DC Candidates?

[knapplc]

That was a good class. If we had Callahan's recruiting and Bo's coaching, we'd be (possibly) better overall.

 

 

I'm not going to pretend I know the nuances (not NUances, nuances) of recruiting, but I've been reading that a large reason we redshirted everyone has to do with Callahan's recruits/recruiting. That year with the 30+ recruits was cited as a factor in why we're having a small class this year. It's not a knock on Callahan, but it seems like there were only so many spots to go around, and this year's small class was inevitable at some point.

 

I'd rather have quality over quantity, though. And if we can get some decent walk-ons to backfill the roster for practice depth, we're OK.

[kchusker_chris]

^ makes sense. Do you think Bo had more tallent on the roster in 2008/2009 (BC's recruits), than he does 2012 (all his own recruits)? I think he had more tallent in 09, which is why I'm concerned in regards to us improving. I really think Bo can outcoach enough of the B1G to get his 9 wins. However, the roster is beginning to concern me and the current class is doing nothing to aleviate those concerns. Bo can coach up a 3* to a 4*...but what he was able to do w/ BC's recruits in only 2 years shows that if he could land enough of those 4* guys he can certainly put together one hell of a team if he had them for a fulll 4 years. Imagine Suh w/ 4 years of Bo. Wow.

 

Which is why (back to the topic) - this defensive hire needs to be 90% recruiting, 10% coaching ability. I don't care if the guy can't tell me where on the field a line backer plays...if he can recruit top 25 tallent I'll be happy.

[Mavric]

If we promote from within it will be another step in Bo's dismissal. He micro manages way too much. He has to learn to delegate and let them sink or swim. He does not have time to be teaching a new DC and OC. This is a big time program, not Cardnil Mooney high school. We deserve qualified assitants who can do their job without someone else helping them to do so.

 

I want Bo to succeed but he seems to be doing everything to fail. He needs help, Stoops or Zook would be perfect for the job and would help on recruiting nationwide. Trust me we need it.

 

Trying to do everything is the first indicator that he is not managerial material. He needs to learn this now. Or he will not be here much longer I am afraid.

Watching 49ers/Steelers on MNF. Lots of shots of Jim Harbaugh calling offensive plays for the 49ers. Too bad Harbaugh hasn't learned yet that he can't micromanage everything and needs to hire some better assistants. I guess he's just not managerial material.

 

Comparing Jim Harbaugh to Bo Pelini....HAHAHAHAHAHA!!!

 

Now that's funny right there...I don't care who you are.

 

While we're comparing apples to oranges, I think Joe Gibbs also handled the offensive coordinator duties while he was head coach and he did just fine.

If you would actually read through the thread, you would understand (I think).

 

I was not saying Pelini is as good a coach as Harbaugh simply because they both call plays.

 

It has been repeatedly stated (by skersfan and others, that was just the most recent one I found), that Pelini calling his own defense is "miro managing", that he "doesn't have time", that this is the "big time", that we deserve "qualified assistants", and that not doing that means he's not "managerial material." It's obviously ignorant to state all this because there are plenty of examples of coaches doing this, that was just one that popped up. How is any of that true of Pelini but not true of Harbaugh (or Mike McCarthy, or Chip Kelly, or ... )?

 

None of that means that's it's guaranteed to work or even that it's the right way to go. But to say it absolutely can't work is stupid.

[kchusker_chris]

...

 

None of that means that's it's guaranteed to work or even that it's the right way to go. But to say it absolutely can't work is stupid.

True, but those coaches didn't/don't have their hand in the other side of the ball like Bo does w/ the offense. Kelly has Aliotti running the defense. Aliotti has been at Oregon since 99', and has been coaching at the D1 level since the 70's. Harbaugh had Fangio, who had 25ish years in the NFL...including the Ravens. Lynn before that who had something like 40 years of coaching experience. Not sure where you're going w/ McCarthy...

 

If Bo wants to have his hand in the defense, he should have hired an experience OC. As it stands now, the offense isn't something Bo can just let run itself.

[HuskerFowler]

^ makes sense. Do you think Bo had more tallent on the roster in 2008/2009 (BC's recruits), than he does 2012 (all his own recruits)? I think he had more tallent in 09, which is why I'm concerned in regards to us improving. I really think Bo can outcoach enough of the B1G to get his 9 wins. However, the roster is beginning to concern me and the current class is doing nothing to aleviate those concerns. Bo can coach up a 3* to a 4*...but what he was able to do w/ BC's recruits in only 2 years shows that if he could land enough of those 4* guys he can certainly put together one hell of a team if he had them for a fulll 4 years. Imagine Suh w/ 4 years of Bo. Wow.

