What did we learn? - Game 1 - Colorado

LaunchCode said:
MR's first game a 33-28 loss to BYU on a Hail Mary, -1 in turnovers with 90 yards in penalties

SF's first game a 33-28 loss to CU on a long pass,  -3 in turnovers with 95 yards in penalties

One thing I learned; different coaches, different year, nearly identical results.

I will say the same thing I stated during MR's tenure, and Moose basically endorsed this sentiment with SF's contract, a coach needs a full recruiting cycle to establish his program.  

The other thing I learned.  When fans like the coach, player mistakes and lack of discipline are a player problem.  When fans aren't a fan of the coach, player mistakes and lack of discipline are a sign of bad coaching and conditioning.

Give Frost the time and support MR didn't get before raking him over the coals.
Click to expand...
I disagree that Riley didn't get support, at least at first. Along the way to 19-19, he proved to be what he always has and will be; a .500 coach, and no amount of support or whatever is going to change that.

Do you honestly think that Riley would've competed for B1G titles given a full recruiting cycle?

Did Moos jump the gun in firing a guy that got boat-raced by a HORRIBLE Purdue team, embarrassed by Iowa at home, and beaten by a MAC school on our own field, and was he premature in hiring Frost, who was the first coach in NCAA HISTORY to take a team from 0-12 to undefeated?

There was very little leadership, ownership, or culture, not to mention the fact that a Nebraska football team, for the first time in God knows how long, hadn't done much off-season lifting. For Bob Devaney's sake, we INVENTED college football lifting! And they didn't care enough to continue that tradition. Should we support that?

We show up, we sell out the stadium, and poor millions into this program. I'd say the fans are okay in support, whoever the coach is.

 
PasstheDamnBallGuy said:
Frost also inherited QBs that didnt fit his system. The difference is that Frost went out and got a player that started day 1 and looked amazing in his system. Riley had every opportunity to do the same, and in 3 years never once did what Frost did in his first game.  I think TA was an amazing player but as a coach its your job to design an offense that works for him or get someone that can run your offense now. 
Click to expand...
I don't see any real similarity. 

If there was a returning veteran QB this year then I could see the similarity.  I'm not certain Frost would kick a veteran QB who'd already won games to the curb in favor of a true freshman either.  Would to some degree discredit his message of loyalty to the players if he did.   

 
LaunchCode said:
I'm not certain Frost would kick a veteran QB who'd already won games to the curb in favor of a true freshman either.  Would to some degree discredit his message of loyalty to the players if he did.   
Click to expand...




Frost has no message like that, therefore it would discredit nothing. In fact it would send a bad message to the rest of the team if he didn’t play a superior true freshman over an inferior senior. Frost has never said or implied that he would be “loyal” to a player over playing the best player. Because that would be stupid. 

Any coach who plays someone out of loyalty when there’s another better player at their position should not be coaching at the college level. That’s the kind of thing you see in middle school sports when a kid’s dad is coaching and the kid gets to play the whole game even if he sucks.

The main message all spring and summer and fall was that all starting spots are up for grabs, which is the opposite of what you’re saying.

That said I agree the situations are different, and at UCF in the first year Frost played a guy who was there already when he arrived. We don’t know what would have happened if Gebbia had been a returning starter. I feel confident Lee would have been the 4th or 5th string QB though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jeremy said:
I disagree that Riley didn't get support, at least at first. Along the way to 19-19, he proved to be what he always has and will be; a .500 coach, and no amount of support or whatever is going to change that.

Do you honestly think that Riley would've competed for B1G titles given a full recruiting cycle?

Did Moos jump the gun in firing a guy that got boat-raced by a HORRIBLE Purdue team, embarrassed by Iowa at home, and beaten by a MAC school on our own field, and was he premature in hiring Frost, who was the first coach in NCAA HISTORY to take a team from 0-12 to undefeated?

There was very little leadership, ownership, or culture, not to mention the fact that a Nebraska football team, for the first time in God knows how long, hadn't done much off-season lifting. For Bob Devaney's sake, we INVENTED college football lifting! And they didn't care enough to continue that tradition. Should we support that?

We show up, we sell out the stadium, and poor millions into this program. I'd say the fans are okay in support, whoever the coach is.
Click to expand...
Until the new AD forces a Diaco type hire on SF like the old did on MR, or overrides him on in state recruiting targets, I will stick to the opinion that MR had far less than full support to make N successful.  

Thankfully I don't see that happening under Moose.

 
Moiraine said:
Frost has no message like that, therefore it would discredit nothing. In fact it would send a bad message to the rest of the team if he didn’t play a superior true freshman over an inferior senior. Frost has never said or implied that he would be “loyal” to a player over playing the best player. Because that would be stupid. 

Any coach who plays someone out of loyalty when there’s another better player at their position should not be coaching at the college level. That’s the kind of thing you see in middle school sports when a kid’s dad is coaching and the kid gets to play the whole game even if he sucks.

The main message all spring and summer and fall was that all starting spots are up for grabs, which is the opposite of what you’re saying.

That said I agree the situations are different, and at UCF in the first year Frost played a guy who was there already when he arrived. We don’t know what would have happened if Gebbia had been a returning starter. I feel confident Lee would have been the 4th or 5th string QB though.
Click to expand...


Exactly this, although Milton started from like the 3rd game on and was recruited just before that season so its really almost the same thing he did here. IIRC there was some reason Milton got behind in camp(injury?) otherwise he might have started game 1 like Martinez. 

