not X's on O's

[strigori]

There are many valid points made.

 

My beef with Coz at this point is not as much about schemes as it is inspiring fire in the players, I just dont see the 'tude that we had under McBride and Peleni. And defense is about fire, and want to.

 

The other thing is, USC lost 2 games last year also. Neither Oregon or UCLA will put more players into the NFL than we will, but they pulled the upsets. Not pointing at anyone, just sayin.

[huskernumerouno]

I have never been a fan of coz since he was named DC. He did not have great defenses at wis. That being said we were out coached and out played. Is it all the coaches fault, NO but if the team continues to give up 250+ yards a game in rushing (against any type of talent) then I would say that the more it happens the more it is on coaching.

 

We have lost one game and we have a game this Saturday. I hope the players have put this loss behind them (not forgotten it but learned from it) and are ready to move on. Remember what app. St. did to Mich. It can happen if people are not prepared and I hope the coaches have found a way to refocus this team.

 

GBR

[HUSKERWANK07]

First of all, I am not a "rose-colored glasses" guy.... I am a realist and pesimist by nature..... Furthermore, as many know, I have coached football for many years..... as stated numerous times, this does NOT make my opinions right/wrong, but maybe just adds a little "different"perspective now and agian...

 

I for one think that BC is doing okay.....not great, but not as bad as some think..... His game plan was perfect offensively for USC (better than other games)...but once agian, I felt that in the USC environment last season, he had a great game plan that gave his team the best opportunity to win (close going into the 4th...unlike this season).....this year, I felt at home with Keller, he had to take chances and he did....

 

I keep reading all of this stuff about Coz and his defense..... Granted, and agreed with..... Carroll out-coached Coz up and down the field...but Carroll has down this to almost everyone..... Yes, Coz needs to re-evaluate his schemes vs certain teams, but more importantly, he needs to re-evaluate his talent....

 

Anyone who actually "watched" this game in depth, realizes that USC outmanned NU at almost every position...face the hard, cold facts, NU STILL DOES NOT HAVE THE TALENT OF USC-LSU-FLORIDA-OU...

 

Anyone who thinks that we match up physically with the top 5 programs is looking for a reason to complain about BC or Coz.....

 

Look at Coz's defense:

 

Potter: over-hyped since HS..attitude problem 1st yr...proved nothing yet

Suh: very good, but missed numerous tackles in backfield....Coz didn't miss one...and had him in the

right spot

Dixon: JUCO kid in 1st year of DI...... proved nothing yet

Turner: has potential to be stud....1st year in action

 

LB- Octavien is the ONLY LB who will probably be drafted in top 4 rounds (USC has at least 2 1st rd)

Grixby: hustles , under-sized

Bowman: returned early from 2 major injuries and has only played 2 good games at NU

Green: playing position number 3....not a great S

Asante: missed tackles all night....Coz had him there, but Asante missed...hype-hype-hype-hype

 

* Please make me understand why some of you feel that the players mentioned above should be able to

compete against an offense that will have probably 9 or the 11 players in the NFL within 2 years ?

 

- Yes, Coaching could and should be better, but my goodness, we still don't have the talent

 

" it is not the X's and O's, it's the Jimmie's and Joe's"....... Barry Switzer !!!!

 

 

 

BTW Barry Turner--this isnt his first year in action.. he has played in many games..also was a freshman all american

[HANC]

This is Barry Turner's 1st year as seeing full-time action.... he only saw time in special "nickle' situations.....

If that was the only "technical" part of the post that you could find "wrong", then I am assuming that you must somewhat agree.....

 

Turner was a "pass rush" specialist that made plays, thus earning him his "freshman all-american" status....how many times did he have to take on a "run-block" - get off the block- make a tackle vs an all-american caliber RB...... probably "never"......so my point about 1st year action is pretty much on tract....

 

Look guys...I am not saying that the coaching shouldn't be to blame and at the very least taking some of the heat, but I just don't think that you can use the USC game as a "barometer"........

 

If we look like this vs the Big 12 North, then I will totally jump on the same band-wagon as some of you, but for now, I will stick with my opinion that NU was out-classed just as much as they were out-coached.

[junior4949]

I have always heard that "great players make coaches look great"....... I can tell you that this is more the truth than the other way around...... Give me a "great coach" and look at his players....I bet at whatever level you are talking about you either have all-state (HS), All-Americans (NCAA) or All-Pros on that team....

 

100 % guaranteed !!!!

