Two years in....no growth

That stat shows me a few things.

1) Tommy was doing pretty well when he, the o-line, and his receivers were somewhat healthy. The overall health of the team suffered and so did the performance.

2) Langsdorf pared down the playbook pretty significantly to cut down on turnovers and play to Tommy's strengths. That worked early in the season as teams didn't have as much film to review. As the season progressed and there was more film to review, the defenses were able to figure out Langsdorf's tendencies.

3) The opponents in the back half of the year were much better defensively, compared to the teams early in the season. I know it's a "well duh" statement, but the quality of opponent improved significantly the back half of the season. Combined with my first two points, the offense really struggled.

 
You can argue all day about the growth and what this team did. Games are won in the trenches and our OL was bad & beat up and out DE were pathetic. The only reason we won 9 games is because of Lang cutting back the plays so Tommy had less turnovers. This coaching staff conceded this year to keep several players on redshirt. Riley now has 2 years to prove that he can now take this talent and win consistently.

 
CM I don't know about fired, but I feel they definitely conceded this year. A lot of talent that could have been used, and could have progressed. We were to the point of just needing bodies it appeared to me.

I like this staff, but this team was short from the beginning, blame who you want, but we could have brought some of these young kids along. It would have helped the team and the transition of not having Tommy next year.

I think they looked at the schedule and decided before the season started, that we could win the magical 9 games and would take the chance to have the youth next year. Their job is to win games, not two years down the road, but the current season. I think in that respect they are just the opposite of the last staff. Not happy with either on the roster management side.

 
Wow. Didn't realize it was this bad - RE: Iowa

The result: five second-half possessions that lasted less than two minutes, including two possessions that lasted 40 and 54 seconds. Nebraska had seven plays in the fourth quarter. One of them technically didn’t count — it was an Iowa pass-interference penalty that drew 15 yards. The other six plays — all passes — lost a cumulative 7 yards.


NU called 21 passes in the second half. Eight runs. And remember: Nebraska isn’t as sophisticated passing this year as it was last year.

It’s a good thing Nebraska’s defense made Iowa run 25 plays — and convert three fourth downs — to score its last two touchdowns. Otherwise, it might have been really ugly.

The whole setup on offense seems passive-aggressive, so much like one of those congressional bills where politicians try to serve 12 special interests, little gets accomplished and no one — especially the voters — is particularly happy.
Click to expand...
OWH

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, about that "stop the run first" defense we were supposedly going to use:

13: Rushes of more than 30 yards allowed by Nebraska’s defense. That ranks 105th nationally. NU was hot and cold as a run defense all season. The Huskers held five opponents under 100 yards rushing and four teams gained more than 200 yards. NU allowed 4.28 yards per carry, which ranked 10th in the Big Ten. Teams that stuck with the run — Wisconsin and Iowa — were rewarded for it. The idea that the Badgers didn’t run the ball well on NU is inaccurate; Wisconsin ran for 223 yards and 5.87 yards per carry. That’s a good day. That’s Wisconsin’s highest yards-per-carry day all season.
Click to expand...
 
VectorVictor said:
ZRod said:
To be fair the other guy lost 1 or 2 games a year to teams he had no buisness losing to. At least we made some improvements there.
Click to expand...
To be fair we had no business losing against Iowa.
Click to expand...
The Iowa team that beat Michigan?

 
CPT Blackshirt said:
Guys its ok... one more year if it doesn't get better. Then Scott Frost will be our coach. No Big Ten title next year for MR... Scott continues his turnaround at UCF (gets them to 9 wins)... Boom. We have a guy who will come here and do what needs to be done.

Don't take that the wrong way though... I would love this current staff to get us a Big 10 championship and more. I'm just saying that if it doesnt... then good ol Frost is coming home.
Click to expand...
Unfortunately that ship has sailed

 
I am GLORIOUS said:
np_husker said:
Mike Riley should not have been hired in the first place. We should have gone for a big name or, not to bring up a sore subject around here, Scott Frost. But at this point we can't fire Riley.

We are stuck.
Click to expand...
Sadly, I agree. They wanted the anti-Bo, and they got him. I like Riley, but I also realize that he's not going to lead us back to glory. Nothing about this staff has given me any reason to think that championships are in the near future.

In regards to Frost, I just hope that this is his dream job and that his passion is to right the ship.
Click to expand...
amen brother

 
2015 5-7 > > > > > 42% Wins

2016 9-3 > > > > > 75% Wins

Increase in winning percentage (which is what matters it seems to most on this board) of 32%

I would challenge the OP, or anyone else to improve their work performance by 32% in one year.

A 32% increase on one year seems to indicate growth to me. But never let numbers get in the way.

(Now, feel free to compare to Pelini as I know many will.....but the statement wasn't "No growth over Pelini years..." it was simply "2 years - No Growth".)

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