Evaluating where Iowa is

[CAHusker]

10 hours ago, BigPeterJ said:

They just look like better athletes than we have.  We called a bad game, and AM played bad, but we played harder than any other game of the year.   Iowa has some talent, and their freshman RB looked really good.  Something we havent been able to say ourselves.  Nebraska hasn't had a good RB in a while.

Umm, Ozigbo

[84HuskerLaw]

Yes we’ve not had great RBs two or three deep but we’ve had guys capable of doing more than they did if the general offensive execution would have been better. Ozigbo with good blocking and play calls was capable of $1500 yards a season imo.  We’ve just had RB by committee for several years - not sure whose fault for this really  and inconsistent play.   
Bottom line is our football teams for about a decade have just not been very good overall.  Different coaches, different schemes, different players = same results.  Ultimately there’s blame enough all the way around from the front offices to coaching to players to scheduling to weather to officials to injuries to just simple bad luck!   It can’t last forever and I firmly think things are about to change for the better!   

[GBRFAN]

It is possible to have more talent and lower class rankings. Skilled players are ranked higher than OL / DL / TE / LB .  So if one team stock piles skilled players their ranking will be higher then the team that goes for the trenches. Obviously to be the best team you need to cover all gaps with extra attention to the trenches in the BIG.

[BIG ERN]

Iowa also takes a lot of in-state and Midwest kids that don't go to a lot of camps and get more exposure. Kirk likes to have his class mostly filled up before the season starts which helps, but also get some less elite kids that way. 

[Comish]

So,..............IF... they have better athletes, better coaching, a better weight/conditioning situation, AND currently an OVERALL better program.......... then how do we explain (with all these advantages), the last two years coming down to a walk-off field goal?

 

[84HuskerLaw]

14 minutes ago, GBRFAN said:

It is possible to have more talent and lower class rankings. Skilled players are ranked higher than OL / DL / TE / LB .  So if one team stock piles skilled players their ranking will be higher then the team that goes for the trenches. Obviously to be the best team you need to cover all gaps with extra attention to the trenches in the BIG.

This is critical imo.  I feel the big guys are the most important and should be weighted heavier in class rankings than skilled guys - I didn’t realize they count less.  That really casts doubt on the ratings comparisons generally.  

[84HuskerLaw]

1 minute ago, Comish said:

So,..............IF... they have better athletes, better coaching, a better weight/conditioning situation, AND currently an OVERALL better program.......... then how do we explain (with all these advantages), the last two years coming down to a walk-off field goal?

 

Maybe our guys played harder than Iowa - effort is hard to measure in recruiting ratings if it even factored.  Self confidence the same way.   Those are variables that can’t be objectively tested.  

[NUance]

3 hours ago, GBRFAN said:

It is possible to have more talent and lower class rankings. Skilled players are ranked higher than OL / DL / TE / LB .  So if one team stock piles skilled players their ranking will be higher then the team that goes for the trenches. Obviously to be the best team you need to cover all gaps with extra attention to the trenches in the BIG.

 

Is this true?  If so, it's ... interesting.  A great O-line makes average RBs/QBs look great.  Similarly, a great D-line makes their DBs look world class.  So how could the ranking services justify deemphasizing the linemen in their scoring?   

[BigPeterJ]

5 hours ago, Toe said:

 

Average rank of the top RB recruit in our last three classes is 22, although the highest-ranked of those was Washington. Losing him hurts, but what can you do in a case like that?  More than anything, it probably hurts us in terms of depth, and RB is one of the most important important spots for depth due to high injury potential.

I looked at their rankings and your right.  Our top RB recruits have been ranked between 25-50.  With the exception of Washington who was ranked 11th best RB in the class.  I also understand that ratings dont mean everything , for example Ameer Abdullah wasn't highly rated but he ended up being one of the top 5 RB in the country. 

 

Also another poster pointed to Ozigbo being good.  Looks like i exaggerated a bit, i guess my point is Nebraska football has always had very good RBs.  Even in our recent mediocrity, our RBs went from Helu to Burkhead to Abdullah.  We have always had one of the top 5-10 backs in the country it seems.  Just seeing that their are 25 RB in each class that are supposedly better than any of our RBs on our roster this upcoming year.  That would be approximately 50 total freshman and sophmore RBs on some other team that are better than our best RB. 

 

Again, that doesn't mean we will have the 50th best RB in college football over the next 3 or 4 years, but those ratings are all we have to go on right now.  It just shows how much of a dive our program has taken recently, when we used to get some of the best backs in the country......and now we are excited about guys that are projected to be average Power 5 running backs.  

[BigPeterJ]

4 hours ago, Comish said:

So,..............IF... they have better athletes, better coaching, a better weight/conditioning situation, AND currently an OVERALL better program.......... then how do we explain (with all these advantages), the last two years coming down to a walk-off field goal?

 

That is one game.  Look at the entire season and Iowa has clearly been at least one notch above us.  Anyone other than Husker homers can see Iowa is on a different level than us.  However that should be changing over the next few years.  

