We were told

[HuskerTimOmaha]

Ok lets address

Why run when all a team had to was pass on us - Opposing teams ran the ball 363 times which is a ten year low I believe - now the yards per carry was 3.75 which I believe is ok - I admit Pelini's scheme was bad against the rush but his numbers in 2013 were 3.77/rush and 2011 4.01/rush - I did not go back through his entire tenure but normally it was worse than that towards the end but better in 2009/2010

On top of this Bankers defense struggled against a running QB ( even if not very talented) and gave up big plays ion big games ( see Iowa) so do not be fooled here teams did not have to run on us so they didnt

Next time, address it instead of babbling.

828 plays were run against the defense, once the UCLA game is added, it'll be the lowest number of plays/game the defense allowed since the 2012 season, possibly but not likely the '11 season. Coincidentally, that's the season NU couldn't stop anyone running the ball, giving up a clip of 4.76 yards per carry (compared to 3.7 ypc this season). Regardless, saying all a team had to do is pass on us is not only ignorant but wrong as well. It didn't work for Michigan State, when they had to run the ball the couldn't. It didn't work for Iowa either, and it damn near cost Miami the game. I can go on too, but I'll wait for your wonderful reply first.

95% of college defenses struggle against a running QB, including your hero Peelini who was embarrassed time and time again; including a not very athletic QB named Garrett Gilbert . You sure can't forget that one, red-out around the world, :01 R-E-V-E-N-G-E and the great grape pimped your hero while he was more worried about an alum that did him more good and zero harm. Oh yeah, I forgot, Michigan State lost that game why? Why did Iowa have trouble closing out the game? Could it be, they couldn't run it successfully to close out Nebraska? Nah, they chose to get stuffed and punt.

This defense has work to do, no doubt about it. However, to simply say teams didn't have to run the ball because they could just pass and that's why the rushing defense had the numbers they did, is downright wrong. In many ways, I can outline more if the stupidity continues.

 

[SnohomishRed]

Next time, address it instead of babbling.

828 plays were run against the defense, once the UCLA game is added, it'll be the lowest number of plays/game the defense allowed since the 2012 season, possibly but not likely the '11 season. Coincidentally, that's the season NU couldn't stop anyone running the ball, giving up a clip of 4.76 yards per carry (compared to 3.7 ypc this season). Regardless, saying all a team had to do is pass on us is not only ignorant but wrong as well. It didn't work for Michigan State, when they had to run the ball the couldn't. It didn't work for Iowa either, and it damn near cost Miami the game. I can go on too, but I'll wait for your wonderful reply first.

95% of college defenses struggle against a running QB, including your hero Peelini who was embarrassed time and time again; including a not very athletic QB named Garrett Gilbert . You sure can't forget that one, red-out around the world, :01 R-E-V-E-N-G-E and the great grape pimped your hero while he was more worried about an alum that did him more good and zero harm. Oh yeah, I forgot, Michigan State lost that game why? Why did Iowa have trouble closing out the game? Could it be, they couldn't run it successfully to close out Nebraska? Nah, they chose to get stuffed and punt.

This defense has work to do, no doubt about it. However, to simply say teams didn't have to run the ball because they could just pass and that's why the rushing defense had the numbers they did, is downright wrong. In many ways, I can outline more if the stupidity continues.

You are bit touchy are you not? I realize its tough to take the side of the DC that you have no confidence in either.

Keep it civil and discuss, no need to try beat me down by insults - state your opinion if I am wrong I will admit it and you should to.

** This defense was not horrible against the rush but there were a lot of holes.

• Great rush defenses do not give up 3.75 yards per carry sorry. Look at the other teams ranked in the top ten they were nowhere close to this numbers
• Good rush defense teams do not give big plays to the opposing teams RB - Canzeri 8.2 ypc, Holmes 5.3 ypc, Blough 8.2 ypc, Yearby 7.4 ypc - so they are not stopping the other teams main weapons on the ground. Yes running QB's are hard to stop but calling Blough a running QB is a bit of a stretch
• The total plays is really low - extremely low - to be honest I am not sure totally why. In the Iowa game the defense did great on third down. Iowa only ran 44 plays yet we still gave up some big plays on the ground. Any way you shake it the reason we are ranked high in total yards per game is the extremely low attempts run against us

 

[HuskerTimOmaha]

First off, nowhere did I say it's a great run defense, take your straw-man somewhere else.

