Looking Back ... Looking Forward

[Mavric]

many would argue that our QB play has been holding us back for the last several years and we've won at least nine.

That was the system we played, though -- one that didn't run through the QB because we just had them look at sideline cards and ran 35-45 times a game.

Also, *again* we're going back to "won at least nine." Yeah, as a second-fiddle B1G West team jockeying with Iowa and Minnesota for the 2/3/4 spots in division. That is the reality.

So if winning nine games is only good enough to be a second-fiddle B1G West team jockeying with Iowa and Minnesota for the 2/3/4 spots in the division, it really shouldn't be that hard of a standard to continue, right?

And I think you missed my sarcasm in the second part you quoted.

 

[zoogs]

It's not a hard thing to be that kind of team, I agree.

Going 7-5 or 8-4 or 9-3 can be much the same, depending on how the games play out. Maybe that's where we disagree.

If we do take a step back first before taking a step forward, I guess the only thing that says to me is how rough of a transition was necessary. Nothing more. We don't know exactly how good the roster Bo left behind is, or how seamless the transition to new schemes (and a new company culture) will be. We also don't know how good the new coaches truly are. In some measure we'll be finding all of this out shortly, but we won't have a clear picture for a while yet.

Someone said this a page or two ago and I think it sums it up succinctly. What the team is able to this year will have quite a lot to do with Bo Pelini. Let's start making judgments on, or setting lines for Riley when the ownership is much more his own. That's fair enough, right?

 

[Mavric]

Agreed. As I've said a couple times, I don't think one year's results are likely to be telling on his career here as a whole. It just surprises me will all the claims over the last couple years that you should basically get eight wins for showing up and how much most think our staff is an upgrade that there is noticeable concern about only winning seven games. The logic just doesn't compute.

After all, if this year has a lot to do with Pelini, we should be a lock for #9wins, right?

 

[jsneb83]

Agreed. As I've said a couple times, I don't think one year's results are likely to be telling on his career here as a whole. It just surprises me will all the claims over the last couple years that you should basically get eight wins for showing up and how much most think our staff is an upgrade that there is noticeable concern about only winning seven games. The logic just doesn't compute.

After all, if this year has a lot to do with Pelini, we should be a lock for #9wins, right?

If they were keeping the same playbooks, the upgrades in coaching should result in an increase in wins. But they also learning new schemes on top of that and probably wouldn't be real comfortable with them until the end of the year. I could see us being 2-2 in September while they are still learning the scheme, whereas a Bo led team with everything being the same could have been 4-0 or 3-1. But I think the team could be playing better at the end of the year than any of Bo's teams of the last 4 years. The record just might not show it because of a rough start.

 

[admo]

Agreed. As I've said a couple times, I don't think one year's results are likely to be telling on his career here as a whole. It just surprises me will all the claims over the last couple years that you should basically get eight wins for showing up and how much most think our staff is an upgrade that there is noticeable concern about only winning seven games. The logic just doesn't compute.

After all, if this year has a lot to do with Pelini, we should be a lock for #9wins, right?

If they were keeping the same playbooks, the upgrades in coaching should result in an increase in wins. But they also learning new schemes on top of that and probably wouldn't be real comfortable with them until the end of the year. I could see us being 2-2 in September while they are still learning the scheme, whereas a Bo led team with everything being the same could have been 4-0 or 3-1. But I think the team could be playing better at the end of the year than any of Bo's teams of the last 4 years. The record just might not show it because of a rough start.

Playing better at the end of the year - that is one of the things I would like to see us get better at. Look at the Husker trend since 2010 during the final 5 game stretch. 2-3, 2-3, 3-2, 3-2, 2-3. Clean that up a bit, maybe end the season with a good run. I'd love that.

 

[H2h]

But, I agree with you that 9-3 is a reasonable expectation, and that should we win 8 or 7, it doesn't mean that it won't get better. If you want to, think of that as a step backwards, I guess, but the way I see it is that Year One *can* be a bumpy transition for any coach for any number of reasons. If this we agree on, then our positions here are the same.

This seems to be thrown around a lot but I'm not sure I buy it. Obviously the biggest hurdle for Riley is finding a QB for his system but many would argue that our QB play has been holding us back for the last several years and we've won at least nine. And it's repeated often that Riley will adjust to his players. And, as saunders aluded to, Pelini came in with his unqualified staff and installed the most complicated defense known to man and made huge strides in year one.

When this came up awhile ago, my contention was it really didn't hold water with history. I asked for any examples of coaches who went backwards in year one but recovered to have significantly more success than their predecessor. Despite many examples being thrown out, the only one that really fit that criteria was Bobby Petrino at Arkansas. They took a big step back his first year but he recovered to have a couple pretty good seasons by Arky standards. But if the transition year is really that much of a worry, I would think there would be examples all over the place. But as far as I can see, if you struggle out of the gate it more than likely just means that it's not going to happen.

