Looking Back ... Looking Forward

[Mavric]

We have a better roster than every team we play except for 1, maybe 2.

This seems like a bold claim to make for a team that's looked pretty on par with Iowa these last two years and lost to Minnesota in both of them.

Maybe you're right about the roster, but after last year -- when they played in a familiar system -- that stock is low, for me.

It's really funny that Nick Saban's 6-6 inaugural season isn't seen as a concern because it wasn't regression. Forget this "last year of predecessor" business. A coach can struggle initially before piecing together a strong program. There's no immediate gratification here, but the comparisons I'm interested in making are Year 1 to Years 2, 3, 4 for Mike Riley.

Why would having the same record as the year before while beating two Top 25 teams be cause for a concern? If it's so common to struggle in the first year, I would think two Top 25 wins and a bowl win would be seen as a pretty good success.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Why do so many people act like they are going to make their mind up on if Riley is a successful hire on the win loss record of his first year here? Is that really a fair way of looking at things?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

You're making that strictly on wins and losses. So, you are doing basically what you said you weren't doing.

Let me ask this.

Let's say we start off the year with a loss to either BYU or Miami due to the team adjusting to the new schemes. From there, we start seeing the team improve only to have TA and Bush both go down with season ending injuries. Now, let's say Rose-Ivey, Collins and Banderas also go down with injuries and we end up losing Northwestern, MSU, Iowa and the bowl game also due to lack of depth at those positions to make up for those losses.

Is that an indication that Riley "isn't as good as advertised"? Or, are there things a first year coach just needs to work through before he can truly show us what he can do here?

Obviously, those are extenuating circumstances. But if we don't have a million injuriies, and instead lose to BYU, Miami, MSU, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, then what?

You tell me? You're the one making judgements on the first year based on wins and losses.

Then maybe Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought. It's possible to make a judgment without making the final judgement.

Although you use the words "maybe" "possible" and "some" I would say this qualifies as an agenda.

Especially when you keep repeating it.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

We have a better roster than every team we play except for 1, maybe 2. We seem to have a consensus that we improved our coaching staff by leaps and bounds.

Whoa. Missed that line the first time.

Dude, you definitely have an agenda.

 

[Saunders]

We have a better roster than every team we play except for 1, maybe 2.

This seems like a bold claim to make for a team that's looked pretty on par with Iowa these last two years and lost to Minnesota in both of them.

Maybe you're right about the roster, but after last year -- when they played in a familiar system -- that stock is low, for me.

It's really funny that Nick Saban's 6-6 inaugural season isn't seen as a concern because it wasn't regression. Forget this "last year of predecessor" business. A coach can struggle initially before piecing together a strong program. There's no immediate gratification here, but the comparisons I'm interested in making are Year 1 to Years 2, 3, 4 for Mike Riley.

http://athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-big-tens-football-rosters-2015

 

[Saunders]

Will someone please tell me what my agenda is then?

We have a better roster than every team we play except for 1, maybe 2. We seem to have a consensus that we improved our coaching staff by leaps and bounds.

Whoa. Missed that line the first time.

Dude, you definitely have an agenda.

If that "agenda" is that I expect the team to win, then I guess I'm guilty. Bo didn't get the job done, and I expect Coach Riley to take us to the next level, and I believe he can do it. There's absolutely nothing wrong with that.

Now, can you tell me exactly what my "agenda" is, specifically in reference to that line? Do you doubt the recruiting rankings, or the ability of Riley and his staff?

 

[Saunders]

We have a better roster than every team we play except for 1, maybe 2.

This seems like a bold claim to make for a team that's looked pretty on par with Iowa these last two years and lost to Minnesota in both of them.

Maybe you're right about the roster, but after last year -- when they played in a familiar system -- that stock is low, for me.

It's really funny that Nick Saban's 6-6 inaugural season isn't seen as a concern because it wasn't regression. Forget this "last year of predecessor" business. A coach can struggle initially before piecing together a strong program. There's no immediate gratification here, but the comparisons I'm interested in making are Year 1 to Years 2, 3, 4 for Mike Riley.

Why would having the same record as the year before while beating two Top 25 teams be cause for a concern? If it's so common to struggle in the first year, I would think two Top 25 wins and a bowl win would be seen as a pretty good success.

Careful now. You might be labeled as having an "agenda" if you dare to have expectations, or a baseline with which to measure performance.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Will someone please tell me what my agenda is then?

We have a better roster than every team we play except for 1, maybe 2. We seem to have a consensus that we improved our coaching staff by leaps and bounds.

Whoa. Missed that line the first time.

Dude, you definitely have an agenda.

If that "agenda" is that I expect the team to win, then I guess...

Now, can you tell me exactly what my "agenda" is, specifically in reference to that line? Do you doubt the recruiting rankings, or the ability of Riley and his staff?

No problem.

You've overstated the quality of Nebraska's roster, overstated the fawning over the new coaching staff, and set a precise numerical standard Mike Riley must achieve.

Despite your protests, you don't expect Riley to meet that standard, at which point you're well-prepared, some might say giddy to point out that Riley wasn't as good as advertised, and Bo Pelini deserves an apology. You fantasize about making people in here eat crow.

Come on. You know you do.

You've passed a lot of judgement without watching a single game.

A lot of stuff can happen that doesn't fit into your two self-serving categories.

 

[zoogs]

I don't think that's fair to saunders.

But I don't really understand the point of needing to make a snap judgment. If Riley wins 11-12 games then he probably did a good job but Bo also probably left the team in good shape (something we don't know just from recruiting rankings, sorry). We might even end up saying, "Gosh, that Bo sure could recruit compared to Riley, who can't win with his own guys" in the end. If Riley wins 7-8, maybe it's a bad sign or maybe that roster just wasn't what it's cracked up to be.

