OWH Picks Iowa as B1G West Favorite

[teachercd]

 

 

 

 

I think it's nearly a universal acceptance at this point that the recruiting rankings matter. The question is, how are the players developed by the staff on each team? You'll have some busts for sure, but if you see an underwhelming performance year after year based on the supposed talent on hand, it lends credence to a lack of coaching.

agreed. That's why it's an interesting conversation. Certainly nothing is cut and dried. I think if you look down this list and use it as perspective for last season, we'd all agree we didnt have top 20 talent. i think that's where the debate lies, is the angst over last season. One side we had the talent. Other side said we didnt. im on that said we did. This year? It's a wait and see

 

Would I say it's top 20? Probably not. Would I say it's better than everyone on our schedule except OSU and Oregon? Absolutely.

 

There's probably not doubt about that.

 

Talent issues are definitely not being used as an excuse for Illinois, Purdue, *almost* Southern Miss ( i think this game is forgetton as a near disaster),

 

I really think S Miss was going to score - maybe on that last play they ran - if Freedom doesn't get that sack. They had a WR streaking down the left sideline and we hadn't stopped that all day.

 

I don't remember seeing that but you are probably right. Man, I wonder what would have happened if they lost that game too.

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sam still trying to downplay the Huskers talent advantage despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

I thought I'd check to see how bad it is. I was shocked it's this bad. How the hell do we ever lose to these guys?

 

 

I dont know but someone above says we have top 20 talent and metrics back that up. According to this, thats false. Looks to me like we have sub-top 25 talent, which is right where weve been finishing. Odd.

 

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

 

#20 on this, which counts talent on the roster (not signed recruits)

 

my point remains. get inside the numbers. Scroll through that list and look at the names of the higher .8 and .9 guys. How many have had an impact? how many havent hardley played a down?

 

Tommy Armstrong Sr

Josh Banderas Sr

Jalin Barnett fr

bryan Brokop fr

Carlos Davis fr

Marquel Dismuke fr

tanner farmer fr

Nick Gates so

Christian Gaylord Fr

Charles Jackson Sr

Lamar Jackson Fr

Eric Lee Fr

Alonzo moore Sr

Aj Natter Jr

Marcus Newby Jr

Terrll Newby Sr

Peyton Newell So

Mike Rose Sr

Adam taylor Jr

Westy Sr

Mikahle wilbon So

 

These are the bellcows of our top 20 talent. These are all the guys with .88 comp or above. My point is, get inside these numbers and see who they are, theyre age, have they panned out, who actually playing, etc. This is why it doesnt appear we have top 20 talent. Lot of these guys are yound. Now, according to the rankings, yes, we have talent, but it's not developed etc. Look at the guys playing, making an impact last year.

 

This is the interesting thing about recruiting rankings. Lot of evidence to suggest they matter, but also a lot to suggest they dont. Allows them to be used as whatever's convenient for an argument I guess.

 

 

You make a good point, but remember, your point can be applied to all the teams on that list. Nebraska is not the only team with talented freshmen sitting on the bench. This list at least accounts for attrition of recruiting classes. It's a pretty fair assessment, IMO.

 

 

Not only that but that's only looking at one side of the coin. The other side of the same coin is that guys like Brandon Reilly and Chris Weber aren't contributing anything to those rankings because they were walk-ons. They've obviously proved that they were better than their rating. And guys like Kieron Williams, Kevin Maurice, Joshua Kalu and DPE have proved to be deserving of a much higher ranking than they got.

 

So it works both ways. And it does for everyone.

 

agreed with this too. Which is really the whole point. Those guys arent seen or rated as "talented". now, clearly they are. This isnt taking anything away from them. But it does explain one of two things. Either there is a void of talent cuz your higher rated recruits are beat out by underated players, disproving that point that recruiting rankings tell the whole story, OR, there is a void of talent cuz your less talented players are the ones who are most impactful.

 

i just think when this talent discussion comes up, it's not nearly cut and dried as saying "xxx.com says we have composite top 20 talent, so we should be a top 20 team and riley sucks" It's deeper than that.

[GBRFAN]

Two factors that need more weight - however would be hard to calculate are: position groups and class.

