Shatterday- mike Riley got off to a much better start than Scott frost.
Given a toxic team with a talent deficit mike Riley won 5 then won 9. Frost ain’t winning nine. And didn’t win 5. What say you?
Posted Oct 19, 2019, 6:24 AM UTC
07
Don’t be dumb
16
They’re allowing shitposts today due to the bye week. This post is just the beginning.
1
Maybe record-wise, but I think It’d be dumb to assume that the team doesn’t have a better work ethic, attitude, and football IQ now than under Riley. Frost is building for the future and it takes time. Gotta get the right guys with the right attitude. I really want to see where this program is in 5 years.
6
I think the big difference is Mike Riley worked with the players we had. Scott flipped the roster. Im glad though, I couldn't watch another season of Tanner Lee.
3
I say Scott Frost has a much higher ceiling then Mike Riley, and, that Riley was hired more for being an "anti Pelini" than for his accomplishments as a coach.
2
The schedule for Riley’s second year was ridiculously soft. How many ranked teams did we even play that year? If frost had taken over after peeling things would be completely different right now.
2
Pelini’s recruits may have lacked the stars in recruiting, but were hard-nosed and fought to the end. And they were pretty loyal to each other and to the coaches they were playing for (even if that did change mid way through their careers).
Riley’s recruits thought they wouldn’t have to lift weights everyday, and it is showing now. He got a lot of players more focused on themselves (more so, getting drafted) than they were winning football games. We’re seeing the transition with guys like Lamar Jackson, but that doesn’t mean it’s the same with everyone.