Looking Back ... Looking Forward

[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?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

You're making that strictly on wins and losses. So, you are doing basically what you said you weren't doing.

Let me ask this.

Let's say we start off the year with a loss to either BYU or Miami due to the team adjusting to the new schemes. From there, we start seeing the team improve only to have TA and Bush both go down with season ending injuries. Now, let's say Rose-Ivey, Collins and Banderas also go down with injuries and we end up losing Northwestern, MSU, Iowa and the bowl game also due to lack of depth at those positions to make up for those losses.

Is that an indication that Riley "isn't as good as advertised"? Or, are there things a first year coach just needs to work through before he can truly show us what he can do here?

 

[Guy Chamberlin]

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?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

It can say more than two things, Saunders.

 

[Saunders]

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?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

You're making that strictly on wins and losses. So, you are doing basically what you said you weren't doing.

Let me ask this.

Let's say we start off the year with a loss to either BYU or Miami due to the team adjusting to the new schemes. From there, we start seeing the team improve only to have TA and Bush both go down with season ending injuries. Now, let's say Rose-Ivey, Collins and Banderas also go down with injuries and we end up losing Northwestern, MSU, Iowa and the bowl game also due to lack of depth at those positions to make up for those losses.

Is that an indication that Riley "isn't as good as advertised"? Or, are there things a first year coach just needs to work through before he can truly show us what he can do here?

Obviously, those are extenuating circumstances. But if we don't have a million injuriies, and instead lose to BYU, Miami, MSU, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, then what?

 

[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?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

You're making that strictly on wins and losses. So, you are doing basically what you said you weren't doing.

Let me ask this.

Let's say we start off the year with a loss to either BYU or Miami due to the team adjusting to the new schemes. From there, we start seeing the team improve only to have TA and Bush both go down with season ending injuries. Now, let's say Rose-Ivey, Collins and Banderas also go down with injuries and we end up losing Northwestern, MSU, Iowa and the bowl game also due to lack of depth at those positions to make up for those losses.

Is that an indication that Riley "isn't as good as advertised"? Or, are there things a first year coach just needs to work through before he can truly show us what he can do here?

Obviously, those are extenuating circumstances. But if we don't have a million injuriies, and instead lose to BYU, Miami, MSU, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, then what?

You tell me? You're the one making judgements on the first year based on wins and losses.

 

[Saunders]

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?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

You're making that strictly on wins and losses. So, you are doing basically what you said you weren't doing.

Let me ask this.

Let's say we start off the year with a loss to either BYU or Miami due to the team adjusting to the new schemes. From there, we start seeing the team improve only to have TA and Bush both go down with season ending injuries. Now, let's say Rose-Ivey, Collins and Banderas also go down with injuries and we end up losing Northwestern, MSU, Iowa and the bowl game also due to lack of depth at those positions to make up for those losses.

Is that an indication that Riley "isn't as good as advertised"? Or, are there things a first year coach just needs to work through before he can truly show us what he can do here?

Obviously, those are extenuating circumstances. But if we don't have a million injuriies, and instead lose to BYU, Miami, MSU, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, then what?

You tell me? You're the one making judgements on the first year based on wins and losses.

Then maybe Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought. It's possible to make a judgment without making the final judgement.

 

[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?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

You're making that strictly on wins and losses. So, you are doing basically what you said you weren't doing.

Let me ask this.

Let's say we start off the year with a loss to either BYU or Miami due to the team adjusting to the new schemes. From there, we start seeing the team improve only to have TA and Bush both go down with season ending injuries. Now, let's say Rose-Ivey, Collins and Banderas also go down with injuries and we end up losing Northwestern, MSU, Iowa and the bowl game also due to lack of depth at those positions to make up for those losses.

Is that an indication that Riley "isn't as good as advertised"? Or, are there things a first year coach just needs to work through before he can truly show us what he can do here?

Obviously, those are extenuating circumstances. But if we don't have a million injuriies, and instead lose to BYU, Miami, MSU, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, then what?

You tell me? You're the one making judgements on the first year based on wins and losses.

Then maybe Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

So, you are putting a stake in the ground that if Riley loses more than 4 games this year, he isn't as good of coach as Bo.

 

[Mierin]

I'd rather we go 7-5 without being blown out than have Bo as a coach.

 

[RedSavage]

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?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

You're making that strictly on wins and losses. So, you are doing basically what you said you weren't doing.

Let me ask this.

Let's say we start off the year with a loss to either BYU or Miami due to the team adjusting to the new schemes. From there, we start seeing the team improve only to have TA and Bush both go down with season ending injuries. Now, let's say Rose-Ivey, Collins and Banderas also go down with injuries and we end up losing Northwestern, MSU, Iowa and the bowl game also due to lack of depth at those positions to make up for those losses.

Is that an indication that Riley "isn't as good as advertised"? Or, are there things a first year coach just needs to work through before he can truly show us what he can do here?

Obviously, those are extenuating circumstances. But if we don't have a million injuriies, and instead lose to BYU, Miami, MSU, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, then what?

You tell me? You're the one making judgements on the first year based on wins and losses.

Then maybe Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

So, you are putting a stake in the ground that if Riley loses more than 4 games this year, he isn't as good of coach as Bo.