 
Moiraine said:
Frost has no message like that, therefore it would discredit nothing. In fact it would send a bad message to the rest of the team if he didn’t play a superior true freshman over an inferior senior. Frost has never said or implied that he would be “loyal” to a player over playing the best player. Because that would be stupid. 

Any coach who plays someone out of loyalty when there’s another better player at their position should not be coaching at the college level. That’s the kind of thing you see in middle school sports when a kid’s dad is coaching and the kid gets to play the whole game even if he sucks.

The main message all spring and summer and fall was that all starting spots are up for grabs, which is the opposite of what you’re saying.

That said I agree the situations are different, and at UCF in the first year Frost played a guy who was there already when he arrived. We don’t know what would have happened if Gebbia had been a returning starter. I feel confident Lee would have been the 4th or 5th string QB though.
Click to expand...
I worded that in a way it doesn't read how I meant.   

One of SF's messages to the players as I've heard it, is about being loyal to the program and team.  Since loyalty is a two way street, if a coach is asking for it, then the players will be looking for it from him as well.  A message is only meaningful if the audience trusts the person giving the message.  So in my way of thinking if someone is asking for loyalty and then taking action that can be perceived as disloyal then it undermines the strength of the message in the future.  

I totally agree if it's a matter of one player working harder, or being better then the other of course that player should rightfully earn and get the job.  But if they're equal in talent and work effort and you hand it to the new less experienced guy over the veteran guy just because he's "your guy" then a lot of existing players are going to take issue and question the loyalty of the coach to the existing players who stuck with the program over the new ones.  

 
LaunchCode said:
Until the new AD forces a Diaco type hire on SF like the old did on MR, or overrides him on in state recruiting targets, I will stick to the opinion that MR had far less than full support to make N successful.  

Thankfully I don't see that happening under Moose.
Click to expand...
I get where you are coming from there - people in those positions have thankfully been replaced. At the same time, I think it's safe to say that Frost is absolutely a better fit and a better hire in Lincoln, Nebraska than Riley could ever hope to have been.

 
LaunchCode said:
I worded that in a way it doesn't read how I meant.   

One of SF's messages to the players as I've heard it, is about being loyal to the program and team.  Since loyalty is a two way street, if a coach is asking for it, then the players will be looking for it from him as well.  A message is only meaningful if the audience trusts the person giving the message.  So in my way of thinking if someone is asking for loyalty and then taking action that can be perceived as disloyal then it undermines the strength of the message in the future.  

I totally agree if it's a matter of one player working harder, or being better then the other of course that player should rightfully earn and get the job.  But if they're equal in talent and work effort and you hand it to the new less experienced guy over the veteran guy just because he's "your guy" then a lot of existing players are going to take issue and question the loyalty of the coach to the existing players who stuck with the program over the new ones.  
Click to expand...
I can agree with the bold. Don't think that's what happened with Gebbia and Martinez though. Not saying that's what you're saying, but it was said a couple weeks ago by some people.

 
This game baffles me the more I think about it.  I understand that it was ultimately decided by at least one to many turnovers and/or one to many dropped passes at inopportune  times; but how did Colorado not turn it over once given our seven sacks?  I know Bootle could have had one, but other than that not even a bobble.  

 


The full quote I assume reads:

“That is a physical football team. That is one of the most physical teams we will play all year.  I'm so glad the team took my advice to play dirty and with spite, the ankle twist was a vintage touch, just like Colorado teams of old against Nebraska.  We'll probably try to shank them next year in Boulder. I'm a massive tool"

 
krc1995 said:
This game baffles me the more I think about it.  I understand that it was ultimately decided by at least one to many turnovers and/or one to many dropped passes at inopportune  times; but how did Colorado not turn it over once given our seven sacks?  I know Bootle could have had one, but other than that not even a bobble.  
Click to expand...
Take away the turnover difference and we win.  Their QB did a good job holding onto the ball.  I think we had a couple PBUs that were possibly catchable.  It was a strange game and what I believe we saw was a team in transition from bad habits of the past to learning how to win again.  Although disappointing it was also fun to watch because of how we played and I'm excited to see how much this group can improve the rest of the season.

 
Redux said:
The full quote I assume reads:

“That is a physical football team. That is one of the most physical teams we will play all year.  I'm so glad the team took my advice to play dirty and with spite, the ankle twist was a vintage touch, just like Colorado teams of old against Nebraska.  We'll probably try to shank them next year in Boulder. I'm a massive tool"
Click to expand...
He is a tool.  I believe he said after the game that we had the advantage going into the game since CU didn't have any game tape on us.  

 
He did also acknowledge that it was a weakness for us not to have a game to get the jitters out. Honestly, that quote about us being the most physical team they will play is better than anything Frost said about Colorado.

Not that I blame Frost, we clearly beat ourselves and any neutral fan who watched the game would agree.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Interesting twist- we all know all the mistakes along the way. 3 turnovers, penalties, dropped balls etc. through all that we were ahead and in possession of the ball and driving. Take away a dirty play by CU- maybe NU still wins if Martinez finishes the last 2 drives in lieu of bunch. Maybe we score on the 2nd to last drive or maybe not and he has to make the game winner on the last drive. But I would have rather had Martinez than bunch the last drive. The last 2 plays thrown in bounds alone could have made the difference 

 
Back
Top