Nebraska number 4 in Athlon's 2018 B1G roster rankings

[badgers007]

6 hours ago, Enhance said:

Wisconsin is still one of the larger surprises to me. They typically coach better than they recruit but I'd be shocked if many Badgers fans are pleased with a 44th ranked finish after a 13-win season. I assume it's rare for a Power 5 school to only lose one game and finish without a Top 25 or even Top 35 class, but I could be mistaken. If the goal is to win the B1G West every year and rely on development then they've nailed it, but, I would think Badger fans and the university have slightly higher aspirations than that.

 

Context matters, of course.  Wisconsin is running on a smaller class, which does not help its place nationally, especially when schools like Minnesota are signing 26 kids, but this is still one of the higher-rated classes (third, if I am not mistaken) Wisconsin has signed in the 247 era.  It's a quality class, top-to-bottom, and Wisconsin is starting to reap the benefits of having a coaching staff that played at Wisconsin.  They're off to an extremely strong start in 2019 with six commits rated a four-star by 247.  They're in strong position with two more (Bryce Benhart and Moses Douglass).

[badgers007]

1 hour ago, 4skers89 said:

I haven't looked into this but read somewhere that Wisconsin's rankings are usually lower then expected because their in state talent don't attend a lot of camps therefore their star ratings are low. They don't feel compelled to impress at camps to get offers from a lot of schools. They are going to Wisconsin.

 

This is true.  Plenty of Wisconsin kids do not attend national/regional camps and end-up earning their offer at Wisconsin's camp in the summer.  In addition to that, and this holds true for a number of northern states, many of the "under-recruited" prospects haven't come close to hitting their peak, physically.  Wisconsin has taken a number of these types, whether it be scholarship or walk-on, and turned them into productive college/NFL players.

[brophog]

1 hour ago, Ric Flair said:

 

Now football seems to be moving in that direction as well. I agree completely on Riley’s schemes. They seemed like very vanilla offenses from years past and must have been incredibly easy to gameplan for. 

 

Frost will turn that around. He's operated under three of the toughest to stop offensive archetypes in Walsh's, Osborne's, and Kelly's. While that last one gets so much attention because it's the base infrastructure of the offense, those first two are very, very present as well. 

 

The Peach bowl was a good example. Auburn had the horses on defense, and UCF had one of their worst games (in particular Milton passing) and yet Auburn couldn't find the solution. They tried crowding the box in Cover 0/Cover 1. They tried QB spy. They tried dropping 8. They tried floods. Every time it looked like they had solved what was hurting them, UCF changed, and this is with UCF's bread and butter running game really being shut down. These are quality adjustments that Auburn make that had worked all year. Frost's brings so many things to the table that even a good defense with talented personnel and a quality defensive coordinator had trouble.

[4skers89]

17 minutes ago, badgers007 said:

 

This is true.  Plenty of Wisconsin kids do not attend national/regional camps and end-up earning their offer at Wisconsin's camp in the summer.  In addition to that, and this holds true for a number of northern states, many of the "under-recruited" prospects haven't come close to hitting their peak, physically.  Wisconsin has taken a number of these types, whether it be scholarship or walk-on, and turned them into productive college/NFL players.

So I'm guessing not many badger fans are freaking out over a 40ish ranked class.

 

I'm usually embarrassed when Nebraska gets stomped by Wisconsin. Not because Wiscy is a team that consistently has lower recruiting rankings than us. Not because Wiscy is using the Nebraska formula successfully by pulling from a population base that is 3X ours. Those are somewhat explainable.

[badgers007]

2 hours ago, 4skers89 said:

So I'm guessing not many badger fans are freaking out over a 40ish ranked class.

 

I'm usually embarrassed when Nebraska gets stomped by Wisconsin. Not because Wiscy is a team that consistently has lower recruiting rankings than us. Not because Wiscy is using the Nebraska formula successfully by pulling from a population base that is 3X ours. Those are somewhat explainable.

 

For reference, I did outline Wisconsin's 2018 + 2019 recruiting class directly above the post you quoted. 

 

Wisconsin fans are not freaking over a "40ish ranked" 2018 class.  Context matters and Wisconsin had a smaller class (20 signees) compared to Minnesota (26 signees), for example.  Though Minnesota is "ranked" higher, their average rating, per 247, remains lower than Wisconsin, which, I believe, had its third-highest rated class in the 247 era.  As it stands, only Nebraska has a higher average rating than Wisconsin in the B1G West, which is nothing new.

