Coaching or Talent - which is more responsible

[Saunders]

I know you think you're being really smart, and you're rag tag bunch that +1's every word of your stuff thinks you are clever, but I'll tell you flat out, you only sound like a Bo-Lover who's been waiting to pounce on this stuff. You almost seem happy at the possibility of the team failing just to prove you right.

I didn't even read the whole thing.You're projecting, and doing the "us vs them/real fan" thing. Questioning my fandom is idiotic. I've dumped more money than I've been able to in the past, to go to games this year. Don't pull that crap.

 

[AFhusker]

When you look back at the 2011 and 2012 recruiting class, more than half were busts. We recruited 37 kids in those two years, which as redshirt players should make up the junior and senior players of this roster. So of 37 players 4 graduated due to either starting as freshman, Ameer, or they were juco's with limited eligibility. Then 14 of those players aren't even in the program anymore. That leaves 18 players remaining on the roster of that original class. Of those 18 only 8 are true starters and only 3 of those guys would be considered banner players. Westercamp, Armstrong, and Valentine. The others like Davie, Reeves, Moore, Rose-Ivey, McMullen are decent contributors but not necessarily anything special. Then you've got the last 10 who are at best backups or sitting the bench. Sterup, Allen, Sutton, Turner, Williams, Cross, Thurston, Whitaker, Mordi-Price, Cjax. That's not the type of recruiting results that wins games. When 2 years of recruiting only yields 12 contributors 4 which are already gone, it's not getting it done.

Stars be damned... when you board a plane to Miami with 24 kids that nobody recruited... 30% of your roster.... I give a damn what the rest of the players are and what their star ratings are... you are going to be less talented then any 'star sheet' is going to indicate.

That is too many by any measure. 10 at the most... should be walk ons... 24 is indicative of a systemic problem with your program. Either you are failing to evaluate kids accurately and there are far too many "busts"... or you simply are not recruiting enough scholarship kids and you are leaving too many open spots for Walk Ons.

We all know there are going to be busts. Every coach has them... even Nick Saban. which is why reserving 5 spots per year is a fools game. You better be batting way above the average on the "busts" front if that is the case... but we seem to be average... maybe slightly above if you believe in best case scenarios. Doesn't make up for the 5 per year hold back for walk ons.

I've long said that was my biggest criticism of Bo... falling into that 'save one for the walk ons' mentality with Scholarships... Tom never had to live under the same limits as we have now and never had to fight the smaller schools raiding the walk on pool like they do now. You cannot get away with that anymore or you end up suiting 24 walk ons for the Miami game.

Bo did is fair share of coaching players up. Ameer was an after thought at RB... T-Magic was a safety... Suh was marshmellow before Bo. Dennard, Prince, Gomes, Haag... all guys that 'grew up' under Bo.. he had his strengths...

What I am trying to make the point of is that his starting point was too low... he assumed he could coach up anyone... and that just wasn't the case... you needed some kind of base level of talent to mold. we took on way too many projects... for every Ameer there are 5 other project guys that never saw the field... Happened way too often and you team ends up being 30% walk ons. Great for walk ons... bad for Huskers trying to compete for titles.

It seems like for some fans that once they don the scarlet and cream that questioning their talent level is off limits... they either didn't get coached up or the coach failed to put em in the correct to position to succeed or put em at the wrong position...

It is okay to say someone like Daniel Davie is simply not good enough as a player to be at NU. He received the same instructions as his predecessors playing in the NFL... but he won't sniff an NFL field. To me that is a talent deficiency... he should not be a started for NU. That simple. No amount of coaching can overcome a talent level that starts out too low.

So to be fair to everyone involved from players to coaches... realize that the coaches are still figuring this team out and what its strengths will be on gameday... and also realize our talent level is deficient. There are too many holes in this roster.

We might be able to stretch to a CCG appearance but we won't really belong there... and that will only be because the gap between us and the rest of the west is not that big... we are close enough to the rest of the west we can make a run... but we are certainly not a top ten talent type of team... and that is where Nebraska can and should be regularly... top ten in talent. We simply are not.

