Looking Back ... Looking Forward

[jsneb83]

I could see us being 2-2 in September just because the team doesn't have the schemes quite down yet. That leaves them having to go 6-2 with a bowl win or 7-1. Possible? Yes, but seeing improvement throughout the year is more important to me than the W-L record the first year. Look at Bo's first year. They started 3-3, but then they won their last 4 and 6 of the last 7.

 

[RedSavage]

I guess I just don't understand the mind set.

So....let me ask this. If we have 5 losses, what then?

I don't think there is one fan on here that would say that's a successful season. I don't think I have seen any posts claiming that anyway. So, if it is clean cut that it is absolutely an indictment on Riley's coaching ability if he loses 5 games, then what happens then? Do we demand changes in the coaching staff? Do we demand Riley fired because obviously he sucks because there are no excuses?

What exactly does "putting out minimum goals and expectations" do as a fan?

It boils down to the fashion in which we win/lose those games. As long as we are competitive, not looking completely lost and confused and not giving up 400 yards on the ground to one player, we could have 7 losses and I'd probably still be okay with it. On the flip side, if we barely eek out 9 wins and they're against the McNeese St. of the world, I'm certainly not going to be jumping for joy about next season.

Edit: SPH and js beat me to the punch

 

[admo]

I'm not a paper guy but it's offseason, so what the heck. I see 8 wins going into bowl game. Good chance for 9 though (before bowl).

Michigan State, Wisconsin, Miami - teams roughly equal to Huskers in talent AND/Or speed AND/Or competitiveness.

There's one win in there; Two is achievable; Three is not completely impossible

BYU, Iowa, Minnesota, Northwestern - Blue collar, hard working, physical teams (with less overall talent and speed than the Huskers)

There's 2 wins in this group (ugly or not); 4 wins is possible (one game at a time)

South Alabama, Southern Miss, Illinois, Purdue, Rutgers = there's 5 wins I expect (we should all expect)

Bowl game - coin toss

Bold = Huskers travel / road games

It will be important to see how they compete in every game IMO. No blowouts. And don't lay an egg (example: 24-3 loss).

 

[Saunders]

I guess I just don't understand the mind set.

So....let me ask this. If we have 5 losses, what then?

I don't think there is one fan on here that would say that's a successful season. I don't think I have seen any posts claiming that anyway. So, if it is clean cut that it is absolutely an indictment on Riley's coaching ability if he loses 5 games, then what happens then? Do we demand changes in the coaching staff? Do we demand Riley fired because obviously he sucks because there are no excuses?

What exactly does "putting out minimum goals and expectations" do as a fan?

We have talent, we have an easy schedule, and if we have 5 losses (and it wasn't because half the time got ebola or something), then very likely, the coaches screwed up. I haven't seen anyone saying that 5 losses is successful. What I have seen, is posts saying that the old staff did such a terrible job, that Riley could lose 5 games this year. I find that laughable.

As for goals and expectations, it helps evaluate performance. If you (not you particularly) don't really care about that, then you probably were fine with things as they were under Bo. After 2013, I was pretty much done, and 2014 was the nail in the coffin for me. I'm ready to move on to Riley, and in my opinion, I see no logical reason (outside disaster) that he should lose more than 5 games.

Ok....pardon me for being confused.

So, people claimed the old staff did a terrible job and you don't agree with that? But, you claim you were ready for a change? If Riley loses 5 games, then he obviously isn't the answer?

You didn't answer the questions I highlighted above.

The old staff was either terrible and lucky, or just average. I don't believe in luck, so no, I don't believe they did a terrible job. They were just about average, which lines up with their winning percentage, and recruiting. They weren't good enough to win the Big games, and at Nebraska, that's not good enough.

If we have 5 losses, then you evaluate why. If it's because we had crazy injuries, have some bad bounces of the football, and we lose some close ones, then you take that into account. If it's 5 losses because the offense struggles because it's not playing to our QB's strengths... then we have a problem. Does that mean we fire everyone? Of course not. But there needs to be a warm seat and pressure to improve a whole lot the following season.

 

[Saunders]

I guess I just don't understand the mind set.

So....let me ask this. If we have 5 losses, what then?

I don't think there is one fan on here that would say that's a successful season. I don't think I have seen any posts claiming that anyway. So, if it is clean cut that it is absolutely an indictment on Riley's coaching ability if he loses 5 games, then what happens then? Do we demand changes in the coaching staff? Do we demand Riley fired because obviously he sucks because there are no excuses?

