Keep the improved defensive recruiting in mind

[True2tRA]

I really want to ask something from you so called Huskerboard recruiting experts. Yes, some of you do know a lot more about the incoming athletes and their abilities. That said, it is far too easy to call a class a "turd" after five years of smelling it's stench. It's becoming the theme around here now, not just among fans but coaches as well, to blame these players and their lack of ability. I know, I know, I do agree, we've got some guys starting for us that wouldn't play for a lot of the other major universities. We also have had some guys that look extremely talented from what little we've seen of them, and yet somehow they never see the field here. I don't know how we could do it here, but let's stop this monday morning Quarterback sh#t. I mean, if you think a guy from this incoming class is gonna stink, then say so now. There's film of every guy out there. Don't wait five years and then say, well Bo just really missed on those guys. I can tell you, I've watched film on a lot of guys and thought wow that kid brings some major talent to the program. Then "poof", where the f#*k are they. Injuries are a factor, and if that's the case, sure we all can get a pass when that guy doesn't pan out, but still, we surely couldn't have just plain recruited sh**ty talent to come play ball here. Bo and staff might all be good x's and o's coaches, but what is going on with teaching and development? Where's the depth? What's happening to these guys when they get here that is causing them to struggle so much to see the field? And back to my main point, stop taking the easy way out and just saying Bo missed on this guy or that. If you see us right now recruiting someone that you don't believe belongs in this program, I'd love to hear it. I happen to think I'm a pretty good judge of talent, and I have been dead on right about a lot of recruits. Some I've been wrong about, and some really good ones have also left this program or had a position change since coming here. I can't make sense of it. If talent is a problem, why can't THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA get the kind of talent so many other high profile programs are getting?

[MLB 51]

I really want to ask something from you so called Huskerboard recruiting experts. Yes, some of you do know a lot more about the incoming athletes and their abilities. That said, it is far too easy to call a class a "turd" after five years of smelling it's stench. It's becoming the theme around here now, not just among fans but coaches as well, to blame these players and their lack of ability. I know, I know, I do agree, we've got some guys starting for us that wouldn't play for a lot of the other major universities. We also have had some guys that look extremely talented from what little we've seen of them, and yet somehow they never see the field here. I don't know how we could do it here, but let's stop this monday morning Quarterback sh#t. I mean, if you think a guy from this incoming class is gonna stink, then say so now. There's film of every guy out there. Don't wait five years and then say, well Bo just really missed on those guys. I can tell you, I've watched film on a lot of guys and thought wow that kid brings some major talent to the program. Then "poof", where the f#*k are they. Injuries are a factor, and if that's the case, sure we all can get a pass when that guy doesn't pan out, but still, we surely couldn't have just plain recruited sh**ty talent to come play ball here. Bo and staff might all be good x's and o's coaches, but what is going on with teaching and development? Where's the depth? What's happening to these guys when they get here that is causing them to struggle so much to see the field? And back to my main point, stop taking the easy way out and just saying Bo missed on this guy or that. If you see us right now recruiting someone that you don't believe belongs in this program, I'd love to hear it. I happen to think I'm a pretty good judge of talent, and I have been dead on right about a lot of recruits. Some I've been wrong about, and some really good ones have also left this program or had a position change since coming here. I can't make sense of it. If talent is a problem, why can't THE UNIVERSITY OF NEBRASKA get the kind of talent so many other high profile programs are getting?

Good question. I've been wondering if, it has more to do with the position coaches, and coordinators. We have no big name coaches, other than Bo. Most kids commit to a coach as much as school. Is this something that is holding us back?

[Hoosker]

I'm liking what I'm hearing from Sir Alex Henery.

 

Glad to have you here, sir.

[LumberJackSker]

What I don't understand about our LB's is the fact that some of the best to ever play for NU were smaller faster guys like Farley, Williams, David, etc. Why do we have to consistently play these bigger slower guys like Compton, Fisher, and Whaley? IMO, we need to scrap the two gap system for the DL and get a lot more speed at the LB position.

compton, fisher and whaley aren't even that big they're just slow i dont think any of those guys are over 235, the guys next year cant help but be more athletic so hopefully that will be fixed but Bo will probably just start some slow walk on that knows the defense

[FriendlyLurker2007]

i agree scrap the 2 gap, unleash 320lb vincent v. imagine the opposing o line collapsing instead of patty cake, get some speedy linebackers that can actually contain, imo that might help almost instantly we will have to see how it all plays out.