 

Which is why (back to the topic) - this defensive hire needs to be 90% recruiting, 10% coaching ability. I don't care if the guy can't tell me where on the field a line backer plays...if he can recruit top 25 tallent I'll be happy.

 

All the talent in 09 were juniors and seniors. Bos first 2 classes were average and its hurting us right now. His last 2 are pretty good, and this one will probably be good as well. We will have to wait to see when his guys get more experience to see how it will all pan out. We played alot of freshman, sohp this year, because of the talent he is finally getting. Well know in a year or two for sure, but he has some good young talent on the team. Its going to take a year or two to get everyone experience, and build depth. We are playing alot of walk ons because of his first 2 classes (cant really blame him for the first one since he had a month to put it together). We should see all the young talent starting to emerge, IMO we have on the offense already.

[knapplc]

^ makes sense. Do you think Bo had more tallent on the roster in 2008/2009 (BC's recruits), than he does 2012 (all his own recruits)? I think he had more tallent in 09, which is why I'm concerned in regards to us improving. I really think Bo can outcoach enough of the B1G to get his 9 wins. However, the roster is beginning to concern me and the current class is doing nothing to aleviate those concerns. Bo can coach up a 3* to a 4*...but what he was able to do w/ BC's recruits in only 2 years shows that if he could land enough of those 4* guys he can certainly put together one hell of a team if he had them for a fulll 4 years. Imagine Suh w/ 4 years of Bo. Wow.

 

Which is why (back to the topic) - this defensive hire needs to be 90% recruiting, 10% coaching ability. I don't care if the guy can't tell me where on the field a line backer plays...if he can recruit top 25 tallent I'll be happy.

 

Looking above where I'm typing this at HuskerFowler's response, his point makes a lot of sense. We're looking at Bo's juniors right now, and 2008 was never going to be his best class.

 

I have a VERY hard time believing that we were SO badly put out recruiting that we had this tepid defense this year. Certainly if he can get those 4* guys, and coach them up, he can spin gold from straw. But.... and this is me completely talking out of my ass.... I don't see 2008's weaker class as an excuse for this defense. I'm kind of in a rush as I type this and I'm spinning together strands from the PSU Contact thread into this response, but I have to wonder, the way recruiting is going right now and the way the defense seemed rudderless a lot of this year.... does Bo have one foot out the door? Is what we're seeing in recruiting and the defense a sign?

 

Maybe I'm just overreacting, and posting without facts in too much of a rush. I have zero time for this, I can tell you that! But I do wonder.

[kchusker_chris]

does Bo have one foot out the door? Is what we're seeing in recruiting and the defense a sign?

I hate u for posting this because I hadn't made the connection. While I am plenty critical of Bo, I have plenty of praise for the guy as well. I think he can succeed here, and I want him as our HC. I definately don't want him at Penn, because there he could easily get his 10 4*s a year...and that would just be dangerous for the rest of the B1G.

 

He's just a great hire away from turning the corner. Whether or not he'll do it though is what we're all waiting on...

[Blackshirt96]

There's just a level of negativity that I can't stomach. The constant bitching about Pelini, how he's not good enough, not as good as the next guy, blah blah blah. It gets tiresome. People talk about benchmarks which are often arbitrary and based on chance as much as anything.

But you have to be able to measure him against something. Any job is benchmarked against peers. Performance is measured against productivity, goals achieved, etc. How many goals has Pelini reached? Academically the team is strong, but they were strong when he got here, and would be if he left. Off field incidents are not an issue, but they weren't really a major issue prior to him coming either. The culture has certainly been restored for the most part, which I think is a major (and often overlooked) achievement for Pelini.

 

However, at the end of the day I don't care what he says...it is about the trophy's. He has none. He's seconds away from having a couple though, in which case we likely wouldn't be having this discussion. But has he improved the team? Are they better today than they were 2 years ago, 1 second from taking out the #2 team in the country, winning a championship and going to a BCS bowl? I don't know. The defense has certainly fell off dramatically since then. The offense has improved...but it would be EXTREMELY difficult not to improve on that 2009 offense.

 

If you look at those Stanford teams...they took drastic leaps to get better. Their recruiting improved (Nebraska's hasn't), their records improved (Nebraska's hasn't). Today they are in a position to continue that winning tradition because the framework was laid down by Harbaugh. Do you think Pelini has the framework in place? I just don't see it. I believe he can win 9 games a season. We schedule 4 wins into the season every year. We can get another 3 from the bottom of the B1G. He only needs to go 2-4 the rest fo the way. He can accomplish that. But can he consistently put us in a position to win conference championships (which includes beating Michigan)? Jury is still out on that one for me. But I am getting very close to reaching a verdict.

Your logic is very flawed.

 

Pelini is 38-15 so far with 2 Championship appearences & Bill Calahan was 27-22 with one championship appearence, so yes Pelini has improved the Huskers.

