Does NU have a chance in the B1G West?

[commando]

i guess we do have a chance....but i wouldn't say it's a good chance.   handing that minnesota game away really hurt our chances.

[JeffKinney87]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Nobody sets out as a coaching staff and says….hey, we don’t want 4-5 star players. We want 3 star players and develop them into great players. 
 

Fact is, there are 130+ FBS teams and there are a limited number of 4-5 star players. Those players go to a few top programs.  The rest are left trying to develop the 3 star players. 

I agree with this.  I think the goal we should shoot for is to create a virtuous cycle in our recruiting process, and program. 

 

Step 1:  Creating a unique offensive identity.  In the 90s it was power running football for T.O., or the air raid attack of Mike Leach in more recent times.  Something that no one, or hardly anyone runs in the Power 5.  I think this will give us a slight edge, as it makes it harder for even good teams to prepare for facing us, and might give our 3 star athletes a small edge over more talented players.

 

Step 2:  Once our identity is established, we might be able to convince a couple 4 or 5 star athletes that fit our system to come to NU, because you will get playing time and a perfect fit into our offense.  An example might be the talented running backs we were able to get consistently, along with (eventually!) a highschool option quarterback like Tommie Frazier.  Mike Leach eventually got a lot of good passing QBs and Michael Crabtree.

 

Step 3:  Slowly over time you become more of a "top team" and start getting more 4-5 star players.  

 

In my opinion, we are never going to beat Ohio State, Georgia, etc. at their own game, even if we are able to compete partially with them for talent.  We need to do something different, because we will never be able to compete with the talent that they acquire running the same "style" of attack.  

 

We haven't really had an offensive identity in my opinion since Solich.  If this changed we might have better recruiting results, and winning on the field.  

[Dr. Strangelove]

1 hour ago, BigRedBuster said:

Nobody sets out as a coaching staff and says….hey, we don’t want 4-5 star players. We want 3 star players and develop them into great players. 
 

Fact is, there are 130+ FBS teams and there are a limited number of 4-5 star players. Those players go to a few top programs.  The rest are left trying to develop the 3 star players. 

I agree. Competing in CFB is extremely difficult. Coaches at most schools recruit 3* players out of necessity, not desire. It's why coaches leave schools to take jobs at places where it's easier to recruit.

 

My point is, developing players is difficult and it's unclear if specific coaches are good at it or if the random distribution of gems among the ranks of 3* players elevates those coaches. 

[deedsker]

1 minute ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I agree. Competing in CFB is extremely difficult. Coaches at most schools recruit 3* players out of necessity, not desire. It's why coaches leave schools to take jobs at places where it's easier to recruit.

 

My point is, developing players is difficult and it's unclear if specific coaches are good at it or if the random distribution of gems among the ranks of 3* players elevates those coaches. 

More often then not, you will see a pretty high variance on any coach/staff/recruits, that you never quite get a huge difference in any one coach's ability over another. There is a laundry list of coaches who make good at some lower level coaching gig and parlay that into more resources and "better" talent pool. They then proceed to put a collection of a team out that appears to be only marginally better than the collection they had at a place with "less". 

 

Sometimes it is that those recruits were not extra special than the players you had elsewhere, sometimes it the fact that the supporting coach on a staff was doing all the right things behind the scenes and is no longer with that coach, or the coach can't navigate the increase in drama of the powder keg of expectations (both coach and players and personality differences). There are a long line of coaches who made there way to power programs, maintained a decent time period of success before leaving or shown the door, who go back down and still find no more success overall as a coach. 

[BigRedBuster]

21 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I agree. Competing in CFB is extremely difficult. Coaches at most schools recruit 3* players out of necessity, not desire. It's why coaches leave schools to take jobs at places where it's easier to recruit.

 

My point is, developing players is difficult and it's unclear if specific coaches are good at it or if the random distribution of gems among the ranks of 3* players elevates those coaches. 

I think there are some coaches that are good at creating an culture and work ethic within a program that gets 3* kids to play fundamentally sound football. They might not be as fast as the kid on the other side.  But, they don't make mistakes that they can control.  Then, those coaches know how to scheme in a way that allows the team (working well together) to succeed in a lot of games.

[Dr. Strangelove]

59 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

I think there are some coaches that are good at creating an culture and work ethic within a program that gets 3* kids to play fundamentally sound football. They might not be as fast as the kid on the other side.  But, they don't make mistakes that they can control.  Then, those coaches know how to scheme in a way that allows the team (working well together) to succeed in a lot of games.

