SSO practice observations
- Thread starter zamzman
- Start date
So let me get this straight... this is now supposed to be a board where no optimism is allowed, only realism. Got it.
Where do I turn in my optimism card? Don't want to be a thorn in your flesh any longer...
And when adversity happens, some of you are like:And then when the obvious happens and it isn't positive some of you act like:
I really almost can't believe you're using this old tired line. Every pessimist claims they are really just a "realist"-because nobody wants to ever admit they are a pessimist. How does anybody know what is realistic for the upcoming season? Nobody, not you, me or anybody else really knows what is going to happen. I think there are things everybody can agree are not realistic. Saying we are going to go undefeated and win every game by at least 4 TDs is not realistic.
But what about winning, say 10 games and winning the West Division and maybe with an outside chance at winning the conference? I'm not necessarily predicting that will happen, but I don't think it's totally unrealistic. The problem is that the pessimists have got themselves into believing such things are not just merely unlikely but virtually impossible and thus totally unrealistic. I think you could make a case that is unlikely-but totally unrealistic? No. We've seen way bigger surprises in college football than that. The pessimist is no more "realistic" than anybody else. They just shift to the negative side what they believe is realistic, whereas the optimist shifts to the positive side what they believe is realistic. Which one was actually the realist will be determined after the season and not before.
Maybe is maybe.
I don't consider 10 a given, nor do I consider 5 a given on the pessimistic side.
I've seen a fair bit of college football in my day, and teams come in all shapes and flavors, too many variables to really know with any certainty.
I believe he likely targets a QB and would've been in on some higher profile WR's, but a lot of that initial class would've still been signed by Riley had he arrived a year or two earlier:
Eric Lee
Avery Anderson
Carlos Davis
Kalihl Davis
Those 4 players were coming to Nebraska regardless.
Christian Gaylord - he's been a disappointment since his arrival, but he was a National Recruit OT from 4 hours south of Lincoln. They definitely would've recruited him.
Daishon Neal - Omaha kid w offers from Oregon, Michigan, and OU. Yeah, they would never walk away from a player like him.
Decker - another Omaha area kid.
Stanley Morgan, Jr- They obviously take him.
Tyrin Ferguson, Mo Barry, and Adrienne Talan - These were Bray targets from the begginging, and they never would've come to Nebraska had Riley not been the coach.
Dedrick Young - this kid was already heading to Nebraska, but Banker wasn't lying when he said Young was his #1 target. He wanted him badly. In fact, I think Young has actually escaped the bench a bit because Banker loved him so much. I don't think Young will be as comfortable now with Diaco in charge of that side of the football.
Matt Snyder - This kid was all Oregon State before Riley took the Nebraska job. He is very much a Riley recruit.
Jalin Barnett- 4-Star kid has been underwhelming, but they would definitely not turn away a top 250 prospect.
Jordan Stevenson - kind of a joke of a player in his brief time at Nebraska, but they brought him in late, and they would do it again if they had the chance for a similar type player.
Jordan Ober - Long Snapper. You either want one or you don't/
Lavon Alston - Perhaps Riley is on some higher profile guys and doesn't have to take him. But needless to say, Alston was a big time vertical threat before the knee injury slowed him down. He was a Pac 12 caliber player and the type of receiver Riley likes.
Ozigbo- this is the type of RB Riley and Davis recruit. not sure they would've been on anyone higher profile.
I understand not wanting to rest this class solely on Riley, but I don't think it would've looked much different had he been here for a full cycle.
This +1000
Case in point: show me the national pundits who predicted PSU would win the conference last year? Almost all preaseason prognostications from the "experts" had them finishing no higher than third in the East, and some had them fourth (behind MSU). It was said by almost everyone that PSU would probably have four losses and that Franklin would be on the hot seat. So why did PSU excel and beat those expectations? They played much better on the offensive line. Heck, their defense was just average. And they were breaking in a new QB. But the offensive line played way beyond expectations.
I think the same is possible for NU this year. If our offensive line improves, and I think it will, we could have a very good season.
I think that is "realistic"
However, I do think Riley targets and signs 2 - 3 DEs in that class, which would make a difference this season.
