Fixing the talent gap, article from Dirk...
- Thread starter HBK4life
- Start date
Compared to seniors in 2010.
Defense
Pierre Allen
Prince Amukamara
DeJon Gomes [JUCO, Pelini guy]
Eric Hagg
Ricky Thenarse
Anthony West
Offense
Roy Helu
Ricky Henry
DJ Jones
Zac Lee
Mike McNeil
Niles Paul
Mike Smith
Keith Williams
Specialist
Alex Henery
Adi Kunalic
Defense
Pierre Allen
Prince Amukamara
DeJon Gomes [JUCO, Pelini guy]
Eric Hagg
Ricky Thenarse
Anthony West
Offense
Roy Helu
Ricky Henry
DJ Jones
Zac Lee
Mike McNeil
Niles Paul
Mike Smith
Keith Williams
Specialist
Alex Henery
Adi Kunalic
5 or 6 years?!
I can almost see it now... in 2 years, posters will be clamoring that Riley needs 3-4 more years to recover from his own first 3 years of recruiting!
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
He gets additional years just because he came from a different conference. Just like Blo used as an excuse.
Yeah BLO still won his division in his 2nd year in a new conference.
How bout Riley win anything of significance.
That was Bo's 3rd year. He made those players. Callahan gets zero credit for their production.
Bullshit. Nobody will be doing that. People want to give Riley a fair shake to prove himself (ca. 6 years) because he deserves it. He inherited a mess and that doesn't change in 2-3 years regardless of how good an isolated recruiting class is, whether you hit the JUCOs, or whether you're one of the better coaches in America. Anyone that thinks otherwise is stupid.
Problem is Jeans he only recruited one of those guys. After those guys left what he recruited wasn't coached up to that same level.
Fourth year as head coach of Nebraska.
And when Callahan's guys were gone, Pelini struggled worse. The "he made those players" argument is somewhat weak, but also accurate. To make something, you have to have it in the first place. I'm sure Riley and staff would love to have chance to "make players" like the ones listed up above.
Instead, he's left with Hannon, Johnson, Joseph, Knevel, Natter, Newby, Taylor. Thankfully he has Jones, Kalu [meh], DPE & K Williams [meh].
If you can't tell the difference in this discussion, there's no reason for me to continue the discussion with you.
The mess was real. From drugs to brainwashed. With A for ---- ; thrown in. IMO, the good faction took us as far as it could this year. Thinking things will dramatically improve with the newest group formation moving forward in the Spring. ... We have paid millions to coaches and been affected ridiculously by their personal issues and their cronies - if it was going to effect our record or performance, they should have straightened up or Made quicker changes. I believe this goes back to Coach Solich. Possibly a factor under-appreciated with T O. GBR
No shit. If Bo was so Damn good at coaching up these guys, why didn't he turn Joe blow into a Suh or a Prince, or a Crick??
I'd like to suggest that everyone reads the comments below. It is from a person that I interact with routinely. To be clear, these are not my comments so I won't personally respond to thoughts posted after. I'm not posting this because I'm trying to 'win' an argument here; rather, I think there are some really nice global thoughts here worthy of digesting. Enjoy.
----
"For my personal processing of the current state of affairs, I'm glad this article came out. I've found myself starting to see the outline of some doubt on the horizon, all the while still ultimately trusting that this staff has things going the right way. Healthy scrutiny is important, but so is recalibrating. There are some major, fatal flaws in the logic in this article, but ultimately I think it's good to be able to see them. It reshapes the context of what, exactly, Mike Riley is doing as we sit here today:
First, Dirk's conceding that it's okay, because it's just how college football is now, to be stuck in a perpetual cycle of Solich (poor recruiting) to Callahan (good recruiting, but suffered from past recruiting) to Bo (who benefited immensely from BC's good recruiting) to Riley (who is suffering from Bo's poor recruiting and misses, even when he landed highly-ranked guys) just because you have only 3 years devoid of any context before judgment day. This context is precisely why my post is so long--we can't forget it if we're going to give Riley a fair shake. Under Dirk's theory, Riley goes 7-5 next year and gets fired in favor of a more "fiery hot" "fixer" who then takes the guys Riley secured with multiple P5 offers and goes 8-4 through a tough 2018 schedule. This all looks awesome to Joe Everyfan who was told repeatedly that "2018 is gonna be tough," and the next coach gets a free pass because "well, Riley couldn't even win 8 with his own guys and this guy did it with a top-20 SOS." And rinse, then repeat. You always hope the next hire is the right one, but the resulting effect of Dirk's theory is that a "fixer" will follow Riley the Builder. Here's the rub: the builders are there just long enough to, ironically, fix the foundational issues to then allow a "fixer" to come in and succeed up to their inherently lower ceiling. It'd be excusable for Dirk to think this way if we hadn't seen it twice already. Someone (maybe Dirk) needs to write THAT article, not this one. Follow the logic to its conclusion. Don't stop in the middle short of some real journalism just because, well, that's what CFB is these days.
