Week 7 Preview: Indiana

[Hoosker]

Yeah, Sam still on the talent drum.

Indiana has one four-star on the team and he's out indefinitely with an injury. And Indiana is in the bottom 15 of the Power 5 in roster talent. But do what ya gotta do....

https://twitter.com/swmckewonOWH/status/786379039560785920

So the question for Sam is does he not think Riley and Co can't coach up their players to the same degree? I also don't get how someone who reports on recruiting can downplay the past recruiting of NU so much.

I don't understand.

He said the talent matchup is decent. Is this not true?

He said we have the edge. Is this not true?

Are you guys saying we have a much greater talent edge than Sam is implying?

I don't doubt we have more talent, but I'd argue that the talent gap between Nebraska and say Ohio State is larger than Nebraska and Indiana (at this point anyway)

Yes.

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

Injuries can screw with those numbers, but as we've heard forever, every team has injuries, so we just gotta overcome them.

responding to this but creating a new thread so as to not taint this one.

How did our discussion taint this one?

What is the proper criteria for this thread?

 

[ColoradoHusk]

I think a lot of people are pumping up Indiana based upon their games against Michigan State and Ohio State. Michigan State is garbage this year, so I don't give that much weight. Indiana played Ohio State relatively tough, but they had a decent plan, defensively, against Ohio State. Indiana decided to try and shut down the running game at the expense of giving OSU opportunities in the pass game, because OSU has the 85th best passing offense in the nation (not a stat you hear very often). But then OSU countered with 22 QB runs, which is the weakness of a lot of run defenses (including ours). If Indiana takes a similar approach, defensively, against us, TA will get his yards running but will more effectively punish the Indiana secondary in pass game. It might seem weird, but TA and Nebraska is more effective in the passing game than OSU and JT Barrett.

I agree that Indiana is getting propped up by it's win over a bad Michigan State team, and "keeping it close" against Ohio State. I see NU winning by at least 10 points.

 

[Mavric]

Yeah, Sam still on the talent drum.

Indiana has one four-star on the team and he's out indefinitely with an injury. And Indiana is in the bottom 15 of the Power 5 in roster talent. But do what ya gotta do....

https://twitter.com/swmckewonOWH/status/786379039560785920

So the question for Sam is does he not think Riley and Co can't coach up their players to the same degree? I also don't get how someone who reports on recruiting can downplay the past recruiting of NU so much.

I don't understand.

He said the talent matchup is decent. Is this not true?

He said we have the edge. Is this not true?

Are you guys saying we have a much greater talent edge than Sam is implying?

I don't doubt we have more talent, but I'd argue that the talent gap between Nebraska and say Ohio State is larger than Nebraska and Indiana (at this point anyway)

Yes.

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

Injuries can screw with those numbers, but as we've heard forever, every team has injuries, so we just gotta overcome them.

Thanks for sharing the talent composite rankings link. That essentially proves my point.

We're much closer to Indiana (+134.55) than we are Ohio State (-225.09), like I imagined we would be.

I think Sam's assessment is fair.

Just because we're closer to them than Ohio State doesn't mean that it's a "decent talent matchup". We're also closer to Arkansas State and Kansas than tOSU. Would you try to give the impression that they have similar talent to Nebraska?

The top five teams in that metric are quite a ways ahead of the field.

Can you explain why it's not a decent talent matchup? If we're closer to Arkansas State and Kansas than tOSU, then are you saying the metric is bogus? Is it just based on the eye test? If so, then how can you criticize Sam for his comment? That's all I wanted to understand. It seems like, based on the data that was linked in the previous post, the matchup could certainly be defined as "decent". I'm not trying to argue, I just have a lot of respect for most of Sam's opinions on Husker football and wanted to understand exactly where you were coming from.

Obviously it's all going to be in how you semantic "decent." That comment all by itself doesn't mean much. But Sam has been beating the "Nebraska doesn't have enough talent" drum since Riley was hired. And he's not talking about winning national championships. He's talking about winning 10-11 games per year. And that's despite every single objective evaluation of talent showing that tOSU is the only team on our schedule that has any sort of a talent advantage on us.

