What's it going to take?

locolizard said:
We don’t have any depth which is why things implode in the 4th quarter.  As far as recruiting, I would go with 2 and 3 star players that have heart.  The 4 and 5 star players we have are the ones that Alabama, OSU and other elites didn’t want.  Last year’s Super Bowl consisted of predominantly all 2 and 3 star college players, meaning coachable (this is why Belichek has so much success).  The coaching carousel has to stop.  Kids don’t know who they’ll be playing for year to year if we continue down this road.  Nebraska used to always win 9 games a year because of a weak conference under TO but would usually lose a bowl game.  The BIG10 is so physical and currently our team gets worn down by the end of the game.
Click to expand...


Yeeeah, gonna need a source there. And if you're building  with 2 and 3 stars, you're going to be bad. You can find gems there, but if we're signing 25 of them a year and hoping we end up with 22 good starters 4-8 will be the norm forever.

To clarify, a lot of 3 star and unrated players end up in the NFL. That's because the vast  majority of recruits fall into that bucket. People have posted the numbers before, but the odds of a 5 star being good are much better than a 4 star, and much much better than a 3 star. But there are enough 3 stars that there are still a lot that do turn out, and the NFL doesn't care about your rating, they have all of you college development to look at as well.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
thatguy said:
lol right on cue.

if you know anything about me or my posts you know i'm far from that. if me thinking the ball should be run when the ball is supposed to be run makes me a rtdb guy, so be it.
Click to expand...
Well, you're idea of "aggressive" is very different than mine if lining up and handing the ball to the RB 4 times is your idea of it.

 
  • Plus1
Reactions: Toe
Husker in WI said:
Yeeeah, gonna need a source there. And if you're building  with 2 and 3 stars, you're going to be bad. You can find gems there, but if we're signing 25 of them a year and hoping we end up with 22 good starters 4-8 will be the norm forever.

To clarify, a lot of 3 star and unrated players end up in the NFL. That's because the vast  majority of recruits fall into that bucket. People have posted the numbers before, but the odds of a 5 star being good are much better than a 4 star, and much much better than a 3 star. But there are enough 3 stars that there are still a lot that do turn out, and the NFL doesn't care about your rating, they have all of you college development to look at as well.
Click to expand...

 
locolizard said:
  Last year’s Super Bowl consisted of predominantly all 2 and 3 star college players, meaning coachable (this is why Belichek has so much success). 
Click to expand...
Not even close to true.  Just a quick tally of starters shows 50% of the ones young enough to have been ranked were 4 stars and 10% were 5stars. So while 2-3 stars did account for 40% of the starters on a team lauded for doing more with less year in and year out, the majority of the team was still composed of 4 and 5 star prospects. 

 
Tom Osborne had recruiting classes ranked in the 40’s year after year.  He only went for high ranked players for skill positions.  He also had the luxury of a great walk on program.  

 
Husker03 said:
Not even close to true.  Just a quick tally of starters shows 50% of the ones young enough to have been ranked were 4 stars and 10% were 5stars. So while 2-3 stars did account for 40% of the starters on a team lauded for doing more with less year in and year out, the majority of the team was still composed of 4 and 5 star prospects. 
Click to expand...


Thanks! Also there are thousands more 2 and 3 stars, so when you factor in the raw numbers there are just more of them to go around. If 5% of 2-3 stars turn into pros and 50% of 5 stars do, there will still be a lot more 2-3 stars in the NFL. That doesn't mean recruiting 2-3 stars will get you more NFL talent than 4-5 stars.

 
thatguy said:
frost calling a shovel pass on the goal line immediately after we intercepted a shovel pass that got us the ball on the goal line told me me all I needed to know:
Click to expand...


You should go watch that play again. If our tackle doesn't have one of the most pathetic blocking attempts I've ever seen that's an easy TD. The play call was not bad, the execution was.

 
Huckleberry Muhammad said:
My opinion is that the head coach has to recognize that it's not just about "execution" and "being on-board," etc.  Nebraska football is now infected with a culture of losing.  It's like a meme.. perhaps it is a meme.  A silent one.  No matter the effort in practice and even on the field, the background feeling out there now is "I hope we don't lose"  It's supposed to be "We've got this.  We've f#&%ing got this!"  For all practices and for four quarters of football.

What makes my hopes rise is what happened at UCF.  Frost did cause the program to unravel the losing culture and ignite a winning one, in spite of a mediocre DC.

Again, just my opinion.  As I think about all of the possibilities and remedies for whatever the problem is, I keep coming back to that culture change thing, the nuts and bolts be damned (recruiting, the play book, execution, buying into the coaches' plans, etc).  A culture of defeat.  It's like wallpaper, in the background.  But there. 
Click to expand...


I thought towards the end of last year we had shed this mentality, but it seems to have snuck back in. Not sure if it's because we lost the senior leaders last year or what, but it happened in the CU, IU and Purdue games. You could see the players, mostly on defense, get that "oh here we go again, we're gonna lose" while the other team starts firing we start having miscues. I don't see it as much on offense, but it's glaring on defense.

 
I saw a graphic recently that said that KSU had zero 4 or 5 stars while Oklahoma had over 50. Not trying to bash on Scott, but scheme and coaching matter, too. 

 
WyoHusker56 said:
You should go watch that play again. If our tackle doesn't have one of the most pathetic blocking attempts I've ever seen that's an easy TD. The play call was not bad, the execution was.
Click to expand...
Your point is valid, in that the play works if everyone does their assignment. But, with the frequency that our OL fails to execute, I like the idea of running your 225 QB from the normal spread formation, giving him some possible angles and some room to work, and even using 200+ lb Mills as a possible lead blocker. It worked on both TDs in the 4th quarter, and I wish Frost would have run it earlier. I guess he did learn from the failed attempt, as he made successful changes on the later goaline situations.....

 
Jarhead In Red said:
Your point is valid, in that the play works if everyone does their assignment. But, with the frequency that our OL fails to execute, I like the idea of running your 225 QB from the normal spread formation, giving him some possible angles and some room to work, and even using 200+ lb Mills as a possible lead blocker. It worked on both TDs in the 4th quarter, and I wish Frost would have run it earlier. I guess he did learn from the failed attempt, as he made successful changes on the later goaline situations.....
Click to expand...
You obviously must have missed the number of times in the last few games we ran the ball needing a couple yards and got stuffed.

You can't just always do that in that situation.  So...now we have a play call that mixes it up...it doesn't work and all of a sudden the OC is an idiot for doing it.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top