Second, it's quite literally impossible to take Dirk's/Nebraska's cycle and find any sort of sustained success. The idea of a "fixer" versus a "builder" means the guys with no foundation building capabilities for sustained success but solid talent to work with (Bo) are ironically going to get more time to build (133% more, in the Callahan v. Bo v. Riley case) because of the mere perception of "success" right away. "Nebraska's back, baby" would never have been Riley's thought process if they had beaten Tennessee. There's a reason for that--he knows his talents as a coach, alone, aren't enough. Bo literally never thought that. Even if we assume his distinction between fixer and builder is accurate, it's ultimately much worse for a program because the guy who prolongs his own mediocrity by showing some immediate results with the last guys' talent can't parlay that into a strongly-built foundation for success. Plus, if you get a like Bo, it also creates enough hubris to bastardize recruiting. Then, the guy with the ability to turn things around will never get enough time to do it having been dealt the hand stained by the blood the last guy sucked out of the program. You're literally putting the guys with the lowest ceiling half-way up the staircase from the beginning and the guys with the highest ceiling in the basement. It makes no sense.
Instead, as we all know, the much more likely reason Bo appears to be a "fixer" is because he's had better talent than he would have left himself everywhere he's arrived. That is true to anyone who isn't trying to sell newspapers, including Shawn Eichorst and our entire staff. Keep in mind that they said out out loud in interviews last week that we need more talent--a somewhat risky proposition with 70+ guys on scholarship coming back next year who are now labeled by their own coaches and ADs as not having enough talent, or at least many of them could perceive that. While true, that's ballsy, but also exactly what needs to be said to turn Dirk's article back rightside up. In terms of Bo, his luck also extends to his DC stops (which I assume Dirk is counting when labeling him a "fixer"). You're not exactly slumming it at OU and LSU--and those and YSU are the only evidence that immediate results follow Bo's "fiery attitude." He's not like most other coaches who turned a D1 program around before coming to a historically blue blood program--thanks, Tom. Bo has subsequently lucked into this cycle again at YSU with transfers and other guys' talent, turning it into a championship appearance in his second year. Sounds a lot like 2009, no? Yet, who on here would bet on Bo winning it all over the next 5 seasons? Bo isn't a fixer so much as he is a product of incredibly fortunate timing and the players he's had to work with. For Dirk's argument to work, you must take it as a given that it's Bo's innate coaching talent, and not his circumstances of good fortune, which is why his teams show immediate "success." Otherwise his overall premise--that you need to develop talent at Nebraska better than being able to acquire it even if both are important--unravels. Bo won with good recruits and Riley won with bad ones doesn't fit the narrative. To concede that Bo won because of better talent and Riley matched him with worse talent--which is where the article started in truly self-defeating fashion--means there's hardly room for the "fixer" versus "builder" analysis. I don't remember these "we need more talent" articles after the 2009 season...because we freaking had it.
Again, even if we assume he has properly categorized coaches into these 2 camps, Dirk also fails to acknowledge the lingering mentality left by a "fixer" (who suggested his players transfer or harpoon Eichorst's program on the way out the door). Just look at the comments by coaches last year and this year (Riley and Banker) and the comments by players (Gates and Bando). The mental fragility left in Bo's wake is not value-neutral in the development vs. recruitment or "fixer" vs. "builder" analyses. What's worse is ignoring the compounding effect that mentality has on the admittedly poor talent to start the article.
Unsurprisingly, Dirk has penned an article sure to be gobbled up by Bo holdovers and even those who jumped back onto the bandwagon at 7-0. They're all feeling vindicated around water coolers in Nebraska after reading this, even though they were silenced or they outright turned to support Riley this year.
Here's the kicker for Dirk: Eichorst is a long-game player. You prove that when you fire a perennial #9win coach who won't apologize for losing 4 per year and winning only Holiday Bowls. It'll take a letdown of the variety I'm not sure Riley is capable of before Eichorst would fire him, or more likely, Eichorst would get himself fired firsts. I'm really, truly hoping that Miles and Erstad succeed even though I have doubts about both of them, because I think if we can get Riley and Eichorst 2 more full years and recruiting cycles, we'll be very happy we waited on Riley the Builder. I worry that articles like this have a butterfly effect on the guy's chances to succeed, which makes it even more disappointing."