But to answer your question, given the metric linked above, I would say a total rating of within 75 points or so would be pretty comparable. For Nebraska - raked #24 at 697.45 - that would be up to #20 Oregon (748.26) and down to #40 Arizona (628.53). Ohio State would be above that range, Oregon and Wisconsin would be in that range and the rest of our schedule would be below that.

According to those rankings, Nebraska has 18 four-star player on the roster (not counting CJax) - 17 with Westy being injured. Indiana has one and he's hurt so they won't be suiting up any Saturday. I would say that is a decided talent advantage for the Huskers.

 

[HuskerExpat]

Yeah, Sam still on the talent drum.

Indiana has one four-star on the team and he's out indefinitely with an injury. And Indiana is in the bottom 15 of the Power 5 in roster talent. But do what ya gotta do....

https://twitter.com/swmckewonOWH/status/786379039560785920

So the question for Sam is does he not think Riley and Co can't coach up their players to the same degree? I also don't get how someone who reports on recruiting can downplay the past recruiting of NU so much.

I don't understand.

He said the talent matchup is decent. Is this not true?

He said we have the edge. Is this not true?

Are you guys saying we have a much greater talent edge than Sam is implying?

I don't doubt we have more talent, but I'd argue that the talent gap between Nebraska and say Ohio State is larger than Nebraska and Indiana (at this point anyway)

Yes.

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

Injuries can screw with those numbers, but as we've heard forever, every team has injuries, so we just gotta overcome them.

Thanks for sharing the talent composite rankings link. That essentially proves my point.

We're much closer to Indiana (+134.55) than we are Ohio State (-225.09), like I imagined we would be.

I think Sam's assessment is fair.

Just because we're closer to them than Ohio State doesn't mean that it's a "decent talent matchup". We're also closer to Arkansas State and Kansas than tOSU. Would you try to give the impression that they have similar talent to Nebraska?

The top five teams in that metric are quite a ways ahead of the field.

Can you explain why it's not a decent talent matchup? If we're closer to Arkansas State and Kansas than tOSU, then are you saying the metric is bogus? Is it just based on the eye test? If so, then how can you criticize Sam for his comment? That's all I wanted to understand. It seems like, based on the data that was linked in the previous post, the matchup could certainly be defined as "decent". I'm not trying to argue, I just have a lot of respect for most of Sam's opinions on Husker football and wanted to understand exactly where you were coming from.

Obviously it's all going to be in how you semantic "decent." That comment all by itself doesn't mean much. But Sam has been beating the "Nebraska doesn't have enough talent" drum since Riley was hired. And he's not talking about winning national championships. He's talking about winning 10-11 games per year. And that's despite every single objective evaluation of talent showing that tOSU is the only team on our schedule that has any sort of a talent advantage on us.

But to answer your question, given the metric linked above, I would say a total rating of within 75 points or so would be pretty comparable. For Nebraska - raked #24 at 697.45 - that would be up to #20 Oregon (748.26) and down to #40 Arizona (628.53). Ohio State would be above that range, Oregon and Wisconsin would be in that range and the rest of our schedule would be below that.

According to those rankings, Nebraska has 18 four-star player on the roster (not counting CJax) - 17 with Westy being injured. Indiana has one and he's hurt so they won't be suiting up any Saturday. I would say that is a decided talent advantage for the Huskers.

Is Dan Feeney the one Indiana player you reference and has it been confirmed he's not playing this week?

 

[Mavric]

Is Dan Feeney the one Indiana player you reference and has it been confirmed he's not playing this week?

Feeney is listed as questionable but was a mid-level three-star. CB Wesley Green is their lone four-star but he's listed as being out indefinitely - though apparently he's suspended instead of injured.

 

[NUinID]

Yeah, Sam still on the talent drum.