I'm not touchy nor am I taking his side. I'm giving him, mostly Hughes which @rrthusker and I told many of you when he was hired as DL coach, credit for where it's due. I was against the Banker higher from the get go, doesn't mean I can't give him credit where it's due. And in regards to the run defense, it's due.

Good rush defenses give up big rush plays all the time, and drives (see Io_a giving up a 20/22 (?) play run/pass drive to lose the B1G title game) it's not exclusive to Nebraska, no matter how many times you claim it.

 

[SnohomishRed]

First off, nowhere did I say it's a great run defense, take your straw-man somewhere else.

I'm not touchy nor am I taking his side. I'm giving him, mostly Hughes which @rrthusker and I told many of you when he was hired as DL coach, credit for where it's due. I was against the Banker higher from the get go, doesn't mean I can't give him credit where it's due. And in regards to the run defense, it's due.

Good rush defenses give up big rush plays all the time, and drives (see Io_a giving up a 20/22 (?) play run/pass drive to lose the B1G title game) it's not exclusive to Nebraska, no matter how many times you claim it.

To be honest we are not that far apart - My original post was right after the Iowa loss which sealed a losing season. One of the main reasons we lost was giving up big plays on the ground - take those out and the defense played lights out in that game. I do think the Dline was much better this year but I also think it was boom or bust a bit - they would or the defense as a whole gave up big plays both on the ground and in the air. Really good rush defenses do not give up as many big plays as we did .

All that aside our rush defense was 100% better than before. I do think the number plays was a big factor whatever the reason for it.

 

[HuskerTimOmaha]

Big plays against Io_a didn't happen because of a poor or bad run defense. Both happened due to (1) a 300+ pound DE getting his shit pushed in like Paris Hilton on a day that emds with "y" and (2) a true freshmen replacing a solid run defending 3-year starter. Adjustments were made and they didn't hit it again although they ran it 2 or 3 (?) times more.

And it'll get better with Hughes gaining more familiarity with not only what he has, the technique he prefers, trust and understanding of the opponent. Rush defense is the last of my defensive worries.

 

[JHball]

Big plays against Io_a didn't happen because of a poor or bad run defense. Both happened due to (1) a 300+ pound DE getting his shit pushed in like Paris Hilton on a day that emds with "y" and (2) a true freshmen replacing a solid run defending 3-year starter. Adjustments were made and they didn't hit it again although they ran it 2 or 3 (?) times more.

And it'll get better with Hughes gaining more familiarity with not only what he has, the technique he prefers, trust and understanding of the opponent. Rush defense is the last of my defensive worries.

Does McMullen remind anyone else of Pitchford last year? Seems like sometimes he just doesn't want to be there

 

[Wasker77]

Got to make better decisions and execute. Iowa is 11 puts better because we are making too many mistakes.

What?

 

[Wasker77]

I will take this every year if the opposite means a Pelini was associated with Nebraska

That's great. You would rather lose than win games just because you like one mediocre coach over a maniac coach. Why not get a great coach that WINS!

 

[Wasker77]

I mean, you can look at the stats if you want, but I'm shocked this is actually up for debate. Bo's run defense last year was gashed early and often. Banker's has been very solid, if not spectacular all year. Some of you guys are just ridiculous.

Instead of comparing Banker's defense to Bo's why don't you look up how he has been at previous stops. He hasn't been great.

 

[JohnRossEwing]

Here we go...HAHAHA

 

[JohnRossEwing]

That's great. You would rather lose than win games just because you like one mediocre coach over a maniac coach. Why not get a great coach that WINS!

Amen!

 

[timnsun]

Instead of comparing Banker's defense to Bo's why don't you look up how he has been at previous stops. He hasn't been great.

I love arguments like this. If past history is the only indication of how a coach will do then how in the hell, after 20 years, did TO win 3 out of 4 national championships?

 

[JohnRossEwing]

I love arguments like this. If past history is the only indication of how a coach will do then how in the hell, after 20 years, did TO win 3 out of 4 national championships?

I totally agree...but TO was still winning a lot...it is not like he was stumbling around. But I know what you mean.

 

[timnsun]

I totally agree...but TO was still winning a lot...it is not like he was stumbling around. But I know what you mean.

