The Cupboard is Bare?

How can people say we don't have Top 25 talent? Does East Carolina have more talent then us? South Florida? BYU? Wake Forest? Illinois? Utah? Fresno St? Clemson(besides their RB's)? The fact is we have talent however they for some reason or another forgot how to play football last year and now must get it slapped into their heads how to get back to the level they should be playing at.

The class that got hit the hardest with people leaving or not making it here is the 05 class. We signed 32 kids (2-5, 11-4, 12-3, 5-2, 2-NR) and 12 (4-4, 6-3, 2-2, 1-NR) of them didn't stick. So out of that 20 that made it here look at the kids that played or are still playing (Lucky, Bowman, Suh, Dillard, Potter, Brooks, Ola, Hardy, Octavein, Turner, Glenn, Hickman, Cryer, Taylor, Wilson, Slauson) that is 16 of 20 recruits. Only 5 (out of 20 leaving 15 and 12 of them played) in 04, 3 (out of 22 leaving 19 and 15 played) of the 06, 4 (out of 27 leaving 23 and 19 played) in 07 didn't stick. So in closing that is 24 of 101 that didn't stick. Leaving 77 kids and if I'm not mistaken 62 of them have played.

What does this mean? Who knows but please don't act like we don't have talent. It didn't fly in 04-07 so it shouldn't fly in 08 either.IMO

 
newearthhusker said:
How can people say we don't have Top 25 talent? Does East Carolina have more talent then us? South Florida? BYU? Wake Forest? Illinois? Utah? Fresno St? Clemson(besides their RB's)? The fact is we have talent however they for some reason or another forgot how to play football last year and now must get it slapped into their heads how to get back to the level they should be playing at.

The class that got hit the hardest with people leaving or not making it here is the 05 class. We signed 32 kids (2-5, 11-4, 12-3, 5-2, 2-NR) and 12 (4-4, 6-3, 2-2, 1-NR) of them didn't stick. So out of that 20 that made it here look at the kids that played or are still playing (Lucky, Bowman, Suh, Dillard, Potter, Brooks, Ola, Hardy, Octavein, Turner, Glenn, Hickman, Cryer, Taylor, Wilson, Slauson) that is 16 of 20 recruits. Only 5 (out of 20 leaving 15 and 12 of them played) in 04, 3 (out of 22 leaving 19 and 15 played) of the 06, 4 (out of 27 leaving 23 and 19 played) in 07 didn't stick. So in closing that is 24 of 101 that didn't stick. Leaving 77 kids and if I'm not mistaken 62 of them have played.

What does this mean? Who knows but please don't act like we don't have talent. It didn't fly in 04-07 so it shouldn't fly in 08 either.IMO
Click to expand...

quite simply the numbers dont back that up. go look at the other thread about our talent and recruiting. I posted the #'s. we do have top 25 talent. no USC type classes, but enough talent to compete.

 
Damn, have to agree with NewEarth on this one. We have enough players to at least be in the running for a Jan bowl. Anything less will be a little disappointing.

But I also feel way to many fans are doubting the staff pelini has hired and it's to early for that kind of criticism. They haven't even had a year with these kids yet!

 
Keep in mind people... even the recruiting services will tell you that the difference between a 3 star player and a 5 star polayer isn't really that great. The 4 and 5 star guys might only have a couple of notables higher than the 3 star.

So coaching the player properly will have a lot more to do with a team's success than what we're aware of out here. This explains why USC is so far ahead of everybody else. Pete Carrol and his staff are literally THAT good. And they are THAT DAMNED GOOD. So they get great players and make them an awesome team. But USC would still be frightening with recruiting classes on par with the rest of us.

After you get past the top 6 or 7 teams, there really isn't all THAT much separation in talent until you get down to the very bottom of D1. NU's return to elite status will take getting a little better in recruiting ..but only a little better. More than anything it will take time for Pelini's kids to grow up. Once he's getting close to graduating his first recruiting class you'll see.

But he'll be competitive by next season. He's a smart coach who understands COLLEGE football. That's why he's been successfull everywhere he's gone. And with TO still in the athletic department I expect he'll get the turnaround done faster than most of the so-called experts think.

Just wait and see where we are in year 3.....

 
Bleeding Husker Red said:
Keep in mind people... even the recruiting services will tell you that the difference between a 3 star player and a 5 star polayer isn't really that great. The 4 and 5 star guys might only have a couple of notables higher than the 3 star.

