***2015 Recruiting***

[Mavric]

From a moderator at 247:

 

Jeff Mason ‏@JW_Mason 2h2 hours ago

With four commits yesterday, here's how the #Huskers commits under Mike Riley are rated from each service:

 

 

I do give credit to the new staff for keeping most of the previous commits in the fold. Had we lost 2-3 key guys, this class would have really been struggling.

 

But I don't really see giving them quite so much praise for what they've done finding new guys. I'd give them a decent score for finding what they can and filling in positions of need. But let's be honest, if the previous staff had offered the same guys, there would be tons of complaining about how they couldn't recruit and didn't put enough effort into getting the best players. I'm not a huge star guy but between their rankings and who else was interested, it's not like we had a lot of competition.

 

• Barnett is obviously the biggest "star" of the list. But he was nose-diving in the rankings and had the big-name suitors backing off. I don't mind giving him a shot because he has potential but he's a player that wasn't developing as many though he could and thus his stock was falling.
• Young is the next "best" but he actually committed to the previous staff, it just wasn't public until after Riley was hired.
• I think Alston is a really good late find but he also took quite a fall in the ratings and our main competition was Washington State
• Of the guys who were consensus three-stars, Snyder seems to be a good find although a late push by an offer-anyone-who'll-listen Michigan might not mean as much as it seems
• I also see potential in Ozigbo but, again, it has to make you wonder why he wasn't that sought-after.
• Barry could also end up being a good find. There are rumors of academic issues but he claims he's in good shape
• That leaves four guys who were only a two-star by at least one service. Of those, I give Ferguson the best shot as Carr turns out a lot of D1 talent (I think it was 18 last year).
• We stole Sykes from Washington State and Purdue and Minnesota were his other interests
• Davis has really good potential but is definitely a boom-or-bust pickup that we "stole" from Georgia Southern (although I don't mind giving him a shot considering where we are)
• Not saying Reed won't turn into something but he can't be considered anything but a reach to fill a spot.
• I'll give a pass to Ober as they thought we could do better at LS and we obviously had some room

 

So basically they've gotten two higher-rated guys who had slipped in the rankings, three mid-level guys who are fine grabs to fill out a class, four guys who have to be considered projects and a LS. That's fine for what we had to deal with but there is a lot of possibilities for guys who don't really end up contributing much.

[Mavric]

Also, I think two other things are interesting.

 

One - Despite all the talk about the 500 mile radius and giving in-state kids more of a look, there were no offers to anyone fitting that description and they spent precious little time in that area. I don't blame them for that - I think they went about it correctly. And perhaps it will be different in a full cycle. But I also think it's entirely possible that they say all the right things but what ends up happening isn't that much different from what has been the norm for the last several years.

 

Two - We are definitely in an over-signing mode. Barring a mass defection, there almost assuredly won't be any schollys for current walk-ons. That's not a big deal this year as there probably aren't many candidates this time around be again it makes me wonder if they say all the right things about the importance of the walk-on program but wonder how that will actually translate.

[Thanks_Tom RR]

From a moderator at 247:

 

Jeff Mason ‏@JW_Mason 2h2 hours ago

With four commits yesterday, here's how the #Huskers commits under Mike Riley are rated from each service:

 

 

I do give credit to the new staff for keeping most of the previous commits in the fold. Had we lost 2-3 key guys, this class would have really been struggling.

 

But I don't really see giving them quite so much praise for what they've done finding new guys. I'd give them a decent score for finding what they can and filling in positions of need. But let's be honest, if the previous staff had offered the same guys, there would be tons of complaining about how they couldn't recruit and didn't put enough effort into getting the best players. I'm not a huge star guy but between their rankings and who else was interested, it's not like we had a lot of competition.

