Jump to content


Realistic Coaching Hires with the AD

Roll Skers

By Roll Skers,
in Husker Football

Recommended Posts


Undone All Conference

Undone

Posted
Posted
20 hours ago, Rike Miley said:

 

That is literally what coaching is. Motivating, teaching and developing your players to be the best they could possibly be. Getting the most out of them every practice and every game and then putting them into positions to succeed on game day. No reason a good coach cant take top 20 talent and make them too 10-15 talent in 4 years. Who knows if Frost can be that guy or not. 


I realize that this is "literally what coaching is," Rike. 

We don't usually get Top 20 classes. We usually get classes in the #20 - #30 rank range. What if we had a coach that could consistently get Top 20 classes?

Do we think that getting such a coach and staff that can recruit this well is feasible, or are we resigning ourselves to believing that it's not possible?

Link to comment
TGHusker Offensive Coordinator

TGHusker

Posted
Posted
4 minutes ago, Isle of View said:

Could Tulsa and UCF meet in a conference championship game?

 

If it was last year  - yes,  not this year.  A better chance that UCF will have a rematch wt either Navy or Memphis. Tulsa could win 3 of their last 5.  UConn, Temple, SMU and lose to Memphis and USF.

 

  AAC Football Standings

School Conf Overall
West
Navy 3-1 5-1
Memphis 2-1 5-1
Houston 2-1 4-2
SMU 1-1 4-2
Tulane 1-1 3-3
Tulsa 1-2 2-5
East
USF 3-0 6-0
UCF 3-0 5-0
Temple 1-3 3-4
UConn 1-3 2-4
ECU 1-3 1-6
Cincinnati 0-3 2-5
Link to comment
Dansker Travel Squad

Dansker

Posted
Posted
1 minute ago, Undone said:


I realize that this is "literally what coaching is," Rike. 

We don't usually get Top 20 classes. We usually get classes in the #20 - #30 rank range. What if we had a coach that could consistently get Top 20 classes?

Do we think that getting such a coach and staff that can recruit this well is feasible, or are we resigning ourselves to believing that it's not possible?

 

We definitely saw what recruiting top classes did for Bo Pelini's first few years thanks to Billy C. Mark coached up all that talent. I agree, we just need a HC that can put two and two together for sure and get the most out of his players and we're certainly not seeing that under Mike Riley.

Link to comment

brophog Starter

brophog

Posted
Posted
1 hour ago, unlfan said:

Yes, but Oregon (along with Wisconsin I would say) was the poster child for having a specific system and recruiting to that very specific system. They only looked at one thing: speed on offensive skill players. If you had that one trait they went after you hard. I think they even literally converted some track guys into wide outs. So they had a very good combination of (1) getting some fairly high rated recruits that (2) were very specifically recruited because they possessed the exact skill set they were looking for.

 

Unless you are Ohio State, Alabama, etc. and get get you pick of the litter of 5 star guys, you need to go this route. Go one level "lower" in star rankings, but be very specific on your identity / playing style.

 

 

I really like like this post.

 

It's not that these recruiting rankings are bunk or highly inaccurate as much as we need to understand what they're doing. We sometimes see them as ubiquitous pools of talent or a straight rating of whose "better" (whatever that means). It's easier to think of them as baseball players ... this guy is a five tool guy, this one has 2 pitches and that one has 4 pitches. Sometimes that 2 pitch guy has 2 really good pitches, you just don't want him going through the order 3 times. 

 

The thing I'd add to this excellent post is the third criteria: the person. If you can find not just the right measurable a but the right person with those measurables, you have a big leg up. That's really hard to do with 17 and 18 year olds, though, and looks can be really deceiving. Sometimes that kid with the rap sheet is the one you're actually after. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
Jeremy Scout Team

Jeremy

Posted
Posted
18 minutes ago, brophog said:

 

 

I really like like this post.

 

It's not that these recruiting rankings are bunk or highly inaccurate as much as we need to understand what they're doing. We sometimes see them as ubiquitous pools of talent or a straight rating of whose "better" (whatever that means). It's easier to think of them as baseball players ... this guy is a five tool guy, this one has 2 pitches and that one has 4 pitches. Sometimes that 2 pitch guy has 2 really good pitches, you just don't want him going through the order 3 times. 

 

The thing I'd add to this excellent post is the third criteria: the person. If you can find not just the right measurable a but the right person with those measurables, you have a big leg up. That's really hard to do with 17 and 18 year olds, though, and looks can be really deceiving. Sometimes that kid with the rap sheet is the one you're actually after. 

David Shaw gave an interesting Ted Talk about this. Basically, they (Stanford) recruit character more than athletes, and try to instill values like commitment and drive to positively affect the world. I would be okay with Shaw on our sideline, coaching our shade of red.

Link to comment
junior4949 All-American

junior4949

Posted
Posted
6 minutes ago, Jeremy said:

David Shaw gave an interesting Ted Talk about this. Basically, they (Stanford) recruit character more than athletes, and try to instill values like commitment and drive to positively affect the world. I would be okay with Shaw on our sideline, coaching our shade of red.

 

Ditto, but it's nothing more than a pipe dream.  The only way I see Shaw leaving Stanford is for the NFL, and I doubt it happens. 

Link to comment
Undone All Conference

Undone

Posted
Posted
17 minutes ago, Jeremy said:

David Shaw gave an interesting Ted Talk about this. Basically, they (Stanford) recruit character more than athletes, and try to instill values like commitment and drive to positively affect the world. I would be okay with Shaw on our sideline, coaching our shade of red.


Ted Talks are cool and all, but...

Stanford's national recruiting rankings the past six years:

 

-2017 = 14th
-2016 = 16th

-2015 = 24th

-2014 = 13th

-2013 = 52nd

-2012 = 7th

Three of those years are Top 15 and one of those is Top 10. 

I wish we did that.

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

Dansker Travel Squad

Dansker

Posted
Posted
7 minutes ago, Undone said:


Ted Talks are cool and all, but...

Stanford's national recruiting rankings the past six years:

 

-2017 = 14th
-2016 = 16th

-2015 = 24th

-2014 = 13th

-2013 = 52nd

-2012 = 7th

Three of those years are Top 15 and one of those is Top 10. 

I wish we did that.

 

That's what you get for being a drive away from pipeline areas/states. We have to win and beat the Wisconsin's and the Ohio State's if we want to keep our in-state talent and get a leg up on recruiting and that starts obviously with coaching.

Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

×
Go to topic listing

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.

Visit the Sports Illustrated Husker site



×
×
  • Create New...