not sure if I can link it.http://hsrd.yahoo.com/_ylt=A2KLtjcU...0NDQ4Lw--/RS=^ADAupuZ2mx5ZqWTnQUM0nsXkA.0qNk-
Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
Is this accurate? That's tough sledding.
"Nebraska played with just 44 active scholarship players from the previous three recruiting classes, a paltry total compared to its major-conference peers."
Is this accurate? That's tough sledding.
"Nebraska played with just 44 active scholarship players from the previous three recruiting classes, a paltry total compared to its major-conference peers."
I don't know either, but I would guess you're close with your 60-65 range.Question: How many scholarship players would be the norm for the three previous classes? Honest question, just want to know about how far off we've been. 60-65?
I'm not sure either, but I'd say an average senior class is around 17 and add in walk-on given scholarships, the 60-65 range seems reasonable.I don't know either, but I would guess you're close with your 60-65 range.
If you pair this info with the fact that we also had something like 40 different starters( mostly do to injury)this season. Not to mention a new coaching staff and system. Things kinda take perspective. I know it sounds like an excuse for 6-7 record. But come on it was the perfect storm for what happened this season. We will be better going forward. GBRIs this accurate? That's tough sledding.
"Nebraska played with just 44 active scholarship players from the previous three recruiting classes, a paltry total compared to its major-conference peers."
Is this accurate? That's tough sledding.
"Nebraska played with just 44 active scholarship players from the previous three recruiting classes, a paltry total compared to its major-conference peers."
Good article. I like the fact that the coaches acknowledge that they made mistakes and they're moving on with the intentions of not making the same mistakes.
This is obviously easier said than done, and it's a vague statement but I get the sense that this staff is honest about looking in the mirror and recognizing what they did right and what mistakes they made.
Next year I look forward to seeing more commitment to the run game, better QB decision making and more flexibility on defense (saw much more press coverage against UCLA). I honestly believe the coaches will improve in all these categories and I can't wait to see it.
Edit: I will also be disappointed if we don't see improvement in all three of those categories.
They didn't go into specifics. Like I said, it was a vague statement.I read the article, which mistakes are you referring to that coaches admitted to? Then those they don't intend to make again. I see the piece about a balanced attack. We need some players to improve for this to work. Our O-line is young and very inexperienced, solid around them but that is where it starts. Coaches gotta have something to work with.
They didn't go into specifics. Like I said, it was a vague statement.
Glad I wasn't the only one that caught that. I even wrote the numbers down on my desk pad when I saw them. And people wonder why we struggled. Good heavens that's worse than PSU's depth chart especially considering that the lack of scholarship players was so concentrated at specific positions.Is this accurate? That's tough sledding.
"Nebraska played with just 44 active scholarship players from the previous three recruiting classes, a paltry total compared to its major-conference peers."
New day, same crap from you. Day after day. Week after week. Same old crap. Presented with evidence of the lack of depth AND scholarship talent you just regurgitate the same sh##.yet in the links within this article they say:
"This is not for lack of talent. Rather, it is due to the consistent, sometimes inexplicable breakdowns that happen in the Huskers' back seven. The tape provides some examples."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ebraska-football-defense-mike-riley/75167128/
Look you guys are correct our talent level was down and yes it the previous staff's lazy approach to recruiting that caused for the most part. Nobody disputes that we did not compare across the board with top teams in the Big10 - however the specific reasons we lost games against 3-4 teams were coaching decisions that is the problem I have. No where in this article did Langdorf say we need to evaluate our playcalling especially to close out games instead what I read is " The kids need to get better"
I am skeptical I like the way we finished the year especially on offense but unless we get much better in many areas that have nothing to do with talent next year will be another long year
Sure; although I wouldn't say revisionist in any way. I like that they admit they've made mistakes and will try not to repeat them despite knowing the specifics. My narrative is that I support the coaches and hope they succeed despite their past and whatever mistakes they've made thus far. I'm not shy about that at all.How vague? Seems to be revionist interprtation to fit a narrative.
