Husker talent and where we rank

[lo country]

1 hour ago, Nebfanatic said:

 

Yea yall are wrong.

 

 

The 247 was the composite.  Apples to Apples.  The other was what our class would look like with only 15 guys instead of 25 for example.  That is my understanding.  It was originally posted on rivals....

[TheSker]

5 minutes ago, lo country said:

IMHO, Frost and staff are in another realm of coaching in the B1G than in the AAC.  Yes, they beat Auburn, but can the staff coach week in and week out against better talent (athletes and staff).  For me, the jury is out, but it looks like they are struggling.  Even with attrition factored in, our talent on paper is substantially better.  I am tired, and have been for years, of getting beat by teams who "do less with more".

I think the AAC is at least a little better than others give them credit for.....but I understand it's just your opinion and mine on that.

 

Our talent, especially after attrition, is definitely not "substantially" better with the exception of this year's freshman class.

 

Word on the street is the staff likes what they see out of Benhart, Fritzsche, Piper, Newsome, Robinson and other freshmen who aren't game ready yet.

[TheSker]

14 minutes ago, lo country said:

No.  I am all N on Frost.  Just saying that because it is Frost, he will get more time than say a guy named Riley (I hated the hire when I had to google who he was)....

My boss at the time Riley was hired was an Oregon State alum.

 

He shook his head and laughed.

[VectorVictor]

14 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Word on the street is the staff likes what they see out of Benhart, Fritzsche, Piper, Newsome, Robinson and other freshmen who aren't game ready yet.

 

My mind read this sentence as if you were saying it as an old school newsie, all while you were chomping on a cigar and had a whiskey on the rocks in hand. 

 

 

[TheSker]

Just now, VectorVictor said:

 

My mind read this sentence as if you were an old school newsie and you were chomping on a cigar in the process. 

 

 

Don't leave my whiskey on the rocks out of the equation.

[lo country]

6 minutes ago, TheSker said:

I think the AAC is at least a little better than others give them credit for.....but I understand it's just your opinion and mine on that.

 

Our talent, especially after attrition, is definitely not "substantially" better with the exception of this year's freshman class.

 

Word on the street is the staff likes what they see out of Benhart, Fritzsche, Piper, Newsome, Robinson and other freshmen who aren't game ready yet.

I think the AAC ihas some very good teams, but a different type pf play than the B1G.  I think several teams in there would boat race NU.  I think it's predicated by scoring more and defense is secondary.  It's not as physical and the B1G is better top to bottom.  Harder to win week in and week out.  Going undefeated is hard regardless of conference.  Just think Frost and Co might have to tweak the scheme to go week in and week out with the physicality of the B1G.

 

I do think our talent is "better", but that's on paper.  It hasn't risen to the level one would expect for the rankings that we receive.  To date, a lot of teams with lesser, but "better developed talent" are beating us...

[VectorVictor]

3 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Don't leave my whiskey on the rocks out of the equation.

 

Fixed for accuracy, ya' hear?

[desertshox]

13 minutes ago, TheSker said:

Word on the street is the staff likes what they see out of Benhart, Fritzsche, Piper, Newsome, Robinson and other freshmen who aren't game ready yet.

 

will we see them in any of the remaining 3 games and possible bowl game this year then? or do they need more than 9 games to be game ready? if they dont play, then this season is going to feel even more like frost was throwing away this season for rewards later on.

[lo country]

4 minutes ago, TheSker said:

My boss at the time Riley was hired was an Oregon State alum.

 

He shook his head and laughed.

Haha.  That's classic.  If only we had known....I remember saying whoever it was I didn't want to have to google the name......and when I did, I was like .504 career......

[Undone]

On 11/7/2019 at 9:36 AM, WyoHusker56 said:

We are definitely under performing, but I don't think the talent composite tells the whole story because this team is so young. I saw the chart below on Facebook (I don't have access to the full article, but I think this is interesting). The talent on the top of our team is really poorly ranked compared to the rest of the country because of attrition. The highly ranked Freshmen and Sophomore classes help to bolster the overall team composite. I don't think this defends this season, we should be better, but this team has a major lack of experienced talent and these adjusted rankings fit our season ranking better.

 

 

 

I'm a little late to this thread. 

 

I think that graphic helps paint a good picture for why we're in the place we currently sit with, say, our offensive line, our usable running backs, and also our wide receiver corps as a whole. Because there's no depth at those positions and at many of the spots, the best possible guy we can start just isn't very good at all.

 

But on defense, I've worked hard to drum up comparative stats for our starters as compared to other conference opponents' starters. And we're right there in the mix with our divisional foes, to be sure.

 

Our talent composite will undoubtedly start going drastically up from here on out as long as we don't have some kind of mass exodus with higher-than-usual attrition. But, in my opinion this staff still has to prove that it can develop talent. A lot of this staff is relatively young, too, and I think there's quite a bit to prove in that department as well.