Mike Shula went 6-6 in his last regular season at Alabama (fired before they lost the bowl game). Nick Saban went 6-6 during his first regular season at Alabama (won his first bowl game). Seems things got better.

 

[Mavric]

But, I agree with you that 9-3 is a reasonable expectation, and that should we win 8 or 7, it doesn't mean that it won't get better. If you want to, think of that as a step backwards, I guess, but the way I see it is that Year One *can* be a bumpy transition for any coach for any number of reasons. If this we agree on, then our positions here are the same.

This seems to be thrown around a lot but I'm not sure I buy it. Obviously the biggest hurdle for Riley is finding a QB for his system but many would argue that our QB play has been holding us back for the last several years and we've won at least nine. And it's repeated often that Riley will adjust to his players. And, as saunders aluded to, Pelini came in with his unqualified staff and installed the most complicated defense known to man and made huge strides in year one.

When this came up awhile ago, my contention was it really didn't hold water with history. I asked for any examples of coaches who went backwards in year one but recovered to have significantly more success than their predecessor. Despite many examples being thrown out, the only one that really fit that criteria was Bobby Petrino at Arkansas. They took a big step back his first year but he recovered to have a couple pretty good seasons by Arky standards. But if the transition year is really that much of a worry, I would think there would be examples all over the place. But as far as I can see, if you struggle out of the gate it more than likely just means that it's not going to happen.

Mike Shula went 6-6 in his last regular season at Alabama (fired before they lost the bowl game). Nick Saban went 6-6 during his first regular season at Alabama (won his first bowl game). Seems things got better.

Yep. So he didn't get worse in his first year. Like I said.

 

[skersfan]

If we show and play every game, 60 minutes, lose to Wisconsin, but are in the game, lose to Iowa or BYU and not get routed, who cares. Improvement is what was needed. Not more wins, not less wins. Improvement of the product on the field.

Wins and losses really do not matter at this point. I do not expect, nor demand a certain number. I just want to see a team, yes a team, not us against the world crap. Give me a team that plays together, enjoy the game together I can deal with the outcome. For me it is not about winning or losing, but how you play, how you represent the University, the program and the state. WE have already become huge winners on those fronts. Kicking Bo to the curb improved our image greatly. Bo was not fired because he did not win so many games, not because he did not win a conference championship, not because he was not ranked. He was fired because he was Bo. What he did to the program, the culture, the kids.

Bo won 9-10 games every year, but the nation knew he could never win the big one, and would make an a$$ of himself and the university at least once a year.

We have a fresh start, a chance to become Nebraska again. A place of pride, not an embarrassment.

Embrace it. Hope for the best, deal with it if it isn't.

 

[H2h]

But, I agree with you that 9-3 is a reasonable expectation, and that should we win 8 or 7, it doesn't mean that it won't get better. If you want to, think of that as a step backwards, I guess, but the way I see it is that Year One *can* be a bumpy transition for any coach for any number of reasons. If this we agree on, then our positions here are the same.

This seems to be thrown around a lot but I'm not sure I buy it. Obviously the biggest hurdle for Riley is finding a QB for his system but many would argue that our QB play has been holding us back for the last several years and we've won at least nine. And it's repeated often that Riley will adjust to his players. And, as saunders aluded to, Pelini came in with his unqualified staff and installed the most complicated defense known to man and made huge strides in year one.

When this came up awhile ago, my contention was it really didn't hold water with history. I asked for any examples of coaches who went backwards in year one but recovered to have significantly more success than their predecessor. Despite many examples being thrown out, the only one that really fit that criteria was Bobby Petrino at Arkansas. They took a big step back his first year but he recovered to have a couple pretty good seasons by Arky standards. But if the transition year is really that much of a worry, I would think there would be examples all over the place. But as far as I can see, if you struggle out of the gate it more than likely just means that it's not going to happen.

Mike Shula went 6-6 in his last regular season at Alabama (fired before they lost the bowl game). Nick Saban went 6-6 during his first regular season at Alabama (won his first bowl game). Seems things got better.

Yep. So he didn't get worse in his first year. Like I said.

So going 6-6 with a loss to Lousiana-Monroe at home, and four straight losses to end the regular season isn't a rocky start just because they didn't lose one more game then the year before? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's an FCS team beating a team that won 10 games two years prior.

How about we don't worry about our record this year and look for improvement throughout the season, that will mean a hell of a lot more than #9 wins.

 

[NebraskaShellback]

Not to put words is saunders's mouth but I think his point - or at least the point I got from that - was the people who claimed everything with Bo were just excuses shouldn't now but using those excuses for Riley.

Exactly. Doing anything to the contrary is hypocritical.

Also, if you use Boliever or Boleaver you should punch yourself in the face.

that made me laugh - Thanks

 

[NebraskaShellback]

How many pages can this thread go when it is essentially the Bo-lievers vs. the Bo-leavers all over again?

It will never end! It repeats itself over and over again.

 

[teachercd]

But, I agree with you that 9-3 is a reasonable expectation, and that should we win 8 or 7, it doesn't mean that it won't get better. If you want to, think of that as a step backwards, I guess, but the way I see it is that Year One *can* be a bumpy transition for any coach for any number of reasons. If this we agree on, then our positions here are the same.

This seems to be thrown around a lot but I'm not sure I buy it. Obviously the biggest hurdle for Riley is finding a QB for his system but many would argue that our QB play has been holding us back for the last several years and we've won at least nine. And it's repeated often that Riley will adjust to his players. And, as saunders aluded to, Pelini came in with his unqualified staff and installed the most complicated defense known to man and made huge strides in year one.

When this came up awhile ago, my contention was it really didn't hold water with history. I asked for any examples of coaches who went backwards in year one but recovered to have significantly more success than their predecessor. Despite many examples being thrown out, the only one that really fit that criteria was Bobby Petrino at Arkansas. They took a big step back his first year but he recovered to have a couple pretty good seasons by Arky standards. But if the transition year is really that much of a worry, I would think there would be examples all over the place. But as far as I can see, if you struggle out of the gate it more than likely just means that it's not going to happen.

Mike Shula went 6-6 in his last regular season at Alabama (fired before they lost the bowl game). Nick Saban went 6-6 during his first regular season at Alabama (won his first bowl game). Seems things got better.

Yep. So he didn't get worse in his first year. Like I said.

So going 6-6 with a loss to Lousiana-Monroe at home, and four straight losses to end the regular season isn't a rocky start just because they didn't lose one more game then the year before? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's an FCS team beating a team that won 10 games two years prior.

How about we don't worry about our record this year and look for improvement throughout the season, that will mean a hell of a lot more than #9 wins.

It is a little different because you are not a Bama fan...They thought they were going to LOVE Shula and it turns out they hated him...(He might have been a panic hire but I am not 100% sure on the timeline) So Bama fans were freaking thrilled to get him out and get in the new guy...that new guy (Saban) was able to equal the record of the guy they wanted gone so that leaves fans feeling "okay" just like it would here...

Shula also went 10-2 only to follow that up with 6-6 (when he was canned) so expectations were even lower...and I think Bama was still on sanctions in Sabans first year or perhaps they had just ended.

Most Husker fans are just saying that Riley should win, at the very least, as many games as Bo. That should be the floor not the ceiling.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Why do so many people act like they are going to make their mind up on if Riley is a successful hire on the win loss record of his first year here? Is that really a fair way of looking at things?

 

[Hedley Lamarr]

Why do so many people act like they are going to make their mind up on if Riley is a successful hire on the win loss record of his first year here? Is that really a fair way of looking at things?

No

 

[Mavric]

But, I agree with you that 9-3 is a reasonable expectation, and that should we win 8 or 7, it doesn't mean that it won't get better. If you want to, think of that as a step backwards, I guess, but the way I see it is that Year One *can* be a bumpy transition for any coach for any number of reasons. If this we agree on, then our positions here are the same.

This seems to be thrown around a lot but I'm not sure I buy it. Obviously the biggest hurdle for Riley is finding a QB for his system but many would argue that our QB play has been holding us back for the last several years and we've won at least nine. And it's repeated often that Riley will adjust to his players. And, as saunders aluded to, Pelini came in with his unqualified staff and installed the most complicated defense known to man and made huge strides in year one.

When this came up awhile ago, my contention was it really didn't hold water with history. I asked for any examples of coaches who went backwards in year one but recovered to have significantly more success than their predecessor. Despite many examples being thrown out, the only one that really fit that criteria was Bobby Petrino at Arkansas. They took a big step back his first year but he recovered to have a couple pretty good seasons by Arky standards. But if the transition year is really that much of a worry, I would think there would be examples all over the place. But as far as I can see, if you struggle out of the gate it more than likely just means that it's not going to happen.

Mike Shula went 6-6 in his last regular season at Alabama (fired before they lost the bowl game). Nick Saban went 6-6 during his first regular season at Alabama (won his first bowl game). Seems things got better.

Yep. So he didn't get worse in his first year. Like I said.

So going 6-6 with a loss to Lousiana-Monroe at home, and four straight losses to end the regular season isn't a rocky start just because they didn't lose one more game then the year before? Correct me if I'm wrong but that's an FCS team beating a team that won 10 games two years prior.

How about we don't worry about our record this year and look for improvement throughout the season, that will mean a hell of a lot more than #9 wins.

When you balance beating two Top 25 teams and winning a bowl game against beating no Top 25 teams and losing a bowl game, yes, I'd say those two seasons are pretty much even. And it didn't say it wasn't a rocky start. Just that it wasn't worse than the previous year.