Nebraska vs Purdue (talent discussion)

[True2tRA]

Or are they not capable? It looks to me like we struggle in some very basic aspects on a regular basis. Most good teams don't struggle on the offensive line the way we do. That's very hard to overcome.

If they aren't capable or struggling in a scheme, why in the world would you continue to stick with something that isn't working? A large part of coaching is finding something that works and putting players in the best position to succeed. I'm not seeing that at all. Throwing 48 times with ANY QBs currently on the roster is a really good way to lose a game. They weren't recruited to sling it all over the field, so why do we continually do it? Why not create a run heavy game plan one week to see how it works? It's not like there is a lot to lose at this point.
The o-line is a total joke this year. I have seen three o-linemen consistently whiff blocks or just get flat out dominated, yet there isn't even an attempt to switch it up to see if a different combination works better. Am I to believe these things don't happen in practice? I have a really hard time believing that these things only happen on game day.

I don't wholly disagree with you. We seem to be in between what we want to be and what we actually can be. It just doesn't seem like we are good at much of anything. That can never be entirely on a coaching staff. Especially not in their first year here, at least, not in my opinion.

If we want to be a 40+ attempt per game WCO, NU will be sub .500 from here out under this staff.

I'm hoping Patrick O'Brien will have something to say about that someday......

If not him, then any QB that can consistently complete an accurate pass will do.

Passing the ball is not the problem, it's not completing the passes that is the issue.

 

[cm husker]

Or are they not capable? It looks to me like we struggle in some very basic aspects on a regular basis. Most good teams don't struggle on the offensive line the way we do. That's very hard to overcome.

If they aren't capable or struggling in a scheme, why in the world would you continue to stick with something that isn't working? A large part of coaching is finding something that works and putting players in the best position to succeed. I'm not seeing that at all. Throwing 48 times with ANY QBs currently on the roster is a really good way to lose a game. They weren't recruited to sling it all over the field, so why do we continually do it? Why not create a run heavy game plan one week to see how it works? It's not like there is a lot to lose at this point.
The o-line is a total joke this year. I have seen three o-linemen consistently whiff blocks or just get flat out dominated, yet there isn't even an attempt to switch it up to see if a different combination works better. Am I to believe these things don't happen in practice? I have a really hard time believing that these things only happen on game day.

I don't wholly disagree with you. We seem to be in between what we want to be and what we actually can be. It just doesn't seem like we are good at much of anything. That can never be entirely on a coaching staff. Especially not in their first year here, at least, not in my opinion.

If we want to be a 40+ attempt per game WCO, NU will be sub .500 from here out under this staff.

I'm hoping Patrick O'Brien will have something to say about that someday......
If not him, then any QB that can consistently complete an accurate pass will do.

Passing the ball is not the problem, it's not completing the passes that is the issue.

Yeah, and in the down years, the valleys are even lower.

"Balanced" offenses that lean on the pass to open up the run are awful unless run by an all pro QB.

 

[True2tRA]

Or are they not capable? It looks to me like we struggle in some very basic aspects on a regular basis. Most good teams don't struggle on the offensive line the way we do. That's very hard to overcome.

If they aren't capable or struggling in a scheme, why in the world would you continue to stick with something that isn't working? A large part of coaching is finding something that works and putting players in the best position to succeed. I'm not seeing that at all. Throwing 48 times with ANY QBs currently on the roster is a really good way to lose a game. They weren't recruited to sling it all over the field, so why do we continually do it? Why not create a run heavy game plan one week to see how it works? It's not like there is a lot to lose at this point.
The o-line is a total joke this year. I have seen three o-linemen consistently whiff blocks or just get flat out dominated, yet there isn't even an attempt to switch it up to see if a different combination works better. Am I to believe these things don't happen in practice? I have a really hard time believing that these things only happen on game day.

I don't wholly disagree with you. We seem to be in between what we want to be and what we actually can be. It just doesn't seem like we are good at much of anything. That can never be entirely on a coaching staff. Especially not in their first year here, at least, not in my opinion.

If we want to be a 40+ attempt per game WCO, NU will be sub .500 from here out under this staff.

I'm hoping Patrick O'Brien will have something to say about that someday......
If not him, then any QB that can consistently complete an accurate pass will do.

Passing the ball is not the problem, it's not completing the passes that is the issue.

Yeah, and in the down years, the valleys are even lower.

"Balanced" offenses that lean on the pass to open up the run are awful unless run by an all pro QB.

I'd like us to try and maintain balance as well, but let's not abandon our search for an all pro QB. That might be a neat new thing Nebraska could experience considering most of us have never seen on in a Husker uniform.

 

[cm husker]

Or are they not capable? It looks to me like we struggle in some very basic aspects on a regular basis. Most good teams don't struggle on the offensive line the way we do. That's very hard to overcome.

If they aren't capable or struggling in a scheme, why in the world would you continue to stick with something that isn't working? A large part of coaching is finding something that works and putting players in the best position to succeed. I'm not seeing that at all. Throwing 48 times with ANY QBs currently on the roster is a really good way to lose a game. They weren't recruited to sling it all over the field, so why do we continually do it? Why not create a run heavy game plan one week to see how it works? It's not like there is a lot to lose at this point.
The o-line is a total joke this year. I have seen three o-linemen consistently whiff blocks or just get flat out dominated, yet there isn't even an attempt to switch it up to see if a different combination works better. Am I to believe these things don't happen in practice? I have a really hard time believing that these things only happen on game day.

I don't wholly disagree with you. We seem to be in between what we want to be and what we actually can be. It just doesn't seem like we are good at much of anything. That can never be entirely on a coaching staff. Especially not in their first year here, at least, not in my opinion.

If we want to be a 40+ attempt per game WCO, NU will be sub .500 from here out under this staff.

I'm hoping Patrick O'Brien will have something to say about that someday......
If not him, then any QB that can consistently complete an accurate pass will do.

Passing the ball is not the problem, it's not completing the passes that is the issue.

Yeah, and in the down years, the valleys are even lower.
"Balanced" offenses that lean on the pass to open up the run are awful unless run by an all pro QB.

I'd like us to try and maintain balance as well, but let's not abandon our search for an all pro QB. That might be a neat new thing Nebraska could experience considering most of us have never seen on in a Husker uniform.

I don't want to be balanced. I'd rather see us hire Leach than chase the notion of "balance."

It's mostly ineffective at the college level unless you have top 5 talent.

 

[cm husker]

And I couldn't give a sh#t if NU ever finds and suits up an elite pro style QB. Because in college, they are overrated and rarely the reason for championships. Name the last great pro style QB whose team didn't really win because of an elite running game.

 

[True2tRA]

Or are they not capable? It looks to me like we struggle in some very basic aspects on a regular basis. Most good teams don't struggle on the offensive line the way we do. That's very hard to overcome.

If they aren't capable or struggling in a scheme, why in the world would you continue to stick with something that isn't working? A large part of coaching is finding something that works and putting players in the best position to succeed. I'm not seeing that at all. Throwing 48 times with ANY QBs currently on the roster is a really good way to lose a game. They weren't recruited to sling it all over the field, so why do we continually do it? Why not create a run heavy game plan one week to see how it works? It's not like there is a lot to lose at this point.
The o-line is a total joke this year. I have seen three o-linemen consistently whiff blocks or just get flat out dominated, yet there isn't even an attempt to switch it up to see if a different combination works better. Am I to believe these things don't happen in practice? I have a really hard time believing that these things only happen on game day.

I don't wholly disagree with you. We seem to be in between what we want to be and what we actually can be. It just doesn't seem like we are good at much of anything. That can never be entirely on a coaching staff. Especially not in their first year here, at least, not in my opinion.

If we want to be a 40+ attempt per game WCO, NU will be sub .500 from here out under this staff.

I'm hoping Patrick O'Brien will have something to say about that someday......
If not him, then any QB that can consistently complete an accurate pass will do.

Passing the ball is not the problem, it's not completing the passes that is the issue.

Yeah, and in the down years, the valleys are even lower.
"Balanced" offenses that lean on the pass to open up the run are awful unless run by an all pro QB.

I'd like us to try and maintain balance as well, but let's not abandon our search for an all pro QB. That might be a neat new thing Nebraska could experience considering most of us have never seen on in a Husker uniform.

I don't want to be balanced. I'd rather see us hire Leach than chase the notion of "balance."

It's mostly ineffective at the college level unless you have top 5 talent.

No. No it's not. Not based on reality anyway. Most successful offenses maintain balance, and most successful offenses aren't built with top five talent.

 

[Dr. Strangelove]

So we lambster Bo for saying guys weren't executing (I don't think he ever called out a specific player) and that's BS because you shouldn't hang kids out there like that. But it's ok if the fans do it...

