Two years in....no growth

2015 5-7 > > > > > 42% Wins

2016 9-3 > > > > > 75% Wins

Increase in winning percentage (which is what matters it seems to most on this board) of 32%

I would challenge the OP, or anyone else to improve their work performance by 32% in one year.

A 32% increase on one year seems to indicate growth to me. But never let numbers get in the way.

(Now, feel free to compare to Pelini as I know many will.....but the statement wasn't "No growth over Pelini years..." it was simply "2 years - No Growth".)

 
I hate the blowout losses and hope they stop.

But it's pretty funny seeing people, who last year were unmoved by the close, hard fought games and said the only thing that mattered was the win loss column, now acting like the win loss column doesn't matter at all - all that matters are the 2 blowout losses.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
I hate the blowout losses and hope they stop.

But it's pretty funny seeing people, who last year were unmoved by the close, hard fought games and said the only thing that mattered was the win loss column, now acting like the win loss column doesn't matter at all - all that matters are the 2 blowout losses.
Click to expand...

Who are those people, for example?

 
Any coach needs at least 4 yrs to prove his worth unless the team is a complete diaster after years two or 3. I've seen people try to compare coaches on here. Devaney took over a struggling program and turned it around. TO took over a team that was already a top program in the country coming off a NC. It tooK TO how long to win a NC? And honestly when he finally won the big one it's because they upgraded athletes on the defensive side of the ball. Option fooball can hide weaknesses by keeping people guessing as to where the football is. Causes defenses to play a little slower. Do we need to go back to option football. No. We just need to give MR time to get his guys and clean up the mess the last couple of coaches left him.

 
grandpasknee said:
2015 5-7 > > > > > 42% Wins

2016 9-3 > > > > > 75% Wins

Increase in winning percentage (which is what matters it seems to most on this board) of 32%

I would challenge the OP, or anyone else to improve their work performance by 32% in one year.

A 32% increase on one year seems to indicate growth to me. But never let numbers get in the way.

(Now, feel free to compare to Pelini as I know many will.....but the statement wasn't "No growth over Pelini years..." it was simply "2 years - No Growth".)
Click to expand...
Well I guess Riley should go 5-7 again next year to make another easy 32% increase

 
cm husker said:
I'm not so sure Frost would take the job.

If he turns UCF around, he'll have better options open up.

I think we missed our chance with him.
Click to expand...
Same can be said about Fleck, Boise State HC. Both of those guys are still at their current-less-than-stellar gigs.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Riley may be a nice guy but when he was hired they knew that he was a 8-5 coach. Just look at his Oregon State record. The AD must be OK with the Huskers never challenging for a conference or national championship. Because Coach Riley hasn't ever won either and obviously doesn't know how to do it. Just look at the outstanding job he did at making adjustments and firing up the team at halftime against Iowa.

I have never seen a coach on the sidelines that has so little affect, he looks like he is wandering around the mall instead of coaching a football team.

He has his 8 wins this year he's good.

 
The sad friggin reality, at least with the statistics posted by Mavric, is that this year, the breaks went our way. Last year, stupid coaching decision cost us games. This year we are able to over come the last second crap storm and win those games....... Until we met teams with a pulse and then the crap a$$ play calling of Langs kicked in and we got curb stomped.

I'm all for giving Banker another year. It appears, that even with the blowouts, we were still statistically better in every category....Five possessions lasting less than 2 minutes.....And people think Banker is the weakest link. We had TA, Westy, Carter, Rielly, DPE, the list goes on and on......And thats the craptastic s!!! show Langs put on......And for me, it wasn't just Iowa. His playing calling the past 7 games save Maryland sucked. And 3 of those were losses. 2 the lowest points we have scored since joining the B1G. And how close the points were to our worst O in years in 2009..........

Mavric, thanks for posting those stats.....we were lucky to win 9 this year. I give props to the kids.

 
Mavric said:
Undone said:
I think the concept of 'two years in, no growth' stems largely from our fan base not really being sympathetic to the difficulties of playing transition football between staff changes. Which is kind of strange, because this is now the third time we've done it in roughly 12 years.

-On offense next season, we'll judge whether or not there's growth by the amount of errors that are reduced at the QB position and whether or not our line plays better.

-On defense next year, we'll judge whether or not there's growth by the amount of points we give up in big games and on the road.

If we get to Indy next year, I guarantee that'll be objective, marked growth. Haven't been there since 2012. If we lose to both Wisconsin and Iowa and there's not improvement in the above two points, Riley should rightly be on the hot seat. But I for one am really excited to be done with the "athlete QB" paradigm, and also in Tre Bryant. On defense, I'm excited about more athletic youngsters seeing the field.
Click to expand...
The transition year is a mostly made-up concept that people like to use as an excuse without much basis in facts/evidence to support it.

Those who want to hold to the transition excuse will find another convenient transition next year is having a new QB, especially if it's POB.
Click to expand...
I guarantee this will happen

 
Nebfanatic said:
np_husker said:
Mike Riley should not have been hired in the first place. We should have gone for a big name or, not to bring up a sore subject around here, Scott Frost. But at this point we can't fire Riley.

We are stuck.
Click to expand...
besides Scott Frost who was an unproven commodity at the time (still is at this point) who else could we have landed, if we were willing to give any amount to our top candidate?
Click to expand...
Tom Herman for sure...he would have come to Nebraska if we paid him...He was available. Heck, I would even take Tressel over Mike Riley. He proved he can win...

 
suh_fan93 said:
Landlord of Memorial Stadium said:
lo country said:
Until we met teams with a pulse and then the crap a$$ play calling of Langs kicked in and we got curb stomped.
Click to expand...

Except for like, Oregon and Wisconsin.
Click to expand...
Currently 4-8 and dead last in their division. This was their worst team in 25 years.
Click to expand...

I'd argue that the Oregon team we played was a different one than we saw afterwards, but regardless, they still have more/better talent than us and they played a really tough game. Maybe I mistakenly took, 'with a pulse' to mean teams that battled and competed closely, instead of teams with great talent
default_dunno.gif


 
Back
Top