I don't think that's what he's saying. It's more about the body of work and not regressing than the win/loss number. I think we can all agree we just want to see this team be competitive and stop losing games to themselves.

 

[commando]

I'd rather we go 7-5 without being blown out than have Bo as a coach.

and not having our coach all over the news for being an arse.... ...

 

[Saunders]

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?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

You're making that strictly on wins and losses. So, you are doing basically what you said you weren't doing.

Let me ask this.

Let's say we start off the year with a loss to either BYU or Miami due to the team adjusting to the new schemes. From there, we start seeing the team improve only to have TA and Bush both go down with season ending injuries. Now, let's say Rose-Ivey, Collins and Banderas also go down with injuries and we end up losing Northwestern, MSU, Iowa and the bowl game also due to lack of depth at those positions to make up for those losses.

Is that an indication that Riley "isn't as good as advertised"? Or, are there things a first year coach just needs to work through before he can truly show us what he can do here?

Obviously, those are extenuating circumstances. But if we don't have a million injuriies, and instead lose to BYU, Miami, MSU, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, then what?

You tell me? You're the one making judgements on the first year based on wins and losses.

Then maybe Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

So, you are putting a stake in the ground that if Riley loses more than 4 games this year, he isn't as good of coach as Bo.

No....

It could mean that Bo isn't as bad as some thought.

 

[Saunders]

I'd rather we go 7-5 without being blown out than have Bo as a coach.

So, Iowa?

I'd prefer to win a championship.

 

[Mierin]

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?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

You're making that strictly on wins and losses. So, you are doing basically what you said you weren't doing.

Let me ask this.

Let's say we start off the year with a loss to either BYU or Miami due to the team adjusting to the new schemes. From there, we start seeing the team improve only to have TA and Bush both go down with season ending injuries. Now, let's say Rose-Ivey, Collins and Banderas also go down with injuries and we end up losing Northwestern, MSU, Iowa and the bowl game also due to lack of depth at those positions to make up for those losses.

Is that an indication that Riley "isn't as good as advertised"? Or, are there things a first year coach just needs to work through before he can truly show us what he can do here?

Obviously, those are extenuating circumstances. But if we don't have a million injuriies, and instead lose to BYU, Miami, MSU, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, then what?

You tell me? You're the one making judgements on the first year based on wins and losses.

Then maybe Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

So, you are putting a stake in the ground that if Riley loses more than 4 games this year, he isn't as good of coach as Bo.

No....

It could mean that Bo isn't as bad as some thought.

It wasn't the number of wins/losses that made people think he wasn't good enough, so no, it wouldn't mean that at all. It was mostly the blow out losses.

 

[Saunders]

It's rather simple. Bo and his unqualified band of yes men failed to deliver a conference title, but managed to win at a certain level. Riley brings a staff loaded with experience, and some guys who appear to be good/great assistants. Without any extenuating circumstances, against a very similar schedule to the past 3-4 years, there should be no regression.

 

[True2tRA]

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?

I don't really see that as being the point that people are making. My stance, is that there's no excuse to lose 5-6 games.

You just did what you said you weren't doing.

In fact, I'll simplify it. If Reilly is as good as advertised, then we shouldn't lose more than 4 games.

You are stating that if Riley loses more than 4 games, then he obviously isn't as good as advertised. You are claiming that you are going to decide if he is any good based on the win loss record of his first year.

We're going to evaluate after every single year, just as every team across the country does. If there's a regression, it says one of 2 things: Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.

You're making that strictly on wins and losses. So, you are doing basically what you said you weren't doing.
Let me ask this.

Let's say we start off the year with a loss to either BYU or Miami due to the team adjusting to the new schemes. From there, we start seeing the team improve only to have TA and Bush both go down with season ending injuries. Now, let's say Rose-Ivey, Collins and Banderas also go down with injuries and we end up losing Northwestern, MSU, Iowa and the bowl game also due to lack of depth at those positions to make up for those losses.

Is that an indication that Riley "isn't as good as advertised"? Or, are there things a first year coach just needs to work through before he can truly show us what he can do here?

Obviously, those are extenuating circumstances. But if we don't have a million injuriies, and instead lose to BYU, Miami, MSU, Minnesota, and Wisconsin, then what?

You tell me? You're the one making judgements on the first year based on wins and losses.

Then maybe Bo wasn't as bad as some thought, or Riley isn't as good as some thought.[/size]

So, you are putting a stake in the ground that if Riley loses more than 4 games this year, he isn't as good of coach as Bo.

I don't think that's what he's saying. It's more about the body of work and not regressing than the win/loss number. I think we can all agree we just want to see this team be competitive and stop losing games to themselves.

Body of work? One season at Nebraska, that being his first season, is hardly a "body of work".

Maybe we could give these guys a coupe seasons to see how things go. Maybe see what they're trying to do with their own players...

I do agree though, some of the stumbling-bumbling and getting in our own way could start to vanish immediately.

 

[Mierin]

I'd rather we go 7-5 without being blown out than have Bo as a coach.

So, Iowa?

I'd prefer to win a championship.

This is a pretty stupid reply. I'm comparing 2 things to each other. I'd rather us win the national championship 20 years in a row and have the alternate uniform finally feature the corn helmet. There's my equally stupid reply.