 

I am not saying the coaches are not at fault....... I am just tired of hearing some of these guys talk about how BC and Coz are solely to blame... and Coz has taken a group of great athletes and can't coach them.....

 

Everytime my team loses a game, I take it personally and feel as if it my fault.... so I believe that the coaches are feeling the heat... but common sense says the talent just isn't there yet !!!!!!

 

 

Have you ever heard of a little school in Cambridge Nebraska? They won several state titles in a row. At one time, they had kids that went through school that lost only 1 game in all 4 years of football. Guess what? They don't have a pipeline of players. It's amazing that after their coach retired that they're no way the same caliber of team. How about Atwood, KS? Their coach retired, and the very next year with the very same kids they had a losing record. They actually had a losing record for 3 years in a row. The school went back to the old ball coach and got him to come back. He came back and went 8-2. So don't you dare tell me that coaching doesn't matter. I've coached before, and I can tell you that terrible coaches can make outstanding athletes look average. When I was in highschool, there was a school in NW KS called St. Francis. They won the state track and field championship 4 years in a row and had two kids run the 100 meter dash in the mid to upper 10's. On the football field, they never once had a winning record with that same bunch of kids. Great coaches get players to play above their abilities. See some of the lesser schools with lesser recruiting classes that have reached top 10 the last couple of years. Poor coaches get players to play below their abilities. I believe we're seeing the latter.

[HuskerJosh82]

Ball St. has a veteran defense that could very well.....................

[HANC]

Junior....your points are well taken....coaching does matter...... read more carefully next time.... I want you to point out exactly where in my post that I stated "coaching doesn't matter"......so don't you "dare" rant on my post and "paraphrase"....

 

coaching does matter, and if you actually read the post for what it was worth, I think that I made many references to coaching....

 

Yes, by the way.... I began my football coaching career approx. 20 miles from Cambridge...... very well aware....did you realize that not long after the winning streak you mentioned, they moved UP a classification and played bigger schools ? May have had something to do with the streak ending..and the fact that they graduated a guy named Ed Thompson (3 -4 yr. all-state QB who went on to star at UNO)...so yes, once again....Cambridge had TALENT

 

Furthermore, all of your references, especially in "small" towns are about High Schools.....anyone, who knows anything about "small town USA realizes that kids come and go in "cycles"........ not so much at larger HS, but in smaller schools....definately....

 

Personal example...... I have had many winnning seasons (only 2 losing seasons in 15 years).... two years ago was a 2-7 team...worst record I have had.... I had to start 7 1st year starters and sophomores and juniors.....we struggled..... parents pissed, not unlike many fans on this board.... the following year, SAME KIDS, SAME STARTING LINE UP....... and yes, maybe to someone's surprise SAME COACHES, PHILOSOPHY, AND PLAY CALLING and we went 8-1 and was feature in OWH...... Low and behold, I was the SAME coach as I was the previous year, just kids grew up, got more experience, and we made plays.

 

and your "Track" comparison...doesn't always work that way..... I also coach track and have had many State medalists, including state champions..... had a kid that weight 180 pounds of pure muscle, ran a 48.9 400 meter dash (small school state champ), not worth a penny on the football field.....hand-eye coordination not there and not much for contact..... Track builds speed and fast twitch muscle fibers that help in football, but foot-speed doesn't always guarantee success in football.

 

and as far as the coach who left (successful) and then returned (successful)...and while he was gone the team struggled.... once again , "cycles"...hell, if I left at the end of this year, I would have a "very successful" run.... and if I look into the jr. high and upper elementary... I see a few "lean" years ahead as far as numbers and just plain athleticism.... then I could avoid the "potential" lean years, and possibly let someone else "struggle" and then re-apply when the talent leve rose again.... then when I came back, we would "win again" and everyone would say that I was the reason...... I guess that I am too humble to accept ALL the credit for wins...... KIDS WIN GAMES......

 

coaching is EXTREMEMLY IMPORTANT.... if I didn't think so , I would change professions....just realize that TALENT dictates what a coach can do at MANY LEVELS...

[junior4949]

Junior....your points are well taken....coaching does matter...... read more carefully next time.... I want you to point out exactly where in my post that I stated "coaching doesn't matter"......so don't you "dare" rant on my post and "paraphrase"....

 

coaching does matter, and if you actually read the post for what it was worth, I think that I made many references to coaching....

