Talent vs Coaching: A New Thread!

WyoHusker56 said:
From a talent perspective Nebraska's roster has 20 - 4* players, 63 - 3* players and a handful of lower rated players that are contributing. Plus, I think there is 8-10 of those 4* players that have been beaten out by 3* or their true freshmen. So, our team is mostly made up of 3* talent with a few 4* players sprinkled in.

OSU has 13 - 5* players, 47 - 4* players, 25 - 3* players and I'd venture to guess no walkon/lower rated players contributing (I didn't check that). So, basically 4-5* players with probably a few underrated 3* guys jumping in.

Illinois has 1 - 5* player, 11 - 4* players and 66 - 3* players plus probably a few walkon/lower rated guys sprinkled in.

We are recruiting at a higher level now and this should shift over time, but it is going to take 3-5 years. In 247's team composite score, we are ranked 24th and every team above and 2 after us have at least 1 - 5* player. We have zero. https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/

Coaching shouldn't get totally excused and they need to perform/develop better, but the talent gap is real between top 10 teams and Nebraska.
Click to expand...


Good stuff.

You are a little off when looking at the 4* upperclassmen. Of the 8 4* upperclassmen only 3 (Raridon, Lee, Anderson) have been beaten out. The others (4) are Farniok, Darrion Daniels, Dismuke, and Jackson. The extra body is Jahkeem Green and he is new/likely redshirting.

12 of the 20 4* are underclassmen. 8 of those are freshman. Only 5 of the 12 underclassmen 4* are playing significant minutes at this point. (Martinez, Washington, Robinson, Jurgens, Tannor) The biggest short term impact should come from the defense. There is at least one 4* redshirting this year at every level of the defense.

If Frost can keep the wheels on then we should see some level of depth and consistency around year 4. All that's left to do is hurry up and wait.

 
WyoHusker56 said:
From a talent perspective Nebraska's roster has 20 - 4* players, 63 - 3* players and a handful of lower rated players that are contributing. Plus, I think there is 8-10 of those 4* players that have been beaten out by 3* or their true freshmen. So, our team is mostly made up of 3* talent with a few 4* players sprinkled in.

OSU has 13 - 5* players, 47 - 4* players, 25 - 3* players and I'd venture to guess no walkon/lower rated players contributing (I didn't check that). So, basically 4-5* players with probably a few underrated 3* guys jumping in.

Illinois has 1 - 5* player, 11 - 4* players and 66 - 3* players plus probably a few walkon/lower rated guys sprinkled in.

We are recruiting at a higher level now and this should shift over time, but it is going to take 3-5 years. In 247's team composite score, we are ranked 24th and every team above and 2 after us have at least 1 - 5* player. We have zero. https://247sports.com/Season/2019-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite/

Coaching shouldn't get totally excused and they need to perform/develop better, but the talent gap is real between top 10 teams and Nebraska.
Click to expand...
Thanks for taking the time to post the stats, because it does help clarify where we are at. It would also be interesting to know how we stack up against Colorado......

 
Jarhead In Red said:
Thanks for taking the time to post the stats, because it does help clarify where we are at. It would also be interesting to know how we stack up against Colorado......
Click to expand...


No problem. The link in my post will show you every team ranked by current talent. However, CU has 6 - 4* and 68 -3* so we should not have lost to them based on talent alone.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Here's what I don't get.  We have had problems with turnovers for 10+ years through at least three coaching staffs.  Why???

I firmly believe Frost is as capable as anyone to fix it.  I just don't get how or why Nebraska has been so horrible through multiple coaching staffs and multiple players and teams.

It defies logic to me.
Click to expand...


I think there are mainly two things at play.  

First, we tend to remember the bad and not the good - or, in this case, at least the not-as-bad.  In most years (recently), we've been clear at the bottom of the list in turnovers lost.  But probably not many remember that in 2016 we were actually #12 in the country (in fewest).  In 2011 we were #32 and in 2009 we were #58.  #58 is still far from great but at least more average than horrible.  There have been five years out of the last 11 that we've been basically average or a bit better.  But the years that we're clear at the bottom stand out more.

The other thing I've long claimed - back from when people complained about Pelini not being able to fix it - is that we've had a couple guys who are bad with ball security but got a lot of touches for a lot of years.  Taylor Martinez was terrible at fumbling but he was a four-year starter so they kept showing up.  Abdullah was below-average and he played a lot for four years.  And those two overlapped a lot which didn't help.  Tanner Lee was an interception machine who we (fortunately) only had for one year but even then we were "only" #62 which is right at average.  Now we're on year two of Adrian who appears to have some ball-security issues. 

So between those four players we've had 11 years (in the past 11 season) with a major ball handler having turnover issues.  The other things they bring to the table means they're still the guy to have out there.  But it really kills the turnover stats.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Mavric said:
I think there are mainly two things at play.  

