McKewon on Husker Recruiting

[Saunders]

It starts with winning your division. Nebraska has a consensus recruiting advantage over the rest of the West (base on rankings). With a grace period for this year, NU should (at minimum) win the division every other year with above average coaching, and 2 out of 3 years with good coaching. If we can push the average class 10-15 spots, that puts us in the upper teens/lower twenties range. IMO, that's where we need to be to compete for the B1G crown annually, and be considered for the playoff.

[QMany]

 

"Nebraska’s schedules in 2013 and 2014 were pretty friendly..."

I have to think the 2015 schedule is even more friendly, especially in-conference.

[NUinID]

I actually agree with Sam. Right now, given what we currently know about the team, what we can guess from the abilities returning players have shown, and that we have a new coach, they are a 7-5/8-4/9-3 type team this year. This roster is far from loaded, as I'm sure few would argue otherwise, and there are several questions (like any roster has at this time of year).

 

I don't mean to pick on you NUinID, but your post is exactly the reason Sam wrote what he wrote. "Short on depth" in some defensive positions, "unproven,", "not shown to be a dominant force," and "unproven" again. We also don't have a proven commodity at RB.

 

So, if it's unfair to say we're 8-4 based on current talent, then it's also unfair to say we're 10-2 or better based on potential, which it seems some people are suggesting without coming out and saying it. I just think Sam is being realistic and trying to not hype people up, but, I also think this is how Sam writes. He's not typically going to blow smoke up your you-know-what. He usually takes all the information he has available and tries to paint a picture of how he thinks things are right now.

 

And, again, I agree with him. I think we have talented guys, and with the right coaching, it's totally possible that this team could compete for a B1G title. But, it's also totally possible this team could go 8-4 based on what we have right now.

 

Not picking at all, it is a recruiting article that Sam is writing I am looking at it from a recruiting end of things. Most of the O-linemen that have been picked up over the last 3 years or so are all high 3* star to 4* guys, which is a good start. There is a lot of talent on that line. It has been under coached. I don't think Garrison or Cotton are bad coaches, I think they have been trying to do too much, just like BP tried to do too much scheme wise on the defensive side.

 

There is as much talent on this team as MSU has and more talent than Wisconsin has. Why is Whisky and Sparty's talent 10+ win talent and NU"s is not? It all comes down to coaching.

 

NU has under performed the last 2 years on a talent stand point. I am not saying we have NC caliber talent, but we have 10+ win talent just like MSU or Wisconsin has. That doesn't mean that NU wins 10+ games next year though. A lot of things go into winning that many games.

[Enhance]

So more talent against a lesser schedule should lead to a worse record. That's what I don't get. Unless Pelini was doing a better coaching job than most give him credit for.

And I think that's where the coaching turnaround and the better-safe-than-sorry mentality comes into play. Truth is, even with Riley's reputation, we don't know what we're going to get. The information we have at hand says this guy is pretty good talent developer and has better talent now than he ever has. But, in year one, how will those two things mesh?

 

I think Pelini gets a worse rap for his coaching ability than he deserves. He certainly had deficiencies - we can really only speculate exactly what those were. Personally, I've always felt it was a hint of stubbornness, tied in with an inability to scheme/coach players consistently and build a tough mental fortitude. The psychology of sport is so undervalued at times, and after the first couple seasons under BP, it was pretty clear this team couldn't withstand the mental pressures of winning and losing week-to-week. For example, blowout losses to Wisconsin didn't happen because we were less talented - they happened because we wilted and the previous staff couldn't 1) get players to execute and 2) prevent the mental collapse.

[Enhance]

NU has under performed the last 2 years on a talent stand point. I am not saying we have NC caliber talent, but we have 10+ win talent just like MSU or Wisconsin has. That doesn't mean that NU wins 10+ games next year though. A lot of things go into winning that many games.

I'm 100% with you there - our problems the last several years have come down to coaching. On paper, we're better recruiters than Wisconsin and MSU, so where's the deficiency? Coaching is the only other option.

 

Could we use better talent? I think yes, but despite a lot of our recruiting advantages, we have our fair share of disadvantages that we'll always have to work with. That means we'll have to make up for it with damn good coaching. Just the way it is in my book.

