fyi. Good read if you haven't already seen it.
https://forum.huskermax.com/index.php?threads/sso-observation-prediction.97013/
https://forum.huskermax.com/index.php?threads/sso-observation-prediction.97013/
SSO practice observations
- Thread starter zamzman
- Start date
SSO is not feeling the love in terms of CB play. Either the coaches see it another way, or they really, really like Kalu at Safety and are putting their chips on the CBs working the bugs out in the first game. He's pretty down in the mouth about Lamar Jackson. By my count, he sees 9 of the 11 Defensive positions as solid to very good (or 8 if he sees no solid CB play sans Kalu. The offense will go as far as Lee and the Oline can take it.
Just read it, nice write up. But, does anyone else get sick of the old "We could have a worse record but be better than last year" bit?
SSO hasn't been a fan of either Lamar Jackson or Knevel. Based on the little I saw in the spring game, I think Knevel is ready to have a good season. Last year was his first year playing and he played much of the year on a bad foot, so I think he'll do a lot better. Riley praised him in the last interview when a reporter asked about him. Jackson I don't know. He clearly wasn't ready last year but the coaches put him out there anyway, maybe because he was a high rated recruit so they felt he had to play? He hasn't really earned anything other than by default. I will say all indications are his attitude is 100% better than last year, and really, our other options aren't sure things either. What could have been with a healthy Jones and eligible Blades. Donte has a big chance to enhance his reputation if he can coach up these guys.
Record wise will come down to the health of our team in the month of November...
We finish with Northwestern @Minnesota, @ Penn St, Iowa those 4 games will determine what kind of record we achieve for the season in my opinion.
It's absolute must they don't lose too both Wisconsin and Iowa this year.
We finish with Northwestern @Minnesota, @ Penn St, Iowa those 4 games will determine what kind of record we achieve for the season in my opinion.
It's absolute must they don't lose too both Wisconsin and Iowa this year.
Last edited:
Agree. The fact that unranked NW, Minnesota and Iowa are all key games says where the program is and how far we still have to go. The schedule is not that difficult save for the fact that we are in the vast wasteland of mediocrity in college football where all games against other mediocre programs are now key games.
We desperately need to have zero injuries at wide receiver and defensive secondary positions in order to have the kind of season I think we can have.
I don't think it's Benning. If it is he talks different on the radio than that. He talks well of Jackson and Lee on the radio
Agreed. Both of them love to put out the vibe that they actually know Xs and Os though, so I can see where people could mistake them online.
Nope. Just listening to Benning he speaks differently than how that is written with regards to players.
Thanks for posting OP. Was very insightful and reaffirms to me most of what I was thinking about our team. I see us at 8-9 wins, but there is one thought process I deviate from SSO—defense. I understand that he only saw 1 closed-door scrimmage, but he didn't go specifically into an overall summary of the defense, which I continue to believe (and most of us on this board believe) is our way back to the top. We have to get better at defense. One thing SSO did not dive into much were his thoughts on the effect that the 3-4 will have on our overall record. While SSO says that Tanner Lee and our offense could lead us to 9 or 10 wins, our offense can score all they want and I'll be hooting and hollering like always. However, it's going to come down to our defense in the bigger games.
Relatedly, I have no idea what Lamar Jackson is going to be like this year, between his actual play and him talking to the media. Just as I thought, Stovall is still giving him a run for his money. But regardless, Aaron Williams and Mick Stolt are our QBs on D, while Gifford and Weber are like our workhorse RBs on D. With them, we will have a good starting 11 defenders and a decent 7 to 8 backups across those starting 11 that I think will have a chance at better success in the West this season.
Relatedly, I have no idea what Lamar Jackson is going to be like this year, between his actual play and him talking to the media. Just as I thought, Stovall is still giving him a run for his money. But regardless, Aaron Williams and Mick Stolt are our QBs on D, while Gifford and Weber are like our workhorse RBs on D. With them, we will have a good starting 11 defenders and a decent 7 to 8 backups across those starting 11 that I think will have a chance at better success in the West this season.