Totally valid point. It's just that there's been enough coaches that have sucked at one place but thrived in another that posters like Wasker will never consider.

 

[Husker.Wed.]

Big plays against Io_a didn't happen because of a poor or bad run defense. Both happened due to (1) a 300+ pound DE getting his shit pushed in like Paris Hilton on a day that emds with "y" and (2) a true freshmen replacing a solid run defending 3-year starter. Adjustments were made and they didn't hit it again although they ran it 2 or 3 (?) times more.

And it'll get better with Hughes gaining more familiarity with not only what he has, the technique he prefers, trust and understanding of the opponent. Rush defense is the last of my defensive worries.

I don't see any reason to make vulgar comments about Paris Hilton in this thread.

 

[HuskerTimOmaha]

I don't see any reason to make vulgar comments about Paris Hilton in this thread.

Didn't ask you, nor do I care. She's a whore, deal with it.

 

[JHball]

Didn't ask you, nor do I care. She's a whore, deal with it.

Since we're being honest, I wish she was my whore

 

[HuskerDuderino]

I love arguments like this. If past history is the only indication of how a coach will do then how in the hell, after 20 years, did TO win 3 out of 4 national championships?

Seriously? Whose opinion do you support in this thread? HuskerTimOmaha is using stats, and Shnomish is using stats. Do you know what both of their arguments have in common?

They both are using past performance (stats) as the sole basis of their respective arguments.

TO may have taken 20 years to win a mnc, but you would be hard-pressed to find any commonality between a coach that loses 2 games a year and a coach who loses 6 games a year, on average.

 

[dockentwo]

They can't make the decisions where to throw the ball for him. They can't force him to throw off his front foot. They can't make him not throw into double and triple coverage. I do assume they discourage him from doing these things.

THANK YOU FOR TRYING; SOME HAVE NO READING COMPREHENSION. Most should try some sort of electronic video football game - bet they have a learning curve and shocking semi-reality; that may even be a stretch.

 

[NikkiSixx]

THANK YOU FOR TRYING; SOME HAVE NO READING COMPREHENSION. Most should try some sort of electronic video football game - bet they have a learning curve and shocking semi-reality; that may even be a stretch.

Reminded me of this one.. what a great machine this was!!!

 

[litespeedhuskerfan]

Reminded me of this one.. what a great machine this was!!!

Had one, it was awesome.

 

[HuskerTimOmaha]

C

Seriously? Whose opinion do you support in this thread? HuskerTimOmaha is using stats, and Shnomish is using stats. Do you know what both of their arguments have in common?

They both are using past performance (stats) as the sole basis of their respective arguments
.

Only due to his incompetence.

 

[timnsun]

Seriously? Whose opinion do you support in this thread? HuskerTimOmaha is using stats, and Shnomish is using stats. Do you know what both of their arguments have in common?

They both are using past performance (stats) as the sole basis of their respective arguments.

TO may have taken 20 years to win a mnc, but you would be hard-pressed to find any commonality between a coach that loses 2 games a year and a coach who loses 6 games a year, on average.

Thanks for missing the point. Stats are great and tell a story for sure.

My point is stats are not the sole indication of what will happen in the future. If TO cut his teeth coaching at Oregon State would he still have averaged only two losses per season? If stats are the only thing to look at why don't guys who do well at one stop (Hawkins at Boise State) totally suck at their next stop (Hawkins at Colorado)? The examples go both ways, by the way, coaches who suck at one place then blossom at another. Those threads have been hashed out to death here in the past and I'm not gonna put a lot of effort into doing the work again...

I'm not saying throw the stats out but you can apply stats across the board when going from, say Oregon State to Nebraska. You need a bigger sample size than 1 year at a place, especially when changing schemes offensively and defensively and struggling with buy in of some players (which is natural with any coaching change).

hopefully this makes better sense to you now because I'm not sure I could spell it out any more...

 

[Wasker77]

I love arguments like this. If past history is the only indication of how a coach will do then how in the hell, after 20 years, did TO win 3 out of 4 national championships?

Tim, this just may be the stupidest thing I've ever read on this board. You are actually comparing Mike Riley's coaching record to date to that of Tom Osborn's record prior to 1994? I must have a pretty bad memory as I remember the Huskers winning most of their games from 1973 to 1993. A hell of lot more than Mike Riley ever won.