[Mavric]

 

 

"Nebraska’s schedules in 2013 and 2014 were pretty friendly..."

I have to think the 2015 schedule is even more friendly, especially in-conference.

 

 

That's the other part of the predictions of 7 wins I don't get. We have almost exactly the same schedule as last year. Same conferee schedule. Name premiere non-con opponent. We trade our two toughest conference games being at home where they were on the road last year for the biggest non-con game being on the road and a road non-con game against a second-tier opponent for a home game against a quality opponent. That's about as even as it gets.

[RedRedJarvisRedwine]

 

I actually agree with Sam. Right now, given what we currently know about the team, what we can guess from the abilities returning players have shown, and that we have a new coach, they are a 7-5/8-4/9-3 type team this year. This roster is far from loaded, as I'm sure few would argue otherwise, and there are several questions (like any roster has at this time of year).

 

Do you think we have more/less/same talent as the last 3-4 years?

I think about the same but has moved to the other side of the ball.

[Landlord]

 

So is McKewon slighting the talent we have on the roster? Or did Pelini out-coach more opponents than we give him credit for?

 

 

 

Probably both.

 

 

I know nobody is singing his praises anymore, but Bo Pelini didn't just blindly stumble into 9-10 win seasons by dumb luck. Plenty of historically better coaches have achieved far less with far more talent. Mack Brown had losing and .500 seasons at Texas in the last few years with twice the overall roster talent than we have.

 

We don't match up body for body with an OSU or Oregon or Bama, but we also won quite a few games that we might/could not have over the last few years.

[Dr. Strangelove]

 

I actually agree with Sam. Right now, given what we currently know about the team, what we can guess from the abilities returning players have shown, and that we have a new coach, they are a 7-5/8-4/9-3 type team this year. This roster is far from loaded, as I'm sure few would argue otherwise, and there are several questions (like any roster has at this time of year).

 

Do you think we have more/less/same talent as the last 3-4 years?

 

I would argue less.

 

Mostly due to depth at certain spots on defense. We're very thin at LB and DE for the more talent argument. I think the departures of Ameer, Bell and Gregory but us at slightly lower than the normal for the last 2 seasons at least.

[NUinID]

 

 

I actually agree with Sam. Right now, given what we currently know about the team, what we can guess from the abilities returning players have shown, and that we have a new coach, they are a 7-5/8-4/9-3 type team this year. This roster is far from loaded, as I'm sure few would argue otherwise, and there are several questions (like any roster has at this time of year).

 

Do you think we have more/less/same talent as the last 3-4 years?

 

I would argue less.

 

Mostly due to depth at certain spots on defense. We're very thin at LB and DE for the more talent argument. I think the departures of Ameer, Bell and Gregory but us at slightly lower than the normal for the last 2 seasons at least.

 

More talent most notably on the O and D Lines. Remember Baker Steinkuhler was moved to D for depth. He went down 3 years ago and Meredith is playing d-tackle in the CCG. If you are looking at recruited talent we are way better off. Bell was only a 3*. Westercamp was pretty much a 4*. The potential is there it just hasn't been seen yet at a lot of spots.

 

IMO Bando is going to have at least a second team all conference year. He was a bad fit for BP defense. I am expecting to have a pretty good defense this year top 20. The style of play is going to create a lot more opportunity for negative plays and turnovers. They most likely will give up more big pass plays, but will cut down on the big run plays.

 

Pelini knew how to coach defense, but was much more worried about scheme and playing within his scheme than letting his athletic guys play a little loose and make plays. Nate Gerry will have about 2 reads most plays instead of the 4-5 he normally had last year. It is going to be more of if they do this I do this. Not if they do this I do this except when x does this or when y does this.

[Dr. Strangelove]

 

 

 

 

 

 

I actually agree with Sam. Right now, given what we currently know about the team, what we can guess from the abilities returning players have shown, and that we have a new coach, they are a 7-5/8-4/9-3 type team this year. This roster is far from loaded, as I'm sure few would argue otherwise, and there are several questions (like any roster has at this time of year).

Do you think we have more/less/same talent as the last 3-4 years?

I would argue less.