Aaron Williams was also a Banker target.
Aaron Williams was also a Banker target.
Actually, their offensive line kind of sucked last season. But their QB was a playmaker, and MOST importantly, Penn State could rush the passer and make plays behind the line of scrimmage
Nebraska had marginal QB play and was awful at disrupting action along the LOS from the front 7.
I have said repeatedly that in year 3 - 9 wins should be the minimum with it not being unrealistic to expect better than 9 wins. How is that view being labeled as pessimistic?
The self labeled optimists in this thread are using phrases like "taking a step back" "growing pains" 7-8 wins, 10 wins and winning the division isn't likely but not totally unrealistic, we have little or no depth at positions X Y and Z, having a nationally relevant season is described as a surprise rather than an expectation, "unless we get extremely lucky 10 wins seems highly unlikely" - how are those opinions optimistic?
The optimistic views need to become expectations - something that SHOULD happen not just merely COULD happen.
there is absolutely no reason why this team shouldn't win a minimum of 9 games with a strong possibility of winning the division - if we don't then there has been a failure on many fronts that needs urgent correcting in the subsequent year(s).
In my view there are too many pessimistic reasons (excuses) being offered up by the optimisits as to why this team might not win 9+ games
The self labeled optimists in this thread are using phrases like "taking a step back" "growing pains" 7-8 wins, 10 wins and winning the division isn't likely but not totally unrealistic, we have little or no depth at positions X Y and Z, having a nationally relevant season is described as a surprise rather than an expectation, "unless we get extremely lucky 10 wins seems highly unlikely" - how are those opinions optimistic?
The optimistic views need to become expectations - something that SHOULD happen not just merely COULD happen.
there is absolutely no reason why this team shouldn't win a minimum of 9 games with a strong possibility of winning the division - if we don't then there has been a failure on many fronts that needs urgent correcting in the subsequent year(s).
In my view there are too many pessimistic reasons (excuses) being offered up by the optimisits as to why this team might not win 9+ games
Last edited:
But saying Riley would still take him isn't the same as would have been in on them from the beginning or they wouldn't have been in on different players.
I am just saying that he and his staff weren't involved in the original evaluation of a lot of those players.
Agree to an extent. Their o line play last year wasn't great, but it did not, in my view, "suck". And when you compare how they performed last year compared with the three previous years, there was significant improvement. I stand by that analysis.
And yes, our defense was not as good last year as their defense and our QB play was worse than their QB play, but I am pointing to what I see as the potential of this year's Nebraska team. What I am saying is that I think we can see as much improvement from our o line, defense and QB as they had from 2015 to 2016.
Anything can happen so there is always hope. For me however I am looking for some indication we are on the way back. If our record is worse but we are a well coached team that plays hard and we are clearly showing progress I would be happy
We can agree to disagree. They allowed twice as many sacks as Nebraska in 2016. Their saving grace was two explosive playmakers in Godwin and Barkley coupled with a crafty QB who was often running for his life. The Tight End, Giseki is also a great player.
Ironically, the biggest difference between Armstrong an McSorely is when Armstrong was flushed from the pocket, you had roughly a 50% chance of a completion occurring. When McSorley was flushed from the pocket, PSU had roughly an 80% chance of a big play. He is just a smart playmaker. IMO, Nebraska has a similar player in Gebbia.
Still trying to figure out how my viewpoint makes the team less relevant...
And I do appreciate your final assessment in this post. You are right, as optimists, the excuses given don't sound very optimistic. Good point.
I will try to be more optimistic moving forward. ;-)
Interesting that he thinks CB is going to be one of our weaknesses. In our blowout losses the last 15 years, Nebraska's fundamental problem has been the lines. Call me a skeptic but I still don't think our O-Line and D-Line are there yet to play with the big boys. Until I see it corrected, this will continue to be year in and year out the biggest weakness plaguing our teams.
Starting to sound like Chris Jones may be back much earlier than anticipated. I won't be surprised to see him back for start of Big Ten play.
We agree about Gebbia.
And one big difference between Nebraska and Penn State, that argues against the point I was making, is that in the past three years Franklin has outrecruited Pelini/Riley. They have some athletes on that team for sure.
