It ain't ALL about talent

[indianahusker]

"Probably our youngest and most inexperienced team and least talented team in the last five years was our 2000 national championship team," he said.

---OU coach Bob Stoops

 

Here's the link:

http://sports.espn.go.com/ncf/preview05/ne...tory?id=2139069

 

Now, that team had plenty of talent...but I think it takes a lot more than just talent to win. What do you guys think?

[pigsonthewing]

I think stoops was just inflating his own ego which is bigger than the state of texas and oklahoma combined. But when you've had the success he's had it's probably justified.

[HuskersGJ]

so what he's really saying is his least talented team was the one John Blake recruited for him. but he hasn't been able to win with his own "more talented" recruits since?

[indianahusker]

so what he's really saying is his least talented team was the one John Blake recruited for him. but he hasn't been able to win with his own "more talented" recruits since?

Kinda wondered that myself...

[cubhusker23]

I think what made the difference on the 2000 Oklahoma team was leadership not the level of talent.

[NU fan in Denver]

I don't think you have to have the best talent to win. Look at the NC teams of NU in the 90's. Probably didn't recruit the top talent according to the so called experts but had classes that stayed in tact and worked hard together. Filled a couple of key positions with talented players, but had many walk-ons or former walk-ons contribute greatly. I think determination and hard work is better that the most talented, showboatin, all about me "top talent".

[nu4everfan15]

recruiting, leadership, coaching, wanting more than the other team, performing higher than what the coaches expect... i think any coach that can trust his backups... not just put them out there in the last five minutes of a blow out, and uses them frequently and can decipher talent from the not so talented that team should be a quality team. if the team does not have vocal leaders it wont win either

[formerfan]

I don't think you have to have the best talent to win. Look at the NC teams of NU in the 90's. Probably didn't recruit the top talent according to the so called experts but had classes that stayed in tact and worked hard together. Filled a couple of key positions with talented players, but had many walk-ons or former walk-ons contribute greatly. I think determination and hard work is better that the most talented, showboatin, all about me "top talent".

[Benard]

I think what made the difference on the 2000 Oklahoma team was leadership not the level of talent.

like i have been trying to say. Sometimes its not all about the 5 stars. You have to have the right mix and the right leaders and some luck on top of that.

[pigsonthewing]

so how come we didnt win any more with frank solich then guys? if its not about talent then how come damn near every team that doesnt have talent get killed by the ones that do?

[huskerdavo]

it is a mixture of talent, chemistry, leadership and most importantly luck (getting all the breaks)

[StuckinChicago]

Also, back in the early 90's we had the most state of the art weight training and nutrition program in the world, so we could do more with less. Everyone has caught up now, and it has become very difficult to win without talent. Only extremely gifted schemers have a chance to do so, such as Urban Meyer, but even then they cannot take on the top echlelon teams. I dare you to find a team that has finished top five nationaly, where we want to be, without alot of talent.

[NU fan in Denver]

so how come we didnt win any more with frank solich then guys? if its not about talent then how come damn near every team that doesnt have talent get killed by the ones that do?

We didn't have the talent in the right positions. We also didn't have the proper leadership and chemistry. Maybe there were too many ego's on the team. I donno, I wasn't there, I think TO had a knack for getting the very best out of what he had.

[hoyamannn]

If you don't think the teams of 94, 95 and 97 weren't loaded with talent you're nuts. I think the stat on the 95 Husker roster was 27 players contributing in the NFL. That's sick.

 

Rivals wasn't around at that time, and recruiting wasn't as easy to track and nationally exposed as it is now. The fans couldn't keep track like they can now. TO and staff still went outside of Neb to get really good, really fast players.

[Pedro Guerrero]

If you don't think the teams of 94, 95 and 97 weren't loaded with talent you're nuts. I think the stat on the 95 Husker roster was 27 players contributing in the NFL. That's sick.

 

Rivals wasn't around at that time, and recruiting wasn't as easy to track and nationally exposed as it is now. The fans couldn't keep track like they can now. TO and staff still went outside of Neb to get really good, really fast players.

 

I'm glad someone finally said this. 9 of the 11 defensive starters on the 97 team played in the NFL also. Some of the non-starters as well.