So coaching the player properly will have a lot more to do with a team's success than what we're aware of out here. This explains why USC is so far ahead of everybody else. Pete Carrol and his staff are literally THAT good. And they are THAT DAMNED GOOD. So they get great players and make them an awesome team. But USC would still be frightening with recruiting classes on par with the rest of us.

After you get past the top 6 or 7 teams, there really isn't all THAT much separation in talent until you get down to the very bottom of D1. NU's return to elite status will take getting a little better in recruiting ..but only a little better. More than anything it will take time for Pelini's kids to grow up. Once he's getting close to graduating his first recruiting class you'll see.

But he'll be competitive by next season. He's a smart coach who understands COLLEGE football. That's why he's been successfull everywhere he's gone. And with TO still in the athletic department I expect he'll get the turnaround done faster than most of the so-called experts think.

Just wait and see where we are in year 3.....
Click to expand...

very very well said, i couldnt agree more.............robsker and hunter should listen to what you are saying.

 
Bleeding Husker Red said:
Keep in mind people... even the recruiting services will tell you that the difference between a 3 star player and a 5 star polayer isn't really that great. The 4 and 5 star guys might only have a couple of notables higher than the 3 star.

So coaching the player properly will have a lot more to do with a team's success than what we're aware of out here. This explains why USC is so far ahead of everybody else. Pete Carrol and his staff are literally THAT good. And they are THAT DAMNED GOOD. So they get great players and make them an awesome team. But USC would still be frightening with recruiting classes on par with the rest of us.

After you get past the top 6 or 7 teams, there really isn't all THAT much separation in talent until you get down to the very bottom of D1. NU's return to elite status will take getting a little better in recruiting ..but only a little better. More than anything it will take time for Pelini's kids to grow up. Once he's getting close to graduating his first recruiting class you'll see.

But he'll be competitive by next season. He's a smart coach who understands COLLEGE football. That's why he's been successfull everywhere he's gone. And with TO still in the athletic department I expect he'll get the turnaround done faster than most of the so-called experts think.

Just wait and see where we are in year 3.....
Click to expand...

Great post. The USC part though is something I really disagree with (and yet oddly agree with). I do agree that coaching is really, really important. That is why, however USC has NOT owned the world. USC has so much more talent than everyone else --- pure unbridled awesome talent that not even Texas or OSu can even begin to deal with --- that USC has no excuse for ever losing a game. They should have won the last 5-7 MNC's and should, on the basis of talent alone, be sporting a 50+ game winning streak. Why have they not been that phenomenal? Precisely because Pete Carrol is NOT THAT GOOD a coach. If Carrol had our recruiting classes his teams would not be ranked. If a great coach had Carrol's talent (say an Osborne --- someone who can get his players to over-achieve) --- then the team would never lose. Period.

Carrol is an average coach with a great personality, the ability to recruit (which at USC is not that hard) and amazing athletes --- athletes that, generally speaking, under-achieve. They have that much talent that they must be considered one of the more profound under-achievers of college football (even with a 90% winning record).

Your point, that great coaching at Nu --- and we all hope that Pelini and crew will be just that --- can be huge. I AGREE COMPLETELY. Coaching really matters. That said, it does require some fine players too. So, a great coach with modest players can make some noise --- but can consistently be expected to do so only with competitive athletes.

As for Pelini --- lets be patient with him. he does not have the players. Not yet. Only so much can be expected.

 
I disagree, he's got good enough talent with the players, but he has not had enough time yet. The end result is the same, though.

 
robsker said:
Pete Carrol is NOT THAT GOOD a coach.
Click to expand...
Really? Did I really just read this? :dunno :wacko:

Since 2002 HIS teams are 70-8 (90% winning) with those losses being by a COMBINED 30 freaking points. That is less then a stinking Touchdown per loss.

So is Urban Meyer NOT THAT GOOD a coach because with all that talent he still loses games.

Jim Tresssel losses games as well is he NOT THAT GOOD of a coach?

Saban?

Miles?

Stoops?

I bring up these guys because they are the only ones whose recruiting classes are on par with USC.

Man I can't believe anyone would want a Head Coach like these guys running their teams.

 
I laugh at the notion that Carrol is an average coach. Not only is he a great coach, but a defensive mastermind. I recall last year the Trojan defensive players said they exactly what Nebraska was going to do, how can they say this? It's called game planning. I believe I also heard Ray Mauluga say this after the Ohio State game. I guess that is because Tressel game planned into USC's hands right? Doubt it.

