Agree... and for the record, what you quoted from me was meant for John Ross Ewing, not you.
Tad Stryker: A fan responded to his article about Riley
- Thread starter Bugeater
- Start date
No one said they missed tackles on purpose or crap like that. But if morale is down and your head isn't into the game, you may not give it your all. Do you really believe the players tried their hardest in Riley's first year? Please don't equate not trying your hardest with tanking and purposely missing tackles... Did the players go all out for Riley and coaches their first year?
Do you mean, did every single player on the team give 100% all the time?
No, and I don't think that any team has ever had that. Do you?
The players that were juniors and seniors in 2015 probably felt like Bo Pelini shouldn't have been fired. They were winning 9 or more games per year and I could see how there would be buy in issues to changing what, in their mind, was working.
If you aren't invested in and committed to something, regardless of what it is, your performance will suffer. That's just life. It contributed to why Bo Pelini wasn't more successful here and it's why some players didn't reach their full potential.
That doesn't mean that every player recruited by Riley will be committed to and invested in What Riley is selling. The difference is that those players made a decision to play for Riley but Pelini's players, especially those that were juniors and seniors in 2015 didn't.
Come on, you know what I'm talking about. There were issues with this team, more than most other teams. If you want to look the other way and say 2015 was normal in every way as far as attitude from the players, go ahead. But the reality is the attitudes were not that great in 2015, and it showed. They buy in wasn't there like it needed to be.
I will answer your question... No, of course not every player gave 100%, and I never suggested that they did. No team has 100% participation all the time. You are spot on with that obvious statement. Good job.
Now, will you answer my question? Do you think the players on the team in 2015 gave as much effort throughout the season as players on other teams?
Year 1 was basically a write off. Year two showed some promise. The tOSU loss was demoralizing. But it was the Iowa game that really banged some nails in Banker's coffin. A gimpy Tommy was a mitigating factor, but the defense got manhandled. Banker's comment concerning bloodbaths revealed how out to lunch he was. Football in the B1G isn't pattycake.
So Riley gave a coaching friend of 20 years his walking papers and hired a young guy who is regarded as a defensive guru. Riley may ultimately fail, but it won't be for lack of trying.
Yes, he does. You are investing too much emotional currency on him. Most on this board are level-headed and know that Coach Pelini poisoned the well on his way out. That meeting with the players was recorded on video and then leaked. Did some decisions of Riley backfire? Sure did. However, Riley has been slowly addressing the depth issues that he inherited. He simplified the playbook for TA last season and it paid off. We didn't have a viable backup at QB. So, when a mobile Armstrong can compensate for a rag tag O-line, a walk-on Fife could not.
I did answer it and I will answer the same this time. I don't think the players gave 100% effort 100% of the time. I don't think anyone does that. I think everyone takes time/plays off. Just like a lot of us post from work during the day instead of giving 100% to our job 100% of the time.
But that is not what you really want to ask, you really want to ask if I think players tanked, you don't want to use that word, I get it, but no I don't think players missed tackles I don't think they dropped balls on purpose.
I think it was what it was, a bad year with some bad breaks. The hail mary...TA being out vs Purdue and the coaches passing the ball 50 times vs the worst team in the Big Ten...the loss against Illinois was stupid.
I don't think those losses had anything to do with some toxic attitude or poison. I think that is a great excuse for fans but I don't think it is the case. I am guessing they tried just as hard vs MSU as they did against BYU...
You are selling the players short...like they are some fragile 12 year old girls that just found out their "boyfriend" likes another girl.
That's funny. When was the last time you were around 18-22 year old football players? You give them too much credit for their emotional and mental toughness. There is more drama and mental sensitivity there than with 12 year old girls.
You have to have talent to win and exceptional talent to win big. It seems that Riley is committed to getting better talent. I would think that the remaining Pelini players are now Riley players. So things will again boil down to coaching+talent+schedule.
I call them how I see them. When HCMR needs a kick in the pants I'll give it to him. He addressed the cancer that was on the team his first season. Simplified the playbook for TA his 2nd season. Continually addressing the recruiting issues. Addressing the coaching staff on a yearly basis. I'm seeing a lot of win here. It would be nice if Riley had taken over for Osborne in 1998, but that didn't happen. I don't have a problem with the older Riley. It's those that are impatient that are whining the most. It took Osborne 20 years to reach elite status. I think we can wait a couple more years before dubbing HCMR a failure.
Thank you for the compliment, I also think I am funny.
And you very well could be right.
not sure I disputed any of that. My point addressed the discussion on the 2015 season with regards to buy in and mental toughness, not the talent level, coaching ability or schedule.
No, you didn't. I was agreeing with you. My kid runs XC and track at the DII level. Buying in is essential for the kids to train to their peak and compete at a high level. I like the Diaco hire in this regard. Enthusiasm from the coach can bring some of the stragglers along on the mental side. If the kids are dialed in, it really does become an issue of how gifted your players are, how well prepared they are and how the coaches act and react during games. Getting kids to believe means you are more likely to get their best effort.
