Re-visiting Callahan's 2005 Class

[StPaulHusker]

for the most part Cally always had a manageable QB which is is the difference between the 2009 and 2010 teams winning 10 versus 12 IMO. At the end of the day it isn't going to matter much if we can't get a guy under center that makes better decisions. TM was a good QB but he wasn't a 12 win QB. He was going to lose use a couple, he wasn't going to be able to stand up to the demands winning a championship took, to really beat the top 10 teams. Iowa isn't that different of a team from Nebraska, we all saw that at the end of the season when we took em to the wire and should have kicked their a$$ - but they are in the rose bowl with 12 wins because of what they had under center. Tommy is a better athlete any day of the week - but Beathard is a better QB by a mile.

Iowa is in the Rose Bowl with 12 wins because their defense gave up a 22 play 4th quarter drive to Michigan State.

 

[kchusker_chris]

for the most part Cally always had a manageable QB which is is the difference between the 2009 and 2010 teams winning 10 versus 12 IMO. At the end of the day it isn't going to matter much if we can't get a guy under center that makes better decisions. TM was a good QB but he wasn't a 12 win QB. He was going to lose use a couple, he wasn't going to be able to stand up to the demands winning a championship took, to really beat the top 10 teams. Iowa isn't that different of a team from Nebraska, we all saw that at the end of the season when we took em to the wire and should have kicked their a$$ - but they are in the rose bowl with 12 wins because of what they had under center. Tommy is a better athlete any day of the week - but Beathard is a better QB by a mile.

Iowa is in the Rose Bowl with 12 wins because their defense gave up a 22 play 4th quarter drive to Michigan State.

 

[StPaulHusker]

for the most part Cally always had a manageable QB which is is the difference between the 2009 and 2010 teams winning 10 versus 12 IMO. At the end of the day it isn't going to matter much if we can't get a guy under center that makes better decisions. TM was a good QB but he wasn't a 12 win QB. He was going to lose use a couple, he wasn't going to be able to stand up to the demands winning a championship took, to really beat the top 10 teams. Iowa isn't that different of a team from Nebraska, we all saw that at the end of the season when we took em to the wire and should have kicked their a$$ - but they are in the rose bowl with 12 wins because of what they had under center. Tommy is a better athlete any day of the week - but Beathard is a better QB by a mile.

Iowa is in the Rose Bowl with 12 wins because their defense gave up a 22 play 4th quarter drive to Michigan State.

As opposed to the CFP.

Sorry, bad try at a joke, I guess.

 

[Hunter94]

for the most part Cally always had a manageable QB which is is the difference between the 2009 and 2010 teams winning 10 versus 12 IMO. At the end of the day it isn't going to matter much if we can't get a guy under center that makes better decisions. TM was a good QB but he wasn't a 12 win QB. He was going to lose use a couple, he wasn't going to be able to stand up to the demands winning a championship took, to really beat the top 10 teams. Iowa isn't that different of a team from Nebraska, we all saw that at the end of the season when we took em to the wire and should have kicked their a$$ - but they are in the rose bowl with 12 wins because of what they had under center. Tommy is a better athlete any day of the week - but Beathard is a better QB by a mile.

so true....been years since we had a true passer or a real dual threat guy.......run first won't cut it here...

 

[Stumpy1]

Recruiting is a numbers game. Sure, half of them didn't pan out (that's normal) - but that means with this class we still got 16 solid contributors, 6-7 were great. Bo's classes of 17-19 and consistently undersigning meant if he hit 50% of his targets (which he didn't) we still only got 8-9 contributors. Bo's classes usually included about a 40% transfer rate, a 30% hit rate, and a 30% miss rate - leaving us with 6-7 guys contributing. Look at that 2011 class we all thought was so great at the time. Out of the 11 4* recruits that made that class promising, 5 transferred, 1 never showed, 2 never managed to really contribute. On down that list you've got Pirman, Carter, Davie, Price, Allen and Bondi that never really got into the starting rotation. That leaves what, 6 out of 20 that held their own...out of what was supposed to be the anchor class for Pelini. This class is the standard of the era.

Stars correlate to potential, anyone that argues against that is being ridiculous. But ultimately it's about the numbers. You have to sign to the limit, we can't have 7 walk-ons earning scholly's in a given year.

Bo liked stars but he liked his hunches better. Callahan was the best recruiter we have had after Tom left. We shall have to wait and see on Riley, but the pantry was ultimately bare for him.

Like... This isn't remotely true. Stop repeating the idea that the "pantry is bare." What an appalling insult to guys like TA, Collins, Westy, Gerry, Reilly, etc.

So many good guys thrown under the bus to justify a .500 coach registering essentially a .500 season.

You listed guys that are starting, how about listing their backups? It has been stated many times by the media and coaches that we are short on bodies. I honestly think you don't pay attention to half the sh#t you argue about. If you did, you wouldn't be wrong so many times.