First, we tend to remember the bad and not the good - or, in this case, at least the not-as-bad.  In most years (recently), we've been clear at the bottom of the list in turnovers lost.  But probably not many remember that in 2016 we were actually #12 in the country (in fewest).  In 2011 we were #32 and in 2009 we were #58.  #58 is still far from great but at least more average than horrible.  There have been five years out of the last 11 that we've been basically average or a bit better.  But the years that we're clear at the bottom stand out more.

The other thing I've long claimed - back from when people complained about Pelini not being able to fix it - is that we've had a couple guys who are bad with ball security but got a lot of touches for a lot of years.  Taylor Martinez was terrible at fumbling but he was a four-year starter so they kept showing up.  Abdullah was below-average and he played a lot for four years.  And those two overlapped a lot which didn't help.  Tanner Lee was an interception machine who we (fortunately) only had for one year but even then we were "only" #62 which is right at average.  Now we're on year two of Adrian who appears to have some ball-security issues. 

So between those four players we've had 11 years (in the past 11 season) with a major ball handler having turnover issues.  The other things they bring to the table means they're still the guy to have out there.  But it really kills the turnover stats.
Click to expand...
But.....why has Nebraska had so many players through several coaching staffs with this problem and not been able to coach them out of it for 11 years?

I don’t believe it’s a talent level. Several of the players you have mentioned happened to be the most athletic players during those years. 

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
But.....why has Nebraska had so many players through several coaching staffs with this problem and not been able to coach them out of it for 11 years?

I don’t believe it’s a talent level. Several of the players you have mentioned happened to be the most athletic players during those years. 
Click to expand...


Like I just said, I don't think it's a lot of players.  It's a few players who have the ball in their hands a lot.

Being athletic is not the same as being good at ball security.  If anything, you could probably make an argument for the opposite - the great athletes always think they can make that play and take more chances.  Brett Farve comes to mind.

 
Mavric said:
Like I just said, I don't think it's a lot of players.  It's a few players who have the ball in their hands a lot.

Being athletic is not the same as being good at ball security.  If anything, you could probably make an argument for the opposite - the great athletes always think they can make that play and take more chances.  Brett Farve comes to mind.
Click to expand...
Maybe so....but, I guess I would think that someone like TMart, Ameer, 2AM are good enough athletes that they can be coached. 

 
BigRedBuster said:
Read the paragraph I added to my post. 
Click to expand...
They’re certainly -our- most athletic, but when you look around the college football landscape it’s clear they’re not in the same echelon of other talents at skill position. 

Look at Ameer.  Great player. Great Husker. But he had problems with ball control that probably led to him being a “diamond in the rough” find. 

Taylor.  One of my more favorite players in Nebraska history. Electric talent and great potential. But there’s a reason why there were question marks around him. 

Some teams can can afford not to play the risk/reward game. We can’t and we haven’t much payoff

 
Last edited by a moderator:
CapoValley said:
They’re certainly -our- most athletic, but when you look around the college football landscape it’s clear they’re not in the same echelon of other talents at skill position. 

Look at Ameer.  Great player. Great Husker. But he had problems with ball control that probably led to him being a “diamond in the rough” find. 

Taylor.  One of my more favorite players in Nebraska history. Electric talent and great potential. But there’s a reason why there were question marks around him. 

Some teams can can afford not to play the risk/reward game. We haven’t and we haven’t much payoff
Click to expand...
Really????  You’re saying Ameer and TMart weren’t elite athletically?

interesting. 

 
BigRedBuster said:
Maybe so....but, I guess I would think that someone like TMart, Ameer, 2AM are good enough athletes that they can be coached. 
Click to expand...
You would think some improvement could be realized while they were in a D1 program, but by the time they get to that level, they have probably been playing with the bad habits for a decade or so, and some habits run deep and are hard to change. And, if they were playing at schools like Alabama, Clemson, Etc. they would probably just be replaced after a season of poor ball security. Here, there really wasn't any QB competition while TM was here. Because of the lack of quality depth, he was going to play no matter what.....

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Huskers93-97 said:
I’m slightly perplexed because preseason people outside the program were expecting big things. Big ten came in very impressed with our improved physique and the crispness of our practice. So if those things looked so good- we also hear frost talk about all these great practices. Then why is it not translating to games. How can Martinez look so good in practice but look like the 3rd string qb in games. 
Click to expand...


And it wasn't just hype.  There was analysis and quotes from people outside the conference and of course the Frost hype. 

Frost ran into the weight room and found people sitting around, some smoking, some lifting half the weight he could lift.  He saw a culture of non-discipline and it ran deep.

Now we're seeing the game results and what he's up against.   Timing out that class over 4 or5 years won't completely fix it because it's not just those guys leaving, it's what they're leaving behind.  I fear for the program for a bit longer than that.

 
Back
Top