Radical change needed

[otismotis08]

So in your mind giving a coach a second year is wait and see? We waited and saw with Pelini, seven years no improvement and the program has flat lined. I think we can give a guy two years to install a healthy culture and get roster issues solved. We would be nuts to punt a second consecutive recruiting cycle.

I would agree if and only if I firmly believed from day one that HCMR was the right hire.
That isn't the case, as I was underwhelmed by this hire from day one.
And I don't care that we gave our previous HC seven years...that was also a failure on the program leadership.

 

[HuskerBandGeek]

Now we can't even expect to beat Purdue??

With a severely banged up defense and our back up QB it was going to be a rough game no matter who we played.

I mean Purdue is no McNeese State, but that's none of my business.

 

[nebcountry]

I don't think he will be extended if he wins one more game next year, and I'm not about to call him a football messiah, but the amount of vitriol thrown at the current staff is bordering on absurd.

The Purdue loss does sting, but not having our starting QB got us in a mess against a team that almost got to Michigan State. Illinois also stung, but its not like they walked away with the game. This year was destined to be struggle based off the injuries and roster issues. If the reports about locker room hostility and players not giving 100 percent effort are true, then clearly this should be looked at an unfortunate transition year and next year should be the litmus test.

I think that some fans are taking it to the ledge. We could fire everyone in the "absolute" sense, but we can't fire everyone if we are doing what's best for the long term (my opinion).

Purdue's only other victory this year is against the Indiana State Sycamores. I know, let's get someone to put together a spreadsheet showing Indiana State Sycamores perceived talent versus ours. I'm sure whatever numbers get made up to throw into the spreadsheet, it will show NU is less talented than the Indiana State Sycamores. Purdue vs MSU is the ONLY Purdue loss that is within one score.

I must be one of the "out-of-touch" fans to know that we should not lose to Purdue. We've been having high snaps all year, I'm surprised we haven't snapped it over the qb's head before this game. We have a reserve qb playing. I know, let's call a long-developing pass play on our own 5 yard line and hope for the best. Our RB's are averaging 5 yards per carry, lets call 50+ pass plays.

 

[Bay_Area_Husker]

We should have beat BYU and Illinois. Other than that I'm not surprised about the results. Frankly, I can't believe people thought we would beat Purdue with Fyfe starting at QB. It goes to show exactly how out of touch some people are in our fan base. We have been a very average team for a few years, and now that a few playmakers are gone (i.e., Ameer, Randy, DPE) and some roster mismanagement appears, we see exactly how close we have been to the edge. Add in some key injuries and the installation of new offensive and defensive schemes and this is what we get. Riley and his staff deserve some criticism for the result this year; however, the amount of nonsense being thrown his way is laughable. It's also laughable to see how ignorant people are with the way things work in a college administrative structure. Fire everyone! Hah.

I believe your prediction for the season (after the BYU loss) was 7-5. Even by your conservative prediction, based on all you knew about how terrible and poisoned the team was, Riley will fall far short. It's also no accident that Nebraska has been favored in all but one of its 6 losses. Riley is not meeting even low expectations.

 

[Nebraska Gator II]

The current scheme plans to aggressively stop the run and leave the second level to handle its business as opposed to years past where lineman filled gaps and we played coverage to hide the deficiencies at corner. The defense backs on this team, besides maybe the ones red shirting, are ill suited to play coverage in this scheme. You can argue the staff should have made adjustments to handle the deficiency, but what good does that do for you? You don't intend to do that moving forward, so continuing to teach it is hamstringing your ability to recruit that kind of corner and putting the kids at a disadvantage in the future.

You actually nailed one of this staffs biggest problems. They don't play to their strengths-mask their weaknesses and they do not attack other teams weaknesses. The basically just call plays.

If your secondary cannot handle the scheme-how many frickin games are you going to lose before you figure out you should probably think about changing the scheme?

Some of you people want to play the blame game to excuse this situation...and there are some legitimate roster issues, but that does not explain how bad it has been. Do you not understand the record? Against a mediocre schedule (I would say piss poor schedule-but I will be nice). That record is 3 wins and 6 losses. This is Nebraska and that record is not acceptable under any circumstance.

Red Rover's excuse is players aren't trying. I think it is complete BS, but if that is the case-then sit their asses on the bench. If you are going to get rid of the bad apples after the year, get rid of them now. Why wait?

