OWH: Five Hearts, Two Stars - A Look at Husker Recruiting

[Mavric]

We are thus left with 60 players over ten recruiting classes between 2006 and 2015. That spans three head coaches — Bill Callahan, Bo Pelini and Mike Riley — includes all of the Pelini era.

Out of that 60 players:

Five have been drafted by an NFL team — Keith Williams (2006 recruiting class), Marcel Jones (2007), Eric Hagg (2007), Roy Helu (2007) and Stanley Jean-Baptiste (2010).

Four have been first-team all-conference: Pierre Allen (2006), Hagg, Ricky Henry (2008) and Jean-Baptiste.

That's 8.3 percent of the 60 players for both NFL Draftees and 6.67 percent for first-team All-conference players.

I've then divvied up the players into six categories. You may quibble a bit on where a few players land, and if you want to debate that, we can, but you'll get the gist.

 

OWH

[BigRedBuster]

FYI....of our current commits, only Bootle is right no the line of being classified in this group with a 5.5 rating on Rivals.

Obviously none of the 4 big targets we have left fall into this.

[Dr. Strangelove]

 

We are thus left with 60 players over ten recruiting classes between 2006 and 2015. That spans three head coaches — Bill Callahan, Bo Pelini and Mike Riley — includes all of the Pelini era.

Out of that 60 players:

Five have been drafted by an NFL team — Keith Williams (2006 recruiting class), Marcel Jones (2007), Eric Hagg (2007), Roy Helu (2007) and Stanley Jean-Baptiste (2010).

Four have been first-team all-conference: Pierre Allen (2006), Hagg, Ricky Henry (2008) and Jean-Baptiste.

That's 8.3 percent of the 60 players for both NFL Draftees and 6.67 percent for first-team All-conference players.

I've then divvied up the players into six categories. You may quibble a bit on where a few players land, and if you want to debate that, we can, but you'll get the gist.

 

OWH

 

A pretty good article. It tells us what we already know: you can't recruit low caliber players and be successful.

[lo country]

 

 

We are thus left with 60 players over ten recruiting classes between 2006 and 2015. That spans three head coaches — Bill Callahan, Bo Pelini and Mike Riley — includes all of the Pelini era.

Out of that 60 players:

Five have been drafted by an NFL team — Keith Williams (2006 recruiting class), Marcel Jones (2007), Eric Hagg (2007), Roy Helu (2007) and Stanley Jean-Baptiste (2010).

Four have been first-team all-conference: Pierre Allen (2006), Hagg, Ricky Henry (2008) and Jean-Baptiste.

That's 8.3 percent of the 60 players for both NFL Draftees and 6.67 percent for first-team All-conference players.

I've then divvied up the players into six categories. You may quibble a bit on where a few players land, and if you want to debate that, we can, but you'll get the gist.

 

OWH

 

A pretty good article. It tells us what we already know: you can't recruit low caliber players and be successful.

 

Yep^. Or have a majority who need to be "coached" up.

[cm husker]

Like so much "analysis" based on recruiting rankings, this article lacks context (and builds a pretty healthy straw man).

 

1. It seems to imply that NU is foregoing "elite talent" for a "diamond in the rough" model. Obviously no coach at NU has ever recruited with that goal in mind. But the reality is, NU does need to run a system that can wring more production/wins out of "lesser talent" than its better situated contemporaries.

 

For many years, NU did that. Because no one can tell me that Nebraska native talent was significantly better in the 70s through 90s than it is now. We just had coaches who knew how to win.

 

2. It implies that NU is different than most other P5 teams in its apptoach to recruiting. The reality it is most teams are in a position where they need to take "flyers" on lower rated kids.

 

3. Any article based on the arbitrary distinction between a 5.5 and 5.6 player is misguided. Rivals, and none of the other services, are that sophisticated, especially after rating the top 200/300 players in the country. You have untrained bloggers basically rating these kids, either off of an eyeball test or some list of reported offers (which is often inaccurate). Using the recruiting rankings as anything more than liner in a birdcage gives them too much credit.

 

Bottom line: this roster has talent capable of being a top 25 (or better) team. Just like about 50 or 60 other teams in the country.

 

It's coaching that will sort out whether they finish as highly ranked as they could.

 

NU as a program has had a top 25 level of talent for the past decade, and we'll probably have about the same level of talent on average over the next decade.

[junior4949]

Like so much "analysis" based on recruiting rankings, this article lacks context (and builds a pretty healthy straw man).

 

1. It seems to imply that NU is foregoing "elite talent" for a "diamond in the rough" model. Obviously no coach at NU has ever recruited with that goal in mind. But the reality is, NU does need to run a system that can wring more production/wins out of "lesser talent" than its better situated contemporaries.

