Recruiting is not impressive

rickjames said:
nothing wrong with signing juco players as long as they're impact players...just don't want to sign too many year in year out...some of the best players come from the juco..
Click to expand...
I'd think you'd expect any person you recruit to have an impact. You really want to recruit JUCO's as stop gap guys at a position where there is a whole in class or in rare cases where immediate help is needed. That said, both of these guys were huge gets.

 
Part of the negative outlook on JUCOs is the fact that many of them are in JUCO because of a ) academic problems or b ) behavior problems. If you clear those up and they have improved there's probably not a huge difference between a good JUCO player and a good HS player.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
husker B-rent said:
epoc said:
No more star gazing. Rivals rankings means nothing. We are attaining quality athletes that can be molded into great athletes. Time and time again we have proof that the stars don't matter. Sam Bradford was a 3 star, Lucky was a 5 star... I could go on and on.
Click to expand...
WRONG.

ugh i get angry when people babble about this and they are heavily misinformed.

It has been proven through the NFL draft that highly rated players (ie. 5 stars) have a much better chance of being a first round NFL draft pick.

Yes you are going to see your 2 and 3 star players in the 1st round but that is because there are about 800 3 star players and about 25 5 star players. Mathematically about 80% of 5 star players are drafted in the top 3 rounds and about 10% of the five star players never actually play college football as well as about 10% that are busts.

Compare that to the 2% of 3 star players that are even drafted...

stars do matter.
Click to expand...
When is Nebraska's first game in the NFL? I surely don't want to miss it...

 
TheCheshireCat said:
Part of the negative outlook on JUCOs is the fact that many of them are in JUCO because of a ) academic problems or b ) behavior problems. If you clear those up and they have improved there's probably not a huge difference between a good JUCO player and a good HS player.
Click to expand...
My thoughts exactly.

 
We still have the best class in the North . . . and I don't think it is particularly close. Great teams are great because of their line play. We've got some great OL and DL in this class. A class of Adrian Peterson's and Larry Fitzgerald's isn't going to win many games with an OL like ours. Our skill players (yes, even including QB) will be adequate if we can get improved line play.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Indeed. I'm all about the lines. It's a big reason why my chiefs have been horrible lately and powerful (on offense) before that.

 
epoc said:
No more star gazing. Rivals rankings means nothing. We are attaining quality athletes that can be molded into great athletes. Time and time again we have proof that the stars don't matter. Sam Bradford was a 3 star, Lucky was a 5 star... I could go on and on.
Click to expand...


Star rankings have been more accurate than wrong.

 
Here are some facts to chew on:

According to Rivals, from 2002 through 2007 Nebraska recruited:

5 unrated or 1-star players

21 2-star players

74 3-star players

37 4-star players

4 5-star players

The following received at least all-conference honorable mention during their careers (so far):

40% of unrated or 1-star players

9.5% of 2-star players

28.4% of 3-star players

35.1% of 4-star players

50% of 5-star players

The following received at least all-conference 2nd team:

20% of unrated or 1-star players

0% of 2-star players

17.6% of 3-star players

18.9% of 4-star players

50% of 5-star players

The following received at least all-conference 1st team:

0% of 1-star players

0% of 2-star players

9.5% of 3-star players

8.1% of 4-star players

25% of 5-star players

Sample sizes for unrated and 5-star prospects obviously aren't large enough to draw too many meaningful conclusions. The 2-star players recruited have not fared very well. The difference between 3 and 4 star players is fairly insignificant, especially when looking at the upper echelons of all-conference performers with 3 star players actually outperforming 4 star players in all-conference 1st team recognition. Now before you go and say that the percentage of 3 stars is higher because we recruited more 3 stars, that is irrelevant with these numbers, as the calculation is total 3-star 1st teamers divided by the total number of 3 stars recruited, and the same with 4-stars, etc.

 
Yeah, jucos, who needs them? I’m sure we would done just fine without guys like DeMorrio Williams, Zack Bowman, Zac Taylor, Ricky Henry, Carl Nicks, Maurice Purify, Dejon Gomes. And these are just a few of the recent jucos.

Going back a bit farther we can include Mike Rozier on the list. He was a juco too.

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