Coach Mac's first meeting with the players at Florida he said to them, there is no buy in or selling here, you do what we tell you, or we will find someone else that will. That has to be the message sent here. This season is toast and there is no reason to expect that the coaching staff will not be here next year...start rebuilding now.

 

[Archie Graham]

I believe your prediction for the season (after the BYU loss) was 7-5. Even by your conservative prediction, based on all you knew about how terrible and poisoned the team was, Riley will fall far short. It's also no accident that Nebraska has been favored in all but one of its 6 losses. Riley is not meeting even low expectations.

Sounds about right and I stated we should have beat Illinois in this thread. But we have also had additional issues to deal with, e.g., further injuries to key position (LB, DE), had drama with old coaches contacting players, and perhaps the worst in losing Armstrong against Purdue. I think the coaches deserve some blame but nowhere near the non-sense we are seeing from people. I still think Riley gets a full three years, and if we improve a decent amount in year three, then he will get a fourth year. That being said, it obviously needs to get much better in the future. Nobody is denying that. I'm simply pointing out that the dolts calling for heads are doing nothing but hurting the program because change is not coming soon.

 

[Bay_Area_Husker]

Sounds about right and I stated we should have beat Illinois in this thread. But we have also had additional issues to deal with, e.g., further injuries to key position (LB, DE), had drama with old coaches contacting players, and perhaps the worst in losing Armstrong against Purdue. I think the coaches deserve some blame but nowhere near the non-sense we are seeing from people. I still think Riley gets a full three years, and if we improve a decent amount in year three, then he will get a fourth year. That being said, it obviously needs to get much better in the future. Nobody is denying that. I'm simply pointing out that the dolts calling for heads are doing nothing but hurting the program because change is not coming soon.

There are a few different strands of arguments flying around. Some people are calling for firings. Some people are standing by the coaches. And other people are saying, "Oh, well, nobody really is going to be fired, so it's pointless to discuss it."

Ask yourself this question: now, knowing all you know and having seen everything you've seen, if you had a magic wand and could undo Riley's hiring and pick another available head coach, would you do it? Yes, it's a hypothetical. But it's a thought experiment that is the first step in evaluating this situation.

I find it hard to believe that you have seen enough from Riley not to waive that magic wand and undo his hiring. All of your other arguments would still be intact. The team is low (but not bankrupt) of talent. Some players have bad attitudes. The job would still be a rebuilding project.

You're correct that in terms of process, there is zero chance Riley will be fired this season. But if next season gets off to a rocky start, I think he and Eichorst will be gone. And next season the schedule isn't nearly as favorable.

 

[Nebraska Gator II]

There are a few different strands of arguments flying around. Some people are calling for firings. Some people are standing by the coaches. And other people are saying, "Oh, well, nobody really is going to be fired, so it's pointless to discuss it."

Ask yourself this question: now, knowing all you know and having seen everything you've seen, if you had a magic wand and could undo Riley's hiring and pick another available head coach, would you do it? Yes, it's a hypothetical. But it's a thought experiment that is the first step in evaluating this situation.

I find it hard to believe that you have seen enough from Riley not to waive that magic wand and undo his hiring. All of your other arguments would still be intact. The team is low (but not bankrupt) of talent. Some players have bad attitudes. The job would still be a rebuilding project.

You're correct that in terms of process, there is zero chance Riley will be fired this season. But if next season gets off to a rocky start, I think he and Eichorst will be gone. And next season the schedule isn't nearly as favorable.

I would definitely not have hired Riley. I would have hired Tom Herman. Young, smart and hungry-from the Urban tree. In fact, as someone that saw Urban come un-done at Florida, I would say he resurrected Urban's career. TA is also a perfect fit for that offense. In my opinion, with Herman, Nebraska would be undefeated and TA would get some Heisman talk.

 

[jflores]

There are a few different strands of arguments flying around. Some people are calling for firings. Some people are standing by the coaches. And other people are saying, "Oh, well, nobody really is going to be fired, so it's pointless to discuss it."

Ask yourself this question: now, knowing all you know and having seen everything you've seen, if you had a magic wand and could undo Riley's hiring and pick another available head coach, would you do it? Yes, it's a hypothetical. But it's a thought experiment that is the first step in evaluating this situation.

I find it hard to believe that you have seen enough from Riley not to waive that magic wand and undo his hiring. All of your other arguments would still be intact. The team is low (but not bankrupt) of talent. Some players have bad attitudes. The job would still be a rebuilding project.

You're correct that in terms of process, there is zero chance Riley will be fired this season. But if next season gets off to a rocky start, I think he and Eichorst will be gone. And next season the schedule isn't nearly as favorable.

