Saunders
Heisman Trophy Winner
It's definitely more than regular bad luck. It's horrible luck and just doing everything possible to lose.
Last edited by a moderator:
Success vs Failure
- Thread starter CornhuskerT
- Start date
RedDenver
Heisman Trophy Winner
I think it's really just that we're bad. We've had some bad luck to lose some of those games, but we've also had good luck to keep it within one score.
Saunders
Heisman Trophy Winner
I think the athletes/talent keep us in the games (which matches the recruiting rankings) but the coaching/development is the reason for the close losses that could/should be wins 50% of the time.
Lorewarn
All-Conference
It's definitely more than regular bad luck. It's horrible luck and just doing everything possible to lose.
If our working definition of luck is when preparedness meets opportunity, we've had plenty of the latter and mostly none of the former. So I guess you could qualify that as unlucky, but not in some cosmic sense as much as 'yeah, our staff was bad and incapable of preparing our team properly'.
But if we wanna get superstitious about it we could say Frost's era was just regressing back to the mean after Bo's penchant for almost always squeezing out the tight ones.
funhusker
All-American
I agree with this take.
I have no idea what the number is, (going off of my perception of the last five years) but I’m guessing NE was trailing by more than one score in the fourth quarter in most of those losses.
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
We have had bad coaching decisions, bad game management, bad development ….literally about the only thing that has kept us in games is that we have actually recruited fairly well.
hopefully, now we have a staff that can fix the rest and recruiting improves even more.
hopefully, now we have a staff that can fix the rest and recruiting improves even more.
Last edited by a moderator:
End of the day, the only tangible thing to look at is the W-L record. Frost coached the best 3-9 in the history of FBS. Guess what? We still lost 9 games. Was losing each by single digits a sign of how close we were to winning it all? No. We still lost 9 games and did barely better the years before or after. We can talk player development, loss by "x" points, "look like football" etc....And it won't tell us anything. Win. That's it. Bowl or bust. Not going bowling DOES NOT mean Rhule isn't the guy. It simply means, in year 1 (IMHO) is a failure. We want to turn around NU? Start winning. Get the extra bowl practices. Show that the pundits and recruits were correct in betting on Rhule and NU.....No more moral victories.
T
thexyz
Guest
Almost only counts in horseshoes and something that makes a huge bang. Frost didn't have any clear objectives or vision and his rather careless leadership was evident. The cohesion has been lacking. As you say, win! We'll get there.
Rhule doesn't see it that way. He's not here to win year one, he's here to build a program. At his previous stops, he didn't have/get what he wanted out of the upperclassmen so he played the young guys. Took his lumps on the scoreboard for it, too. He believed that was the path to becoming a better team and it's hard to argue the results. Not only did they win more every year at each stop, but they were a measurably better team every year.
Everyone says their goal is winning, but that's not your real goal because no one can tell you how to win. They can tell you how to block and tackle better, how to throw fewer interceptions and more touchdowns, or how to better manage the game. They can't tell you how to win because winning is a byproduct. Your real goal is to do all of those things better and that is what leads to scoring more points than the other team, and that's how we define winning.
Rhule says he doesn't feel he has to go the ultra young route he did in previous stops, and I think most of us would agree the situations are very different, but history suggests he'll take those early sacrifices if he believes they result in long term gains.
I would say even the benefits of winning are exaggerated in Nebraska's special case. Most teams that have had the record Nebraska has had the past 6 years are struggling in areas like attendance, fundraising, and recruiting.
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
Yep, the scoreboard is not the best judge of success this year. We need to start seeing the team/coaching staff doing the little things better. And, if they end up having to play young guys, seeing those young guys improve throughout the season would be a big success. We also don't know what affects injuries will play this year. We are going to be fairly thin at some positions where an injury can cause a big drop in production. As Rhule is here a while, hopefully the depth improves and injuries don't negatively affect production as much.
This season is about the process and setting up the program for future success. If they catch fire and win a lot of games, FANTASTIC!!! If not, look for improvement in other areas that will produce wins in the future.
The metrics put forth are almost impossible to perceive. How do we measure the team doing better? Coaches coaching better? Guys tackling better? Better play calling and scheme? The only way is to see this translate into winning. Maybe I am in the minority, but there were times NU looked pretty good (the best 3-9 team in the country). But they still lost. They blew close games through coaching or players making mistakes. OR they were "this close". Bottom line, we flat out stunk the past few years. We deemed Frost a failure, ultimately because he lost. We use a FB, run some counter, traps, use the TE in the red zone, 2 back sets, that's improvement for me. I'm a run the damn ball guy, but if we lose than the season in it's most basic and primitive measure is a failure. AGAIN, doesn't mean we are not improving and Rhule isn't the guy, but we are not yet winning. And at the end of the day, regardless of rebuild/reset, Rhule was brought here to win. Not make us lose better, look better etc....But these things will result in wins if he can do what he has done at Temple and Baylor. But for me, wins means we are succeeding. And I think thats what recruits, talking heads etc will look for as well.