 

For many years, NU did that. Because no one can tell me that Nebraska native talent was significantly better in the 70s through 90s than it is now. We just had coaches who knew how to win.

 

2. It implies that NU is different than most other P5 teams in its apptoach to recruiting. The reality it is most teams are in a position where they need to take "flyers" on lower rated kids.

 

3. Any article based on the arbitrary distinction between a 5.5 and 5.6 player is misguided. Rivals, and none of the other services, are that sophisticated, especially after rating the top 200/300 players in the country. You have untrained bloggers basically rating these kids, either off of an eyeball test or some list of reported offers (which is often inaccurate). Using the recruiting rankings as anything more than liner in a birdcage gives them too much credit.

 

Bottom line: this roster has talent capable of being a top 25 (or better) team. Just like about 50 or 60 other teams in the country.

 

It's coaching that will sort out whether they finish as highly ranked as they could.

 

NU as a program has had a top 25 level of talent for the past decade, and we'll probably have about the same level of talent on average over the next decade.

 

I really don't know what to think of the bolded part. When and who was the last RB out of Omaha that was a major contributor? I can't speak for all of Nebraska, but here in SW NE the talent simply isn't there anymore. I've been to several high schools and have seen their track record boards. There really hasn't been any new records since about 2000 at most of the area high schools. The teams that were winning state championships back then in football are now lucky to win three games a season. I really do question that we have the in-state talent we did a decade or two ago.

[cm husker]

For the most part, Omaha produced sprinters who fit great as backs into the NU system. But how many Omaha born backs ended up being NFL producers? Ahman.

 

Most Omaha RB production is more attributable to the system than to the raw talent of those players.

 

I get your meanings re: records but I don't think that's a very accurate way to measure overall talent.

 

It would be interesting to see migration patterns, but my sense is that NE has grown. My other sense is that NU football doesn't run a system, particularly offensively, that makes our homegrown talent look good.

[Pedro Guerrero]

My other sense is that NU football doesn't run a system, particularly offensively, that makes our homegrown talent look good.

 

What system would make the local kids look good? I'm curious and would like to know you views on that because the only team I saw run an option based offense was Millard North. I saw a lot of Pro Style, or Spread or I formation in the Class A games I attended this year.

 

Of course I'm an untrained football fan so what I was "seeing" and what was actually being ran could have been totally different.

[junior4949]

For the most part, Omaha produced sprinters who fit great as backs into the NU system. But how many Omaha born backs ended up being NFL producers? Ahman.

 

Most Omaha RB production is more attributable to the system than to the raw talent of those players.

 

I get your meanings re: records but I don't think that's a very accurate way to measure overall talent.

 

It would be interesting to see migration patterns, but my sense is that NE has grown. My other sense is that NU football doesn't run a system, particularly offensively, that makes our homegrown talent look good.

 

We're lacking speed. Where did all of the Omaha speed go? Do track speedsters not play football anymore? I would think we could find a place for speed on this team.

 

While I can't speak for Lincoln and Omaha, one of the biggest challenges around my whereabouts is getting kids to even go out for football. The town I live closest to used to get 60-70 boys out for football. This past season they had around 27 out. This is out of roughly 100+ boys in the high school. The games I primarily watch are B class schools and smaller. The last time I saw a kid who I thought probably had a shot at playing at Nebraska was all the way back to 1998. Before that, I'd probably see one or two a year. There used to be a lot of kids go on to play at Kearney, Chadron, etc. Today, very few go on to play college ball.

[BaytownHusker]

 

 

 

We are thus left with 60 players over ten recruiting classes between 2006 and 2015. That spans three head coaches — Bill Callahan, Bo Pelini and Mike Riley — includes all of the Pelini era.

Out of that 60 players:

Five have been drafted by an NFL team — Keith Williams (2006 recruiting class), Marcel Jones (2007), Eric Hagg (2007), Roy Helu (2007) and Stanley Jean-Baptiste (2010).

Four have been first-team all-conference: Pierre Allen (2006), Hagg, Ricky Henry (2008) and Jean-Baptiste.

That's 8.3 percent of the 60 players for both NFL Draftees and 6.67 percent for first-team All-conference players.

I've then divvied up the players into six categories. You may quibble a bit on where a few players land, and if you want to debate that, we can, but you'll get the gist.

 

OWH

 

A pretty good article. It tells us what we already know: you can't recruit low caliber players and be successful.

 

Yep^. Or have a majority who need to be "coached" up.

 

You can, There are teams every year that are successful doing it. There are just as many teams with great class's that aren't successful also.

[Dr. Strangelove]

 

 

 

 

We are thus left with 60 players over ten recruiting classes between 2006 and 2015. That spans three head coaches — Bill Callahan, Bo Pelini and Mike Riley — includes all of the Pelini era.

