Speaking of Utter, I do wonder what Decker's status is in terms of his development. Even Adam Carriker openly questioned why Utter was starting over Decker.
Not saying he should go but...
- Thread starter Chuck003
- Start date
Considering Raridon has all the buzz right now, I would guess that Decker is behind him ultimately?
I cannot disagree with any of that. I was just offering that yes, Milt and the staff did rotate guys in to develop depth. Doing this also commits the staff to preparing more than five guys during game week. Getting attention and meaningful reps also adds motivation for the backups to work harder during practice which is where they really improve. To me, everything is relative. You can rotate a players in with a mediocre line too as long as the drop off isn't too dramatic.
It happened regularly in the front half of the season. I was at the game the last time it was done, but I don't remember the opponent. Frankie London actually led the team to a TD during his series with the starters. Since Frost was struggling, fans called for London to start. It was ridiculous of course, but hey, it's not the first time fans got it wrong.
Yes. The fact that Raridon is getting all the buzz for next year, and that this year Utter was mediocre at best, makes me think there is something not quite up to snuff in Decker's development
Man, a few weeks go buy without a game and you guys start to lose your damned minds. By all means, everyone who wants this dominant o-line play please name for me three above-average, healthy OL were not redshirting or RS-Fr this year.
Remember all the bold predictions about the Davis twins coming in and dominating as RS-Fr because they lift weights real good? How'd that play out exactly? 99% of underclassmen in the trenches are NOT READY.
One time the last staff was in on a can't miss OL prospect in Andrus. They didn't get him even with his brother being on the roster. We can debate about Moore and Baker as recruits, but neither of them made an impact for NU as an OL. They ran Moore off and they made Baker an average DT.
The current staff is in on a pair of bigtime OL in the same year after having found a way to grind out wins with below-average OL talent that was injured to boot. What do you want them to do, magic tricks?
Remember all the bold predictions about the Davis twins coming in and dominating as RS-Fr because they lift weights real good? How'd that play out exactly? 99% of underclassmen in the trenches are NOT READY.
One time the last staff was in on a can't miss OL prospect in Andrus. They didn't get him even with his brother being on the roster. We can debate about Moore and Baker as recruits, but neither of them made an impact for NU as an OL. They ran Moore off and they made Baker an average DT.
The current staff is in on a pair of bigtime OL in the same year after having found a way to grind out wins with below-average OL talent that was injured to boot. What do you want them to do, magic tricks?
I do remember that scenario, and it seemed as if it was because Frost was struggling, not that it was a regular occurrence. To light a fire under him, so to speak.
Who came in regularly in the first half for Turner, Steve Taylor, Tommie (maybe Berringer did).
Anyone else remember this? I will shut up on this now... not trying to stir the pot, DP, just don't remember this at all happening before the 3rd or 4th quarter.
The pipeline was built over years, with tradition breeding expectations of excellent play. Good players became very good and very good players became great. Milt wasn't some Oline Jedi master. Just a real good coach who benefited from longevity of a system that attracted talented prospects and molded those not so talented into solid players. At present, we have a coach who is in his second year here. It's fair to say he inherited a bit of a mess. Farmer, Foster and Gates are talented and have two more years in the program and we have some younger guys who show promise. We need another tackle and a center to step up and take their spot.
Some seem to really have it in for Cav. By all account he cares for the players in his room and is out trying to get talent. Chances are he is around here for as long as Riley. Get used to it.
I remember the back up QB getting a series in the second quarter on ocassion. It wasn't every game and if the game was unexpectedly close it didn't happen. Osborne tried to get the back up QB reps with the rest of the first string in case of injury. Like I said I remember the practice, i just don't think it was an every game occurrence.
If a coach ever had a "ride or die" year, its coach Cav next year. He has no excuses next year. We get beat up on the O-line, its on Cav and he has to own it. The fact that we've herd excuses for 2 straight years about him and the fact that his recruiting isn't exactly amazing will mean it will come down 5 times as hard on the guy if he fails. I really believe if he fails next year, he's out. Bruce Reed was closer to MR than Cav was. MR is not afraid to fire someone who isn't getting the job done.
And for all those people whose only support for Cav is "Milt liked him" please think about what your saying? I hate to be cruel but Milt was dying and Cav is a nice guy, WTF was Milt going to say about Cav? That he sucked? Milt didn't leave this world with an angry bone in his body. He was a great person. What do you expect him to do? Again, I hate to be so direct but a spade is a spade.