 

A 4* star senior would have a larger impact then a 4* freshman - especially on the DL or OL

Having 4* star players backing up 4* starters would not be as good as having 4* at each position with a high 3* behind them - example NU WR strong / another position group weak (maybe DL)

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sam still trying to downplay the Huskers talent advantage despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

I thought I'd check to see how bad it is. I was shocked it's this bad. How the hell do we ever lose to these guys?

 

 

I dont know but someone above says we have top 20 talent and metrics back that up. According to this, thats false. Looks to me like we have sub-top 25 talent, which is right where weve been finishing. Odd.

 

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

 

#20 on this, which counts talent on the roster (not signed recruits)

 

my point remains. get inside the numbers. Scroll through that list and look at the names of the higher .8 and .9 guys. How many have had an impact? how many havent hardley played a down?

 

Tommy Armstrong Sr

Josh Banderas Sr

Jalin Barnett fr

bryan Brokop fr

Carlos Davis fr

Marquel Dismuke fr

tanner farmer fr

Nick Gates so

Christian Gaylord Fr

Charles Jackson Sr

Lamar Jackson Fr

Eric Lee Fr

Alonzo moore Sr

Aj Natter Jr

Marcus Newby Jr

Terrll Newby Sr

Peyton Newell So

Mike Rose Sr

Adam taylor Jr

Westy Sr

Mikahle wilbon So

 

These are the bellcows of our top 20 talent. These are all the guys with .88 comp or above. My point is, get inside these numbers and see who they are, theyre age, have they panned out, who actually playing, etc. This is why it doesnt appear we have top 20 talent. Lot of these guys are yound. Now, according to the rankings, yes, we have talent, but it's not developed etc. Look at the guys playing, making an impact last year.

 

This is the interesting thing about recruiting rankings. Lot of evidence to suggest they matter, but also a lot to suggest they dont. Allows them to be used as whatever's convenient for an argument I guess.

 

 

You make a good point, but remember, your point can be applied to all the teams on that list. Nebraska is not the only team with talented freshmen sitting on the bench. This list at least accounts for attrition of recruiting classes. It's a pretty fair assessment, IMO.

 

 

Not only that but that's only looking at one side of the coin. The other side of the same coin is that guys like Brandon Reilly and Chris Weber aren't contributing anything to those rankings because they were walk-ons. They've obviously proved that they were better than their rating. And guys like Kieron Williams, Kevin Maurice, Joshua Kalu and DPE have proved to be deserving of a much higher ranking than they got.

 

So it works both ways. And it does for everyone.

 

agreed with this too. Which is really the whole point. Those guys arent seen or rated as "talented". now, clearly they are. This isnt taking anything away from them. But it does explain one of two things. Either there is a void of talent cuz your higher rated recruits are beat out by underated players, disproving that point that recruiting rankings tell the whole story, OR, there is a void of talent cuz your less talented players are the ones who are most impactful.

 

i just think when this talent discussion comes up, it's not nearly cut and dried as saying "xxx.com says we have composite top 20 talent, so we should be a top 20 team and riley sucks" It's deeper than that.

 

On any individual player, I don't necessarily put too much weight in a particular ranking. Over a sufficiently large sample size - and I think 85 players qualifies - it gives you a pretty good idea.

 

And you left out a third option: You lower rated players are actually quite a bit better than they got credit for and are simply better than higher-ranked players, not necessarily that the higher-ranked players are under-performing.

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sam still trying to downplay the Huskers talent advantage despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

I thought I'd check to see how bad it is. I was shocked it's this bad. How the hell do we ever lose to these guys?

 

 

I dont know but someone above says we have top 20 talent and metrics back that up. According to this, thats false. Looks to me like we have sub-top 25 talent, which is right where weve been finishing. Odd.

 

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

 

#20 on this, which counts talent on the roster (not signed recruits)

 

my point remains. get inside the numbers. Scroll through that list and look at the names of the higher .8 and .9 guys. How many have had an impact? how many havent hardley played a down?

