Barney Moving to TE Coach?

[Polarhusker]

It's going to be tough reading this board next yeart. Cotton is taking over a position with only 1 experienced guy. So I expect the performance will be down a bit.. the firebirds will be out.

you think! If the running game doesn't go 500 yds per game or the TE don't catch 20 passes per game, this board will be in melt down. :ahhhhhhhh :ahhhhhhhh :ahhhhhhhh :ahhhhhhhh

 

[StPaulHusker]

I just got out of surgery a few hours ago and this was the first post I pulled up. I am not sure what was more painful to endure. Figuring the math or recovery.

 

[NUance]

62% of players ranked below 4 stars make the Pro Bowl

No. Each year there are around 250 recruits with a Rivals ranking of four stars or above (including around 30 five star recruits). The next 500 or so players have three stars. Another 1500 or so who sign to play FBS ball are ranked lower, plus quite a few of who will walk-on somewhere but are unranked. LINK So let's say there are 250 players ranked four stars and higher. And 2000 players ranked below four stars.

There are 84 Pro-bowl players (not including alternates). 38% of Pro-bowlers come from the top 250 players (32 out of 250 four stars make a Pro-bowl). And 62% of pro-bowlers come from the next 2000 or so players. (52 of 2000 recruits with less than four stars make a Pro-bowl) (btw, I'd bet over half of the 62% come from the 500 three star players).

So the statement "62% of players ranked below 4 stars make the Pro Bowl" is just a silly statement. There are 1700 players on NFL rosters. The silly statement would mean that 1240 of the 2000 recruits with fewer than four stars make the Pro-bowl (62% of 2000 is 1240). :facepalm:

 

[The Dude]

The Screaming Pelini's posts are comical if you read them as if it's actually Bo Pelini screaming.

And I do.

 

[The Screaming Pelini]

You guys keep thinking I am telling you that you're wrong, you're not, but neither am I. You guys are expanding the statistic to include every single player, which is not necesarry because we are only comparing the number of four and five stars on the Pro Bowl roster vs the number of sub four star players on the roster. Thus if we are comparing only the Pro Bowl players, as I have been this whole time, my statistic is not incorrect. If you expand the base number to include every player ever ranked, or every player in the NFL, than yes that number is significantly smaller, but still does not make my statement incorrect. Maybe needs to be reworded, but not incorrect.

 

[zoogs]

Your statistic is a trivial observation, which is that there are more 3-stars than 4-stars or 5-stars. There are fewer 5-star record holders, starters, stars, etc, etc, etc at the college level than 3-stars or under, too. The sky is also blue.

Your argument that 4-stars and 5-stars have a lesser track record than 3-stars is not supported by any statistic, and is wrong.

 

[NUance]

62% of players ranked below 4 stars make the Pro Bowl
62% of players who make the Pro Bowl are ranked below 4 stars

I think this is what you meant to say, Screaming Pelini.

But what's your point? If your point is that recruiting is an inexact science then I wholeheartedly agree with you. But if your point is that, instead of recruiting four and five star guys, we should concentrate on recruiting three-star and below players because 62% of Pro-bowlers are three-star and below---well, then I suggest you re-read my post above.

 

[The Screaming Pelini]

62% of players ranked below 4 stars make the Pro Bowl
62% of players who make the Pro Bowl are ranked below 4 stars

I think this is what you meant to say, Screaming Pelini.

But what's your point? If your point is that recruiting is an inexact science then I wholeheartedly agree with you. But if your point is that, instead of recruiting four and five star guys, we should concentrate on recruiting three-star and below players because 62% of Pro-bowlers are three-star and below---well, then I suggest you re-read my post above.

Yeah that would probably make more sense to you all, it made sense in my own world haha. My sincerest apologies.

But my point with all of this is that if Barney starts three walk on offensive lineman, that doesn't mean they aren't as good or better than four or five stars. Do I want all the fours and fives we can get? Hell yeah! But you don't need a four or five star rating to be an elite, top tier player. If we start three walk ons and still average numbers on offense that are as good, or exceed the teams with the five star talent, wouldn't that mean you're a great coach? Shouldn't we be praising Barney for taking marginally worse talent and getting the same production out of them as the teams with the highest rated talent?

 

[NUance]

62% of players ranked below 4 stars make the Pro Bowl
62% of players who make the Pro Bowl are ranked below 4 stars

I think this is what you meant to say, Screaming Pelini.

