He was willing to make a change at QB so he deserves credit for that. Some would argue that he should have made the change last week vs Colorado. However, I will give Rhule the benefit of the doubt. Perhaps he chalked up Sims performance against Minnesota as first game jitters and was willing to give him another chance to redeem himself vs Colorado. When Sims didn't meet expectations, he made the decision to start a different QB, so I think he deserves credit for that.
Why I believe Matt Rhule deserves a chance
- Thread starter moralvictories
- Start date
You could also give him a chance cause he’s only coached 3 games…
Or he made a QB change due to an injury. We will see this week.
You have a lot of gaul talking this way at this point in his tenure. Willing to bet you were always a wannebe.
If he didn't make a change, his leadership ability would have to be called into question. Doing the same things and expecting different results is the definition of insanity. At least he proved that he is not an insane leader and keeps doing things that aren't working.
Good example of “gual”
It feels good to be nitpicking the choice of starters, play selection, in-game coaching decisions AFTER A WIN. Any win.
Weeks like this have been few & far between for so many years now.
Gonna hitch my horses to the inspiring play of our Blackshirts going forward and hope the offense continues to figure themselves out.
GO 🌽🏈!
Weeks like this have been few & far between for so many years now.
Gonna hitch my horses to the inspiring play of our Blackshirts going forward and hope the offense continues to figure themselves out.
GO 🌽🏈!
Last edited:
What would happen if you weren’t willing to give him a chance?
Caesar battled the Gauls in the 50s BC. His victory over Vercingetorix in 52 cemented his name as one of the great Roman generals. 3 short years later he crossed the Rubicon with his army, marched on Rome and changed history forever.
Did you really think we would start the season as world beaters? Do you know how bad we have been for a long, long time? Anyone who's realistic knows that this is going to take some time. I'm encouraged by what I see in Rhule. For the first time in awhile it seems that we have a coach who has an organized plan. From infrastructure, to player development, in recruiting, etc. Let's give the guy more than 3 games. Season 1 is a wash imo. Looking ahead to better days, and am encouraged for the future. Go Big Red!
Agreed. You can see the plan. Campbell is already transforming our athletes and the coaches seem to be solid outside of offense. But even on offense they have a plan. They aren't panicking as the bullets are flying.
Exactly. Frosty shit the bed against same opponent in his 0-6 stretch year 1. Rhule is anything but similar to Frost... For those who think there's similarities lmao
He was forced to make the change due to injury, so he doesn't deserve credit for that.
When Sims did not meet expectations, Rhule made the decision to keep him in games and continued to name him the starter, so he does not deserve credit for that either.
I'm guessing this is a troll post, so my apologies if I am feeding it.
If Rhule starts Sims the next game after seeing the difference, then his leadership ability should be questioned. If Haarberg is the starter for next game, then Rhule deserves credit.
If you haven’t done so, watch Rome on HBO Max. There is also a new show called Domina on prime and MGM+. Focuses on Livia, the wife of Caesar Augustus (Octavian). Not so much about the growth and conquests of Rome, but a focus on the dirty political underbelly of the Roman elite.
Well it's actually a moot point about what we think one way or the other. Rhule is obviously going to be given a fair chance to be successful. No AD is going to evaluate him on the basis of a few decisions during a game, the first few games or even the first season. He needs to show steady improvement over a longer period, that's the key to evaluating him.
you can go back to the paid board if you want
I know I've been on record saying I doubt Rhule may be the one based on what I saw in the first two games, but this afternoon it was a slow day at work, so I started watching old Husker games on YouTube, starting in 2005 with Callahan's Huskers beating Colorado 30-3 in Boulder.
Callahan went 8-4 that year, beating Michigan in the Alamo Bowl 32-28. The next year, he went 9-5, and went to the Big 12 Championship, losing to OU. That year was noted for NU's epic comeback win over Texas A&M in a very hostile College Station.
His final year he went 5-7 and there was a horrible stretch starting with Missouri's beatdown of the Huskers, 41-6, where the wheels just fell off the program. They lost five straight, all in pretty bad fashion. And it was during this time that Steve Pedersen was fired, TO took over as interim AD, and Callahan's fate was sealed.
I then went through the following years under Pelini, Riley, and Frost and did the quick math. Since TO retired, every Nebraska head coach has lasted an average of 4.8 years. So, roughly five years. (I didn't count 2022 for Frost since he was fired after only three games.)
That may be the problem right there. And I'm saying that as someone who supported Solich's and Pelini's firing.
My problem is, I always looked at Nebraska through the eyes of a fan who grew up during the time when NU was feared and respected, when they were a blue blood and one of college football's premiere programs. Seeing Nebraska getting blown out and its defense, once the backbone of the program (along with the O-line), getting shredded was unacceptable to me. I wanted to see the Nebraska of my youth. I wanted to see them relevant again. Contending again. And I think the various administrations since TO wanted to see that as well. Hence, their decisions to make changes.
