‘Toughness’ would be good for Nebraska football, but talent would be better

[GBRFAN]

I'm proud of the walk-on program and I believe they have been a large part of our success, however i'm glad the games are played on the weekEND

[GBRFAN]

Calling BS on what? When exactly did I say Michigan was a powerhouse? I've been talking about OSU the whole time

 

Calling BS on the fact that during the years of 92-96 that OSU or MU had classes better then NU - I would like to see where you got that data.

 

If you have been talking about OSU the whole time then why in Post #2 did you state that OSU and MU had x 5* and x 4* ??

[marko polo]

 

 

 

You've spent a lot of time over the years trying to dismiss Ann Arbor/Michigan as not being any better or more appealing than here. Just because you don't understand what the draw is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, which it obviously does, as evidenced by pretty much every year of recruiting.

 

 

Anyways, I agree that this staff has a much more positive and "we're capable" attitude towards recruiting than Bo's did. But....at the end of the day, attitude doesn't mean results, and we are currently ranked in the low 20's as far as our recruiting class, pretty common ground historically.

 

"The thing being proven wrong is this engrained concept that we cant recruit that well."

 

That hasn't, at all, been proven wrong yet.

We're in on much better, and much more "much better" prospects than we have been in the past. Based on rankings anyway. So, yes, they are proving it wrong.

 

What is the Michigan draw then? Im curious. Just because theyve outrecruited us in the past doesnt necessarily mean the draw is better. That could be a simple coach thing. What I'm asking is what does Michigan have to offer that Nebraska doesnt?

 

Right now way more national cred and a better coach.

 

What cred? Michigans been as much garbage as nebraska has the last decade.

 

even last year, they didnt do anything more than Bo ever did.

 

If im not mistaken, this weekend we have two of, if not THE two, top overall prospects in the country here for OV's. The point remains. This staff is proving (not that they have proved. It's still in process) that we can compete with the likes of Ohio St, Michigan, Bama, USC etc for top notch talent.

 

Have you lost your mind!!!!!!!!!

[BRV920]

Look it up then. Not my job. I took the time to do the research for my self. But you are gonna be disappointed. If you only use Wallace's class ranking the highest we even got during that time frame was 8th with the rest in the teens. Good luck

[Count 'Bility]

 

 

I agree with the coaching elite talent. It's hard for me to agree that he could develope it. If he could do both? We never woulda gave up 70 and 408. I think we have this false notion of his developemtn abilities that were created by the 09 defense, and the fact that so many of those guys were of the Callahan years that really sucked, when in all reality, those dudes were extremely gifted to begin with, and straight up ballers. That season created this "Bo's a great developer" label, when most of it was possibly just simply maturity and growth of an already gifted player.

 

......and if Riley could develop it according to his "alleged" reputation he wouldn't be a .500 career coach.

 

Pelini had his strengths. He could certainly coach and develop secondary talent. And Barrett Ruud credits Pelini heavily for his development and learning to use his eyes.

 

Our defensive line development struggled once we parted ways with Carl Pelini.

 

he could coach it. He couldnt develop it. Once we got beyond the high caliber talent that was willed to him, his defenses completely went in the shitter. His best defenses were comprised mostly of players that were already halfway through their careers. Then, we he had to start developing players under his watch from day one, well, just look at the roster. Look at how many didnt pan out. Look at the ones that did. it's quite obvious he wasnt sh#t for a developer. And his two best defensive players? Suh and David? LOL. Those two guys were the biggest rogue players ever. Study what Bo did defensively then watch them two a while. They didnt do jack sh#t to play within the system. Bo was still pissy in post game pressers about David being out of position even in his senior year, after games of making 16 tackles, 4 for loss, fumble recovery and int and so on and so on.

 

Your comment on Riley? No argument there. Concerns are legit. But Bo's programs plateueed, flattened out, and in many ways began to regress once he started dealing with players he brought in and started to work with from day one. that's not development. And development is way beyond X's and O's. Bo's best recruiting class is seniors this year. Go look at that signed class, then look at this years depth chart. Hell, look at any class he signed then 4 years later. There wasnt much development going on.

