Something to ponder

[Huskerfan55]

The answer not many! Its about development of players! I am tired of the doomssayeys already! Get a life and have a wonderful Christmas season!

[DJR313]

The answer not many! Its about development of players! I am tired of the doomssayeys already! Get a life and have a wonderful Christmas season!

 

Wrong. The answer is that recruiting rankings were not as prevalent back then. The 1984 class that brought Sandman, Neil Smith and Steve Taylor was heralded as #1 in the nation according to a Husker book I read(as reported by a national publication). The class that brought in Turner Gill was also very highly ranked. Between 1991-1998, according to SI recruiting database, the worst ranking during those years was around 12th with 4 years rated in the top 5. Don't kid yourself, recruiting was real good back then. It's not the only thing, but we had stud classes. I remember Osborne being asked why all of a sudden Nebraska was SO dominant and he replied, "well, we have better players now."

[BIGREDFAN_in_OMAHA]

The answer not many! Its about development of players! I am tired of the doomssayeys already! Get a life and have a wonderful Christmas season!

 

Wrong. The answer is that recruiting rankings were not as prevalent back then. The 1984 class that brought Sandman, Neil Smith and Steve Taylor was heralded as #1 in the nation according to a Husker book I read(as reported by a national publication). The class that brought in Turner Gill was also very highly ranked. Between 1991-1998, according to SI recruiting database, the worst ranking during those years was around 12th with 4 years rated in the top 5. Don't kid yourself, recruiting was real good back then. It's not the only thing, but we had stud classes. I remember Osborne being asked why all of a sudden Nebraska was SO dominant and he replied, "well, we have better players now."

Yeah, I've posted before that the 1996 class had 6 of the top 100 in the nation in it. Coming off two championships you're gonna get some cream.

[DaveH]

The answer not many! Its about development of players! I am tired of the doomssayeys already! Get a life and have a wonderful Christmas season!

 

Wrong. The answer is that recruiting rankings were not as prevalent back then. The 1984 class that brought Sandman, Neil Smith and Steve Taylor was heralded as #1 in the nation according to a Husker book I read(as reported by a national publication). The class that brought in Turner Gill was also very highly ranked. Between 1991-1998, according to SI recruiting database, the worst ranking during those years was around 12th with 4 years rated in the top 5. Don't kid yourself, recruiting was real good back then. It's not the only thing, but we had stud classes. I remember Osborne being asked why all of a sudden Nebraska was SO dominant and he replied, "well, we have better players now."

Preach on, brother man.

 

Tom typically had good classes. Anyone thinking otherwise is simply ignorant to facts.

 

As much as they'd like to believe, NU was not successful with guys who after practice was done went home and slopped the pigs.

[robsker]

The answer not many! Its about development of players! I am tired of the doomssayeys already! Get a life and have a wonderful Christmas season!

 

It depends upon when you measure the class. If you measure in the senior year of college for the class and view the % who made it into the NFL from that class, then TO had many top 10 recruiting classes. If you measure beforehand --- that is, before the kids get on to campus at all --- like these ridiculous Scout and Rivals "pre-predictions" that we are so enamored of --- well, for the overwhelming majority of the TO years no such pre-predictions existed.

 

The point is, however, this --- do not think for a moment that TO did not have talent on his teams. He really did (some times good, other times great). Make no mistake, the Huskers were often grand over-achievers under To who consistently coached them up and that too is a factor. But the TO teams, especially of the 1990'2 had enormous talent --- and were well coached. The proof of talent is how many played on Sundays.

 

As for Callahan who had really great "pre-prediction" recruiting classes, lets see how many that he recruited end up in the NFL. I think that that number will be quite low. I think that the recruiting classes of Callahan were way over rated.

 

The perception that TO won with little talent is not accurate. He won with good to great talent and always had that talent playing at their peak (or, at least usually did). The perception that Callahan lost with great talent is also not accurate. He did lose yes. But the talent was not that good (and still is not that good), and he coached them down and did not get much out of them.

 

For Bo, if he coaches this team up and really gets all that is there out of the talent, then NU can be solid --- but will not be nearly as good as some think is possible. There are many, many, many more talented teams out there and at least a handful (roughly) are in our conference.

[Spartness]

You can get really talented players who under the radar screen. Players who are big, fast and strong. For example, you can recruit in less populated areas like Western Texas. Or you can recruit raw talent -- players who have all the speed and strength but have not developed much. The talent is there, such as in rural schools, in Class C Divisions, etc. The difference is they are harder to find but easier to recruit. I don't know about this year, but I suspect that Pelini will mix it up with high profile types and diamonds in the rough and have top 25 classes. We've done it before and we can do it again.

 

Have a great Holiday folks.

[Blackshirtsguru]

You can get really talented players who under the radar screen. Players who are big, fast and strong. For example, you can recruit in less populated areas like Western Texas. Or you can recruit raw talent -- players who have all the speed and strength but have not developed much. The talent is there, such as in rural schools, in Class C Divisions, etc. The difference is they are harder to find but easier to recruit. I don't know about this year, but I suspect that Pelini will mix it up with high profile types and diamonds in the rough and have top 25 classes. We've done it before and we can do it again.

 

Have a great Holiday folks.