If you look at the preseason analytics (ESPN FPI, etc.), Nebraska is going to be a heavy underdog in 4 games (@Oregon, Wisconsin, Ohio State, and @Penn State) and have 3 toss up games (Northwestern, @Minnesota, Iowa). So, I don't know how it is "realistic" to say this team with this schedule should win a minimum of 9 games and if not that is a failure on many fronts.
Now, if you want to argue that in year 3 of a coach's tenure he should have the team built so that the analytics have those four games we are underdog in as toss ups or slight underdogs and the 3 that are currently toss ups as games we are more heavily favored, that would be more valid. IMO, if this team with this schedule wins 9 regular season games, that would be a very good coaching job. Any wins beyond that would be an excellent coaching job.
That being said, I always expect Nebraska to win every game every year.
The new staff took over a program that won 9 games every year for 7 years and won a divisional title 3 of the 7 years (and no I don't want Bo back) .. I understand there will be growing pains but in year 3 we shouldn't be fretting about whether we can squeak out 9 wins or how 4 of the 6 teams we play in our own division we are either heavy underdogs or toss up games.
By the way of those 7 games you list - 2 teams have first year coaches, Chryst is in his third and had already won the division, and Franklin won the conference in his 3rd year. You have to go all the way back to pre Devaney to find a head coach at Nebraska who hasn't won the conference, won the division, or played in a major bowl in his first three years at Nebraska.
I'll hang up and wait to hear why my expectations for a simple 9 win season - which may not even equate to being ranked is expecting WAYYYY too much of this staff and a supposed blue blood football program
I agree with this. I am bullish on Riley, this season, recruiting, and our future.
All that said... Riley has made some very big mistakes, in my view, that have held his teams back. The three coaches he has fired should never have been here in the first place. And hiring a top flight staff is definitely one of the most important things for a new coach to do. I fault Riley for that and he only has himself to blame if we go 6-6 or 7-5 this year, with all the negative pressure that will bring
Yes, this an argument as to where the team is built in 2017 in the 3rd year of a coaching tenure. There are a lot of unknowns, so the team could be better than the analytics suggest.
Regarding the 9 wins a year (Final AP Rankings):
2008 OU (5th) - L, TTU (12th) - L, Virginia Tech (15th) - L, Missouri (19th) - L
2009 Texas (2nd) - L, Virginia Tech (10th) - L, Texas Tech (21st) - L
2010 OU (6th) - L, OK State (13) - W, Missouri (18th) - W, TX A&M (19) - L
2011 S. Carolina (9) - L, Wisconsin (10) - L, Michigan St. (11) - W, Michigan (12) - L
2012 tOSU (3) - L, Georgia (5) - L, Northwestern (17) - W, Michigan (24) - W
2013 Mich St. (3) - L, UCLA (16) - L
2014 Mich St. (6) - L, Wisconsin (13) - L, USC (20) - L
That is 5-19 (20.8%) against top 25 and 0-10 (0%) against top 10. We are playing three teams preseason ranked in the top 10.
That's the issue. Too many people in the fan base believe that Nebraska is still a blue blood program.
You used the word supposed to describe Nebraska as a blue blood, so either you don't believe it is or you believe there is doubt that it is.
It's been since 2012 since the team won a division title. I believe that BigTen title game was the turning point. From that game on, the program hasn't been the same. That is the game where people really started to openly talk about Pelini not being the right guy and the line in the sand was drawn. Then 9 months later the audiotape was released and that further widened the gap between Pelini and the fan base.
Point being comparing the first 3 years of other coaches is irrelevant. Not every situation is the same. The landscape of college football is not the same.
As I said before, I was ready for Pelini to go. I don't think he wanted to be here and I think after the beat down by Wisconsin and the leaked tape, he was a lame duck. It showed in his recruiting and his relationship with fans and media.
With that said, I don't believe the Nebraska roster in December 2014 was where it should have been or where it was, relative to other programs, when Osborne, Solich, Callahan and Pelini too over. Perhaps Riley should have seen that during the months of December and January and recruited differently. I have been pretty objective in my criticisms of Riley's hires. I do believe he overestimated what some of his coaches could do at Nebraska and potentially overestimated some of the talent "fits" in his 1st year.