Indiana has one four-star on the team and he's out indefinitely with an injury. And Indiana is in the bottom 15 of the Power 5 in roster talent. But do what ya gotta do....

https://twitter.com/swmckewonOWH/status/786379039560785920

So the question for Sam is does he not think Riley and Co can't coach up their players to the same degree? I also don't get how someone who reports on recruiting can downplay the past recruiting of NU so much.

I don't understand.

He said the talent matchup is decent. Is this not true?

He said we have the edge. Is this not true?

Are you guys saying we have a much greater talent edge than Sam is implying?

I don't doubt we have more talent, but I'd argue that the talent gap between Nebraska and say Ohio State is larger than Nebraska and Indiana (at this point anyway)

Yes.

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

Injuries can screw with those numbers, but as we've heard forever, every team has injuries, so we just gotta overcome them.

Thanks for sharing the talent composite rankings link. That essentially proves my point.

We're much closer to Indiana (+134.55) than we are Ohio State (-225.09), like I imagined we would be.

I think Sam's assessment is fair.

Just because we're closer to them than Ohio State doesn't mean that it's a "decent talent matchup". We're also closer to Arkansas State and Kansas than tOSU. Would you try to give the impression that they have similar talent to Nebraska?

The top five teams in that metric are quite a ways ahead of the field.

Can you explain why it's not a decent talent matchup? If we're closer to Arkansas State and Kansas than tOSU, then are you saying the metric is bogus? Is it just based on the eye test? If so, then how can you criticize Sam for his comment? That's all I wanted to understand. It seems like, based on the data that was linked in the previous post, the matchup could certainly be defined as "decent". I'm not trying to argue, I just have a lot of respect for most of Sam's opinions on Husker football and wanted to understand exactly where you were coming from.

Obviously it's all going to be in how you semantic "decent." That comment all by itself doesn't mean much. But Sam has been beating the "Nebraska doesn't have enough talent" drum since Riley was hired. And he's not talking about winning national championships. He's talking about winning 10-11 games per year. And that's despite every single objective evaluation of talent showing that tOSU is the only team on our schedule that has any sort of a talent advantage on us.

But to answer your question, given the metric linked above, I would say a total rating of within 75 points or so would be pretty comparable. For Nebraska - raked #24 at 697.45 - that would be up to #20 Oregon (748.26) and down to #40 Arizona (628.53). Ohio State would be above that range, Oregon and Wisconsin would be in that range and the rest of our schedule would be below that.

According to those rankings, Nebraska has 18 four-star player on the roster (not counting CJax) - 17 with Westy being injured. Indiana has one and he's hurt so they won't be suiting up any Saturday. I would say that is a decided talent advantage for the Huskers.

Is Dan Feeney the one Indiana player you reference and has it been confirmed he's not playing this week?

No, Feeney was not a 4* guy. The guy not playing is WR who has been hurt all year. They haven't said whether Feeney is playing or not. Indiana keeps it tight lipped on injuries.

 

[BigRedBuster]

[No message]

 

[Hoosker]

Yeah, Sam still on the talent drum.

Indiana has one four-star on the team and he's out indefinitely with an injury. And Indiana is in the bottom 15 of the Power 5 in roster talent. But do what ya gotta do....

https://twitter.com/swmckewonOWH/status/786379039560785920

So the question for Sam is does he not think Riley and Co can't coach up their players to the same degree? I also don't get how someone who reports on recruiting can downplay the past recruiting of NU so much.

I don't understand.

He said the talent matchup is decent. Is this not true?

He said we have the edge. Is this not true?

Are you guys saying we have a much greater talent edge than Sam is implying?

I don't doubt we have more talent, but I'd argue that the talent gap between Nebraska and say Ohio State is larger than Nebraska and Indiana (at this point anyway)

Yes.

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

Injuries can screw with those numbers, but as we've heard forever, every team has injuries, so we just gotta overcome them.

Thanks for sharing the talent composite rankings link. That essentially proves my point.

We're much closer to Indiana (+134.55) than we are Ohio State (-225.09), like I imagined we would be.

I think Sam's assessment is fair.