----
"For my personal processing of the current state of affairs, I'm glad this article came out. I've found myself starting to see the outline of some doubt on the horizon, all the while still ultimately trusting that this staff has things going the right way. Healthy scrutiny is important, but so is recalibrating. There are some major, fatal flaws in the logic in this article, but ultimately I think it's good to be able to see them. It reshapes the context of what, exactly, Mike Riley is doing as we sit here today:
First, Dirk's conceding that it's okay, because it's just how college football is now, to be stuck in a perpetual cycle of Solich (poor recruiting) to Callahan (good recruiting, but suffered from past recruiting) to Bo (who benefited immensely from BC's good recruiting) to Riley (who is suffering from Bo's poor recruiting and misses, even when he landed highly-ranked guys) just because you have only 3 years devoid of any context before judgment day. This context is precisely why my post is so long--we can't forget it if we're going to give Riley a fair shake. Under Dirk's theory, Riley goes 7-5 next year and gets fired in favor of a more "fiery hot" "fixer" who then takes the guys Riley secured with multiple P5 offers and goes 8-4 through a tough 2018 schedule. This all looks awesome to Joe Everyfan who was told repeatedly that "2018 is gonna be tough," and the next coach gets a free pass because "well, Riley couldn't even win 8 with his own guys and this guy did it with a top-20 SOS." And rinse, then repeat. You always hope the next hire is the right one, but the resulting effect of Dirk's theory is that a "fixer" will follow Riley the Builder. Here's the rub: the builders are there just long enough to, ironically, fix the foundational issues to then allow a "fixer" to come in and succeed up to their inherently lower ceiling. It'd be excusable for Dirk to think this way if we hadn't seen it twice already. Someone (maybe Dirk) needs to write THAT article, not this one. Follow the logic to its conclusion. Don't stop in the middle short of some real journalism just because, well, that's what CFB is these days.
Second, it's quite literally impossible to take Dirk's/Nebraska's cycle and find any sort of sustained success. The idea of a "fixer" versus a "builder" means the guys with no foundation building capabilities for sustained success but solid talent to work with (Bo) are ironically going to get more time to build (133% more, in the Callahan v. Bo v. Riley case) because of the mere perception of "success" right away. "Nebraska's back, baby" would never have been Riley's thought process if they had beaten Tennessee. There's a reason for that--he knows his talents as a coach, alone, aren't enough. Bo literally never thought that. Even if we assume his distinction between fixer and builder is accurate, it's ultimately much worse for a program because the guy who prolongs his own mediocrity by showing some immediate results with the last guys' talent can't parlay that into a strongly-built foundation for success. Plus, if you get a like Bo, it also creates enough hubris to bastardize recruiting. Then, the guy with the ability to turn things around will never get enough time to do it having been dealt the hand stained by the blood the last guy sucked out of the program. You're literally putting the guys with the lowest ceiling half-way up the staircase from the beginning and the guys with the highest ceiling in the basement. It makes no sense.
Instead, as we all know, the much more likely reason Bo appears to be a "fixer" is because he's had better talent than he would have left himself everywhere he's arrived. That is true to anyone who isn't trying to sell newspapers, including Shawn Eichorst and our entire staff. Keep in mind that they said out out loud in interviews last week that we need more talent--a somewhat risky proposition with 70+ guys on scholarship coming back next year who are now labeled by their own coaches and ADs as not having enough talent, or at least many of them could perceive that. While true, that's ballsy, but also exactly what needs to be said to turn Dirk's article back rightside up. In terms of Bo, his luck also extends to his DC stops (which I assume Dirk is counting when labeling him a "fixer"). You're not exactly slumming it at OU and LSU--and those and YSU are the only evidence that immediate results follow Bo's "fiery attitude." He's not like most other coaches who turned a D1 program around before coming to a historically blue blood program--thanks, Tom. Bo has subsequently lucked into this cycle again at YSU with transfers and other guys' talent, turning it into a championship appearance in his second year. Sounds a lot like 2009, no? Yet, who on here would bet on Bo winning it all over the next 5 seasons? Bo isn't a fixer so much as he is a product of incredibly fortunate timing and the players he's had to work with. For Dirk's argument to work, you must take it as a given that it's Bo's innate coaching talent, and not his circumstances of good fortune, which is why his teams show immediate "success." Otherwise his overall premise--that you need to develop talent at Nebraska better than being able to acquire it even if both are important--unravels. Bo won with good recruits and Riley won with bad ones doesn't fit the narrative. To concede that Bo won because of better talent and Riley matched him with worse talent--which is where the article started in truly self-defeating fashion--means there's hardly room for the "fixer" versus "builder" analysis. I don't remember these "we need more talent" articles after the 2009 season...because we freaking had it.
