McKewon: The Great Nebraska Talent Debate

[Elf]

 

'Terrible' is a bit hyperbolic, but is anyone really going to argue that we match up with Michigan/OSU/PSU in terms of talent and depth?

 

That's the whole point. The draft isn't the sole indicator of this, but it is one of many that show, accurately, that we are not where we need to be to be a bona fide championship caliber program. Nobody is saying there is a direct variation between number of players drafted and team talent, but there's also no use in arguing that it is a representative example of something true.

Apparently to some on this board, bemoaning our pitiful draft representation is the de-facto "see we have no talent at all" rallying cry.

 

You are correct, my earlier usage of "terrible" to describe Nebraska's talent level was over-stated.

 

In all my time here, lurking and otherwise, I've never seen someone make that argument. Ever.

 

How many players you get drafted to the NFL is but one indicator of the talent level of your team. No one here has claimed or implied that it is the end all/be all of a teams talent level.

[Making Chimichangas]

Making Chimichangas said: Apparently to some on this board, bemoaning our pitiful draft representation is the de-facto "see we have no talent at all" rallying cry.

 

Elf said: In all my time here, lurking and otherwise, I've never seen someone make that argument. Ever.

 

​​I give you...(all these posts are on the same page.)

 

lo country said: For all those who argued coaching or talent, I give you these draft results......... Damn. One guy. In round 5, who IMO, was one of our best players........(I thought we had talent)

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/82190-huskers-in-the-2017-nfl-draft/page-3

always husking said: Last year's team was the least talented Husker team I'd seen, so no surprise with the lack of draftees. Here's to having more talent in the future

southernoregonhusker said: got roasted when I argued that we didn't have talent. I got further roasted when I said Westy and Cethon wouldn't get drafted, and that Gerry would go in the later rounds. I'd say I am a genius typically, but this draft wasn't surprising at all . We lacked talent in a big way. For those who argued against me, I still don't know what you were watching. This lack of talent was obvious.

jsneb83 said: Well, I would say the fact that the colleges with the most players drafted are the ones competing for championships tells a different story

1995 Redux said: It's not far off. There's a reason Alabama just sent an almost record amout of kids Pro. Even Chicago couldn't help but take a Bama guy, and they drafted two DII and an FCS guy! And the last couple years, we havent had much of either when ya get down to it.

 

 

Now are they saying EXACTLY:

 

"That having players drafted is the be all end all."

 

No, not exactly...but it's close enough to the bulls eye to count.

[GBRFAN]

 

Making Chimichangas said: Apparently to some on this board, bemoaning our pitiful draft representation is the de-facto "see we have no talent at all" rallying cry.

 

Elf said: In all my time here, lurking and otherwise, I've never seen someone make that argument. Ever.

 

​​I give you...(all these posts are on the same page.)

 

lo country said: For all those who argued coaching or talent, I give you these draft results......... Damn. One guy. In round 5, who IMO, was one of our best players........(I thought we had talent)

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/82190-huskers-in-the-2017-nfl-draft/page-3

always husking said: Last year's team was the least talented Husker team I'd seen, so no surprise with the lack of draftees. Here's to having more talent in the future

southernoregonhusker said: got roasted when I argued that we didn't have talent. I got further roasted when I said Westy and Cethon wouldn't get drafted, and that Gerry would go in the later rounds. I'd say I am a genius typically, but this draft wasn't surprising at all . We lacked talent in a big way. For those who argued against me, I still don't know what you were watching. This lack of talent was obvious.

jsneb83 said: Well, I would say the fact that the colleges with the most players drafted are the ones competing for championships tells a different story

1995 Redux said: It's not far off. There's a reason Alabama just sent an almost record amout of kids Pro. Even Chicago couldn't help but take a Bama guy, and they drafted two DII and an FCS guy! And the last couple years, we havent had much of either when ya get down to it.

 

 

Now are they saying EXACTLY:

 

"That having players drafted is the be all end all."

 

No, not exactly...but it's close enough to the bulls eye to count.

 

 

Since not once did they use the word "no" when referring to talent I would say not only did you miss the bulls eye / you just barely grazed the target.

[HuskerMerc44]

Sam is quite knee jerk.

Always has been.

This draft year was a product of lazy Pelini.

Thank god he's gone.

[dvdcrr]

First,

Pelini took a 52nd ranked Husker defense and took it to #1 midseason in 2003. And then was fired. Then after graciously giving NU a second chance, he put NU in a couple conference championship games, while putting together one of the best ever defenses (if not the best) at NU in 2009. And he had his team in a NC game last year. You don't get there being lazy. Lastly it is "God", not "god".

[HuskerMerc44]

Pelini Backer,

I am sorry to inform you...

Your coach has been gone.... for a while now.

I feel for you.

Your existence is all about Husker Hatred.