 

Yes, by the way.... I began my football coaching career approx. 20 miles from Cambridge...... very well aware....did you realize that not long after the winning streak you mentioned, they moved UP a classification and played bigger schools ? May have had something to do with the streak ending..and the fact that they graduated a guy named Ed Thompson (3 -4 yr. all-state QB who went on to star at UNO)...so yes, once again....Cambridge had TALENT

 

Furthermore, all of your references, especially in "small" towns are about High Schools.....anyone, who knows anything about "small town USA realizes that kids come and go in "cycles"........ not so much at larger HS, but in smaller schools....definately....

 

Personal example...... I have had many winnning seasons (only 2 losing seasons in 15 years).... two years ago was a 2-7 team...worst record I have had.... I had to start 7 1st year starters and sophomores and juniors.....we struggled..... parents pissed, not unlike many fans on this board.... the following year, SAME KIDS, SAME STARTING LINE UP....... and yes, maybe to someone's surprise SAME COACHES, PHILOSOPHY, AND PLAY CALLING and we went 8-1 and was feature in OWH...... Low and behold, I was the SAME coach as I was the previous year, just kids grew up, got more experience, and we made plays.

 

and your "Track" comparison...doesn't always work that way..... I also coach track and have had many State medalists, including state champions..... had a kid that weight 180 pounds of pure muscle, ran a 48.9 400 meter dash (small school state champ), not worth a penny on the football field.....hand-eye coordination not there and not much for contact..... Track builds speed and fast twitch muscle fibers that help in football, but foot-speed doesn't always guarantee success in football.

 

and as far as the coach who left (successful) and then returned (successful)...and while he was gone the team struggled.... once again , "cycles"...hell, if I left at the end of this year, I would have a "very successful" run.... and if I look into the jr. high and upper elementary... I see a few "lean" years ahead as far as numbers and just plain athleticism.... then I could avoid the "potential" lean years, and possibly let someone else "struggle" and then re-apply when the talent leve rose again.... then when I came back, we would "win again" and everyone would say that I was the reason...... I guess that I am too humble to accept ALL the credit for wins...... KIDS WIN GAMES......

 

coaching is EXTREMEMLY IMPORTANT.... if I didn't think so , I would change professions....just realize that TALENT dictates what a coach can do at MANY LEVELS...

 

 

Considering Cambridge has been C2 for as long as I can remember, I think maybe you should get your facts straight. 15 years ago, they were C2. Today, they are C2. Give me the years they moved to C1. My brother-in-law played for Cambridge and lost just 1 game to Sutherland in all 4 years of his playing. He never once was in high school when Ed was still there. They were winning championships long after Ed was gone!

 

Now, if you want to use a school to support your "talent" argument maybe you should use a different school such as Grant. In the late 80's and early 90's, they were stomping everyone. They graduated the Terwilligers and other big talents only to fall from grace with the same coach. This would be more supportive to your argument than Cambridge. However, I will add that even though Grant didn't have much talent they were still pretty competitve.

 

Look at what McCook has accomplished in the last 5 years. Are you really going to tell me that they were just struck with the talent bug? Give me a break. They've always had the athletes. However, they haven't always had the coaches. It's kind of funny about McCook. Their D coordinator used to coach in Cambridge. They've always had the athletes just not the coach to get them where they are today until a while back!

 

When I was in college, I took football coaching. The teacher was a coach from Omaha by the name of Gene Suhr. Prior to his hiring, the school had many losing records. He turned it all around and won a few state championships. Do you seriously think that talent was the reason for this? I'm pretty sure it didn't start raining talent just over his field! Talent only gets you so far in a team organized sport. It's coaching that gets you to the next level. Think about this: If talent is what it takes to win, then why don't the Yankees win the World Series every year? If talent is what it takes to win, then why has the U.S. Men's Basketball team been stinking it up? Look at NU's volleyball team. Houghtelling was national player of the year 2 years ago. Do you know how many D1 teams offered her a scholly? Just 1. She is very talented, but she was a developed talent. This is what TO used to do: develop talent! What talent has BC and Cozgroovy developed? Coz was handed some pretty good talent when he landed here that are now playing in the NFL, but yet he found a way to do absolutely nothing with them!

 

Since you want to talk talent and such, lets look strictly at NU. How many top 20 recruiting classes did TO have? Yet, he typically always finished in the top 20. BC has had how many top 20 recruiting classes? Yet, he's never finished in the top 20. This kind of lets the air out of your talent balloon. In year 4, the talent excuse is very "long in the tooth". If we're going to continue using excuses for poor execution and play, lets find a new one please.