Again, even if we assume he has properly categorized coaches into these 2 camps, Dirk also fails to acknowledge the lingering mentality left by a "fixer" (who suggested his players transfer or harpoon Eichorst's program on the way out the door). Just look at the comments by coaches last year and this year (Riley and Banker) and the comments by players (Gates and Bando). The mental fragility left in Bo's wake is not value-neutral in the development vs. recruitment or "fixer" vs. "builder" analyses. What's worse is ignoring the compounding effect that mentality has on the admittedly poor talent to start the article.
Unsurprisingly, Dirk has penned an article sure to be gobbled up by Bo holdovers and even those who jumped back onto the bandwagon at 7-0. They're all feeling vindicated around water coolers in Nebraska after reading this, even though they were silenced or they outright turned to support Riley this year.
Here's the kicker for Dirk: Eichorst is a long-game player. You prove that when you fire a perennial #9win coach who won't apologize for losing 4 per year and winning only Holiday Bowls. It'll take a letdown of the variety I'm not sure Riley is capable of before Eichorst would fire him, or more likely, Eichorst would get himself fired firsts. I'm really, truly hoping that Miles and Erstad succeed even though I have doubts about both of them, because I think if we can get Riley and Eichorst 2 more full years and recruiting cycles, we'll be very happy we waited on Riley the Builder. I worry that articles like this have a butterfly effect on the guy's chances to succeed, which makes it even more disappointing."
And anyone who doesn't think there is a HUGE difference between giving a coach 2-3 years(not enough in my opinion) and giving SIX years is way more stupid.
What exactly is your point? Of course there's a difference between three and six. It's precisely the kind of difference that is appropriate for a staff to be able to document if they should be invested in further.
Pelini won 10 games and won a division championship with his own players.
So he did achieve the same level as he did with Callahan recruits. And lost that game too...lol
This happened a short while back. We invited some friends over, one of the guys got really upset when the discussion turned to Husker football. He just couldn't understand why Pelini was fired in the first place. It just goes to show, I don't know what other people are thinking. That includes the people that pull the strings on the football program/athletic department.
I read Chatelain's article 3 times, just to see if I was missing somethin'. In a nutshell from my perspective: Pelini didn't leave him a stocked cupboard, Riley has to make it happen.
I read Chatelain's article 3 times, just to see if I was missing somethin'. In a nutshell from my perspective: Pelini didn't leave him a stocked cupboard, Riley has to make it happen.
It seems the narrative for giving a 6-7 year coaching evaluation is now in full swing, seeing the increasing doubt on the horizon. This is the PR campaign being sold to you.
It does not matter that other schools show near immediate success when new coaches are hired, you instead are fed this line of bs about the talent level of the players and overlapping recruiting class ownership.
I don't think people should buy into the hype. Nebraska fans have been fed a bunch of crap for 2 seasons already, and this is just the next one on the list.
The best thing I think a Nebraska fan can do is to continue to ratchet up the pressure and stop accepting excuses for the performance on the field.
It does not matter that other schools show near immediate success when new coaches are hired, you instead are fed this line of bs about the talent level of the players and overlapping recruiting class ownership.
I don't think people should buy into the hype. Nebraska fans have been fed a bunch of crap for 2 seasons already, and this is just the next one on the list.
The best thing I think a Nebraska fan can do is to continue to ratchet up the pressure and stop accepting excuses for the performance on the field.
I just had the argument with a buddy of mine who is on the "fire everyone now train".
My opinion is basically, Riley should get until the other side of the 2018 hump. At that point we will have seen at least 2 years of his players, and how well they play in adversity. He will have had four years to build his system and rebalance the roster, it should fairly clear whether we should allow another year or two.
I think firing a coach now, and especially next year, is beyond stupid. If "win now" and "fast turn arounds" are your particular thing, then the worst thing you could do is saddle the next coach with a roster that still has Pelini sized holes in it, and then hand them the worst schedule in 20 years in 2018 or whatever it is. Making 2018 a transition year, is going to take your $100 million wunder coach, and potentially kill buzz/recruiting/momentum as he wins 4 games his first season.
That's not even considering the wisdom of giving a pretty short leash to a guy as respected in the Coaching fraternity as Riley, and going out and crucifying him on National tv after 2 or 3 seasons. I don't think there'd be very many Miracle Workers signing up for that particular rodeo.
