What we do Best/Worst

[kchusker_chris]

Maybe. Maybe not. Saying he's 3-4 short every year could be a little misleading; it's not like we're 12-16 short over a four year period.

 

If we were turning down four star players just to save a few spots it would be one thing. But a lot of people claim we're not getting very good recruits anyway, so why would we want 3-4 at the bottom end? Seriously, though. If we had enough guys wanting to come here, I'd be more worried. As it is, I don't think it's that bad to have a couple spots for guys who are already here and contributing. We gave out seven this year and all of them are on the field regularly. That's a much better percentage than anyone's recruits.

I'd say it's 12-16 over a four year period. We've been under most years with Pelini here, this last year being the worst. And would those 7 guys have not been on the field without the scholly? (i'd also say your'e using the world "regularly" very loosely). Bottom line, recruiting is as much a numbers game as anything - and falling short on the numbers is very detrimental to the depth. I think it's one of the key reasons why we can't get over the hump. Just my opinion, if Bo wants to play at 77-78 then that's fine, but I think we have to be closer to 85 to be consistent top-10 team.

[Mavric]

Maybe. Maybe not. Saying he's 3-4 short every year could be a little misleading; it's not like we're 12-16 short over a four year period.

 

If we were turning down four star players just to save a few spots it would be one thing. But a lot of people claim we're not getting very good recruits anyway, so why would we want 3-4 at the bottom end? Seriously, though. If we had enough guys wanting to come here, I'd be more worried. As it is, I don't think it's that bad to have a couple spots for guys who are already here and contributing. We gave out seven this year and all of them are on the field regularly. That's a much better percentage than anyone's recruits.

I'd say it's 12-16 over a four year period. We've been under most years with Pelini here, this last year being the worst. And would those 7 guys have not been on the field without the scholly? (i'd also say your'e using the world "regularly" very loosely). Bottom line, recruiting is as much a numbers game as anything - and falling short on the numbers is very detrimental to the depth. I think it's one of the key reasons why we can't get over the hump. Just my opinion, if Bo wants to play at 77-78 then that's fine, but I think we have to be closer to 85 to be consistent top-10 team.

So you're saying we only have about 70 guys on scholarship right now? The extra scholarships are mainly given to seniors so they are available again the next year or to guys who are playing a lot - like Janovich.

 

Which of the seven is not on the field regularly?

[Count 'Bility]

Maybe. Maybe not. Saying he's 3-4 short every year could be a little misleading; it's not like we're 12-16 short over a four year period.

 

If we were turning down four star players just to save a few spots it would be one thing. But a lot of people claim we're not getting very good recruits anyway, so why would we want 3-4 at the bottom end? Seriously, though. If we had enough guys wanting to come here, I'd be more worried. As it is, I don't think it's that bad to have a couple spots for guys who are already here and contributing. We gave out seven this year and all of them are on the field regularly. That's a much better percentage than anyone's recruits.

I'd say it's 12-16 over a four year period. We've been under most years with Pelini here, this last year being the worst. And would those 7 guys have not been on the field without the scholly? (i'd also say your'e using the world "regularly" very loosely). Bottom line, recruiting is as much a numbers game as anything - and falling short on the numbers is very detrimental to the depth. I think it's one of the key reasons why we can't get over the hump. Just my opinion, if Bo wants to play at 77-78 then that's fine, but I think we have to be closer to 85 to be consistent top-10 team.

We can only have 75 on the bus for half the games anyway.

[kchusker_chris]

We can only have 75 on the bus for half the games anyway.

And finding those 75 from a larger pool of talent improves the quality/depth of the 75

[EZ-E]

I'd agree w/ you on the RBs, and with the exception of this year Bo has a stellar track record of developing NFL caliber CBs. We should be able to recruit those two positions with little effort. I'd also throw in Bo's evaluation/recruitment of JUCO players. If you look back at our top players over the last 5 years most of the big names were JUCO transfers. Very few of them didn't end up starters, with most being stars.

 

I think our biggest weakness in the last few years has been roster management. Oversigning 3-4 guys a year brings in an entire extra recruiting class every 5 years. Undersigning be 3-4 a year has an equally negative impact. We see it when we play top teams.

 

SJB is an NFL corner.

 

Bo will never over sign purposely and I stand by him there.

SJB will play in the NFL - but he's not at the level of Prince, Gomes, Dennard, etc IMO. He's playing purely on raw talent still. He's gotten burned quite a few times this year. If he had another year or two he'd be great...and I think plenty of NFL teams will see the potential and pick him up in the 4th-6th. When you go back and watch the Purdue game watch SJB defend the 24 yard pass about 90 seconds into the 2nd quarter. He looked silly. That was 6 if Green didn't come over to make the open field tackle. SJB was 10 yards behind after 20 yards of that receivers route. Turned wrong way entirely. I've seen him do that a number of times this year.

 

Evan's (who my comment was more directed at) has hardly progressed beyond his freshman year. Throw Green and Mitchel in there as well.

 

And I agree w/ you on the oversigning...but Bo is 3-4 short every year. That's huge.

 

You have to realize that Prince had the stereotypical build for a CB in the NFL. I've been of the opinion that Dennard was always the better CB. Or he at least fit the mold better with what Bo wanted to do. However, Prince had the better measurables.

 

Ciante the last two games has been completely in his element. He's absolutely garbage over the top and in deep coverage, but close to the LOS where he can defend short routes with safety help and help in run support. I've never thought he was a guy you could leave on an island and I think he's a typical Nickelback. Joshua Mitchell???? Ehhhh. He'll be fine against some of the guys in the Big Ten.

 

The other thing we aren't talking about is that the juniors/seniors this year in the secondary have gone through 3 coaching changes.

 

I do believe that there are a few walk ons each year that deserve schollys. Where would we have used those other three last year??? On guys like Devon Nash???

[kchusker_chris]

I do believe that there are a few walk ons each year that deserve schollys. Where would we have used those other three last year??? On guys like Devon Nash???

I agree w/ the walkons, 100%. As for who deserved? That's on the staff to identify, not me. Last year we could have picked up someone like Bazata late, or the year before that Drew Ott or Shoff. I don't follow every position like you do, I just know we have to get closer to that 85, if not on it. It's a numbers game, especially at Nebraska where we aren't going to pull in a class full of 4* guys. If a lower percentage of 3*'s contribute (which is fact)...then we need more of them to increase our odds of gaining the needed bodies out of the class.

 

I know they swing for the fences at the end, and sometimes strike out (owa, peat, willis). There's nothing wrong w/ that, you have to do that. But it shouldn't leave us 3-4 short. We both know the staff has a pretty clear picture of where they are going to end up the couple weeks leading up to signing day. I just don't see many excuses for coming up as short as we have been. There's players out there that would take a late offer from Nebraska over Ohio/Wyoming/Kansas, etc. I'd think we'd have a list of 10-15 of those guys going into signing day to make sure we hit that number. There's always scholly's available. Bo showed with Suttles/Brown that he has little tollerence for shenanigans, and you can almost guarantee there is 1-2 of those a year. There's been multiple dismissals/transfers/early grads/med redshirts every year he's been here. He'd be fine sitting at 85 in February. 2-3 walkons would probably still get their schollys.

[EZ-E]

I do believe that there are a few walk ons each year that deserve schollys. Where would we have used those other three last year??? On guys like Devon Nash???

I agree w/ the walkons, 100%. As for who deserved? That's on the staff to identify, not me. Last year we could have picked up someone like Bazata late, or the year before that Drew Ott or Shoff. I don't follow every position like you do, I just know we have to get closer to that 85, if not on it. It's a numbers game, especially at Nebraska where we aren't going to pull in a class full of 4* guys. If a lower percentage of 3*'s contribute (which is fact)...then we need more of them to increase our odds of gaining the needed bodies out of the class.

 

I know they swing for the fences at the end, and sometimes strike out (owa, peat, willis). There's nothing wrong w/ that, you have to do that. But it shouldn't leave us 3-4 short. We both know the staff has a pretty clear picture of where they are going to end up the couple weeks leading up to signing day. I just don't see many excuses for coming up as short as we have been. There's players out there that would take a late offer from Nebraska over Ohio/Wyoming/Kansas, etc. I'd think we'd have a list of 10-15 of those guys going into signing day to make sure we hit that number. There's always scholly's available. Bo showed with Suttles/Brown that he has little tollerence for shenanigans, and you can almost guarantee there is 1-2 of those a year. There's been multiple dismissals/transfers/early grads/med redshirts every year he's been here. He'd be fine sitting at 85 in February. 2-3 walkons would probably still get their schollys.

 

I don't disagree with you on Bazata and I have spoken to a lot of people regarding him. Do I think that the DTs we got were better? Absolutely they are. But I do feel a kid like Bazata is a kid that you want on your football team. The thing that I said with him in around July or August that the staff was in a no-win situation with him. If they offer, he wasn't worthy of an offer, if they didn't then the staff hates Nebraska kids.

