How Much Talent Does Nebraska Have on the Roster

[Mavric]

247 broke down all schools by their current roster and those player's rating out of high school.

Obviously this is imperfect because it's more potential than production but it is better than signing class rankings as it takes into account players that have left (or transferred in).


Nebraska came in at #25. Miami was #20. Miami has two five-stars. Tracy Howard started at CB and made a couple plays. Chad Thomas was on the participation report but had no stats. Miami has an edge in four-stars 25-21 while Nebraska has more three-stars 54-47.

Other Nebraska Opponents:
BYU - 52
South Alabama - Not in Top 100
Southern Miss - 88
Illinois - 58
Wisconsin - 40
Minnesota - 62
Northwestern - 48
Purdue - 61
Michigan State - 23
Rutgers - 46
Iowa - 53

 

[BigRedBuster]

We have the talent on the team to compete with team son our schedule.

 

[knapplc]

Obviously this is imperfect because it's more potential than production

It's a fatal flaw in the discussion. It's based on what someone thinks these players should do, not any kind of metric of how good they are. Recruiting rankings are, no matter how refined, aggregated or researched, a guess.

It's impossible to accurately rank talent from a guess.

 

[True2tRA]

I saw someone argue that BYU isn't on our level talent wise, because their players had less stars besides their names coming out of high school.

Why doesn't that sound silly to more people? Yet, it's a system that people eat up as If it's science. It's a system that is proven wrong just as many times as it is proven right. That means its a crapshoot.

If BYU has Linebackers like they've got, defensive linemen like they've got, a couple QB's like they've got, and 6'5" tall receivers that can run and catch, then I don't give a crap how many little shiny gold stars someone labeled them with. Those guys can play ball. I saw it with my own two eyes. Same with Miami.

 

[BIG ERN]

There are always exceptions to the rule, but if you look at the top teams on the list it shows how important recruiting is.

Remember hearing a segment with Jimmy Johnson on the difference between coaching college and NFL. He said he felt like his teams (since recruited well) that he didn't even need to show up for half the games because his team had so much more talent they would get the job done. Granite they went on a hell of a run, but we all know if you don't have the players it's just that much more of an uphill climb.

 

[BigRedBuster]

The system of recruit rankings is flawed and it has merit at the same time.

If you look at a very big macro level, they have merit. On average, the teams at the top of the rankings most years have higher ranked players than the ones at the bottom or not ranked.

The more you refine the analysis, the less they mean anything. If you look at any individual player, they don't mean squat. Look at walk-ons that become NFL draft picks and 5 star players that don't do squat.

So, if you are looking at an individual team's overall ranking, then it has some merit but it isn't the tell all stat that some try to make it out to be.

I still stand behind my statement above that we have the talent to compete with every team on our schedule this year.

 

[Kernal]

There are always exceptions to the rule, but if you look at the top teams on the list it shows how important recruiting is.

Remember hearing a segment with Jimmy Johnson on the difference between coaching college and NFL. He said he felt like his teams (since recruited well) that he didn't even need to show up for half the games because his team had so much more talent they would get the job done. Granite they went on a hell of a run, but we all know if you don't have the players it's just that much more of an uphill climb.

Some of that is "chicken and egg" though. Better ranked teams get more attention, so the kids they're recruiting get more attention (and stars).

 

[Enhance]

I'm speaking mostly from memory, but, I vaguely remember reading some research years ago that found most of the guys playing in the NFL were ranked anywhere from 3-5 stars coming out of high school.

Star rankings are definitely valuable IMHO, but they're one metric in a series of things coaches need to take into consideration. As we all know, if winning was simply based on the highest average star rankings for a team, then a team like Michigan would always be in the Top 10 or Top 15. But, that's where coaching and player development come into play.

 

[Kernal]

I saw someone argue that BYU isn't on our level talent wise, because their players had less stars besides their names coming out of high school.

Why doesn't that sound silly to more people? Yet, it's a system that people eat up as If it's science. It's a system that is proven wrong just as many times as it is proven right. That means its a crapshoot.

If BYU has Linebackers like they've got, defensive linemen like they've got, a couple QB's like they've got, and 6'5" tall receivers that can run and catch, then I don't give a crap how many little shiny gold stars someone labeled them with. Those guys can play ball. I saw it with my own two eyes. Same with Miami.

