The Talent Debate - 2017 Edition

[Mavric]

We have offered some jucos but they chose other schools, please research before commenting.

"Offering" and "seriously recruiting" are two different things.

Even the Husker Online guys have commented several times that their biggest criticism is that the current staff doesn't really seem very interested in taking JUCO guys.  Not that they haven't looked around but they haven't put a lot of effort into it either.  They say the staff really seems to only want guys who will be around 4/5 years.  But they point out that taking 1-2 JUCOs each year at positions of need really helps fill in roster gaps.  

Would be really handy to have taken a JUCO OT or CB sometime in the last couple years.

 

[BIG ERN]

"Offering" and "seriously recruiting" are two different things.

Even the Husker Online guys have commented several times that their biggest criticism is that the current staff doesn't really seem very interested in taking JUCO guys.  Not that they haven't looked around but they haven't put a lot of effort into it either.  They say the staff really seems to only want guys who will be around 4/5 years.  But they point out that taking 1-2 JUCOs each year at positions of need really helps fill in roster gaps.  

Would be really handy to have taken a JUCO OT or CB sometime in the last couple years.

I made several gripes about that the last 2 seasons with this staff. There were obvious positions where we needed to add Juco/Grad Transfer 

 

[junior4949]

The general consensus is player performance plus recruiting ranking.  The older guys in the program are on what their third DC?  On field performance can be difficult under these circumstances.   

 

[Saunders]

The general consensus is player performance plus recruiting ranking.  The older guys in the program are on what their third DC?  On field performance can be difficult under these circumstances.   

I'll give the defense the pass because of wholesale changes.

The offense?

That's 100% on the coaches.

 

[Enhance]

Interpreting the stats a little bit here. Most people (62%) seem to think judging a team's 'talent' is dependent upon some combination of looking at the recruiting rankings plus their performance on the field. That said, ~51% of you believe Nebraska is 'talented.'

To me, this suggests people put more weight on the raw potential of the players when judging whether or not they're talented and that most people in turn believe they are talented. Fair statement?