Extremely impressed with the new staff on the recruiting trail

[Enhance]

Wisconsin/MSU winning or sharing five of the last 10 B1G conference championships is not an 'outlier.' It may coincide with down time from Michigan, PSU and tOSU, but that's football.

There's some give and take on this topic. There has to be. If Nebraska aspires to win conference titles, recent history suggests that's an incredibly achievable goal based on their current recruiting level. If Nebraska aspires to win national championships, recent history suggests their recruiting needs to experience marked improvement.

Nebraska, much like the program's history shows us, will likely almost always have to find a way to do more with less.

 

[RedDenver]

Not necessarily. Just that there's a 100 example of teams not being as successful with recruiting in the 40s or worse.

You're citing one of the very, very few counter examples.

It's not impossible to win recruiting at that level, but it's considerably harder. If you want to hope for Wisconsin like success recruiting at their level, fine. 

I think we're talking passed each other a bit. I agree that having more talent is better than having less and that having higher recruiting rankings is better than having lower. But I'm pushing back against this obviously incorrect statement: "The only way we will be winning this conference multiple times in a decade is if we are consistently pulling top 15-18 recruiting classes."

You're drawing the conclusion that I want us to recruit like Wisconsin, but that's untrue as I'd prefer us to have the #1 recruiting class every year. However, I also don't want people to freak out that we can't win the conference because we get a #30 class, or several 20-25 classes, etc.

 

[LaunchCode]

You guys have to be joking. Someone says, and I quote, "The only way we will be winning this conference multiple times in a decade is if we are consistently pulling top 15-18 recruiting classes." I show a counter example from the last decade, and that's not enough to say that the quoted statement is false? Another team can do it but Nebraska can't? Or somehow another team being an outlier means it didn't happen?

Are you two really signing on to the notion that the only way Nebraska can win the conference multiple times in a decade is consistently pulling top 15-18 recruiting classes?

What you showed is an example of a team we would have to beat to accomplish what they've accomplished in the past.  They are also one of the 6 founding members of what is now the BIG 10 and don't think for a minute that doesn't matters in a lot of ways.  We're the Johnny come lately in comparison. 

I'm not trying to be confrontational and hope you don't take it that way.  I may be wrong, and you may disagree and be right, however I think we will need to be better than Wisconsin not just equal to even have a chance at a division title.  To win the conference, barring some strange circumstances, I think we will need to be significantly better talent wise.

 

[Kernel Red]

History shows that is much more important to recruit talented players that fit your program than it is to land as many *stars* as possible. 

I feel extremely confident that Coach Frost and his staff are going after guys that are highly competitive, aggressive and wherever appropriate, blazingly fast.

I love that this staff already has one juco in the fold and will undoubtedly have more very soon (Huskers haven't had one since 2014). These kids aren't fresh out of 12th grade. Most were studs in high school and have been humbled. In general, they are ready to prove themselves on the big stage.

If Frost can land the right players for his system (not just the most highly rated players) his teams will be able to compete with everyone in the B1G.

 

[RedDenver]

What you showed is an example of a team we would have to beat to accomplish what they've accomplished in the past.  They are also one of the 6 founding members of what is now the BIG 10 and don't think for a minute that doesn't matters in a lot of ways.  We're the Johnny come lately in comparison. 

I'm not trying to be confrontational and hope you don't take it that way.  I may be wrong, and you may disagree and be right, however I think we will need to be better than Wisconsin not just equal to even have a chance at a division title.  To win the conference, barring some strange circumstances, I think we will need to be significantly better talent wise.

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, so let me pose the question to you. Is it possible for the Huskers to win the B1G multiple times in a decade without consistent top 18 recruiting classes? For example, if the Huskers had recruiting classes ranked #20 every year, it would be impossible to win the conference more than once every ten years.

 

[LaunchCode]

I feel like I'm taking crazy pills, so let me pose the question to you. Is it possible for the Huskers to win the B1G multiple times in a decade without consistent top 18 recruiting classes? For example, if the Huskers had recruiting classes ranked #20 every year, it would be impossible to win the conference more than once every ten years.

I never made the argument we needed classes ranked inside a certain range.  Rankings can also be misleading in a lot of ways.  A team could have a highly rated class, but not fill any of the position needs they have.  That's probably an extreme example however not so uncommon for classes to miss on positions where depth is needed the most.  Outside of QB when we played Wiscy I'm not sure there were any positions I saw we had a clear talent advantage.  Not sure what class rank will be required, but we have some work to do just to be on par with them up front.

 

[Nebfanatic]

Ok you got me my one statement was hyperbole. Goodness gracious if i knew i would be scrutinized this much about it i wouldn't have said it. I'll revise and say this. If we want to be an elite team year in and out we need to hit on at least 2 top 20 (closer to 15) or so every 4 years. I didn't think what I was saying was that ridiculous. Just because those 2 teams have accomplished what they did doesn't necessarily mean that we can. And until we do i would be much more confident in pursuing higher recruiting rankings rather than go the Wisconsin model. We really need something in between and that can take us to national title contenders. 