 

His recruiting has not been bad. He has had two very small classes since he has been here. If you understand how reruiting is formulated you would understand that he has had some very good classes. Bill Callahan had a class that was considered to be one of the best if not the top class. That was because he took 35 players.

 

As far as your theory on getting to 9 win seasons (which Pelini has two 10 win seasons & a chance for a third) most teams have a very similar schedule, yet only six teams can claim this.

very flawed? yet your benchmark for Pelini is Callahan? That seems flawed in itself. And while he improved from 2007-2008 (not hard w/ that defense), and from 2008-2009 (not hard considering where we were)...do you honestly think he's improved since then? I think the 2009 team would beat the 2011 team 80% of the time, maybe more. 2010 was no better than 09', 2011 isn't really any better than 2010. So while we may be a better team than 5-7 (obviously) we haven't gained much ground in the last few years. We'll improve in an area, and fall off dramatically in others. We haven't been anywhere near a complete team for more than spurt during Pelini's 4 years here.

 

Also, "if you understand how recruiting is formulated", you realize that the classes are ranked on 20 players. 35 or 90, it doesn't matter. His classes were ranked high because he signed guys like Suh, Octavien, Potter, Dillard, Hardy, Lucky, Brooks, Bowman, etc. That's some top shelf tallent. And Bo has small classes because of his decisions. He's the one that dictates the class size this year when he decides to redshirt an entire class of 25ish. Roster management.

 

Wow you could be more wrong. Rivals & Scout uses all recruits when they rank classes. So yes it does matter. There is no great way to rank a class until after they have graduated. Also Octavian was a Solich recruit in '04 & Potter was a given, he was a Prep grad & only wanted to play for the Huskers. Plus with all this talent that Callahan pulled in how come he couldn't show it on the field. Hey how did Chris Brooks pan out anyway?

 

I also love the way you throw in percents like the give you more credit. Here is one for you. 80% of the time you are 100% wrong.

[kchusker_chris]

Wow you could be more wrong. Rivals & Scout uses all recruits when they rank classes. So yes it does matter. There is no great way to rank a class until after they have graduated. Also Octavian was a Solich recruit in '04 & Potter was a given, he was a Prep grad & only wanted to play for the Huskers. Plus with all this talent that Callahan pulled in how come he couldn't show it on the field. Hey how did Chris Brooks pan out anyway?

 

I also love the way you throw in percents like the give you more credit. Here is one for you. 80% of the time you are 100% wrong.

Only for the average star ranking...so in Callahans case when he signed the last of the class w/ no-star recruits and a few 2* guys...he actually hurt his ranking. All other calculations are based on the top 20. I have posted the entire calculation before. You can continue to argue w/ me or look up the Rivals calculation for yourself. Regarless you'll find the one who is wrong in regards to the calculation is you. The rest is a matter of opinion, which since you've already proven yourself ignorant on the subject I'm not putting a lot of stock in yours.

[Blackshirt96]

Wow you could be more wrong. Rivals & Scout uses all recruits when they rank classes. So yes it does matter. There is no great way to rank a class until after they have graduated. Also Octavian was a Solich recruit in '04 & Potter was a given, he was a Prep grad & only wanted to play for the Huskers. Plus with all this talent that Callahan pulled in how come he couldn't show it on the field. Hey how did Chris Brooks pan out anyway?

 

I also love the way you throw in percents like the give you more credit. Here is one for you. 80% of the time you are 100% wrong.

Only for the average star ranking...so in Callahans case when he signed the last of the class w/ no-star recruits and a few 2* guys...he actually hurt his ranking. All other calculations are based on the top 20. I have posted the entire calculation before. You can continue to argue w/ me or look up the Rivals calculation for yourself. Regarless you'll find the one who is wrong in regards to the calculation is you. The rest is a matter of opinion, which since you've already proven yourself ignorant on the subject I'm not putting a lot of stock in yours.

Ok lets see. If he signed 35 & they only use 20(which is incorrect scout uses 25 & rivals uses all) then how would this hurt his ranking? before you call someone ignorant you should find all the stupidity in your comment & delete it, but then again what would you have to say.

[kchusker_chris]

It hurt his ranking because you receive points for your average star ranking. If Calahan hadn't sign those no-star and 2 star guys to get to 35 (which you seem to think is the only reason we were highly ranked) - his average star ranking would have increased...as would the total points in the calculation. I worked out here...

 

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/41511-team-ranking-w-the-3-targets/page__hl__%22insert+into%22__fromsearch__1

 

If it was just a number game USC with their 18 commits would never be ranked highly...yet through the mid-2000's they were constantly at the top over teams w/ 30+ Here's a full explanation...I avoid scout at all costs so this is Rivals...

