ColoradoHusk
Donor
Especially when UCLA ran off 38 straight points from the end of the 2nd quarter until the end of the game.
Tangent Thread - December 2015 Edition
- Thread starter Mavric
- Start date
ColoradoHusk
Donor
We have a roster of GREAT talent that has always lost a least 4 games. Teams with GREAT talent do not lose 4 or more games. Ask Alabama and Clemson.
Switzer always said it is about "jimmy's and Joe's" truer words were never spoken!! You might want to look into that.
Riley will bring in some quality Jimmy's and Joes to go along with the spotty talent Bo brought in and in a couple of years you will not see the travel roster littered with 1/3 walkons.
Last edited by a moderator:
teachercd
Active member
Switzer was being modest.
I actually think Bo cost NU in a game or 2 each of his seasons. I would say that he basically got the "proportionate" amount of wins out of the talent that he brought in, but did not do a good job getting the "extra" wins that a great coach squeezes out of his players. Personally, I was ok giving him some time because, as a first time coach, I didn't expect him to be perfect, but I did think he had upside that would be realized in years 8-10.
Frankly, if he'd gotten an average of an additional 1.5 wins out of each of his teams at Nebraska, he would be widely considered among the top 5 coaches in the country.
That's always been my issue with people wanting him (and Solich) fired. Essentially, you are saying, we should fire any coach who does not produce results equal to the top 5 or 10 coaches in the country, including coaches who are in much better situations than NU.
To me, that is pure craziness, and it will soon cause NU football to plummet in every metric imaginable.
My issue with Riley is that instead of getting even close to the "proportionate" number of wins out of his roster, he took a major step back. If this were his first time as an HC or there was evidence that he had a lot of "upside potential," I'd be less concerned. As it stands, there's no excuse for NU not grinding out at least 8 wins this year with this roster against this schedule.
My concern now is that even if all of the wishes and dreams about "better recruiting" comes true, what does that really mean? 9/10 wins instead of 5/7 wins? Is that really why we made the change (and once again destroyed TO's vision and path to success for Husker football)?
Tom is gone and retired, he had his chance and Nebraska has moved on. I am guessing that Notre Dame does not bring up the vision of Knute Rockne.
Solich was fired because he was banging coeds and could not recruit. the program was in a down hill slide. Bo was fired because he was a psychotic prick and lazy at recruiting and as a result, handed out scollie's like candy to walkons.
Facts of history
Solich was fired because he was banging coeds and could not recruit. the program was in a down hill slide. Bo was fired because he was a psychotic prick and lazy at recruiting and as a result, handed out scollie's like candy to walkons.
Facts of history
Last edited by a moderator:
Let me put it simply:
NU played only 4 teams this year with equal or better talent (if that).
If well coached, NU should split those games and maybe lose 1 game to an inferior opponent.
That puts NU at 9 wins on the regular season.
Even if you want to argue we don't have national championship level talent, and I won't disagree, no one can convince me that this team should have finished with less than 8 losses. Finishing worse than 8-4 is reflective of massive coaching failures, and that needs to be admitted before moving forward. Deflecting that basic conclusion by referencing "Mule" players is simply disingenuous.
NU played only 4 teams this year with equal or better talent (if that).
If well coached, NU should split those games and maybe lose 1 game to an inferior opponent.
That puts NU at 9 wins on the regular season.
Even if you want to argue we don't have national championship level talent, and I won't disagree, no one can convince me that this team should have finished with less than 8 losses. Finishing worse than 8-4 is reflective of massive coaching failures, and that needs to be admitted before moving forward. Deflecting that basic conclusion by referencing "Mule" players is simply disingenuous.
Under the leadership braintrust of Perlman, Pederson and Eichorst.
Maybe we should consider WWTD or even WWBD (after buying a fifth of whiskey).
I don't disagree, but it was a failure of player buyin instead of massive coaching failures The players showed that was true during the Michigan St. game and beyond.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mierin
Donor
Ya, it's a blowout win. How is that similar to the situations we're talking about? The final score is the most important factor in whether the game was a blowout or not. Being down 21 or 28 in the middle of the game is irrelevant.
Last edited by a moderator:
Mierin
Donor
Well put. No. It's not a blowout. The # of points isn't relevant where blowouts are concerned. It's the margin of victory. That's the most important factor by far. 60-50 isn't more of a blowout than 10-0. (And actually, to refute myself I'd say a 10-0 victory is more dominant because the D allowed the O to do nothing). The # of points only matters when you're talking about how terrible our defense or our interception machine QBs are. Or the playcalling that leads to those things.Purdon't hangs 55 on the Huskers and then let the Huskers score 29 in the 4th quarter to pull within 10 , and it's not a blowout?
It also doesn't matter whether Purdue "let" us come back or whether things started clicking for us. The fact is it happened.
Last edited by a moderator: