The Screaming Pelini

So I was going to ask why Mr. Lewis wasn't already a Husker, but it seems he answered the question for me.

It was a great moment for the state of Nebraska, and our program. It definitely brought a tear to my eye. I've probably watched the video 20 times.... However.... I would be soooooooo pissed if we lost every game this year... It was obviously an exaggeration lol. If we lose every game this year, there's gonna be a hell of a lot more crying than this.

Nothing like a message board of full grown men crying, just goes to show how much more this is than football. I work very closely with children everyday of my life at a homeless shelter and to be completely honest, I don't care if we lose every game this year. My season is already made. When people ask me why I love Nebraska football and why I love this state, this will forever be what I show them. Go Big Red! =]

i think nebraska has not made a run at fitz because we currently have a football coach. Yeah. The screaming guy. I've seen him losing lots of big games. Don't be blaming those games on me man! Hahaha

I would LOVE to see Denver grab Rex, but after picking up Mendenhall, I doubt that happens. I do believe Mendenhall went to Arizona so the Broncs still could go after Rex.

Lots of mock drafts out this time of year with the draft only a month or so away and I feel like we know our teams better than these analysts. So I ask, what does your five round mock draft look like for your team if you were the GM? I'm a Viking fan so if it were up to me I'd say: Round 1 (Pick 23): Justin Hunter/Tavon Austin/Keenan Allen- WR (Whoever is available) Round 1 (Pick 25): Manti Te'o- ILB Round 2 (Pick 52):Larry Warford- OG Round 3 (Pick 83):Ryan Swope- WR Round 4 (Pick 99):Bacarri Rambo- DB Round 4: (Pick 117):Tyrann Mathieu- DB Round 5: (Pick 148): Jordan Hill- DT

Better get used to bowling too, it's about the only thing he'll have to do in Kentucky! Based on their history I wouldn't get to used to going bowling if I were him... Good thing he already sucks at it then. Haha

Better get used to bowling too, it's about the only thing he'll have to do in Kentucky!

"he has a chance to become only the second major-college quarterback to accumulate 3,000 career rushing yards and 9,000 passing yards." And the first quarterback to be ridiculed to no end while doing so. Haha

That's hilarious. f#*k mizzou I don't know what's more hillarious, the knockout or Frank saying that the drunk Missouri fans shouldn't have been on the field. Haha

Does this count? Hahaha stupid Missouri fan getting knocked out by an Orthopedic Surgeon. =]

I think this is what you meant to say, Screaming Pelini. But what's your point? If your point is that recruiting is an inexact science then I wholeheartedly agree with you. But if your point is that, instead of recruiting four and five star guys, we should concentrate on recruiting three-star and below players because 62% of Pro-bowlers are three-star and below---well, then I suggest you re-read my post above. Yeah that would probably make more sense to you all, it made sense in my own world haha. My sincerest apologies. But my point with all of this is that if Barney starts three walk on offensive lineman, that doesn't mean they aren't as good or better than four or five stars. Do I want all the fours and fives we can get? Hell yeah! But you don't need a four or five star rating to be an elite, top tier player. If we start three walk ons and still average numbers on offense that are as good, or exceed the teams with the five star talent, wouldn't that mean you're a great coach? Shouldn't we be praising Barney for taking marginally worse talent and getting the same production out of them as the teams with the highest rated talent?

You guys keep thinking I am telling you that you're wrong, you're not, but neither am I. You guys are expanding the statistic to include every single player, which is not necesarry because we are only comparing the number of four and five stars on the Pro Bowl roster vs the number of sub four star players on the roster. Thus if we are comparing only the Pro Bowl players, as I have been this whole time, my statistic is not incorrect. If you expand the base number to include every player ever ranked, or every player in the NFL, than yes that number is significantly smaller, but still does not make my statement incorrect. Maybe needs to be reworded, but not incorrect.

Quite sure my math is just fine, but you are correct the statement is definitely wrong. The last 10 years the Pro Bowl has consisted of a much higher percentage of players below a four star rating than that. Seriously, if you don't believe me that's fine, you can look up all of this. But I'm not going to argue something that is a fact with you, go do the research you'll see exactly what I see, majority of the players in the Pro Bowl are in fact not a five star, or even a four star recruit. I want the entire OLine to be walk- ons next year hahahah =]

Uhm i believe you just made my point for me. The statistic shows that only 32 players ranked four or five stars have made the Pro Bowl. Again if every one of those players made the Pro Bowl all 10 years(which they did not) that would potentially be 320 of the 840 roster spots taken. Leaving 520 roster spots available for those not ranked four stars or more. 320 is 38% of 840. 520 is 62%. 62% of players ranked below 4 stars make the Pro Bowl, 38% of players ranked four stars or above make the Pro Bowl. Players ranked below four stars thus are more "successful". The number of four or five star recruits in high school is irrelevant to the matter because we are evaluating them after that rating. Get it? =] i would think the number of 4+ star recruits in highschool matters since you guys are arguing about ratings they got in highschool Not true, the statement is that players rated below a four star have more success in the NFL vs their four and five star competitors, as evidenced by the Pro Bowl selections of the last 10 years. The fact that there were less four and five star recruits in high school is irrelevant and even if we take that stat in to account, a higher percentage of sub four star players still make the Pro Bowl. This isn't a hypothetical situation, I gave an actual figure and using that figure it is mathematically impossible for them to be more "successful". I think the point is an individual 4-star recruit is more likely to be selected than an individual 3-star recruit. Being ranked higher out of high school is correlated to better performance at the college and professional levels. You're making a funny, right? No. Once again this isn't an opinion, only 32 players four stars or above have ever made the Pro Bowl. The fact that there are less of them at the high school level is irrelevant, there are supposed to be less of them. They are supposed to be the "best", yet based on the numbers, they make the pro bowl at a much lower percentage than players of a lesser ranking, it doesn't matter how many of them did not make it, only how many did make it. The recruiting rankings already rank the players within the class from one to five, no need for us to then take that number and break it down again. The Pro Bowl roster is made up of more sub 4 star players than it is four/five star players. That's a fact.