I will try my best to be clear for you... I already stated previously I don't think players tanked, i.e., missed tackles on purpose or dropped balls on purpose. Where in the world did you get the impression that I believed that? Reread my previous posts. I am stunned that you think I believe this is what the players were doing. Intentionally sabotaging the program? Never said that, never hinted at that, and never will.
You are assuming what I meant, but I don't think I could have been clearer.
So that you don't have to scroll up, here is what I posted...
"No one said they missed tackles on purpose or crap like that. But if morale is down and your head isn't into the game, you may not give it your all. Do you really believe the players tried their hardest in Riley's first year? Please don't equate not trying your hardest with tanking and purposely missing tackles... Did the players go all out for Riley and coaches their first year?"
And for the record, Picking the first game and the Michigan State game for comparison on how hard the team tried? I would agree, they tried just as hard in both games. But there were games in between where I believe they didn't try as hard... They were still on the fence about how hard they wanted to play for Riley, imo. Don't misunderstand or put words in my mouth, I am not saying they intentionally dropped passes or intentionally missed tackles... They just didn't play as hard against Purdue as they did Michigan State.
I know you want to think that Gerry spoke about attitude changes after the Purdue game, and saying the right things in order to get playing time, but the reality is he didn't have to say anything at all. Or he could have said nothing had changed, they just got the breaks in the game against Michigan State. But he didn't...
I am agreeing with you! I don't think they gave 100% effort all the time. I don't think anyone does.
Don't you think not playing as hard is basically tanking? I mean, it is in the same zip code, right?
Tanking is trying to lose on purpose...not playing hard (not giving 100%) can equal a loss...same zip code?
Don't you think not playing as hard is basically tanking? I mean, it is in the same zip code, right?
Tanking is trying to lose on purpose...not playing hard (not giving 100%) can equal a loss...same zip code?
I think we agree on the definition of tanking... Trying to lose. Going for the first pick in the draft. Not playing hard is starting off the game, hoping for the best, but not losing too much sleep if things go south. It's easier to cave when things snowball in the wrong direction. I don't think the players ever wanted to lose. Tanking. I think they wanted to win, but didn't put in the same effort to get the win. Maybe weight room, maybe practice, maybe on the field performance. They never wanted to lose, but they didn't fight their hardest for the win all the time either. And yes, coaching comes into play as well. The coaches didn't always put the players in the best position, making it easier to check out if things went south.
But I do think something changed after Purdue. And it changed both in coaching and in attitude. Purdue was a debacle, no two ways about it. But the games against Michigan State, Iowa and UCLA showed different attitudes among the players and the coaches. The bowl game against UCLA showed a team down 20-7 late in the first half and the team continued to fight. The coaches certainly helped, in calling a good game, but the team never checked out. In watching some games mid season in 2015, I think some players had checked out in the middle of games when the game got away from them. And by checked out, I am not saying they stopped trying. But the effort suffered more, in my opinion. Not everyone, which is why there were so many close games.
I don't think the players tanked. But I do think they gave less effort than they would have with a better buy in. That's all I'm saying. We may be close as far as zip codes go, but I'm not sure we are in the same zip code. Maybe neighboring suburbs though...
I agree with a caveat - NU did not fall because of one coach,one decision. We lost our place as a premier program through a long series of bad decisions. Bad hires and bad hires making bad decisions and so forth. I am optimistic with Riley as he has shown the cahones to make the right call. Yes bringing Banker and Read were mistakes in my book but he eventually saw the problem and then acted. Then on top of that he makes a forward thinking decision and goes after a big gun with big money in Diaco. Whether or not the new DC fixes everything is beside the point the decision making was sound on Rileys part.
I have been a huge critic of the Riley hire in large part because I did not like some of the assistants he was bringing with him. I had little faith he would replace Banker and thought would go down with the ship, I was wrong. Riley is showing he is putting the program first before all else, if he continues making decisions based on what is best to bring us back to titles he deserves to stay especially if he recruits well
The caveat is however he must win and show progress, first year was a disaster, second year started well and ended in disaster. He needs to show rather quickly that the decisions he is making is showing progress. I think NU fans are smart enough to know good football when they see it, so I am not even talking about winning 10 games or 9 games or whatever arbitrary standard people use. I think this fan base needs to see progress and some good football being played this year win or lose
Agree to a point. Most Nebraska fans won't tolerate 7-6 season, even if the they play good football. They may say that in the preseason but close, hard-fought loses to Oregon, Wisconsin, Ohio St, Penn St, Northwestern and a bowl loss won't be enough. The 9-10 win thing is tangible but "good football" isn't.