 

• Barnett is obviously the biggest "star" of the list. But he was nose-diving in the rankings and had the big-name suitors backing off. I don't mind giving him a shot because he has potential but he's a player that wasn't developing as many though he could and thus his stock was falling.
• Young is the next "best" but he actually committed to the previous staff, it just wasn't public until after Riley was hired.
• I think Alston is a really good late find but he also took quite a fall in the ratings and our main competition was Washington State
• Of the guys who were consensus three-stars, Snyder seems to be a good find although a late push by an offer-anyone-who'll-listen Michigan might not mean as much as it seems
• I also see potential in Ozigbo but, again, it has to make you wonder why he wasn't that sought-after.
• Barry could also end up being a good find. There are rumors of academic issues but he claims he's in good shape
• That leaves four guys who were only a two-star by at least one service. Of those, I give Ferguson the best shot as Carr turns out a lot of D1 talent (I think it was 18 last year).
• We stole Sykes from Washington State and Purdue and Minnesota were his other interests
• Davis has really good potential but is definitely a boom-or-bust pickup that we "stole" from Georgia Southern (although I don't mind giving him a shot considering where we are)
• Not saying Reed won't turn into something but he can't be considered anything but a reach to fill a spot.
• I'll give a pass to Ober as they thought we could do better at LS and we obviously had some room

 

So basically they've gotten two higher-rated guys who had slipped in the rankings, three mid-level guys who are fine grabs to fill out a class, four guys who have to be considered projects and a LS. That's fine for what we had to deal with but there is a lot of possibilities for guys who don't really end up contributing much.

Thank you, Mav. The current staff has been working hard, but we can't overlook the talent that was brought into this class by the previous staff. In fact, I would stay the top half of this class, by in large, was committed before the old staff left.

[Amac3309]

Bottom line this staff has brought in 8 of the 9 LOWEST ranked players in this cycle. We do need to pump the breaks a little, i think the best job they did this cycle was not having the class implode. I'm not bashing them because of the time constraints, next year we will be able to tell.

 

But what we will be able to tell with this class is if they can develop players like people think they can

[Dr. Strangelove]

From a moderator at 247:

 

Jeff Mason ‏@JW_Mason 2h2 hours ago

With four commits yesterday, here's how the #Huskers commits under Mike Riley are rated from each service:

 

 

I do give credit to the new staff for keeping most of the previous commits in the fold. Had we lost 2-3 key guys, this class would have really been struggling.

 

But I don't really see giving them quite so much praise for what they've done finding new guys. I'd give them a decent score for finding what they can and filling in positions of need. But let's be honest, if the previous staff had offered the same guys, there would be tons of complaining about how they couldn't recruit and didn't put enough effort into getting the best players. I'm not a huge star guy but between their rankings and who else was interested, it's not like we had a lot of competition.

 

• Barnett is obviously the biggest "star" of the list. But he was nose-diving in the rankings and had the big-name suitors backing off. I don't mind giving him a shot because he has potential but he's a player that wasn't developing as many though he could and thus his stock was falling.
• Young is the next "best" but he actually committed to the previous staff, it just wasn't public until after Riley was hired.
• I think Alston is a really good late find but he also took quite a fall in the ratings and our main competition was Washington State
• Of the guys who were consensus three-stars, Snyder seems to be a good find although a late push by an offer-anyone-who'll-listen Michigan might not mean as much as it seems
• I also see potential in Ozigbo but, again, it has to make you wonder why he wasn't that sought-after.
• Barry could also end up being a good find. There are rumors of academic issues but he claims he's in good shape
• That leaves four guys who were only a two-star by at least one service. Of those, I give Ferguson the best shot as Carr turns out a lot of D1 talent (I think it was 18 last year).
• We stole Sykes from Washington State and Purdue and Minnesota were his other interests
• Davis has really good potential but is definitely a boom-or-bust pickup that we "stole" from Georgia Southern (although I don't mind giving him a shot considering where we are)
• Not saying Reed won't turn into something but he can't be considered anything but a reach to fill a spot.
• I'll give a pass to Ober as they thought we could do better at LS and we obviously had some room

 

So basically they've gotten two higher-rated guys who had slipped in the rankings, three mid-level guys who are fine grabs to fill out a class, four guys who have to be considered projects and a LS. That's fine for what we had to deal with but there is a lot of possibilities for guys who don't really end up contributing much.

