***Official Iowa Game Discussion Thread***
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
Pelini sucked as a person, coach, and leader, and teacher. Him having fun tonight would be fitting. He makes a better OSU or Iowa fan then a Husker coach.
For those arguing that this is about talent.
Iowa starting OL (per this link):
LT - Walkon
LG - .82 3-star (P5 offers from Iowa and Iowa St)
C - .89 4-star (highly recruited)
RG - .87 3-star (no other offers)
LT - .85 3-start (handful of P5 offers, but none by the traditional B10 powers of Michigan, OSU, PSU, Wisconsin or Nebraska - best offer was probably from Miami)
3 of 5 of them from Iowa (the other two from Ohio). 3 of them are sophomores or younger. None are seniors.
They may be more productive, but I highly doubt they have more raw talent than our group.
Iowa starting OL (per this link):
LT - Walkon
LG - .82 3-star (P5 offers from Iowa and Iowa St)
C - .89 4-star (highly recruited)
RG - .87 3-star (no other offers)
LT - .85 3-start (handful of P5 offers, but none by the traditional B10 powers of Michigan, OSU, PSU, Wisconsin or Nebraska - best offer was probably from Miami)
3 of 5 of them from Iowa (the other two from Ohio). 3 of them are sophomores or younger. None are seniors.
They may be more productive, but I highly doubt they have more raw talent than our group.
So you're saying he didn't have a good nigyt? That would be refreshing and surprising given what we all know he says in private.
But he's not part of the program. So there's always that.
All I needed to know about our line was Sophmore Jerald Foster coming back from a knee injury 3 games ago and starting after a week of practice since spring.
Our O-line could be 8th year seniors but they'll struggle to be starters next year. Good thing for graduation.
krc1995
Donor
Vitalis Jackson
Banned
I agree completely. The change of a coaching staff is always a tough thing for players that were recruited by the discredited staff. They feel like there's an asterisk after their name, and it crashes down on them when the going gets tough. It's not unusual, especially when you consider the circumstances of Pelini's departure. NU sucked tonight but this season is a vast improvement over last year, and I expect we'll continue to see good improvement in the years ahead. Think of how different this season would have been with a decent OL and even an average passing QB . . .
So, NU is less talented than the FCS team that beat Iowa?
Are the recruiting rankings all wrong? Because this one says that our current roster is several spots better than Iowa's. 30 spots better actually. In other words, it's not even close.
This is an Iowa team that is 7-4 (sorry, 8-4) and lost to a FCS team at home. It had single score wins over Rutgers and Minnesota for f's sake. It scored less points against every other P5 opponent except Purdue (who it beat in a shootout where it gave up 35 to an awful Purdue team).
I don't mind people arguing to keep Riley. I"m not for firing him. But to ignore reality and bash our players' talent in defense of the indefensible? That's pathetic.
Not true at all. Good coaches turn programs around very quickly.
If we didn't have Tommy Armstrong, we would have lost 3 or 4 more games.
Vitalis Jackson
Banned
I disagree. The best coaches in the world can't help players that aren't connected or lose confidence. The players should be mature enough to be responsible for their positions. The game of football is always about players, much more than about coaches. Coaches are just easier to blame.
Saunders
Administrator
Nah, it usually goes like this:
bad results during years 1-3 are blamed on the players (and a handful of assistants) - see, for example, 2004 to 2006 under Cally.
bad results in years 4+ are blamed on all coaches.
what people don't seem to get is that years 1-3 were on the coaches, too.
I'd love to see examples of good coaches who (1) took over programs from fired coaches, (2) did not improve in years 1 or 2 over the previous coach and (3) ended up being actually more successful than that fired coach.
I'd bet that list is quite short.
Last edited by a moderator:
84HuskerLaw
New member
yes, indeed without Tommy Armstrong, this year's team would likely have won about 3 games (maybe?). Seriously, there is THAT much drop off from Tommy to Fyfe (apparently and we will never know for sure because no other QB has been seriously tried over Tommy). Presumably both this staff and the last one were correct in their judgment of who the QB starter should be as both thought Tommy was 'the man' for 4 years. In fact, Tommy was apparently so 'good' he is the best ever at Nebraska having now played in more games and thrown for more yards and more TDs, etc than all the others in history.
But in reality I don't think there would be anyone on this board who would make the argument that Tommy Armstrong is the greatest QB in Husker history. He is not even close to being one of the top ten in my view. He is a lion and a warrior and plays hard! But he is not a great QB although is perhaps a good QB. He just does not fit this type of offense. He could very well run Osborne's offense from the 90s but he can't run a passing offense well. He is at his best, whatever that may be, in running and rolling out, etc. But he is not tall enough to stand in the pocket and 'see' the whole field and the be patient enough to find the most open receiver.
krc1995
Donor
In hindsight, Riley should have rented a QB last year. He's discussed it before, but apparently when he became coach he was inudated with request from dads, programs, probably agents, about kids that wanted to transfer in. At the time of the new coaching staff's transition to Nebraksa, Riley's mentioned he didn't want to integrally alter the team's chemistry and especially given the voliatile dismissal of the previous staff. Even assumming that Tommy was the known starter, having someone to push him would have only made for a better team. But hindsight's 20/20 and maybe these last two seasons were only about transition and next year is the first season that Riley can soley be held responsible for. I have to be honest, I don't really see that we have great athletes like others have mentioned. We seem slow and gimpy- mentally and physically.