[DrinkinwitTerrellFarley]

On 1/21/2020 at 12:31 PM, Undone said:

According to the recruiting site rankings, I'm pretty sure we've "out-recruited" Iowa in terms of average class rank the last five seasons. So why have they produced more NFL talent than we have? I'd say there are three possible explanations, all of which could be true to some degree:

 

1. The recruiting site rankings aren't exactly what we think they are.

2. Iowa is better at developing talent.

3. Iowa is better at identifying talent in high school film, regardless of where that player ranks on the recruiting rankings sites.

 

I think it's a combination of #2 and #3. But probably mainly #2.

I would agree.   Also, much like Wisconsin and Utah, both teams have an identity and the same focus on what they want to do for years.  Nebraska's direction on offense and defense has gone all sorts of directions over recent history.  I think it allows the Hawkeyes to pinpoint and focus recruiting with knowing their direction and ongoing stability.

On 1/21/2020 at 12:31 PM, Undone said:

According to the recruiting site rankings, I'm pretty sure we've "out-recruited" Iowa in terms of average class rank the last five seasons. So why have they produced more NFL talent than we have? I'd say there are three possible explanations, all of which could be true to some degree:

 

1. The recruiting site rankings aren't exactly what we think they are.

2. Iowa is better at developing talent.

3. Iowa is better at identifying talent in high school film, regardless of where that player ranks on the recruiting rankings sites.

 

I think it's a combination of #2 and #3. But probably mainly #2.

I would agree.   Also, much like Wisconsin and Utah, both teams have an identity and the same focus on what they want to do for years.  Nebraska's direction on offense and defense has gone all sorts of directions over recent history.  I think it allows the Hawkeyes to pinpoint and focus recruiting with knowing their direction and ongoing stability.

[dubsker]

1 hour ago, NUance said:

 

Is this true?  If so, it's ... interesting.  A great O-line makes average RBs/QBs look great.  Similarly, a great D-line makes their DBs look world class.  So how could the ranking services justify deemphasizing the linemen in their scoring?   

 

 

There's some truth to it.  Who wants to send someone all the way up to Wisconsin to evaluate a 3 star o lineman that is done camping and has been a commit to the badgers for a year?   That doesn't generate any clicks or revenue.  Better to just stay in the south where the battles for the speed are.  You hit way more fan bases at once that way.

 

EDIT:  I don't want to claim it always happens.  I think they have two top 100 OL in their next class.  I wonder if they will drop in rankings like Turner did.

[Wayupnorth]

I guess real results can't be seen. Needing very good coaching, we haven't had that since before Bo left.

Bo's recruiting fell way off the last two years he was here, he stuck with the players,coached them up, but his classes weren't up to needs, roster holes strted to show up.

MR had to convert a TE and D end, had two walkons starting there as well, MR never used the jucos. At LB, we had to start a true frosh. At O line, we had to start several walkons.

Our D tackle and cb positions were solid, Bo left with one qb ready.

 

This isn't an indictment on Bo, or even MR, but it happened. After each coach left, we had higher than normal attrition, that's to be expected, and when SF got here, he got rid of a few highly rated recruits, so, in reality, our recruiting classes weren't what they started out to be.

Continuity cannot go underestimated in value, it allows for development, as older players help the younger guys,leadership forms,expectations and finer details are discovered and practiced etc.

We currently have a coach that's out recruiting our previous staffs, we have 40 freshmen coming in, some of course redshirts, amongst them are 16 four star recruits.

Just be patient, it's coming, besides,iowa by three? That their best at our worst?

[BigRedBuster]

7 hours ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

This is critical imo.  I feel the big guys are the most important and should be weighted heavier in class rankings than skilled guys - I didn’t realize they count less.  That really casts doubt on the ratings comparisons generally.  

They don’t count less. A .8800 lineman counts the same as a .8800 RB in the class rankings. 
 

Many people feel a good lineman means more to the team as a good RB. I sort of agree, but that would be very difficult to adjust for in the rankings. 
 

Also, linemen are much harder to rate out of HS because their bodies tend to need more development and it’s harder to gauge their skill level in camps. So, I believe there are more misses in ranking linemen than skill positions. 
 

Iowa started keying on linemen recruiting and development when Ferentz took over since he is a very good online coach. 
 

personally, I believe Frost has the same idea as to the importance of the line. But, we were amazingly low on numbers and quality of linemen when he got here. Just look at that recruiting now composited to before he got here. 
 

sadly, those positions take more time to develop so the results have suffered so far. 
 

it’s coming though. 

[Wayupnorth]

I like how the staff goes and gets a very nice O lineman out the gate.

Benhart, Corcoran and Teddy P for 2021. I think this is part of SF's Husker power blend in action.

M Farniok was considered a huge win, and Jaimes was considered a steal,it would have been nice to have a third from the MR staff, but this staff is already past that in terms of higher rated O linemen coming in.

 

We suffered early this year on our line, saw it starting to come together the last three games. In order for us to make this work, we need five real true O linemen out there,every good team in the Big has five.

Our LBs are the next fix, coming soon too.