And for all those people whose only support for Cav is "Milt liked him" please think about what your saying? I hate to be cruel but Milt was dying and Cav is a nice guy, WTF was Milt going to say about Cav? That he sucked? Milt didn't leave this world with an angry bone in his body. He was a great person. What do you expect him to do? Again, I hate to be so direct but a spade is a spade.
His recruiting may not be amazing, but I don't think it's chopped liver either.
I hear what you're saying about next year. It is an important year for Cav. If the line stinks, he may be a short timer.
I'm assuming OP was trolling.
Anyway, about backup QB playing under Osborne: It was done rarely. He did it to give backup QB some real game experience, as opposed to playing in a blowout. The game you are trying to remember was Central Florida (and Duante Culpepper). This was not trying to light a fire under Frost, but predetermined to give Frankie some experience. And the game was most certainly close. We were losing when Frankie went in to play. He drove us for a TD to give us the lead.
Anyway, about backup QB playing under Osborne: It was done rarely. He did it to give backup QB some real game experience, as opposed to playing in a blowout. The game you are trying to remember was Central Florida (and Duante Culpepper). This was not trying to light a fire under Frost, but predetermined to give Frankie some experience. And the game was most certainly close. We were losing when Frankie went in to play. He drove us for a TD to give us the lead.
What? If you think the dude is a clown, you can say nice things about him to the press and be done with it. You don't have to hang around the facility, go to practices and pose for pictures while at dinner with your spouses.
That's calling a spade a spade. You are just making things up to support your dislike for Cav.
Thanks for clarifying... I remember the game now too. Didn't know it was an intentional thing for London to come in.
At the time, as I recall, Frost was struggling to find his place in this offense wasn't he? Did Osborne substitute players in the 2nd quarter when the QB was firmly entrenched as the starter?
You make a good point. Some want to plug their ears and shake their heads, but you make a good point. Not a good situation for a junior, or anyone, who doesnt make the top five out of fall practice.
We DID routinely have awing guards and tackles play, thats why it was strange to hear milt say we didnt.
As far as other players, I don't know.
I do think Frost came into his own at the end of the previous season. He played pretty well against texas and really came out strong versus Virginia Tech. Keep in mind that we were holding back early this season. We played Washington the following week. Everybody thought we had no chance and we blew them out. Their players talked after the game about how all our blocking schemes were 100% different than anything they saw on film from the previous games and they were basically clueless on defense as a result. TO was a wizard like that.
I do think Frost came into his own at the end of the previous season. He played pretty well against texas and really came out strong versus Virginia Tech. Keep in mind that we were holding back early this season. We played Washington the following week. Everybody thought we had no chance and we blew them out. Their players talked after the game about how all our blocking schemes were 100% different than anything they saw on film from the previous games and they were basically clueless on defense as a result. TO was a wizard like that.
I agree with your line play prediction in the bowl game. We are healthier than we have been, and it will be easier to make a pocket. Should be better holes in the run game too.
There were plenty crowing for a whole slew of redshirts to play all year long. I popped in off and on and witnessed dozens of posts about the subject.
The point is that once again the head coach and by extension his support in the AD office are playing the long game. Takes five years to turn over a roster completely. They have to build the roster the way they see fit and they are going to go about it the way they want. I have zero issue with them doing it this way because the way we were doing things was going to catch up to us.
This. It's quite possible that at the end of the day, Riley won't be the guy that gets it done. But I am very much in the give him a chance to sort things out and try things his way. The bitching about Cav is case in point. Gates and Farmer are 4* RS sophomores, Foster a 3* RS sophomore and Knevel a 3* RS junior. The others who played meaningful snaps were present/former walkons. And all of these guys took turns playing the walking wounded. In two years, Gates, Farmer and Foster will be seniors and the present frosh will be RS sophomores. We should expect much stronger Oline play and it is then that Cav should be harshly judged if that doesn't result.
Well we will just disagree here. I did not see anyone on here asking for Riley to burn shirts "just for the hell of it". That is the phrase to which I was responding. I saw posters wondering if the best way to prepare for the future is to get the young studs some experience now, rather than later. Like you, I disagree with that approach as a general rule, but do not think anyone who takes that approach is just being shortsighted.