Uhm i believe you just made my point for me. The statistic shows that only 32 players ranked four or five stars have made the Pro Bowl. Again if every one of those players made the Pro Bowl all 10 years(which they did not) that would potentially be 320 of the 840 roster spots taken. Leaving 520 roster spots available for those not ranked four stars or more. 320 is 38% of 840. 520 is 62%. 62% of players ranked below 4 stars make the Pro Bowl, 38% of players ranked four stars or above make the Pro Bowl. Players ranked below four stars thus are more "successful". The number of four or five star recruits in high school is irrelevant to the matter because we are evaluating them after that rating. Get it? =] i would think the number of 4+ star recruits in highschool matters since you guys are arguing about ratings they got in highschool Not true, the statement is that players rated below a four star have more success in the NFL vs their four and five star competitors, as evidenced by the Pro Bowl selections of the last 10 years. The fact that there were less four and five star recruits in high school is irrelevant and even if we take that stat in to account, a higher percentage of sub four star players still make the Pro Bowl. This isn't a hypothetical situation, I gave an actual figure and using that figure it is mathematically impossible for them to be more "successful".

Uhm i believe you just made my point for me. The statistic shows that only 32 players ranked four or five stars have made the Pro Bowl. Again if every one of those players made the Pro Bowl all 10 years(which they did not) that would potentially be 320 of the 840 roster spots taken. Leaving 520 roster spots available for those not ranked four stars or more. 320 is 38% of 840. 520 is 62%. 62% of players ranked below 4 stars make the Pro Bowl, 38% of players ranked four stars or above make the Pro Bowl. Players ranked below four stars thus are more "successful". The number of four or five star recruits in high school is irrelevant to the matter because we are evaluating them after that rating. Get it? =]

No I definitely get it, you must not get it. Mathematically it is impossible for them to be more "successful". You are trying to skew the statistic by stating that they are more successful based on the percentage that get elected vs how many of them there actually are. But if you were to expand the statistic using that same logic, the five star recruits still make the Pro Bowl at a far less percentage. I couldn't give you the exact percentage because I don't know how many players have been given a recruiting ranking since 2002, nor do I care to that research. But again, that's why I based it off of available Pro Bowl spots. Four & five star recruits are not more successful, the percentage you are trying to get at would exemplify that, they are too outnumbered to be considered more "successful". Also, stop using the three star example, I never stated that specifically three stars are more successful, If group A has 320 and Group B has 520, who was more successful? Mathematically?

No I definitely get it, you must not get it. Mathematically it is impossible for them to be more "successful". You are trying to skew the statistic by stating that they are more successful based on the percentage that get elected vs how many of them there actually are. But if you were to expand the statistic using that same logic, the five star recruits still make the Pro Bowl at a far less percentage. I couldn't give you the exact percentage because I don't know how many players have been given a recruiting ranking since 2002, nor do I care to that research. But again, that's why I based it off of available Pro Bowl spots. Four & five star recruits are not more successful, the percentage you are trying to get at would exemplify that, they are too outnumbered to be considered more "successful". Also, stop using the three star example, I never stated that specifically three stars are more successful,

Well every year there are 84 players selected to the Pro Bowl, so 84 possible spots every year and there have been 32 four & five star recruits total voted to the Pro Bowl since 2002. That would mean there were up to 840 selections available for them the last 10 years. Even if all 32 of those players made the Pro Bowl all 10 years (which they didn't), that makes up 320 of the possible 840 selections. Again, four and five star recruits are not more successful, mathematically impossible for them to be. =]

you will defend these coaches to the very end lol, but i think we can all agree there are areas that need to be worked on and hopefully with this coaching shuffle that will happen +1 for you sir Hahaha I guess someone has to defend them! All I know is I look at where we were 5 years ago and I look at where we are today, how can you be upset? Seriously, how can anyone be angry at what this staff has done in such a short period of time? Nebraska is not and never will be a Notre Dame or USC, we don't rely on notoriety to win. Our success in the past was contingent on patience, we allowed the program to set up a consistency, not based on championships, but by doing it the right way. It wasn't easy then and it surely is much more difficult now, but as a fan base we need to have a little faith. We've established an identity once again under this staff, the same kind of identity we held for 35 years. One based on winning. It may be ugly every now and again, just be patient and be happy we are winning games, the rest will fall in to place.

Since 2002 there has been 32 combined four and five star recruits that go on to become Pro Bowlers, thus they are not more succesful. Please do some research before you discredit what I have to say. =]