Do we need top 5 classes to be successful?

[Mavric]

3 minutes ago, Hedley Lamarr said:

Callahan's recruiting provided the vast majority of bodies for the elite defense we observed with Bo. Obviously the 09 class wasnt the only contributing class but it did provide the foundation known as Suh. 

 

This is probably fairly true but it is a significantly different statement than what you said previously.

[Nebfanatic]

19 minutes ago, Jeremy said:

A little off topic, but along the lines of how a program needs accountability and top-notch coaching to compliment recruiting. 

 

Pelini's peso was a great scheme and taylor-made to slow down the Big XII's spread systems, but we don't have that luxury in the B1G. One week we'll be facing the big bully lines and play action of Wisconsin, Michigan, Iowa or Michigan State, but then the next have to prepare for the spread attacks of Ohio State, Purdue, Indiana, and Northwestern . (And now others are having to deal with our spread attack, as well.) 

 

One could make a compelling argument that defense is as big a task in the B1G as any other conference, probably tougher than the Big XII for sure. 

Interesting argument considering the perceptions of the conferences. Even then the Big XII was considered defense optional with the high powered offenses while the B1G has been known for bad offenses. But I think we have found what you have said to be true. You need a solid defense in this league that is adaptable or you are going to have a really tough go of things.

[Hedley Lamarr]

20 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

This is probably fairly true but it is a significantly different statement than what you said previously.

Well my statement was completely false that you just quoted because i said 09 class which didnt help in 2009 haha. whoops! Without that top 5 class we do not have an elite defense. I am not sure how that can be argued from a talent perspective? My statement is practically valid simply because Suh was part of the class. PS I think we are arguing semantics and I am sure that both you and I agree that averaging a top 10 class is ideal if you want to be a top 10 program. I think we can get to that point but I expect it to take a few years as we continue to improve. I think we finish in the 20's composite this year and make a push for 15-19 for the next could classes then start to see the 10-14 etc. 

[B.B. Hemingway]

3 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I like the analysis. But to be fair the 09 defense was basically Suh then our DBs. 

 

Woof. This is a pretty bad take.

 

Suh was a generational talent, but you're overlooking the rest of the Defensive Line, and even our LB's. Crick, Allen, and probably even Turner were better than anything we've had on the defensive line the past 2-3 years. As good as the secondary was in 2009, that defensive line was a huge part of their success.

[StPaulHusker]

Only 4 teams since 1998 played in the national championship or college football playoff and had a 4 year average recruiting ranking below 15 leading into the year they were in the NCG or CFP.

 

Oregon twice

Michigan St

Washington

 

None of them won a national championship

[Undone]

+1, @StPaulHusker.

Tangential - On offense, a kid's speed can be sort of like a hidden extra variable for us because of Frost's Chip Kelly system. So a kid that's a three star all-purpose back or receiver can wind up benefiting the team above and beyond the recruiting grade rankings. So I think we'll see some of that. A kid who runs a 40 in the 4.3 range but who gets graded a three star can do great things in this system.

By and large though, we have to bump up our national averages by a very measurable degree over that of Pelini's if we want to even win conference titles. I'm going to stand by that. And please, don't anybody bring up Wisconsin, because Wisconsin didn't do s*** once Ohio State's NCAA ban was lifted and Urban got rolling. 

[Huskers93-97]

58 minutes ago, StPaulHusker said:

Only 4 teams since 1998 played in the national championship or college football playoff and had a 4 year average recruiting ranking below 15 leading into the year they were in the NCG or CFP.

 

Oregon twice

Michigan St

Washington

 

None of them won a national championship

You are correct. But I dont want to gloss over the fact Oregon is on there twice. The scheme levels the playing field. Michigan State and Washington made it to the playoff but looked out classed in both of their games and did not make it past the first round. Oregon had lesser "star" ratings but still looked like they belonged.

 

Oregon lost by 3 in 1 BCS national championship. That game was a coin flip. Play that game 10 times they win 5 IMHO. 

 

Next Championship run they destroyed the defending national champion Florida State in the first round of the playoff by 40 points. Then lost to Ohio State in the finals.

 

So I think it shows with this scheme you can have a 12-15 ranked class and compete with teams that finish in the top 5. Now throw in the fact I think Frost is a better coach than Chip Kelly and Mark Helfrich. I think if Frost was coaching those teams Oregon would have beat Auburn and either beat ohio state of made them sweat deep into the 4th. Ohio State was just better that year.

 

 

[StPaulHusker]

4 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

You are correct. But I dont want to gloss over the fact Oregon is on there twice. The scheme levels the playing field. Michigan State and Washington made it to the playoff but looked out classed in both of their games and did not make it past the first round. Oregon had lesser "star" ratings but still looked like they belonged.