It is all well and good to say it takes five years to turn over a roster. But Riley and Eichorst may not make it five more years if we continue to get blown out by Iowa and others on national TV. I get and understand those on here who have a sense of urgency about winning sooner rather than later. And there IS a difference between "panicking" and "having a sense of urgency". In modern college football new coaches either make a splash in their first three years, either on the field and/or in recruiting, or they fail. And so far, in year two, Riley's on the field product looks no better than Pelini's, and ditto for his recruiting. So Riley better start winning games that matter OR he better land some really sweet recruiting classes. Because if he doesn't there ain't gonna be no "year five".
Just my observations.
Metrics - however Cavanaugh is choosing his fab five, something's wrong. In both year 1 and 2, players came off the bench and played better than their fab five counterpart. It makes me wonder if other players on the bench are more worthy of playing time than we are led to believe.
Fab five and the rest "can get better on the scout team" - the expectation level and commitment to being better can be different when comparing preparing for the next game versus just going to practice. It makes me wonder how much time & energy does Cavanaugh actually give to the non fab five. And please before someone feels compelled to argue, if you've been involved in athletics and you weren't one of the superstars, you'll know what I mean. It also makes me wonder how much 1st team practice the non fab five get.
The hardline approach - It's his way or the highway, rigid thinking. If he were the most celebrated and successful OL coach, it would be foolish to question changing what you're doing. But he's not, so it just looks like doing the same unsuccessful stuff over again and expecting something different.
The pipeline - we substituted players in order to make the whole better. And someone on this board actually went and watched old games, iirc it was 3rd series substitutions not just mop up duty in blowouts. If quality reps are only coming after an injury, there's no reason for me to expect a pipeline. But we don't have the depth? Refer back to players coming off the bench and outperforming the fab five.
Retaining Cav - I really don't care whether he's coaching the OLine or someone else is.
Metrics - however Cavanaugh is choosing his fab five, something's wrong. In both year 1 and 2, players came off the bench and played better than their fab five counterpart. It makes me wonder if other players on the bench are more worthy of playing time than we are led to believe.
Fab five and the rest "can get better on the scout team" - the expectation level and commitment to being better can be different when comparing preparing for the next game versus just going to practice. It makes me wonder how much time & energy does Cavanaugh actually give to the non fab five. And please before someone feels compelled to argue, if you've been involved in athletics and you weren't one of the superstars, you'll know what I mean. It also makes me wonder how much 1st team practice the non fab five get.
The hardline approach - It's his way or the highway, rigid thinking. If he were the most celebrated and successful OL coach, it would be foolish to question changing what you're doing. But he's not, so it just looks like doing the same unsuccessful stuff over again and expecting something different.
The pipeline - we substituted players in order to make the whole better. And someone on this board actually went and watched old games, iirc it was 3rd series substitutions not just mop up duty in blowouts. If quality reps are only coming after an injury, there's no reason for me to expect a pipeline. But we don't have the depth? Refer back to players coming off the bench and outperforming the fab five.
Retaining Cav - I really don't care whether he's coaching the OLine or someone else is.
I knew that was the logical counterpoint, however, I also know the cubs have been through multiple coaches/managers in the same time frame.
I probably didn't make it clear in my post, but to think long-term, at the sacrifice of wins and ultimately one's employment, you gotta do what you gotta do. Otherwise, without the wins and production on the field, we'll once again find ourselves 4 years down the road with yet another new coach, saying, "coach x is only winning because of coach y's players."
Riley's on field product is already better than anything Pelini brought to the table. It takes time to fix the problems in the program and I have no doubt that the coach has all the support he needs moving the program forward. He isn't being put on blast/notice and he isn't in danger of being fired. People have realized that you can't just hop on the coaching carosel every few years because you end up like Kansas. Colorado got themselves to where they are now through some leaner years than Nebraska fans have had to put up with yet they don't act like they know the difference.
Of course he isn't in danger of being fired. Who said he was? I never said he was on "blast notice" either. And nobody wants him fired less than I, and of course the coaching carousel is a bad thing.
And since nothing I wrote even comes close to the scorched earth scenario you say I am conjuring up, what you wrote is completely irrelevant with regard to what I wrote.
All I said was he may not last past five years if he can't recruit and keeps getting blown out by Iowa. In other words, merely stating some of the obvious realities of modern college football. How long was Callahan here? Hmmm... oh yeah... 4 years. And he had his AD's support too. But guess what? They both got fired. So my post's meaning should not be that unclear or controversial. If Riley can't field a team that does not get blown out in big games then he won't last past five years. So he better end this recruiting cycle on a high note because right now it ain't pretty.
