Great Article on the 2005 recruiting class

[EZ-E]

http://www.omaha.com/article/20091223/BIGR...39831/-1/bigred

 

Very well written article.

[NoLongerN]

http://www.omaha.com/article/20091223/BIGR...39831/-1/bigred

 

Very well written article.

 

Nice Christmas morning read before presents. Thanks EZ-E!

 

SheepdogMark

[dylan]

http://www.omaha.com/article/20091223/BIGR...39831/-1/bigred

 

Very well written article.

 

good article overall, but i have a couple of objections:

 

TO and solich did not downplay recruiting, they downplayed recruiting hype, as they should.

 

getting 10 out of 31 recruits to start a game hardly makes a class an "overwhelming success", as crabtree (the carney barker) claimed. someone has to start games...it doesn't mean they're good. and that's about the average number of quality players from most classes anyway.

 

i also think dirk could have pointed out a little more explicitly that this class was doomed to be an unqualified failure until some of it's few remaining players got real coaching. dillard was a bust and suh sure looked like one as well in 2007. without the dramatic turnarounds under this staff, the 2005 class is the banner for the failure of recruiting hype (and poor coaching).

[EZ-E]

http://www.omaha.com/article/20091223/BIGR...39831/-1/bigred

 

Very well written article.

 

good article overall, but i have a couple of objections:

 

TO and solich did not downplay recruiting, they downplayed recruiting hype, as they should.

 

getting 10 out of 31 recruits to start a game hardly makes a class an "overwhelming success", as crabtree (the carney barker) claimed. someone has to start games...it doesn't mean they're good. and that's about the average number of quality players from most classes anyway.

 

i also think dirk could have pointed out a little more explicitly that this class was doomed to be an unqualified failure until some of it's few remaining players got real coaching. dillard was a bust and suh sure looked like one as well in 2007. without the dramatic turnarounds under this staff, the 2005 class is the banner for the failure of recruiting hype (and poor coaching).

 

I think that is what the article was saying. At least that is what I took from it.

 

I had thought myself about how the 2005 class could be the class that bridged the gap between coaching staffs. I dont think I am wrong in saying that without guys like Suh and Dillard our program would be this successful in just the 2nd year under a new coach.

[dylan]

http://www.omaha.com/article/20091223/BIGR...39831/-1/bigred

 

Very well written article.

 

good article overall, but i have a couple of objections:

 

TO and solich did not downplay recruiting, they downplayed recruiting hype, as they should.

 

getting 10 out of 31 recruits to start a game hardly makes a class an "overwhelming success", as crabtree (the carney barker) claimed. someone has to start games...it doesn't mean they're good. and that's about the average number of quality players from most classes anyway.

 

i also think dirk could have pointed out a little more explicitly that this class was doomed to be an unqualified failure until some of it's few remaining players got real coaching. dillard was a bust and suh sure looked like one as well in 2007. without the dramatic turnarounds under this staff, the 2005 class is the banner for the failure of recruiting hype (and poor coaching).

 

I think that is what the article was saying. At least that is what I took from it.

 

I had thought myself about how the 2005 class could be the class that bridged the gap between coaching staffs. I dont think I am wrong in saying that without guys like Suh and Dillard our program would be this successful in just the 2nd year under a new coach.

 

i agree that guys like suh, dillard and hickman were key to the success we've had. i just think that the writer glossed over the key point that good coaching under pelini is the only reason the class isn't a total failure. instead, he states that some players were better under one regime and some under the other, when lucky is really the only player i can think of whose production went down (and i'm pretty sure he was dealing with an injury), whereas way more players got dramatically better with the coaching change. it doesn't ruin the article, but it is a misrepresentation of a key point.

[EZ-E]

We used Marlon differently when Callahan was here.

[caveman99]

http://www.omaha.com/article/20091223/BIGR...39831/-1/bigred

 

Very well written article.

 

good article overall, but i have a couple of objections:

 

TO and solich did not downplay recruiting, they downplayed recruiting hype, as they should.

 

getting 10 out of 31 recruits to start a game hardly makes a class an "overwhelming success", as crabtree (the carney barker) claimed. someone has to start games...it doesn't mean they're good. and that's about the average number of quality players from most classes anyway.

 

i also think dirk could have pointed out a little more explicitly that this class was doomed to be an unqualified failure until some of it's few remaining players got real coaching. dillard was a bust and suh sure looked like one as well in 2007. without the dramatic turnarounds under this staff, the 2005 class is the banner for the failure of recruiting hype (and poor coaching).

 

I think that is what the article was saying. At least that is what I took from it.

 

I had thought myself about how the 2005 class could be the class that bridged the gap between coaching staffs. I dont think I am wrong in saying that without guys like Suh and Dillard our program would be this successful in just the 2nd year under a new coach.

 

i agree that guys like suh, dillard and hickman were key to the success we've had. i just think that the writer glossed over the key point that good coaching under pelini is the only reason the class isn't a total failure. instead, he states that some players were better under one regime and some under the other, when lucky is really the only player i can think of whose production went down (and i'm pretty sure he was dealing with an injury), whereas way more players got dramatically better with the coaching change. it doesn't ruin the article, but it is a misrepresentation of a key point.

Actually I think the author explains that pretty well, just look at what he claims we learned:

 

• We learned there's a difference between good college recruiters and good college coaches.

 

Persuading an athlete to wear the uniform is no more important than teaching him what to do inside that uniform.

 

• We learned there's a difference between talented players and productive players.

 

Circumstances on campus dictate success as much as natural athleticism and work ethic. How good are the players and leaders around the recruit? What are coaches asking the recruit to do, and does that assignment suit his physical and mental capacities?

 

• We learned that without Bill Callahan (and John Blake), Ndamukong Suh likely never would've wound up at Nebraska.

 

But without Bo Pelini (and Carl Pelini), Suh likely would've left Nebraska early — or finished his career with honorable mention on the all-Big 12 team.

 

I mean if that doesn't sum it up, I don't know what will. The author acknowledges that getting good talent in recruiting is important, but he stresses that one of the big learning points in watching this class is that good coaching is as important if not more so.