[Hedley Lamarr]

There is no denying that TO didnt pull in great classes later on in his career. But before the 90's he didnt pull in classes capable of beating the teams in the south that had way more speed and probably better overall talent then NU had. Every great coach finds the knack to bring in quality recruits. And it usually takes longer than 5 years

 

Agree to disagree. There is an obvious correlation between recruiting classes and actual rankings. People can knit pick a team here or team there but the top recruiting teams equal the top teams

 

Since your someone who obviously knows everything about everything, when has Nebraska ever been strong in recruiting? Besides the 2005 year under Callahan, which was not even utilized until Bo got his hands on those guys. You can win championships with a decent recruiting class. It doesn't have to be "Top 10". We have won 5 National Titles without being superior on recruiting. Yes that was over a decade ago, but coaching kids has not changed. The only thing that has changed in the last decade in recruiting, is not giving scholarships to instate kids, like TO did in my opinion. IIRC, the highest recruited kids TO recruited, were the Peters brothers.

 

I wish I could give you more than +1. It's as if people forget that we have very rarely been able to get the best recruits in the country, for the entirerty of Nebraska football. Or expect a first time headcoach to be able to pull off a 5* recruiting class just a month or two into starting a significant rebuilding of a team.

 

http://bigrednetwork.com/story/a_brief_history_of_husker_recruiting_1990-99/

[Hedley Lamarr]

...going back farther...

 

83' was a top 10 class according to Lemming, (produced 2 all-americans)

84' was in the top 15. 16 of 17 letter including all-american Neil Smith

85' was a spectacular class with 3 top 100 recruits and the class was widely considered a top 5 along with Penn State. Taylor/Thomas end up as All-Americans.

86' included Roger's son who was a top 35 player. when was the last time we had one of those?

87' almost had Nebraska again in the top 10 according to Emfinger, landing the #1 QB in the nation (mickey joseph). One thing to point out about this class is 19 of 22 signees earned letter. Osborne didn't miss much.

88' was ranked 10th. 20 of 26 earn letters.

89' finished 7th/11th. Trev Alberts/Will Shields are all-americans 18 of 23 letter.

I won't disagree that Osborne had some good classes, but he had quite a few more luxary's that coaches today don't have. Schollarship limits & partial qualifiers are two really big ones. Nebraksa was also on the leading edge of strengh & conditioning, which most have caught up. TV has really pushed college football to another level. There are more teams getting national coverage then there was 20 years ago, so telling a recruit that if he goes to Boise St he wont be on TV, but if he walks on at NU & works hard. He could play for a team that gets national coverage doesn't work anymore.

 

Comparing a recruiting class or a coach 20 years ago to a class or coach today is apples to oranges.

 

Just like it is comparing 9 wins a year 20 years ago to now....

[HuskersNE89]

There is no denying that TO didnt pull in great classes later on in his career. But before the 90's he didnt pull in classes capable of beating the teams in the south that had way more speed and probably better overall talent then NU had. Every great coach finds the knack to bring in quality recruits. And it usually takes longer than 5 years

 

Agree to disagree. There is an obvious correlation between recruiting classes and actual rankings. People can knit pick a team here or team there but the top recruiting teams equal the top teams

 

Since your someone who obviously knows everything about everything, when has Nebraska ever been strong in recruiting? Besides the 2005 year under Callahan, which was not even utilized until Bo got his hands on those guys. You can win championships with a decent recruiting class. It doesn't have to be "Top 10". We have won 5 National Titles without being superior on recruiting. Yes that was over a decade ago, but coaching kids has not changed. The only thing that has changed in the last decade in recruiting, is not giving scholarships to instate kids, like TO did in my opinion. IIRC, the highest recruited kids TO recruited, were the Peters brothers.

 

I wish I could give you more than +1. It's as if people forget that we have very rarely been able to get the best recruits in the country, for the entirerty of Nebraska football. Or expect a first time headcoach to be able to pull off a 5* recruiting class just a month or two into starting a significant rebuilding of a team.

