Nathan Gerry

[Branno]

^I swear that is the worst argument

Sadly...the worst argument is that the players weren't playing hard and that there was sabotage going on behind the scenes. It just isn't the case.

The players played hard and the coaches did the very best they could. They just happened to have some crappy breaks, like all teams, get out talented at times and out coached at times. It happens. No need to invent some crazy reason why.

I don't understand how anyone can claim anything other than this.

To those that are backing up the insane argument that Chimichangas and Blitz are making. I'll be the first to admit Gerry had a bad game against Purdue in 2015, but then again so did the entire team. But I just don't understand how anyone can argue the coaches had 0 blame for the first two years of the Riley regime. There neither evidence that Gerry or any player went out there and didn't try to win every game nor evidence that the players were colluding against Riley. This is some f'd up fantasy, built from adding context to player statements. Show me one quote that states Gerry didn't try. One.

You can't, because in your weird brain you equate a statement on buy-in to not trying. You then have the gall to act like anyone that disagrees with you is crazy or lying.

How a fan could be so blinded by their hate for Pelini that they allow it to turn into hate and disparagement of college aged kids is beyond me.

 

[Mavric]

https://twitter.com/eagles/status/858410879771181060

Yeah, Nebraska tried Gerry at LB...he's not tough, or physical, enough to play LB.

He's Charmin. A soft, weak, half-speed, player.

Sorry fellow Nebraska fans, I'm just not a Nate Gerry fan. I think he embodied and carried forward for two years, every thing wrong about the former coach.

If he excels with the Eagles, terrific, I'll congratulate him. But I'll never root for, or like, him as person or player.

dude, you have a grudge problem, this kid is the sh#t!....he will play a role for the Eagles!

I'm not saying he won't.

I'm saying not a fan of his. His words, after the loss to Purdue in 2015, still rankle me. He flat out admitted that they hadn't "bought in." The extremely poor play we saw against BYU, Illinois, Purdue, etc, painfully highlighted the lack of "buy in."

In football speak, not "buying in" means you go half speed, you don't care, and you're holding a grudge because the coach who recruited you got fired.

And then he didn't do his school work and wasn't eligible for the bowl game his senior year--which was 100% inexcusable.

So yeah...not a fan of the former #25.

The lack of buy-in was on Riley. His job was to coach and inspire this team to win games.
We lost most of those games because of a poor scheme, not because the players weren't trying hard enough. If it was that easy, we wouldn't have just hired two new coordinators.

It's 100% understandable to be upset that his inability to go to class resulted in his suspension, but that kid played hard for us.

Dude, buy in is on the kids...not the coaches. The coaches are already bought in to their program and how they run things. Kids have to step on the bus. You can't make kids you coach do anything...they have to want to do it. You can't force kids you coach to do anything more than I could force a liberal to 'buy in' on conservatism.

We lost those games because the players lacked focus because they didn't care enough....they were still pissed that Pelini was gone...and they admitted they did that.

.... and because our defensive coordinator and special teams coordinator were terrible.

Were they terrible because they were terrible or were they terrible because the kids didn't buy in?

What you said isn't a fact...it's just an opinion. Just like what I said.

Well, my opinion was apparently shared by Riley so.....

Was it? Did he say that? Or did he just decide to change the scheme?

Because my opinion was shared by the players (Gerry) so...

If that's the kind of mental gymnastics you have to resort you to avoid blaming the coaches for anything......

 

[Nebfanatic]

^I swear that is the worst argument

Sadly...the worst argument is that the players weren't playing hard and that there was sabotage going on behind the scenes. It just isn't the case.
The players played hard and the coaches did the very best they could. They just happened to have some crappy breaks, like all teams, get out talented at times and out coached at times. It happens. No need to invent some crazy reason why.

