GBRFAN

Yes this is true. There is not a team in the country that wouldn't run almost every play if it would produce the desired results - there is less risk in running. However to put most or all your cards in running you better be dominate in what you do. Not many teams have that option (if any) with the new rules on scholarship #'s and $$$ to walk on. Look at NU in the 80's and 90's - we were dominate and it still wasn't quite enough to win it all for most of those years. That's my point of why we can't be one dimensional and put all our cards into running the ball because those classes are hard to get at NU. How do you know that we don't have better coaching? I believe we have the staff to get back to the top tier. I'm guessing you had the opposite figured out about 400 days ago.

not sure that "thinking" got us in this "mess". First of all, not sure what you mean by mess. Secondly, our talent being below top 10 classes has to do with "where we are". With that said, i'm glad that we have every player that we currently have on our roster. They committed to a program that is where it is and our staff will work to make them as good as they can be while looking to add new talent each year.

Sorry, Alabama did what they did because they had elite recruiting for the past 5 years - top 5 recruiting classes to be exact. Even in NU's best years we didn't have top 5 recruiting consistently and it wasn't because recruits thought badly of TO - it is what it is. We need to be elite with top 10-15 recruiting classes first and that will come from being balanced. As we get more W's then we can move to top 5-10 recruiting classes. Not sure why so many don't like the P word around here. Being one dimensional can only work when your talent is far superior to the opponent.

Hard to be elite at just one thing when you don't have top 5 recruiting classes year after year. We need to be solid at both running and passing to be elite on offense. The days of us being more physically dominating then EVERY other team in the country are over and will NEVER be here again - doesn't mean we can't return to dominance or have a great offense. Our weight program has been duplicated / Our ability to give out 100+ scholarships is gone / the cost of college tuition has increased to a point where many kids need to look at something different then walking-on. We will be good again, however not by being elite at just one thing.

..... and defense and passing game.

Bo likes to put out dabs of paint. "DABS" being plural.

Quality win doesnt change based on the team. Just cause a 2 win team beats a 3 win team doesnt make that a quality win. I dont think anyone should have considered beating Nebraska a quality win. Not so true. If a team hasn't won all season and they beat a 6-6 team the final week. I would guess everybody in the locker room would consider that to be quality.

This post is right on. I would say 50 vs iowa and 70 against Indiana and NW - which would put us at 8 wins. I'm guessing we get 9 thou.

Yep, that is him... Splitting hairs but Dylan Moses is a RB/OLB. Not that it matters. Cam Akers isn't coming to Nebraska regardless. Did you just talk to him?

Can we start this thread over and begin with a statement in bold letters that we are not looking at 4 finalists for the AD job - it's not even open.

I agree with a lot of what you're saying, however, I do think the idea that we need a second string good enough to compete with teams week after week is an antiquated ideology, which is basically what I was getting at in post #33. We need better recruits that pan out first and foremost to create a strong line of starters, and getting to that point will help us build depth. IMHO depth is only built when your starters are up to snuff. I also think that scholarship limits, and other changes college football has seen in the last two decades, makes it more difficult to build that quality line of backups. There's really only one program in the country right now capable of seemingly reloading every year and that's 'Bama. Same with USC in the 2000's and Nebraska in the 90's. I think, right now at least, being like 'Bama is an unrealistic goal. ^This is a great post in many ways. Who cares if your second string is the best 2nd string in the nation or Big Ten - if your first string isn't the best. Lets get one group up to being the best in the Big Ten and then start to think about depth.

If you look at Porter's posting history - it seems easy to read what he is trying to do.

http://dataomaha.com/documents/husker-scholarship-distribution thxs!!!

Sorry if this has been posted. It looks like we have 32 seniors on the 2016 roster. How many are on scholarship? What are we projecting for a class size in 2017? I though I had seen the #17 for 2017, however that seems low with this many seniors....

Perfect reply - This thread should have been locked after the "ice"

With Riley building a strong program here and the high probability that we will not have a spot for Frost here - why would that be a big loss?

Mavric Thanks for the info. Not only this, however all the other items that you have passed on to this board. The only omission would be QB - would have to say that was our TOP PRIORITY and we hit a home run with POB

Texas is now a tough sale too many tier 2 schools that now look attractive (Baylor, TCU, etc..). If we get one or two great. California is good for the next 2-5 years.

finished 25th, about what i figured, but still not nearly good enough, michigan and ohio state kicked our ass! That was a bold statement. Did you expect it to be the opposite. There are only 3 schools that can say they did better then those teams (all coming from the talent rich area of the SE). We can say the same to Iowa and Minn - we also beat Wisc. Those are schools that we need to dominate first. Mich and Ohio St are currently on a different tier. Let's bring that discussion up after next season leading into the signing of the 2017 class.

Well, without Texas this year, 7 of our commits are from that area. Not bad. Not bad at all. Just like the idea that we are a national brand, and pulling one from each of those areas every year would solidify that. Texas will be a tough fight going forward. Kids will stay close to home and play good competition where their parents can drive to most games. We will make up with old texas numbers by getting 2-4 every year from California. I think we will move our Texas effort into Louisiana and further east.

One of the top classes in the past 15 years. Your standards are questionable.....But what's new

What to go work where you have to kiss ass to guys that make 30-50 million and think their money is more important then you as a coach.... I would gladly take the over paid players of the NFL. You don't deal with Mom and Dad and over inflated egos of 17-18 year old kids along with some programs not playing by the same rules. Everyone knows it's a job in the NFL. You have more freedom changing your roster from year to year. Yes, you have egos but, they know they have to produce. Manzel has a huge ego problem. But, he sucks and so he sits on the bench. Mommy and Daddy aren't meddling in your decisions. Both jobs have different issues - Coaches that are qualified for both just have to decide which ones they can and want to deal with.

What to go work where you have to kiss ass to guys that make 30-50 million and think their money is more important then you as a coach....

not really...........he will be of no value for 2016.....and then maybe only a year after that...taking up space. I think that it would be of value to have a scout team QB who has D1 starting experience. This makes complete sense. Our staff is probably looking at the 2016 benefits as much as the 2017 benefits (and possible 2018)

It's the whole "star" debate thing. Many argue that "stars don't matter", since, you know, most of our recruits are 3*. Well, often times, the difference between the 4 and 3* guys is that the former is bigger and faster. I've had fans argue me all day that a 4.7 40 in an RB or WR or CB is "just fine". I just have to push back, I guess. Rex Burkhead says hello Did Rex ever out run anybody? Not so much. So you saying Rex wasn't a great back? Probably not. I'd said he is very good. The knee injury seemed to have dampened his potential. Still 2nd or 3rd stringer @ Cinci. So no, not "great". So Tommy Frazier must not have been a good QB since he didn't do anything in the NFL I see you're just going to twist this thing all over the place and throw up straw man arguments. Rex was not "great", he was very good. I predict Collin may become good but not great--and he's too small for DE, would be better @ LB. That's my story and I'm sticking to it. Rex will go down as being a great running back, not elite but great. He's the definition of NU football as a lunch pail worker Nebraska will never get the biggest, strongest and fastest players. So when you say we need a Joey Bosa or Leonard Williams that's just not obtainable that's what people are trying to get you to understand. Does this mean you are throwing in the towel? Suh, Gregory? We can do this! One of you are being realistic and hoping for better - the other needs to throw the towel on this topic. Can we guess who is which?