 

[TheSker]

When you look back at the 2011 and 2012 recruiting class, more than half were busts. We recruited 37 kids in those two years, which as redshirt players should make up the junior and senior players of this roster. So of 37 players 4 graduated due to either starting as freshman, Ameer, or they were juco's with limited eligibility. Then 14 of those players aren't even in the program anymore. That leaves 18 players remaining on the roster of that original class. Of those 18 only 8 are true starters and only 3 of those guys would be considered banner players. Westercamp, Armstrong, and Valentine. The others like Davie, Reeves, Moore, Rose-Ivey, McMullen are decent contributors but not necessarily anything special. Then you've got the last 10 who are at best backups or sitting the bench. Sterup, Allen, Sutton, Turner, Williams, Cross, Thurston, Whitaker, Mordi-Price, Cjax. That's not the type of recruiting results that wins games. When 2 years of recruiting only yields 12 contributors 4 which are already gone, it's not getting it done.

Stars be damned... when you board a plane to Miami with 24 kids that nobody recruited... 30% of your roster.... I give a damn what the rest of the players are and what their star ratings are... you are going to be less talented then any 'star sheet' is going to indicate.

That is too many by any measure. 10 at the most... should be walk ons... 24 is indicative of a systemic problem with your program. Either you are failing to evaluate kids accurately and there are far too many "busts"... or you simply are not recruiting enough scholarship kids and you are leaving too many open spots for Walk Ons.

We all know there are going to be busts. Every coach has them... even Nick Saban. which is why reserving 5 spots per year is a fools game. You better be batting way above the average on the "busts" front if that is the case... but we seem to be average... maybe slightly above if you believe in best case scenarios. Doesn't make up for the 5 per year hold back for walk ons.

I've long said that was my biggest criticism of Bo... falling into that 'save one for the walk ons' mentality with Scholarships... Tom never had to live under the same limits as we have now and never had to fight the smaller schools raiding the walk on pool like they do now. You cannot get away with that anymore or you end up suiting 24 walk ons for the Miami game.

Bo did is fair share of coaching players up. Ameer was an after thought at RB... T-Magic was a safety... Suh was marshmellow before Bo. Dennard, Prince, Gomes, Haag... all guys that 'grew up' under Bo.. he had his strengths...

What I am trying to make the point of is that his starting point was too low... he assumed he could coach up anyone... and that just wasn't the case... you needed some kind of base level of talent to mold. we took on way too many projects... for every Ameer there are 5 other project guys that never saw the field... Happened way too often and you team ends up being 30% walk ons. Great for walk ons... bad for Huskers trying to compete for titles.

It seems like for some fans that once they don the scarlet and cream that questioning their talent level is off limits... they either didn't get coached up or the coach failed to put em in the correct to position to succeed or put em at the wrong position...

It is okay to say someone like Daniel Davie is simply not good enough as a player to be at NU. He received the same instructions as his predecessors playing in the NFL... but he won't sniff an NFL field. To me that is a talent deficiency... he should not be a started for NU. That simple. No amount of coaching can overcome a talent level that starts out too low.

So to be fair to everyone involved from players to coaches... realize that the coaches are still figuring this team out and what its strengths will be on gameday... and also realize our talent level is deficient. There are too many holes in this roster.

We might be able to stretch to a CCG appearance but we won't really belong there... and that will only be because the gap between us and the rest of the west is not that big... we are close enough to the rest of the west we can make a run... but we are certainly not a top ten talent type of team... and that is where Nebraska can and should be regularly... top ten in talent. We simply are not.

Good and informative post. Pelini struggled with recruiting and roster management, but like you mentioned I think he had some strengths in player development. I also think the original coaching staff he put in place was good. Carl was/is an excellent DL coach......and I thought Ekeler was a good LB coach. I'd take Beck over Watson, but evidently so would Urban Meyer.

Riley wouldn't be in my top 10 of coaches I'd like to have replaced Pelini with. I don't believe he has the resume to be walking Nebraska's sideline as head coach. But. He's here.