Absolutely! Mike Gundy, Kirk Ferents, PJ Fleck all do this. They've all won a lot of football games by recruiting to a system and maximizing the skillset of their players. But, when those teams play teams with talent, they tend to lose. They don't always lose, of course, but they usually do.

 

And when those teams don't have the diamond-in-the rough on their roster, those games get out of hand quickly.

 

1 hour ago, deedsker said:

More often then not, you will see a pretty high variance on any coach/staff/recruits, that you never quite get a huge difference in any one coach's ability over another. There is a laundry list of coaches who make good at some lower level coaching gig and parlay that into more resources and "better" talent pool. They then proceed to put a collection of a team out that appears to be only marginally better than the collection they had at a place with "less". 

 

Sometimes it is that those recruits were not extra special than the players you had elsewhere, sometimes it the fact that the supporting coach on a staff was doing all the right things behind the scenes and is no longer with that coach, or the coach can't navigate the increase in drama of the powder keg of expectations (both coach and players and personality differences). There are a long line of coaches who made there way to power programs, maintained a decent time period of success before leaving or shown the door, who go back down and still find no more success overall as a coach. 

Also all very true. Winning is difficult, particularly when a program isn't advantaged over their peers.

[BigRedBuster]

1 minute ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Absolutely! Mike Gundy, Kirk Ferents, PJ Fleck all do this. They've all won a lot of football games by recruiting to a system and maximizing the skillset of their players. But, when those teams play teams with talent, they tend to lose. They don't always lose, of course, but they usually do.

 

And when those teams don't have the diamond-in-the rough on their roster, those games get out of hand quickly.

Very true.

 

That's why you have to have a coach that can do what those three have done.....but when they start winning those 8-10 games per year, then be able to start recruiting at an even higher level to get over that hump.  

What is so damn frustrating is that, at least according to ratings, Nebraska has already been recruiting better than all three of those.  But, under performing.  I believe that Nebraska is the type of place that, if we can start winning 8-10 games, a good coach can then start recruiting good enough players to compete with the top dogs.  But...we have to get to the first step first.

[deedsker]

2 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

Also all very true. Winning is difficult, particularly when a program isn't advantaged over their peers.

My statement was to the advantaged. There are a list of coaches who were given advantaged positions and were less successful. They did better at places where they got to put their hands in every pot, they can't manage what they used to be the person doing, they don't know what they don't know about outside factors that make their job harder/easier.

[Dr. Strangelove]

2 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

Very true.

 

That's why you have to have a coach that can do what those three have done.....but when they start winning those 8-10 games per year, then be able to start recruiting at an even higher level to get over that hump.  

What is so damn frustrating is that, at least according to ratings, Nebraska has already been recruiting better than all three of those.  But, under performing.  I believe that Nebraska is the type of place that, if we can start winning 8-10 games, a good coach can then start recruiting good enough players to compete with the top dogs.  But...we have to get to the first step first.

I mostly agree. I'd push back on Nebraska being that much more talented than peer programs like Iowa/Minnesota etc.

 

In 2023, Nebraska finished #24 with 4 Blue Chip players. Iowa finished #41 with 2, Minnesota #45 with 2, teams like Illinois with 3... etc. The gap between recruiting 4 Blue Chips and 2 isn't all that much. 

 

Rhule is doing well by recruiting 7 this year so far, but the bottom 10 of his recruiting class is... questionable.

[BigRedBuster]

18 minutes ago, Dr. Strangelove said:

I mostly agree. I'd push back on Nebraska being that much more talented than peer programs like Iowa/Minnesota etc.

 

In 2023, Nebraska finished #24 with 4 Blue Chip players. Iowa finished #41 with 2, Minnesota #45 with 2, teams like Illinois with 3... etc. The gap between recruiting 4 Blue Chips and 2 isn't all that much. 

 

Rhule is doing well by recruiting 7 this year so far, but the bottom 10 of his recruiting class is... questionable.

If you look at the retention of the top of our classes over the last 10 years, I'm guessing it's a big difference between us and teams like Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

[TGHusker]

7 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

If you look at the retention of the top of our classes over the last 10 years, I'm guessing it's a big difference between us and teams like Iowa, Wisconsin and Minnesota.

Hopefully that trend will change with Rhule.  I believe it will.  I'm thinking by year 3 this team will resemble nothing like the past pathetic 8 years post Bo. 