In either case, we won't have learned too much because so many factors are at play here. This is an inherited team full of players who have mostly had more time being developed by past coaches (some good, some not as good, running different systems, in a different culture).

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

I'd be satisfied with waiting until Mike Riley's first season is over to decide how I feel about Mike Riley's first season.

 

[The Dude]

I'd be satisfied with waiting until Mike Riley's first season is over to decide how I feel about Mike Riley's first season.

That makes it difficult to defend Bo Pelini's honor, but I suppose we could give it a shot.

 

[teachercd]

I'd be satisfied with waiting until Mike Riley's first season is over to decide how I feel about Mike Riley's first season.

So you really have no idea how you will feel if NU wins 0-5 games this season? You have no idea how you will feel if they win 10-14 games this season?

Come on...Everyone will be pissed if its 0-5 wins...everyone will be creaming their jorts if its 10-14 wins.

The problem is...6-9 wins is where the "arguing" will be.

For me...I am putting on my crappiest pair of jorts because I am expecting to cream.

 

[zoogs]

We have a better roster than every team we play except for 1, maybe 2.

This seems like a bold claim to make for a team that's looked pretty on par with Iowa these last two years and lost to Minnesota in both of them (...)

It's really funny that Nick Saban's 6-6 inaugural season isn't seen as a concern because it wasn't regression. Forget this "last year of predecessor" business (...)

http://athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-big-tens-football-rosters-2015

Alabama lost 6 games in 2007 despite having the #10, #11, #18, and #24 classes in the previous four years by Rivals (#15.75). Nebraska has averaged #29.5 in the last four, although that's by 247 (it's #26.25 by Rivals).

If Saban were such a good coach, you might expect him to actually have done something with those classes. Or maybe he did, and it just took more than one year.

From 2005-2008, Nebraska went (by Rivals again) #30, #13, #20, #5 (#17 average). The logic being employed here says Bo just needed to win 5 games in 2008 to not regress.

Can we have a coach agnostic baseline for this program? That being the 8-9 win, 2nd-3rd division finish. It's not acceptable to stay there forever without trending back up. It's not acceptable to go below that line, except in cases where it's clearly understandable why (your "freak injury"s or "every single coach changed" or "schemes on both sides of ball scrapped").

 

[Saunders]

We have a better roster than every team we play except for 1, maybe 2.

This seems like a bold claim to make for a team that's looked pretty on par with Iowa these last two years and lost to Minnesota in both of them (...)

It's really funny that Nick Saban's 6-6 inaugural season isn't seen as a concern because it wasn't regression. Forget this "last year of predecessor" business (...)

http://athlonsports.com/college-football/ranking-big-tens-football-rosters-2015

Alabama lost 6 games in 2007 despite having the #10, #11, #18, and #24 classes in the previous four years by Rivals (#15.75). Nebraska has averaged #29.5 in the last four, although that's by 247 (it's #26.25 by Rivals).

If Saban were such a good coach, you might expect him to actually have done something with those classes. Or maybe he did, and it just took more than one year.

From 2005-2008, Nebraska went (by Rivals again) #30, #13, #20, #5 (#17 average). The logic being employed here says Bo just needed to win 5 games in 2008 to not regress.

Can we have a coach agnostic baseline for this program? That being the 8-9 win, 2nd-3rd division finish. It's not acceptable to stay there forever without trending back up. It's not acceptable to go below that line, except in cases where it's clearly understandable why (your "freak injury"s or "every single coach changed" or "schemes on both sides of ball scrapped").

I agree with your overall sentiment, but here's a couple of things. Yes, Bama recruited well, but so did most of their division. The B1G West... does not, and that's being kind. Shula's teams also weren't very good. He had 1 winning season in 4 years.

As for your final statement, I agree 100%.

 

[Saunders]

Will someone please tell me what my agenda is then?

We have a better roster than every team we play except for 1, maybe 2. We seem to have a consensus that we improved our coaching staff by leaps and bounds.

Whoa. Missed that line the first time.

Dude, you definitely have an agenda.

If that "agenda" is that I expect the team to win, then I guess...

Now, can you tell me exactly what my "agenda" is, specifically in reference to that line? Do you doubt the recruiting rankings, or the ability of Riley and his staff?

No problem.

You've overstated the quality of Nebraska's roster, overstated the fawning over the new coaching staff, and set a precise numerical standard Mike Riley must achieve.

Despite your protests, you don't expect Riley to meet that standard, at which point you're well-prepared, some might say giddy to point out that Riley wasn't as good as advertised, and Bo Pelini deserves an apology. You fantasize about making people in here eat crow.

Come on. You know you do.

You've passed a lot of judgement without watching a single game.

A lot of stuff can happen that doesn't fit into your two self-serving categories.

I pointed out proof of Nebraska's roster (links supported by data, no opinions) being stronger, and if you want, I can provide proof of opinions on the new staff (I post links all the time when outsiders discuss Nebraska, check my post history), but a simple scan on the front page will give you that info. I normally agree with alot of what you post, but not this time.

I guarantee you there's not a poster on this board who wants Riley to succeed more than I do. The wife and I are taking our 2 boys from Florida to Lincoln for their first ever Husker game. I've already put in for tickets, vacation days, and am waiting on plane tickets for the Iowa game, where I expect Nebraska to clinch the division.

Simply put, you are flat out 100% wrong in your assessment of where I stand.

¯\_(ツ)_/¯

 

[TheSker]

.

Let's say we start off the year with a loss to either BYU or Miami due to the team adjusting to the new schemes. From there, we start seeing the team improve only to have TA and Bush both go down with season ending injuries.

Is that Ol' Urb at the back of the room giving you funny looks?