 

Oregon lost by 3 in 1 BCS national championship. That game was a coin flip. Play that game 10 times they win 5 IMHO. 

 

Next Championship run they destroyed the defending national champion Florida State in the first round of the playoff by 40 points. Then lost to Ohio State in the finals.

 

So I think it shows with this scheme you can have a 12-15 ranked class and compete with teams that finish in the top 5. Now throw in the fact I think Frost is a better coach than Chip Kelly and Mark Helfrich. I think if Frost was coaching those teams Oregon would have beat Auburn and either beat ohio state of made them sweat deep into the 4th. Ohio State was just better that year.

 

 

Wasn't it Scott Frost calling the plays for Oregon vs Ohio St?

[Undone]

18 minutes ago, Huskers93-97 said:

So I think it shows with this scheme you can have a 12-15 ranked class and compete with teams that finish in the top 5. Now throw in the fact I think Frost is a better coach than Chip Kelly and Mark Helfrich. I think if Frost was coaching those teams Oregon would have beat Auburn and either beat ohio state of made them sweat deep into the 4th. Ohio State was just better that year.

I would agree with the points you made in that post that Chip Kelly is one of the better examples where far superior coaching abilities takes the team further than their recruiting rankings. He was also incredible at recruiting to the scheme itself, which of course we can observe and appreciate about Osborne as well. Good points there about Kelly.

The second half of what you said there about Frost being a better coach than Kelly though is pure Kool-Aid guzzling homer bias though.   (Just messing with you a bit with that comment.    )

[WyoHusker56]

2 hours ago, StPaulHusker said:

Wasn't it Scott Frost calling the plays for Oregon vs Ohio St?

 

I believe so, but it was also his first season as a play caller for what that's worth.

[Huskers93-97]

4 hours ago, StPaulHusker said:

Wasn't it Scott Frost calling the plays for Oregon vs Ohio St?

It wasnt "his" team. His culture, his coaching staff etc. He just called the plays. Big difference if he was head coach and recruited how he wanted. Coached how he wanted. He was just a soldier at the time. Frost knows the error of the oregon system was not having any physicality or power element. Thus why he is attempting to blend Husker of old with Oregon speed. So I think the reason they lost is less about talent and more about lack of an emphasis on power. 

[Huskers93-97]

3 hours ago, Undone said:

The second half of what you said there about Frost being a better coach than Kelly though is pure Kool-Aid guzzling homer bias though.   (Just messing with you a bit with that comment.    )

I would disagree. Kelly pioneered the offense- so he deserves the credit for that. But I think Frost is taking the offense to another level and evolving it to become more potent. It is evolving to win in different kind of games- win with speed- win with power. So if you run across a physical team you dont flame out like the Kelly teams did. You can still throw a punch. I dont believe Kelly or perhaps anyone could have gone to UCF and did what Frost did in 2 years. 

 

I also dont think Chip has the heart in the game like Frost does. Frost and staff are growing into some elite recruiters and pairing that with a great culture full of kids who commit- stay commited and love Frost like the kids used to love Osborne. 

 

I just get the feeling Kelly is a little cold and is better suited for the pros.

[Landlord]

2 hours ago, Huskers93-97 said:

I would disagree. Kelly pioneered the offense- so he deserves the credit for that. But I think Frost is taking the offense to another level and evolving it to become more potent. It is evolving to win in different kind of games- win with speed- win with power. So if you run across a physical team you dont flame out like the Kelly teams did. You can still throw a punch. I dont believe Kelly or perhaps anyone could have gone to UCF and did what Frost did in 2 years. 

 

There's literally no argument that Frost is a better coach than Chip Kelly right now. There might be in the future, but as it currently stands it's not close.

 

Anyways, the bold part is kinda weird to me. How often did Kelly's teams flame out? His first year the only loss by more than 9 points was his first game as a coach when they lost by 11 to Boise. Second year, the only loss was as time expired in the national championship game. Third year, they lost to USC by 3 and they lost to LSU (the best team to never win a national championship maybe?) by 13. Fourth year they lost to Stanford by 3 in overtime.

 

That's it. So what in the world is the bolded part of your quote talking about

[Huskers93-97]

2009: Stanford and Ohio state

 

2010 Auburn

 

2011 lsu and usc

 

2012 Stanford 

 

the bolded is not that weird. Each year their losses were to similar teams. Physical tough teams. Disciplined defense and tough running. 

 

Hence why frost said that was a weakness in that scheme and why he wants to combine Oregon speed with husker power. 

 

The kelly system was continued by Helfrich and I bet for those few years Oregon’s losses were mostly to strong physical teams as well 

 

[Mavric]

4 hours ago, Landlord said:

There's literally no argument that Frost is a better coach than Chip Kelly right now.

 

Sure there is.  Frost has won a National Championship.  He has the ring and everything.