 

[drfish]

another new recruit.  speedy juco wr woodyard

New commit: Jaron Woodyard the #2 rated WR out of JUCO. 3 star on 247 but 4 star on other rating systems. He is also VERY fast. Would be the top 3 fastest player on our roster (which i'm guessing the other two are tyjon lindsey and spielman)

 

Expect this to be a central part of the calculus that the Frost regime uses for offering players, and not only the skill players.  IIRC, one of the big turning points in the ascension of the Osborne teams from consistently very good to great was the decision to recruit speed, esp. defensive speed.  Taking big safeties and moving them to LB and big LB and moving them to DE.  I suspect that speed will be an essential trait of the offers that they make.  The other point is likely to try to go back to getting more practice reps for the younger players.  That was also a key in the past.  Part of the reason for the large walkon emphasis was to have enough players to get 2nd, 3rd, and 4th teamers some real reps in practice instead of standing around and watching the ones 

 

[Landlord]

You guys have to be joking. Someone says, and I quote, "The only way we will be winning this conference multiple times in a decade is if we are consistently pulling top 15-18 recruiting classes." I show a counter example from the last decade, and that's not enough to say that the quoted statement is false?

I think that most people in here realize that that statement was not necessarily intended to be considered completely factual and demonstrably true, and was more of a general expression of a relative truth that generally speaking, teams that recruit in the 30's or worse very rarely win conference championships.

 

[InOmaha]

We're debating wining conference championships when the team typically finishes 3rd to 5th in the West division of the conference.  How about we worry about beating Purdue and Minnesota, keeping Iowa under 50 and making OSU punt once this decade.  Recruiting service class ranking is the absolute least of our problems at this point. 

Frost needs to turn around a short recruiting season and is behind the 8 ball finding kids in weeks instead of months.  But more importantly whoever he manages to bring on board, he needs to field a team that knows how to play fundamental football and has serviceable depth.  In a year or two and we'll know if these coaches are good recruiters.  If they manage to fill the roster this year with any stars, it's a good indication that they are.

 

[RedDenver]

Ok you got me my one statement was hyperbole. Goodness gracious if i knew i would be scrutinized this much about it i wouldn't have said it. I'll revise and say this. If we want to be an elite team year in and out we need to hit on at least 2 top 20 (closer to 15) or so every 4 years. I didn't think what I was saying was that ridiculous. Just because those 2 teams have accomplished what they did doesn't necessarily mean that we can. And until we do i would be much more confident in pursuing higher recruiting rankings rather than go the Wisconsin model. We really need something in between and that can take us to national title contenders. 

I think that most people in here realize that that statement was not necessarily intended to be considered completely factual and demonstrably true, and was more of a general expression of a relative truth that generally speaking, teams that recruit in the 30's or worse very rarely win conference championships.

If you look back, my first response was just a single sentence. I didn't think there'd be any push back against what I assumed was an obvious conclusion, and that @Nebfanatic would respond with a clarification as he did.

 

[Mavric]

Last years class 8 line and 3 LB commits, compared to 3 receivers and 1 DB.  The receivers and DB were all four start, maybe that's what you're getting at and not numbers of players?

The 16' class featured 4 star O linemen; Farniok and Raridon, 3 star OL Brokop and Wilson.

I don't see the evidence the O or D line was ignored.  I think we have a lot of young talent on both lines and need to keep adding to it with each class. 

I don't think "ignored" is at all accurate.  But I think you can make an argument that they weren't very good at recruiting offensive linemen.  

Last year's class had four OL (Jaimes, Sichterman, Bando and Walker) and three DL (Thomas, Daniels and Watts but Watts didn't get to campus).  Jaimes and Thomas were the highest-rated of that crew and they were upper-mid three-stars.  

In the 16 class, Farniok had already had some good ground-work laid by the previous staff, while Raridon and Brokop were already committed before Riley was hired.  So they get credit for locking Farniok up but they didn't really do a whole lot to show that they could recruit upper-level linemen on their own.

 

[grandpasknee]

I think we should recruit players that win games, then our record would improve.  Just my opinion.

 

[ColoradoHusk]

I don't think "ignored" is at all accurate.  But I think you can make an argument that they weren't very good at recruiting offensive linemen.  

Last year's class had four OL (Jaimes, Sichterman, Bando and Walker) and three DL (Thomas, Daniels and Watts but Watts didn't get to campus).  Jaimes and Thomas were the highest-rated of that crew and they were upper-mid three-stars.  

In the 16 class, Farniok had already had some good ground-work laid by the previous staff, while Raridon and Brokop were already committed before Riley was hired.  So they get credit for locking Farniok up but they didn't really do a whole lot to show that they could recruit upper-level linemen on their own.

The biggest problem with the o-line play under Cavanaugh/Riley was the lack of development and poor S&C.  From the McBride podcast last week, Cav only cared about getting 5 players ready to play, and nobody knew his reasoning on those 5 players.  I don't know how much attention Cav paid to the backups, but it doesn't sound like there was much. The lack of accountability in the S&C department also contributed to the poor development.

Recruiting wise, it seems like Riley and Cav ended up linemen who are best suited to play the interior positions (guard and center) and they struggled to identify and develop OT's.  It looks like Frost may go after some JUCO's OT's who can provide competition and step in and play right away.

 

[BartonHusker]

I  think the analogy of Wisconsin is what we were in the 80's and very early 90's holds some real truth.  Wisconsin wins basically 10 games a year but can't win the big one (B1G Championship).  That is no different than what we were against Oklahoma and the Florida schools.  What were in the mid 90's is historically rare and we are talking modern day Alabama, now Clemson and possibly Ohio State.  

We plan and simple just need to get back to the 80's/early 90's Huskers first.  Basically we need to replace Wisconsin as the top dogs of the West.  From that point we can only dream about resembling mid 90's or a current day Alabama.  Are those dreams even realistic though in this day and age of college football?  We know we can strive to reach where Wisconsin is currently.  

I have never been one about having to have top 15 classes to win, you need good coaching.  Wisconsin has very good coaching.