[NU fan in Denver]

Junior....your points are well taken....coaching does matter...... read more carefully next time.... I want you to point out exactly where in my post that I stated "coaching doesn't matter"......so don't you "dare" rant on my post and "paraphrase"....

 

coaching does matter, and if you actually read the post for what it was worth, I think that I made many references to coaching....

 

Yes, by the way.... I began my football coaching career approx. 20 miles from Cambridge...... very well aware....did you realize that not long after the winning streak you mentioned, they moved UP a classification and played bigger schools ? May have had something to do with the streak ending..and the fact that they graduated a guy named Ed Thompson (3 -4 yr. all-state QB who went on to star at UNO)...so yes, once again....Cambridge had TALENT

 

Furthermore, all of your references, especially in "small" towns are about High Schools.....anyone, who knows anything about "small town USA realizes that kids come and go in "cycles"........ not so much at larger HS, but in smaller schools....definately....

 

Personal example...... I have had many winnning seasons (only 2 losing seasons in 15 years).... two years ago was a 2-7 team...worst record I have had.... I had to start 7 1st year starters and sophomores and juniors.....we struggled..... parents pissed, not unlike many fans on this board.... the following year, SAME KIDS, SAME STARTING LINE UP....... and yes, maybe to someone's surprise SAME COACHES, PHILOSOPHY, AND PLAY CALLING and we went 8-1 and was feature in OWH...... Low and behold, I was the SAME coach as I was the previous year, just kids grew up, got more experience, and we made plays.

 

and your "Track" comparison...doesn't always work that way..... I also coach track and have had many State medalists, including state champions..... had a kid that weight 180 pounds of pure muscle, ran a 48.9 400 meter dash (small school state champ), not worth a penny on the football field.....hand-eye coordination not there and not much for contact..... Track builds speed and fast twitch muscle fibers that help in football, but foot-speed doesn't always guarantee success in football.

 

and as far as the coach who left (successful) and then returned (successful)...and while he was gone the team struggled.... once again , "cycles"...hell, if I left at the end of this year, I would have a "very successful" run.... and if I look into the jr. high and upper elementary... I see a few "lean" years ahead as far as numbers and just plain athleticism.... then I could avoid the "potential" lean years, and possibly let someone else "struggle" and then re-apply when the talent leve rose again.... then when I came back, we would "win again" and everyone would say that I was the reason...... I guess that I am too humble to accept ALL the credit for wins...... KIDS WIN GAMES......

 

coaching is EXTREMEMLY IMPORTANT.... if I didn't think so , I would change professions....just realize that TALENT dictates what a coach can do at MANY LEVELS...

 

 

Considering Cambridge has been C2 for as long as I can remember, I think maybe you should get your facts straight. 15 years ago, they were C2. Today, they are C2. Give me the years they moved to C1. My brother-in-law played for Cambridge and lost just 1 game to Sutherland in all 4 years of his playing. He never once was in high school when Ed was still there. They were winning championships long after Ed was gone!

 

Now, if you want to use a school to support your "talent" argument maybe you should use a different school such as Grant. In the late 80's and early 90's, they were stomping everyone. They graduated the Terwilligers and other big talents only to fall from grace with the same coach. This would be more supportive to your argument than Cambridge. However, I will add that even though Grant didn't have much talent they were still pretty competitve.

 

Look at what McCook has accomplished in the last 5 years. Are you really going to tell me that they were just struck with the talent bug? Give me a break. They've always had the athletes. However, they haven't always had the coaches. It's kind of funny about McCook. Their D coordinator used to coach in Cambridge. They've always had the athletes just not the coach to get them where they are today until a while back!

 

When I was in college, I took football coaching. The teacher was a coach from Omaha by the name of Gene Suhr. Prior to his hiring, the school had many losing records. He turned it all around and won a few state championships. Do you seriously think that talent was the reason for this? I'm pretty sure it didn't start raining talent just over his field! Talent only gets you so far in a team organized sport. It's coaching that gets you to the next level. Think about this: If talent is what it takes to win, then why don't the Yankees win the World Series every year? If talent is what it takes to win, then why has the U.S. Men's Basketball team been stinking it up? Look at NU's volleyball team. Houghtelling was national player of the year 2 years ago. Do you know how many D1 teams offered her a scholly? Just 1. She is very talented, but she was a developed talent. This is what TO used to do: develop talent! What talent has BC and Cozgroovy developed? Coz was handed some pretty good talent when he landed here that are now playing in the NFL, but yet he found a way to do absolutely nothing with them!

