I wouldn't find it surprising at all to see a team that loses by far its best players on offense, doesn't have a quarterback, inherits a shaky situation at DE & LB, and is changing schemes on both sides of the ball along with every single coach, might win fewer games this year than last year. Considering last year was a pretty flat performance that was closer to 8 than 10 wins.
I mean, this team was in nailbiters with McNeese St., Minnesota, and Iowa. They just managed to take 2 out of those 3 to get to 9. Really don't think we're at a point to write off too many teams on the schedule.
Maybe the transition will be seamless. Maybe they'll not take so long to work with "any individual player." Or maybe not.
What I find silly is the idea that if Riley doesn't win 10? 11? games in Year One, it would somehow prove something one way or another. That's a standard that seems to be applied only to Mike Riley.
Yes, we had close games, some wins, some losses. We could have been 7-5 (losses to McNeese, Iowa), but could have also been 12-1 (Wins against USC, Minnesota, and MSU). It's basically the whole BP era in a nutshell.
My point was, simple. There seems to be a sentiment with a segment of the board that everything in the BP era was a clownshow, and we've upgraded at every coaching position (we couldn't recruit either, remember?). If that's the case, then even with a regress at talent in certain positions, the coaching should overcome that issue.
The truth is somewhere in the middle.