How long does it take to build a program?
- Thread starter Ewooc
- Start date
You live in the past, so scrolling back to get a historical pov of this thread is what you should do, exactly.
But until you have anything decent to say, you're just a thing, a feeling, a number, with no fine tuning, no explanations, just a fart released in a thread.
No substance is what you bring,other than the foul smell of complaint.
You must have missed where I flat out didn't say it was offensive, but whatever.
A little bit of player attrition, and a lot of Frost 1) not being ready to be a P5 coach, and 2) being immature.
Unfortunately for you, our attrition rate blows away any team in the Big, but worse, its been that way for years.
So, not just this staff, but the prior staff as well, in a program that was slowly slipping under Bo, and, Bo's last two years stunk for maintaining this team, let alone improve on it.
From the day Bo realized the admin wouldn't give him much help, and he publicly went against them, when he said they could fire him, recruiting, though not very good under Bo, went off the rails, now add the attrition and overall handling of the program after Bo's poisonous exit, then more with MR leaving, add also each early first class failures after transition, just saying some attrition, not recognizing the teams holes from the other two staffs, and their leaving and attrition etc, so just how cavalier and ignorance of the program you have.
It's easy to find, these numbers, who's left, who were bad fits on first staffs classes, who were bad fits due to system changes etc, yet you dumb it down to a level that means nothing.
So, this is your long-winded way of saying that none of this is on Frost.....
Did Colorado (x2), Troy, Purdue (x2), and Indiana have better talent than Nebraska? Just wondering, because Colorado's 2-deep the week of the 2019 game showed them to be about as young as Nebraska. Was South Alabama's talent only 14 points less than Nebraska's?
Frost running off Riley players is Riley's fault. Do I have that right?
So...Bo's last 3 classes were ranked #40, #17, and #32. Did you give Riley the same pass in his 3 years that you're giving Frost? Seems to me that if Pelini was such a disaster, as you spent most of a paragraph claiming, then you should have been giving Riley a pretty long leash as well.
Last edited:
When you think as small as you do, what other conclusion would anyone expect from you?
Another thing, is the fault and excuses thing people use.
I said, these numbers, the leavings, when why are all easy to find.
So, none are excuses, none are faults, but there are many reasons.
Next, you compile out actual starters to what other Big teams are, and you find, if we are ahead of teams like minny, it isnty by much.
For some reason, you get long winded in your badmouthing, but come up with one sentence to explain it.
So, it seems I understand you well, go ahead, think what you will, but you will still find much opposition as you come to conclusions about others with a much wider understanding vs your quick and inadequate solution of blame.
Another way to see how we shape up vs how we should shape up at this point in time ,look at the top six recruits, those recruits you more or less depend upon to be starters at least, and difference makers at best.
Go back to Bo's last two years, then go back before that, not only was the recruiting better, but more of those top six contributed and some difference makers.
Continuity shows how this changed once we lost our continuity.
And transition classes have their own hits,negative ones. But if you look, those top six guys, only when Bo was doind well before he blew up, and MRs second class, where continuity was forming were the only years where we had decent returns from our top six guys.
It doesnt end just with those top six guys, others left too do to coaching turnover, and lower rated guys were misses too during transitions due to no time for vetting, forming relationships etc with the brand new coaches.
When wiscy has 4 upperclassmen 4 stars starting, as do we, we arent putting a higher rated product of athleticism on the field, but that's what we hear.
Go back to Bo's last two years, then go back before that, not only was the recruiting better, but more of those top six contributed and some difference makers.
Continuity shows how this changed once we lost our continuity.
And transition classes have their own hits,negative ones. But if you look, those top six guys, only when Bo was doind well before he blew up, and MRs second class, where continuity was forming were the only years where we had decent returns from our top six guys.
It doesnt end just with those top six guys, others left too do to coaching turnover, and lower rated guys were misses too during transitions due to no time for vetting, forming relationships etc with the brand new coaches.
When wiscy has 4 upperclassmen 4 stars starting, as do we, we arent putting a higher rated product of athleticism on the field, but that's what we hear.
Never has someone typed so much, while saying so little, as your last post.
Yeah...there's been attrition. I've never said there wasn't.
I also never mentioned anything about Minnesota...
Here's what I want to know...and it's very simple.
Do you believe that Colorado (twice), Troy, Indiana, and Purdue (twice) were all better teams than Nebraska in Frost's first 2 seasons? It's a simple yes/no question.
I don't think there is anyone arguing against the fact that we could have and maybe should have won those games. Frost has not produced in the W/L column like we need him to, yet. However, some can acknowledge that and not declare the whole staff a failure and want to start over again. It would feel better to have won 6 the first year and 7 last year, but it still wouldn't change much in the grand scheme of things. The bigger issues still need addressed and many are willing to give the staff the time and patience to do it, even if there are bumps along the road the first couple seasons.
