The Big Nebrowski Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 What don't you follow? It's a pretty simple concept.I want studs top and bottom, as many as possible, that's what I'm saying. Who doesn't? And...how does that contradict my post?You mentioned "studs" vs the other "bottom" guys. Nvm, semantics, I guess.. Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 What don't you follow? It's a pretty simple concept.I want studs top and bottom, as many as possible, that's what I'm saying. Who doesn't? And...how does that contradict my post?You mentioned "studs" vs the other "bottom" guys. Nvm, semantics, I guess.. He's pointing out that our top to bottom is getting better. Very easy to see, not sure how you're missing it. And yeah, who doesn't want 5* talent top to bottom? Not sure why you think you're the only one. For someone who claims to be realistic... Quote Link to comment
The Big Nebrowski Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 What don't you follow? It's a pretty simple concept.I want studs top and bottom, as many as possible, that's what I'm saying. Who doesn't? And...how does that contradict my post?You mentioned "studs" vs the other "bottom" guys. Nvm, semantics, I guess..He's pointing out that our top to bottom is getting better. Very easy to see, not sure how you're missing it. And yeah, who doesn't want 5* talent top to bottom? Not sure why you think you're the only one. For someone who claims to be realistic... According to his numbers, over the course of 5 yrs the recruiting has "improved" by 0.032. To me, realistically speaking, those #s are irrelevant, unless of course you like the tiniest of baby steps. We've been in a recruiting holding pattern from Bo til now. You recruit @ 20 something, you finish @ 20 something. Quote Link to comment
B.B. Hemingway Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 What don't you follow? It's a pretty simple concept.I want studs top and bottom, as many as possible, that's what I'm saying.Who doesn't? And...how does that contradict my post?You mentioned "studs" vs the other "bottom" guys. Nvm, semantics, I guess.. He's pointing out that our top to bottom is getting better. Very easy to see, not sure how you're missing it. And yeah, who doesn't want 5* talent top to bottom? Not sure why you think you're the only one. For someone who claims to be realistic... He has demanded it in 224 straight posts, he wants it more than you.... Quit settling for average backs. 8-9 wins hope you like it. You do, I can tell. Leonard Fournette..... 1 Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 What don't you follow? It's a pretty simple concept. I want studs top and bottom, as many as possible, that's what I'm saying.Who doesn't? And...how does that contradict my post?You mentioned "studs" vs the other "bottom" guys. Nvm, semantics, I guess.. He's pointing out that our top to bottom is getting better. Very easy to see, not sure how you're missing it. And yeah, who doesn't want 5* talent top to bottom? Not sure why you think you're the only one. For someone who claims to be realistic... He has demanded it in 224 straight posts, he wants it more than you.... Quit settling for average backs. 8-9 wins hope you like it. You do, I can tell. Leonard Fournette..... Ameer Abdullah! Running Back! Need more horses! Quote Link to comment
The Big Nebrowski Posted February 8, 2017 Share Posted February 8, 2017 What don't you follow? It's a pretty simple concept. I want studs top and bottom, as many as possible, that's what I'm saying.Who doesn't? And...how does that contradict my post?You mentioned "studs" vs the other "bottom" guys. Nvm, semantics, I guess..He's pointing out that our top to bottom is getting better. Very easy to see, not sure how you're missing it.And yeah, who doesn't want 5* talent top to bottom? Not sure why you think you're the only one. For someone who claims to be realistic... He has demanded it in 224 straight posts, he wants it more than you.... Quit settling for average backs. 8-9 wins hope you like it. You do, I can tell. Leonard Fournette..... Ameer Abdullah! Running Back! Need more horses!Like ads, ya gotta repeat things a ton to get the message thru. Husker Fan has been rationalizing "average" for too long now. Nobody has really explained to me why we only got one 2* guy from Omaha, though, was anybody else even interested? Calabasas, anything? Quote Link to comment
Nebfanatic Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Pretty sure Bradley was a guy the staff wanted to take all along if he got his grades in order. Don't think he was a reach or a backup plan really. He is a good back 1 Quote Link to comment
Redux Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Pretty sure Bradley was a guy the staff wanted to take all along if he got his grades in order. Don't think he was a reach or a backup plan really. He is a good back He was an important get and a good one. Would we have preferred a 5* from SEC country? Well duh! But getting the in state and local kids is important. And with what we have on the roster/are recruiting for 2018, this was more than adequete. Quote Link to comment
Huskerzoo Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Pretty sure Bradley was a guy the staff wanted to take all along if he got his grades in order. Don't think he was a reach or a backup plan really. He is a good back This might be the case. It didn't seem like we were out there offering a ton of RBs. I'd be curious as to how JB would grade out if he did camps and stuff and wasn't so interested in his academics at the end. I think there's something to being a record setting RB in Nebraska. He did it multiple times. http://www.omaha.com/neprepzone/football/nebraska-prep-football-school-records-set-in/article_b65f3dce-34bd-546f-91ce-a3812c8a710f.html Quote Link to comment