+1 Mav. That's a long version of what I was getting at. We also have to make cuts in order to make room for guys who are considered projects.

 

Again, this is from an armchair coach. I hope the recent additions work out, but Mav is right. If Bo & Co. make those offers and get those commits, people would be rioting right now.

[IllinioisHusker]

 

From a moderator at 247:

 

Jeff Mason ‏@JW_Mason 2h2 hours ago

With four commits yesterday, here's how the #Huskers commits under Mike Riley are rated from each service:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do give credit to the new staff for keeping most of the previous commits in the fold. Had we lost 2-3 key guys, this class would have really been struggling.

 

But I don't really see giving them quite so much praise for what they've done finding new guys. I'd give them a decent score for finding what they can and filling in positions of need. But let's be honest, if the previous staff had offered the same guys, there would be tons of complaining about how they couldn't recruit and didn't put enough effort into getting the best players. I'm not a huge star guy but between their rankings and who else was interested, it's not like we had a lot of competition.

 

 

• Barnett is obviously the biggest "star" of the list. But he was nose-diving in the rankings and had the big-name suitors backing off. I don't mind giving him a shot because he has potential but he's a player that wasn't developing as many though he could and thus his stock was falling.
• Young is the next "best" but he actually committed to the previous staff, it just wasn't public until after Riley was hired.
• I think Alston is a really good late find but he also took quite a fall in the ratings and our main competition was Washington State
• Of the guys who were consensus three-stars, Snyder seems to be a good find although a late push by an offer-anyone-who'll-listen Michigan might not mean as much as it seems
• I also see potential in Ozigbo but, again, it has to make you wonder why he wasn't that sought-after.
• Barry could also end up being a good find. There are rumors of academic issues but he claims he's in good shape
• That leaves four guys who were only a two-star by at least one service. Of those, I give Ferguson the best shot as Carr turns out a lot of D1 talent (I think it was 18 last year).
• We stole Sykes from Washington State and Purdue and Minnesota were his other interests
• Davis has really good potential but is definitely a boom-or-bust pickup that we "stole" from Georgia Southern (although I don't mind giving him a shot considering where we are)
• Not saying Reed won't turn into something but he can't be considered anything but a reach to fill a spot.
• I'll give a pass to Ober as they thought we could do better at LS and we obviously had some room

So basically they've gotten two higher-rated guys who had slipped in the rankings, three mid-level guys who are fine grabs to fill out a class, four guys who have to be considered projects and a LS. That's fine for what we had to deal with but there is a lot of possibilities for guys who don't really end up contributing much.

+1 Mav. That's a long version of what I was getting at. We also have to make cuts in order to make room for guys who are considered projects.

 

Again, this is from an armchair coach. I hope the recent additions work out, but Mav is right. If Bo & Co. make those offers and get those commits, people would be rioting right now.

It's not like DPE is gonna be cut to make room Alex Davis or these "project recruits"... The ones that will be replaced will be older "projects" that didn't work out.

[Huskinator]

Speaking of DPE.... Wasn't he a project last year that we swooped away from a lesser opponent?? It was between us, UNC, And BC

[Mavric]

Speaking of DPE.... Wasn't he a project last year that we swooped away from a lesser opponent?? It was between us, UNC, And BC

 

He was a consensus three-star so he would have been above the group I labeled "projects." And only one of the four guys in this years group was really considering another Power 5 school so no, I wouldn't have put him in the same boat.

[Hedley Lamarr]

The reason people would react differently if the previous staff hauled in some of these guys is because they were recruiting to NU for 7 years. You uproot a staff throw them in a new environment etc and they do what Riley and the gang did and that is pretty dang good in my book. I have faith that we will haul in some VERY good classes under Riley. They are relentless recruiters. I'm 100 times more optimistic bout this staff than the previous one regarding recruiting

[Huskinator]

Plus it's more I'm impressed they kept the class together considering the consensus was "our class is screwed if we fire bo"

[Mavric]

Plus it's more I'm impressed they kept the class together considering the consensus was "our class is screwed if we fire bo"

 

Pretty sure this wasn't even a plurality, let alone a consensus.