 

[Wasker77]

Totally valid point. It's just that there's been enough coaches that have sucked at one place but thrived in another that posters like Wasker will never consider.

Please give me an example of a 62 year old coach with a 53.8% lifetime winning record coaching college football who has transformed into a coach winning division, conference and National Championships. Hell, I think Mike Riley is a thief. He is stealing Nebraska money.

 

[HuskerTimOmaha]

He is stealing Nebraska money.

Just like your boy Blo.

 

[Wasker77]

Tim, one last thing and I will never bother you again. Why do you like Mike Riley so much? What has he ever done for you to show time after time complete support and loyalty for his ability to coach the Huskers? Was it the Michigan State win? I just don't understand your blind allegiance to a coach who never has won a division title or coached in a major bowl.

 

[Wasker77]

Just like your boy Blo.

That is the best you can do? You knuckleheads think that everybody who thinks Mike Riley is a bad coach must be Bo supporters. That is just crazy and it is completely wrong.

 

[timnsun]

Tim, one last thing and I will never bother you again. Why do you like Mike Riley so much? What has he ever done for you to show time after time complete support and loyalty for his ability to coach the Huskers? Was it the Michigan State win? I just don't understand your blind allegiance to a coach who never has won a division title or coached in a major bowl.

It's simple for me. I believe in giving a guy a chance. I was surprised by the hire initially. Didn't really like it that much. But he more I read the more I felt like this guy could do better in a new place. He is career 53% in large pet because he never left OSU apart from a 2 year stint in the NFL. If he would have accepted some of the other big name places he was offered, I believe his winning percentage would be much higher.

I could easily be wrong, and he could be a terrible hire. But I feel like he deserves a chance at least (by that I mean more than 1 season) to turn this program around. If I'm wrong I'll admit that freely. I'm just not ready to yet.

I know he has a long history which many are pointing to. But that long history was In a craphole and he made them respectable after 25+ 3 win seasons. That's impressive to me.

Maybe he's too old for this, or simply not a good enough coach. But I will give him time to make it clear for me.

That's where I'm comin from. The only agenda is I believe he deserves time to get his guys in that fit his system. If he still blows, then you and a host of other posters are right and I and some others are wrong.

 

[timnsun]

Tim, one last thing and I will never bother you again. Why do you like Mike Riley so much? What has he ever done for you to show time after time complete support and loyalty for his ability to coach the Huskers? Was it the Michigan State win? I just don't understand your blind allegiance to a coach who never has won a division title or coached in a major bowl.

Let me say thank you for asking as well. Too much of the time we just yell at each other through the Internet without understanding. At least now you know where I am coming from.

And for the record, i wasn't comparing coaching records between Osborne and Riley. That's crazy. What I was doing was being flippant and saying if history was all that mattered, osborne's 20 year history didn't suggest in any way that he would win 3 out of 4 NCs. In my opinion the Riley hire is a huge risk. It might pan out or it might not. We'll know for sure soon enough I guess.

I believe I know why you feel the way you do about Riley, based primarily on his history. If not, feel free to tell me more. You asked me, now I'm returning the favor. Maybe we can understand each other better.

 

[Wasker77]

It's simple for me. I believe in giving a guy a chance. I was surprised by the hire initially. Didn't really like it that much. But he more I read the more I felt like this guy could do better in a new place. He is career 53% in large pet because he never left OSU apart from a 2 year stint in the NFL. If he would have accepted some of the other big name places he was offered, I believe his winning percentage would be much higher.

I could easily be wrong, and he could be a terrible hire. But I feel like he deserves a chance at least (by that I mean more than 1 season) to turn this program around. If I'm wrong I'll admit that freely. I'm just not ready to yet.

I know he has a long history which many are pointing to. But that long history was In a craphole and he made them respectable after 25+ 3 win seasons. That's impressive to me.

Maybe he's too old for this, or simply not a good enough coach. But I will give him time to make it clear for me.

That's where I'm comin from. The only agenda is I believe he deserves time to get his guys in that fit his system. If he still blows, then you and a host of other posters are right and I and some others are wrong.