I don't disagree with this. I was never under the impression players were purposely sabotaging the teams success. I do think there wasn't buy in and possible freelance play due to lack of trust in the defensive system that I think could have caused problems. In my opinion that is partially a player problem, but I will not shy away from saying that is a coaching problem as well. I just think Riley's record at Oregon State isn't necessarily indicative of his ability. I don't think he is a coach that will only win at a .500 no matter where he goes. Some on this board (not necessarily you teach) truly believe Riley would run a .500 program if he took over for Alabama right now.

 

[Mavric]

I mean .... I realize you don't actually have an argument to make so you're stuck grasping at straws and trying to reuse things I've said.

But you don't fire a guy who's worked for you for years over the phone just because you suddenly decided to change schemes. I had complained from the first game that Banker's scheme was terrible and wouldn't work. People mocked me for repeatedly bringing it up, saying they couldn't believe someone who was a Husker fan would talk about him like that. But it was painfully obvious to anyone who would take an objective look at it.

And they already tried letting Banker change the scheme. We ran an almost completely different scheme last year to what we ran the year before. It did do a better job of limiting the big pass plays but other than that it really wasn't much better than before, it just looked better because we played a lot of really bad offenses.

Banker was fired because he wasn't very good. Did Riley say exactly that? No. Pretty sure no one ever actually says that. But he said he had given him things that needed to improve and they weren't happening.

Mike Riley said Friday that his film review of Nebraska's 38-24 loss to Tennessee in the Dec. 30 Music City Bowl was a key element in his decision to fire defensive coordinator Mark Banker.

"Some of the things we had kind of earmarked as things that needed to be changed from a year ago were the same things I saw we had issues with in the game," Riley said. "That isn't all of it. But it put a little bit of an exclamation point on it, I guess."

What had Riley earmarked in the preseason? Well, two elements come to mind: Riley wanted the defense to reduce the number of big plays allowed, and create more turnovers.

Against Tennessee, Nebraska's defense failed to force a turnover (JoJo Domann forced the Huskers' lone turnover, a fumble on kickoff coverage). Meanwhile, the Volunteers, led by dual-threat quarterback Joshua Dobbs, rattled off nine rushes of 10 yards or more, including six before halftime.

Right after Nebraska pulled 31-24 early in the fourth quarter, Dobbs' 59-yard touchdown strike to Josh Malone was a crusher.

The Huskers allowed three pass plays of 30 yards or more -- not a terrible number.

But Riley saw too many troublesome issues.

LJS

 

[Elf]

But in this era of #AlternativeFacts and #FakeNews...you're free to believe whatever you wish

I definitely agree with this part of your post. It is astutely observed.

So you're going to take all the bad play over the last two (to five) years and pretty much blame Gerry for it. Or at least take it as evidence that no one on the team was even trying. That's quite a blanket to throw.

So despite playing half-speed, intentionally sabotaging the team and missing at least parts of several games, Gerry over the last two years was still only one tackle from leading the team over that time and and had 60% more interceptions than anyone else on the team?

Imagine how good of a player he'll be now that he isn't actually trying to be bad.

Ahh, you're trolling again. I'm not biting.

 

[Elf]

Banker was fired because he wasn't very good

But he said he had given him things that needed to improve and they weren't happening.

So which is it? Was he fired because he wasn't very good? (Even Riley doesn't believe that. If he did, Banker never would have been hired to begin with.) Or was it because Riley gave him things to improve on and he didn't improve?

I know which one is correct and which one is you making sh#t up.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Banker was fired because he wasn't very good

But he said he had given him things that needed to improve and they weren't happening.

So which is it? Was he fired because he wasn't very good? (Even Riley doesn't believe that. If he did, Banker never would have been hired to begin with.) Or was it because Riley gave him things to improve on and he didn't improve?

I know which one is correct and which one is you making sh#t up.

You're really stretching trying to make those two statements have to be exclusive of each other.

 

[Making Chimichangas]

Branno said: This idea that there is any evidence to your claims is ludicrous. You are asserting your idiotic opinion as fact. It's like following Donald Trump on Twitter.

​​So as long as "the right person" is insulted, it's perfectly fine I guess. #Inconsistent Standards Regarding Personal Attacks

You guys criticizing me are hilarious.