The reason that USC doesn't have 5-7 titles is because they have that one game a year where the players sleepwalk a little in one game, and they try but can't overcome a bad half of football(see Stanford last year, Oregon State two years ago). With these little hickups the computers place SEC and Big XII teams ahead of them because of a forseen better conference notion. And coaches can stress not to overlook teams all they want but it is up to a 19, 20, 21 years old to accept that through their thick skulls. It happens all the time.

 
newearthhusker said:
robsker said:
Pete Carrol is NOT THAT GOOD a coach.
Click to expand...
Really? Did I really just read this? :dunno :wacko:

Since 2002 HIS teams are 70-8 (90% winning) with those losses being by a COMBINED 30 freaking points. That is less then a stinking Touchdown per loss.

So is Urban Meyer NOT THAT GOOD a coach because with all that talent he still loses games.

Jim Tresssel losses games as well is he NOT THAT GOOD of a coach?

Saban?

Miles?

Stoops?

I bring up these guys because they are the only ones whose recruiting classes are on par with USC.

Man I can't believe anyone would want a Head Coach like these guys running their teams.
Click to expand...

Meyer has nowhere near the talent that Carrol has. Carrol has a tough gig in this --- it is hard to keep his stable of athletes focused and working hard because they are so talented that they do not need to work that hard. And, with such talent it is hard to keep them motivated to play as a team.

The record Carrol has is quite good --- but not as good as it should be. They have lost too many games that they should have won. This is because in terms of talent differential relative to the team across from them the gap in 85% huge, huge, huge --- and he has lost an array of those games. In the other 15% of the games it is just a huge talent advantage for USC --- and he lost some of them too. As for managing his players --- he is not a great coach.

When Carrol coached elsewhere and did not have his men playing against boys --- as he does now at USC --- Carrol was an average coach. Look at his resume outside of USC --- average. He did not become a genius when he went to USC. He rather has such a prohibitive advantage over the competition it is bordering on ridiculous.

Take 50% of the coaches in college and give them Carrol's talent and you get 90% wins --- just like Carrol. Give a truly great coach that talent and good night --- that team might lose a game every fifth year or so.

What makes him average --- or, OK maybe better than average --- but clearly not great is not X's and o's --- almost all coahes at that level are pretty good there. It is getting his team to play to their potential. Carrol does not do that. Thank God or NCAA football would be most boring for it would be like the UCLA basketball seasons under Wooden (a truly great coach).

 
huzkerbob said:
What does USC have to do with anything? Talent is relative, to performance on the field. And relitive to who you recruit. Every one in our conference has talent! Just who has more is what we learn on the field, right?

We could argue this tell the cows come home, but the bottom line is, can you win on game day? I could give a damn how much perceived talent we have! Do you think people said OU was loaded with talent in 01? Hell no, not until they won it all!

Do we have talent OBVIOUSLY! And if we don't win the Big12 north it doesn't mean we lack talent. Just that we did not have quite as much as the other teams we played. Simple as that.
Click to expand...
I believe the original poster was referring to the radio show, Unsportsmanlike Conduct.

 
Fair enough. But I do feel that if USC recruits where all they where cracked up to be. Than they wouldn't have had such a hard time finding a go to RB. Just my opinion, sure others will disagree.

 
Dundermifflinite said:
I believe the original poster was referring to the radio show, Unsportsmanlike Conduct.
Click to expand...
Indeed he was!!!

I'm sorry..but I just can't believe we don't have top 25 talent. Maybe it's the koolaid...idk.

If...as robsker states...NU doesn't have top 25 talent...Then I suppose we had better start getting concerned about our current class (which BTW I am not) because...according to the "experts" it doesn't look as if it will "measure up" to Callahan's classes...

 
I think the debate on this subject is going around in circles.

Maybe the question should be - Does the over all talent of the team dictate the type of system a coach executes to adapt to the deficiencies at those positions, or is the coaching system too inflexible that it cannot run without the specific types of talent to fill those positions?

We've seen the problems that Wiese, Wannstedt, Barnett, and now Rodriguez are having or had with their new teams as compared to Carroll, Meyer, and Stoops when they came in to their programs.

Is it more about flexibility and adaptation of talent to a coaching system that measures a good coach, instead of ability to recruit 5 star athletes?

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