Trev is in over his head

[Hagg]

20 hours ago, CyHawk said:

I really hope that the next coach will be better.

 

You didn't take the trouble to type that out did you.  There's a copy/paste template somewhere around here for that that's been here for oh 15 or more years I think.  "Looks like we're about to turn the corner," as well. 

[brontosaurus]

1 hour ago, gorp512 said:

 

Texas, Illinois. UCF under Frost 

I think it's time we finally admit that Frost didn't "turn around" UCF. They posted seasons of 10 wins, 12 wins, and 9 wins before he got there. There was the one absolute blunder year that had tons of internal strife, and then he just brought them back to where they were before under O'Leary. They didn't have years of sustained mediocrity. They had a solid program that just so happened to have one lone shockingly bad year. 

[Husker in WI]

3 minutes ago, brontosaurus said:

I think it's time we finally admit that Frost didn't "turn around" UCF. They posted seasons of 10 wins, 12 wins, and 9 wins before he got there. There was the one absolute blunder year that had tons of internal strife, and then he just brought them back to where they were before under O'Leary. They didn't have years of sustained mediocrity. They had a solid program that just so happened to have one lone shockingly bad year. 

 

They had a pretty high talent level, but 0-12 is 0-12 and it's hard to do. We can admit Frost did a great job at UCF (even if it there's more context than "they were 0-12!") without needing to claim he did a good job here.

[Guy Chamberlin]

1 hour ago, TGHusker said:

The bold is and has always been our issue since Osborne retired.  His reputation alone brought in many top notch recruits 

 

Kinda. Still, Tom inherited a national championship program that got on TV a lot, back when that actually meant something. He kept winning, which helps bring in winners. Also, we used to prioritize the OL more than we do now. But Tom had several built-in advantages that are long gone now. 

 

It's hard to believe in hindsight, but Bill Callahan had a reputation for recruiting. Mike Riley did too, and Corvallis was considered a tough sell to recruits. NFL pros and fellow coaches sent their kids to be coached by Riley at Nebraska. Scott Frost was the hottest coach in college football in 2017 and between his OC resume at Oregon and splashy turnaround of UCF, you could legitimately tell recruits that exciting things were going to be happening at Nebraska. Truth is, our recruiting classes have generally been better ranked than the teams on the field. Player development is definitely a thing, but that doesn't mean fluffing up a cast of two stars. We have no more disadvantage in recruiting than several schools that have been out playing us. 

 

There are probably a lot of culprits, but I'm starting to wonder of the Husker's multi-coach tradition of running dual threat quarterbacks in a college-specific offense curtails the interest of some recruits with NFL aspirations.  

 

 

[corncraze]

1 hour ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I agree. Trev is a good AD, and is certainly much better than Bill Moos.

 

That being said, he hired a coach with the strategy that they would try and take players that aren't very talented or rated very highly and "develop" them into a good football product. It's a dangerous strategy - if it doesn't work, years of bad football players pile up and it becomes all that much more difficult to correct.

 

That being said, the reality of Nebraska is that they probably can't recruit enough talent no matter who they hire and they have no choice but to go the route of "development". Trev knows the recruiting limitations of Nebraska and the caliber of player they can realistically recruit. This is coming from probably the most negative poster in the recruiting forums who regularly complains about the quality of players Nebraska is bringing into the program. It just isn't good enough.

You’ve nailed it on the talent point. It’s not good enough. A development approach can get us to Iowa’s level if done right. I don’t think that’s acceptable. Our program was one of the few blue bloods in the sport. Accepting mediocrity is a slap in the face to decades of earned success. 

 

We were told we had one of the best NIL set-ups in the country - that it would be a real game-changer for us. Either we negligently aren’t using it to its full capability (if much at all) or we were lied to. I tend to think it’s the former given we can find $300-700m for stadium upgrades and $150m for new training facilities.

[gorp512]

29 minutes ago, Husker in WI said:

 

They had a pretty high talent level, but 0-12 is 0-12 and it's hard to do. We can admit Frost did a great job at UCF (even if it there's more context than "they were 0-12!") without needing to claim he did a good job here.

 

Yea, he did a really great job. Has anyone heard from him since he left? 