As for his team this year being better than anything Pelini put on the field? What can I say? I despised Pelini by the end of his time here but I think your statement is a stretch.
Last edited:
As I said in a previous post, crediting on-field performance to a previous regime's recruiting will always happen. Happened to Solich after Osborne. Happened to Pelini after Callahan. So on, and so forth.
But if you think this year's team is anywhere near the 2009 and 2010 teams, well, you're high. Not that there's anything wrong with that.
My point again is, who is going to keep him from that fifth year? I do not believe for a second that we will have to worry about this hypothetical fifth year but who is going to lurk out from behind the curtain and fire him? His boss and him have worked to build the case here. The roster is devoid of talent and they need the time to build it back. The issue is that there are a lot of vocal idiots who
A) don't actually realizes that and B) don't care and want results now. Fortunately, those armchair coaches and ADs aren't making the decisions.
They don't yet completely own the mess they inherited. Sometime next year this mess is more theirs than the last guys.
The improvement isn't focused solely on the record. Relative to the talent on the roster, this team getting to 9 wins in the Big Ten isn't a poo poo accomplishment. People tend to focus on the most recent information, the Iowa game, and forget the rest of the positive. The Iowa game that we were down to an ineffective QB and a defense that tried to overcompensate and win us the game. Guys were doing things out of character on that side of the ball. All because we didn't have any talent at the QB spot.
It isn't that I'm convinced that Riley is for sure going to win us a championship, but so far the man is focused on improving his program in all areas so that he can build a successful and sustainable program. The patience to redshirt kids and allow them to mature and develop and aversion to JUCOs shows his vision
Ok. Well argued. And I certainly don't completely disagree.
Who would fire Riley if he flops? Someone higher than SE.
Let's hope it never comes to that.
We all love Husker football
Peace
To be fair the argument truly applies to Callahan Pelini. Callahan recruited better than most and Nebraska was left with a very talented roster when Pelini came in.
While talented more talented those two teams didnt have better seasons as far as wins and losses go
the 2009 team lost to two unranked teams and tge best win wss against an 8-5 team
The 2010 team had some quality wins but still lost to a 5-7 team and a 7-6 team.
YES. This has been brought up as true and now we have been on a track towards your I'mplied corrections needed - I hope so.
Jaw, i have serious doubts that any struggles next year will not still be blamed on pelini. Not a chance. I also expect that if our recruiting class finishes in the same area as pelinis average, the posters who said his recruiting sucked will be praising riley. Of course im the guy who predicted we get holmes and lewis so if we do end up 15 or better none of that will matter.
I did not want pelini to be our coach a year before he was fired. But the standards have changed and im positiv he will continue to be the scapegoat if things go south next year. They better not, because we need riley to succeed otherwise im not sure we can ever come back. Barring something crazy he deserves and needs more time, this i agree with. What i dont agree with is ALL of the excuses.
I believe there are posters who care more about the coach than the program or players. Our standards should not change from the last guy, but they have.
I did not want pelini to be our coach a year before he was fired. But the standards have changed and im positiv he will continue to be the scapegoat if things go south next year. They better not, because we need riley to succeed otherwise im not sure we can ever come back. Barring something crazy he deserves and needs more time, this i agree with. What i dont agree with is ALL of the excuses.
I believe there are posters who care more about the coach than the program or players. Our standards should not change from the last guy, but they have.
Tired of this garbage... show me where the standards have changed... pelini got 7 years, and you were fine with 6 of them, according to your words above!!! And you aren't even allowing Riley to have a 3rd without serious complaining... you've changed the standards, not those who desire to give Riley some time...
In order to create depth on the OL we absolutely had to RS some studs this yr. or the cycle continues of never stacking the line. Remember the TO days when AA players didn't play until yr 3, that is depth. I am positive on the direction, two more yrs before I start questioning everything but I believe we will see a lot of positives by then.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
This is not new. His ilk didn't give him a chance at all. That will never change
There will be players who talked to former Pelini players like 6,7,8 years from now. Pelini makes L. Ron Hubbard look like Darren Daulton. Riley should be given 4-5 years at the very least to see if he can turn a perennial 9-10 win program into a 9-10 win program. After those 4-5 years, he will have his own players, and then the expectations should be 10 win seasons.
Similar threads