Just because we're closer to them than Ohio State doesn't mean that it's a "decent talent matchup". We're also closer to Arkansas State and Kansas than tOSU. Would you try to give the impression that they have similar talent to Nebraska?

The top five teams in that metric are quite a ways ahead of the field.

Can you explain why it's not a decent talent matchup? If we're closer to Arkansas State and Kansas than tOSU, then are you saying the metric is bogus? Is it just based on the eye test? If so, then how can you criticize Sam for his comment? That's all I wanted to understand. It seems like, based on the data that was linked in the previous post, the matchup could certainly be defined as "decent". I'm not trying to argue, I just have a lot of respect for most of Sam's opinions on Husker football and wanted to understand exactly where you were coming from.

Obviously it's all going to be in how you semantic "decent." That comment all by itself doesn't mean much. But Sam has been beating the "Nebraska doesn't have enough talent" drum since Riley was hired. And he's not talking about winning national championships. He's talking about winning 10-11 games per year. And that's despite every single objective evaluation of talent showing that tOSU is the only team on our schedule that has any sort of a talent advantage on us.

But to answer your question, given the metric linked above, I would say a total rating of within 75 points or so would be pretty comparable. For Nebraska - raked #24 at 697.45 - that would be up to #20 Oregon (748.26) and down to #40 Arizona (628.53). Ohio State would be above that range, Oregon and Wisconsin would be in that range and the rest of our schedule would be below that.

According to those rankings, Nebraska has 18 four-star player on the roster (not counting CJax) - 17 with Westy being injured. Indiana has one and he's hurt so they won't be suiting up any Saturday. I would say that is a decided talent advantage for the Huskers.

So, since Riley was hired, Sam has been saying that we don't have enough talent to win 10 or 11 games per year. Ok, but this senior class hasn't ever won 10-11 games.

We haven't won 10 games since the 2012 season. So do you think he's not giving the current staff enough credit or what?

I think Riley is definitely an upgrade, but he hasn't yet proven that the current players are capable of winning 10-11 games, has he?

 

[SuperBigFan69]

Indiana is a tough out in Bloomington. They frankly should have beaten both Michigan and Ohio State at home last year. Although it's a different team this year and will not be an intimidating environment, they tend to play well at home. This is also a much improved football team. This team is not the Indiana that many casual fans think of. This team has gotten much better under Kevin Wilson. As far as losing to Wake Forest, they almost put up 700 yards of total offense but were doomed by 5 INT's. They should be a 4-1 football team and should demand our full attention.

In the last 10 years they have one 7 games once and 6 games once. The other 8 years they have been under 6 wins. They have 44 wins in the last 10 years.

Purdue has 48 wins (one of those at the expense of Nebraska)

This is not a "trap" game because Indiana is good...

 

[Mavric]

So, since Riley was hired, Sam has been saying that we don't have enough talent to win 10 or 11 games per year. Ok, but this senior class hasn't ever won 10-11 games.

We haven't won 10 games since the 2012 season. So do you think he's not giving the current staff enough credit or what?

I think Riley is definitely an upgrade, but he hasn't yet proven that the current players are capable of winning 10-11 games, has he?

Yes, but if was previously said that it was the coaching staff that was holding us back from winning more games. Now Sam has tried to shift the blame to lack of talent. I mean ... how many times were we told that 9 wins were basically built into the schedule? Funny how quickly that disappeared.

I think he's saying we have a lack of talent as an excuse for the coaches if they don't win enough and so he can give most of the credit to the coaches if we do.

 

[SuperBigFan69]

So, since Riley was hired, Sam has been saying that we don't have enough talent to win 10 or 11 games per year. Ok, but this senior class hasn't ever won 10-11 games.

We haven't won 10 games since the 2012 season. So do you think he's not giving the current staff enough credit or what?

I think Riley is definitely an upgrade, but he hasn't yet proven that the current players are capable of winning 10-11 games, has he?

Yes, but if was previously said that it was the coaching staff that was holding us back from winning more games. Now Sam has tried to shift the blame to lack of talent. I mean ... how many times were we told that 9 wins were basically built into the schedule? Funny how quickly that disappeared.