[Guy Chamberlin]

2 hours ago, JeffKinney87 said:

 

 

We haven't really had an offensive identity in my opinion since Solich.  If this changed we might have better recruiting results, and winning on the field.  

 

We may not have loved the results, but I definitely considered the RPO with Taylor Martinez and Tommy Armstrong an identity. A QB who could kill you with his legs, at least injure you with his arm, and hand it off to two of the most prolific running backs in Nebraska history. For that matter, Taylor and Tommy both became Career Total Offense leaders running this system, so something was working. They were also playground ballers, which could make things really exciting or create game-killing turnovers. 

 

But part of that identity is that Nebraska was willing to let dual threat High School quarterbacks continue to play quarterback, as opposed to other schools who needed them to be better traditional passers or convert to a different position. Given Adrian Martinez, Luke McCaffrey, Jeff Sims and Hendrich Haarberg, that might still be the case. 

 

Imagine Taylor or Tommy playing with a vintage Nebraska offensive line, and even a slightly better defense than some they were handed. We wouldn't be debating the offensive identity. 

 

Or consider if Taylor Martinez had emerged one season earlier, or Joe Ganz got to play one year longer. Hard to imagine that 2009 team isn't in the national championship picture and a lot of perceptions change. We would have been happy with either the runner or the passer. 

[JeffKinney87]

Just now, Guy Chamberlin said:

 

We may not have loved the results, but I definitely considered the RPO with Taylor Martinez and Tommy Armstrong an identity. A QB who could kill you with his legs, at least injure you with his arm, and hand it off to two of the most prolific running backs in Nebraska history. For that matter, Taylor and Tommy both became Career Total Offense leaders running this system, so something was working. They were also playground ballers, which could make things really exciting or create game-killing turnovers. 

 

But part of that identity is that Nebraska was willing to let dual threat High School quarterbacks continue to play quarterback, as opposed to other schools who needed them to be better traditional passers or convert to a different position. Given Adrian Martinez, Luke McCaffrey, Jeff Sims and Hendrich Haarberg, that might still be the case. 

 

Imagine Taylor or Tommy playing with a vintage Nebraska offensive line, and even a slightly better defense than some they were handed. We wouldn't be debating the offensive identity. 

 

Or consider if Taylor Martinez had emerged one season earlier, or Joe Ganz got to play one year longer. Hard to imagine that 2009 team isn't in the national championship picture and a lot of perceptions change. We would have been happy with either the runner or the passer. 

 

You might be right that the RPO with Taylor and Tommy could be considered an identity.   I guess what I should have clarified in more detail is a "unique" identity.  While we were running the RPO, so was Baylor with Robert Griffin and Michigan with Dennard Robinson, and several other schools.  I feel we were running the West Coast Offense with Bill Callahan, at the same time USC and other schools were doing it with better athletes. Same with Mike Riley's offense (The Slow Motion Offense?), or with Scott Frost's Oregon-style hurry up offense, again Oregon and other teams can do it better with better athletes. 

 

The way I see it, being that Nebraska and it's neighboring states have such low populations, and little attractions (beaches, weather, etc.), if we try to go head to head with the likes of Ohio State, Michigan, USC, Georgia, etc. for the same athletes for the same type of offense, we are going to lose more recruiting battles than we win.  

 

If we specialize in a unique style of offense, I think that #1 it gives our 3 star athletes more advantages, and #2 over time we will win more high profile recruits because they will see our system as specially adapted to their needs, or that it allows them more opportunity to be seen.  Once you do this successfully for a long time (like T.O.), kids will flock to your school because of your success.

 

Just my two cents.

 

 

[Undone]

@JeffKinney87: And what would be the "unique identity" we'd go with in 2023 that would fit the build? Genuinely asking.

 

I could argue that Wisconsin's identity actually wasn't as much about recruiting & developing great offensive linemen (even though they did) as it was about recruiting great running backs. Their offensive identity revolved around strong, powerful backs that could churn yards after contact in largely heavy sets.

 

And then I could argue that this is exactly what we're doing under Rhule, with one difference being that Wisconsin intentionally recruited pocket passers to set them up to be more successful when they occasionally got into 3rd & long's, whereas we're going with the (clearly sub-par) dual threat guys.

[Archy1221]

3 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I think there are some coaches that are good at creating a culture and work ethic within a program that gets 3* kids to play fundamentally sound football. They might not be as fast as the kid on the other side.  But, they don't make mistakes that they can control.  Then, those coaches know how to scheme in a way that allows the team (working well together) to succeed in a lot of games.

Bill Snyder was one example