What exactly does "putting out minimum goals and expectations" do as a fan?

It boils down to the fashion in which we win/lose those games. As long as we are competitive, not looking completely lost and confused and not giving up 400 yards on the ground to one player, we could have 7 losses and I'd probably still be okay with it. On the flip side, if we barely eek out 9 wins and they're against the McNeese St. of the world, I'm certainly not going to be jumping for joy about next season.

Edit: SPH and js beat me to the punch

Agreed. If we end up with 9 wins and the three losses are blowouts, we haven't improved. Same thing with 5 close (10 points or so) losses.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

As I've already posted several times, I see no reason not to expect immediate improvement under Riley, for pretty much the same reasons Saunders outlined.

This wouldn't have been a rebuilding year for Bo Pelini. Too much returning talent and a wide-open conference race for teams not named Ohio State. After 7 years you wanted to see a system and an attitude in place. And I guess Bo had one: 9 wins and 4 losses that always managed to leave a bad taste in your mouth.

So the consensus among Husker fans -- which I find reasonable -- is that all 9 wins seasons aren't created equal. It was how you felt at the end of the season. When you were told you should feel better about something that just didn't feel right.

So yeah, I think it's fine to demand and expect immediate improvement from Mike Riley and staff. I'd just be careful assigning a number, because numbers haven't worked in the past. There's a lot in play that will constitute "improvement." It's pointless to speculate and pass judgement at the same time.

And I would really hesitate to entertain scenarios where Bo Pelini deserves an apology from Nebraska fans.

That's when the terrorists win.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I guess I just don't understand the mind set.

So....let me ask this. If we have 5 losses, what then?

I don't think there is one fan on here that would say that's a successful season. I don't think I have seen any posts claiming that anyway. So, if it is clean cut that it is absolutely an indictment on Riley's coaching ability if he loses 5 games, then what happens then? Do we demand changes in the coaching staff? Do we demand Riley fired because obviously he sucks because there are no excuses?

What exactly does "putting out minimum goals and expectations" do as a fan?

It boils down to the fashion in which we win/lose those games. As long as we are competitive, not looking completely lost and confused and not giving up 400 yards on the ground to one player, we could have 7 losses and I'd probably still be okay with it. On the flip side, if we barely eek out 9 wins and they're against the McNeese St. of the world, I'm certainly not going to be jumping for joy about next season.

Edit: SPH and js beat me to the punch

Agreed. If we end up with 9 wins and the three losses are blowouts, we haven't improved. Same thing with 5 close (10 points or so) losses.

Wait a minute....

So there is more to evaluating this than just wins and losses with a hard number nailed down in the first year.

 

[BigRedBuster]

I guess I just don't understand the mind set.

So....let me ask this. If we have 5 losses, what then?

I don't think there is one fan on here that would say that's a successful season. I don't think I have seen any posts claiming that anyway. So, if it is clean cut that it is absolutely an indictment on Riley's coaching ability if he loses 5 games, then what happens then? Do we demand changes in the coaching staff? Do we demand Riley fired because obviously he sucks because there are no excuses?

What exactly does "putting out minimum goals and expectations" do as a fan?

We have talent, we have an easy schedule, and if we have 5 losses (and it wasn't because half the time got ebola or something), then very likely, the coaches screwed up. I haven't seen anyone saying that 5 losses is successful. What I have seen, is posts saying that the old staff did such a terrible job, that Riley could lose 5 games this year. I find that laughable.

As for goals and expectations, it helps evaluate performance. If you (not you particularly) don't really care about that, then you probably were fine with things as they were under Bo. After 2013, I was pretty much done, and 2014 was the nail in the coffin for me. I'm ready to move on to Riley, and in my opinion, I see no logical reason (outside disaster) that he should lose more than 5 games.

Ok....pardon me for being confused.

So, people claimed the old staff did a terrible job and you don't agree with that? But, you claim you were ready for a change? If Riley loses 5 games, then he obviously isn't the answer?

You didn't answer the questions I highlighted above.

The old staff was either terrible and lucky, or just average. I don't believe in luck, so no, I don't believe they did a terrible job. They were just about average, which lines up with their winning percentage, and recruiting. They weren't good enough to win the Big games, and at Nebraska, that's not good enough.