Please find your friends at huskerpowerhour.com

You are obviously stranded.

We are better off without you and your whiny coach.

gg.

[alwayshusking]

The NFL draft is an indicator of talent. Not the only one but an important one bc it's largely unbiased unlike recruiting services. NFL jobs are on the line bc of who they draft.

 

It would be one thing if Nebraska had 7 guys drafted in 2016 then only 1 in 2017, followed by 7 in 2018. 2017 would be a blip but NU is looking at another draft of 1-2 guys drafted next year as well. Nebraska had never had less than 3 guys drafted before Pelini arrived. Then only 2 in 2013. Then 1 in 2017. Probably 1-2 in 2018.

 

The talent level has been low in the program for awhile now. Really haven't had a quality roster since 2010.

 

Nebraska is (was) in the top 5 all time for NFL draft picks (Michigan overtook us this year). That's the main reason Nebraska was good in the past, is bc we had a lot of talented guys. The talent significantly dropped off starting with Solich and is why we have been basically a 9-4 type program for 15 years. Last year happened to be the least talented Husker team I'd seen and it was reflected with 1 NFL draft pick. The last pick of the 5th round.

[Landlord]

First,

Pelini took a 52nd ranked Husker defense and took it to #1 midseason in 2003. And then was fired. Then after graciously giving NU a second chance, he put NU in a couple conference championship games, while putting together one of the best ever defenses (if not the best) at NU in 2009. And he had his team in a NC game last year. You don't get there being lazy. Lastly it is "God", not "god".

 

 

Patrick?

[Enhance]

The NFL draft is an indicator of talent. Not the only one but an important one bc it's largely unbiased unlike recruiting services. NFL jobs are on the line bc of who they draft.

 

It would be one thing if Nebraska had 7 guys drafted in 2016 then only 1 in 2017, followed by 7 in 2018. 2017 would be a blip but NU is looking at another draft of 1-2 guys drafted next year as well. Nebraska had never had less than 3 guys drafted before Pelini arrived. Then only 2 in 2013. Then 1 in 2017. Probably 1-2 in 2018.

 

The talent level has been low in the program for awhile now. Really haven't had a quality roster since 2010.

 

Nebraska is (was) in the top 5 all time for NFL draft picks (Michigan overtook us this year). That's the main reason Nebraska was good in the past, is bc we had a lot of talented guys. The talent significantly dropped off starting with Solich and is why we have been basically a 9-4 type program for 15 years. Last year happened to be the least talented Husker team I'd seen and it was reflected with 1 NFL draft pick. The last pick of the 5th round.

Good post and pretty well reasoned.

[NUinID]

The NFL draft is an indicator of talent. Not the only one but an important one bc it's largely unbiased unlike recruiting services. NFL jobs are on the line bc of who they draft.

 

It would be one thing if Nebraska had 7 guys drafted in 2016 then only 1 in 2017, followed by 7 in 2018. 2017 would be a blip but NU is looking at another draft of 1-2 guys drafted next year as well. Nebraska had never had less than 3 guys drafted before Pelini arrived. Then only 2 in 2013. Then 1 in 2017. Probably 1-2 in 2018.

 

The talent level has been low in the program for awhile now. Really haven't had a quality roster since 2010.

 

Nebraska is (was) in the top 5 all time for NFL draft picks (Michigan overtook us this year). That's the main reason Nebraska was good in the past, is bc we had a lot of talented guys. The talent significantly dropped off starting with Solich and is why we have been basically a 9-4 type program for 15 years. Last year happened to be the least talented Husker team I'd seen and it was reflected with 1 NFL draft pick. The last pick of the 5th round.

 

I guess if that is how y0o feel, do you think the talent is going to be better this year? We are going to see a lot of new faces.

[Kiyoat Husker]

Nebraska is (was) in the top 5 all time for NFL draft picks (Michigan overtook us this year). That's the main reason Nebraska was good in the past, is bc we had a lot of talented guys. The talent significantly dropped off starting with Solich and is why we have been basically a 9-4 type program for 15 years. Last year happened to be the least talented Husker team I'd seen and it was reflected with 1 NFL draft pick. The last pick of the 5th round.

 

While this may be true, I think there is more than one explanation for our struggles in recruiting over the last 15 years. Rather than putting blame completely at the feet of Solich, or Calahan, or Pelini, I think we should acknowledge the massive changes that have happened in major college football in the last 20 years:

 

- Scholarship limits have generated more parity

- More schools have access to televised games

- the TV money, coaches salaries, Athletic budgets, etc have exploded exponentially, increasing the arms race.

- A new set of "elite" teams have emerged and have gotten a foothold. (Oregon, Wisconsin, Virginia Tech, Clemson, etc.)

- The geographic disadvantages that were always there for Nebraska makes the "rebound" from the other factors that much more difficult.