 

[WyoHusker56]

16 minutes ago, Undone said:

 

I'm a little late to this thread. 

 

I think that graphic helps paint a good picture for why we're in the place we currently sit with, say, our offensive line, our usable running backs, and also our wide receiver corps as a whole. Because there's no depth at those positions and at many of the spots, the best possible guy we can start just isn't very good at all.

 

But on defense, I've worked hard to drum up comparative stats for our starters as compared to other conference opponents' starters. And we're right there in the mix with our divisional foes, to be sure.

 

Our talent composite will undoubtedly start going drastically up from here on our as long as we don't have some kind of mass exodus with higher-than-usual attrition. But, in my opinion this staff still has to prove that it can develop talent. A lot of this staff is relatively young, too, and I think there's quite a bit to prove in that department as well.

 

 

The argument you've made are hard to disagree with. I think that our defense really should be doing more this year. I think the depth argument does come into play in our LB corp a bit as we basically have under performing starters and then youth.

 

Next year is going to tell us a lot about whether this staff can develop players at a high level. This year we still have guys like Ferguson, Vainuku (big miss here) and Avery Anderson who have just checked out and clearly don't care to be developed and are just riding out their scholarship. I think there may be more of that mentality than we know and it bleeds into other guys. I think this is the "culture" problems that still exist. Once some of that attitude is gone, hopefully it only helps the team more.

 

I think there are signs that the staff can develop guys. For example, Braxton Clark coming in at CB last week and playing really well is encouraging even when Purdue went after him. Jurgens development as the season goes on is encouraging. What has happened with Lamar Jackson and Ozigbo is encouraging. We obviously need a whole lot more development and fast, but I'm hopeful it'll show soon.

[mnhusker]

19 hours ago, Red Five said:

Agree. It has to to be counting attrition for us and not for the other teams.

Thanks for the info, of course it's a lame chart if that's all it does.  I'm trying to decide what I think of team performance based on what is being accomplished on the field.  I feel like many loses were to lower talent teams that were better prepared.  The hope is that sticking to a system that doesn't fit your talent will pay off in the long run.  Losing seasons certainly damage recruiting but the calculation is that teaching the current players how to play in the system is better than winning games with a strategy that sacrifices the development of the new system.  It's a coaching delema that I've wondered about.

[Undone]

32 minutes ago, WyoHusker56 said:

 

The argument you've made are hard to disagree with. I think that our defense really should be doing more this year. I think the depth argument does come into play in our LB corp a bit as we basically have under performing starters and then youth.

 

Next year is going to tell us a lot about whether this staff can develop players at a high level. This year we still have guys like Ferguson, Vainuku (big miss here) and Avery Anderson who have just checked out and clearly don't care to be developed and are just riding out their scholarship. I think there may be more of that mentality than we know and it bleeds into other guys. I think this is the "culture" problems that still exist. Once some of that attitude is gone, hopefully it only helps the team more.

 

I think there are signs that the staff can develop guys. For example, Braxton Clark coming in at CB last week and playing really well is encouraging even when Purdue went after him. Jurgens development as the season goes on is encouraging. What has happened with Lamar Jackson and Ozigbo is encouraging. We obviously need a whole lot more development and fast, but I'm hopeful it'll show soon.

 

+1.

 

Hopefully next season will be one where expectations are incredibly low but the younger, slightly more talented players emerge and then fill the huge gap that exists this year. 

 

I'm getting a bit off topic now, but I have huge concerns of where we'll be next year at running back. Rahmir Johnson is our main hope at this point. Hope he stays healthy and is hungry to be "the man," because he has a chance to be the star of the show.

[TheSker]

4 minutes ago, Undone said:

I'm getting a bit off topic now, but I have huge concerns of where we'll be next year at running back. Rahmir Johnson is our main hope at this point. Hope he stays healthy and is hungry to be "the man," because he has a chance to be the star of the show.

Morrison and Scott?

[Husker in WI]

Just now, Undone said:

Hopefully next season will be one where expectations are incredibly low but the younger, slightly more talented players emerge and then fill the huge gap that exists this year. 

 

I'm getting a bit off topic now, but I have huge concerns of where we'll be next year at running back. Rahmir Johnson is our main hope at this point. Hope he stays healthy and is hungry to be "the man," because he has a chance to be the star of the show.

 

I'm with you, but I think the younger players are significantly more talented in some cases. They will make mistakes, but watching guys like Sullivan/Lee/Barry just not be able to get to where they need to be shouldn't happen as much.

 

And RB I'm only worried if Morrison/Scott don't make it. If the coaches had known Washington was going to flame out they would've signed another RB last year. Our guys last year were all long term other than Mills - Johnson needs size, Wan'Dale is doing what he can but is also undersized, and Thompkins has to heal. Scott and Morrison are both more physically ready, and presumable Johnson will be as well. Maybe even Thompkins. And if that's the case, Wan'Dale can play more receiver which is better for everyone.