 

Since you want to talk talent and such, lets look strictly at NU. How many top 20 recruiting classes did TO have? Yet, he typically always finished in the top 20. BC has had how many top 20 recruiting classes? Yet, he's never finished in the top 20. This kind of lets the air out of your talent balloon. In year 4, the talent excuse is very "long in the tooth". If we're going to continue using excuses for poor execution and play, lets find a new one please.

 

 

I'll agree with you assessment of developing talent. TO seemed to be very good at this. Look at all the in state walk-ons he turned into solid or exceptional players. Very few of these players blossomed overnight. They redshirted, hit the weight room and by year 4 or 5 were regular contributors or starters.

[HANC]

I am not going to argue with you about how important coaching is......my goodness, it is the backbone of organized sports.... Please read my posts without trying to make it into something it's not......

 

I have said that Coz has been out-coached numerous times......my ONLY POINT that I was trying to make is that if people are using the USC game as a guideline, DON'T......

 

I don't care how "long in the tooth" the talent talk gets, you can't honestly tell me that NU is at the talent level as USC..... no comparison at all.....

 

Earlier, I said that if Coz and BC continue to show the same pattern as we enter the Big 12, I will totally agree with the entire arguement...... I refuse to use this past weekend as a viable comparison....

 

I too took the class with Coach Suhr, and respect him tremendously..... I can dig up my notes if you would like, and I promise you that Coach Suhr mentioned many times about "having the horses helps too"......

 

I just don't like the HS comparison to DI as far as developing players... in HS, everyone is "raw" as far as talent is concerned.....kids can develop by leaps and bounds during their 4 yrs of HS and yes, great coaches get kids to do this....

 

We both can give examples until we are blue in the face to support our own opinion, but that would be senseless....A lot of HS in Nebraska and Iowa are "football factories" small and large schools, and yes, that is the result of having a great coach who motivates and builds depth throughout the entire school (elem. and up).....that is what we are attempting to do here..... but , in more cases than not, teams come and go with the "talent" factor ..........

 

I am done with the examples....and with "debating" this with you.... You make very valid points, and I respect that...... I just wanted to state that the talent level on the field this past weekend had a lot to do with the outcome..... If we suck it up vs Ball State, I will be in the same boat as you.....

[junior4949]

Here's my problem with all of this. Motivation has been cussed and discussed now for 4 years. One of the reasons BC's road record is well not good is because we've lacked motivation on the road. Now, we lacked motivation at home. USC didn't just start recruiting talent. They had just as much talent last year, yet they still lost some games. USC is not unbeatable, but we sure made them look unbeatable last Saturday. Let's face it, they ran a very vanilla offense for USC because they didn't have to show anything. They simply lined up and ran completely over top of us offensively and defensively. Do I think their freshman center is more talented than Suh? I sure as hell hope not at this juncture in his career. It's not like they pulled some magic plays out of their hat. Booty rarely ever even threw the ball. They dominated us worse than they did Idaho, and I sure as hell hope we have more talent than Idaho has.

 

Everyone jumps on the talent bandwagon saying Stoops won a NC in his second year at OU because of the talent he had with Blakes recruits. I don't necessarily agree, but let's say that this is accurate. Blake couldn't even post a winning record with those same players. Piss poor coach right? So, we go and hire him to be on our staff? It kind of makes me wonder about BC's ability to evaluate talent. Coz was basically asked to leave or be fired by Alvarez, so we hire him as our D coordinator? IMO, the staff is comprised of people who are great recruiters but have been poor coaches. I think we're now reaping the rewards of this. Do I think USC has more depth and talent? Yes. Do I think they have more depth and talent than Oregon State last year? Yes. However, Oregon State won their game. For all practical purposes, USC didn't even come close to playing the perfect game against us. They fumbled the ball 5 times which is not very characteristic of them. Most teams that fumble 5 times don't even win the game much less kick the ever living sh#t out of their opponent.

 

I'm getting extremely sick and tired of people talking about how great the recruiting is, but then jump on the no talent bandwagon when we get our asses handed to us. It can't be both ways. Either we're not recruiting talent, or we have enough talent but are still losing with it.