I've been pretty clear that folks that want immediate course correction are going to most likely be disappointed.

So if we are going to talk about firing a coach it shouldn't be centered around whether or not NU needs to break precedent and do a one year and out thing.

Rather the discussion should be about what do we think benchmarks will be for next season and possibly beyond. Does the new chancellor think a bowl game and six or seven wins cuts the mustard?

The thing is three and nine is a really low bar, we don't have to be a whole ton better to see a nice improvement next year

 

[regibson1]

I've been pretty clear that folks that want immediate course correction are going to most likely be disappointed.

So if we are going to talk about firing a coach it shouldn't be centered around whether or not NU needs to break precedent and do a one year and out thing.

Rather the discussion should be about what do we think benchmarks will be for next season and possibly beyond. Does the new chancellor think a bowl game and six or seven wins cuts the mustard?

The thing is three and nine is a really low bar, we don't have to be a whole ton better to see a nice improvement next year

I'm not asking to fire Riley. I am asking for him to evaluate his coaching staff and make the changes that need to be made going forward. It's obvious where the coaching changes are that need to be made. The best coaches on his staff have had to deal with most of the injuries and lack of depth that have occurred this year. His worst coaches have had their starting players available for most of the season and have failed in producing results on the field.

He wouldn't do what Oregon State wanted him to do in 2015. He should do what is necessary now to get Nebraska back on track.

 

[Archie Graham]

There are a few different strands of arguments flying around. Some people are calling for firings. Some people are standing by the coaches. And other people are saying, "Oh, well, nobody really is going to be fired, so it's pointless to discuss it."

Ask yourself this question: now, knowing all you know and having seen everything you've seen, if you had a magic wand and could undo Riley's hiring and pick another available head coach, would you do it? Yes, it's a hypothetical. But it's a thought experiment that is the first step in evaluating this situation.

I find it hard to believe that you have seen enough from Riley not to waive that magic wand and undo his hiring. All of your other arguments would still be intact. The team is low (but not bankrupt) of talent. Some players have bad attitudes. The job would still be a rebuilding project.

You're correct that in terms of process, there is zero chance Riley will be fired this season. But if next season gets off to a rocky start, I think he and Eichorst will be gone. And next season the schedule isn't nearly as favorable.

I wouldn't wave the wand at all. In my view, Riley needs time to show what he can do. My evaluation is incomplete right now and anyone that says otherwise, with the data set we have, is being incredibly short-sided.

 

[Archie Graham]

I would definitely not have hired Riley. I would have hired Tom Herman. Young, smart and hungry-from the Urban tree. In fact, as someone that saw Urban come un-done at Florida, I would say he resurrected Urban's career. TA is also a perfect fit for that offense. In my opinion, with Herman, Nebraska would be undefeated and TA would get some Heisman talk.

Hard to take this post serious…like at all.

 

[Nebraska Gator II]

Rather the discussion should be about what do we think benchmarks will be for next season and possibly beyond. Does the new chancellor think a bowl game and six or seven wins cuts the mustard?

That would be an interesting topic. I glanced at the schedule and you would think Oregon would be a tough win (maybe) and at Ohio State is an almost certain loss. Other than that, it is not that tough of a schedule. No reason to not have 8-9 regular season wins. Is 6-7 wins in the regular season enough for the staff to get a third year? That might depend on what the 17 class looks like at the end of the season.

 

[cubsker]

Hard to take this post serious…like at all.

watch greg ward last year vs this year. it's truly remarkable.

 

[Nebraska Gator II]

Hard to take this post serious…like at all.

Fair enough...but Ward-who I do not think is as talented as TA, has thrown for 1955 yards and 11 TD's with 2 INT's and has also rushed for 710 yards and 16 td's.

If Nebraska were undefeated, they would likely be ranked about the same as Iowa. TA would put up similar or better numbers than Ward. I didn't say he would be a front runner, I said I think his name would be in the discussion in that situation.

 

[Archie Graham]

watch greg ward last year vs this year. it's truly remarkable.

Fair enough...but Ward-who I do not think is as talented as TA, has thrown for 1955 yards and 11 TD's with 2 INT's and has also rushed for 710 yards and 16 td's.

If Nebraska were undefeated, they would likely be ranked about the same as Iowa. TA would put up similar or better numbers than Ward. I didn't say he would be a front runner, I said I think his name would be in the discussion in that situation.

