Looking Back ... Looking Forward

[teachercd]

There is but that's not really what I'm seeing. This is just from two threads:

That's a lot of quoting, but most people there are comparing the quality of the coaching staff as a whole. Not saying every change made was an extreme upgrade.

To my point specifically, this group could be much better as teachers specifically, but when you lose Bo you also lose a ton of knowledge and that can't be expected to not be a loss on defense. Although for all of Bo's expertise, it didn't seem to get taught all that well, no?

So, what is it you're trying to say here?

"You guys are wrong. The last staff was not as bad as you think"? OK.

"You guys are wrong. The new coaches are not as great as you say"? We'll see.

"You guys are crazy, because the only way your optimism about the new coaches will turn out to be warranted is if Riley wins strictly more than 9 games in 2015"? ...I don't see the logic in that.

All those are possibilities. I just can't figure out why at least the baseline isn't "This new staff is a significant upgrade so we should at least expect the product on the field to be no worse than what we've seen the last seven years."

It is exactly what you are saying Mav...the problem is people are worried about putting a number (wins) on it because that is so easily measured ...We all know that is why...

You get a Bo lover saying "If Riley doesn't win 9 games this was a huge mistake" its an "I told you so" moment because it is so concrete.

So that is why we get the hype and praise for the new staff and how experienced they are with the old * attached.

*But I could see them with less wins but that it okay if...

I say, screw that! Be positive and excited about it! Do you see a game on the schedule where you think the Skers will be a dog by over 7 points? I don't...They can win 11 games this season.

 

[zoogs]

All those are possibilities. I just can't figure out why at least the baseline isn't "This new staff is a significant upgrade so we should at least expect the product on the field to be no worse than what we've seen the last seven years."

Because the fixation on year one is kind of crazy.

You want to evaluate the new staff one way or another, wait until they've had a chance to put their stamp on the program and show what they're really made of. Right?

If these guys are as good as we think, then the next seven will be better than the last seven.

 

[True2tRA]

Look at the last staff vs. this staff's experience? How the hell does that not count for something? Experience should count for something in any job, even if it's something like working at McDonalds......not that there's anything wrong with that.So even the fact that the coaching upgrade is obvious even to the most obtuse dummy you can find, how does that translate to immediate improvement on the win/loss record?

That's fine. I don't fault anyone for that conclusion.What I find interesting is the insistence of the improvement of the staff, blaming the previous staff for every loss we had, then not expecting the new staff to do at least as well on the field.

Whoa! Come on man. As bad as I thought the last staff was, I faulted them mostly for their inability to develop depth and teach their scheme. Nobody completely brushes the blame off the players for some of these blowout losses and failures to show up during big games. I've just always felt these poor kids were put in a tough spot when dealing with higher caliber teams. Between the confusion of the scheme and the lack of depth, most kids were either confused on thier assignment or physically unable to execute it. Between two gapping, spilling, and leverage (from what I understand of it) it took a huge amount of upper body strength and perfect positioning, and that's only if you were in the right spot after reading the play.

 

[teachercd]

All those are possibilities. I just can't figure out why at least the baseline isn't "This new staff is a significant upgrade so we should at least expect the product on the field to be no worse than what we've seen the last seven years."

Because the fixation on year one is kind of crazy.

You want to evaluate the new staff one way or another, give them some time to make their stamp on the program and show what they're really made of. Right? They'll show, ultimately, if they were a significant on field upgrade or not.

Yes and No

For instance...if NU ends up with 0-5 wins this year...lets face it...its "done"

If NU wins 12-14 games...lets face it...there will be a new statue next to TO's

So that leaves us with 6-11 wins for the "lets see how things go" type of crowd.

 

[zoogs]

Teach, I'd mostly agree with that, but Riley could win 12 games and still end up with Brady Hoke's record. He could also maybe go 5-6 the first year and end up playing of B1G championships by year three. Year Ones are crazy and unpredictable.

As much as we'd like to just know right away, wouldn't you say you need a lengthier snapshot to start handing out grades or making comparisons?

 

[teachercd]

Teach, I'd mostly agree with that, but Riley could win 12 games and still end up with Brady Hoke's record. He could also maybe go 5-6 the first year and end up playing of B1G championships by year three. Year Ones are crazy and unpredictable.

As much as we'd like to just know right away, wouldn't you say you need a lengthier snapshot to start handing out grades or making comparisons?

Lets make this more relevant! Change "snapshot" to Snapchat! LOVE THAT APP!

And good Hoke reset! That is very true!