In the Deed the Glory Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 What don't you follow? It's a pretty simple concept.I want studs top and bottom, as many as possible, that's what I'm saying. Well no sh#t. I think we all do. But you don't go from where we are to there overnight. You improve your core top to bottom (which was the point to the post being referenced) and then develop those recruits into better players, and then you win a few more games with said improvement More wins on the field gets us better recruits which become better players which win more on the field that gets us better recruits which become better players which win more on the field that gets us better recruits which become better players which win more on the field.... You get it yet???? 2 Quote Link to comment
The Big Nebrowski Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Pretty sure Bradley was a guy the staff wanted to take all along if he got his grades in order. Don't think he was a reach or a backup plan really. He is a good backglad we were able to beat out SDSU for him. Quote Link to comment
Kiyoat Husker Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 What don't you follow? It's a pretty simple concept.I want studs top and bottom, as many as possible, that's what I'm saying. Who doesn't? And...how does that contradict my post?You mentioned "studs" vs the other "bottom" guys. Nvm, semantics, I guess..He's pointing out that our top to bottom is getting better. Very easy to see, not sure how you're missing it. And yeah, who doesn't want 5* talent top to bottom? Not sure why you think you're the only one. For someone who claims to be realistic... According to his numbers, over the course of 5 yrs the recruiting has "improved" by 0.032. To me, realistically speaking, those #s are irrelevant, unless of course you like the tiniest of baby steps. We've been in a recruiting holding pattern from Bo til now. You recruit @ 20 something, you finish @ 20 something. For someone who claims to be interested in recruiting, you don't seem to understand recruiting ratings much. A 0.032 difference is actually substantial, especially when you are talking about an average. Feel free to keep making assumptions without doing any reasearch or bringing actual data to the table. I'm guessing you are a climate skeptic too. 2 Quote Link to comment
The Big Nebrowski Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 What don't you follow? It's a pretty simple concept.I want studs top and bottom, as many as possible, that's what I'm saying. Well no sh#t. I think we all do. But you don't go from where we are to there overnight. You improve your core top to bottom (which was the point to the post being referenced) and then develop those recruits into better players, and then you win a few more games with said improvement More wins on the field gets us better recruits which become better players which win more on the field that gets us better recruits which become better players which win more on the field that gets us better recruits which become better players which win more on the field.... You get it yet???? Is this a poem, its in stanzas? Re recruiting, I repeat, "holding pattern". But yeah, I got all that, but thanks for breaking it down again for me. So, to recap, we beat out SDSU for a 2-3* NE kid who has academic probs and no other offers and is "great" Omaha competition where we rarely gain any other recruits and this is the only back that decided to come to NE. Why should I be concerned, right? 2 yrs ago we were scratching to get Ozig and las year the same w Tre--both slowish 3*. Why should I be concerned, right. Quote Link to comment
The Big Nebrowski Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 What don't you follow? It's a pretty simple concept.I want studs top and bottom, as many as possible, that's what I'm saying. Who doesn't? And...how does that contradict my post?You mentioned "studs" vs the other "bottom" guys. Nvm, semantics, I guess..He's pointing out that our top to bottom is getting better. Very easy to see, not sure how you're missing it. And yeah, who doesn't want 5* talent top to bottom? Not sure why you think you're the only one. For someone who claims to be realistic... According to his numbers, over the course of 5 yrs the recruiting has "improved" by 0.032. To me, realistically speaking, those #s are irrelevant, unless of course you like the tiniest of baby steps. We've been in a recruiting holding pattern from Bo til now. You recruit @ 20 something, you finish @ 20 something.For someone who claims to be interested in recruiting, you don't seem to understand recruiting ratings much. A 0.032 difference is actually substantial, especially when you are talking about an average. Feel free to keep making assumptions without doing any reasearch or bringing actual data to the table. I'm guessing you are a climate skeptic too. Playin the Mother Nature card eh, yer really reachin there, bud. HOLDING PATTERN! Those #s are meaningless spin, tiny little baby step movements in the 3* range that have hovered n that range for yrs. What happens if nxt year it goes, say, 0.8100? So much for "gains". Quote Link to comment
Kiyoat Husker Posted February 9, 2017 Share Posted February 9, 2017 Playin the Mother Nature card eh, yer really reachin there, bud. HOLDING PATTERN! Those #s are meaningless spin, tiny little baby step movements in the 3* range that have hovered n that range for yrs. What happens if nxt year it goes, say, 0.8100? So much for "gains". Really? So you have studied the average star ratings of our bottom 10 players for each recruiting class for many years? I'd love to see that data! By all means, share it with the class..... unless, of course you are just speculating, again...... Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.