To me, it's wait and see. It's too early to say that Frost will be a bust and it's also too early to say, as some do, that he'll turn things around and play for a conference or national title. The only thing that has been proven so far is that he's had two disappointing seasons. The recruiting has improved, so that is a positive. We should know whether he can turn things around after five years.
Last edited:
I never said we need to start over. The person with whom I'm debating is very good at engaging in keyboard gymnastics to make sure no blame for the past 2 seasons lands on Frost. And, it seems to me that if the Pelini era was the train wreck he wants to claim, then Riley should have been given a longer leash than he was....because the fact of the matter is that Frost's 3 year record will very likely be worse than Riley's.
Last edited:
You got nothing, you bring nothing.
Thats you.
As far as talent playing, we have better talent.
Is it so superior to take such a cavalier attitude such as yours in a transition year? Never, but again, that's you.
You would know if you bothered to look instead of easing out on your fbeing a fan, and grunting Nebraska.
But since you once again toss away sound knowledge, sound fact, it's you.
So, yes and no, for you to obviously never figure out.
As far as SF goes, again, you never have specifics, but yes, he's made several mistakes, but you need to find what they are, but again, that's you, grunt bad SF.
But again, I haven't,nor was my responses about blame, as I stated above, but again, that's you.
Tip for you, when buying a micro wave, don't bother getting the one with options.
I have a background of taking over organizations that are experiencing less than positive results. One in particular was involved in a hostile business take over because of various issues, So the very question of how long it takes to build a program has many facets to it, First, I don't think it is accurate to say build but more accurate to say "rebuild" which to me means it isn't where you want it but you have something to start with.
No matter how low an organization is and I would assume this program as well, there are always positive areas you have to build on. You start out by wedding out what you assess are the problem areas. Really, that does not take that long to do, even in a business or a school.
For me, there are simply too many factors in a team situation to gauge success. Of course there are wins and losses and by that matrix we have not done well. Then you have to measure that against the quality of the opposition (schedule).
i look for organization, player development and confidence shown by the players and coaches. I don't watch a game complaining about the play call, I watch the blocking, faking, timing, etc. I have been disappointed in many of those aspects of the team, special teams is just one example.
I have seen really good HS and CC coaches come into really poor schools and make instant impact with technique. It doesn't always happen, but the good coaches can spot the weaknesses and correct them.
I also don't buy the excuse that the cupboard was completely empty. It rarely is in these situations. I know many disagree with me but I don't think there is that much difference in skill requirements from a pro set to a spread set O. Some technique differences yes, but not that much overall.
By year three we should definitely be seeing some major improvements. Not making the same mistakes on special teams, linemen hitting their guy and sticking with the block or getting to the second level and actually hitting someone, LB's making good reads and taking a good lane to the ball carrier and being under control, DB's playing sound and able to come up and tackle.
My personal opinion is we have set the standards for the program too low. Some are talking just making a bowl game. That is a sad commentary when you think about it. Any good coaching staff will re access things and make changes in drills, expectations, and personnel, the longer this mess goes on, the more difficult those become.
No matter how low an organization is and I would assume this program as well, there are always positive areas you have to build on. You start out by wedding out what you assess are the problem areas. Really, that does not take that long to do, even in a business or a school.
For me, there are simply too many factors in a team situation to gauge success. Of course there are wins and losses and by that matrix we have not done well. Then you have to measure that against the quality of the opposition (schedule).
i look for organization, player development and confidence shown by the players and coaches. I don't watch a game complaining about the play call, I watch the blocking, faking, timing, etc. I have been disappointed in many of those aspects of the team, special teams is just one example.
I have seen really good HS and CC coaches come into really poor schools and make instant impact with technique. It doesn't always happen, but the good coaches can spot the weaknesses and correct them.
I also don't buy the excuse that the cupboard was completely empty. It rarely is in these situations. I know many disagree with me but I don't think there is that much difference in skill requirements from a pro set to a spread set O. Some technique differences yes, but not that much overall.
By year three we should definitely be seeing some major improvements. Not making the same mistakes on special teams, linemen hitting their guy and sticking with the block or getting to the second level and actually hitting someone, LB's making good reads and taking a good lane to the ball carrier and being under control, DB's playing sound and able to come up and tackle.
My personal opinion is we have set the standards for the program too low. Some are talking just making a bowl game. That is a sad commentary when you think about it. Any good coaching staff will re access things and make changes in drills, expectations, and personnel, the longer this mess goes on, the more difficult those become.
Name a wr over 5,11"?
Name two LBs that can cover?
Name three safeties who played all year?
Name two rbs who played all year?
Name a qb who wasn't hurt last year?
It was what it was, but there simply weren't any or many answers to the above questions.
Is the current state of the Nebraska football program closer to pre-McCartney Colorado than pre-Savanna Alabama?
Why are the answers to the questions you asked no?
Why weren't those specific short-comings, in WR and LB positions, addressed in recruiting?
Why did the QB play seem to fall off in year 2 compared to year 1?
Why were there more off the field issues in year 2 than year 1? Even if some of the off the field stuff was "dismissed" by the courts, there were still players making bad decisions.