I agree and as someone who has coached football (poorly) for 20 years...I don't care if we win ugly. I have never been in a coaches office after one of our games where we won and ugly game and we say "man...I would rather have lost that game and played really good football"
The AD fired Banker and hired Diaco.. that was not Riley's decision. Just like his mentor at Wisconsin, Shawn Eichorst is micro managing the program. This could be a good or bad thing.. I personally wish it was a different offensive identity, but it's clear to me that coach Riley isn't really calling the shots.
Banker wasn't out to lunch on the bloodbath comments, in fact, it made the rest of the program look bad with his simple honesty. That was an indirect black eye out of an otherwise honest comment in the moment.
that really does not logic out - Riley who basically told the AD at OSU he was not going to get rid of any assistants - then allows the NU AD to fire his buddy? If he did not agree all he had to do was say no, what was SE going to do fire Riley? how would he explain that one
I am sure there was input but I believe this was Riley's call, banker would have been all over the press by now against SE if that had happened
I don't know what he did at Oregon State or what happened there in regard to assistants, but if you want to talk logic, how is it that Mike fires two long time assistants, full well knowing their capabilities when he hired them? That doesn't add up for me. I am sure the job at NU has more 'pressure' than the Oregon State job, so yes, you would bow to NU AD before a school like Oregon State. I fully believe SE is giving lot's of 'cough' input. If you look at SE's mentor, Barry Alvarez, he does the same thing there. It's his show, the coach doesn't get to decide what offensive/defensive identity the team will be. That's not necessarily a bad thing. From my vantage point, SE has steered the defense towards another BP type of guy in Diaco.
You are simply making things up.
Riley brought some assistants with him that he thought could do the job at Nebraska. When he realized they couldn't, he let them go.
If Eichorst wanted say in who was on the staff, why wouldn't he have done that from day 1 and been involved in the initial hirings?
Riley had made enough money that he doesn't "need" this job. especially if he is going to be micromanaged by a guy who never coached a day of division 1 football. At least Alvarez was a successful FBS coach with personal experience.
As far as hiring a Pelini type, what logical reason would he have to force Riley into hiring a guy, at D.C., exactly like the guy he just fired as HC?
Also if Eichorst was just like Alvarez, he would be forcing Riley to recruit local 2-3 star 300 -330 lb OL and rely on a running game?
Riley brought some assistants with him that he thought could do the job at Nebraska. When he realized they couldn't, he let them go.
If Eichorst wanted say in who was on the staff, why wouldn't he have done that from day 1 and been involved in the initial hirings?
Riley had made enough money that he doesn't "need" this job. especially if he is going to be micromanaged by a guy who never coached a day of division 1 football. At least Alvarez was a successful FBS coach with personal experience.
As far as hiring a Pelini type, what logical reason would he have to force Riley into hiring a guy, at D.C., exactly like the guy he just fired as HC?
Also if Eichorst was just like Alvarez, he would be forcing Riley to recruit local 2-3 star 300 -330 lb OL and rely on a running game?
Last edited:
Every boss gives some input. I think ew can all agree with that. I am sure SE wasn't telling MR anything he didn't already know.
I am not sure that is the case. I think Riley and his assistant coaches had convinced themselves at Oregon state that their problem were not theirs in the making and a lack of support from the AD at OSU. To a certain extent that was true - so they come here SE gives him a blank check and now these assistants still had the same problem. I think Riley woke up quite frankly and realized he needs to upgrade to win that is a great sign and indicates he is willing to do what it takes to bring NU back. Whether or not he does is a guess but at least he is taking the right steps. This is more than Pelini, Callahan or Solich did
"If it takes Riley 5 years, we made a poor hire. One conference title isn't going to get it done."
I don't know been along time since a conferance title.
I don't know been along time since a conferance title.
Many on that staff had either won national championships or been to national championship games. They got old. When you look at Riley's assistants that he brought, you had a bunch of guys who coached .500 teams and weren't ready to retire. They simply weren't good enough for Nebraska and should never have brought here. (I give Riley kudos for admitting his mistake and hopefully correcting it. Only time will tell.) The scenario with Frank is completely different.
Last edited:
Maybe you and Tom have a different opinion than me. Certainly some were old. Craig Bohl wasn't close to retirement, and there were others that weren't old either. I agree it was a different scenario. We still thought it was manifest destiny for us to be the best every year. It was also the first 7-7 type year in over 30's, not 10 years out from national championships. People needed to see blood on Solich's hands, and Frank obliged.
I am glad that Riley is willing to upgrade his staff.
Last edited:
Yeah but the heat on FS was tremendous at that point. He was forced to do it. You have a point, but there was gun to his head.
Whole heartedly disagree. The gun was to his head in 1998 when he took over and wasn't allowed, by Pope Tom of Hastings, to hire his own staff. The only change in the staff was moving Gillespie to RB coach from the admin office.