[NUinID]

 

Calling BS on what? When exactly did I say Michigan was a powerhouse? I've been talking about OSU the whole time

 

Calling BS on the fact that during the years of 92-96 that OSU or MU had classes better then NU - I would like to see where you got that data.

 

If you have been talking about OSU the whole time then why in Post #2 did you state that OSU and MU had x 5* and x 4* ??

 

 

I beieve it, it is not BS.

 

Some things you have to consider is that.

1. There is not a lot of difference between being in the top 5 and top 15 class

2. Even in 1996 recruiting services were in their infancy and the evaluation of players wasn't even close to what it is right now. Very few of those combine camps if any.

3. Nebraska recuited to thier system, especially on offense. They recruited a different type of linemen, wr and QB than OSU or Michigan.

 

In that era the non pro-style QB recruit was actually graded lower than traditional QBs. Frazier may have been a highly rated option QB, but he wasn't rated as highly as the top drop back QB;s

 

Nebraska barely recruited WR often converting HS rb into receivers, guys like Reggie Baul, Clester Johnson, Abdul Mohammed wern't highly recrtuited guys all over the country. High end WR didn't want to come to Nebraska and catch 15 passes a year and block the rest of the time.

 

Nebraska wanted athletic linemen Aaron Taylor wasn't highly rectruited he was too short, so was Will Shields, Rob Z. had more academic scholarship offers than FB. Zack Weigert wasn't highly recruited out of Fremont Bergan.

 

Trev Alberts wasn't highly recruited basically Nebraska, Iowa and Iowa St wanted him.

 

That is not to say that NU didn't get their share of highly recruited guys. TF was highly recruited. Grant Wistrom was highly recruited. Ahman Green and Lawrence Phillips were highly recruited. The Brown's were highly recruited.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

Nebraska has the third longest conference title drought in the Big 10, leading only Minnesota and Indiana. Just let that sink in.

I know I posted that article, but that stat is so cherry picked, it could be a political point.

 

Nabbed it from Lee's article. Reading that stat is about as stimulating as waking up after a night of heavy drinking. In fact, if I read that start after a night of heavy drinking, I just may pick up the bottle again.

 

The problem with stat is that it counts ties as a conference title, and gives teams like Iowa, Maryland, and Rutgers conference titles that they didn't actually win.

No offense saunders, but you say that as if the addition of those three teams better justifies Nebraska's position. If it does, it does so only to a minuscule degree. While I detest counting ties as titles, I don't think it changes the impact of the statistic much. Nebraska is still by far and away the best football program (when you compare tradition, facilities, talent level, resources....) to those five other schools. So, the lack of a title is still inexcusable.

[Enhance]

 

 

 

You've spent a lot of time over the years trying to dismiss Ann Arbor/Michigan as not being any better or more appealing than here. Just because you don't understand what the draw is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, which it obviously does, as evidenced by pretty much every year of recruiting.

 

 

Anyways, I agree that this staff has a much more positive and "we're capable" attitude towards recruiting than Bo's did. But....at the end of the day, attitude doesn't mean results, and we are currently ranked in the low 20's as far as our recruiting class, pretty common ground historically.

 

"The thing being proven wrong is this engrained concept that we cant recruit that well."

 

That hasn't, at all, been proven wrong yet.

We're in on much better, and much more "much better" prospects than we have been in the past. Based on rankings anyway. So, yes, they are proving it wrong.

 

What is the Michigan draw then? Im curious. Just because theyve outrecruited us in the past doesnt necessarily mean the draw is better. That could be a simple coach thing. What I'm asking is what does Michigan have to offer that Nebraska doesnt?

 

Right now way more national cred and a better coach.

 

What cred? Michigans been as much garbage as nebraska has the last decade.

 

even last year, they didnt do anything more than Bo ever did.

 

If im not mistaken, this weekend we have two of, if not THE two, top overall prospects in the country here for OV's. The point remains. This staff is proving (not that they have proved. It's still in process) that we can compete with the likes of Ohio St, Michigan, Bama, USC etc for top notch talent.

 

If you polled most college coaches or analysts in the country, Michigan would certainly be considered the superior job to Nebraska. I don't think there's anything wrong with admitting that.