I feel Jackson will finish his career at the safety position. With his size I just don't know if he has the hips and explosive speed to be a top notch D1 corner? Hope he proves me wrong. When Bookie and (knock on wood) Tutt get here maybe they'll move him to Safety? Those 2 guys will be exceptional corners.
SSO had practice reports in the spring that said OLB is an issue. The fact that a 3-4 is "different" isn't going to help much if your OLB play is spotty.
Its another one of those deals we have 1 game ready NG and are patching up the OLB spots due to the scheme transition. Unless we get really lucky, it seems highly unlikely those patches will lead to a 10-11-12 win season in Year 1. In Year 2, if you land Parsons and the shirt comes off Daniels, and you have Tutt/Bookie/Griffith rolling in and Jones off medical, that defense looks a ton stronger.
However we might be a team that wins a few games just due to offensive firepower, maybe we pull out 10 on the back of Tanner.
Good post .... But this is year 3 not year 1. You do not get to hit the reset button every time you replace an assistant.
Looking forward to moving forward as a program from the routine Pelini seasons.
GBR
I don't see jflorez hitting the reset button... Any time one of us explains something that just might lead to backward steps, you cry out "no reset buttons" in year three.
We get it. But just because you can't hit the reset button doesn't mean there won't be growing pains with a new defense.
That is fair .. But then let's admit the growing pains are a result of poor initial assistant coaching hires and the first 3 years of recruiting that were average at best. Hope things are starting to turn the corner.
If we are being honest, the first year of recruiting shouldn't count. Riley was hired in December. Last year was better and this year is on track to be even better.
I am pretty sure most everyone on here has agreed that there were mistakes in the hiring of assistant coaches. If I recall when Coach Dub was hired, he was looked at as a mistake too by some of the same people that now sing his praises. He was just a "nobody" from Tulane.
No problems here, for the most part. The coaching hires and fires and rehires are in play for sure.
And even though the recruiting hasn't been top 10 or even top 20, it seems more organized and balanced, and I am hoping it will continue to improve, as this recruiting season seems to suggest so far.
The initial coaching hires are up for debate. I don't consider it a fireable offense. (For history's sake, most of us didn't consider them fireable offenses for Pelini or Cally either, but neither Pelini nor Cally made course corrections).
For that reason and at least a couple of others (not making 2018 a transition season, Diaco getting a Year 2), Riley will probably be safe a total of 4 seasons (which is after next season not this season).
Anyone looking for an imminent trigger finger (or even a retroactive one on the coaching hires) is probably fooling themselves unless the wheels just come off in this season.
Yeah, agreed. I think "wheels off" would be less than 8 wins. I know some people would have it at 4 or 5 wins but if Riley comes in at 7 wins (including the bowl game) then that is wheels off for me.
No way is Riley getting fired, not should he unless things completely unravel. I will continue to argue, however, that in year 3 the head coach owns the win-loss record regardless of the circumstances. A 7-8 win season shouldn't get him fired but neither should it get explained away as understandable. Less than 9 wins is an underachievement.
Wish I could get something like this for opposing teams before game day. It would help me understand schemes better. Thanks for posting!
Or maybe some of us just prefer to be positive and optimistic instead of trying to find what is wrong all the time.
Back in the Big 8, there was really only one game per year that Nebraska had to worry about. Fact is other than Nebraska and Oklahoma, the league wasn't very good. In the Big 12 North, Nebraska still had an advantage. True the Huskers have lost there magic, but the competition I think is better then the Big 12 & 8
To an extent that is a good philosophy. However the problem with the optimistic view is that every year they predict 10+ wins with a potential conference championship. We don't achieve this but the optimists - being optimistic - list excuses X Y Z (and attribute these to bad luck rather than coaching, recruiting, etc) why we didn't achieve their optimistic expectations and next year will be different. Rinse and repeat for almost 2 decades and we find ourselves being an irrelevant program albeit with a proud history. The fan base either wants a relevant football program or it doesn't. Making excuse after excuse after excuse why 7-8-9 wins without achieving anything meaningful is ok all the while continuing to fill the stadium is a pretty strong argument that being relevant isn't all that important.
