Did we get an 11th commit?

[Stumpy1]

What Chris is saying is that we aren't stacking up with the four and five star talent that MOST of the top programs are getting consistently. Does that mean our coaches can't recruit? No. Does it mean we can't compete? No. He's talking about odds. The programs that bring in better talent have a better chance of being good. He, and I, would like to see more four/five star guys. I think damn near everyone on the board would too.

Also, with more recruiting sites that want more fans to pay for their info, they are going to have more guys rated higher, so everyone can pump sunshine and be happy with the services. We went from rivals and scout as being the two services, to now having four.

With all those 3* players, whoever says the SEC is a tough confrence is full of sh!t
In the SEC, as of today, 06/19/12...

Arkansas presently has 9 commits, all of them 3 :star .

Auburn has 13 commits 9 of which are 3 :star .

Florida has 18 commits 8 of which are 3 :star .

Georgia has 19 commits 9 are 3 :star .

Kentucky has 4 commits all are 3 :star or lower.

LSU has 16 commits, 5 are 3 :star .

Mississippi State has 10 commits, 6 are 3 :star .

Missouri has 13 commits, 9 are 3 :star .

Ole Miss has 12 commits, 9 are 3 :star or lower.

South Carolina has 17 commits 13 are 3 :star .

Tennessee has 12 commits, at least 5 are 3 :star several others there's no info.

Texas AM has 20 commits, 10 are 3 :star .

Vanderbilt has 13 commits, 10 are 3 :star .

And that's just in the SEC.

So, to summarize: Only an incredibly small HANDFUL of teams; Alabama, LSU, USC, etc get more 4 or 5 :star than they do 3 :star or lower.

 

[kchusker_chris]

I cant believe you could find something wrong with us going 11-1 and winning the Big 10? There really is no satisfying you.

I don't think I could find something wrong w/ that. Where did you get that?

 

[kchusker_chris]

....Give me a reason why I shouldn't think that at least 2-3 of the above kids wont be difference makers. That was your standard right? 2-3 difference makers????????????????????????????????????????????? Im going to go out on a limb and say that there are at least that amount from the above pool of players.

They might, but likely not at the level that wins championships. Kenny Bell is great, but he's no Alshon Jeffrey. Rex is awesome, but he's not a Lattimore. I'm sure Kevin Williams or some of our other DL recruits will be solid contributors to our team...but they aren't going to disrupt a game like Clowney can.

There are only 25-30 guys a year at that level. I would like to see us get 1-2 every 4-5 years. Why, out of 150 guys are we not able to land one? That's what I am worried about at this point. We haven't gotten guys at that level, guys that just dominate a game. Some of them with bad coaching - so thing what a 5* kid could do in Bo's defense. You named a whole bunch of good players, some might even turn out to be great. But the odds are against them ever being spectacular. I'd just like to see us land one or two of those guys. I think they'd have far more impact on the outcome of a game than 5 of the guys you mentioned.

 

[kchusker_chris]

What Chris is saying is that we aren't stacking up with the four and five star talent that MOST of the top programs are getting consistently. Does that mean our coaches can't recruit? No. Does it mean we can't compete? No. He's talking about odds. The programs that bring in better talent have a better chance of being good. He, and I, would like to see more four/five star guys. I think damn near everyone on the board would too.

Also, with more recruiting sites that want more fans to pay for their info, they are going to have more guys rated higher, so everyone can pump sunshine and be happy with the services. We went from rivals and scout as being the two services, to now having four.

In the SEC, as of today, 06/19/12...

Arkansas presently has 9 commits, all of them 3 :star .

Auburn has 13 commits 9 of which are 3 :star .

Florida has 18 commits 8 of which are 3 :star .

Georgia has 19 commits 9 are 3 :star .

Kentucky has 4 commits all are 3 :star or lower.

LSU has 16 commits, 5 are 3 :star .

Mississippi State has 10 commits, 6 are 3 :star .

Missouri has 13 commits, 9 are 3 :star .

Ole Miss has 12 commits, 9 are 3 :star or lower.