 

[admo]

I guess I don't understand the fixation with immediate results. I think if we're all being honest with ourselves, we would agree the immediate future doesn't look particularly bright, and that has more to do with Pelini than it does Riley. Laying it all at Riley's feet reeks of Boliever logic.

I agree and don't think there has to be immediate improvement. But are you expecting the W-L record to get worse?

I expect the Huskers to finish ranked. That would be an improvement. I expect the Huskers to finish 2nd in the Division. That would be an improvement. And I expect the Husker's to keep Wisconsin from scoring 50 points. That has happened twice to Bo during that past two meetings, so that would also be an improvement. Actually, Wisconsin has scored 48 or more on Bo's teams three out of the last four times. Why is that?

If they do these things the W-L record will take care of itself.

 

[Mavric]

Look at the last staff vs. this staff's experience? How the hell does that not count for something? Experience should count for something in any job, even if it's something like working at McDonalds......not that there's anything wrong with that.So even the fact that the coaching upgrade is obvious even to the most obtuse dummy you can find, how does that translate to immediate improvement on the win/loss record?

That's fine. I don't fault anyone for that conclusion.What I find interesting is the insistence of the improvement of the staff, blaming the previous staff for every loss we had, then not expecting the new staff to do at least as well on the field.

Whoa! Come on man. As bad as I thought the last staff was, I faulted them mostly for their inability to develop depth and teach their scheme. Nobody completely brushes the blame off the players for some of these blowout losses and failures to show up during big games. I've just always felt these poor kids were put in a tough spot when dealing with higher caliber teams. Between the confusion of the scheme and the lack of depth, most kids were either confused on thier assignment or physically unable to execute it. Between two gapping, spilling, and leverage (from what I understand of it) it took a huge amount of upper body strength and perfect positioning, and that's only if you were in the right spot after reading the play.

Completely? Perhaps not. But 99%.

Which losses do you put on the players? Coaches did what they could do, players just didn't execute.

 

[True2tRA]

Look at the last staff vs. this staff's experience? How the hell does that not count for something? Experience should count for something in any job, even if it's something like working at McDonalds......not that there's anything wrong with that.So even the fact that the coaching upgrade is obvious even to the most obtuse dummy you can find, how does that translate to immediate improvement on the win/loss record?

That's fine. I don't fault anyone for that conclusion.What I find interesting is the insistence of the improvement of the staff, blaming the previous staff for every loss we had, then not expecting the new staff to do at least as well on the field.

Whoa! Come on man. As bad as I thought the last staff was, I faulted them mostly for their inability to develop depth and teach their scheme. Nobody completely brushes the blame off the players for some of these blowout losses and failures to show up during big games. I've just always felt these poor kids were put in a tough spot when dealing with higher caliber teams. Between the confusion of the scheme and the lack of depth, most kids were either confused on thier assignment or physically unable to execute it. Between two gapping, spilling, and leverage (from what I understand of it) it took a huge amount of upper body strength and perfect positioning, and that's only if you were in the right spot after reading the play.

Completely? Perhaps not. But 99%.

Which losses do you put on the players? Coaches did what they could do, players just didn't execute.

You want me to go back through seven years of football and tell you which losses i blame on the players and which losses I blame on the coaches?

 

[admo]

Good question...which games in the recent seasons was Bo out-coached in where NU lost?

UCLA

Minnesota (twice)

MSU

Iowa?

Just a few that I kind of think the old staff might have been out-foxed in...So, would Riley and his staff not be out-foxed in those games? I think so, so in my mind that is how that experience would translate to wins/losses

I never liked that term "out coached". But a coach can make in game decisions that are good or bad. Didn't Bo call for a fake punt that was snapped to a backup lineman against UCLA?

That was stupid. Against Minnesota he had no answer for the Gopher's TE. No adjustment or preparation? I remember at UCLA, Brett Hundley was making his second start EVER, and he knew to drop a simple pass at the exact spot of the OLB, after the same OLB took a few steps towards the LOS. Fox Sports only mentioned it a hundred times. In the same game, the Bruins got 600 yards (I hated that game). Huskers were pretty good offensively. Bo should have made adjustments because they only needed a few stops here and there. But UCLA could not get off the field, and then our offense got cold and struggled. Iowa, MSU, OSU, Wyoming, it's all the same. Give us Purdue and Illinois and an occasional big win (OU, KSU beat down, MU in the rain). Because that's what we've gotten used to.

 

[admo]

I don't like this thread. I gotta bail out of it. It's bringing up some crappy times lol. And to be honest, for the most part I am done with Bo and don't want to bash.