 

Tommy Armstrong Sr

Josh Banderas Sr

Jalin Barnett fr

bryan Brokop fr

Carlos Davis fr

Marquel Dismuke fr

tanner farmer fr

Nick Gates so

Christian Gaylord Fr

Charles Jackson Sr

Lamar Jackson Fr

Eric Lee Fr

Alonzo moore Sr

Aj Natter Jr

Marcus Newby Jr

Terrll Newby Sr

Peyton Newell So

Mike Rose Sr

Adam taylor Jr

Westy Sr

Mikahle wilbon So

 

These are the bellcows of our top 20 talent. These are all the guys with .88 comp or above. My point is, get inside these numbers and see who they are, theyre age, have they panned out, who actually playing, etc. This is why it doesnt appear we have top 20 talent. Lot of these guys are yound. Now, according to the rankings, yes, we have talent, but it's not developed etc. Look at the guys playing, making an impact last year.

 

This is the interesting thing about recruiting rankings. Lot of evidence to suggest they matter, but also a lot to suggest they dont. Allows them to be used as whatever's convenient for an argument I guess.

 

 

You make a good point, but remember, your point can be applied to all the teams on that list. Nebraska is not the only team with talented freshmen sitting on the bench. This list at least accounts for attrition of recruiting classes. It's a pretty fair assessment, IMO.

 

 

Not only that but that's only looking at one side of the coin. The other side of the same coin is that guys like Brandon Reilly and Chris Weber aren't contributing anything to those rankings because they were walk-ons. They've obviously proved that they were better than their rating. And guys like Kieron Williams, Kevin Maurice, Joshua Kalu and DPE have proved to be deserving of a much higher ranking than they got.

 

So it works both ways. And it does for everyone.

 

agreed with this too. Which is really the whole point. Those guys arent seen or rated as "talented". now, clearly they are. This isnt taking anything away from them. But it does explain one of two things. Either there is a void of talent cuz your higher rated recruits are beat out by underated players, disproving that point that recruiting rankings tell the whole story, OR, there is a void of talent cuz your less talented players are the ones who are most impactful.

 

i just think when this talent discussion comes up, it's not nearly cut and dried as saying "xxx.com says we have composite top 20 talent, so we should be a top 20 team and riley sucks" It's deeper than that.

 

On any individual player, I don't necessarily put too much weight in a particular ranking. Over a sufficiently large sample size - and I think 85 players qualifies - it gives you a pretty good idea.

 

And you left out a third option: You lower rated players are actually quite a bit better than they got credit for and are simply better than higher-ranked players, not necessarily that the higher-ranked players are under-performing.

 

i thought that's exactly what the 1st option was.....

 

maybe not?

[teachercd]

Purdue in the 60's? Ha...nice try

[Mavric]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sam still trying to downplay the Huskers talent advantage despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

I thought I'd check to see how bad it is. I was shocked it's this bad. How the hell do we ever lose to these guys?

 

 

I dont know but someone above says we have top 20 talent and metrics back that up. According to this, thats false. Looks to me like we have sub-top 25 talent, which is right where weve been finishing. Odd.

 

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

 

#20 on this, which counts talent on the roster (not signed recruits)

 

my point remains. get inside the numbers. Scroll through that list and look at the names of the higher .8 and .9 guys. How many have had an impact? how many havent hardley played a down?

 

Tommy Armstrong Sr

Josh Banderas Sr

Jalin Barnett fr

bryan Brokop fr

Carlos Davis fr

Marquel Dismuke fr

tanner farmer fr

Nick Gates so

Christian Gaylord Fr

Charles Jackson Sr

Lamar Jackson Fr

Eric Lee Fr

Alonzo moore Sr

Aj Natter Jr

Marcus Newby Jr

Terrll Newby Sr

Peyton Newell So

Mike Rose Sr

Adam taylor Jr

Westy Sr

Mikahle wilbon So

 

These are the bellcows of our top 20 talent. These are all the guys with .88 comp or above. My point is, get inside these numbers and see who they are, theyre age, have they panned out, who actually playing, etc. This is why it doesnt appear we have top 20 talent. Lot of these guys are yound. Now, according to the rankings, yes, we have talent, but it's not developed etc. Look at the guys playing, making an impact last year.

 

This is the interesting thing about recruiting rankings. Lot of evidence to suggest they matter, but also a lot to suggest they dont. Allows them to be used as whatever's convenient for an argument I guess.