South Carolina has 17 commits 13 are 3 :star .

Tennessee has 12 commits, at least 5 are 3 :star several others there's no info.

Texas AM has 20 commits, 10 are 3 :star .

Vanderbilt has 13 commits, 10 are 3 :star .

And that's just in the SEC.

So, to summarize: Only an incredibly small HANDFUL of teams; Alabama, LSU, USC, etc get more 4 or 5 :star than they do 3 :star or lower.

So, in the SEC......Missisippi State, Tennessee, Mississippi, Missouri, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Auburn, LSU, Georgia, Texas A&M, Florida, and Alabama (all but 1 team)...have as many 4* and above players as the Huskers (with 8 having more). My point exactly. We aren't saying you need more 4* and above than 3* guys...the number don't work that way. We're saying you need more than 5-6 a year. More 2011, less 2012.

 

[RedDenver]

They might, but likely not at the level that wins championships. Kenny Bell is great, but he's no Alshon Jeffrey. Rex is awesome, but he's not a Lattimore. I'm sure Kevin Williams or some of our other DL recruits will be solid contributors to our team...but they aren't going to disrupt a game like Clowney can.

There are only 25-30 guys a year at that level. I would like to see us get 1-2 every 4-5 years. Why, out of 150 guys are we not able to land one? That's what I am worried about at this point. We haven't gotten guys at that level, guys that just dominate a game. Some of them with bad coaching - so thing what a 5* kid could do in Bo's defense. You named a whole bunch of good players, some might even turn out to be great. But the odds are against them ever being spectacular. I'd just like to see us land one or two of those guys. I think they'd have far more impact on the outcome of a game than 5 of the guys you mentioned.

If you're talking over 4-5 years, then why aren't Suh, Amukamara, or Lavonte David "at that level"?

 

[kchusker_chris]

They might, but likely not at the level that wins championships. Kenny Bell is great, but he's no Alshon Jeffrey. Rex is awesome, but he's not a Lattimore. I'm sure Kevin Williams or some of our other DL recruits will be solid contributors to our team...but they aren't going to disrupt a game like Clowney can.

There are only 25-30 guys a year at that level. I would like to see us get 1-2 every 4-5 years. Why, out of 150 guys are we not able to land one? That's what I am worried about at this point. We haven't gotten guys at that level, guys that just dominate a game. Some of them with bad coaching - so thing what a 5* kid could do in Bo's defense. You named a whole bunch of good players, some might even turn out to be great. But the odds are against them ever being spectacular. I'd just like to see us land one or two of those guys. I think they'd have far more impact on the outcome of a game than 5 of the guys you mentioned.

If you're talking over 4-5 years, then why aren't Suh, Amukamara, or Lavonte David "at that level"?

Suh/Amuk weren't Pelini's guys - I'm more talking about HS recruiting. I'd say David has without a doubt been the best recruit of Pelini's era though - to bad he had to go JUCO to to get it. I think it's easier to evaluate JUCO talent. We'll see, it's still early for Pelini. I am just disappointed after the 2011 class looked to be a turning point for Pelini in recruiting.

 

[RedDenver]

Suh/Amuk weren't Pelini's guys - I'm more talking about HS recruiting. I'd say David has without a doubt been the best recruit of Pelini's era though - to bad he had to go JUCO to to get it. I think it's easier to evaluate JUCO talent. We'll see, it's still early for Pelini. I am just disappointed after the 2011 class looked to be a turning point for Pelini in recruiting.

Yeah, I hate it when our All-Amreicans come from JUCO. I mean, Rozier's accomplishments are obviously lessened by it.

Basically you're butthurt because Pelini doesn't recruit high school players the way you want him to? And your opinion isn't based on how the players do on the field, but how some recruiting sites rate them? At least you acknowledge it's still early for Pelini - maybe you'll change your tune if that 2009 or 2010 class wins the B1G.

 

[dylan]

Just want to try and clarify what your standards are. Obviously we're talking about recruiting, but the standards by which we should be judging recruits is by their results on the field. It's fun and easy to judge recruiting rankings (and they do have a loose correlation to chances for on field success) but it's important to remember that it's contributing to wins that counts, not stars.