BigRedBuster
International Man of Mystery
Yes. The measure of success or failure based on statistics will show improvement. If we have a top 50 D and still lose 9 games that's not success. Improvement yes. Not success. Improvement and success are dependent, but not the same IMHO. Success follows improvement. If every measurable statistic improves it is that. Improvement. And that should lead to more success. But not immediately. Improvement might take several seasons to result in success. But for me, while improvement is great. Wins are better. We need improvement in every facet of NU and in every phase. Seeing that will be great. A "moral" victory if you will in that what Rhule is doing in year one is "working". And that it should lead to success.
84HuskerLaw
All-Conference
Normally the bottoms line for any team is winning but style points in Nebraska’s case matter almost as much. Some fans won’t be happy, even in year 1, with 6 ‘ugly’ wins if there are 3 or 4 ugly losses and the season long trend line is flat or negative.
I’m hoping for an organized team with a basic identity and good game planning. That doesn’t mean wins happen immediately nor even often enough. But it does indicate that the coaches are coaching smart football strategy with a system in mind.
Year 1 will be an indicator of what Rhule football looks like. Talent level will be at least marginally better in some positions and I suspect much better in some areas. I believe Rhule will put some difference makers on the field this fall.
Offense: most likely will be inconsistent and hit or miss. The key will be QB and establishing a decent run game. If we can get 4.0 yrds per carry out of the RBs, that’s a key indicator that offense will, over time, be better.
If Simms fails, the season will be very depressing. He’s got to get first downs with his legs to keep drives alive or the punter will be the team MVP. Ugh. If we can hit 50% of the short/intermediate throws, that will help. Throw 4-6 deeper shots and get some power running going, then wins will happen even this first year . A big IF imo.
Defense: I expect similar results - hit and miss, get some big stops and give some big plays. Can the defense get 2.5 turnovers a game and give no more than 2.5 TDs a game? If so, then Huskers can compete. The defense will overrun and get out of position more than they should but as time goes on, that will improve. Team speed will be evident and will allow for some mistakes to be contained and damages lessened.
Special teams: will start a season with a details coach. We can believe Rhule will pay attention and give STs a good share of time and effort. We saw what happened with some honest coaching and a forethought instead of after thought.
Wins will come - over time - with better coaching and smarting recruiting. X & Os remain unknowns under Rhule. At times they were mysterious under Frost imo. He had some good ideas but imo he was mostly a pass game coordinator not a head coach. Some staff helped but not enough. I think Rhule has made some good hires but game management and player development remains unknowns. A season will give some indication. A couple staff adjustments will be almost inevitable. Some succeed, some don’t. Some get hired away, some don’t.
Rhule inherits a .333 program with 6 losing seasons in a row. He gets a reasonable time to turn things around and win more. First, get the players and begin teaching them to play the game hard and smart for 4 quarters. Not perfect but at least on average with their peers in P5 and Big Ten. That should be years 1 and 2 for me. By year three try to be above the average. As wins come, recruits and roster guys will experience the results of their efforts.
I’m hoping for an organized team with a basic identity and good game planning. That doesn’t mean wins happen immediately nor even often enough. But it does indicate that the coaches are coaching smart football strategy with a system in mind.
Year 1 will be an indicator of what Rhule football looks like. Talent level will be at least marginally better in some positions and I suspect much better in some areas. I believe Rhule will put some difference makers on the field this fall.
Offense: most likely will be inconsistent and hit or miss. The key will be QB and establishing a decent run game. If we can get 4.0 yrds per carry out of the RBs, that’s a key indicator that offense will, over time, be better.
If Simms fails, the season will be very depressing. He’s got to get first downs with his legs to keep drives alive or the punter will be the team MVP. Ugh. If we can hit 50% of the short/intermediate throws, that will help. Throw 4-6 deeper shots and get some power running going, then wins will happen even this first year . A big IF imo.
Defense: I expect similar results - hit and miss, get some big stops and give some big plays. Can the defense get 2.5 turnovers a game and give no more than 2.5 TDs a game? If so, then Huskers can compete. The defense will overrun and get out of position more than they should but as time goes on, that will improve. Team speed will be evident and will allow for some mistakes to be contained and damages lessened.
Special teams: will start a season with a details coach. We can believe Rhule will pay attention and give STs a good share of time and effort. We saw what happened with some honest coaching and a forethought instead of after thought.
Wins will come - over time - with better coaching and smarting recruiting. X & Os remain unknowns under Rhule. At times they were mysterious under Frost imo. He had some good ideas but imo he was mostly a pass game coordinator not a head coach. Some staff helped but not enough. I think Rhule has made some good hires but game management and player development remains unknowns. A season will give some indication. A couple staff adjustments will be almost inevitable. Some succeed, some don’t. Some get hired away, some don’t.
Rhule inherits a .333 program with 6 losing seasons in a row. He gets a reasonable time to turn things around and win more. First, get the players and begin teaching them to play the game hard and smart for 4 quarters. Not perfect but at least on average with their peers in P5 and Big Ten. That should be years 1 and 2 for me. By year three try to be above the average. As wins come, recruits and roster guys will experience the results of their efforts.
Last edited by a moderator: