Any of yall getting a LITTLE nervous about the '09 class?

[Texas Aggie Football]

With the Bo Pelini era now officially underway, aren't yall surprised at the lack of "blue-chip- committments?

Rivals 4* rankings cut off at 5.8. Anything below that is 3* and below.

Nebraska has only 2 guys out of their 10 committments with a 5.7 ranking or higher.

4* Cody Green 5.8

3* Dontrayevous Robinson 5.7

Don't get me wrong, I like the guys we have. But to compete for championships like the 90's again, we need bluechips.

So what gives?

 

[Husker_x]

With the Bo Pelini era now officially underway, aren't yall surprised at the lack of "blue-chip- committments?

Rivals 4* rankings cut off at 5.8. Anything below that is 3* and below.

Nebraska has only 2 guys out of their 10 committments with a 5.7 ranking or higher.

4* Cody Green 5.8

3* Dontrayevous Robinson 5.7

Don't get me wrong, I like the guys we have. But to compete for championships like the 90's again, we need bluechips.

So what gives?

It sucks for the fan base who put way too much emphasis on rankings. Pure athleticism is all that's measured, and that at a high school level. Remember those walk-ons Nebraska is famous for? Yeah, guess how many stars they had. Now oodles of them are playing in the NFL.

I think stars are more for the fans than the coaches. A coach sits down and says, "Okay, we need player X so he can fit into system Z. The basic characteristics we're looking for are this, this, and this." Since speed and size are always a factor, the star rankings more or less will point to guys we're probably looking for, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a well-coached three star is any worse off than a five star blue chipper.

Also, the recruiting season is far from over. Those blue chippers with fifty offers have to see Nebraska on the field with a whiff of success before they starting thinking, "Yeah, that's the way to go."

 

[Back In Black]

With the Bo Pelini era now officially underway, aren't yall surprised at the lack of "blue-chip- committments?

Rivals 4* rankings cut off at 5.8. Anything below that is 3* and below.

Nebraska has only 2 guys out of their 10 committments with a 5.7 ranking or higher.

4* Cody Green 5.8

3* Dontrayevous Robinson 5.7

Don't get me wrong, I like the guys we have. But to compete for championships like the 90's again, we need bluechips.

So what gives?

It sucks for the fan base who put way too much emphasis on rankings. Pure athleticism is all that's measured, and that at a high school level. Remember those walk-ons Nebraska is famous for? Yeah, guess how many stars they had. Now oodles of them are playing in the NFL.

I think stars are more for the fans than the coaches. A coach sits down and says, "Okay, we need player X so he can fit into system Z. The basic characteristics we're looking for are this, this, and this." Since speed and size are always a factor, the star rankings more or less will point to guys we're probably looking for, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a well-coached three star is any worse off than a five star blue chipper.

Also, the recruiting season is far from over. Those blue chippers with fifty offers have to see Nebraska on the field with a whiff of success before they starting thinking, "Yeah, that's the way to go."

well said mr turkey neck

 

[Texas Aggie Football]

With the Bo Pelini era now officially underway, aren't yall surprised at the lack of "blue-chip- committments?

Rivals 4* rankings cut off at 5.8. Anything below that is 3* and below.

Nebraska has only 2 guys out of their 10 committments with a 5.7 ranking or higher.

4* Cody Green 5.8

3* Dontrayevous Robinson 5.7

Don't get me wrong, I like the guys we have. But to compete for championships like the 90's again, we need bluechips.

So what gives?

It sucks for the fan base who put way too much emphasis on rankings. Pure athleticism is all that's measured, and that at a high school level. Remember those walk-ons Nebraska is famous for? Yeah, guess how many stars they had. Now oodles of them are playing in the NFL.

I think stars are more for the fans than the coaches. A coach sits down and says, "Okay, we need player X so he can fit into system Z. The basic characteristics we're looking for are this, this, and this." Since speed and size are always a factor, the star rankings more or less will point to guys we're probably looking for, but that doesn't necessarily mean that a well-coached three star is any worse off than a five star blue chipper.

Also, the recruiting season is far from over. Those blue chippers with fifty offers have to see Nebraska on the field with a whiff of success before they starting thinking, "Yeah, that's the way to go."

The rankings aren't far off when looking at talent. That's why the highest ranking players on Rivals are usually the ones with the most/best offers.

It's not a fluke that by and large, the teams finishing in the top 15 in recruiting year in and out are also in the top 15-25 in the polls at the end of the year.

Those players earn those rankings for a reason.

 

[trouble]

IMO, Rankings dont mean sh#t. ALl it is is a way to hype up 16-18 year old kids who don't really need it. Looks at the big names that have fluked.

Im just fine and content with who we have so far.

 

[HSKRNOKC]

Im not worried at this point. We have recruited some specific needs. That and many recruits are taking a wait and see attitude with our team.

If we go 1 and 3 I will be worried.

 

[MadcatNU]

The rankings aren't far off when looking at talent. That's why the highest ranking players on Rivals are usually the ones with the most/best offers.

It's not a fluke that by and large, the teams finishing in the top 15 in recruiting year in and out are also in the top 15-25 in the polls at the end of the year.

Those players earn those rankings for a reason.

Teams finishing in the top 15 in recruiting and in the polls usually have the better coaches too. I'm not sure anyone can point to it and say how much is due to coaching and how much is due to recruiting.

Of the elite 11 QBs a couple years ago, only Daniel has really done anything great. Recruiting services measure athletic ability, but there is a lot more to being a succesful cfb player than just athletic ability.

Lastly, i think people get carried away when looking at rankings. Like a #1 class is five times better than the #5 class. In truth the athletic ability is probably much closer. And the athletic ability between the 15th - 20th ranked classes might be razor thin. Same goes for the kids themselves - there's probably not much seperation from the 10th and 20th ranked kid at a position, 30th - 50th, and so on. Whatever the seperation, so much of a player is determined after getting to campus that i don't worry about it too much.

If the staff is recruiting relatively poorly to our division foes 5 and 6 years down the line that might be an issue of concern. But for now i'm not worried. They've shown flashes with guys like Green. Once the get results on the field to sell they could be much more succesful.

 

[Axl_sued_me]

I do believe in recruiting rankings. But with that being said, I'm pretty happy with the way this staff is recruiting considering how far Nebraska is off the map with the kind of year they had last year. Face it, Nebraska will never be a team that pulls in top talent even when they suck because of their location and the population or lack there of. I think the recruiting is going just fine. When the wins start coming, the top recruits start coming.

 

[RedDenver]

The rankings aren't far off when looking at talent. That's why the highest ranking players on Rivals are usually the ones with the most/best offers.

It's not a fluke that by and large, the teams finishing in the top 15 in recruiting year in and out are also in the top 15-25 in the polls at the end of the year.

Those players earn those rankings for a reason.

Let's not start the "are the star rankings accurate" debate again. Suffice it to say that many of us aren't impressed by and don't much care about the recruiting service rankings.

 

[Texas Aggie Football]

I guess the reason for my concern is that usually when a new coach is coming into a program, especially a high profile coach, there is alot of buzz around a program and it causes a surge in top recruiting. Especially at top flight schools such as Nebraska. The only recruit who is truly nameworthy is Cody Green and even he likely would not have made it there had it not been for the depth situation at A&M which he saw was less favorable than NU.

Another reason why I am concerned is the fact that this isn't 5-10 years ago when recruiting lasted all the way til signing day. In Texas nowadays, most of the recruits are snatched up by the time the season even starts. Of the top 25 players in Texas, only 5 are still uncommitted. Of those, maybe 1 or 2 will still be left uncommitted by summers end.

Madcat-

I know coaching is a reason why the same teams are always in the top 15-20. But those coaches can't do anything without top flight recruits. Any coach will say that getting top recruits to come in is #1 when it comes to winning. Kansas has arguably one of the best coaches in CFB and they will never be a great program unless they can recruit. Same goes for Texas Tech. They get all the guys Texas, A&M, OU, OSU and LSU don't want. Most of the guys tech gets don't even recieve offers from those schools I mentioned.

4 and 5* players are just better players, period. More size, more speed. I think Dr. Tom was a great coach but I even he would tell you the reason NU was so successful for so many years was because he had HUGE OLman and incredible RB's and QB's.

A village idiot can coach a team to 10+ wins per year if you have great athletes.

 

[Overland Park Husker]

A village idiot can coach a team to 10+ wins per year if you have great athletes.

Don't tell that to OU and USC. They were still getting top notch athletes during their down years and they sucked it up because lack of coaching. Same can be said for Bill C. and Weis at ND who brought/bring in top 15-20 recruiting classes and they couldn't get the job done. It's important to have athletes, but if they don't what they're doing then it is meaningless.

 

[Ohio Pete]

Another reason why I am concerned is the fact that this isn't 5-10 years ago when recruiting lasted all the way til signing day. In Texas nowadays, most of the recruits are snatched up by the time the season even starts. Of the top 25 players in Texas, only 5 are still uncommitted. Of those, maybe 1 or 2 will still be left uncommitted by summers end.

Well then you answered your question didn't you? How can you expect a guy who started in December to pick up athletes who have already been holding offers from other schools for longer than 4 months? Many of the best will have already committed before he even got hired.

At this point Nebraska has the same number of commits as Illinois. I'll start worrying if 2 :star guys become the norm and not the exception in this class.

 

[Texas Aggie Football]

Another reason why I am concerned is the fact that this isn't 5-10 years ago when recruiting lasted all the way til signing day. In Texas nowadays, most of the recruits are snatched up by the time the season even starts. Of the top 25 players in Texas, only 5 are still uncommitted. Of those, maybe 1 or 2 will still be left uncommitted by summers end.

Well then you answered your question didn't you? How can you expect a guy who started in December to pick up athletes who have already been holding offers from other schools for longer than 4 months? Many of the best will have already committed before he even got hired.

At this point Nebraska has the same number of commits as Illinois. I'll start worrying if 2 :star guys become the norm and not the exception in this class.

Sherman started at A&M in December just as Pelini did

 

[MadcatNU]

Madcat-

 

I know coaching is a reason why the same teams are always in the top 15-20. But those coaches can't do anything without top flight recruits. Any coach will say that getting top recruits to come in is #1 when it comes to winning. Kansas has arguably one of the best coaches in CFB and they will never be a great program unless they can recruit. Same goes for Texas Tech. They get all the guys Texas, A&M, OU, OSU and LSU don't want. Most of the guys tech gets don't even recieve offers from those schools I mentioned.

Did KU and MU suddenly get those top athletes just prior to last season? I think they had quality players all along, but one’s that needed time to develop them. Sure there are some that can step in and play right away, but I think most need to be made. And the size of this category is quite large.

4 and 5* players are just better players, period. More size, more speed. I think Dr. Tom was a great coach but I even he would tell you the reason NU was so successful for so many years was because he had HUGE OLman and incredible RB's and QB's.

If that were the case, wouldn’t you expect to see a ton of those 4 and 5* athletes on all conference lists, winning awards and going to the NFL? But consider the all big 12 preseason list:

Crabtree = 4

Maclin = 4

Murray = 4

English = 3

Weatherspoon = 2

Pawelek = 2

Wall = 3

Lake = 2

Coffman = 3

Robinson = 4

Loadholt = 3

Cooper = 3

Vasquez = 3

Brown = UR

Dockery = 4

Daniel = 3

Lucky = 5

Wolfert = UR

Campbell = UR

Hypolite = 3

Orakpo = 4

Mortensen = 2

Harris = 4

Moore = 3

Brantly = 2

There are instances like this all over, which indicates there is a lot more than raw athleticism when it comes to being a good player.

I don’t challenge the notion that coaches need good players. Rather I question what we as fans use to measure whether a player is good or not.

A village idiot can coach a team to 10+ wins per year if you have great athletes.

Apparently not because BC couldn’t win here and Zook couldn’t do it at UF, yet BC didn’t have much trouble finding a job in the NFL and Zook is having success at Illinois. Imo, it’s like a three legged stool – one leg is recruiting, one is development (like weight training and conditioning) and one is coaching. A program needs all three to be highly successful.