Lack of talent

Mavric said:
First, that type of thing shouldn't be surprising.  It's called a Bell Curve.

Second, No one is expecting us to be competing for the National Championship, at least not right now.  The teams at the top have a decided talent advantage.  The question should be how close are we to being a solid Top 25 team looking to move into the Top 10. 

We are currently 29th (693).  We are 160 behind #9 Clemson.  We are 276 ahead of #90 Northern Illinois.  So NIll overcame 170% the talent disadvantage we'd have to overcome to beat the defending National Champions.
Click to expand...
Did you even read the post I was replying to? I'm gonna guess you didn't. 

 
Big Red Commie said:
The svcs are pretty accurate, just ask Bama, Clemson, tOSU, etc.

That's not to say there aren't good players out there unrecognized by the svcs.
Click to expand...
Those schools also have the three best coaches in the sport.  Just ask Texas, Ole Miss and Tennessee.  Point being that young teenagers who are highly evaluated by recruiting rating services does not necessarily mean that it will translate to the college level. I think we can agree that skill and development are equally important.  I do think recruitment for the right players to fit the scheme (as in the TO years) is a forgotten key to success and that component of the " right fit" is obviously not considered in generic recruit rankings.  

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Saunders said:
And, and for the the "where's the Suh on this team" argument?

This was Suh in 2007, with bad coaching:



This was suh in 2009 with good coaching:



I rest my case.

Click to expand...
So his freshman sophomore year compared to when he was an upper class man? Great argument because players are always their best when they are a underclassman. 

 
Huskers44 said:
So his freshman sophomore year compared to when he was an upper class man? Great argument because players are always their best when they are a underclassman. 
Click to expand...
doc-rivers.gif


 
Huskers44 said:
Your argument was horrible. And you picked out 2 plays pretty small sample size bud. 
Click to expand...
Lol, ok. I picked Suh as an illustration for the coaching aspect.

We out-recruit our peers. We don't out-develop them.

If you want, I can post the recruiting numbers for the umpteenth time.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
HuskerPowerVA said:
Those schools also have the three best coaches in the sport.  Just ask Texas, Ole Miss and Tennessee.  Point being that young teenagers who are highly evaluated by recruiting rating services does not necessarily mean that it will translate to the college level. I think we can agree that skill and development are equally important.  I do think recruitment for the right players to fit the scheme (as in the TO years) is a forgotten key to success and that component of the " right fit" is obviously not considered in generic recruit rankings.  
Click to expand...
Ok, from Bo thru Riley, NE has recruited ~25th on average and has usually hung around in the rankings @ 25th-ish.  I've studied the svcs/rankings thing several times and there is great positive correlation.  If you start out with more skill/talent, well it can be developed to a greater level, but no amount of development will make a Jaylin Bradley into a Leonard Fournette.

 
Saunders said:
Lol, ok bud. One of us is using data and facts. I picked Suh as an illustration for the coaching aspect.

We out-recruit our peers. We don't out-develop them.

If you want, I can post the recruiting numbers for the umpteenth time.
Click to expand...
If you want to post the recruiting numbers make sure you post if we out-retain said recruits.

 
StPaulHusker said:
So who do you see on here that it is the coach's fault they haven't developed properly and who has just maximized their collegiate potential?
Click to expand...
Everyone. That’s the easiest answer since we’re outrecruiting the rest of the division, and yet still repeatedly losing to them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
StPaulHusker said:
So who do you see on here that it is the coach's fault they haven't developed properly and who has just maximized their collegiate potential?
Click to expand...


So with that list.  You should be able to notice the fact that the top 3 in the Big 10 are leaps and bounds ahead of the next 6.  Like way ahead.  

Ohio St - 955.51 pts

Michigan - 874.89 pts

Penn St. - 779.49

Then 4-9 are Maryland, Nebraska Michigan St. Wisconsin, NW and Iowa.  All 6 of these teams are within 100 pts of each other.  593-693

The rest are 574 pts to 502 pts.  There is a bigger jump from the 3rd place team to the 1st place than from the 4th to 14th.  That leads me to believe we are right in the middle of mediocrity when it comes to recruiting.  We need to be in that 800 pts Plus range in order to compete with the big boys.

Alabama - 997.57

USC - 934

Clemson - 853.65

For reference 13 pts is the difference between having one extra 4 star on the roster vs a 3 star.

 
Its easy to miss on players after the Top 15 recruiting rankings.  We could have some 4 star players that might be actually 3 star players.  Some 3 star players develop into 4 and 5 star players.  This is coaching them up.  This is finding those who have upside.  This isn't recruiting a kid with an arthritic knee and start him at RB.  Thats not a recruit with upside, is it?  

 
Recruiting is such a crap shoot after you get past the sure fire top 100 or so can't miss kids in every recruiting cycle and even then there are some that miss.  Skill guys on offense WR and RB are fairly easy to project on defense CB and Safeties are usually fairly easy.  Linemen on both sides are the hardest to figure out.  

Wisconsin regularly outperforms their recruiting rankings because they are so good at developing linemen, especially O-linemen and they move guys from other spots to the line.  Their starting Rt Tackle played QB in HS. Lots of their LB's were guys that played other positions in HS and moved to their spots.  

They also know what they are looking for and don't worry nearly as much about recruiting rankings.  They are not afraid to offer guys that maybe are only 2* if  they fit what they want.  They take a lot of Midwest players and they frankly are not usually evaluated as well by the services as on the coasts.  

Don't get me wrong they get a lot of quality guys mixed in especially at RB.  Then they develop the heck out of them.  

The thing you have to remember is that Wisconsin has been doing the same basic thing with players and player development since 1990 when BA got to Madison.  That system was developed over a long period of time.  Iowa has been working their system since 1999 when Ferentz got their.  Nebraska hasn't worked the same basic system on offense for more than 4 years in a row since 2003.  They have worked how many different defensive systems in that time,  I count 4.  

That is by no means an endorsement that MR should be kept though. 

 
Back
Top