To that end, I would propose an all America level of play be considered a standard for a difference maker. It even matches your proposed number of difference makers a year of roughly 30. You don't have to be a suh or even a lattimore to play at an all American level and help your team win games.

I would say that the players I mentioned previously all roughly fit that level (David, dennard, Gomes and burkhead), and we likely have more on the roster or on the way that have that kind of potential.

 

[kchusker_chris]

fair enough. i'm not losing any sleep over the current recruiting. certainly not "butthurt" - you guys take things a little overboard some times when someone is not 100% positive about an aspect of the program. which is why i posted in here in the first place...i think the media and fans have taken this "recruiting momentum" way overboard. we're adding numbers...but at this point they don't appear to be the guys we are really seeking. QB is a perfect example, as we drop farther down our list. a good chunk of our "potential" and "depth" this year is rooted in that 2011 class. think if we had a class like that every year? that's my standard dylan.

 

[dylan]

That's fine, but your standard doesn't address whether we're actually adding difference makers, only subjective measures of their potential, since it's obviously too early to know how good the 2011 class actually is.

Early results look promising for a few kids though (ameer, turner, stafford and a few kids that supposedly look good in practice like Allen, reeves and Williams).

 

[Atbone95]

Are we going to lock this up, or...?

Yes. We got an 11th commit. That was the thread.

 

[GSG]

Are we going to lock this up, or...?

Only if you get rid of your Tebow avatar.

 

[RedDenver]

fair enough. i'm not losing any sleep over the current recruiting. certainly not "butthurt" - you guys take things a little overboard some times when someone is not 100% positive about an aspect of the program. which is why i posted in here in the first place...i think the media and fans have taken this "recruiting momentum" way overboard. we're adding numbers...but at this point they don't appear to be the guys we are really seeking. QB is a perfect example, as we drop farther down our list. a good chunk of our "potential" and "depth" this year is rooted in that 2011 class. think if we had a class like that every year? that's my standard dylan.

That's reasonable. I just disagree about "we're adding numbers...but at this point they don't appear to be the guys we are really seeking". Usually guys added in Dec. or Jan. could be considered "down the recruiting board", not the guys we're getting before the season even starts. You might have a point at QB, but we don't know if the top 2 guys, or 5 guys, or 20 guys are all about the same in the coaches' eyes. And you can't assume that dropping down the QB's means anything about the rest of the class. IMO it looks like you're looking for reasons to be pessimistic.

 

[EZ-E]

I like objectivity, but you never bring the goods. Your standard was top twenty to thirty players but then cite Alshon Jeffery as exhibit A and fail to mention he was ranked thirteenth best at his position coming out of high school. So........? Ameer Abdullah beat out a top 30 HS player in the nation for more carries down the stretch last year. Does that put him in that category? I'm very confused by your standard.

If the 2011 class is your standard, that means you are merely a star gazer? Correct?

 

['SkersRule]

So, in the SEC......Missisippi State, Tennessee, Mississippi, Missouri, Vanderbilt, South Carolina, Auburn, LSU, Georgia, Texas A&M, Florida, and Alabama (all but 1 team)...have as many 4* and above players as the Huskers (with 8 having more). My point exactly. We aren't saying you need more 4* and above than 3* guys...the number don't work that way. We're saying you need more than 5-6 a year. More 2011, less 2012.

Right, like I said only an extremely small pool of teams are going to get more than 5 or 6 :star :star :star :star or :star :star :star :star :star rated players consistently in every class year in and out. Right now those teams are Alabama, LSU, and USC for certain. You might be able to throw in Texas, Oklahoma, Florida State on occassion, but that'd be probably it.

In other words, Nebraska, due to our recruiting situation, is probably never going to get more than 4 or 5 :star :star :star :star or :star :star :star :star :star in any class. We simply do not have that kind of elite talent in our backyard to pull it off.

So I guess if one is a "star-gazer" then the only real solution is to do this... :ahhhhhhhh