The Talent Debate - 2017 Edition

Do you think Nebraska is 'talented?'

  • Yes

    Votes: 29 51.8%

  • No

    Votes: 18 32.1%

  • Undecided (explain below)

    Votes: 9 16.1%
  • Total voters
    56
Enhance

Enhance

Administrator
Staff member
I've seen people question whether or not Nebraska is 'talented' right now, and I'm curious what people mean when they say that.

According to Rivals, Nebraska has had two top 25 classes in the last year. Regardless of the ranking system you value more, they mostly all have Nebraska in the 20-35 range over the last three seasons. This suggests, at least on paper, they've brought in talent. However, many of us likely agree much of that talent has not developed in a satisfactory way.

My interpretation is Nebraska has talented players that so far, for whatever reason, are greatly under-performing. But I struggle to then associate that with being 'not talented.'

 
Been saying for years, ranked 20-35 in recruiting classes is not cutting it.  We talk about wanting to win the BIG championship...we need top 10 recruiting classes, simple as that.  

 
Due to the high correlation between recruit rankings and end of season rankings I went strictly with recruit ranking.  There are outliers such as Wisconsin but I believe that is mostly due to their recruits being ranked low for various reasons.  I don't think we are currently in a recruiting trough.  We're probably in that 20-30 range same as where we were under Bo which is where we finished the season ranked.  Under Riley I believe we are underachieving based on the talent we have.  

 
chamrocck said:
Been saying for years, ranked 20-35 in recruiting classes is not cutting it.  We talk about wanting to win the BIG championship...we need top 10 recruiting classes, simple as that.  
Click to expand...
Wisconsin seems to do fine without a top 10 class. I agree talent matters but it doesn't guarantee results. See Texas, ND, LSU etc

 
I see talent as the potential a player has before being coached. So it's based off recruiting rankings. They're not perfect but they're the best thing we have to judge talent with.

It's possible for things to happen after recruiting that aren't under a coach's control, but if the talent is good and the coach is decent, the team should win lots of games.

Then with some programs you have talent that is so-so, but the coach is exceptional. E.g. Bill Snyder.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
famoustitles said:
Talent is better than it was 3 years ago. And we’re performing worse, due to poor coaching. 
Click to expand...
Agreed, it makes evaluating individual talent very difficult. For example, Lamar Jackson. Came out of high school as a stud, imposing body type (I remember Banderas saying he thought he looked like a new DE last year), athletic, but for whatever reason he seems like the teams weakest tackler and not all that great of a CB. Can't tell if it's his lack of talent or piss poor coaching and preparation.

 
Something I keep coming back to is what Boyd Epley said in late 2015: the team's athleticism has fallen from what it was in the mid-90s. Some here keep trying to say that other teams improving their strength & conditioning programs have eliminated the advantage we used to have there. But it's not just that other teams have gotten better - we've gotten worse.

“It’s not that they don’t have great work ethic — they’ve demonstrated that — but in football, we need to do a better job of bringing in talented recruits so we don’t have to do quite so much development or quite so much coaching.” The unit that needed work: the offensive line. “I think it’s fair to say — and all the fans can see — that our offensive line could stand some improvement and a little higher talent level,” Epley said. “That’s not picking on any one individual. That’s just across the board. When you start with a good offensive line, everything else can fall in place.”
Click to expand...


With that said, though, I do think we have enough talent to win the B1G West. And, umm, I should hope that we do have more talent than Arkansas State and NIU. :facepalm:

 
Talent =speed.  We have no team speed on either defense or offense.  I guess you can also say "want to" is also a factor.  We are not that talented.  Like I posted in an earlier post- I listened a recruiting guru say once on an interview that the biggest numbers to watch are those of the Top 15 in recruiting each year.  Those numbers usually don't lie.  Everything from 16 to 60 is a guessing game.  In other words, prospects are just that.  If your recruiting at a Top 15 ranking, you have more of a chance to hit on a recruit.  When your recruiting in the mid to upper 20's and 30's, your chances of misrecruiting a player get higher.  I think we have had several 4 star recruits never pan out.  I think we have had ample 5 star guys that never could live up to that hype or even ever set foot on campus.  

It ok to admit that we haven't drew in the talent lately.  Its OK to realize it all starts right there with winning.  Callahan did recruit pretty well.  Bo coached his players to great achievements.  Once they left however, it has become what we have witnessed for the last 7 seasons.  We don't recruit athletes anymore.  We recruit to a position.  Oklahoma(Bob Stoops) always has said, he will take 22 athletes and find them a position to play and win!  I think this is what TO did as well.

 
chamrocck said:
Been saying for years, ranked 20-35 in recruiting classes is not cutting it.  We talk about wanting to win the BIG championship...we need top 10 recruiting classes, simple as that.  
Click to expand...
You would have a statistically favorable argument if you were talking about national championships; however, programs have won the B1G championships without Top 10 recruiting classes. In fact, four B1G champions since 2010 have not had regular (if any) Top 10 recruiting classes.

 
Enhance said:
You would have a statistically favorable argument if you were talking about national championships; however, programs have won the B1G championships without Top 10 recruiting classes. In fact, four B1G champions since 2010 have not had regular (if any) Top 10 recruiting classes.
Click to expand...
That is a tad bit misleading since Ohio ST and Michigan loser is eliminated from the Big 10 champ game.  And if both lose, then we won't have a Top 10 recruiting team in the Conference title game.  Like last year.  However, one of those will get a shot at the playoffs in all likely hood.  Aim high.  We should be recruiting at a Top 15 level each season.  Expectations shouldn't ever waiver from that.

 
Nebhawk said:
That is a tad bit misleading since Ohio ST and Michigan loser is eliminated from the Big 10 champ game.  And if both lose, then we won't have a Top 10 recruiting team in the Conference title game.  Like last year.  However, one of those will get a shot at the playoffs in all likely hood.  Aim high.  We should be recruiting at a Top 15 level each season.  Expectations shouldn't ever waiver from that.
Click to expand...
I'm sorry, but I'm confused as to how that is misleading. Four teams since 2010 have won B1G titles without Top 10 recruiting classes. The fact that several of the most 'talented' teams knocked them out of contention is irrelevant. That's football. The best teams get knocked out all the time.

I get that you're trying to say the recruiting needs to be better, but I think anybody who hopes Nebraska can recruit at a consistent Top 15 level is misleading themselves. The chances of that happening in today's football landscape are incredibly slim.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top