Jump to content


Attrition apparently already starting.


Cdog923

Recommended Posts


3 hours ago, TheSker said:

You literally said physical attributes is what he has.

 

I agree.

 

And that doesn't make him a good linebacker.

 

#relevance

 

I remember when they used to publish testing numbers coming out of winter conditioning. Gold medalist Curt Tomasevicz's numbers would absolutely jump off the page, but he was never much of a LB. 

Link to comment

So Hail Varsity has an article talking about staggering attrition:

https://hailvarsity.com/s/8163/nebraska-recruiting-looking-at-the-huskers-staggering-attrition

 

Because 38% seemed like a lot, I wanted to see what was normal. I came across this, and even though its 4+ years old, it seems 38% was actually the normal percentage amongst P5 programs between 2002 and 2014.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J9ASSW4INt1crs9Zt-SZblYHGLOvODYODJbGzggMyS0/htmlview#gid=296423990

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
5 hours ago, TheSker said:

Except as "base level" as they are, coaches teach them differently.

 

Let's examine a familiar face as an example.  Bo Pelini.

 

Pelini has taught linebackers at literally every level of football.  Barrett Ruud and Demorrio Williams excelled.  In fact Ruud credits Pelini as his key teacher.

 

But there were other linebackers who didn't excel under Pelini.  Their technique and "eyes" we're bad.

 

But that's all basic stuff, right?.......

We can disagree about what is "basic" or not, but it doesn't change the fact that they are necessary if you want to play successful Defense. Do you think errors by the Davis twins, Barry, etc, are acceptable, or are they not capable of being coached "differently", or what point are you trying to make?

Link to comment
9 hours ago, Jarhead In Red said:

We can disagree about what is "basic" or not, but it doesn't change the fact that they are necessary if you want to play successful Defense. Do you think errors by the Davis twins, Barry, etc, are acceptable, or are they not capable of being coached "differently", or what point are you trying to make?

They are not capable.

Link to comment
10 hours ago, runningblind said:

So Hail Varsity has an article talking about staggering attrition:

https://hailvarsity.com/s/8163/nebraska-recruiting-looking-at-the-huskers-staggering-attrition

 

Because 38% seemed like a lot, I wanted to see what was normal. I came across this, and even though its 4+ years old, it seems 38% was actually the normal percentage amongst P5 programs between 2002 and 2014.

 

https://docs.google.com/spreadsheets/d/1J9ASSW4INt1crs9Zt-SZblYHGLOvODYODJbGzggMyS0/htmlview#gid=296423990

 

I think this is a great example of zooming out to the point it makes it hard to see things. Attrition isn't a big deal, it happens.

 

The problem for us is that the attrition number is not evenly distributed. Further, it seems that the attrition is taking the guys we spent the majority of our resources on (the high 3* and 4* guys). Looking at the article you posted, 2015 and 2016 had 30.95% attrition. Not bad by any means. 2017 and 2018 had 45% attrition rate. While that might not seem the most concerning, you also want to consider context. 

 

The sheet you linked eliminated all context, it just said here are the guys transferring out. Us losing the 2017 and 2018 classes means we don't have the young players right now. If I had to guess, I would think that a lot of the attrition on the spreadsheet are guys who were graduate transfers or were late enough in their careers that they knew they would never see the field and ended up quitting. I can't say that for sure, but what I can say for sure is that we don't know if this is the end of us losing players from the 2017 and 2018 class. 

 

All teams are hit by this sure, but it's not always concentrated in the same way. Additionally, the context isn't always the same. 

  • Plus1 4
  • Thanks 1
Link to comment

32 minutes ago, Huskerzoo said:

Further, it seems that the attrition is taking the guys we spent the majority of our resources on (the high 3* and 4* guys).

This is a major MAJOR issue.

 

Just looking at the 2017 class.  This is the list ranked by player ratings:

 

18 hours ago, funhusker said:

Tyjon Lindsay: Gone:FourStar:

Avery Roberts: Gone:FourStar:

Tristan Gebbia: Gone:FourStar:

Jaevon McQuitty:  Not a big contributor :FourStar:

Keyshawn Johnson: Gone:FourStar:

Brendan Jaimes: Starter:ThreeStar:

Deontre Thomas:  contributes depth:ThreeStar:

Matt Sichterman:  back up:ThreeStar:

Guy Thomas: Gone:ThreeStar:

 

 

These are those 4* and high 3* players.  This has been happening for a long time.  

 

We look at getting a top 25 class, but if the top of that class doesn't contribute, we really are getting a top 50 class.

 

And, that's the results we are seeing on the field.

 

 

 

  • Plus1 5
  • Fire 1
Link to comment
17 hours ago, Undone said:

 

So. Damn. Tiring.

 

I examined that theory by cross-referencing another team's recruiting rankings coming out of high school for their starting front seven. We were on par with them, but we rank #72 in total defense while they rank #1.

 

We are talented enough on defense to not have such an embarrassment in year 2.

 

You aren't accounting for things like effort and want-to. 

  • Plus1 1
  • Fire 1
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.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...