Out of that 60 players:

Five have been drafted by an NFL team — Keith Williams (2006 recruiting class), Marcel Jones (2007), Eric Hagg (2007), Roy Helu (2007) and Stanley Jean-Baptiste (2010).

Four have been first-team all-conference: Pierre Allen (2006), Hagg, Ricky Henry (2008) and Jean-Baptiste.

That's 8.3 percent of the 60 players for both NFL Draftees and 6.67 percent for first-team All-conference players.

I've then divvied up the players into six categories. You may quibble a bit on where a few players land, and if you want to debate that, we can, but you'll get the gist.

 

OWH

 

A pretty good article. It tells us what we already know: you can't recruit low caliber players and be successful.

 

Yep^. Or have a majority who need to be "coached" up.

 

You can, There are teams every year that are successful doing it. There are just as many teams with great class's that aren't successful also.

 

Please go back through teams that have won National Titles and tell me what their 4-year recruiting average is.

 

If by 'successful' you mean win 8 games, sure. If you want to annually compete for your conference, then no.

[cm husker]

 

For the most part, Omaha produced sprinters who fit great as backs into the NU system. But how many Omaha born backs ended up being NFL producers? Ahman.

 

Most Omaha RB production is more attributable to the system than to the raw talent of those players.

 

I get your meanings re: records but I don't think that's a very accurate way to measure overall talent.

 

It would be interesting to see migration patterns, but my sense is that NE has grown. My other sense is that NU football doesn't run a system, particularly offensively, that makes our homegrown talent look good.

 

We're lacking speed. Where did all of the Omaha speed go? Do track speedsters not play football anymore? I would think we could find a place for speed on this team.

 

While I can't speak for Lincoln and Omaha, one of the biggest challenges around my whereabouts is getting kids to even go out for football. The town I live closest to used to get 60-70 boys out for football. This past season they had around 27 out. This is out of roughly 100+ boys in the high school. The games I primarily watch are B class schools and smaller. The last time I saw a kid who I thought probably had a shot at playing at Nebraska was all the way back to 1998. Before that, I'd probably see one or two a year. There used to be a lot of kids go on to play at Kearney, Chadron, etc. Today, very few go on to play college ball.

 

 

First off, we are not lacking speed or talent on the field. Do we have NC championship talent? No. But we easily have top 20 talent right now.

 

Second, I'm not sure that getting MORE kids out for football helps, unless you think that kids are sitting in the stands who would help NU football. But I doubt that's the case. Perhaps it is though... concussion stuff does have parents concerned.

 

Third, I think what you need to understand is that the "option" based "high school" system, even if not glamorous, really is a talent neutralizer. That's why we could collect kids from small town Nebraska and turn them into producers, including all conference producers. A current example of this sort of approach is Navy. There's rarely a position group on a Navy team during the past decade that 90% of DIA teams would trade for. Yet Navy has produced a lot of wins, including against significantly more athletic teams.

 

To me, NU needs to "swallow its pride" and put in place a "non-glamorous" system (i.e., what NU supposedly had in the 80s and 90s, right up until when it was suddenly glamorous). Chasing other teams by doing what they are trying to do is a recipe for almost always finishing second (or much worse).

[cm husker]

 

 

 

 

 

We are thus left with 60 players over ten recruiting classes between 2006 and 2015. That spans three head coaches — Bill Callahan, Bo Pelini and Mike Riley — includes all of the Pelini era.

Out of that 60 players:

Five have been drafted by an NFL team — Keith Williams (2006 recruiting class), Marcel Jones (2007), Eric Hagg (2007), Roy Helu (2007) and Stanley Jean-Baptiste (2010).

Four have been first-team all-conference: Pierre Allen (2006), Hagg, Ricky Henry (2008) and Jean-Baptiste.

That's 8.3 percent of the 60 players for both NFL Draftees and 6.67 percent for first-team All-conference players.

I've then divvied up the players into six categories. You may quibble a bit on where a few players land, and if you want to debate that, we can, but you'll get the gist.

 

OWH

 

A pretty good article. It tells us what we already know: you can't recruit low caliber players and be successful.

 

Yep^. Or have a majority who need to be "coached" up.

 

You can, There are teams every year that are successful doing it. There are just as many teams with great class's that aren't successful also.

 

Please go back through teams that have won National Titles and tell me what their 4-year recruiting average is.

 

If by 'successful' you mean win 8 games, sure. If you want to annually compete for your conference, then no.

 

 

 

That entire argument is a logic fail. Just because the last several teams have had classes that were highly ranked doesn't mean that's a necessary component to winning one.

 

Although, I will admit that the playoff system has seriously screwed the "underdog" team (at least in terms of talent) ... whether or not that is a good or bad thing is a separate debate.