 

[Mavric]

Look at the last staff vs. this staff's experience? How the hell does that not count for something? Experience should count for something in any job, even if it's something like working at McDonalds......not that there's anything wrong with that.So even the fact that the coaching upgrade is obvious even to the most obtuse dummy you can find, how does that translate to immediate improvement on the win/loss record?

That's fine. I don't fault anyone for that conclusion.What I find interesting is the insistence of the improvement of the staff, blaming the previous staff for every loss we had, then not expecting the new staff to do at least as well on the field.

Whoa! Come on man. As bad as I thought the last staff was, I faulted them mostly for their inability to develop depth and teach their scheme. Nobody completely brushes the blame off the players for some of these blowout losses and failures to show up during big games. I've just always felt these poor kids were put in a tough spot when dealing with higher caliber teams. Between the confusion of the scheme and the lack of depth, most kids were either confused on thier assignment or physically unable to execute it. Between two gapping, spilling, and leverage (from what I understand of it) it took a huge amount of upper body strength and perfect positioning, and that's only if you were in the right spot after reading the play.

Completely? Perhaps not. But 99%.

Which losses do you put on the players? Coaches did what they could do, players just didn't execute.

You want me to go back through seven years of football and tell you which losses i blame on the players and which losses I blame on the coaches?

No. I just want one you blame on the players. Because I don't remember anyone ever coming out of a game that we lost and saying "The coaches did a great job but the players really screwed up."

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

I guess I don't understand the fixation with immediate results. I think if we're all being honest with ourselves, we would agree the immediate future doesn't look particularly bright, and that has more to do with Pelini than it does Riley. Laying it all at Riley's feet reeks of Boliever logic.

I agree and don't think there has to be immediate improvement. But are you expecting the W-L record to get worse?

How about "similar"? The team can probably be expected to fight with a couple of other teams for #2/#3 in the B1G West, rather than overtaking Wisconsin right away. That could be 9 wins, or 8, or 7.

It would be surprising -- and therefore not "the expectation" -- if Nebraska got over the hump right away and took the division. Or if the wheels fell off entirely and we're .500. Would that be agreeable?

As I said earlier, I don't think any conclusions could be drawn from an 8, 9 or 10 win season. Those would all be "similar". Seven - or fewer as I've seen a few times - would be a definite step back, imo. Especially considering we're playing a nearly identical schedule to last year.

For me, it depends on recruiting. If Mike Riley goes 8-4 with a recruiting class ranked 15th, I'll be happy. We can say that the team will likely improve in the coming years.

However, if we go 8-4 and have another class ranked in the 30s, I'll call it a wash. No better, no worse, same result with a different coaching staff.

 

[commando]

I guess I don't understand the fixation with immediate results. I think if we're all being honest with ourselves, we would agree the immediate future doesn't look particularly bright, and that has more to do with Pelini than it does Riley. Laying it all at Riley's feet reeks of Boliever logic.

I agree and don't think there has to be immediate improvement. But are you expecting the W-L record to get worse?

How about "similar"? The team can probably be expected to fight with a couple of other teams for #2/#3 in the B1G West, rather than overtaking Wisconsin right away. That could be 9 wins, or 8, or 7.

It would be surprising -- and therefore not "the expectation" -- if Nebraska got over the hump right away and took the division. Or if the wheels fell off entirely and we're .500. Would that be agreeable?

As I said earlier, I don't think any conclusions could be drawn from an 8, 9 or 10 win season. Those would all be "similar". Seven - or fewer as I've seen a few times - would be a definite step back, imo. Especially considering we're playing a nearly identical schedule to last year.

For me, it depends on recruiting. If Mike Riley goes 8-4 with a recruiting class ranked 15th, I'll be happy. We can say that the team will likely improve in the coming years.

However, if we go 8-4 and have another class ranked in the 30s, I'll call it a wash. No better, no worse, same result with a different coaching staff.

if the record is the same and we have similar recruiting i still call it a win. I will not miss all the negative coverage of angry Bo. Bo was an embarrassment to the university and the Husker brand with every meltdown.

 

[ADS]

But I can guarantee that we won't see Jerry Kill make him look like a fool.

I've known Jerry Kill for nearly 30 years and would offer caution about such a guarantee. Kill's background, knowledge and resume are excellent. He's from the Dennis Franchione/Gary Patterson coaching lineage.

Jerry Kill is a decent coach and he's had some moderate success at Minnesota. But any coach with half a brain could watch the tape of the games the last two years where they beat us and could see that if you just make adjustments then you more likely than not stop them. All they did was run zone read and use their TE's. Good coaches adjust. Your boy Bo never did that and it cost him.