Players like Nate Gerry and Nick Gates f'ing ADMIT in stories to the media they didn't "buy-in" or play hard. But right Steve Bannon Branno, there's "no evidence."

And I'm somehow the a-hole for mentioning it as part of my overall criticism of the players, and team in general, the past 2 years. Gotcha.

 

[Branno]

Branno said: This idea that there is any evidence to your claims is ludicrous. You are asserting your idiotic opinion as fact. It's like following Donald Trump on Twitter.

​​So as long as "the right person" is insulted, it's perfectly fine I guess. #Inconsistent Standards Regarding Personal Attacks

You guys criticizing me are hilarious.

Players like Nate Gerry and Nick Gates f'ing ADMIT in stories to the media they didn't "buy-in" or play hard. But right Steve Bannon Branno, there's "no evidence."

And I'm somehow the a-hole for mentioning it as part of my overall criticism of the players, and team in general, the past 2 years. Gotcha.

Back up your assertions. Gerry admitted to the media he didn't play hard? Show us.

 

[teachercd]

Let us, just for a moment, agree that those players came out to the media, coaches and players and fans...and said "Yeah, we are not playing hard, we are not trying hard because of this new staff"

You really think that the staff would play them still? If they did...that makes this the worlds worst staff. Period.

 

[StPaulHusker]

I think it's quite possible that if you don't have some players buy in on a defensive scheme, it can make that scheme be horrible.

I think it's possible you can have a bad defensive scheme that makes players not want to buy in and make the scheme worse.

Riley fired the coach with the scheme. Why is the player that admitted to not buying in and made obvious mistakes on the field and was suspended from games getting the pass?

 

[Redux]

Here's the thing. Gerry was a beast when he wanted to be. He could have been more. The guy flat out admitted they weren't buying in or accepting the schemed changes, see Purdue loss. I've heard from more than one person that Gerry was the last main holdout still complaining about coaching change saying how much better he would be under them etc. This is of course to go with how he was said to complain about the old staff not utilizing him properly.

I was a fan of the guy, had the right tools. But it's his own fault he missed out on the bowl game, it's his own fault he missed out on breaking records and it's a shame because he could have been more, much more.

That said, there is no need to sh#t on the guy. I think he will do okay in the NFL if he drops the attitude problem.

 

[Mavric]

I mean.... if we're going to put all this weight on one comment, then we have to believe that the "not buying in" only applied to the first half of 2015, right? Because that's what he said. He said there wasn't full buy-in up to the 7th or 8th game (whenever it was) and then they decided to be full go. So - again, if we're putting our whole argument on one comment - then we have to believe that they were all totally bought in from that point forward.

 

[Enhance]

Branno said: This idea that there is any evidence to your claims is ludicrous. You are asserting your idiotic opinion as fact. It's like following Donald Trump on Twitter.

​​So as long as "the right person" is insulted, it's perfectly fine I guess. #Inconsistent Standards Regarding Personal Attacks

You guys criticizing me are hilarious.

Players like Nate Gerry and Nick Gates f'ing ADMIT in stories to the media they didn't "buy-in" or play hard. But right Steve Bannon Branno, there's "no evidence."

And I'm somehow the a-hole for mentioning it as part of my overall criticism of the players, and team in general, the past 2 years. Gotcha.

Criticizing players is one thing, but calling one of them 'Charmin' and then referencing yet-to-be-verified quotes is going to draw some ire, MC.

 

[StPaulHusker]

I mean.... if we're going to put all this weight on one comment, then we have to believe that the "not buying in" only applied to the first half of 2015, right? Because that's what he said. He said there wasn't full buy-in up to the 7th or 8th game (whenever it was) and then they decided to be full go. So - again, if we're putting our whole argument on one comment - then we have to believe that they were all totally bought in from that point forward.

Would you agree that a player getting suspended at the beginning of his senior season and following that up by not attending class the whole season en route to a bowl game suspension is part of "not buying in."