 

http://bigrednetwork...uiting_1990-99/

 

It's interesting to me that one of the most sought-after recruits one of those years basically comments directly on what many here are arguing about: "I'm not saying Nebraska didn't have a winning attitude but they never won the big game. The team that can't win the big game isn't a great team to me. It doesn't matter whether you win 10 games every year if you don't win the ones that count." (He does mention the climate and social atmosphere as well).

[lo country]

IIRC, we currently have 11 DT on schollie/roster to date. We have some who are reported as injured. The issue I have is that Stein goes out and our only "real" DT who can play is Rome. A guy who took some time off a few months ago. So thin are we that we moved a 250-260 lb DE to tackle in an attempt to be a DT. You have got to be friggin kidding me. Cam was our only choice. So basically we had 2 DT, Stein and Rome. Again, WTH.

 

IMO, this speaks to incredibly bad recruiting of talent, horrific development or the worst luck with injuries in the NCAA.

 

You look at the OL and even worse. 20+ guys on schollie and we are starting 3 walk-ons one (Jackson) who was a converted DL player. Then you look at our massive "rotation" on the OL and we really simply rotated about 2 guys through various positions. Again, WTH? Why no deep rotation. Are the walk-ons really that much better than all the kids on schollie. If so, again EPIC FAIL on the staff.

[lo country]

i agree scrap the 2 gap, unleash 320lb vincent v. imagine the opposing o line collapsing instead of patty cake, get some speedy linebackers that can actually contain, imo that might help almost instantly we will have to see how it all plays out.

As soon as Rome took some time off, VV should have been immediately thrown into the mix. I think we need to use guys to win "now", not win "later".

[Saint Boseph]

I'm liking what I'm hearing from Sir Alex Henery.

 

Glad to have you here, sir.

 

Much appreciated, sure is nice to be here. I usually just come on here to pass the time while sitting in lectures all day learning dry material.

[LumberJackSker]

does anyone have some insight into how Greg McMullen is progressing? i know he's redshirting but his name doesnt come up as much as some of the other D-linemen, if anyone could share some info i would appreciate it

[JTrain]

When a team runs the same play out of four different sets and averages 10.8 yards per carry and you cannot stop it, that is not simply fixed by putting a faster or younger or different guy in the game. It is fixed by adjusting your defensive look to take that play away. Every time we did exactly that they shifted to inside running game and completely man handled our dline. Part of it was we were completely unprepared coaching wise...

 

THIS. Anyone that tries to pin that loss on talent difference has managed to sneak the Kool-Aid through the back door.

[Saint Boseph]

When a team runs the same play out of four different sets and averages 10.8 yards per carry and you cannot stop it, that is not simply fixed by putting a faster or younger or different guy in the game. It is fixed by adjusting your defensive look to take that play away. Every time we did exactly that they shifted to inside running game and completely man handled our dline. Part of it was we were completely unprepared coaching wise...

 

THIS. Anyone that tries to pin that loss on talent difference has managed to sneak the Kool-Aid through the back door.

 

I guess this is where people tend to differ in their interpretations on what they observe. The phenomenon in football known as the 'eraser' player leads me to disagree with you. That is, their raw talent allows them to erase schematic flaws/coaching gaffes/missed assignments on the players part, because in the heat of battle, they rely less on information crammed into their brain and simply reduce football to a very rudimentary form: they see a ball carrier and chase him down. Lavonte David in 2011 is one example many on HB would be familiar with. When a kid has wheels like LD, he books it to the ball carrier and tackles him behind the line. To the lay observer, the player just made a heck of an athletic defensive play, even though the coaches/players are the only ones who know that he whiffed an assignment on that play. But in the short-term (such as one play, one game, or one season), it doesn't matter, it's the end not the means. Don't care how you do it, just do it.