Honestly there should have been some improvement with this team, but they have regressed almost every week. We see the same issues we saw in week one. And basic game managment errors in 3 games (even 4 games if you count the idiotic passing at Minny). These coaches are either clueless or full of sh#t. They talked about developing a run game, and coaching to players strengths in the off season. Yet all the reports indicated that they rep'ed the passing game much more than the run game in pre season, and they make a 2nd string, never started, QB sling the ball around before the game is even out of hand.

I hope they're clueless... I can for give ignorance, but not a f'ing liar.

And if Riley's team looks like this in year seven and Riley turns into a nostril flaring a$$ on the sideline, I'll expect him to be fired as well.

If we fire him now it just shows our leadership has bought into the overreaction of this fan base, which should never happen. Got to be smarter than a typical football fan to run a program.

I'm not sure how the fans are 'overreacting' to what is on pace to be the worst season in the 126 year history of Nebraska Football.

Honestly True2tRA, I think you're an intelligent guy who clearly understands football. I'm not a common poster on this board, so you probably don't remember, but we've disagreed on just about everything since the hiring of this staff. But really, just acknowledge the shortcomings of the staff. Admit it was a massive mistake to bring in Oregon State's staff, it was a mistake to think a staff comprised of guys who've never won magically would.

On a side note, I don't know what the answer is for Nebraska football going forward. We keep Riley and we are totally screwed for the next few years. Recruiting will likely suffer, as he will be on a perpetual hot seat from this point forward. If Nebraska fires him, we become a radioactive program. All of the big coaching potential likely will go elsewhere (Texas, USC, etc.), we aren't going to hire some big name guy. It's going to be another long shot. But heck, lets pretend the next staff actually knows what it's doing, the schedule in 2017 and 2018 will put the hypothetical new staff in a rough predicament via 6-6 seasons.

SE totally screwed the program last December, hate to say it. I think he put us in a very deep hole and there are no easy fixes to get us out of it. Thanks Eichorst.

 

[GBRedneck]

And that's the thing Decked, it probably wasn't the best idea to pass in that situation, and players need to execute better. Yet around this board I've seen 20 some threads about firing the coaches, blame Riley blam Langsdorf on and on, but the whole idea of players making plays and executing seems to be almost non-existant.

Now I get it, we hate to call out the players, but maybe they need called out. Look at some of the guys in those plays.

You can fire the coaches, and we can bring someone new in. We talk about it as if we're not even talking about real people, but lets say we do that and the next guy comes in and suddenly the effort level goes up. Well then I'll call that chicken sh#t. The effort should always be there. I don't care if these guys feel sorry for themselves about Bo being fired, or if they don't like the new systems they've found themselves in. They should have more respect for themselves as players and as a team when they take that football field. Period.

I'd like to see more from these guys, because I don't think we are getting the full effort from all of them.

To the guys that do play their asses off, credit to you and respect to each individual that does. They know who they are and the guys that are half assing it know who they are too.

So when a coach is unable to motivate his players, how do you expect them to get motivated? By calling them out on a message board? Or just get rid of them and bring in new players that also won't be motivated by Riley. Have you ever played football?

Riley cannot motivate players to win consistently. That leopard isn't changing his spots.

 

[GBRedneck]

Or are they not capable? It looks to me like we struggle in some very basic aspects on a regular basis. Most good teams don't struggle on the offensive line the way we do. That's very hard to overcome.

If they aren't capable or struggling in a scheme, why in the world would you continue to stick with something that isn't working? A large part of coaching is finding something that works and putting players in the best position to succeed. I'm not seeing that at all. Throwing 48 times with ANY QBs currently on the roster is a really good way to lose a game. They weren't recruited to sling it all over the field, so why do we continually do it? Why not create a run heavy game plan one week to see how it works? It's not like there is a lot to lose at this point.
The o-line is a total joke this year. I have seen three o-linemen consistently whiff blocks or just get flat out dominated, yet there isn't even an attempt to switch it up to see if a different combination works better. Am I to believe these things don't happen in practice? I have a really hard time believing that these things only happen on game day.

I don't wholly disagree with you. We seem to be in between what we want to be and what we actually can be. It just doesn't seem like we are good at much of anything. That can never be entirely on a coaching staff. Especially not in their first year here, at least, not in my opinion.

If we want to be a 40+ attempt per game WCO, NU will be sub .500 from here out under this staff.

I'm hoping Patrick O'Brien will have something to say about that someday......
If not him, then any QB that can consistently complete an accurate pass will do.

Passing the ball is not the problem, it's not completing the passes that is the issue.

Yeah, and in the down years, the valleys are even lower.
"Balanced" offenses that lean on the pass to open up the run are awful unless run by an all pro QB.

I'd like us to try and maintain balance as well, but let's not abandon our search for an all pro QB. That might be a neat new thing Nebraska could experience considering most of us have never seen on in a Husker uniform.

I don't want to be balanced. I'd rather see us hire Leach than chase the notion of "balance."

It's mostly ineffective at the college level unless you have top 5 talent.

No. No it's not. Not based on reality anyway. Most successful offenses maintain balance, and most successful offenses aren't built with top five talent.

You're just pulling crap out of your butt. Here's the current top ten in total offense. How many have top 5 talent?

1 Baylor 7 570 4803 8.43 58 24 686.1 2 TCU 8 638 4930 7.73 48 25 616.3 3 Texas Tech 9 751 5433 7.23 52 53 603.7 4 Bowling Green 8 684 4762 6.96 47 28 595.3 5 Cincinnati 8 668 4615 6.91 37 25 576.9 6 Memphis 8 668 4482 6.71 46 27 560.3 7 Houston 8 634 4299 6.78 44 18 537.4 8 Oklahoma 8 615 4260 6.93 45 18 532.5 9 Tulsa 8 712 4256 5.98 34 39 532.0 10 Western Ky. 9 646 4699 7.27 49

 

[Saunders]

From the thread about B1G West talent last week

We are basically even with Purdue on the 2 deep

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/77151-unsportsmanlike-conduct20151027how-talented-is-nebraska/

I read the article and without seeing it in comparison to teams across the country, it doesn't mean as much. What's the scale being used? For instance, if Ohio State is a 5.9, and UCF is a 5.0, the spread is small, and it's not as close as it appears.

 

[Red Five]

From the thread about B1G West talent last week

We are basically even with Purdue on the 2 deep

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/77151-unsportsmanlike-conduct20151027how-talented-is-nebraska/

No, they aren't. Or, if you want to use that jacked up methodology, so is Mich St.

And so was NU most of the previous 10 to 15 years.

This is what the Rivals and 247 data churns out. If you want to invent your own methodology, then go right ahead.

Is it perfect? No. But it is two data points.

 

[Red Five]

From the thread about B1G West talent last week

We are basically even with Purdue on the 2 deep

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/77151-unsportsmanlike-conduct20151027how-talented-is-nebraska/

I read the article and without seeing it in comparison to teams across the country, it doesn't mean as much. What's the scale being used? For instance, if Ohio State is a 5.9, and UCF is a 5.0, the spread is small, and it's not as close as it appears.

The scale is how each service ranks the players

Rivals

The ranking system ranks prospects on a numerical scale from 6.1-4.9.

• 6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect
• 6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
• 5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
• 5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player
• 4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about

247

110 - 101 = Franchise Player. One of the best players to come along in years, if not decades. Odds of having a player in this category every year is slim. This prospect has "can’t miss" talent.

100 - 98 = Five-star prospect. One of the top 30 players in the nation. This player has excellent pro-potential and should emerge as one of the best in the country before the end of his career. There will be 32 prospects ranked in this range in every football class to mirror the first round of the NFL Draft.

97 - 90 = Four-star prospect. One of the top 300 players in the nation. This prospect will be an impact-player for his college team. He is an All-American candidate who is projected to play professionally.

89 - 80 = Three-star prospect. One of the top 10% players in the nation. This player will develop into a reliable starter for his college team and is among the best players in his region of the country. Many three-stars have significant pro potential.

79 - below = Two-star prospect. This player makes up the bulk of Division I rosters. He may have little pro-potential, but is likely to become a role player for his respective school.

 

[cm husker]

Or are they not capable? It looks to me like we struggle in some very basic aspects on a regular basis. Most good teams don't struggle on the offensive line the way we do. That's very hard to overcome.

If they aren't capable or struggling in a scheme, why in the world would you continue to stick with something that isn't working? A large part of coaching is finding something that works and putting players in the best position to succeed. I'm not seeing that at all. Throwing 48 times with ANY QBs currently on the roster is a really good way to lose a game. They weren't recruited to sling it all over the field, so why do we continually do it? Why not create a run heavy game plan one week to see how it works? It's not like there is a lot to lose at this point.
The o-line is a total joke this year. I have seen three o-linemen consistently whiff blocks or just get flat out dominated, yet there isn't even an attempt to switch it up to see if a different combination works better. Am I to believe these things don't happen in practice? I have a really hard time believing that these things only happen on game day.

I don't wholly disagree with you. We seem to be in between what we want to be and what we actually can be. It just doesn't seem like we are good at much of anything. That can never be entirely on a coaching staff. Especially not in their first year here, at least, not in my opinion.

If we want to be a 40+ attempt per game WCO, NU will be sub .500 from here out under this staff.

I'm hoping Patrick O'Brien will have something to say about that someday......
If not him, then any QB that can consistently complete an accurate pass will do.

Passing the ball is not the problem, it's not completing the passes that is the issue.

Yeah, and in the down years, the valleys are even lower.
"Balanced" offenses that lean on the pass to open up the run are awful unless run by an all pro QB.

I'd like us to try and maintain balance as well, but let's not abandon our search for an all pro QB. That might be a neat new thing Nebraska could experience considering most of us have never seen on in a Husker uniform.

I don't want to be balanced. I'd rather see us hire Leach than chase the notion of "balance."
It's mostly ineffective at the college level unless you have top 5 talent.

No. No it's not. Not based on reality anyway. Most successful offenses maintain balance, and most successful offenses aren't built with top five talent.

No, most successful offenses keep defenses off balance.

And 50/50 play calling isn't how that's achieved.

 

[Saunders]

From the thread about B1G West talent last week

We are basically even with Purdue on the 2 deep

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/77151-unsportsmanlike-conduct20151027how-talented-is-nebraska/

I read the article and without seeing it in comparison to teams across the country, it doesn't mean as much. What's the scale being used? For instance, if Ohio State is a 5.9, and UCF is a 5.0, the spread is small, and it's not as close as it appears.

The scale is how each service ranks the players

Rivals

The ranking system ranks prospects on a numerical scale from 6.1-4.9.

• 6.1 Franchise Player; considered one of the elite prospects in the country, generally among the nation's top 25 players overall; deemed to have excellent pro potential; high-major prospect
• 6.0-5.8 All-American Candidate; high-major prospect; considered one of the nation's top 300 prospects; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
• 5.7-5.5 All-Region Selection; considered among the region's top prospects and among the top 750 or so prospects in the country; high-to-mid-major prospect; deemed to have pro potential and ability to make an impact on college team
• 5.4-5.0 Division I prospect; considered a mid-major prospect; deemed to have limited pro potential but definite Division I prospect; may be more of a role player
• 4.9 Sleeper; no Rivals.com expert knew much, if anything, about this player; a prospect that only a college coach really knew about

247

110 - 101 = Franchise Player. One of the best players to come along in years, if not decades. Odds of having a player in this category every year is slim. This prospect has "can’t miss" talent.

100 - 98 = Five-star prospect. One of the top 30 players in the nation. This player has excellent pro-potential and should emerge as one of the best in the country before the end of his career. There will be 32 prospects ranked in this range in every football class to mirror the first round of the NFL Draft.

97 - 90 = Four-star prospect. One of the top 300 players in the nation. This prospect will be an impact-player for his college team. He is an All-American candidate who is projected to play professionally.

89 - 80 = Three-star prospect. One of the top 10% players in the nation. This player will develop into a reliable starter for his college team and is among the best players in his region of the country. Many three-stars have significant pro potential.

79 - below = Two-star prospect. This player makes up the bulk of Division I rosters. He may have little pro-potential, but is likely to become a role player for his respective school.

I get that. But see my example about comparison for the range of values. It's important to establish how much weight to give to the variance.

 

[cm husker]

From the thread about B1G West talent last week

We are basically even with Purdue on the 2 deep

http://www.huskerboard.com/index.php?/topic/77151-unsportsmanlike-conduct20151027how-talented-is-nebraska/

No, they aren't. Or, if you want to use that jacked up methodology, so is Mich St.
And so was NU most of the previous 10 to 15 years.

This is what the Rivals and 247 data churns out. If you want to invent your own methodology, then go right ahead.
Is it perfect? No. But it is two data points.

It's stupid. Because if a kid who takes a scholarship to Purdue walks on at Michigan, his rating drops (or really, he's never rated) even though he's the exact same kid.

Anyone who believes Purdue is close to as talented as Nebraska has completely lost their mind.