This kind of analysis doesn't prove anything. All it shows is that young players are not getting developed as they enter the program. The data is also combining years of classes together (some not even signed) to try and push an agenda. You can compile 4 recruiting classes for any school and make the right column look like that.
Current players vs. Future Players - best Power Five offers
- Thread starter knapplc
- Start date
BIG ERN
New member
alwayshusking
New member
The Committee to Retain Mike Riley is pumping out the propaganda pretty hard this week.
Last edited by a moderator:
alwayshusking
New member
Also brought to you by the people that tried to tell you Nebraska didn't have as much talent as a 2-10 Purdue team in 2015, so it was excusable to give up 55 points to them.
HuskerJax
New member
HuskerJax
New member
If nothing else this does show at least there is talent coming in. I’m still of them mind that Riley should be done IF we have someone lined up to replace him. I fear that if we fire him and have no one lined up, it’s going to be a potentially rough search. At least if he is retained for another year, we have a good class coming in and can spend some real time looking for his replacement
Name me a program that doesn't have talent coming in.
Hooke was a high level recruiter at Michigan but his coaching sucked.
USC always recruited elite talent before Pete Carroll was hired.
1996
John Robinson
6–6
3–5
T-5th
1997
John Robinson
6–5
4–4
T-5th
1998
Paul Hackett
8–5
5–3
T-3rd
L Sun
1999
Paul Hackett
6–6
3–5
T-6th
2000
Paul Hackett
5–7
2–6
T-8th
2001
Pete Carroll
6–6
Pete won the Orange Bowl in his second season. Why? Coaching.
This graph popped up on Twitter today with a clear agenda. The person two tweeted this out is a clear Riley supporter based on his Twitter history.
If Riley continues to lose, and he will, he will be fired. This is Riley's 3rd year. That means players he has recruited should already be getting developed and becoming starters. When the OP is listing players that have not signed, there is an agenda.
HuskerNBigD
New member
That stat right there is about all you need to show this staff can’t develop. Raw talent and no development doesn’t lead to winning the west, or the MAC in our case.
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc
Active member
I asked the creator of this list some questions on the twitter. He stands behind his product. His arguments were uncompelling, even with his buddy's help.
So I threw Mav's average star ratings at him and he didn't flinch. He's off, but he didn't flinch.
And the last tweet is basically the reason this list is put together. But it still doesn't make much sense - until you see like everyone else has, that the OP is a Riley guy.
So I threw Mav's average star ratings at him and he didn't flinch. He's off, but he didn't flinch.
And the last tweet is basically the reason this list is put together. But it still doesn't make much sense - until you see like everyone else has, that the OP is a Riley guy.
southernoregonhusker
New member
That's info I can use when I talk about this team not having talent. Sadly, that stat doesn't surprise me one bit.
ScawFraw
New member
Scratchtown
New member
This is why you have to have a vision, identity, and recruit hard working intrinsically motivated guys.
I don't believe NU has a whole lot of those dudes. College football is full of emotion. Completely opposite of the NFL business model. Guys need to be excited to play football. This staff doesn't excite.
It's been hammered out like crazy on this board but, I don't see a sincere love/pride for Nebraska football from football players. That's something that's going to have to be built again but with the right coach. Mike Riley isn't that coach....Scott Frost is.
Last edited by a moderator: