Nebraska vs Purdue (talent discussion)

Hedley Lamarr

Hedley Lamarr

All-American
Have heard that their starters actually had a higher star average than ours did. If this is the case does it change anyone's view?

 
If it is the case we still gave up 55 points to a team that was 1-6 with an offense ranked in the 100's. So, no.

 
That was kind of a bogus study. I believe they used Rivals rankings, and they gave walkons a 5.0 when 3 stars are at about 5.8. Since we do have several walkons, it skewed our numbers.

Check out Dave Bartoo's talent rankings. Much more comprehensive and accurate.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hedley Lamarr said:
Have heard that their starters actually had a higher star average than ours did. If this is the case does it change anyone's view?
Click to expand...
That's essentially a lie.

The person pushing that stuff is assigning a super low point (star) rating to "walkons" at Nebraska (guys like Janovich, for example) and then claiming those guys are less talented than the scholarship kids at Purdue (even though those Purdue kids didn't have any more DIA/P5 scholly than our walkons).

It's just another piece of propaganda promulgated to white wash this disaster that's been wrought upon the program.

Just as a point of reference, I read that the '94 team had something like 4 walkons starting on D (or maybe it was the '93 team).

 
Hedley Lamarr said:
Have heard that their starters actually had a higher star average than ours did. If this is the case does it change anyone's view?
Click to expand...
No. Its Purdue.

Between 2011-2014 30% of NU signees were considered blue chip recruits (4* or 5*). Purdue during this same time period was 2%..........

As a note, NU was down 28% between 2011-12 and 2013-14. Bo's classes appeared to be decreasing in star power.

http://www.sbnation.com/college-football-recruiting/2014/2/18/5312840/college-football-recruiting-teams-championships

More form the article:

Nebraska's move to the Big Ten has not helped its recruiting at all. If anything, it has hurt quite a bit. The two-year drop of 28 percent compared to the '11-12 classes is one of the biggest in the country, and coach Bo Pelini's perpetual hot-seat status doesn't help either. Nebraska is a weak state for high school talent, and Nebraska has not been nationally relevant in any way since current recruits began elementary school.

As recruiting rankings continue to grow more accurate, they're now to a point at which they can help tell us which teams are ready to compete for titles.

Every BCS champion since recruiting rankings could be accurately tracked (2005, or four classes after Scout joined Rivals in rating players) has met a benchmark: it's recruited more blue-chips (four- and five-star players) than lesser-rated players over its four previous signing classes.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Regardless who was starting at QB for NU, the Purdue team that took us to the woodshed yesterday is AWFUL. Do people realize how bad that "performance" by NU was?

 
I thought their defensive backs looked really good for the most part. They played well given Nebraska's talent at wide receiver.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I don't pay attention to star rankings. Could give a sh#t less. Four or five shiny stars beside your name doesn't make you a good football player at this level. It makes you a good football player in high school.

Nebraska has plenty of four star examples on the roster right now that either haven't taken a single snap of football at this level, or haven't had any impact when they've been in there.

Did we look more talented than Purdue to you guys? I didn't see it. Maybe here or there at a couple spots. Westerkamp seems to be the most obvious.

Every play I saw for the most part it looked like we had a player position to make a play and just didn't make the play on defense. Our defensive backs clearly can't play in a system like this. Does that mean Banker should scrap it, or should we try to get some better DB's? I don't know how that will play out.

Lot's of plays where linebackers over ran plays, got lost or out of position, and just plain didn't make the play. I think Young and Banderas are pretty talented guys, Newby too, but where is it? How is it paying off and where are they showing it? You gotta make plays kids.

Can talk about Langsdorf and the offense all game. Scored 29 points in the fourth Quarter correct? It appeared to me when we executed, we seemed to do well. When we didn't execute, it didn't go well. Funny how that works.......

Ozigbo needs to carry the ball. He is talented. I like how Fyfe is able to get the simple completions to our backfield players. We need more of that. Fyfe is simply not an accurate passer of the football. Nor is Tommy consistently......

Five turnovers, tough to win games.

Again, defense is ugly, but I challenge you to find me the plays where the guys were not in position to make the play. For any one instance you can find, I can find ten of them where the player did something wrong or didn't make the play.

Not all on the players, though, I know that's not the popular thing to say. So fire some people! Hooray! That ought to fix it.

 
saunders45 said:
Players play how they are coached, or they shouldn't be on the field.
Click to expand...
That's the easiest thing to say.

How does a coach go about doing this? Please explain. I'm trying to get a grasp on this mindset.

So they're being coached not to execute? Or are they not executing because these coaches have not been doing their jobs for the last ten months?

So when a player isn't executing, you bench him and put in another player that you've seen in practice executes possibly even worse? Or how does that work? Is that fair to the overall team, or does that not matter?

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top