The thing I don't understand is why people are looking for permission to have their own expectations. If you think Nebraska should win 9 games and are still a blue blood, awesome. But you shouldn't need anyone's "approval".
Similarly, I don't think this year's team is a 10-11 win team. I am willing to give Diaco this season to work out kinks in his defense. I am willing to allow the necessary growing pains that will present themselves in blown assignments and or players outmanned because they aren't a perfect fit for this scheme. I do believe the offense should be better than it was last year, I believe the OLine should be and will be vastly improved. I believe the QB play will be more efficient. I think the QB will make better decisions when it comes to getting rid of the ball by throwing it away rather than just throwing it up for grabs, I believe that what Armstrong saved in sack yards, with his scrambling ability, will be made up with Lee hitting a check down or getting through his progressions a little quicker. I believe the running game will be better because the defense will have to respect the underneath passing game. On defense I believe the attitude and passion Diaco provides will make up for some of the deficiencies. I do not believe you will see players not giving ultimate effort on the defensive side of the ball. I do believe that was an issue toward the end of Pelini tenure and the first 2 years under Banker.
I think 9-4 is probably where this team ends up. I think we beat Ark St, N. Illinois, Rutgers, Illinois, Purdue, northwestern, Minnesota and Iowa. Then beat 1 of the other 4 (Wisconsin, Ohio St, Penn St or Oregon).
Sorry for the rant. But not everything is black and white.
You used the word supposed to describe Nebraska as a blue blood, so either you don't believe it is or you believe there is doubt that it is.
It's been since 2012 since the team won a division title. I believe that BigTen title game was the turning point. From that game on, the program hasn't been the same. That is the game where people really started to openly talk about Pelini not being the right guy and the line in the sand was drawn. Then 9 months later the audiotape was released and that further widened the gap between Pelini and the fan base.
Point being comparing the first 3 years of other coaches is irrelevant. Not every situation is the same. The landscape of college football is not the same.
As I said before, I was ready for Pelini to go. I don't think he wanted to be here and I think after the beat down by Wisconsin and the leaked tape, he was a lame duck. It showed in his recruiting and his relationship with fans and media.
With that said, I don't believe the Nebraska roster in December 2014 was where it should have been or where it was, relative to other programs, when Osborne, Solich, Callahan and Pelini too over. Perhaps Riley should have seen that during the months of December and January and recruited differently. I have been pretty objective in my criticisms of Riley's hires. I do believe he overestimated what some of his coaches could do at Nebraska and potentially overestimated some of the talent "fits" in his 1st year.
The thing I don't understand is why people are looking for permission to have their own expectations. If you think Nebraska should win 9 games and are still a blue blood, awesome. But you shouldn't need anyone's "approval".
Similarly, I don't think this year's team is a 10-11 win team. I am willing to give Diaco this season to work out kinks in his defense. I am willing to allow the necessary growing pains that will present themselves in blown assignments and or players outmanned because they aren't a perfect fit for this scheme. I do believe the offense should be better than it was last year, I believe the OLine should be and will be vastly improved. I believe the QB play will be more efficient. I think the QB will make better decisions when it comes to getting rid of the ball by throwing it away rather than just throwing it up for grabs, I believe that what Armstrong saved in sack yards, with his scrambling ability, will be made up with Lee hitting a check down or getting through his progressions a little quicker. I believe the running game will be better because the defense will have to respect the underneath passing game. On defense I believe the attitude and passion Diaco provides will make up for some of the deficiencies. I do not believe you will see players not giving ultimate effort on the defensive side of the ball. I do believe that was an issue toward the end of Pelini tenure and the first 2 years under Banker.
I think 9-4 is probably where this team ends up. I think we beat Ark St, N. Illinois, Rutgers, Illinois, Purdue, northwestern, Minnesota and Iowa. Then beat 1 of the other 4 (Wisconsin, Ohio St, Penn St or Oregon).
Sorry for the rant. But not everything is black and white.