 

Mostly due to depth at certain spots on defense. We're very thin at LB and DE for the more talent argument. I think the departures of Ameer, Bell and Gregory but us at slightly lower than the normal for the last 2 seasons at least.

More talent most notably on the O and D Lines. Remember Baker Steinkuhler was moved to D for depth. He went down 3 years ago and Meredith is playing d-tackle in the CCG. If you are looking at recruited talent we are way better off. Bell was only a 3*. Westercamp was pretty much a 4*. The potential is there it just hasn't been seen yet at a lot of spots.

 

IMO Bando is going to have at least a second team all conference year. He was a bad fit for BP defense. I am expecting to have a pretty good defense this year top 20. The style of play is going to create a lot more opportunity for negative plays and turnovers. They most likely will give up more big pass plays, but will cut down on the big run plays.

 

Pelini knew how to coach defense, but was much more worried about scheme and playing within his scheme than letting his athletic guys play a little loose and make plays. Nate Gerry will have about 2 reads most plays instead of the 4-5 he normally had last year. It is going to be more of if they do this I do this. Not if they do this I do this except when x does this or when y does this.

Certainly interior D-Line is better. There's a wealth of talent there.

 

Kinda strange the difference between interior d-line and DEs. Too much attrition at that position, combined with mediocre recruiting there, makes it hard for me to defiantly say DL as a whole is better.

 

I get your larger point though.

[Sargon]

http://regressing.deadspin.com/chart-which-ncaa-football-teams-outplay-their-recruit-1640831522

 

Picture's worth a 10,000 words in this case. Check it out. Compares recruiting rankings (5 years) to season ending rankings.

 

Most serious fans can guess what they'll see. NU under Bo was average. Recruiting was mediocre, results close to recruiting rank.

 

Oregon State, Oregon, Wisconsin, Boise, grandpa's KSU...amongst the most "coached up" teams.

 

UCLA, Tenn, Texass, Michigan, Miami among the teams who don't live up.

 

I've seen some decent attempts to analyze this in the old times. Osborne was the King in overperformance. VT was another one up there. Just guessing but in a long time analysis UCLA and Texass would be the losers near the right side (and Texass would be even worse if they didnt ref cheat so much).

[QMany]

Sargon, I'm sorry, but Oregon State is closer to Nebraska and the average line than they are Wisconsin, Boise, and Oregon. Unless my phone picture ratio is off or I forgot my rose colored glasses.

[zoogs]

I find it odd because I would argue that we have as much - or more - talent on the roster now as we've had for at least 5 years and maybe longer.

I agree with Sam about a 7-5/8-4/9-3 kind of roster.

 

I think we hope it is better, but a lot of that is projection -- counting stars, basically. Remember when the veteran 2007 DL was going to be awesome, after all four of them had come up through the ranks with such promise. Remember when Curenski Gilleylen was going to be the most talented WR we've had here in a while. Just two examples, but promise so often fizzles.

 

Nebraska's been steadfastly 9 wins the past two years. The offense, defense, and culture are all changing. We lose the two key playmaking pieces of our offense last year, our most dynamic playmaker on D, and don't know what we have at QB.

 

So there's plenty of room for projection and optimism. But there's also a ways to go before we can start anointing the roster as a power team in the Big Ten that should roll over teams like Minnesota and Iowa, who are fellow 7-5/8-4/9-3 kind of teams (or so). I think we land more recruits than those teams, but as a team, haven't proven to be able to open much of a gap on them.

[Mavric]

Yeah, I wonder if you saw Oklahoma State and thought Oregon State. I thought Oregon State would be farther up the line but they just haven't been that good on the field over the time of the graph.

 

+1 for posting that again, though. Just a couple quibbles:

 

I don't think Top 20 is mediocre. But it epitomizes the Pelini era - better than most over the long run but not good enough to really be that exciting.

The graph is very interesting but still has some flaws. You could be a terrible recruiter but an average coach and be above the line which most think shows good coaching.

The farther down you are in recruiting, the easier it is to be above the line - KSU, Baylor, BYU, etc. The farther up the line in recruiting the easier it is to be below the line - USC, Florida, Florida State, Texas, etc.