Something that's been bugging me . . .

[HuskerJen]

Lilred, you are right, you need to recruit the best players to win year in and year out. I think what people tend to forget is that lots of players dont make it, they bust out or are just marginal in the end.

 

BC seemed to have an amazing talent for finding guys that were rated high that ended up being busts or mariginal................

 

Recruiting + evaluating + good coaching + good game planning + adjustments = winning

 

fixed it for ya

 

Fixed it for the fixer...

[huskerswrkhavoc]

Lilred, you are right, you need to recruit the best players to win year in and year out. I think what people tend to forget is that lots of players dont make it, they bust out or are just marginal in the end.

 

BC seemed to have an amazing talent for finding guys that were rated high that ended up being busts or mariginal................

 

Recruiting + evaluating + good coaching + good game planning + adjustments = winning

 

fixed it for ya

 

Fixed it for the fixer...

 

 

one would assume that game planning and adjustments are part of coaching.....

[huskers1]

ray223 you pretty much said what I said. Recruiting and coaching are two different animals. Callahan could recruit, I don't think there is any denying that. He just couldn't develop them at all which is why you saw a lot of highly ranked guys not do much when they were here. It was almost like they were still high school stars going against college stars. I still do think that Pelini and the staff can recruit they may have just thought they had a little more time than they did. Someone else mentioned that if we could combine Pelinis coaching with Callahans recruiting we would have the perfect coach and I agree.

[BiggerRed]

Lilred, you are right, you need to recruit the best players to win year in and year out. I think what people tend to forget is that lots of players dont make it, they bust out or are just marginal in the end.

 

BC seemed to have an amazing talent for finding guys that were rated high that ended up being busts or mariginal................

 

Recruiting + evaluating + good coaching + good game planning + adjustments = winning

 

fixed it for ya

 

Fixed it for the fixer...

 

 

one would assume that game planning and adjustments are part of coaching.....

 

I would also assume that evaluating would be part of recruiting. IMO, the three keys to a successful team are:

 

1. Player development

2. Coaching

3. Recruiting

 

The best teams are at least at the highest level in 2 out of the 3 and still perform very well in the third. For example, I would say that Texas is great in player development and recruiting, but merely good to very good in coaching. I would say that Nebraska's teams under Osborne were great in player development and coaching, but good to very good in recruiting. Of course, Florida is great in all 3.

 

I don't know for sure how I would rate Pelini in the 3 phases so far. For one, he's only had one season. For two, his first class hasn't had a chance to make some noise on the field yet. My initial impressions are that he is very good in both player development and coaching and good in recruiting. But like I said, the verdict is still out and likely will be for the next few years.

[BiggerRed]

it has been proven over and over and over again...the top recruiting teams field the top records in wins and losses...sure there are exceptions occasionally, but year in, year out, you have to recruit well to win games and excell.....you can't make steak out of chicken fat!

 

Would I like us to have top 5 classes every year? Absolutely. Do I think it's going to happen? No. Why do you think people point out teams like Virginia Tech or the last OU national championship team (average class rating of 26th)? To retain hope, to find ways that it can be done without recruiting like Florida, USC, Texas, or Ohio State. It seems like the star-gazers just complain about our recruiting. I don't know if they've given up hope of the Huskers returning to a national power, think that we will just start recruiting consistent top 10 classes (never has happened, probably never will - 94, 95, and 97 five year class averages were around 17th if I remember correctly), or what.

[huskers1]

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that to be competitive every year you need to have very good recruiting every year. By very good I mean top 15 in the final rankings. We had top 15 classes almost every year when we were winning NC's and we combined that with excellent work ethic, coaching and leadership. Yes Va Tech is a good program but when's the last time they were in a NC? 99'? Hell we were in one more recently than they have. I wouldn't say I'm a star gazer, but I absolutely think that rankings overall matter. If we consistently have classes ranked 30th or lower we will not compete for NC's anytime soon.

[BiggerRed]

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that to be competitive every year you need to have very good recruiting every year. By very good I mean top 15 in the final rankings. We had top 15 classes almost every year when we were winning NC's and we combined that with excellent work ethic, coaching and leadership. Yes Va Tech is a good program but when's the last time they were in a NC? 99'? Hell we were in one more recently than they have. I wouldn't say I'm a star gazer, but I absolutely think that rankings overall matter. If we consistently have classes ranked 30th or lower we will not compete for NC's anytime soon.

 

So we are talking about contending for a national championship? Isn't that a little premature? It took Osborne a decade to seriously contend for a NC, and that is after taking over a squad that had just won one. Pelini is only going into his 2nd year and in his first year took over arguably the worst team in modern Husker history. Our recruiting rankings from 1990-1997 were 10th, 28th, 14th, 18th, 20th, 8th, 6th, and 19th. So we only had top 15 classes half of the years that made up our national championship runs.

