinced me that it is too miserable to be a husker fan.   got any suggestions for a team that never loses or makes mistakes for me to go root for?  
Click to expand...
It's understandable if watching N has made you miserable.  OSU, Clemson, Alabama, Wisconsin are teams to watch if you like good football.  Obviously you don't have to root for them but I get more enjoyment watching their games than my favorite team.  I guess being a Husker fan all of my life got me used to watching a well coached, prepared team full of players that play with a lot of pride so that's what I'm drawn to.

 
Mavric said:
My own personal opinion - which I have numbers to back up - is that Riley's first two classes were basically average classes that Bo put together.  They were better than Bo's last couple classes but definitely not as good as a couple of his middle classes.

Now, since Bo's last couple classes were not as good, it's fair to say that the upper-classmen we've had haven't been our best.  However, it's equally fair to say that Riley's three years have followed a steady patter when it comes to roster talent - one team on our schedule (probably two this year) have more talent than us, one team has about the same talent we have and we have noticeably more talent than the rest of our schedule.  So it's not like we have a huge hill to climb to be competitive in most all our games.

I've always thought that judging "player development" is really just in the eye of the beholder.  If you think a coach is under-performing, it's because they're not developing talent.  If they have good success, they're great at developing talent.  And there could be some of that.  But you're always going to have under-rated players who shine (Ameer Abdullah) and higher-rated players who "bust" so it's really hard to know.  

I put a lot more value in schemes - mainly because we can actually get a look at them to get a little better idea if the players are being put in a position to succeed.  For as critical as I sometimes am of Langsdorf, I've always said I don't necessarily think he's a bad OC.  I'm just not sure if he's a good fit.  I think he tends to like to throw more than will lead to a lot of success with the players that we have.  He can draw up some great plays - I noted a couple in the "What Did We Learn" thread from this week. But I think he needs NFL-level QB play to really make it go and that's hard to do for a lot of reasons, not the least of which is practice time to implement it.

I think by far Riley's biggest failing is being able to find a DC who can formulate a competent game plan.  Banker was just flat terrible all the way around.  I think Diaco's issue is he's trying to be too cute in a basic - albeit contradictory - way.  He appears to be convinced that he can play his base package all the time.  And he's so sure his scheme will work that he doesn't bother to have guys line up in a way that puts them in the best position to succeed.  Basically, he's out-thinking himself.

So I think our game planning is definitely lacking, especially on the defensive side.  And game management is also poor.  Diaco has made a couple tweaks in the second half of both games but I can't for the life of me figure out why the tweaks he made against Arkansas State weren't part of the original plan against Oregon when it was obvious from the Arky St game that the base plan doesn't work.  Well, it was obvious to basically everyone but Diaco anyway.  And why could we not make any of those adjustments after their second score - or the third, or the fourth - instead of waiting until after half time?  I don't get it.
Click to expand...


Completly agree on your defensive points. Oregon did have some wrinkles they there in, but I don't understand the delay in adjustment. My only assumption is the kids still aren't there mentally yet? Secondary is young and inexperienced. 

 
4skers89 said:
It's understandable if watching N has made you miserable.  OSU, Clemson, Alabama, Wisconsin are teams to watch if you like good football.  Obviously you don't have to root for them but I get more enjoyment watching their games than my favorite team.  I guess being a Husker fan all of my life got me used to watching a well coached, prepared team full of players that play with a lot of pride so that's what I'm drawn to.
Click to expand...
sadly horrible to admit, but true so true

that is where I am at

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top