 

 

You make a good point, but remember, your point can be applied to all the teams on that list. Nebraska is not the only team with talented freshmen sitting on the bench. This list at least accounts for attrition of recruiting classes. It's a pretty fair assessment, IMO.

 

 

Not only that but that's only looking at one side of the coin. The other side of the same coin is that guys like Brandon Reilly and Chris Weber aren't contributing anything to those rankings because they were walk-ons. They've obviously proved that they were better than their rating. And guys like Kieron Williams, Kevin Maurice, Joshua Kalu and DPE have proved to be deserving of a much higher ranking than they got.

 

So it works both ways. And it does for everyone.

 

agreed with this too. Which is really the whole point. Those guys arent seen or rated as "talented". now, clearly they are. This isnt taking anything away from them. But it does explain one of two things. Either there is a void of talent cuz your higher rated recruits are beat out by underated players, disproving that point that recruiting rankings tell the whole story, OR, there is a void of talent cuz your less talented players are the ones who are most impactful.

 

i just think when this talent discussion comes up, it's not nearly cut and dried as saying "xxx.com says we have composite top 20 talent, so we should be a top 20 team and riley sucks" It's deeper than that.

 

On any individual player, I don't necessarily put too much weight in a particular ranking. Over a sufficiently large sample size - and I think 85 players qualifies - it gives you a pretty good idea.

 

And you left out a third option: You lower rated players are actually quite a bit better than they got credit for and are simply better than higher-ranked players, not necessarily that the higher-ranked players are under-performing.

 

i thought that's exactly what the 1st option was.....

 

maybe not?

 

I guess I didn't agree that would mean there is a "void of talent."

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

Sam still trying to downplay the Huskers talent advantage despite all evidence to the contrary.

 

I thought I'd check to see how bad it is. I was shocked it's this bad. How the hell do we ever lose to these guys?

 

 

I dont know but someone above says we have top 20 talent and metrics back that up. According to this, thats false. Looks to me like we have sub-top 25 talent, which is right where weve been finishing. Odd.

 

http://247sports.com/Season/2016-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

 

#20 on this, which counts talent on the roster (not signed recruits)

 

my point remains. get inside the numbers. Scroll through that list and look at the names of the higher .8 and .9 guys. How many have had an impact? how many havent hardley played a down?

 

Tommy Armstrong Sr

Josh Banderas Sr

Jalin Barnett fr

bryan Brokop fr

Carlos Davis fr

Marquel Dismuke fr

tanner farmer fr

Nick Gates so

Christian Gaylord Fr

Charles Jackson Sr

Lamar Jackson Fr

Eric Lee Fr

Alonzo moore Sr

Aj Natter Jr

Marcus Newby Jr

Terrll Newby Sr

Peyton Newell So

Mike Rose Sr

Adam taylor Jr

Westy Sr

Mikahle wilbon So

 

These are the bellcows of our top 20 talent. These are all the guys with .88 comp or above. My point is, get inside these numbers and see who they are, theyre age, have they panned out, who actually playing, etc. This is why it doesnt appear we have top 20 talent. Lot of these guys are yound. Now, according to the rankings, yes, we have talent, but it's not developed etc. Look at the guys playing, making an impact last year.

 

This is the interesting thing about recruiting rankings. Lot of evidence to suggest they matter, but also a lot to suggest they dont. Allows them to be used as whatever's convenient for an argument I guess.

 

 

You make a good point, but remember, your point can be applied to all the teams on that list. Nebraska is not the only team with talented freshmen sitting on the bench. This list at least accounts for attrition of recruiting classes. It's a pretty fair assessment, IMO.

 

 

Not only that but that's only looking at one side of the coin. The other side of the same coin is that guys like Brandon Reilly and Chris Weber aren't contributing anything to those rankings because they were walk-ons. They've obviously proved that they were better than their rating. And guys like Kieron Williams, Kevin Maurice, Joshua Kalu and DPE have proved to be deserving of a much higher ranking than they got.

 

So it works both ways. And it does for everyone.