[ScottyIce]

I know I felt like the class was going to be bad if we fired Bo.... glad I'm wrong about everything.

[Dr. Strangelove]

 

 

From a moderator at 247:

 

Jeff Mason ‏@JW_Mason 2h2 hours ago

With four commits yesterday, here's how the #Huskers commits under Mike Riley are rated from each service:

 

 

 

 

 

 

I do give credit to the new staff for keeping most of the previous commits in the fold. Had we lost 2-3 key guys, this class would have really been struggling.

 

But I don't really see giving them quite so much praise for what they've done finding new guys. I'd give them a decent score for finding what they can and filling in positions of need. But let's be honest, if the previous staff had offered the same guys, there would be tons of complaining about how they couldn't recruit and didn't put enough effort into getting the best players. I'm not a huge star guy but between their rankings and who else was interested, it's not like we had a lot of competition.

 

• Barnett is obviously the biggest "star" of the list. But he was nose-diving in the rankings and had the big-name suitors backing off. I don't mind giving him a shot because he has potential but he's a player that wasn't developing as many though he could and thus his stock was falling.
• Young is the next "best" but he actually committed to the previous staff, it just wasn't public until after Riley was hired.
• I think Alston is a really good late find but he also took quite a fall in the ratings and our main competition was Washington State
• Of the guys who were consensus three-stars, Snyder seems to be a good find although a late push by an offer-anyone-who'll-listen Michigan might not mean as much as it seems
• I also see potential in Ozigbo but, again, it has to make you wonder why he wasn't that sought-after.
• Barry could also end up being a good find. There are rumors of academic issues but he claims he's in good shape
• That leaves four guys who were only a two-star by at least one service. Of those, I give Ferguson the best shot as Carr turns out a lot of D1 talent (I think it was 18 last year).
• We stole Sykes from Washington State and Purdue and Minnesota were his other interests
• Davis has really good potential but is definitely a boom-or-bust pickup that we "stole" from Georgia Southern (although I don't mind giving him a shot considering where we are)
• Not saying Reed won't turn into something but he can't be considered anything but a reach to fill a spot.
• I'll give a pass to Ober as they thought we could do better at LS and we obviously had some room

So basically they've gotten two higher-rated guys who had slipped in the rankings, three mid-level guys who are fine grabs to fill out a class, four guys who have to be considered projects and a LS. That's fine for what we had to deal with but there is a lot of possibilities for guys who don't really end up contributing much.

+1 Mav. That's a long version of what I was getting at. We also have to make cuts in order to make room for guys who are considered projects.

 

Again, this is from an armchair coach. I hope the recent additions work out, but Mav is right. If Bo & Co. make those offers and get those commits, people would be rioting right now.

It's not like DPE is gonna be cut to make room Alex Davis or these "project recruits"... The ones that will be replaced will be older "projects" that didn't work out.

 

I'm not a big fan of cutting anybody, unless it's a 4th or 5th year player who's already graduated. There aren't enough of them on the team to work out the class though.

 

I thought one of the things Nebraska fans took pride in was that we didn't over sign like other programs?

[Atbone95]

Outside of Mav, (no, I refuse to include Matty as a serious poster in this forum), I haven't seen any of you complainers in here in the last year. Please shush - or watch a kid's film before you complain. I am happy with the way this is shaking out, and I've been following recruiting for a while.

[Dr. Strangelove]

Outside of Mav, (no, I refuse to include Matty as a serious poster in this forum), I haven't seen any of you complainers in here in the last year. Please shush - or watch a kid's film before you complain. I am happy with the way this is shaking out, and I've been following recruiting for a while.

In my defense, I was critical of the class last year. I remember putting together a spreadsheet of the offers of the commits at the time and stated that several of the recruits were not what I was looking for. I was particularly critical of the 3 Edna Karr players and our two DE recruits from last season.

 

I do understand your point, I'm not trying to be a debbie downer. I just don't always get hyped and drink the kool-aid like many others.