Should a coach at NU be able to win 9 games or more pretty much every year? Should a coach at NU be able to win the division at least 1/3 of the time (or insert your own number)? If your answer is "yes", then you could replace "a coach at NU" with "Mike Riley" in each of the sentences if you want to remain objective. There isn't a team in our division that can out recruit NU. Everyone can pick out their own grace period for a new coach, but at a certain point, expectations have to be met or you're just lowering the bar.
We lost quite a bit of production and senior starters, and that's one reason why are analytics don't look so great for this year. Another reason is some of the crappy games we had last year show up this year in the preseason analytics. These are PRESEASON analytics. One can foresee our team being better, matching the ESPN FPI of 6 wins, or doing worse. Do we believe preseason analytics or do we have a good coaching staff? I'd have go back and look, but iirc average P5 football teams win 7 regular season games. So the FPI is predicting us to be below average, not a good look for a coaching staff.
People always thought of the Big 8 as a two team conference so I dont think 'revisionist history' is the best term. I think 'common misconception' is a more accurate description. Big 8 usually had 3 or 4 strong teams. Nebraska, Oklahoma and a rotation of the other 6.
Frankly, i think prople give Riley a little extra cushion because they recognize its year 1 with a QB that can run their offense. Not saying its right or wrong, just how it is.
Penn St was repeatedly bailed out by some awesome WRs and TEs. Perhaps we could have won the west if TA4 used better judgment at times (and stayed healthy).
Frankly, i think prople give Riley a little extra cushion because they recognize its year 1 with a QB that can run their offense. Not saying its right or wrong, just how it is.
Penn St was repeatedly bailed out by some awesome WRs and TEs. Perhaps we could have won the west if TA4 used better judgment at times (and stayed healthy).
FPI analytics give a score of 0 for unknown. When replacing large portions of offensive production, a human can look at Lee and predict he will be just as productive as Armstrong, a computer program automatically assumes he will be worse. The same for Newby and westerkamp and Reilly and their replacements.
On the contrary, a player like Thorson at NW is given additional value because he is a returning starter. In makes no difference that he lead his team to a 7-6 record, that is secondary to returning production. Will he be better? probably. Will his improvement be worth 3 games to Northwestern? Tough to say. His statistics increased significantly from 2015 to 2016 but the win total dropped 3 games. Does this factor into this FPI?
In the last quarter century of the Big 8 Colorado won or tied for the title four times (three in a row from 89-91) and Okie Lite once, Nebraska 14 and OU 12. In any given year, NU had to contend with OU and maybe CU for the title. Our all-time records (per Wikipedia, I am not tracking them down 71-95): CU 49-18-2, ISU 86-17-2, KU 91-23-3, KSU 78-15-2, Mizzou 65-36-3, OU 38-45-3, Okie Lite 37-5-1.
In the B1G, PSU, Michigan and tOSU are name programs that have winning traditions, Michigan State has had a run as of late, Wisconsin has had a longer good run in recent years. If our program solidifies (=goes up a notch), Wisconsin is the team we face year in/out for the West, and possibly two teams each year from the other side that will present a challenge.
yort2000 mentioned FPI, so that's why FPI made it into my post. I have never found a whole lot of information concerning specifically what goes into their calculations. If I had to guess, they would use last years production by position and then subtract/adjust for new starters. But that's just a guess. And the FPI will change after the games instead of solely relying on last year's adjusted numbers.
Concerning Thorson and returning QB's in general, here's an article talking about FPI. "Because starters interact with other inputs, it’s not as simple as saying an extra returning starter is worth one point. Nonetheless, a starting quarterback is worth about 3.3 points per game to a team returning an average offense (all else equal), and a transfer quarterback is given half the weight of a starter." Why are N'western's numbers the way they are, I don't know. The article says they're correct about 75%, incorrect 25% of the time.
BTW, if anyone sees what they consider to be more positive information in the article I linked, please feel free to bring it to this discussion.
Now I'll try to go back to the previous talking points. Is it more realistic to think that NU will win 6 games and be a below average P5 football team? Is it more realistic to think that NU will win 9 games? It's up for opinion, but I see 9 wins as more realistic than 6 wins. Does Riley NEED to win 9 games this year to satisfy me? No, 7 regular season wins will mostly keep me quiet for this year.