I think he's saying we have a lack of talent as an excuse for the coaches if they don't win enough and so he can give most of the credit to the coaches if we do.

100% agree.

 

[Hoosker]

So, since Riley was hired, Sam has been saying that we don't have enough talent to win 10 or 11 games per year. Ok, but this senior class hasn't ever won 10-11 games.

We haven't won 10 games since the 2012 season. So do you think he's not giving the current staff enough credit or what?

I think Riley is definitely an upgrade, but he hasn't yet proven that the current players are capable of winning 10-11 games, has he?

Yes, but if was previously said that it was the coaching staff that was holding us back from winning more games. Now Sam has tried to shift the blame to lack of talent. I mean ... how many times were we told that 9 wins were basically built into the schedule? Funny how quickly that disappeared.

I think he's saying we have a lack of talent as an excuse for the coaches if they don't win enough and so he can give most of the credit to the coaches if we do.

Alright. That's what I was looking for.

I guess I just don't think he has this ulterior motive to double down on the lack of talent in order to boost up the coaching staff later on if we have a good year.

I suppose I just take his comments as his genuine thoughts on the team and the staff. Perhaps I'm too naive in that regard.

Carry on with the Indiana discussion.

 

[Count 'Bility]

Indiana is a tough out in Bloomington. They frankly should have beaten both Michigan and Ohio State at home last year. Although it's a different team this year and will not be an intimidating environment, they tend to play well at home. This is also a much improved football team. This team is not the Indiana that many casual fans think of. This team has gotten much better under Kevin Wilson. As far as losing to Wake Forest, they almost put up 700 yards of total offense but were doomed by 5 INT's. They should be a 4-1 football team and should demand our full attention.

In the last 10 years they have one 7 games once and 6 games once. The other 8 years they have been under 6 wins. They have 44 wins in the last 10 years.

Purdue has 48 wins (one of those at the expense of Nebraska)

This is not a "trap" game because Indiana is good...

Did you get raped in Lafayette that day? You have an awful lot of angst built up for such a totally irrelevant, meaningless afternoon.

 

[Mavric]

I guess I just don't think he has this ulterior motive to double down on the lack of talent in order to boost up the coaching staff later on if we have a good year.

I suppose I just take his comments as his genuine thoughts on the team and the staff. Perhaps I'm too naive in that regard.

Like I said, if it was just this one comment, it would be nothing. But he's been pretty systematic about this for the last year-and-a-half. Coming off winning at least 9 games for seven straight years and firing coaches for not winning more (amongst other things), he promptly announced - specifically - that he thought last year's team had the talent of a 7-9 win team. And that was against basically the exact same schedule that we'd won 9 games the previous year - and only 2 of those games were within 10 points. Now, there is plenty more that goes into winning game other than talent but talent is a large part of it. And he's circled back to the "lack of talent" argument several times since.

And - by the way - we had more NFL draft picks in a single year last year than we had since 2011. Not to mention the roster talent showing the same advantage over almost every team last year just like this year.

 

[Hoosker]

I guess I just don't think he has this ulterior motive to double down on the lack of talent in order to boost up the coaching staff later on if we have a good year.

I suppose I just take his comments as his genuine thoughts on the team and the staff. Perhaps I'm too naive in that regard.

Like I said, if it was just this one comment, it would be nothing. But he's been pretty systematic about this for the last year-and-a-half. Coming off winning at least 9 games for seven straight years and firing coaches for not winning more (amongst other things), he promptly announced - specifically - that he thought last year's team had the talent of a 7-9 win team. And that was against basically the exact same schedule that we'd won 9 games the previous year - and only 2 of those games were within 10 points. Now, there is plenty more that goes into winning game other than talent but talent is a large part of it. And he's circled back to the "lack of talent" argument several times since.

And - by the way - we had more NFL draft picks in a single year last year than we had since 2011. Not to mention the roster talent showing the same advantage over almost every team last year just like this year.

I get what you're saying now. I guess I just don't see it the same way.

Thanks for explaining it to me.