 

H * ( n / ( n + m ) ) + L * ( m / ( n + m ) )

 

 

So, let's look at this in its most general form. The total points is the sum of H times something and L times something. Leave the somethings alone for a moment. What are H and L?

 

H = potential High score = 250 for every five-star, 140 for every four-star, 75 for every three-star, 20 for every two-star and 10 for every one-star

 

L = potential Low score = 18 for every five-star, 12 for every four- star, 8 for every three-star, 3 for every two-star and 1 for every one-star

 

WE ONLY LOOK AT THE TOP 20 SIGNEES for this part. We end up with two numbers, a High and a Low. A team's final score is going to be between these two numbers. I'll use Team Z for an example:

 

*******************

EXAMPLE: Team Z (2 five-stars, 17 four-stars, 8 three-stars, 2 two- stars). Team Z's top 20 recruits then are 2 five-stars, 17 four-stars, and 1 three-star, which gives them an H of 2955 and an L of 248.

 

Z's score will be somewhere between 2955 and 248.

*******************

 

 

OK, now how do we figure out where in this range the final score is?

Time to look at the other two elements of the formula:

 

( n / ( n + m ) ) and ( m / ( n + m ) )

 

The variable m is just a constant. We happen to use 50, but it doesn't matter. Changing it just changes the "spread" of the numbers...I picked 50 because it gave us nice-looking numbers without changing the actual places of the teams.

 

The variable n is the important one. This is the one that changes.

 

This is where the math gets a little more complex. Notice that as n gets higher and higher, then the expression on the left approaches 1 and the expression on the right approaches 0. As n gets lower and lower, the opposite occurs: the expression on the left approaches 0 and the expression on the right approaches 1.

 

So, shorthand: AS N GETS HIGHER, A TEAM'S SCORE APPROACHES ITS H. AS N GETS LOWER A TEAM'S SCORE APPROACHES ITS L.

 

When I try to explain this to people on the boards (which I don't do any more) I didn't want to just reveal the formula, so I asked users to envision a scale, on one end is a high number and on the other end is a low number. And a slider that slides between them, pointing to the actual number somewhere in between.

 

OK, so what goes into calculating n? Here's where all the factors come in that are just lifted from the old formula. The variable n starts out as 0. And then we add:

 

--Ten points for every commit in the Rivals100 from 1 to 10, nine points for every commit in the Rivals100 from 11 to 20, and so on down to one point for every commit in the Rivals100 from 91-100.

--The same for every commit in the Rivals100 Juco and the Rivals100 Preps, only we only go down to the top 50 on those two lists, not the entire 100.

--24 points for every commit that is the Number 1 player at an official Rivals Position Ranking.

--18 points for every commit that is number two, three, four, or five at an offical Rivals Position Ranking.

--8 points for every commit that is number six through number X at an official Rivals Position Ranking.

 

This last one varies by position. Each position has a different cutoff. For kickers, for example, we add 8 to n if a commit is ranked from 6 through 10. But at wide receiver we give it all the way down to 50. Every position has its own cutoff. I didn't dream up the cutoffs...I just used the ones that were there in the original formula, devised by Jeremy Crabtree in 2001.

 

--The last thing we add to n is the amount over 3.0 for the star rating of the entire class, times 100. For example, if your class is an average 3.03 stars, we add 3 to your n.

 

************************

EXAMPLE: Continuing with Team Z, they have five commits ranked on the Rivals100...

 

--Two from 21 to 30 (worth 8 each)

--One from 31 to 40 (worth 7)

--Two from 51 to 60 (worth 5 each)

 

Z also has one commit ranked in the top 50 on the Juco list (worth 6 for being 41-50) and one on the Prep list (worth 10 for being 1-10).

 

Z has one player ranked as the tops in the nation at his position (worth 24), five ranked from second to fifth at their positions (18

each) and 16 ranked from sixth on down to their position cutoffs (8 each).

 

Finally, they have an average star rating of 3.66, which gives their n another 66 points.

 

All told, Z's value for n is 357.

 

**************************

 

So there you have all of the parts of the formula. For our Team Z

example:

 

 

H * ( n / ( n + m ) ) + L * ( m / ( n + m ) )

[Blackshirt96]

I'll go off the info from Scout.com http://www.scout.com/3/about-team-rankings.html & not what you have put together on a message board.

[kchusker_chris]

Then you're one of the few people on this board that trust scout for anything in regards to recruiting...perhaps thats the most telling thing of all...

[Blaze1up]

Vic Fangio, really all we need is Bo.

[Blackshirt96]

Rivals does not release thier formula, but many analyst have said it is flawed due to counting all of the recruits.

 

Read the third shaded analysts review.

http://www.sbnation.com/ncaa-football/2011/12/19/2647343/nebraska-football-recruiting-tracking-huskers-signing-day-2012