McKewon on Husker Recruiting

[zoogs]

I think I would say Pelini recruited fairly well, in terms of caliber of talent. He didn't manage the numbers well, and that showed. Individual development tended to fall short of what you'd expect for the average caliber of player. At least, at certain positions, but glaring ones.

 

It averaged out, and he still got to a fair (but not overwhelming) number of wins each year, and his strong (if misguided?...) leadership of the team was a factor there. This would have all be fine, too, if it hadn't been such a soul-sucking ride for all -- including us, including him.

[True2tRA]

A couple things I've like to add to the conversation, you guys are covering it pretty well really.......

 

My general feeling is that Bo did not maximize his talent. McKewon's comment seems to say that he thinks Pelini did the best he could do with what he had. I don't believe that.

 

I hate to say it, but I think Nebraska has the talent to be a 10-11 win team in 2016, maybe more. The reason I hate to say it is because I don't pretend to know what to expect completely, even though I have high hopes. I certainly wouldn't want to give the impression that I have some sort of ultimatum for the new staff, especially in their first season.

 

My true expectation for this team is to become a cleaner, more execution oriented, simplified, deeper, and a bit more aggresive football team. A team that does not beat themselves. I would think the upgrade in coaching experience would naturally bring out a higher level of execution and understanding based purely on the teaching ability of the coaches. With that, the win level should increase but as I said, I have no ultimatums. If the team does not look like they're improving I'll be disappointed and that would alter my expectations for 2016.

 

I always found that part troubling about Bo's teams. They just didn't seem to get better. They struggled with the very same things year after year and each area (special teams, offense, defense) took their turns falling apart.

 

Lastly, all the references to Bo Pelini's 9-10 win records, people are missing the point. It wasn't about Bo's 9-10 wins. Although his win loss record is buit upon beating some mediocre to sad teams, it was still a record worthy of applause, but again, it wasn't about the wins....

 

IT WAS THE 4 LOSSES THAT WERE IMPOSSIBLE TO LOOK PAST.

 

To anyone that doesn't know any better you'd say 9-4 is a hell of a record for a coach to be fired for. It's when you look deeper into those four losses and how they happened each year, that's when it becomes troubling.

 

Anybody who still wants to sit around and toot Bo's horn for his 9/10 wins better be willing to pull up the numbers from those losses. Many of them are in the record books of the worst Blackshirt performances in history.

[Mavric]

My general feeling is that Bo did not maximize his talent. McKewon's comment seems to say that he thinks Pelini did the best he could do with what he had. I don't believe that.

 

That's what I find confusing as well. If we've managed to win 9 all these years, I don't think the talent has dropped to where we should be expecting 7.

[mnhusker]

I liked the article and for me the take away was about the organization and focus that Riley is bringing back to recruiting. My assumption is that this combined with the NU brand will help close the talent gap with some elite programs.

[True2tRA]

 

My general feeling is that Bo did not maximize his talent. McKewon's comment seems to say that he thinks Pelini did the best he could do with what he had. I don't believe that.

 

That's what I find confusing as well. If we've managed to win 9 all these years, I don't think the talent has dropped to where we should be expecting 7.

Nope. We are in agreement. I think we are as talented right now as we have been in a long time. Maybe since those first years under Bo.

 

I couldn't make sense of what McKewon was tryng to say either. Regardless, I would be extremey disappointed if we only managed 7 wins with these players and our schedule.

[zoogs]

I'd be disappointed, too, but even ignoring the potential volatility of a coaching change, we're:

 

- ?? at QB. check.

- Dangerously thin at DE. check.

- Dangerously thin at LB. check.

- The two previous editions of the team rollercoastered their way to 9-4, and T-3 in the B1G West. Yes, despite the schedule.

 

I don't see where we've made a vault to be a team that should, on paper alone, be expected to be a cut above Minnesota and Iowa. Nebraska will earn that separation when it actually creates it. Right now we're fighting these guys tooth and nail. The road to Indy does not run through Nebraska in the West.

[True2tRA]

I'd be disappointed, too, but even ignoring the potential volatility of a coaching change, we're:- ?? at QB. check.- Dangerously thin at DE. check.- Dangerously thin at LB. check.- The two previous editions of the team rollercoastered their way to 9-4, and T-3 in the B1G West. Yes, despite the schedule.I don't see where we've made a vault to be a team that should, on paper alone, be expected to be a cut above Minnesota and Iowa. Nebraska will earn that separation when it actually creates it. Right now we're fighting these guys tooth and nail. The road to Indy does not run through Nebraska in the West.

Yea and I used the words extremely disappointed for lack of a better way to put it because I sure as heck don't mean I'd be up in arms or talking about firing coaches (as unrealistic as that sentiment seems, there's always someone out there thinking it)

 

I will disagree with one point you make.

 

We aren't ?? at QB in my opinion. Actually I think we have the third best starting QB in the Big.

 

The rest I agree with. I also preach regularly that Minnesota is deserving of a lot of respect. I think they have a chance to win the West. Iowa, not deserving of anything, (kidding) but yeah, we don't exactly blow them out of the water either.