Sure; although I wouldn't say revisionist in any way. I like that they admit they've made mistakes and will try not to repeat them despite knowing the specifics. My narrative is that I support the coaches and hope they succeed despite their past and whatever mistakes they've made thus far. I'm not shy about that at all.
It seems like you're unhappy that someone other than Sipple wrote an article about the Huskers?
Maybe you'd like this link better. It is a pod cast Mike Riley did in December I believe. He mentioned losing 4 games in the last play type deal. He said "As coaches, we've got to look at all those things. We are all responsible for those situations. It's kind of haunting." It is around the 2 minute mark.yet in the links within this article they say:
"This is not for lack of talent. Rather, it is due to the consistent, sometimes inexplicable breakdowns that happen in the Huskers' back seven. The tape provides some examples."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ebraska-football-defense-mike-riley/75167128/
Look you guys are correct our talent level was down and yes it the previous staff's lazy approach to recruiting that caused for the most part. Nobody disputes that we did not compare across the board with top teams in the Big10 - however the specific reasons we lost games against 3-4 teams were coaching decisions that is the problem I have. No where in this article did Langdorf say we need to evaluate our playcalling especially to close out games instead what I read is " The kids need to get better"
I am skeptical I like the way we finished the year especially on offense but unless we get much better in many areas that have nothing to do with talent next year will be another long year
use the ignore feature if it bothers you so much - I really do not want to be responsible for you clogging an artery and having a heart attackNew day, same crap from you. Day after day. Week after week. Same old crap. Presented with evidence of the lack of depth AND scholarship talent you just regurgitate the same sh##.
Snohomish, i believe using an article from a game that, by all accounts, we should have won, and using that to define what next year will look like is a little unfair. At the time we were still beset with injuries, and the buy in from the team was said to be in question (even mentioned in OP's linked article somewhat).yet in the links within this article they say:
"This is not for lack of talent. Rather, it is due to the consistent, sometimes inexplicable breakdowns that happen in the Huskers' back seven. The tape provides some examples."
http://www.usatoday.com/story/sport...ebraska-football-defense-mike-riley/75167128/
Look you guys are correct our talent level was down and yes it the previous staff's lazy approach to recruiting that caused for the most part. Nobody disputes that we did not compare across the board with top teams in the Big10 - however the specific reasons we lost games against 3-4 teams were coaching decisions that is the problem I have. No where in this article did Langdorf say we need to evaluate our playcalling especially to close out games instead what I read is " The kids need to get better"
I am skeptical I like the way we finished the year especially on offense but unless we get much better in many areas that have nothing to do with talent next year will be another long year
I dont disagree and I hope next year is a break out year - I am skeptical as I said, I believe I have good reason to be. That does not mean I am not hopeful for next year.Snohomish, i believe using an article from a game that, by all accounts, we should have won, and using that to define what next year will look like is a little unfair. At the time we were still beset with injuries, and the buy in from the team was said to be in question (even mentioned in OP's linked article somewhat).
There really is no comparison from that game to the rest of the season. The breakdowns that happened in Purdue seemed to get better from that point forward. We finished 3-1 with wins against Michigan state and ucla and a good showing against Iowa in spite of the turnovers.
I understand your reticence to give yourself hope for next year, but really, the way we finished and the way our coaches are talking, things do appear better in the future.
What you are failing to see is it is the "Biggest Reason" why we were down this year. You could add in first year coaching too, but look at what he had to work with?use the ignore feature if it bothers you so much - I really do not want to be responsible for you clogging an artery and having a heart attack
What I said was - Look you guys are correct our talent level was down and yes it the previous staff's lazy approach to recruiting that caused
Why dont you take your pompous attitude and actually read what I said before you cut and paste a response
The 2011 class was rated pretty high but did not pan out but most at the time were very happy with that class. Gangwish was recruited to that class also but recruited as a walkon - I think the issue I have is that somehow being a walkon means you are less talented - I disagree. There were 11 walkons taken that year one rose to the top - its supposed to work that way and gives us an advantage having walkons - yes our talent level was down and the 2011 class did not pan out - that is why you recruit walkons in the first placeWhat you are failing to see is it is the "Biggest Reason" why we were down this year. You could add in first year coaching too, but look at what he had to work with?