 

But if you want sustained success over multiple seasons, you can't rely long-term on that formula of turning loose a bunch of lightning fast, brain-dead dummies running around like chickens with their heads cut off. That might give you success for 1-2 seasons. Alabama is the perfect marriage between elite talent and elite coaching and their consistently excellent performance is an indication of this. That is why they are scary good, they are some of the best athletes in the country receiving the highest quality of coaching and fundamental instruction on the college level. Brains and Brawn. But I can give you two relatively recent examples of one-hit wonders that there is almost no debating that they won NC's relying largely on talent, being led by coaches that Bo would run circles around. 2001 Miami and 2010 Auburn. Larry Coker is/was a mediocre coach at best, yet he was gifted the most talent-laden roster in the history of college football thanks to Butch Davis' impeccable recruiting acumen. Look at that 2001 roster that pasted us in the NC and how many of those guys are/were NFL superstars. It's a crime that a coaching dunce inherited such a sweet situation, yet Bo has worked his butt off his entire career and doesn't get the same. Larry Coker mostly stayed in the background and out of his team's way on that 01 NC run and would have won in 02 if not for that erroneous PI call which cost them the game. He didn't have a huge hand in that short run of success, but he didn't really hinder it either.

 

Now Auburn in 2010 is really the biggest study in contrasts in coaching/talent pairing. For how incredibly gifted Cam Newton and Nick fairley were, Gene Chizik was on the complete opposite end of the spectrum in terms of how horrible his coaching ability was/still is. Auburn won the NC in 2010 in spite of Gene Chizik's poor coaching. An all-world QB and a genetically gifted D-line with crappy fundamentals "erased" dubious coaching by GC that year. No way they come back to beat Alabama that year after being down 24-0 if it weren't for Newton's rare talent and innate ability to manufacture improvised QB scrambles at the drop of a hat. I correctly speculated that Auburn would tank badly after Newton left and I laughed at Auburn for hiring GC after his joke of a tenure at Iowa State. The man Auburn passed over to hire GC, Turner Gill, would have put up a significantly more competitive fight year-in and year-out against Saban if he had Auburn's roster at his disposal and not KU's or Buffalo's. Once the otherworldly talent left Miami and Auburn, those two's coaching deficiencies were badly exposed and they crashed hard from their respective perches. GC is woefully awful at coaching and I have a hard time believing he would be a good coach anywhere. The gap in coaching ability between Saban and Bo is miniscule compared to the gap between Bo and Chizik/Coker. If you give Bo the speed/athleticism/raw talent he needs, he could do some things. He doesn't need a d-line with 4 Nick fairleys to be great, but he at least needs a few players that fall in between Fairley and Jason Ankrah, and Auburn usually has those players. If he were at Auburn he would have 3 Alfonzo Dennards and 3 Lavonte Davids on the bench, compared just having to one of each starting at NU. To his credit, Bo is slowly but surely bringing talent in numbers to Lincoln, with noticeable upgrades in quality/ quantity on the defensive side of the ball with the 2011-2013 recruiting classes.

[Blackshirt96]

...going back farther...

 

83' was a top 10 class according to Lemming, (produced 2 all-americans)

84' was in the top 15. 16 of 17 letter including all-american Neil Smith

85' was a spectacular class with 3 top 100 recruits and the class was widely considered a top 5 along with Penn State. Taylor/Thomas end up as All-Americans.

86' included Roger's son who was a top 35 player. when was the last time we had one of those?

87' almost had Nebraska again in the top 10 according to Emfinger, landing the #1 QB in the nation (mickey joseph). One thing to point out about this class is 19 of 22 signees earned letter. Osborne didn't miss much.

88' was ranked 10th. 20 of 26 earn letters.

89' finished 7th/11th. Trev Alberts/Will Shields are all-americans 18 of 23 letter.

I won't disagree that Osborne had some good classes, but he had quite a few more luxary's that coaches today don't have. Schollarship limits & partial qualifiers are two really big ones. Nebraksa was also on the leading edge of strengh & conditioning, which most have caught up. TV has really pushed college football to another level. There are more teams getting national coverage then there was 20 years ago, so telling a recruit that if he goes to Boise St he wont be on TV, but if he walks on at NU & works hard. He could play for a team that gets national coverage doesn't work anymore.

 

Comparing a recruiting class or a coach 20 years ago to a class or coach today is apples to oranges.

 

Just like it is comparing 9 wins a year 20 years ago to now....

Agreed. The Big 8 was Oklahoma, Nebraska & then 6 scrub teams. Now the teams are much more level as far as Athletes, TV Exposure, Strength & Conditioning & Facilities.