I agree somewhat although I do think Riley is a good coach and needs time. I don't want to go into panic mode just yet. Nobody should be calling for Riley to be fired
But I have said before on here that in modern college football a newly hired coach has about a three year window at a blue blood program to prove themselves and make a splash. Usually, if they have not made a splash, at least in recruiting, in the first two or three years, then they are going to fail.
James Franklin is a case in point. My God, PSU was still reeling from sanctions and very low morale when he was hired. Trust me when I tell you how much bitterness toward the NCAA is still out here and how that bitterness infected the whole program. You want to talk about "poison"? Geez. And what does Franklin do? He recruits his ass off and hauls in two very, very good recruiting classes. Upper tier type classes. His won/loss record was not great and all the PSU fans out here were openly wondering if he was the right guy for the job. When they lost to Pitt and got blown out by Michigan early in this year people were calling for his head on a platter.
Oops.... B1G champs.
How did he do it? He recruited! What has Riley done with his recruiting? First year was very mediocre and this year is mediocre SO FAR. He really needs to finish strong this year or I fear the handwriting is on the wall.
What I'm saying is 4 years is plenty of time to know if it's time to cut bait, which is more than 2-3 and less than six(the numbers you used). If Riley can't at least make it to the conference championship game by that time, I don't really want or need to see any more of what some think he might be able to do with more time. It shouldn't take 6 years to take a team that was one win away from the championship game to a team that is one win away from the championship game IMO. I don't believe I'm an unreasonable fan in thinking that, but my parameters are different than many others I assume.
Pretty hard to ratchet up the pressure on a guy who will walk away from the game himself in 2-5 years depending on how its going.
Footloose and fancy free, Riley kinda holds the reigns here. SE I don't think fears for his job either. Guy will probably land at Wisky once Alvarez decides to take up golf.
The part that is mind numbing is that people keep pretending that Riley is starting his 3rd year as a HC...He isn't, he has a proven track record and he was hired because of that track record.
I agree with this, Riley will never be "fired" from NU...he will either retire or "retire"
Considering the chief alternative to Riley at this point and time seems to be Frost, and that Nick Saban has won most of the natties in the last 10 years, I don't think a goodly portion of the fan base is making the "time for the next coach" decision based on any resumes that look like Osbornes or Stoops or Meyers.
Exactly. We only gave Callahan four years and he was recruiting well.
Yes, NikkiSixx's post has hyperbole. It is too negative for my tastes. And we need to give Riley the benefit of the doubt.
But I don't want to wait longer than four years either. If he is recruiting well, but still has mediocre record I would give him more time. But if he is going 9-4-8-5, while hauling in the 29th rated recruiting class every year, then I would fire him. Yes I would. In a heartbeat.
So if we don't make the conference championship in year four, given the situation Riley et al. walked into, you want him fired at the end of that fourth year. That's your position?
Well, let us all hope it never comes to the need to make that decision. Let's hope Riley gets us pointed in the right direction. I personally think he will.
I actually don't think the situation will depend entirely on Riley, in the case that he *hasn't* won anything.
Suppose in 2018 Riley has done 4 years, won 9 games three times, and maybe doesn't even have a division title. If Frost or someone else looks like the next Meyer and we have a chance get aboard that train, we may well move on.
If there's really no sure fire "next big thing" and Riley continues to build the program I could see us sticking out an extra year or two.
Obviously a moot point if Riley is dominating the West from here on out.
Appearing in the conference championship, by year four...yes, that is my position. If they make it next year or the year after, people won't even be able to distinguish my posts from yours other than the screen name and avatar.
No he didn't. There were still Callahan recruits on the 2012 team, including 4 or 5 starters. 2013 was the first year Pelini played strictly with his recruits.
Chip Kelly won't come here. NU fans won't tolerate the scrutiny his recruiting practices received and he knows damn well his system works a treat better where there's a natural talent base to draw from.
Frost wasn't even a HC 10 minutes when he admitted that fact was central to him picking UCF as his first leap.
Kelly isn't going to slog through Nebraska 8 man football hoping to find Lamichael James.
Callahan was axed because TO was butt hurt his boy got sent packing..
Among other reasons. Two losing seasons and a historically awful defense in 2007 were also factors. TO would not even have been brought back as AD if Callahan had succeeded on the field. Add in Callahan's snotty arrogance toward Husker traditions and former players and you complete the picture. Osborne was pissed about Solich but notice something... he did not hire Solich back.
Similar threads