But what's your point? If your point is that recruiting is an inexact science then I wholeheartedly agree with you. But if your point is that, instead of recruiting four and five star guys, we should concentrate on recruiting three-star and below players because 62% of Pro-bowlers are three-star and below---well, then I suggest you re-read my post above.

Yeah that would probably make more sense to you all, it made sense in my own world haha. My sincerest apologies.

But my point with all of this is that if Barney starts three walk on offensive lineman, that doesn't mean they aren't as good or better than four or five stars. Do I want all the fours and fives we can get? Hell yeah! But you don't need a four or five star rating to be an elite, top tier player. If we start three walk ons and still average numbers on offense that are as good, or exceed the teams with the five star talent, wouldn't that mean you're a great coach? Shouldn't we be praising Barney for taking marginally worse talent and getting the same production out of them as the teams with the highest rated talent?

Yeah, we should be praising Barney for the OL, especially this past year. But the OL coach is a similar to being an O-lineman. You're most likely to hear his name during a game when someone jumps offsides or misses a block. If they do their job they're anonymous. And so is their coach.

/btw, I'm not one of the ones who bags on Barney. I think we're lucky to have him as a coach. Even though I might yell once in a while when we jump offsides or something. :lol:

 

[zoogs]

He gets the heat Papuchis and Els should be getting.

This is true. We spend a lot of time agonizing over the offense when that's the side of the ball working best. We do this with Cotton, with Beck, to a HUGE degree with Martinez, all the while ignoring our defense which has been getting progressively worse year after year. It's baffling.

This argument comes up a lot and while it has merit, I also think there's enough heat to go around.

I'm not sure why Els doesn't get a lot of attention. Probably because he's a more recent addition so the jury is still out, and he had considerable success in his RC role. Although more than a few people have talked about how maybe RC, ST, and LBs is too much for the guy to handle.

Papuchis has gotten a ton of heat last year, hasn't he? Heck, he got heat the moment he was promoted, and plenty of people didn't think it was deserved. I don't think every time someone says a word about Cotton we should forget about the fire Paps has been under. He was once considered a great recruiter on this staff but even that was for only 'almost landing' Owa, and memories are short.

The main thing for me here in criticism of the defense...it's Bo's defense, and always will be. And while the crow calls are already starting that maybe he's getting figured out and can't adjust, I don't want to even entertain the possibility yet that Bo is anything other than the defensive mastermind his reputation suggests he is. I think his track record earns him a bit of slack. But continue to struggle and get blown out, that sterling reputation is going to get awfully stained.

Back to Cotton. He has nothing great to lean on (I remember agreeing here, knapp - this is just generally directed).. I still think he only has "let's find reasons to not be so harsh on a good guy" as a supporting argument. He doesn't have this reputation as some sort of OL coaching whiz. And while he clearly has some sort of importance to this staff and to this school, he's probably run out of rope as far as the OL goes and that's independent of any other weakness on the team.

Remember when people, me included - were so harsh on Taylor. And the most common response was, lay off the guy, look at our OL. No team can reach elite status without stud-level play from its offensive line, look at Alabama, etc. Now that the heat has turned to Cotton, I hope we can remember that we still need to get to the next level with the offensive line. More recent defensive struggles don't change a fundamental truth about the game and its reliance on trench dominance.

 

[knapplc]

I remember threads cropping up about Taylor and Beck nearly weekly. I remember one or two threads about Papuchis and the defense. I remember, personally, posting in a number of the Taylor/Beck threads the question of why we were spending so much time griping about a top 25 offense and ignoring a defense "hemorrhaging yards and points."

I remember that actually helped me learn how to spell "hemorrhaging."

 

[QMany]

I remember threads cropping up about Taylor and Beck nearly weekly. I remember one or two threads about Papuchis and the defense. I remember, personally, posting in a number of the Taylor/Beck threads the question of why we were spending so much time griping about a top 25 offense and ignoring a defense "hemorrhaging yards and points."

I remember that actually helped me learn how to spell "hemorrhaging."

I'd guess because there isn't a reasonable argument that our defense wasn't horrible parts of the year. Don't need a whole lot of discussion to settle that one. I don't see much opposition.

On the other hand, some think the offense, offensive line, offensive playcalling, etc. is bad. Much easier to have debates on that.