[presidentjlh]

46 minutes ago, corncraze said:

You’ve nailed it on the talent point. It’s not good enough. A development approach can get us to Iowa’s level if done right. I don’t think that’s acceptable. Our program was one of the few blue bloods in the sport. Accepting mediocrity is a slap in the face to decades of earned success. 

 

We were told we had one of the best NIL set-ups in the country - that it would be a real game-changer for us. Either we negligently aren’t using it to its full capability (if much at all) or we were lied to. I tend to think it’s the former given we can find $300-700m for stadium upgrades and $150m for new training facilities.

Well getting to Iowa's level at this point should be the goal, for now. I think that's fair enough to say that we need to get there first anyways before we can start worrying about becoming great again.

[Enhance]

1 hour ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

There are probably a lot of culprits, but I'm starting to wonder of the Husker's multi-coach tradition of running dual threat quarterbacks in a college-specific offense curtails the interest of some recruits with NFL aspirations.  

Really good post overall but I wanted to comment on this specific part because, IMO, I think right now is probably one of the best times to be a dual-threat quarterback because of the actual or perceived success of several current NFL quarterbacks considered "dual-threat" (or, at the very least, more mobile and non-traditional pocket passers). Guys like Josh Allen, Jalen Hurts, Justin Fields, Patrick Mahomes, and Daniel Jones. Now, Jones and Fields aren't guys you'd willingly pick to lead your franchise if you could pick from several other NFL QBs, but they're still starters in the NFL.

So, I think in a vacuum, running a dual-threat QB in a college-specific offense isn't necessarily curtailing much. There are a lot of programs around the country that have done this and produced all-conference QB's or even an NFL QB... teams which, on paper, have less recruited talent than Nebraska. I think the bigger problem is Nebraska can't sustain success and can't develop a QB. If I'm a good high school QB, I would have a very hard time choosing Nebraska over frankly 40-50 other programs that have at least shown me something interesting the last near decade.

[PasstheDamnBallGuy]

35 minutes ago, Enhance said:

Really good post overall but I wanted to comment on this specific part because, IMO, I think right now is probably one of the best times to be a dual-threat quarterback because of the actual or perceived success of several current NFL quarterbacks considered "dual-threat" (or, at the very least, more mobile and non-traditional pocket passers). Guys like Josh Allen, Jalen Hurts, Justin Fields, Patrick Mahomes, and Daniel Jones. Now, Jones and Fields aren't guys you'd willingly pick to lead your franchise if you could pick from several other NFL QBs, but they're still starters in the NFL.

So, I think in a vacuum, running a dual-threat QB in a college-specific offense isn't necessarily curtailing much. There are a lot of programs around the country that have done this and produced all-conference QB's or even an NFL QB... teams which, on paper, have less recruited talent than Nebraska. I think the bigger problem is Nebraska can't sustain success and can't develop a QB. If I'm a good high school QB, I would have a very hard time choosing Nebraska over frankly 40-50 other programs that have at least shown me something interesting the last near decade.

Adding on to this about dual threat. Anthony Richardson just got drafted 4th after a single pretty meh passing season just because his physical tool set was so good. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

3 hours ago, Enhance said:

Really good post overall but I wanted to comment on this specific part because, IMO, I think right now is probably one of the best times to be a dual-threat quarterback because of the actual or perceived success of several current NFL quarterbacks considered "dual-threat" (or, at the very least, more mobile and non-traditional pocket passers). Guys like Josh Allen, Jalen Hurts, Justin Fields, Patrick Mahomes, and Daniel Jones. Now, Jones and Fields aren't guys you'd willingly pick to lead your franchise if you could pick from several other NFL QBs, but they're still starters in the NFL.

So, I think in a vacuum, running a dual-threat QB in a college-specific offense isn't necessarily curtailing much. There are a lot of programs around the country that have done this and produced all-conference QB's or even an NFL QB... teams which, on paper, have less recruited talent than Nebraska. I think the bigger problem is Nebraska can't sustain success and can't develop a QB. If I'm a good high school QB, I would have a very hard time choosing Nebraska over frankly 40-50 other programs that have at least shown me something interesting the last near decade.

 

I think the problem is our willingness to let running quarterbacks start for us, when they probably wouldn't start for other college teams. We call them dual threats because they are passers, but they are never good enough passers to play in the NFL and can be liabilities against good college defenses, too. 