The 2011 class should of had the majority of the leader on this team and instead it was 4 Juniors and a Senior transfer(Alex Lewis) along side a Senior Walk On(Jack Gangwish). Senior leadership is a big deal in finishing out games, and we had little to none.
Next year should be much better, but there will still be a lack of personnel. Stop calling for Riley's head, it getting old and ridiculous at this point!
I'm guessing here as I don't want to go back and look, but probably sometime after the Purdue gameThe 2011 class was rated pretty high but did not pan out but most at the time were very happy with that class. Gangwish was recruited to that class also but recruited as a walkon - I think the issue I have is that somehow being a walkon means you are less talented - I disagree. There were 11 walkons taken that year one rose to the top - its supposed to work that way and gives us an advantage having walkons - yes our talent level was down and the 2011 class did not pan out - that is why you recruit walkons in the first place
So I agree talent level alone meant we should have had a down year - what I disagree with is having a losing season - The losing season was not due to talent level
PS. please show me where " I called for his head"
I read what you posted including the part where you launched in to the same crap you've posted for the past 4 months. New day. Same crap. Day after day. Week after week. Month after month. Same negative crap.use the ignore feature if it bothers you so much - I really do not want to be responsible for you clogging an artery and having a heart attack
What I said was - Look you guys are correct our talent level was down and yes it the previous staff's lazy approach to recruiting that caused
Why dont you take your pompous attitude and actually read what I said before you cut and paste a response
I read what you posted including the part where you launched in to the same crap you've posted for the past 4 months. New day. Same crap. Day after day. Week after week. Month after month. Same negative crap.
I understand I have been vocal about whether or not I liked the hire and their performance so far - I find myself in strange spot - I have generally over the years defended whatever the coaching staff of the day was doing. I also wondered how some posters could continually be what I deemed negative. Now I see that most likely they were just pushing back against insults. When someone does not agree with the another view then all to often it becomes who can hurl the most insults wins. That entrenches posters into their view and makes things either one way or another when in reality that is not how things are. For example:Sorry SR. Regurgitating your contempt for the coaching staff for the entire year is not discourse. It's tiresome. So, yeah, expect to be shouted down for negative posting. It's year one. Gripe here and there, as we all do, but creating the same thread day after day, week after week, month after month... it gets very old. You said your opinion on the coaching staff. Now, let it rest on that. Barring total collapse, MR will get another 2-3 years minimum.
I understand I have been vocal about whether or not I liked the hire and their performance so far - I find myself in strange spot - I have generally over the years defended whatever the coaching staff of the day was doing. I also wondered how some posters could continually be what I deemed negative. Now I see that most likely they were just pushing back against insults. When someone does not agree with the another view then all to often it becomes who can hurl the most insults wins. That entrenches posters into their view and makes things either one way or another when in reality that is not how things are. For example:
* One side believes in Riley ( or wants to believe) so now it becomes the players fault or the overall talent fault - when in reality it is some of both
* If you do not support Riley you are still supporting BO - I puzzle over this one
* If you did support Bo there is no way you can support Riley
Insults shape the opinions on this board. In this thread for example I responded back when it was clear the narrative was going to the reasoning " We lost because no talent and Walkons suck" I disagree with that talent was lacking but it still was not the reason in my opinion we had a losing record.
I did not bring up this line of thought others did - I just expressed my opinion. I have not started ever( to my recollection) a thread that said Riley must go - of course he will get a fair shot here.
If this board is just for rah rah only and discussion ( rational) is not allowed let me know
If you don't think every single one of the losses had something to do with talent level, then there is no hope for you.The 2011 class was rated pretty high but did not pan out but most at the time were very happy with that class. Gangwish was recruited to that class also but recruited as a walkon - I think the issue I have is that somehow being a walkon means you are less talented - I disagree. There were 11 walkons taken that year one rose to the top - its supposed to work that way and gives us an advantage having walkons - yes our talent level was down and the 2011 class did not pan out - that is why you recruit walkons in the first place
So I agree talent level alone meant we should have had a down year - what I disagree with is having a losing season - The losing season was not due to talent level
PS. please show me where " I called for his head"