 

[Saunders]

+1 AF

 

[zoogs]

I kinda disagree on Carl and Ek. Ek was a pretty high octane recruiter though (perhaps a little too much). Sanders was solid but so, I felt, were all the guys who came after him -- they just didn't happen upon quite the same assembly of talent. The offense had a solid crew with both Watson and Beck, but it wasn't perfect by any means (and neither were they).

Really it came down to Bo himself being a pretty damn good coach and he had a gold mine of raw materials that he successfully made full use of. I think we saw that over the years, too -- when Bo took over something (okay, excluding the offense) the improvement was palpable. I'm thinking of LBs, ST play, etc.

But with any coach, there's good and there's bad. Imagine if Bo really embraced the challenge of recruiting, as well as the pressure that came with. Probably he never answers about a blowup because there isn't a reason to have one to begin with. Even holding assistants constant, he looks around on his practice field and finds some great starters for his defense. Imagine if Bo had the demeanor and management savvy of Riley, and he continually drew assistant coaches who were well experienced and well traveled instead of Ohio guys (no disrespect). Even holding recruiting and roster constant, how much better might the results have been? Bo would probably still be coaching here today.

 

[TheSker]

I kinda disagree on Carl and Ek. Ek was a pretty high octane recruiter though (perhaps a little too much). Sanders was solid but so, I felt, were all the guys who came after him -- they just didn't happen upon quite the same assembly of talent. The offense had a solid crew with both Watson and Beck, but it wasn't perfect by any means (and neither were they).

Really it came down to Bo himself being a pretty damn good coach and he had a gold mine of raw materials that he successfully made full use of. I think we saw that over the years, too -- when Bo took over something (okay, excluding the offense) the improvement was palpable. I'm thinking of LBs, ST play, etc.

But with any coach, there's good and there's bad. Imagine if Bo really embraced the challenge of recruiting, as well as the pressure that came with. Probably he never answers about a blowup because there isn't a reason to have one to begin with. Even holding assistants constant, he looks around on his practice field and finds some great starters for his defense. Imagine if Bo had the demeanor and management savvy of Riley, and he continually drew assistant coaches who were well experienced and well traveled instead of Ohio guys (no disrespect). Even holding recruiting and roster constant, how much better might the results have been? Bo would probably still be coaching here today.

Carl deserves as much credit as anyone for our DL before he left. I understand he had to go due to his shenanigans, but that dude can coach a DL.

Sanders is also as good as they come for a secondary coach.

My guess is Bo is just fine where he is now.......out of the spotlight and making DI coin for quite a while. Bo was a good choice to succeed Callahan.

 

[JJ Husker]

There sure are quite a few putting in overtime to make sure their viewpoint, that it has to be coaching (current coaching) and not talent or circumstances or anything else. I don't get it. No time allowances at all for new systems, new language, getting over some of the leftover Bo crap. Nope, no allowance for that at all. These new guys have got to win on day one or the sky is falling. It would be laughable if it wasn't so f'ing shortsighted and ignorant. We've lost 2 close games to 2 very good teams. Yet the Einsteins are already prepared to can this staff and throw in the towel. I wonder if it occurs to them how utterly ridiculous it all seems? And yet they act incredulous that anyone could mistake their bullsh#t for being Bolovers. I mean they SAY they aren't but look at the gist of 99% of their posts and it's no wonder it's not clear.

 

[AFhusker]

I kinda disagree on Carl and Ek. Ek was a pretty high octane recruiter though (perhaps a little too much). Sanders was solid but so, I felt, were all the guys who came after him -- they just didn't happen upon quite the same assembly of talent. The offense had a solid crew with both Watson and Beck, but it wasn't perfect by any means (and neither were they).

Really it came down to Bo himself being a pretty damn good coach and he had a gold mine of raw materials that he successfully made full use of. I think we saw that over the years, too -- when Bo took over something (okay, excluding the offense) the improvement was palpable. I'm thinking of LBs, ST play, etc.