 

A lot of great quarterbacks are mobile quarterbacks, but not what we call dual threats. The guys you listed all work well and often in the traditional pocket, but have the green light to run as needed. They tend to run less as their career goes on. If you're an offensive lineman with NFL ambitions, scouts will need to see you protecting traditional deep drop QBs. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

4 hours ago, gorp512 said:

 

Yea, he did a really great job. Has anyone heard from him since he left? 

 

Bo Pelini has been mighty quiet, too. 

[Nebhawk]

We are not hiring the right guys for this job.  I have watched KU and KSU over the last few seasons.  There is better talent, and better overall play right now on both of those teams.  Sure KU is battlling lack of defense, but we would take there offense or many of there offensive players on our roster.  KSU has always had better QB play for the most part in the last 20 years.  Better skill players overall during the last 20 years.  Point is Kleiman and Leipold are program builders and player developers.  I am sure we thought we were getting that with Rhule, but nothing yet has shown me he is the same coach who got Temple and Baylor going.  I think the $40 mill he received from Carolina has maybe him less hungry and more fat and happy.  Were an easy payday, simple.

[Husker in WI]

7 minutes ago, Nebhawk said:

We are not hiring the right guys for this job.  I have watched KU and KSU over the last few seasons.  There is better talent, and better overall play right now on both of those teams.  Sure KU is battlling lack of defense, but we would take there offense or many of there offensive players on our roster.  KSU has always had better QB play for the most part in the last 20 years.  Better skill players overall during the last 20 years.  Point is Kleiman and Leipold are program builders and player developers.  I am sure we thought we were getting that with Rhule, but nothing yet has shown me he is the same coach who got Temple and Baylor going.  I think the $40 mill he received from Carolina has maybe him less hungry and more fat and happy.  Were an easy payday, simple.

 

We're a lot closer to where Kansas was than K State, and it was ugly during Leipold's first year there. Its a little early to be calling it on Rhule.

[gorp512]

8 minutes ago, Nebhawk said:

We are not hiring the right guys for this job.  I have watched KU and KSU over the last few seasons.  There is better talent, and better overall play right now on both of those teams.  Sure KU is battlling lack of defense, but we would take there offense or many of there offensive players on our roster.  KSU has always had better QB play for the most part in the last 20 years.  Better skill players overall during the last 20 years.  Point is Kleiman and Leipold are program builders and player developers.  I am sure we thought we were getting that with Rhule, but nothing yet has shown me he is the same coach who got Temple and Baylor going.  I think the $40 mill he received from Carolina has maybe him less hungry and more fat and happy.  Were an easy payday, simple.

 

 

It's really tough to build an entire program, develop players into professionals, and graduate students in 3 weeks. 

 

[Enhance]

4 hours ago, Guy Chamberlin said:

I think the problem is our willingness to let running quarterbacks start for us, when they probably wouldn't start for other college teams. We call them dual threats because they are passers, but they are never good enough passers to play in the NFL and can be liabilities against good college defenses, too. 

I don't know, IMO, we're kind of a wash here. We've certainly had some quarterbacks that would fall into the 'running QB' category that we asked to throw (Taylor Martinez, Armstrong, Sims) but then we also had guys like Tanner Lee, Casey Thompson, and Adrian Martinez, all QB's that started for other college programs and were certainly perceived as at a minimum dual-threat (Martinez) or in Lee and Thompson's case they were definitely more valued as passers. Our track record for getting them to the NFL as QB's is poor although AM did make a roster this past season.
 

Quote

A lot of great quarterbacks are mobile quarterbacks, but not what we call dual threats. The guys you listed all work well and often in the traditional pocket, but have the green light to run as needed.

They tend to run less as their career goes on.

While the bolded is true, I view dual-threats as threats with both their arms and legs in the simplest term, which is what those guys are and was the crux of your original post. I think we if we start trying to define what makes someone a runner vs. a dual-threat vs. a 'mobile pocket passer' then that goes a bit outside the scope of what I was responding to.

Edit - somehow part of my post got deleted.

Quote

 If you're an offensive lineman with NFL ambitions, scouts will need to see you protecting traditional deep drop QBs. 

I agree, but I also think we've had quite a few QB's that gave our linemen opportunities to shine, and I think most scouts are probably savvy enough to isolate good individual o-line play down to the o-linemen vs. holding them accountable for something stupid the QB did.