There's "something" to recruiting rankings, but I think people go overboard with it. Some people treat it like it's 80% of the reason teams win and lose, when in reality it's probably less than 5%. It's similar, in my opinion, to the SEC hype. Yes, some of those teams are better than others, but they're not TWICE as good. They are probably less than 5% better than most other teams in the country. Teams, overall, are pretty close in overall potential. Almost any team in the country is capable of beating almost any other team on any given day.

Thing is, you add up all those small percentage differences and when you get a bunch of them together it begins to change the outcome of games. Do it consistently, and you have a winner.

 

[Landlord]

It's a system that is proven wrong just as many times as it is proven right. That means its a crapshoot.

It's proven 'wrong' on the micro level in that individual players go under the radar or get overhyped regularly, but it's really quite accurate on a macro big-picture level.

You can argue that ratings get bloated for top teams because they're top teams, but I'd say that's only a marginal variable in the equation at best, and the numbers don't lie when you look at recruiting rankings of top/championship level teams over the last decade.

Regardless, does NU being the 25th most talented team in the country seem all that terribly off to anyone here? It seems right about on the nose to me.

 

[Landlord]

I'm speaking mostly from memory, but, I vaguely remember reading some research years ago that found most of the guys playing in the NFL were ranked anywhere from 3-5 stars coming out of high school.

Every year there are 25-30 five star recruits for every 300 four stars, and every several thousand three stars. So it makes sense that hundreds more three star players would make it to the league over five stars due to simple probability.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Regardless, does NU being the 25th most talented team in the country seem all that terribly off to anyone here? It seems right about on the nose to me.

I think we have the talent in the program to be a top 25 team.

 

[NUinID]

Regardless, does NU being the 25th most talented team in the country seem all that terribly off to anyone here? It seems right about on the nose to me.

I think we have the talent in the program to be a top 25 team.

So do I, but you have to let it play out. I agree with True about BYU, there talent level is good. They get a lot of early commits from Mormon kids that may effect those kids ratings. They also pick up a lot of Pacific Islander kids that are Mormons, that may not be rated very high because they don't camp a lot. They have decent talent. Don't be surprised if they beat Michigan this Saturday. The UCLA game went right down to the wire and they were winning it for most of the game.

I think think NU's talent has under performed ,in past years,to some extent, but that is another topic.

This simple listing also doesn't show the ratings by position group. If as a coach, I have to make a choice I will take top 10 talent in offensive and defensive linemen over anything else. Combining top ten linemen with top 30 skill players is going to get you farther than a reversed situation.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Regardless, does NU being the 25th most talented team in the country seem all that terribly off to anyone here? It seems right about on the nose to me.

I think we have the talent in the program to be a top 25 team.

So do I, but you have to let it play out. I agree with True about BYU, there talent level is good. They get a lot of early commits from Mormon kids that may effect those kids ratings. They also pick up a lot of Pacific Islander kids that are Mormons, that may not be rated very high because they don't camp a lot. They have decent talent. Don't be surprised if they beat Michigan this Saturday. The UCLA game went right down to the wire and they were winning it for most of the game.

I think think NU's talent has under performed ,in past years,to some extent, but that is another topic.

This simple listing also doesn't show the ratings by position group. If as a coach, I have to make a choice I will take top 10 talent in offensive and defensive linemen over anything else. Combining top ten linemen with top 30 skill players is going to get you farther than a reversed situation.

Agree.

 

[True2tRA]

Regardless, does NU being the 25th most talented team in the country seem all that terribly off to anyone here? It seems right about on the nose to me.

I think we have the talent in the program to be a top 25 team.

So do I, but you have to let it play out. I agree with True about BYU, there talent level is good. They get a lot of early commits from Mormon kids that may effect those kids ratings. They also pick up a lot of Pacific Islander kids that are Mormons, that may not be rated very high because they don't camp a lot. They have decent talent. Don't be surprised if they beat Michigan this Saturday. The UCLA game went right down to the wire and they were winning it for most of the game.

I think think NU's talent has under performed ,in past years,to some extent, but that is another topic.

This simple listing also doesn't show the ratings by position group. If as a coach, I have to make a choice I will take top 10 talent in offensive and defensive linemen over anything else. Combining top ten linemen with top 30 skill players is going to get you farther than a reversed situation.

Great point.