 

agreed with this too. Which is really the whole point. Those guys arent seen or rated as "talented". now, clearly they are. This isnt taking anything away from them. But it does explain one of two things. Either there is a void of talent cuz your higher rated recruits are beat out by underated players, disproving that point that recruiting rankings tell the whole story, OR, there is a void of talent cuz your less talented players are the ones who are most impactful.

 

i just think when this talent discussion comes up, it's not nearly cut and dried as saying "xxx.com says we have composite top 20 talent, so we should be a top 20 team and riley sucks" It's deeper than that.

 

On any individual player, I don't necessarily put too much weight in a particular ranking. Over a sufficiently large sample size - and I think 85 players qualifies - it gives you a pretty good idea.

 

And you left out a third option: You lower rated players are actually quite a bit better than they got credit for and are simply better than higher-ranked players, not necessarily that the higher-ranked players are under-performing.

 

i thought that's exactly what the 1st option was.....

 

maybe not?

 

I guess I didn't agree that would mean there is a "void of talent."

 

understood. The way I worded made it seem like there IS definitely a void of talent, where as in all actuality, it's only debateable. My bad.

[Frostberg]

Safe pick by Sam. Talent alone doesn't mean much, if you can't run the new system.

Safe pick. I "think" we can win the west this year.

 

Still think 2018 is Riley's big year, as coach of the Huskers.

 

GBR!!!

 

I hope 2018 is our year but not the greatest schedule...

Akron

Colorado

Troy

At Michigan

Purdue

At Wisconsin

At Northwestern

Minnesota

At Ohio State

Illinois

Michigan

At Iowa

[Elf]

 

Sam still trying to downplay the Huskers talent advantage despite all evidence to the contrary.

It is quite puzzling for sure. Keep seeing the "devoid of talent" argument for some reason. Nebraska has Top 20 talent no doubt, tons of metrics to back that up, coaching hasn't harnessed that talent properly yet.

 

Nebraska doesn't have the talent level of Ohio St or Alabama and if we want to consistently compete for titles we need to up our game recruiting better players.

[Kiyoat Husker]

 

Safe pick by Sam. Talent alone doesn't mean much, if you can't run the new system.

Safe pick. I "think" we can win the west this year.

 

Still think 2018 is Riley's big year, as coach of the Huskers.

 

GBR!!!

 

I hope 2018 is our year but not the greatest schedule...

Akron

Colorado

Troy

At Michigan

Purdue

At Wisconsin

At Northwestern

Minnesota

At Ohio State

Illinois

Michigan

At Iowa

 

 

Yeah, having to play Michigan three times (if in the CCG) will suck.

[Guy Chamberlin]

Defense wins championships.

[dvdcrr]

they were tough when Schembechler was the coach. We played them in a bowl game way back and were beaten. That was in the mid eighties iirc

[84HuskerLaw]

I think we are good enough talent wise to compete for the Big Ten West Division in the WRs, RBs, QB (Tommy A only), TEs, LBs, Secondary. The question is whether we have enough in the Offensive and defensive lines to get there if our QB doesn't get hurt. From the sounds of the coaches and the practice watchers this fall, we have the 'beef' to get it done but it is pretty much unproven.

 

Of course this brings me back to my point (yet again) that you don't rebuild you reload and you do that by getting the second and third strings some playing time to learn and grow and develop and gain confidence (both the confidence of the players themselves as well as the coaches and other teammates. I feel we played quite a few guys last year across a number of positions (mostly those listed above) but in the areas where we are lacking comfort, we did not. We graduated several and had several more leave early across the lines - these create holes no doubt.

 

I remain optimistic BUT the departure of Grimm is very disappointing (I feel he was our best 'future' receiver). Now we need at least 4 WRs in this class to replace talent lost by next fall).

 

I am wondering what makes the 2018 season look so promising to some on this board. That seems like a distant star in the sky to me - we have some talked about guys but very little proven players anywhere and QB is very ify at best.

[suh_fan93]

I think it's nearly a universal acceptance at this point that the recruiting rankings matter. The question is, how are the players developed by the staff on each team? You'll have some busts for sure, but if you see an underwhelming performance year after year based on the supposed talent on hand, it lends credence to a lack of coaching.

 

Bingo.