 

I'm holding out hope that the reason we struggle, or believe we are not by far and away better than these teams is that we were limited by some of the aspects of the previous staff.

 

+1 though. I actually made a comment the other day about Nebraska fans tempering expectations and cooling off on the arrogance we can sometimes show. We are not in the position to talk a whole lot right now.

[caveman99]

 

 

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

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

 

In conference yes, out of conference definitely not. Trading BYU in for Fresno St. and playing Miami on the road vs. home makes the OOC slate quite a bit tougher IMO.

[Mavric]

I'd be disappointed, too, but even ignoring the potential volatility of a coaching change, we're:

 

- ?? at QB. check.

- Dangerously thin at DE. check.

- Dangerously thin at LB. check.

- The two previous editions of the team rollercoastered their way to 9-4, and T-3 in the B1G West. Yes, despite the schedule.

 

I don't see where we've made a vault to be a team that should, on paper alone, be expected to be a cut above Minnesota and Iowa. Nebraska will earn that separation when it actually creates it. Right now we're fighting these guys tooth and nail. The road to Indy does not run through Nebraska in the West.

 

This is true. But that's how we've been the last several years. The positions change but we've been thin at several spots each year.

 

2014: Dangerously thin at QB - Many said our OL was thin and bad - Gregory was hurt a lot and we were thin at DE even with him - Thin at LB

2013: Had a RS frosh and a walkon at QB - Numerous injuries on the OL - Thin at DT - Thin at LB

2012: Thin on OL - Thin at DE - Meridith finished the season at DT - Thin at LB

 

And yet we always got to 9.

[zoogs]

Would you characterize that as overachieving, then?

 

I think you could make an argument for it. If nothing else, Bo always got his players to play very hard for him. Other coaches with bigger names and better rosters often failed this test, and their seasons sunk as a result. Bo didn't have a leadership question mark, and his teams showed a stubborn, persistent drive to "be at least 9 and something." It's not unimpressive. If I have a gripe with it, it's the way they got that drive, but that's another topic.

 

Sam's position seemed to be that Bo got the most out of limited recruiting. Mine is that the recruiting was OK, but he didn't get as much out of the development that he should have. In either case we're arriving at the same starting point: a limited roster.

 

2012 was a different kind of year, but the '13 and '14 teams put up exactly 7-5/8-4/9-3 type seasons. Yes, they hit 9 in both years, but in a way that you would call the team a "7/8/9-win team" as opposed to a "9/10/11-win team" -- I think that's maybe the important distinction. The latter implies a different sort of pecking order than has existed in the division. The '09 and '10 Huskers fit the latter category a bit better than the '13 and '14.

 

The roster is going to transform via recruiting in the coming years. Look for that to come via management more than say, average stars. How much different could that possibly get? Maybe slightly.

[caveman99]

 

I'd be disappointed, too, but even ignoring the potential volatility of a coaching change, we're:

 

- ?? at QB. check.

- Dangerously thin at DE. check.

- Dangerously thin at LB. check.

- The two previous editions of the team rollercoastered their way to 9-4, and T-3 in the B1G West. Yes, despite the schedule.

 

I don't see where we've made a vault to be a team that should, on paper alone, be expected to be a cut above Minnesota and Iowa. Nebraska will earn that separation when it actually creates it. Right now we're fighting these guys tooth and nail. The road to Indy does not run through Nebraska in the West.

 

This is true. But that's how we've been the last several years. The positions change but we've been thin at several spots each year.

 

2014: Dangerously thin at QB - Many said our OL was thin and bad - Gregory was hurt a lot and we were thin at DE even with him - Thin at LB

2013: Had a RS frosh and a walkon at QB - Numerous injuries on the OL - Thin at DT - Thin at LB

2012: Thin on OL - Thin at DE - Meridith finished the season at DT - Thin at LB

 

And yet we always got to 9.

 

This is what I have been thinking lately as well. I just don't get the defeatist attitude I see around a lot of boards lately that the 1st year will be a 7-5 year. Heck you have mid-day and afternoon radio hosts basically telling everyone to take the under bet for total wins with the line at 8. The QB has 2 years under his belt, we won 9 games those 2 seasons and you would expect him to get a least a little bit better wouldn't you? Thin at DE last year and really young, albeit talented, at DT, this year the DT's are experienced, deep, and really talented. Walking wounded at OL last couple of years, seems like there are more bodies there than we have seen in awhile plus a couple of legitimate size C's to anchor the middle for once. Safety and CB look good. WR's look to be better, even without Bell as DPE becomes a contributor. I see a 9+ win team, maybe not elite but at least as good as last year with a pretty good chance to be better than last year.

 

I also take some stock into the sentiments from former players that come on the radio and leave tidbits that indicate that all is not bare in the Husker Cupboard. That actually there a lot of nice pieces to work with.

[Enhance]

 

My general feeling is that Bo did not maximize his talent. McKewon's comment seems to say that he thinks Pelini did the best he could do with what he had. I don't believe that.