This logic makes zero sense. A player can have more raw talent but still not win the job. Why? Because of things like maturity, development, S&C, time. That all takes time to gain. While many of MR players maybe don't have the skills or mentality Frost is looking for in a player they do have other things that gives them the edge.
Also when looking at that S&C and development side of things. There is a reason Frost RS basically everyone of his recruits if possible. He didn't want to just throw them in there. He wanted time to teach them the right way, to have them make gains in S&C and learn the scheme and system 100%. If I had to guess I bet we see a huge influx of Frost guys this year.
Why are you answering my questions then wonder why you come to those answers?
In what year did we address those shortcomings in recruiting? If youve read one thing I've posted in this thread, about transitions, and the cost on recruiting, much of the reasons as to why have already been answered, asking me twice, I point back to whats already been said.
As to the qb, if you can convince me this is part of a rebuild,things we often see, go for it.
I left that out because I dont believe that's pertinent to the OP.
We've had threads on the qb issue, go back there if you wish.
And no, we dont have wrs and LBs named no
You've answered questions with other questions.
I simply asked why the short receivers and LBs who could cover weren't recruited.
It wasn't like Frost didn't realize there were no tall receivers on the roster. And since he was hired, he has signed only what 2 or 3 guys over 6' tall? The reasonable person standard would indicate that he is fine with shorter receivers.
As far as LBs go, why are we signing guys that can't cover? At this point, only 3 or 4 of the 15 scholarship LBs were here when Frost arrived and one of those is a converted safety.
QB play was worse last year than the year before, who cares if the underlying reason is part of the rebuild. QBs usually improve from year 1 to year 2 in a system. I didn't see that growth in 2019, so rebuild, coaching, over coaching, putting on too much weight, over training...whatever the reason it declined.
Lastly, you listed a bunch of "reasons" why Nebraska apparently struggled to win games the past 2 years. So I asked a few questions of you, if you don't want to answer fine.
Obviously, when I asked the other person questions, I thought I might get answer or opinions.
So, since you just said no, then no it is, you have no answers either.
I simply gave those long answers that previous person was oblivious to, so again, reread what I've written if you must know.
If any of our coaches were fine with taller recievers, theres a chance we might still have one on the roster.
This group, the 2020 class is different than what SF has recruited in the past, which shows growth on his part, as far as MR not having any, not sure he ever said anything like SF did.
Again, that staff, MRs, recruited those guys, other than our juco, but again, I alluded to being short on numbers for our safeties, which is more likely what we'll see in the future, depending on current LB talents.
Again, look at this thread, what Ive already written, the costs of coaching transitions, attrition rates etc.
Again, details on qb regression isn't fact when talking rebuild.
And finally, I dont wish to repeat whats already been said as far as explanations go.
Look at the top six recruits, often those of highest need and of course highest potential. Look year to year, see how many have actually contributed, or were starter or difference makers.
You know, recruiting classes dont mean squat when your top six guys dont ever play, os make minor contributions.
It's too early to see how this is working with this staff, and again, first year transition classes are often bad, same for dead man walking last year coaches, plus attritions, plus fits etc.
I would hope we see an influx of Frost guys this year, 70% or more of the scholarship players and probably close to 80% of the total roster are Frost guys.
On the offensive side of the ball, 40 scholarship players 11 are Riley recruits, 1 WR, 3 TE, 7 OL. Every QB, RB and 9 of the 10 WR are Frost recruits.
On defense 9 of 41 scholarship players are Riley recruited players.
Last edited:
I get what you're saying and there's definitely some validity to it. However, if Frost was going to play Riley's guys, then he needed to shut his trap to the media about how bad they were. Probably wasn't the best approach.
Last edited:
I can agree with that. He has talked too much these last 2 years all the way around. I don't think he specifially came out and said guys were bad. He was letting people know that there were some on the team not doing things the right way. That Im ok with. If these players feel like he was calling them out, then they should do things better.
That is one area we can disagree on. In public you only praise, in private you can talk candidly. What happened to "no fear?" Coaches work hard at finding the bright spots to talk about.
There is a lot that goes on behind the scenes and that is where it should stay.
I think a successful rebuild by Scott Frost would be where Nebraska is consistently ending the season ranked in the top 15.
As for how long? Name another program with the aspirations Nebraska has and is as isolated from the talent as they relate to those aspirations.
There are none that I am aware of. No one said the rock would be light and well rounded or the hill shallow.
I'm gonna support Scott Frost for the full 7. I think he deserves it after getting boo'ed. But it's not looking pretty right now.
As for how long? Name another program with the aspirations Nebraska has and is as isolated from the talent as they relate to those aspirations.
There are none that I am aware of. No one said the rock would be light and well rounded or the hill shallow.
I'm gonna support Scott Frost for the full 7. I think he deserves it after getting boo'ed. But it's not looking pretty right now.
I am OK with letting people know if they aren't doing something the right way. I just don't think you do it, or even imply it, in public.