 

I don't think we are going to bring in consistent top 15 classes. I have doubts that we will bring in consistent top 20 classes. So either I can hope that we can find a way to win with the talent that we have on hand, or I give up hope. I prefer the first option. Obviously, you think that we can bring in top 15 classes. Perhaps you are right and I certainly hope so, but I think this staff's strengths are player evaluation, development, and coaching - not luring the best talent to Lincoln. Will they grow and improve as recruiters? I think so and I expect us to be in the 20-30 range most years, sometimes lower (this year), sometimes higher (next year if the cards fall in place).

 

Also, you are a star gazer. Admitting this is the first step towards recovery.

[robsker]

I have read numerous posts where someone labels Callahan as a good recruiter but a poor coach and I've also seen other posts which mention how Solich's downfall was recruiting. Looking at the classes, I really don't understand this line of thinking.

 

The NFL doesn't just take good players from winning teams. They take whoever they think can help them. From Solich's final three classes, Nebraska had 11 NFL draft picks, 8 of these in the first 4 rounds. Heck, from the 2002 class alone we had 3 go in the first 4 rounds. In all of Callahan's classes, 3 players have been drafted, 1 in the 1st 4 rounds.

 

In Callahan's 2005 class, 28% of the class had listed offers from big-time programs (Florida, Tennessee, Oklahoma, etc.). In 2003, 32% of Solich's class had listed offers from these same big-time programs.

 

In all of Callahan's classes, 8 players have received at least 2nd team all-conference recognition. Solich's 2002 class had 7 by itself. Perhaps most telling, Callahan was able to win while he still had a good chunk of players from Solich's classes.

 

So if Callahan's players haven't proven anything, how do we know that he recruited well? As I have shown, it's not the other offers. It's not conference awards. It's not NFL draft picks. What does that leave, the stars? The measurables? If the only real evidence of Callahan's superior recruiting over Solich is the ranking we receive by the recruiting services or the 40 time that they list, is that really proof? Perhaps in the coming years, players from the 2006-2007 classes will really emerge. I hope so. Until then, can we at least hold off on freaking out because we aren't recruiting like Callahan. That may not be such a bad thing.

 

Conclusion.... Callahan was not a good recruiter. Simple enough.

[robsker]

it has been proven over and over and over again...the top recruiting teams field the top records in wins and losses...sure there are exceptions occasionally, but year in, year out, you have to recruit well to win games and excell.....you can't make steak out of chicken fat!

 

 

Hunter ---- you and I are cut from the same cloth. Once more I agree 100%.

 

NU does not have the athletes. Listen to Bo's comments. he is subtly saying the same thing. What does "I love the heart and effort but we are galaxies away from where I want to be mean?" It means that the kids are doing their best but their best is still well off from what the coaches want. Thus, if their best is that far off, then it is reasonable to say that these kids are at or nearing max performance based upon what they can physically accomplish. they simply are physically limited.

 

We have had some good players. just not enough. Nowhere near the talent that NU has had in the past. We have not had solid recruiting for the better part of 12 years now.

[caveman99]

it has been proven over and over and over again...the top recruiting teams field the top records in wins and losses...sure there are exceptions occasionally, but year in, year out, you have to recruit well to win games and excell.....you can't make steak out of chicken fat!

 

 

Hunter ---- you and I are cut from the same cloth. Once more I agree 100%.

 

NU does not have the athletes. Listen to Bo's comments. he is subtly saying the same thing. What does "I love the heart and effort but we are galaxies away from where I want to be mean?" It means that the kids are doing their best but their best is still well off from what the coaches want. Thus, if their best is that far off, then it is reasonable to say that these kids are at or nearing max performance based upon what they can physically accomplish. they simply are physically limited.

 

We have had some good players. just not enough. Nowhere near the talent that NU has had in the past. We have not had solid recruiting for the better part of 12 years now.

Well every time you hear Bo say that, he also follows it up with what the main problem is and Bo always says it is mental lapses. He has said it over and over and over again how the team was its own worst enemy last season. His comments about practices this Fall thus far are that he likes the effort but the team is still making too many mistakes, too many mental errors. How is that an indication of the talent level of this team? If you can find me a quote where he says that the issues aren't mental in nature but rather a result of a low level of talent I would be surprised. He got 9 wins last season and this season's team looks to be much more athletically talented across the board, it stands to reason that he could and maybe should get 1-2 more wins this year. Would 10 wins be a sign of a talent depleted team?

[huskers1]

I mentioned NC's bc you said "why do you think people mention va tech or the 99' ou team?" and I was saying ya they are above average every year but look where above average has gotten a lot of coaches at high profile schools. i believe it was trev alberts who said "NU always has and always will be about winning championships, anything less is just plain unacceptable". all I was saying is va tech is a good program but I don't think they are what we should strive to be as a program, ou on the other hand would be something to shoot for. I guess you could say I am a star gazer OVERALL, which means i understand there are plenty of great athletes that will be lower ranked.