I would like to routinely beat Iowa and win the division rather than getting curb stomped by them and then resorting to posting GIFS of Crouch running over one of their DBs from ~ 15 years ago and the all-too popular "Iowa sucks" mantra that seems to make everyone feel better about our team getting physically manhandled and surrendering with a "no mas" on the Friday after thanksgiving.
How does fan optimism lead to the team's irrelevance? This is what I don't understand.
It seems you would rather the optimistic fans lose their optimism because that's not your bag. You would be happier if we were more pessimistic I guess.
But again, how does that help the team, or conversely, lead to irrelevance? Every one of us wants better than what we've had the last 2 decades. Every single one. Just because you say we are satisfied with less doesn't make it so. And no one is satisfied with what happened in Iowa, no matter what you think. The Iowa sucks mantra does nothing to make that go away. I don't understand why you think anyone who is optimistic thinks that was acceptable.
As one of the optimists you don't see eye to eye with all the time, I am not satisfied with the last two decades and no championships. Nothing I want more than to win the conference, and then maybe even more.
But I'm still gonna be optimistic about the upcoming season. I hope that doesn't lead the football team into deeper irrelevance.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Silly guy... you have to be miserable to start with, that way you can enjoy saying "I told you so" given the chance. It's really the only way to be a real fan. Positivity and encouragment is not what happened in the 90s.... or something.
You don't know what you are talking about. During the Devaney and Osborne years in the Big 8 (1962-1995), every Big 8 school had at least one team ranked in the final season top 20 and every school except Iowa State had a team ranked in the final season top 10.
Colorado had five teams finish in the top 10 (1971, 1989, 1990, 1994, 1995)
Missouri had three teams finish in the top 10 (1965, 1968, 1969)
Kansas had one team finish in the top 10 (1968)
Kansas State had one team finish the top 10 (1995)
Final season rankings by school:
Colorado: 1965-#20, 1967-#13, 1969-#16, 1970-#16, 1971-#3, 1972-#14, 1975-#16, 1976-#16, 1989-#4, 1990-#1, 1991-#20, 1992-#13, 1993-#16, 1994-#3, 1995-#5
Missouri: 1965-#6, 1968-#9, 1969-#6, 1973-#17, 1978-#14, 1979-#20, 1981-#20
Oklahoma State: 1976-#14, 1983-#18, 1984-#5, 1987-#12, 1988-#11
Kansas: 1968-#6, 1973-#15, 1992-#22, 1995-#9
Kansas State: 1993-#18, 1994-#16, 1995-#6
Iowa State: 1976-#19
This is just fake propoganda.
There are a few reasons why people get away with this belief.
1. Nebraska and OU were so utterly dominant in the final 30 years of the Big 8 in all of college football, not just the conference. This gets held against the remaining 6 teams and no consideration is given to the fact that playing OU and NU every year was a guaranteed 1.7 or more losses on average and would have been for 99% of teams in the NCAA. This affected final records and rankings.
2. Having only 8 teams in your conference, with two being nationally dominate teams year in and year out, lessens the odds that a third or fourth team will pop up in the rankings even if the conference, overall, is more sound and competitive than others. The big 8 represented very well out of conference and representation in the polls as a percentage of total conference teams was on par with most other conferences who had more members.
Also, during the final 30 years of the big 8s existence, the "other six" teams finished with winning records about 39% of the time when you combine all their seasons. Go ahead and do the math on other conferences over that span after taking out the top %25 of the conference members as I did with OU and NU. (If that makes sense?) You will find the big 8 to be much better than you think.
I am not arguing that the big 8 was the best conference, but it was not weak. This revisionist history needs to end, and husker fans need to appreciate just how great our program was for 35 years instead of this "we werent that good, they were just bad" crap. The same falsehoods surrounded Pelini and his 9 wins being paralleled with Toms 9 win seasons, despite the fact that they played less games back then, never played 1-AA teams, and played more games against what are now considered power five teams in non con.
We were damn good. So was OU, and we dont fully understand it. Spoiled children we are.
I think you're confusing pessimistic with being realistic.
Similar threads