I'm aware and it doesn't change my opinion at all.

 

[jflores]

That would be an interesting topic. I glanced at the schedule and you would think Oregon would be a tough win (maybe) and at Ohio State is an almost certain loss. Other than that, it is not that tough of a schedule. No reason to not have 8-9 regular season wins. Is 6-7 wins in the regular season enough for the staff to get a third year? That might depend on what the 17 class looks like at the end of the season.

See I think it'll be a different angle. I'm not sure the next chancellor just says eight or nine easy wins. If we win three this year then by all accounts seven is pretty good improvement considering we are looking at redoing a third of the roster in about a month.

The next chancellor is a former coach right? I find in general that former coaches are much more forgiving of circumstances and have less grandiose visions of year to hear progress than fans.

We might all wag our fingers and say wait until the next chancellor comes in, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if he sets goals that make him mirror an ally to Riley than the "it's got to be now or never" fan

 

[red rover 70]

I'm not asking to fire Riley. I am asking for him to evaluate his coaching staff and make the changes that need to be made going forward. It's obvious where the coaching changes are that need to be made. The best coaches on his staff have had to deal with most of the injuries and lack of depth that have occurred this year. His worst coaches have had their starting players available for most of the season and have failed in producing results on the field.

He wouldn't do what Oregon State wanted him to do in 2015. He should do what is necessary now to get Nebraska back on track.

There is nothing wrong with an honest debate about issues our team is dealing with. And changes that can be beneficial to correcting them issues.

 

[jflores]

I'm not asking to fire Riley. I am asking for him to evaluate his coaching staff and make the changes that need to be made going forward. It's obvious where the coaching changes are that need to be made. The best coaches on his staff have had to deal with most of the injuries and lack of depth that have occurred this year. His worst coaches have had their starting players available for most of the season and have failed in producing results on the field.

He wouldn't do what Oregon State wanted him to do in 2015. He should do what is necessary now to get Nebraska back on track.

My post was not aimed at people like you. It was aimed at people who are starting threads about firing everyone from eichorst on down now. Despite the recognition that there doesn't appear to be a willing axe man.

I would like to see staff changes too, however for that to be entertained, one has to first acknowledge that Riley will be here two or more years possibly

They do not

 

[Nebraska Gator II]

See I think it'll be a different angle. I'm not sure the next chancellor just says eight or nine easy wins. If we win three this year then by all accounts seven is pretty good improvement considering we are looking at redoing a third of the roster in about a month.

The next chancellor is a former coach right? I find in general that former coaches are much more forgiving of circumstances and have less grandiose visions of year to hear progress than fans.

We might all wag our fingers and say wait until the next chancellor comes in, but it wouldn't surprise me at all if he sets goals that make him mirror an ally to Riley than the "it's got to be now or never" fan

Not sure if you are a Phil Steele guy, but when he looks for teams that will make the biggest improvement he usually looks at a couple things like close losses-which Nebraska has and also turnover margin -which Nebraska is awful at this year. Both of those would probably be why Nebraska should be projected to make a big improvement next year.

Nebraska is not a 4-8 team (which is where I would guess Nebraska finishes at this point). They may be close to a 6-6 if you consider all the excuses...err reasons Nebraska fans point to...(lack of depth and scheme changes). So IF it were me, I would judge the team as a 6-6 team and see if there is an improvement next year. I also give recruiting a lot of weight also. If this staff is bringing in good recruits you give them more time to develop the young guys. You aren't going to see a bunch of freshmen turn around a program.

 

[jflores]

Not sure if you are a Phil Steele guy, but when he looks for teams that will make the biggest improvement he usually looks at a couple things like close losses-which Nebraska has and also turnover margin -which Nebraska is awful at this year. Both of those would probably be why Nebraska should be projected to make a big improvement next year.

Nebraska is not a 4-8 team (which is where I would guess Nebraska finishes at this point). They may be close to a 6-6 if you consider all the excuses...err reasons Nebraska fans point to...(lack of depth and scheme changes). So IF it were me, I would judge the team as a 6-6 team and see if there is an improvement next year. I also give recruiting a lot of weight also. If this staff is bringing in good recruits you give them more time to develop the young guys. You aren't going to see a bunch of freshmen turn around a program.

This is precisely it.

Before the season, people were hemming and hawing over whether TA could be "the guy". Well alot of the folks that wrote off Armstrong are the same ones who are writing off Riley to be one and done.