[Hunter94]

"His comments about practices this Fall thus far are that he likes the effort but the team is still making too many mistakes, too many mental errors. How is that an indication of the talent level of this team? If you can find me a quote where he says that the issues aren't mental in nature but rather a result of a low level of talent I would be surprised. "

 

he's not going to run down the quality/ability of his players, that would be like saying, "no matter how well coached these kids are, physically they can't compete"......he will focus instead on mistake free football, which can compensate, to some degree, for lack of real talent.

 

putting a kid in the right place, more often than not, to make a play is even more important when the talent/ability to recover from being out of position is not there. that is what he has to work with, making the kids as technically sound as possible, along with effort and mental toughness.

[RockyMountainOySker]

it has been proven over and over and over again...the top recruiting teams field the top records in wins and losses...sure there are exceptions occasionally, but year in, year out, you have to recruit well to win games and excell.....you can't make steak out of chicken fat!

 

 

Hunter ---- you and I are cut from the same cloth. Once more I agree 100%.

 

NU does not have the athletes. Listen to Bo's comments. he is subtly saying the same thing. What does "I love the heart and effort but we are galaxies away from where I want to be mean?" It means that the kids are doing their best but their best is still well off from what the coaches want. Thus, if their best is that far off, then it is reasonable to say that these kids are at or nearing max performance based upon what they can physically accomplish. they simply are physically limited.

 

We have had some good players. just not enough. Nowhere near the talent that NU has had in the past. We have not had solid recruiting for the better part of 12 years now.

Well every time you hear Bo say that, he also follows it up with what the main problem is and Bo always says it is mental lapses. He has said it over and over and over again how the team was its own worst enemy last season. His comments about practices this Fall thus far are that he likes the effort but the team is still making too many mistakes, too many mental errors. How is that an indication of the talent level of this team? If you can find me a quote where he says that the issues aren't mental in nature but rather a result of a low level of talent I would be surprised. He got 9 wins last season and this season's team looks to be much more athletically talented across the board, it stands to reason that he could and maybe should get 1-2 more wins this year. Would 10 wins be a sign of a talent depleted team?

 

 

Guys, come on.....when's the last time you ever heard a coach giving praise to players before the season starts. good coaches don't do that sort of thing....you have to earn it through the season. look at how pelini kept the blackshirts for so long last year. i bet he does it again.

 

everything is going to be alright. i personally have loved pelini's two classes so far. he gets good coach-able talent.

[HuskerJen]

I don't know why it's so hard for people to accept that to be competitive every year you need to have very good recruiting every year. By very good I mean top 15 in the final rankings. We had top 15 classes almost every year when we were winning NC's and we combined that with excellent work ethic, coaching and leadership. Yes Va Tech is a good program but when's the last time they were in a NC? 99'? Hell we were in one more recently than they have. I wouldn't say I'm a star gazer, but I absolutely think that rankings overall matter. If we consistently have classes ranked 30th or lower we will not compete for NC's anytime soon.

 

Now don't take this personally, but I think you are wrong and here's why:

 

1) recruiting is an inexact science to say the least,

 

2) most recruiting "experts" say the difference between the #1 and the #10 class perception,

 

(And if you can't tell the difference between 1st and 10th just how reliable are the rankings overall?)

 

3) if you think Tom Osborne's recruiting classes were consistently in the top 15 then you are revising history-in a good way,

 

(Tom Osborne's classes were typically rated 20th or lower. Now there were years, 1986 [Maybe it was '87] and 1996 where the Huskers had the #1, or at least top 5, rated class and there were other years where Nebraska was in the top 15. But overall, TO's classes were ranked 20th or lower.)

 

Let's say there are two RB's:

 

* One is from Omaha, 6'0" 195 lbs and runs a verified 4.49 40 and is rated 3 's.

* One is from Florida, 6'0" 203 lbs and runs a verified 4.49 40 and is rated 5 's.

 

Let's assume that all other attributes: Bench, squat, 10 yard dash, shuttle, cone, vertical, etc are the same. Furthermore, let's also assume the differences between them regarding speed, vision, agility, blocking, catching, etc are negligible.

 

Of the two RB's, which one is better? Is the five star from Florida really better than the three star from Omaha just because some recruiting "expert" says so?

 

Let's take an actual case study:

 

Marlon Lucky was 5 's coming out of high school.

Roy Helu was 3 's coming out of high school.

 

Of the two, which, in your opinion, is the better running back?

 

(Please note I'm not Lucky bashing here because I love the kid and thought he gave everything he possibly could.)

[Hunter94]

one only has to look at the top 10 recruiting classes and how those teams finished in the rankings at the end of the season (over time), it doesn't get any simpler than that. if you think being consistent in wins and BCS appearances isn't influenced primarily by recruiting success you are truly delusional! there IS a direct correlation!