 

Paul Chryst and his staff have seen an uptick in recruiting for 2019.  Per 247, Wisconsin has six four-star commits and, certainly, it helps having a coaching staff (HC, OC, DC) that all played at Wisconsin.  In addition to stability, they understand the foundation of which Wisconsin was built (I'll let Iowa and Nebraska fans argue over that).

[ColoradoHusk]

Sam McKewon commented in his most recent Pick 6 Podcast that the main reason that NU has had higher recruiting classes than Wisconsin and Iowa in recent years is the higher recruiting rankings of the skill players.  The 3 teams generally have similar recruits in the offensive and defensive lines.  Because Wisconsin and Iowa have been a lot better in developing that line talent, Nebraska hasn't been able to "utilize" the skill players to make a difference in those games against the two teams.  If Nebraska gets back to developing talent on the line, that's when we will see NU's "recruiting advantage" come out in games against Wisconsin and Iowa.

[brophog]

2 hours ago, ColoradoHusk said:

Because Wisconsin and Iowa have been a lot better in developing that line talent, Nebraska hasn't been able to "utilize" the skill players to make a difference in those games against the two teams.  If Nebraska gets back to developing talent on the line, that's when we will see NU's "recruiting advantage" come out in games against Wisconsin and Iowa.

 

 

Offensive lineman don't drop passes or ask undersized receivers to run fade routes at the goal line. Running backs who can't beat the Safety don't blame the line because they only got 10 yards and not 25.  Linebackers standing flat footed for 3 seconds, or in no man's land between the slot and tackle aren't doing it because of poor line play. Certainly not the outside corners playing 10 yards off the ball on 3rd and 5.

 

Line play on both sides can and will improve, but there are so many reasons the other positions don't always live up to their rankings.

[ColoradoHusk]

13 minutes ago, brophog said:

 

 

Offensive lineman don't drop passes or ask undersized receivers to run fade routes at the goal line. Running backs who can't beat the Safety don't blame the line because they only got 10 yards and not 25.  Linebackers standing flat footed for 3 seconds, or in no man's land between the slot and tackle aren't doing it because of poor line play. Certainly not the outside corners playing 10 yards off the ball on 3rd and 5.

 

Line play on both sides can and will improve, but there are so many reasons the other positions don't always live up to their rankings.

Highly touted RB’s aren’t effective if they don’t have holes to run through. QBs cant make passes to speedy WR’s if they don’t have time to pass. DB’s can’t cover receivers all day if there is no pressure by the DL. McKewon’s point is that NU’s advantage in skill position recruiting is negated by very poor development across both lines (where that recruiting is about the same). 

[brophog]

8 hours ago, ColoradoHusk said:

McKewon’s point is that NU’s advantage in skill position recruiting is negated by very poor development across both lines (where that recruiting is about the same).

 

Maybe the advantage in recruiting the skill positions is being negated by poor development of the skill positions.

[ColoradoHusk]

2 hours ago, brophog said:

 

Maybe the advantage in recruiting the skill positions is being negated by poor development of the skill positions.

I don’t necessarily disagree with you there, but the best players on NU’s rosters the past few years have been skill position players. Armstrong, Westerkamp, Morgan, Spielman on offense. Gerry, Kalu, and Jones on defense. The only lineman who has been any good on both sides of the line has been Maliek Collins.

 

People want to point to us out recruiting Wisconsin and Iowa, and I agree that those 2 schools have developed their players much better recently. But, when there isn’t a recruiting advantage on the lines, that’s how their line play dominates NU the past few years. When their line play dominates the past few years, it doesn’t matter how good the skill players are. 

[lo country]

27 minutes ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I don’t necessarily disagree with you there, but the best players on NU’s rosters the past few years have been skill position players. Armstrong, Westerkamp, Morgan, Spielman on offense. Gerry, Kalu, and Jones on defense. The only lineman who has been any good on both sides of the line has been Maliek Collins.

 

People want to point to us out recruiting Wisconsin and Iowa, and I agree that those 2 schools have developed their players much better recently. But, when there isn’t a recruiting advantage on the lines, that’s how their line play dominates NU the past few years. When their line play dominates the past few years, it doesn’t matter how good the skill players are. 

Agree that game are won or lost in the trenches....I just have a feeling that Frost and Co know how to develop through coaching and implement a scheme on both sides that creates a winning formula.