 

Obviously, this is not new information, but I think we focus a little too much on the coaches, and forget to acknowledge the other factors. Solich didn't have the benefit of hindsight, as all of the changes happening, he got a little complacent. Callahan had the right idea, but I think we dodged a bullet with Blake being here such a short time. Who knows what rules that guy was breaking. Not the best fit culture-wise, either. I think Pelini wasn't exactly lazy, but more like unorganized with recruiting and roster management.

 

JMHO

[Red Five]

 

While this may be true, I think there is more than one explanation for our struggles in recruiting over the last 15 years. Rather than putting blame completely at the feet of Solich, or Calahan, or Pelini, I think we should acknowledge the massive changes that have happened in major college football in the last 20 years:

 

- Scholarship limits have generated more parity

- More schools have access to televised games

- the TV money, coaches salaries, Athletic budgets, etc have exploded exponentially, increasing the arms race.

- A new set of "elite" teams have emerged and have gotten a foothold. (Oregon, Wisconsin, Virginia Tech, Clemson, etc.)

- The geographic disadvantages that were always there for Nebraska makes the "rebound" from the other factors that much more difficult.

 

Obviously, this is not new information, but I think we focus a little too much on the coaches, and forget to acknowledge the other factors. Solich didn't have the benefit of hindsight, as all of the changes happening, he got a little complacent. Callahan had the right idea, but I think we dodged a bullet with Blake being here such a short time. Who knows what rules that guy was breaking. Not the best fit culture-wise, either. I think Pelini wasn't exactly lazy, but more like unorganized with recruiting and roster management.

 

JMHO

 

 

Regarding the 2 bolded above

 

The 85 scholly limit went into effect in 1992. I think its about time we let that excuse go.

 

About your "new elite" teams and talent, we out recruit Wisconsin every year. I would wager that our recruting has been very similar to VT (and possibly better). And Oregon isn't really a recruiting juggernaut (better classes than us, but they aren't a consistent top 15 recruiting program).

[Saunders]

I think the rising cost of going to college has much more to do with our recent dip than scholarship limits. It has definitely reduced our walkon classes, and helped bolster other programs. Otherwise, I agree with alot of the above.

[Kiyoat Husker]

 

 

While this may be true, I think there is more than one explanation for our struggles in recruiting over the last 15 years. Rather than putting blame completely at the feet of Solich, or Calahan, or Pelini, I think we should acknowledge the massive changes that have happened in major college football in the last 20 years:

 

- Scholarship limits have generated more parity

- More schools have access to televised games

- the TV money, coaches salaries, Athletic budgets, etc have exploded exponentially, increasing the arms race.

- A new set of "elite" teams have emerged and have gotten a foothold. (Oregon, Wisconsin, Virginia Tech, Clemson, etc.)

- The geographic disadvantages that were always there for Nebraska makes the "rebound" from the other factors that much more difficult.

 

Obviously, this is not new information, but I think we focus a little too much on the coaches, and forget to acknowledge the other factors. Solich didn't have the benefit of hindsight, as all of the changes happening, he got a little complacent. Callahan had the right idea, but I think we dodged a bullet with Blake being here such a short time. Who knows what rules that guy was breaking. Not the best fit culture-wise, either. I think Pelini wasn't exactly lazy, but more like unorganized with recruiting and roster management.

 

JMHO

 

 

Regarding the 2 bolded above

 

The 85 scholly limit went into effect in 1992. I think its about time we let that excuse go.

 

About your "new elite" teams and talent, we out recruit Wisconsin every year. I would wager that our recruting has been very similar to VT (and possibly better). And Oregon isn't really a recruiting juggernaut (better classes than us, but they aren't a consistent top 15 recruiting program).

 

 

I don't think the scholarship limits are an excuse, just a contributing factor. Many used to deny that parity in college football was a trend, or even existed. And now that its pretty obvious that parity exists, now that we have a couple of decades of data to consider, its just an excuse to let go.

 

Do you think that the effects of the 1992 limits should have been immediate? I don't. It took several recruiting cycles plus time for trends to catch on, and smaller schools needed time to build recruiting momentum. In retrospect, Nebraska may be considered the last dynasty of an era, with the success in the mid-nineties. Now days there are far less kids willing to walk-on at major programs when they can get full rides elsewhere and still be on TV and possibly get into the NFL. Slightly different factor, but related.

[Enhance]

Nebraska had talented guys and talented coaches during the golden era, the latter getting lost in the discussion pretty frequently.

 

Scholarship limitations, TV coverage and all of those other factors have certainly played a role, but coaching also hasn't been near what it was once. That's why, when I look at our recruiting numbers in recent years, I think much of the blame for the lack of success can be placed largely at the feet of coaching. After all, Wisconsin and MSU have won conference titles with statistically less talented teams.