But with any coach, there's good and there's bad. Imagine if Bo really embraced the challenge of recruiting, as well as the pressure that came with. Probably he never answers about a blowup because there isn't a reason to have one to begin with. Even holding assistants constant, he looks around on his practice field and finds some great starters for his defense. Imagine if Bo had the demeanor and management savvy of Riley, and he continually drew assistant coaches who were well experienced and well traveled instead of Ohio guys (no disrespect). Even holding recruiting and roster constant, how much better might the results have been? Bo would probably still be coaching here today.

Carl deserves as much credit as anyone for our DL before he left. I understand he had to go due to his shenanigans, but that dude can coach a DL.

Sanders is also as good as they come for a secondary coach.

My guess is Bo is just fine where he is now.......out of the spotlight and making DI coin for quite a while. Bo was a good choice to succeed Callahan.

Sanders for as good of a coach he was, hated and at times refused to recruit so he was just as much a part of the problem.

I didn't like the Bo hire in the first place because of his lack of experience. I thought he was too much like Frank and I thought I was wrong when he had the success with Bill's recruits in 2008 and 2009. I think he ended up being better than Frank at being a head coach, but his downfall was he recruited just a poorly as Frank for the reasons I stated above. He knew he was dam good at motivating lesser talent, and didn't think he needed top talent to win at a top level.

 

[True2tRA]

Coaching, and anyone who says otherwise is a fool. Unless of course, you think FAU has more talent, at which point you should just stop posting.

We lack talent at positions, but there's much less talented teams performing a hell of a lot better than us.

Plus, Talent isn't why we're putting linebackers on slot receivers with no safety help, time after time.

Miami recruiting rankings last 4 years:

10,14,12,27. That means they are recruiting better player and more talent than Nebraska.

K, now go look at BYU.

BYU has a lot of talent on their team. If you don't see that, then there is nothing more that can be said

Recruited talent, or guys that were coached up?

(It's the latter FYI)

You're welcome to tell me I don't "have a clue" but there's data. We've out-recruited BYU by a substantial margin, so logic says... coaching.

Personally, I don't think "everything" is wrong. Except, of course, blaming it on Pelini.

Yeah, I'm all wrong about you.

....and that's just in this thread. You devote a lot of time to not crediting this staff with much at all.

But you did take time to make sure to defend your boy with that last comment.

 

[Saunders]

Yeah, I'm all wrong about you.

....and that's just in this thread. You devote a lot of time to not crediting this staff with much at all.

But you did take time to make sure to defend your boy with that last comment.

You are wrong. Glad you realize it. In your crusade you missed quite a bit of things I said we did well, including praising your boy Tommy for getting the team in the game. We've run the ball better than people think. Riley and Langsdorf have done wonders for Tommy. But I think it's funny how you complain about people only looking at the negative, then you do the exact thing thing to me. Pot meet kettle.

 

[Enhance]

We might be able to stretch to a CCG appearance but we won't really belong there... and that will only be because the gap between us and the rest of the west is not that big... we are close enough to the rest of the west we can make a run... but we are certainly not a top ten talent type of team... and that is where Nebraska can and should be regularly... top ten in talent. We simply are not.

I really enjoyed your whole post and think you brought up some really good points.

One thing that's been nagging at me for years is the lack of depth and development along the offensive line. Whether guys didn't pan out, transferred or decommited, the program has been woefully inept at creating an offensive line that can help the team reach their goals. This, in my opinion, has been one of the biggest reasons Nebraska has been a ~9 win at best team for the last 15 years. The only explanation has been inadequate recruiting and development, because just about every other explanation got ruled out over the last decade.

All that said, I do disagree with the idea that Nebraska can and should regularly be a top ten talent type of team. I honestly don't believe we have the ability to recruit at that level consistently. That's why I believe it's paramount this program have a coach that is capable of finding and developing talent capable of succeeding.

The Huskers, as I'm sure you know, have been outside the top ten in recruiting far, far, far more in their history than they have been inside it.