[EbylHusker]

I'm getting extremely sick and tired of people talking about how great the recruiting is, but then jump on the no talent bandwagon when we get our asses handed to us. It can't be both ways. Either we're not recruiting talent, or we have enough talent but are still losing with it.

 

Actually, it can be both ways if you think about it.

 

We are getting good recruits considering we just overhauled our entire offense. You can't expect to bring in a new coach, change the entire offense (including the types of players you need to recruit), and start getting large numbers of the best of the best right from the start. It takes time to establish that kind of recruiting, and Callahan's recruiting classes have consistently gotten better and better.

 

We still are not at the point of getting large numbers of the best of the best, though. We don't have the kind of talent USC has.

 

And that's why it can be both ways. We are consistently recruiting better and better players, but we're not at the recruiting level of most top teams yet. It takes time to get there, but I don't see any reason why we won't over the course of the next few years.

[strigori]

There are only a handful of teams that can match up with USC with pure talent right now. You can count them on one hand. LSU, Florida, Oklahoma. Most years Texas would be on this list also, though inexperiance on the lines is showing this year. What do al lthese teams have in common? top 5 classes year in and year out. We are not at that place right now.

[junior4949]

I'm getting extremely sick and tired of people talking about how great the recruiting is, but then jump on the no talent bandwagon when we get our asses handed to us. It can't be both ways. Either we're not recruiting talent, or we have enough talent but are still losing with it.

 

Actually, it can be both ways if you think about it.

 

We are getting good recruits considering we just overhauled our entire offense. You can't expect to bring in a new coach, change the entire offense (including the types of players you need to recruit), and start getting large numbers of the best of the best right from the start. It takes time to establish that kind of recruiting, and Callahan's recruiting classes have consistently gotten better and better.

 

We still are not at the point of getting large numbers of the best of the best, though. We don't have the kind of talent USC has.

 

And that's why it can be both ways. We are consistently recruiting better and better players, but we're not at the recruiting level of most top teams yet. It takes time to get there, but I don't see any reason why we won't over the course of the next few years.

 

Umm, wasn't his highest ranking class the one with Beck and Lucky in it? They're juniors now. I guess I'm not seeing his recruiting classes getting better and better. The 2005 class ranked #5. The 2006 class ranked #20. The 2007 class ranked #13. We're consistently recruiting better players? Rivals must not think so or else a lot of other schools are recruiting even better. The 2005 class had I believe 4 top 100 players in it. However, 50% or 1/2 of them are now playing at other schools.

 

Here's something else to chew on. Florida State, Tennessee, and Georgia have finished no lower than top ten 3 out of the last 4 years. How are these teams doing in the polls? Not one of them is in the top 25! West Virginia is number 5, yet they have only one recruiting class ranked in the top 25 over the last 4 years (2007 #23). Wisconsin is ranked #7 and don't have any recruiting classes ranked in the top 25 over the last 4 years. Rutgers at #11, no top 25 recruiting classes.

 

Using the criteria some of you want to us, Tennessee and Florida State should both be definitely in the top 10 and probably in the top 5 using recruiting as your basis. Last year, a Louisville team beat OU in a BCS bowl game and finished ranked very high despite not having a top 25 recruiting class over the last 4 years. NU has ranked higher in recruiting than probably 90+% of any other time period, yet we are continually ranked lower in the polls that really matter.

 

Coker at Miami was supposedly fired because he wasn't bringing in talent. However, in the past 4 years his recruiting class ranked every year in the top 20 with the senior class this year ranked in the top 5. Watching the game last night against A&M, it was painfully obvious that Miami is not lacking for talent. They definitely have some bigtime playmakers on that squad. They manhandled A&M.

 

Great coaches bring in great recruits, but they don't stop there. They take that great talent and then they refine it into a great product. Carroll at USC does this. Stoops at OU does this. Miles at LSU does this. Richt at Georgia has not done a great job of this. Fulmer recently at Tennessee has not done this. Bobby Bowden has not done this.

 

If you take BC's most heralded class of 05', let's see how well he's refined it. Lucky, well I think the jury is still out there. I think he's an adequate RB, but there are some that are questioning him. Leon Jackson, he's playing for Hawaii now. Phillip Dillard, who? Suh, has been made a bitch this year. Beck, playing for NC State. These were top 100 players out of high school. I guess the refining process is still a work in progress? A guy that bench presses 500 pounds should not be any OL's bitch, but he is.

[newenglandhusker]

In all fairness, Dillard should be playing. He played much better against USC than the other linebackers with the exception of maybe Octavien.