Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Husker Board' started by huskeroo, Jan 11, 2017.
Did Banker coach a position group?
So you read a positive post about Riley and your reaction is "It wasn't THAT bad when he took over. What proof do you have about who posted negative comments?"..... I mean what do you expect others to conclude about you?!?... Because first it WAS that bad, Pelini did ALL he could to poison the well before he walked away. And people saying he would NEVER let go of his buddies no matter how bad things got IS a criticism of Riley that many have liked to throw around as to why he hasn't had more success in the past and won't succeed at NU. And now it's one that needs to stop, because it's proven untrue.
The masquerade ball is in full force. I count 5 now.
Is that French?
French saefeties great in the I st half, but just roll over in the II
The dude let go two long-term assistants, at least 20 years with Banker. That ain't easy. Nothing but major props to Riley. I am not sure he was flying solo on the Banker decision.
Not saying you're wrong, but do you think those coaches (who were brought on to help with the transition) knew that coming in?
I don't think there is s lot of mystery here. Not making a move after the Ohio state / Iowa / Tennessee shit shows to end the season would have brought pitchforks and torches to Eichorst's doorstep next season if we had another game similar to any of those next season.
Whether Riley knew this and did what had to be done or SE nudged him a bit doesn't really matter.
I don't think 2 years for Banker was the plan from the onset but you can't just have the team lay down multiple times per season and survive.
Unless TO is the one running cover for you.
You can have a positive post about Riley without insulting most of the players who have been on the team over the last few years. You can also have a positive post about Riley without trying to cause hostility with people who don't agree with your opinion.
Yes, people saying he wouldn't let go of his buddies is a criticism, but even people who have been very positive on Riley have that criticism. Just because people criticize some of the ways Riley runs things doesn't mean they hate him and want him to fail.
The strange thing about Bray is that I thought he did a great job of coaching a depleted linebacking group and holding them together in 2015. So I had high hopes for his unit this year. But imo they greatly underachieved this year. Seemed like we actually regressed.
It's just the go to excuse around here. They so very much want to believe we're done firing/hiring coaches, and Riley is our guy. I sure hope so, and I applaud him or whomever made the decision.
I still think casting blame at the players is a reach, and a subconscious way of defending Riley and staff - especially if the whole crux of that now-common viewpoint is based on said players refusing to let go of BP, and also refusing to play for Riley.
The more I think about this, the more it bothers me. There has to be more to the story that we aren't being told. I heard something on the radio that said our defense had gone from 60 something to 30 something, and we all know that defensively we played well until after the Wisconsin game, when the air was let out of the tires sort to speak. I wonder if there isn't something more to this, meaning something not performance related.
Disagree. It could be as simple as Banker being a lousy recruiter. Sure our defense improved somewhat this year. But they underperformed big time in three key games which exposed some glaring weaknesses on our roster. Weaknesses that can only be remedied with better recruiting. And so.... if Banker was not pulling his weight as a recruiter, he had to go. Period.
I don't think it is recruitibg by the DC, while having a coordinator that can recruit is a bigtime plus, there are plenty of successful coordinators that aren't pulling in a bunch of recruits, or any recruits for that matter.
My opinion is that Riley, 1) after getting to Nebraska, wanted to switch to an odd front and Banker was reluctant or Riley didn't think Banker could run it or 2) Banker didn't relate well with the players and/ or coaches.
While the results were still better than the year before, there were multiple games where the defense was out schemed and other games where the defense just came out flat. The players looked slow and indecisive at times, that can be a lack of talent or it could be a flaw in identifying keys.
I have seen other teams use a 4-3 quarters and have success, so it isn't as simple as, the scheme sucked. But there was something missing on that side of the ball.
Part of me wonders if Mark just had enough and told Mike to let the contract go.
That's hardball, but the AD does have veto power in this instance.
Why not just resign then?
Not sure I understand what you mean inWV.