[Enhance]

22 hours ago, badgers007 said:

Context matters, of course.  Wisconsin is running on a smaller class, which does not help its place nationally, especially when schools like Minnesota are signing 26 kids, but this is still one of the higher-rated classes (third, if I am not mistaken) Wisconsin has signed in the 247 era.  It's a quality class, top-to-bottom, and Wisconsin is starting to reap the benefits of having a coaching staff that played at Wisconsin.  They're off to an extremely strong start in 2019 with six commits rated a four-star by 247.  They're in strong position with two more (Bryce Benhart and Moses Douglass).

That's true, but Stanford only recruited 15 players and positioned five places higher. Michigan recruited 19 and finished #21. Naturally, none of those things are the end all be all. But, they're also part of the context, in my opinion.

 

I don't really bring this up to throw salt on Wisconsin because it's actually something I have on my mind with Nebraska. Each of the last seven national title winners had a top 10 recruiting class in the four years prior to winning it all, and all seven have landed a top four class in the two years prior to winning a title. Now, making the playoff is a slightly different story.

 

Quote

Since the playoff's inception, almost every team that has played in a CFP semifinal has averaged a recruiting class ranking of 15 or better for the four years prior to their playoff berth. The only exceptions to that rule have been Michigan State, Washington and Oregon.

 

LINK

 

That's why I feel Wisconsin's result leaves something to be desired. Nebraska is closer to meeting these championship KPIs but still a ways off. Wisconsin is way off by comparison. Could they defy all odds with the current roster/crop? Of course, but you'd have to buy into the mentality that technically anything is possible.

[brophog]

6 hours ago, ColoradoHusk said:

I don’t necessarily disagree with you there, but the best players on NU’s rosters the past few years have been skill position players. Armstrong, Westerkamp, Morgan, Spielman on offense. Gerry, Kalu, and Jones on defense. The only lineman who has been any good on both sides of the line has been Maliek Collins.

 

People want to point to us out recruiting Wisconsin and Iowa, and I agree that those 2 schools have developed their players much better recently. But, when there isn’t a recruiting advantage on the lines, that’s how their line play dominates NU the past few years. When their line play dominates the past few years, it doesn’t matter how good the skill players are. 

 

How do you define 'good' for a position like offensive line that has no direct stats? If we used the pro football focus team of the week as a metric, our best players were offensive lineman. Not surprising that we had more offensive lineman show up on that list than other positions, it is half of the list, after all, but no skill position player other than Spielman showed up even remotely regularly and Gates and Foster still outpaced him.

 

Defensive line by the same metric were well represented as a percentage of defensive players. The secondary was not.

 

I don't disagree with the idea that offensive and defensive lineman have an impact on the production of the other positions. The problem I have is when we attempt to isolate the variables for this, we don't see those other positions producing in correlative fashion (ie the better the line performs, the better other positions perform). Tape based methods, like PFF uses, don't show it. Our NFL draft representation across all positions keeps dropping. If we are recruiting and developing other positions well, wouldn't that be shown when scouts are evaluating them independent (or attempting to) of their teammates? We've had poor line play for many years, and we've still put backs in the NFL. Some of the blocking Abdullah had was downright non-existent. He still took it to the house. Ozigbo and Wilbon can't outpace a back who played in only two games.

 

I posted the other day the rather significant drop in production between Taylor and Wisconsin's other backs, despite all playing behind a quality offensive line. Skill positions still matter. 

 

 

 

 

 

[lo country]

Article by Sam that lays out the where are star power is coming from.  VERY similar in the trenches as far as rankings.....Again, I have no doubt Frost and Co will get the most out of the guys we have and the guys we will get.

 

http://www.omaha.com/huskers/recruiting-on-nebraska-iowa-wisconsin-and-the-linemen-they-recruit/article_dac58036-1658-11e8-b171-c35364b36316.html

[yort2000]

20 hours ago, Enhance said:

 

That's why I feel Wisconsin's result leaves something to be desired. Nebraska is closer to meeting these championship KPIs but still a ways off. Wisconsin is way off by comparison. Could they defy all odds with the current roster/crop? Of course, but you'd have to buy into the mentality that technically anything is possible.

 

 

They targeted these kids 2-3+ years ago, I would say most were probably committed at least before the season started.  They pretty much had their whole class signed on the early signing day.  Did they add just 1 after the early signing period (Wildgoose, a 4 star)?  And, part of the DNA of that program is signing lower rated TEs, QBs, RBs and turning them into OTs and LBs that play like 4 - 5 star recruits.

 

You are seeing the effects of the 13-1 season in the 2019 recruiting class as they are having 4 stars commit early and often.