But the truth is, of the coaches hired since TO's departure, only Scott Frost was uniformly bad. He never had a winning season. All previous coaches at least had one (most had a few) winning seasons, and even won bowl games. Hell, Pelini won at least nine games a year. None of Frost's teams did that.
So, I guess my point is, this program needs to stick with Rhule despite my own misgivings. They need to give him as much time as he needs and see it through. And I mean, all the way through. Yes, there is going to be some blowout losses. Yes, there is going to be some frustrating losses. There already has been. But they need to stick with Rhule and avoid the previous patterns of running a coach out of town after a few years. Unless of course, it's a coach that produces Frost's results. That was warranted.
I'm not sure what the benchmark year should be to render a final judgement, but it sure as hell should be longer than 4.8 years.
Callahan went 8-4 that year, beating Michigan in the Alamo Bowl 32-28. The next year, he went 9-5, and went to the Big 12 Championship, losing to OU. That year was noted for NU's epic comeback win over Texas A&M in a very hostile College Station.
His final year he went 5-7 and there was a horrible stretch starting with Missouri's beatdown of the Huskers, 41-6, where the wheels just fell off the program. They lost five straight, all in pretty bad fashion. And it was during this time that Steve Pedersen was fired, TO took over as interim AD, and Callahan's fate was sealed.
I then went through the following years under Pelini, Riley, and Frost and did the quick math. Since TO retired, every Nebraska head coach has lasted an average of 4.8 years. So, roughly five years. (I didn't count 2022 for Frost since he was fired after only three games.)
That may be the problem right there. And I'm saying that as someone who supported Solich's and Pelini's firing.
My problem is, I always looked at Nebraska through the eyes of a fan who grew up during the time when NU was feared and respected, when they were a blue blood and one of college football's premiere programs. Seeing Nebraska getting blown out and its defense, once the backbone of the program (along with the O-line), getting shredded was unacceptable to me. I wanted to see the Nebraska of my youth. I wanted to see them relevant again. Contending again. And I think the various administrations since TO wanted to see that as well. Hence, their decisions to make changes.
But the truth is, of the coaches hired since TO's departure, only Scott Frost was uniformly bad. He never had a winning season. All previous coaches at least had one (most had a few) winning seasons, and even won bowl games. Hell, Pelini won at least nine games a year. None of Frost's teams did that.
So, I guess my point is, this program needs to stick with Rhule despite my own misgivings. They need to give him as much time as he needs and see it through. And I mean, all the way through. Yes, there is going to be some blowout losses. Yes, there is going to be some frustrating losses. There already has been. But they need to stick with Rhule and avoid the previous patterns of running a coach out of town after a few years. Unless of course, it's a coach that produces Frost's results. That was warranted.
I'm not sure what the benchmark year should be to render a final judgement, but it sure as hell should be longer than 4.8 years.
You are saying we need more then 5 years to determine if Rhule is any good? Crazy talk.
This reminds me. Update 2.0 for Cyberpunk 2077 drops today!
What I will judge Matt Rhule on in his first year is whether or not he is doing everything in his power to win the games he's supposed to win. If he starts Sims, who likely cost us wins over Colorado and Minnesota, that would suggest to me he's not trying his best to win the games we should win.
If he’s not trying to win, then he’s trying to lose. Do you think he’s trying to lose? Cuz I don’t.
Not trying to lose per se, but more committed to his QB, his system, his way of doing things, etc., rather than the results on the field.
Yeah, well, if we questioned every starting QB for the last 15 yr we would have half the wins we do as the “fan’s choice” has rarely panned out.
Agreed. Makes sense, I have always posted that we need to keep patience, but got lambasted on here (RSS), especially on Pelini. That said, so what? We don't make such decisions. We just make noise and hope it gets heard. However, I am pretty certain that the upper crust that do make these decisions, are worried and brittle over the possible end of the sell out record. I in fact would ask at this point, after 2 decades of losing, is that record even real any more? Seems that corporations buy out the tickets and they do get sold, but (and I can't say for sure because I moved away over a decade ago) I did see many games on the tube where the crowd looked sparse. Maybe they were at the concession stands buying hot dogs and Runzas to ease their pain.
So a drop in attendance might indeed spar some more forced change, to once again play Russian roulette on the coaching carousel. Crowds at the game in recent polls say they are patient to wait it out.
Would love for someone to answer with some knowledge on the realities of the ongoing attendance record at NU.
Most of the time, you would be correct, but not always. One notable example of a fan favorite who was clearly better than the starter was Joe Ganz.