 

For starters, they have superior in-state talent and a much larger population. Nebraska is roughly 2 million people - Michigan has almost 10 million people. They have also been on the national scene more recently than Nebraska. Some can guffaw and make fun of their most recent BCS win a few years back, but they at least have a BCS win in the last handful of years. Nebraska doesn't.

 

Furthermore, I don't have the exact numbers, but I'd wager they devote comparable funding to the football program as Nebraska, facilities are likely on par, they have a bigger fan base and they're a bigger university.

 

They're either equal to or greater than Nebraska in most categories, Count.

[Guy Chamberlin]

 

 

 

 

You've spent a lot of time over the years trying to dismiss Ann Arbor/Michigan as not being any better or more appealing than here. Just because you don't understand what the draw is, doesn't mean it doesn't exist, which it obviously does, as evidenced by pretty much every year of recruiting.

 

 

Anyways, I agree that this staff has a much more positive and "we're capable" attitude towards recruiting than Bo's did. But....at the end of the day, attitude doesn't mean results, and we are currently ranked in the low 20's as far as our recruiting class, pretty common ground historically.

 

"The thing being proven wrong is this engrained concept that we cant recruit that well."

 

That hasn't, at all, been proven wrong yet.

We're in on much better, and much more "much better" prospects than we have been in the past. Based on rankings anyway. So, yes, they are proving it wrong.

 

What is the Michigan draw then? Im curious. Just because theyve outrecruited us in the past doesnt necessarily mean the draw is better. That could be a simple coach thing. What I'm asking is what does Michigan have to offer that Nebraska doesnt?

 

Right now way more national cred and a better coach.

 

What cred? Michigans been as much garbage as nebraska has the last decade.

 

even last year, they didnt do anything more than Bo ever did.

 

If im not mistaken, this weekend we have two of, if not THE two, top overall prospects in the country here for OV's. The point remains. This staff is proving (not that they have proved. It's still in process) that we can compete with the likes of Ohio St, Michigan, Bama, USC etc for top notch talent.

 

If you polled most college coaches or analysts in the country, Michigan would certainly be considered the superior job to Nebraska. I don't think there's anything wrong with admitting that.

 

For starters, they have superior in-state talent and a much larger population. Nebraska is roughly 2 million people - Michigan has almost 10 million people. They have also been on the national scene more recently than Nebraska. Some can guffaw and make fun of their most recent BCS win a few years back, but they at least have a BCS win in the last handful of years. Nebraska doesn't.

 

Furthermore, I don't have the exact numbers, but I'd wager they devote comparable funding to the football program as Nebraska, facilities are likely on par, they have a bigger fan base and they're a bigger university.

 

They're either equal to or greater than Nebraska in most categories, Count.

 

 

Michigan is also by far the more respected academic institution, not that far behind the Stanfords and Ivy Leagues by some accounts.

 

If you can deliver the big time football -- and Michigan does -- then having a Michigan degree adds icing on the cake for players and their parents, and more status for coaches and their wives.

[Bowfin]

and in many ways began to regress once he started dealing with players he brought in and started to work with from day one. that's not development.

 

Stanley Jean-Baptiste was a split end who was going to warm the bench. Pelini made him into an NFL prospect cornerback in not much time. That wasn't a bad piece of coaching.

 

I'm wondering how many defensive players that spent most or all of their career with Bo have gone to the NFL, including LSU. He was part of a coaching staff at Oklahoma that did pretty well the one year he was there.

 

Still and all, in the whole history of the internet, only two people have changed their minds do to debating, so each to his own opinion.

 

Pelini was not good at all on the offensive side of the ball, in my opinion.

[GBRFAN]

 

 

Calling BS on what? When exactly did I say Michigan was a powerhouse? I've been talking about OSU the whole time

 

Calling BS on the fact that during the years of 92-96 that OSU or MU had classes better then NU - I would like to see where you got that data.

 

If you have been talking about OSU the whole time then why in Post #2 did you state that OSU and MU had x 5* and x 4* ??

 

 

I beieve it, it is not BS.

 

Some things you have to consider is that.