If we have 5 losses, then you evaluate why. If it's because we had crazy injuries, have some bad bounces of the football, and we lose some close ones, then you take that into account. If it's 5 losses because the offense struggles because it's not playing to our QB's strengths... then we have a problem. Does that mean we fire everyone? Of course not. But there needs to be a warm seat and pressure to improve a whole lot the following season.

Again...so, it is more than just a hard line of X number of losses is acceptable or unacceptable. There might be more to it when evaluating the staff at the end of the year.

 

[BigRedBuster]

And, for the record, I agree with you that the old staff didn't to a horrible job. They just didn't do the job well enough to be acceptable at Nebraska. That includes how they represented the University in their actions.

There were many lucky bounces both good and bad that made up the win/loss record of the old staff. If Ameer doesn't break an amazing run early in the year against a cream puff, then we have one more loss. If two receivers don't run into each other against MSU, it's possible we might have another win.

We could feasibly have 5 losses, with two of those simply with bad luck at the end of the game. Worse record but instead of the bounce going our way it went the other. Doesn't mean one staff was better than the other.

 

[zoogs]

If we have 5 losses, then you evaluate why. If it's because we had crazy injuries, have some bad bounces of the football, and we lose some close ones, then you take that into account. If it's 5 losses because the offense struggles because it's not playing to our QB's strengths... then we have a problem. Does that mean we fire everyone? Of course not. But there needs to be a warm seat and pressure to improve a whole lot the following season.

If it's not playing to our QBs' strengths, that doesn't worry me. Riley and Langsdorf have a solid track record on offense and with QBs in particular. They will try to adapt to what we've got, but they can't simply run what Tim Beck did last year, or they'll never move forward with installing their own offense. And if the junior incumbent has bad habits or proves to be a disaster as a QB that has to deliver a snap count and make decisions...that is hardly going to be their fault.

The guy who is more front and center this year will be Mark Banker. We know we lost a good one in Bo (OK, some people don't, but whatever his faults, it's not like he is a clueless defensive coach). Banker wasn't lighting it up at Oregon State. Can he be effective here, and if the defense really struggles, will we see a path forward? Or at least, be able to pin it all on inherited roster deficiencies that the new staff is addressing ASAP.

Picking the wrong guy to be your coordinator can be a nail in the coffin for a head coach.

 

[The Dude]

Not sure how we decide there's no excuse to not win X number of games, and what the importance is anyway.

I mean, I understand the importance of making a bowl game. So setting a minimum of 6 wins makes sense. But if we're talking about 7, 8, 9 regular season wins, we're kinda splitting hairs aren't we? Unless one of those numbers get us in the CCG (unlikely), what's the real world consequence of winning 7 instead of 9? A slightly worse lower-tier bowl? C'mon. I think we would all agree this isn't an Indy or bust type of year.

I look at this season as a new beginning. With zero continuity in the coaching staff, I think people are being disingenuous when they're setting expectations. There's a lot up in the air. This seems like a better discussion for year 2, when we have a better idea of what to expect.

A lot of people are holding on to debates that took place in years 6 and 7 of the Pelini era. Trying to throw those arguments in people's faces in year 1 is kind of outrageous. Not to mention, kind of petty.

 

[Mierin]

A lot of people are holding on to debates that took place in years 6 and 7 of the Pelini era. Trying to throw those arguments in people's faces in year 1 is kind of outrageous. Not to mention, kind of petty.

But The Dude, Pelini won 9 games with the same offensive coordinator and a Sr. QB with four years in the system, so of course Riley should have the same exact expectations without having those things.

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

Every Saturday of football season, at least one team will come together with a scheme and motivation and upset a team ranked ahead of them.

That sounds fun to me. I'd like one of those.

And if an upset win came with a letdown loss to an Iowa, Northwestern or Minnesota....well we've been doing that anyway.

So I'd consider it refreshing.

 

[huskerfan333157]

How many losses would we have had last year if we didn't have ameer, bell or gregory? We lose to mcneese state and iowa which would have put us at 6 losses. Yet, people are saying 5 losses would be a failure next year when we lose our best producers...

 

[BigRedBuster]

How many losses would we have had last year if we didn't have ameer, bell or gregory? We lose to mcneese state and iowa which would have put us at 6 losses. Yet, people are saying 5 losses would be a failure next year when we lose our best producers...

Here is something else I scratch my head about.

Can't any team that wins a game say that about their star players?