The thing is, exactly what I bolded from your reply, you aren't going to win with a bunch of freshman. If you believed before the season that a new QB was needed to get us where we need to go, then before any games were played we were looking at two to four seasons minimum to get a guy like POB on campus and into the middle part of his career before we start seeing real results.

Granted, no one thought 3 or 4 wins was likely before the season, and NU is probably better than a 3 or 4 win team, but it doesn't change the fundamental assumption that we all had but wouldnt' say in the spring...we were three years away (TA's Jr year, possibly his Sr year, and then POB as a Soph).

 

[cubsker]

I think you have to include in your evaluation if they can stop being dipshits when it comes to clock/game mgmt. If they continue to give away 2 to 3 games per year (like they did this year) by not having a 5th grade level of knowledge in this area, then you can't continue to tolerate that no matter if their other metrics improve.

 

[TruHusker]

Why does everyone want Frost? Just because he is from Nebraska? The very O he directs is not power running football that many are seeking. Then people say he would bring in the right people - how in the heck does anyone know that with no past history? He may well be a good head coach someday but where is the "home run" hire and ceck book opening everyone is so caught up in.

 

[Wasker77]

I do believe you should allow him to exercise the demons left by the prior staff before showing him to the hangman's noose. Nebraska is not Oregon State, so continuing to pretend Oregon State results are the be all end all is, and I apologize in advance, stupid. Oregon State was at the bottom of a stacked Pac 10-12 conference, so pretending he should have had a 70 percent conference win percent is equally stupid.

Your response just backed up what I have been writing since last summer. He was a poor coach in a bottom of the barrel program in the Pac 12. He has no business being the coach of the Nebraska Football team. Give me one fact or anything that can be substantiated about Mike Riley that proves he is a good coach. I am not looking for endorsements or opinions about Mike. Not job offers that he did not take. I challenge you to give me one fact. I will wait while you choke on that.

PS. You have no clue about the Pac 12. It was not exactly a stacked conference in the 00's. Oregon still had Belloti, The two Washington schools weren't any good. Cal was terrible. Stanford had not got Harbaugh yet. UCLA was floundering. The Arizona schools were not anything to write home about. Pete Carroll and USC were the great thing going out West. I live in the Northwest. You don't know what you are talking about.

 

[Wasker77]

With a severely banged up defense and our back up QB it was going to be a rough game no matter who we played.

I mean Purdue is no McNeese State, but that's none of my business.

Purdue may not be McNeese State (Didn't we win that game) but Mike managed to coach his Mighty Beavers to a loss to that powerful FCS school Sacramento State. Hell! Hastings College or Doane could beat Sac State

 

[HudsonValleyHusker]

The idea that one should fire a first year coach who inherited a mess from the previous coach is a very bad idea on its face. It should be done rarely and only with good cause. So I share the concerns of those who are counseling for patience.

But the loss to Purdue, with a total defensive collapse against a woeful offense, has caused me to reevaluate. I think we were 100% correct to fire Bo. But I have never understood the Riley hire. And yesterday confirms my fear. This team is collapsing before our eyes. And if there are all these "pro Bo" players still on the team creating dissension, that is still on Riley. He should identify such players and kick them off the team. Why not? We could not have had a worse season anyway so why not make such a clear statement? These coaches are soft West Coasties it seems to me. Their style of football is unimaginative and weak. Less than 100 yards rushing again? That is not Pelini's fault folks. And the talent on the offensive line is not THAT bleak.

In short, first year or not, low talent or not, injuries or not, THIS IS A POORLY COACHED FOOTBALL TEAM. This is the most poorly coached Nebraska team I have seen in my lifetime. Yes Callahan had a wretched first year too. But at least in his first year he gave us hope by hauling in a top 5 recruiting class. But these coaches not only seem lost as coaches, but also seem mediocre as recruiters. I would be more patient if they were putting together a great recruiting class but they aren't.

We need to fire the AD and these coaches. And count me among those who say we need to reinfuse the program with Nebraska bloodlines. Trev Alberts, Scott Frost and a bevy of former players who are now coaches of various kinds. I know I know... "Times have changed" blah blah blah. "Frost is unproven!" Well yes ... But Riley is "proven"? At what exactly?? 5-7 seasons??

Ditto

 

[HudsonValleyHusker]

You're the one wanting a change in leadership. Why don't you tell us who you think is better suited for Shawn and Mike's job?