1. There is not a lot of difference between being in the top 5 and top 15 class

2. Even in 1996 recruiting services were in their infancy and the evaluation of players wasn't even close to what it is right now. Very few of those combine camps if any.

3. Nebraska recuited to thier system, especially on offense. They recruited a different type of linemen, wr and QB than OSU or Michigan.

 

In that era the non pro-style QB recruit was actually graded lower than traditional QBs. Frazier may have been a highly rated option QB, but he wasn't rated as highly as the top drop back QB;s

 

Nebraska barely recruited WR often converting HS rb into receivers, guys like Reggie Baul, Clester Johnson, Abdul Mohammed wern't highly recrtuited guys all over the country. High end WR didn't want to come to Nebraska and catch 15 passes a year and block the rest of the time.

 

Nebraska wanted athletic linemen Aaron Taylor wasn't highly rectruited he was too short, so was Will Shields, Rob Z. had more academic scholarship offers than FB. Zack Weigert wasn't highly recruited out of Fremont Bergan.

 

Trev Alberts wasn't highly recruited basically Nebraska, Iowa and Iowa St wanted him.

 

That is not to say that NU didn't get their share of highly recruited guys. TF was highly recruited. Grant Wistrom was highly recruited. Ahman Green and Lawrence Phillips were highly recruited. The Brown's were highly recruited.

 

 

It's fine that you believe that, however you haven't stated one thing that proofs your point.

 

1) Not sure of your definition of a lot, however better is better. Actually as you get to the lower rankings #30 to #50 the star rankings are closer then they are at the top #5 - #15

2) All you are saying is that the rankings weren't as reliable - how does that say NU was worse

3) All team recruit to their strength - again how does that mean that NU was worse

 

Just because NU didn't recruit high level WR does not mean the class wasn't as good - last I checked there are about 8 different player groups that get recruited each year. Assuming each class has about 2 WR recruits - I'm sure we more than covered that

 

Every team, NU included, has examples of players that excelled that weren't highly recruited. Rob Z, one of your examples, probably had 100 potential programs that would have given him an academic scholarship so to say that he got less for football isn't really saying much

[BRV920]

Actually he made some very valid points. Osborne recruited some players because he liked their athleticism on the basketball court or off a highschool practice tape. ( Christian Peter). So it's not a stretch to think that those teams could have been undervalued by the recruiting services which were in its infant stages but according to the gurus most of those year classes did not rank as high as Ohio states.

[GBRFAN]

Any data to back that up. If you do searches of top 10 or top 20 recruiting classes by team during the years 92-96 NU shows up as top 5 twice - didn't see MU or OSU in either of the top 10. MU showed up once at around 16 and OSU was around 12th.

 

Your point is valid that they might have been undervalued however being undervalued and ranked in the top 5 twice is still better then overvalued and ranked in the top 20 once.

[BRV920]

Nice try tho! You must not have done much research on Ohio state. Had 3 classes in the top 10 during that span. With the number 1 class in 96 which was our highest class and the number 3 class in 93. And the other class was ranked 7th. If you are going to cherry pick nebraskas highest rated classes do the same with Ohio state.

[Saunders]

 

 

 

 

Nebraska has the third longest conference title drought in the Big 10, leading only Minnesota and Indiana. Just let that sink in.

I know I posted that article, but that stat is so cherry picked, it could be a political point.

 

Nabbed it from Lee's article. Reading that stat is about as stimulating as waking up after a night of heavy drinking. In fact, if I read that start after a night of heavy drinking, I just may pick up the bottle again.

 

The problem with stat is that it counts ties as a conference title, and gives teams like Iowa, Maryland, and Rutgers conference titles that they didn't actually win.

No offense saunders, but you say that as if the addition of those three teams better justifies Nebraska's position. If it does, it does so only to a minuscule degree. While I detest counting ties as titles, I don't think it changes the impact of the statistic much. Nebraska is still by far and away the best football program (when you compare tradition, facilities, talent level, resources....) to those five other schools. So, the lack of a title is still inexcusable.

 

Oh, I agree, I'm simply showing that it's not as clear cut a stat as he showed. If NU had played for tied titles, we'd have 2 conference championships* under Bo.