 

 

There are TON of undiscovered kids out here in West Texas! I go to a HS game each week to watch San Angelo Central or San Angelo Lakeview. I have seen some pretty amazing talent watching these kids play! There is a gold mine of talent out here! These teams out here run everything from the Spread to the Triple Option.

 

Hmmm I wonder if Bo could hire me as a West Texas scout!

[Bleeding Husker Red]

You can get really talented players who under the radar screen. Players who are big, fast and strong. For example, you can recruit in less populated areas like Western Texas. Or you can recruit raw talent -- players who have all the speed and strength but have not developed much. The talent is there, such as in rural schools, in Class C Divisions, etc. The difference is they are harder to find but easier to recruit. I don't know about this year, but I suspect that Pelini will mix it up with high profile types and diamonds in the rough and have top 25 classes. We've done it before and we can do it again.

 

Have a great Holiday folks.

 

 

There are TON of undiscovered kids out here in West Texas! I go to a HS game each week to watch San Angelo Central or San Angelo Lakeview. I have seen some pretty amazing talent watching these kids play is amazing! There is a gold mine of talent out here! These teams out here run everything from the Spread to the Triple Option.

 

Hmmm I wonder if Bo could hire me as a West Texas scout!

 

Send in your resume and tell him about it. You never know what might happen.

[T_O_Bull]

The answer not many! Its about development of players! I am tired of the doomssayeys already! Get a life and have a wonderful Christmas season!

 

Wrong. The answer is that recruiting rankings were not as prevalent back then. The 1984 class that brought Sandman, Neil Smith and Steve Taylor was heralded as #1 in the nation according to a Husker book I read(as reported by a national publication). The class that brought in Turner Gill was also very highly ranked. Between 1991-1998, according to SI recruiting database, the worst ranking during those years was around 12th with 4 years rated in the top 5. Don't kid yourself, recruiting was real good back then. It's not the only thing, but we had stud classes. I remember Osborne being asked why all of a sudden Nebraska was SO dominant and he replied, "well, we have better players now."

Preach on, brother man.

 

Tom typically had good classes. Anyone thinking otherwise is simply ignorant to facts.

 

As much as they'd like to believe, NU was not successful with guys who after practice was done went home and slopped the pigs.

 

The walk on program brought in a lot of guys who contributed. They may not have "slopped the pigs" but they did play football. Don't discount this as being a factor in TO's success.

 

>>>T_O_B

 

[DaveH]

 

Preach on, brother man.

 

Tom typically had good classes. Anyone thinking otherwise is simply ignorant to facts.

 

As much as they'd like to believe, NU was not successful with guys who after practice was done went home and slopped the pigs.

 

 

The walk on program brought in a lot of guys who contributed. They may not have "slopped the pigs" but they did play football. Don't discount this as being a factor in TO's success.

 

>>>T_O_B

 

 

I don't. The point of my reply was that people are seemingly OK with losing high talent guys and discounting that crucial part of the program. My point is that no, we can't be OK with that. I will say that the walk-on program was a key to success, but we even had good walk-ons during the 90's. That doesn't happen all the time especially now when you got teams like UNO and UNK playing well. College still costs money and many kids would opt for a scholarship than having to pay their own way and possibly maybe someday in the future get a scholarship.

 

The bottom line is you need good players. No matter if they are scholarship or walk-on.

[Hunter94]

i don't think the walk on program will ever be as big as it once was in the past. things have changed, better scouting, more interest by kids in getting a known scholarship and more parity in college football.

 

sure it is important to preserve something that has paid big benes in the past, but we have to continue to pursue high quality players all over the country to get back to a competitive situation.

 

no matter what Bo sez, it is going to take some time rebuild this team.

[Huskerfan55]

In the 25 years or so Osbourn was hear, how many top ten recruiting classes did he have? I did not say he did not have talent. I am saying Rivals and all the othe recruiting services are over rated. Player development and motivation is more important in my mind then a 5 star kid.

 

I heard TO say once he went to visit a kid who had no stars and when he offered him a scholarship rivals made him a 4 star! Whats that say about this system?

[Huskerfan55]

The five years prior to winning it all in '94: 20, 18, 14, 28, 10

 

That's an average class of #18.

 

FYI, the 1995 five average was also #18.

 

You don't need the best talent to win NCs. You can do so with good talent and great coaching.

 

 

Got this off another boards are thes true stats? If so you guys better rethink what your saying maybe development and coaching does alot!

[DJR313]

The five years prior to winning it all in '94: 20, 18, 14, 28, 10

 

That's an average class of #18.

 

FYI, the 1995 five average was also #18.

 

You don't need the best talent to win NCs. You can do so with good talent and great coaching.

 

 

Got this off another boards are thes true stats? If so you guys better rethink what your saying maybe development and coaching does alot!

 

If the search function on this board was operating properly, I would show where I researched this a long time ago and it showed between 91-98 that the lowest class was about 12th, with 4 in the top 5. It was on sports illustrated's site(si.com). I would dig it up, but I do not have the time right now. No one said coaching and development wasn't important. It doesn't hurt to start with a great corp of talent.

[DaveH]

Got this off another boards are thes true stats? If so you guys better rethink what your saying maybe development and coaching does alot!

No one is saying it doesn't. What we are saying is that when you polish a turd, it's still a turd.

 

YOU NEED GOOD ATHLETES. THERE ARE NO TWO WAYS ABOUT IT. No one understands this more than "Osbourn" himself.