People tend to forget that there was also little parity in college football in those days. The joke in Big Ten country was that the conference was Michigan and Ohio State and the other 8. The PAC 10 was dominated by USC and UCLA. And so on. Sure, every once in a while some other team might rise up and challenge. But that was true in the Big8 too.
I'm not trying to argue what the expectations for a coach at Nebraska should be in this thread. This is a practice report thread that had expectations for this team this season and I thought holding this team to 9 wins or else goal this season seemed rather short-sighted for the reasons I posted.
I definitely think the long-term expectations for the program would be on par with a team like Michigan, who pretty much lost most of last year's team but is still preseason ranked in the top-10. (I would say never expected to be out of the top-25 for Nebraska would be fairly realistic.)
I think most of the 9 win or else people in this thread are talking about the current state of the program and it not being at the level it needs to be. Is Riley the guy? Has he moved it in the direction it should be going to get there? How long does he have to do it? Those are the lines between the two factions on this board and I think there are plenty of threads on that topic or most threads that end up devolving into that topic.
consider the hour I posted that. I was tired and not thinking very clearly.
See truehuskerfan's post above. I should have remained quiet and left it up to him.
No one is saying you need to be an oracle. But if you're expecting A, B, C, & D to fall in place for your view to pan out, then yes it's unlikely. And if you're hoping for or debating over the unlikely, but get your feathers ruffled when someone points out the unlikeliness of those events, that's not pessimism.
I believe the bolded was directed at me. Read what I said-I never said winning the division wasn't likely. I said I'm not necessarily predicting that will happen-only because doing so would label somebody like me a wild-eyed optimist. So you want me to go on record as predicting that? Fine. I predict we win 10 games and win the West Division this year.
Also, I don't know who said "unless we get extremely lucky 10 wins seems highly unlikely", but anybody who says that is no optimist.
Last edited:
At least Roberto was fighting fairly good before he threw in the no mas towel. Nebraska last year vs Iowa was no mas right from the start.
From a certain point of view, it can appear to the casual fan that there hasn't been a concrete plan from the beginning. It's replace a guy here, or fire a long time coach there, or now lets decide to change the defense, and it can give the impression that they are just fumbling around trying different things.
Previously used excuses have been:
So it can appear that they are running out of ideas/excuses, except now this year, it is a first year in the new defense, and I don't know what excuse they will have with the offensive line.. it's year 3 and you have 1 three star on this years' recruiting commitment list for the future. (That will be a real nice roster hole for somebody to fill down the road)
Having said all that.. I was just starting to drink the koolaid from all the positive reports.
Then you hear about the freshman running back, and I wonder why someone would suggest a redshirt for him. If he is better than those other backs (hint: he is) then why not start him? Are the coaches just dumb? In some ways, yes, I think some of them are.
It was funny in one of MR early interviews this fall he came right out and mentioned something about needing more time. It's year 3, and we saw what James Franklin did last year at PSU, which was under sanctions when he took the job. Mike Riley has no excuses to not perform in year 3.
Previously used excuses have been:
- "square peg, round hole"
- injuries
- half the team is redshirting
- AD said we didn't have the athletes, yet the recruiting has supposedly improved (has it?).
- S&C guru said we weren't testing well and needed x amount of time to get those numbers up
So it can appear that they are running out of ideas/excuses, except now this year, it is a first year in the new defense, and I don't know what excuse they will have with the offensive line.. it's year 3 and you have 1 three star on this years' recruiting commitment list for the future. (That will be a real nice roster hole for somebody to fill down the road)
Having said all that.. I was just starting to drink the koolaid from all the positive reports.
Then you hear about the freshman running back, and I wonder why someone would suggest a redshirt for him. If he is better than those other backs (hint: he is) then why not start him? Are the coaches just dumb? In some ways, yes, I think some of them are.
It was funny in one of MR early interviews this fall he came right out and mentioned something about needing more time. It's year 3, and we saw what James Franklin did last year at PSU, which was under sanctions when he took the job. Mike Riley has no excuses to not perform in year 3.
Similar threads