I guess he could just resign, but maybe you look at the date coming up, and tell your buddy, just let the contract expire and I'm headed to the golf course this spring. Maybe you don't want questions popping up about Riley retiring, so you take the heat to leave your buddy in a good position.
I'm just kind of spitballing here.. based on the information we have, I don't see him getting fired due to performance. So my presumption is it's some other reason. Heck, maybe he banged Stiflers' mom or something like that. I'm just more inclined to think he wanted to go golfing or fishing.
Adding to this why not resign idea, I think it is equally valid in the opposite sense.. meaning why not just fire him?
If you were trying to make a point for other coaches about performance, why not just fire him outright?
Since it was done via non-renewal of the contract, it was not done with malice and in the absence of real performance problems, again leads me to conclude some other reason.
I am not going to say it's completely out of the question. But if he wants to go fishing or golfing, why not say I've decided to retire and go fishing and golfing. Why go through the embarrassment of being fired? If he still wants to coach somewhere else, say I'm resigning to pursue other opportunities.
Most of these guys are egomaniacs, I have a hard time believing a guy who is leaving, on his own, to go fishing is just going to sit back and be ok with the university saying he is being fired.
Then add in the 20 year relationship with Riley And it makes less sense.
Sorry, I was editing my other post. If he says I'm going to retire, maybe people might look at Mike with the same question. I think it's more coincidence that the contract ends near the end of the recruiting cycle. Also, If he just wants to retire, it makes people start talking about just collecting a paycheck type thing.
You do have a point about the ego thing. He'd have to be kind of falling on his sword to do that. I think the 20 year relationship with Riley actually supports something like that more than not.
Whatever the cause, I think there is more that we don't know.
Pelini apologists having a difficult time with Riley making moves to better the program.
This is an interesting conversation. In my opinion (for what its worth, which isn't much), given the fact that these two men have been good friends for 20 years, and have bonded that friendship precisely by going through the crucible of the coaching profession together, it makes little sense to me that Riley called Banker into his office and just fired him on the spot without there having been any previous warning.
My guess is that Riley had already provided Banker with a set of performance benchmarks after last year and had discussed them with Banker as the year unfolded. Banker probably fell short of the goals set by those benchmarks, knew that he had fallen short, and was therefore probably not totally caught off guard when Riley told him his contract was not being renewed. He was probably still surprised and a little hurt that his old friend would fire him anyway, but I highly doubt this just came to Banker like a bolt out of the blue.
You don't know what the reason was, because none was given. Therefore, you are guessing along with everyone else.
Ya, I've been known to guess for the 13 years I've been on here.
Any truth to the rumor there was a conversation right after the Bowl?
No reason had to be given in order to make the valid assumption that:
A) This was Mike Riley"s decision
B) That the decision was made in order to improve the program
Those are the ONLY two assumptions that one can make from the prima facie facts before us, namely that Mike Riley fired his DC. Anything else beyond those two basic assumptions is what counts as unfounded speculation.
They are all assumptions. There is no way to prove that one assumption has more validity than another. Unless you were there and know the reason(s), or it is publicly stated, everyone's assumption is merely a guess.
The hierarchical relationship between a HC and DC isn't an assumption. Attempts to subvert the natural chain of command are all speculation unless they can be sourced.
Its kinda like me noticing you didn't post on the board on a given day, and telling everyone you were booted by a mod. When in fact you were just out on business or something.
And apparently you'll have your chance to hear some more. Or you could notice HTO's like on my previous question above.
Sean Callahan @Sean_Callahan 10m10 minutes ago
Why did Mike Riley make such big staff changes? We discuss that and much more on this week's HOL Radio Show http://rvls.co/2jbSQdD #Huskers
I guess I don't understand what you mean by "attempts to subvert the natural chain of command" argument. If it's related to what inWV was saying, I didn't understand what he was getting at either.
I'll check out the podcast, but I don't see it as a crime to speculate on what happened.
Edit: I checked out part of the podcast. There is really no analysis of why, just an automatic assumption being made by 3 journalists.
cornhustler deserves some for this post.
2015, he helped all spots.