 

Bo has proven he will give kids second chances. For example, that TE from Washington that would have been here had his transcript cleared. Even Jonathon Rose had an issue that has been disclosed on this board that I will not repeat as it is his business and in the past. That was absolutely not Brown or Suttles first strike.

 

I don't disagree with you on this point, but in my eyes as well, I don't want a kid here eating up a scholarship for 4-5 years because we "needed to fill room." You know? It really is a double edged-sword.

[The King]

I do believe that there are a few walk ons each year that deserve schollys. Where would we have used those other three last year??? On guys like Devon Nash???

I agree w/ the walkons, 100%. As for who deserved? That's on the staff to identify, not me. Last year we could have picked up someone like Bazata late, or the year before that Drew Ott or Shoff. I don't follow every position like you do, I just know we have to get closer to that 85, if not on it. It's a numbers game, especially at Nebraska where we aren't going to pull in a class full of 4* guys. If a lower percentage of 3*'s contribute (which is fact)...then we need more of them to increase our odds of gaining the needed bodies out of the class.

 

I know they swing for the fences at the end, and sometimes strike out (owa, peat, willis). There's nothing wrong w/ that, you have to do that. But it shouldn't leave us 3-4 short. We both know the staff has a pretty clear picture of where they are going to end up the couple weeks leading up to signing day. I just don't see many excuses for coming up as short as we have been. There's players out there that would take a late offer from Nebraska over Ohio/Wyoming/Kansas, etc. I'd think we'd have a list of 10-15 of those guys going into signing day to make sure we hit that number. There's always scholly's available. Bo showed with Suttles/Brown that he has little tollerence for shenanigans, and you can almost guarantee there is 1-2 of those a year. There's been multiple dismissals/transfers/early grads/med redshirts every year he's been here. He'd be fine sitting at 85 in February. 2-3 walkons would probably still get their schollys.

 

I don't disagree with you on Bazata and I have spoken to a lot of people regarding him. Do I think that the DTs we got were better? Absolutely they are. But I do feel a kid like Bazata is a kid that you want on your football team. The thing that I said with him in around July or August that the staff was in a no-win situation with him. If they offer, he wasn't worthy of an offer, if they didn't then the staff hates Nebraska kids.

 

Bo has proven he will give kids second chances. For example, that TE from Washington that would have been here had his transcript cleared. Even Jonathon Rose had an issue that has been disclosed on this board that I will not repeat as it is his business and in the past. That was absolutely not Brown or Suttles first strike.

 

I don't disagree with you on this point, but in my eyes as well, I don't want a kid here eating up a scholarship for 4-5 years because we "needed to fill room." You know? It really is a double edged-sword.

 

I have very little to add except...

 

Brown was a complete tool. Good football player, but a complete tool.

[Redux]

Bo runs a tight ship. No nonsense or you are out. Ill take that any day over 12 win seasons we have to vacate because of some infraction down the road.

[EZ-E]

Bo runs a tight ship. No nonsense or you are out. Ill take that any day over 12 win seasons we have to vacate because of some infraction down the road.

 

True, but as I said he isn't above second chances which I personally agree with. When I was 18 I didn't make the right choices every single time either. I still don't

[Redux]

Every situation is different. Bo seems to be a good judge of character. He likes his team to reflect that. I like his attitude towards that. Second chances are something every coach should consider if the circumstance calls for it.

[Redux]

And hell, who oamong us still makes the right decisions all the time. I said I wasnt going to drink Whiskey if we lost to UCLA. But I still woke up with no memory of anthing past 6pm........or pants.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Best: putting together 10 win seasons that keep Nebraska in the national discussion.

 

Worst: putting together 4 loss seasons that keep us from being relevant in that discussion.

 

 

The common denonminator is lack of killer instinct, as someone else pointed out.

 

We have enough talent to be better.

[Redux]

Killer instinct on defense gets you ejected unfortunately. Cant just let em play the game.

[SandBarHusker]

Best, develop guys in other positions, JAN, ameer, etc

 

Worst, we lack the kill instinct.

 

 

I have to admit this is one I just don't get. Why we do not have a killer instinct. Our come from behind wins have been well documented but man we have had some real drop offs. I can't rememeber all of them specifically but we had UCLA big at half time, we were ahead of Georgia most of the game, and we're even ahead and dominate over Ohio State last year. Just seems like these teams have a lot of "give up" in them. Many times when they are ahead.