 

That's what I find confusing as well. If we've managed to win 9 all these years, I don't think the talent has dropped to where we should be expecting 7.

 

I realize the argument I'm about to make could be debated for just about any game, but, if we look "deeper" at the wins outside of just the losses, we weren't really that far off from being a 7-8 win team under BP. It took overtime to beat Penn State a couple of years ago. In the same season, IIRC, it took a Hail Mary to beat Northwestern. Two games that a couple of plays could've meant the different between a 9 win season and a 7 win season.

 

My point in raising this issue is, if you look at it this way, Sam's argument is pretty fair. A couple of plays not going our way this year could also end up meaning the difference in a couple of wins or losses.

[Mavric]

Would you characterize that as overachieving, then?

 

I think you could make an argument for it. If nothing else, Bo always got his players to play very hard for him. Other coaches with bigger names and better rosters often failed this test, and their seasons sunk as a result. Bo didn't have a leadership question mark, and his teams showed a stubborn, persistent drive to "be at least 9 and something." It's not unimpressive. If I have a gripe with it, it's the way they got that drive, but that's another topic.

I wouldn't say overachieving but I think that's where Sam (unintentionally I would argue) set up his argument.

I think that's another thing that is under-valued - the resolve the team often had. We definitely went down in flames too often but we often battled back into contention if not winning after being down early. Most blame the coaches for the former and credit the players for the latter. That's not surprising but it's probably not really fair either.

 

Sam's position seemed to be that Bo got the most out of limited recruiting. Mine is that the recruiting was OK, but he didn't get as much out of the development that he should have. In either case we're arriving at the same starting point: a limited roster.

I don't think that's his arguement. I think he wants to lower the bar in case it is needed later in the season. But that's just my opinion.

I think recruiting and player development weren't great but were better than most give him credit for. I think we had a high rate of injuries and transfers which hurt but that's also another discussion.

 

2012 was a different kind of year, but the '13 and '14 teams put up exactly 7-5/8-4/9-3 type seasons. Yes, they hit 9 in both years, but in a way that you would call the team a "7/8/9-win team" as opposed to a "9/10/11-win team" -- I think that's maybe the important distinction. The latter implies a different sort of pecking order than has existed in the division. The '09 and '10 Huskers fit the latter category a bit better than the '13 and '14.

I'd say that's accurate for the '13 team but not for '14. I think there was marked improvement from 13 to 14 - with the one painfully obvious exception. In 13 our four losses were all by 11-21 points and had five wins by 5 points or fewer. That season could have easily been a lot worse (record wise). We had the one blow out loss last year but the other three losses were by five points or fewer and in each we had the ball with a chance to win. Twice we had our hands on a pass inside the opponent's 5 yard line in the last minute. We had one three-point win and one seven-point win but only a last minute, garbage TD by Miami kept all the other wins from being at least 17 points. We were just as close to 11-2 as we were to 7-6

 

The roster is going to transform via recruiting in the coming years. Look for that to come via management more than say, average stars. How much different could that possibly get? Maybe slightly.

I think the biggest and most meaningful upgrade is in the lines. They're still a ways from proving it but we have a ton of young talent on the OL and at DT. If we can find a couple DEs, we will be in really good shape going forward. We'll have no problem filling in around the lines if they turn out.

Edited June 2, 2015 by Mavric
Fixed a couple typos

[caveman99]

 

 

My general feeling is that Bo did not maximize his talent. McKewon's comment seems to say that he thinks Pelini did the best he could do with what he had. I don't believe that.

 

That's what I find confusing as well. If we've managed to win 9 all these years, I don't think the talent has dropped to where we should be expecting 7.

 

I realize the argument I'm about to make could be debated for just about any game, but, if we look "deeper" at the wins outside of just the losses, we weren't really that far off from being a 7-8 win team under BP. It took overtime to beat Penn State a couple of years ago. In the same season, IIRC, it took a Hail Mary to beat Northwestern. Two games that a couple of plays could've meant the different between a 9 win season and a 7 win season.

 

My point is raising this issue is, if you look at it this way, Sam's argument is pretty fair. A couple of plays not going our way this year could also end up meaning the difference in a couple of wins or losses.

 

You can play that game the other way as well though each year. Long pass mis-defended against VT, 1 less TO against ISU, the added second against Texas, the interception that TMagic threw across his body in the endzone vs. OU, the multitude of mistakes and TO's against NW at home to lose by 3 (take 1 TO away inside the 5), giving up the hailmary to USC in the bowl game at the end of the 1st half that killed the great start, inexplicably calling several passes against UCLA down 1 score on the road when they couldn't stop the run and lose by 6; then you move to last year and think about the turn over on the goal line against MINN, one dropped pass in the endzone against MSU, and not running AA on 3rd and 4th down against USC on what was looking like the game winning drive.

[TheSker]

There is absolutely no reason....none....that Riley shouldn't get the 9+ win mark in his first season. He was not brought in to rebuild. We don't need rebuilt. We need taken to the next level.