Oregon State is a tough place to coach football. There is no arguing that. Here is something to ponder. In his four seasons at Oregon State while Mike Riley was away in the NFL and coaching elsewhere, Dennis Erickson's winning percentage with the Beavers was 64% and he coached them to a conference co-championship and a win in the Fiesta Bowl. Something Mike never was able to do in his 14 seasons at Oregon State.

 

[dinglefritz]

Let me say thank you for asking as well. Too much of the time we just yell at each other through the Internet without understanding. At least now you know where I am coming from.

And for the record, i wasn't comparing coaching records between Osborne and Riley. That's crazy. What I was doing was being flippant and saying if history was all that mattered, osborne's 20 year history didn't suggest in any way that he would win 3 out of 4 NCs. In my opinion the Riley hire is a huge risk. It might pan out or it might not. We'll know for sure soon enough I guess.

I believe I know why you feel the way you do about Riley, based primarily on his history. If not, feel free to tell me more. You asked me, now I'm returning the favor. Maybe we can understand each other better.

Virtually EVERY coaching hire is a huge risk. You don't know for sure. You don't know how the players he recruits will pan out. A bad QB can make a coach look pretty bad. You don't know how the schedule will line up or who will be injured for how long or for what game. Like life there are no guarantees no matter how much you spend or who you hire. Ask Texas. Urban was probably the closest thing to a sure thing out there and he struggled his last year in Florida in the biggest bath tub of high school talent in the country. I like Riley. I like his staff. I've seen some very encouraging signs at the end of the season to make me think that he is very close to fielding a very good team.

 

[timnsun]

Oregon State is a tough place to coach football. There is no arguing that. Here is something to ponder. In his four seasons at Oregon State while Mike Riley was away in the NFL and coaching elsewhere, Dennis Erickson's winning percentage with the Beavers was 64% and he coached them to a conference co-championship and a win in the Fiesta Bowl. Something Mike never was able to do in his 14 seasons at Oregon State.

Yep I am aware of that, and that is a big strike against him. I guess at this point nothing is gonna change for at least 1 more year if not longer depending on how he does. I'm generally a put the best construction on things kinda guy, which enables me to support him until he proves he can't get it done here.

I get riled up pretty easily at times, that's for sure. I guess it happens when I feel like the guy isn't getting a chance. I understand the other side as well, that he has been doing this for years, why will it all of a sudden get better? But since I put the best construction on things, that doesn't fit my narrative.

 

[HuskerTimOmaha]

That is the best you can do?

No, anoher blotard not worth the effort.

 

[Wasker77]

Anoher??? I am not familiar with that word. Is it French?

 

[huskerbaseball13]

Oregon State is a tough place to coach football. There is no arguing that. Here is something to ponder. In his four seasons at Oregon State while Mike Riley was away in the NFL and coaching elsewhere, Dennis Erickson's winning percentage with the Beavers was 64% and he coached them to a conference co-championship and a win in the Fiesta Bowl. Something Mike never was able to do in his 14 seasons at Oregon State.

Riley should get some credit for the Beavers Fiesta Bowl run considering he recruited Oregon State's and the Pac 12's top player that year.

 

[Wasker77]

Riley should get some credit for the Beavers Fiesta Bowl run considering he recruited Oregon State's and the Pac 12's top player that year.

Does Tressel get some credit then for Ohio State's national championship last year? Or here is a better question. Does Bo get some credit if the Huskers are really good next season? (That ought get the tongues wagging)

 

[litespeedhuskerfan]

Does Tressel get some credit then for Ohio State's national championship last year? Or here is a better question. Does Bo get some credit if the Huskers are really good next season? (That ought get the tongues wagging)

I know you're trying to be a smart alec here, but the answer is yes...sort of. I have no problem if a Buckeye fan said something to the tune of "Urban was able to build off of, and keep going, what Tressel did and we owe at least some of that team's success to the great job Tressel did laying the foundation it takes to keep winning at a high level".

 

[huskerbaseball13]

Does Tressel get some credit then for Ohio State's national championship last year? Or here is a better question. Does Bo get some credit if the Huskers are really good next season? (That ought get the tongues wagging)

Yes and Yes...although, a good majority of Ohio States best players were recruited by Urban Meyer.

 

[HuskerTimOmaha]

Anoher??? I am not familiar with that word. Is it French?

Take a French class and find out, blotard.