[BigRedBuster]

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are thus left with 60 players over ten recruiting classes between 2006 and 2015. That spans three head coaches — Bill Callahan, Bo Pelini and Mike Riley — includes all of the Pelini era.

Out of that 60 players:

Five have been drafted by an NFL team — Keith Williams (2006 recruiting class), Marcel Jones (2007), Eric Hagg (2007), Roy Helu (2007) and Stanley Jean-Baptiste (2010).

Four have been first-team all-conference: Pierre Allen (2006), Hagg, Ricky Henry (2008) and Jean-Baptiste.

That's 8.3 percent of the 60 players for both NFL Draftees and 6.67 percent for first-team All-conference players.

I've then divvied up the players into six categories. You may quibble a bit on where a few players land, and if you want to debate that, we can, but you'll get the gist.

 

OWH

 

A pretty good article. It tells us what we already know: you can't recruit low caliber players and be successful.

 

Yep^. Or have a majority who need to be "coached" up.

 

You can, There are teams every year that are successful doing it. There are just as many teams with great class's that aren't successful also.

 

Please go back through teams that have won National Titles and tell me what their 4-year recruiting average is.

 

If by 'successful' you mean win 8 games, sure. If you want to annually compete for your conference, then no.

 

 

 

That entire argument is a logic fail. Just because the last several teams have had classes that were highly ranked doesn't mean that's a necessary component to winning one.

 

Although, I will admit that the playoff system has seriously screwed the "underdog" team (at least in terms of talent) ... whether or not that is a good or bad thing is a separate debate.

 

Actually, I think the playoffs has helped spread the power and chances of a championship.

 

If we win the conference, we are playing for an NC. Simple as that.

 

We have played for the conference championship 3 out of the last 9 years. Sure...we should be there more often. But, 3 out of the last 9 years. Two of those we lost due to simply bad luck be it one second or bad injured QB..etc.

 

I believe we had equal talent on the team for all three. I would have to look back but I don't think Wisconsin had greatly out recruited us 4 years prior to them beating us in the CCG.

 

We constantly have to keep trying to get the best players we possibly can. People who say we don't have the talent on the team to win conference championships simply aren't paying attention. Yes, the cards have to fall right. I think this class is a move in the right direction.

[ColoradoHusk]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

We are thus left with 60 players over ten recruiting classes between 2006 and 2015. That spans three head coaches — Bill Callahan, Bo Pelini and Mike Riley — includes all of the Pelini era.

Out of that 60 players:

Five have been drafted by an NFL team — Keith Williams (2006 recruiting class), Marcel Jones (2007), Eric Hagg (2007), Roy Helu (2007) and Stanley Jean-Baptiste (2010).

Four have been first-team all-conference: Pierre Allen (2006), Hagg, Ricky Henry (2008) and Jean-Baptiste.

That's 8.3 percent of the 60 players for both NFL Draftees and 6.67 percent for first-team All-conference players.

I've then divvied up the players into six categories. You may quibble a bit on where a few players land, and if you want to debate that, we can, but you'll get the gist.

 

OWH

 

A pretty good article. It tells us what we already know: you can't recruit low caliber players and be successful.

 

Yep^. Or have a majority who need to be "coached" up.

 

You can, There are teams every year that are successful doing it. There are just as many teams with great class's that aren't successful also.

 

Please go back through teams that have won National Titles and tell me what their 4-year recruiting average is.

 

If by 'successful' you mean win 8 games, sure. If you want to annually compete for your conference, then no.

 

 

 

That entire argument is a logic fail. Just because the last several teams have had classes that were highly ranked doesn't mean that's a necessary component to winning one.

 

Although, I will admit that the playoff system has seriously screwed the "underdog" team (at least in terms of talent) ... whether or not that is a good or bad thing is a separate debate.

 

Actually, I think the playoffs has helped spread the power and chances of a championship.

 

If we win the conference, we are playing for an NC. Simple as that.

 

We have played for the conference championship 3 out of the last 9 years. Sure...we should be there more often. But, 3 out of the last 9 years. Two of those we lost due to simply bad luck be it one second or bad injured QB..etc.

 

I believe we had equal talent on the team for all three. I would have to look back but I don't think Wisconsin had greatly out recruited us 4 years prior to them beating us in the CCG.

 

We constantly have to keep trying to get the best players we possibly can. People who say we don't have the talent on the team to win conference championships simply aren't paying attention. Yes, the cards have to fall right. I think this class is a move in the right direction.

 

I wouldn't say it's as simple as that. I could easily see a scenario where NU loses a tough non-conference game, goes 7-2 in conference and still win the West division. NU would have 3 losses. Even with an upset in the Big Ten title game, that's not going to get NU into the playoff.