Bert & Ernie

 

[Lincoln100]

So in your mind giving a coach a second year is wait and see? We waited and saw with Pelini, seven years no improvement and the program has flat lined. I think we can give a guy two years to install a healthy culture and get roster issues solved. We would be nuts to punt a second consecutive recruiting cycle.

But he's not young and doesn't understand what it is to be a Husker; those are the only two qualities that really matter . . . duh.

 

[Wasker77]

My post was not aimed at people like you. It was aimed at people who are starting threads about firing everyone from eichorst on down now. Despite the recognition that there doesn't appear to be a willing axe man.

I would like to see staff changes too, however for that to be entertained, one has to first acknowledge that Riley will be here two or more years possibly

They do not

jflores, Are you always this patient? I know you can't be happy with Mike Riley and his staff. I know it may not be politically correct to give a coach more than one year. Any successor to Riley is going to look at our program long and hard before accepting the position to be the head coach. I agree with you until Harvey is gone that nothing will happen to either Eichorst or Riley. But and there are a lot of Buts here, I don't believe Mike will transform himself into a winning coach, I think it was an odd hire and I think we are wasting our time and should just make a clean break with Mike Riley as soon as possible.

 

[jflores]

jflores, Are you always this patient? I know you can't be happy with Mike Riley and his staff. I know it may not be politically correct to give a coach more than one year. Any successor to Riley is going to look at our program long and hard before accepting the position to be the head coach. I agree with you until Harvey is gone that nothing will happen to either Eichorst or Riley. But and there are a lot of Buts here, I don't believe Mike will transform himself into a winning coach, I think it was an odd hire and I think we are wasting our time and should just make a clean break with Mike Riley as soon as possible.

What's "this patient"? Its not extraordinarily patient to see a Year 1 to Year 2 transition in my estimation. Considering in the 130 years of college football, we can come up with 1 circumstance of a coach being fire in Year 1 (not involving legal or other outside considerations) . At a non Power 5 school to boot. I'm not a man on an island through space and time.

In my estimation, NU football is not going to end this off season if Riley isn't shown the door. Obviously other people disagree, but I feel better about having the Zatechka's, Vrzal's, Fraziers, and Tenopirs of the world more aligned with my worldview, than some random snuffies on here.

If the aforementioned people showed a significant swing the other way, I might wonder what I'm not considering when I'm doing my own internal evaluation of how patient I should be. And if I were 85 instead of 33, I might feel more inclined to do something drastic before I watched my last home game.

 

[jflores]

What's "this patient"? Its not extraordinarily patient to see a Year 1 to Year 2 transition in my estimation. Considering in the 130 years of college football, we can come up with 1 circumstance of a coach being fire in Year 1 (not involving legal or other outside considerations) . At a non Power 5 school to boot. I'm not a man on an island through space and time.

In my estimation, NU football is not going to end this off season if Riley isn't shown the door. Obviously other people disagree, but I feel better about having the Zatechka's, Vrzal's, Fraziers, and Tenopirs of the world more aligned with my worldview, than some random snuffies on here.

If the aforementioned people showed a significant swing the other way, I might wonder what I'm not considering when I'm doing my own internal evaluation of how patient I should be. And if I were 85 instead of 33, I might feel more inclined to do something drastic before I watched my last home game.

I would say if anything, I'm relatively strong at not letting emotions rule my decisions. You can tell there's not a whole lot of emotional control by some on here. Its present in their argumentation and logic that doesn't connect.

 

[94husker]

I would definitely not have hired Riley. I would have hired Tom Herman. Young, smart and hungry-from the Urban tree. In fact, as someone that saw Urban come un-done at Florida, I would say he resurrected Urban's career. TA is also a perfect fit for that offense. In my opinion, with Herman, Nebraska would be undefeated and TA would get some Heisman talk.

Holy potatoes! You serious Clark?

 

[94husker]

jflores, Are you always this patient? I know you can't be happy with Mike Riley and his staff. I know it may not be politically correct to give a coach more than one year. Any successor to Riley is going to look at our program long and hard before accepting the position to be the head coach. I agree with you until Harvey is gone that nothing will happen to either Eichorst or Riley. But and there are a lot of Buts here, I don't believe Mike will transform himself into a winning coach, I think it was an odd hire and I think we are wasting our time and should just make a clean break with Mike Riley as soon as possible.

Politically correct? Wtf this isn't a god damn election! Get out of here with that BS!!!

 

[MemorialRedWarrior]

You're the one wanting a change in leadership. Why don't you tell us who you think is better suited for Shawn and Mike's job?

You're a simple fellow, ain't ya boy?