 

[southernoregonhusker]

Recruiting is a numbers game. Sure, half of them didn't pan out (that's normal) - but that means with this class we still got 16 solid contributors, 6-7 were great. Bo's classes of 17-19 and consistently undersigning meant if he hit 50% of his targets (which he didn't) we still only got 8-9 contributors. Bo's classes usually included about a 40% transfer rate, a 30% hit rate, and a 30% miss rate - leaving us with 6-7 guys contributing. Look at that 2011 class we all thought was so great at the time. Out of the 11 4* recruits that made that class promising, 5 transferred, 1 never showed, 2 never managed to really contribute. On down that list you've got Pirman, Carter, Davie, Price, Allen and Bondi that never really got into the starting rotation. That leaves what, 6 out of 20 that held their own...out of what was supposed to be the anchor class for Pelini. This class is the standard of the era.

Stars correlate to potential, anyone that argues against that is being ridiculous. But ultimately it's about the numbers. You have to sign to the limit, we can't have 7 walk-ons earning scholly's in a given year.

Bo liked stars but he liked his hunches better. Callahan was the best recruiter we have had after Tom left. We shall have to wait and see on Riley, but the pantry was ultimately bare for him.

Like... This isn't remotely true. Stop repeating the idea that the "pantry is bare." What an appalling insult to guys like TA, Collins, Westy, Gerry, Reilly, etc.

So many good guys thrown under the bus to justify a .500 coach registering essentially a .500 season.

One definite NFL talent in that group and, maybe, Gerry if he learns how to tackle and finds himself a better attitude. Not a convincing case at all.

 

[macroboy]

I thought this might be an interesting thread to read and I have learned 2 things:

1. There were way more JUCO's in Callahan's 05 class that I remembered.

2. There are some people on this board that have to turn every thread into a negative $h!tshow.

 

[GBRedneck]

Having over half a recruiting class not contributing much is pretty common.

I find this interesting.

2005 Average star 3.15 (32 recruits)

2016 Average Star 3.2 (15 recruits) obviously not finished yet.

What this basically points out is that in college football, one recruiting class doesn't push you over the edge to greatness. It takes several years of that type of class to do that.

But, you have to start somewhere. Let's keep this class rolling and carry that momentum into next year.

Prospects for the current class are looking pretty bleak. We likely need at least 8 more bodies to fill the class, and we are in (really in, not just an offer with low interest) on very few high ranked players. We are currently ranked #31 on 247.

Not sure where you are getting that.

Here are the players I think we are still in on pretty well.

Farniok 4*

Reese 3* (admittedly, I am concerned about his recent trip to Texas)

Fitzpatrick 4*

L. Jackson 4*

Watts 3*

Poljan 3*

I. Simmons 4*

M. Simmons 3*

Those 8 have an average star ranking of 3.5. If we could get these, that would put our average star ranking at 3.3. That's a better pace than our last staff was in their second season. And, we are in on a lot of really good talent right now for the 2017 class.

Reese to Florida (which likely means Fitzpatrick is also going elsewhere) Looks like Poljan is going to MSU. At least we're still in the lead for Farniok (I think).

 

[GBRedneck]

Having over half a recruiting class not contributing much is pretty common.

I find this interesting.

2005 Average star 3.15 (32 recruits)

2016 Average Star 3.2 (15 recruits) obviously not finished yet.

What this basically points out is that in college football, one recruiting class doesn't push you over the edge to greatness. It takes several years of that type of class to do that.

But, you have to start somewhere. Let's keep this class rolling and carry that momentum into next year.

Prospects for the current class are looking pretty bleak. We likely need at least 8 more bodies to fill the class, and we are in (really in, not just an offer with low interest) on very few high ranked players. We are currently ranked #31 on 247.

Not sure where you are getting that.

Here are the players I think we are still in on pretty well.

Farniok 4*

Reese 3* (admittedly, I am concerned about his recent trip to Texas)

Fitzpatrick 4*

L. Jackson 4*

Watts 3*

Poljan 3*

I. Simmons 4*

M. Simmons 3*

Those 8 have an average star ranking of 3.5. If we could get these, that would put our average star ranking at 3.3. That's a better pace than our last staff was in their second season. And, we are in on a lot of really good talent right now for the 2017 class.

Can we get an update on this list?

 

[BigRedBuster]

Having over half a recruiting class not contributing much is pretty common.

I find this interesting.

2005 Average star 3.15 (32 recruits)

2016 Average Star 3.2 (15 recruits) obviously not finished yet.

What this basically points out is that in college football, one recruiting class doesn't push you over the edge to greatness. It takes several years of that type of class to do that.

But, you have to start somewhere. Let's keep this class rolling and carry that momentum into next year.

Prospects for the current class are looking pretty bleak. We likely need at least 8 more bodies to fill the class, and we are in (really in, not just an offer with low interest) on very few high ranked players. We are currently ranked #31 on 247.

Not sure where you are getting that.
Here are the players I think we are still in on pretty well.

Farniok 4*



Fitzpatrick 4*

L. Jackson 4*

Watts 3*

Poljan 3*

I. Simmons 4*

M. McDaniel 3*



Those 8 have an average star ranking of 3.5. If we could get these, that would put our average star ranking at 3.3. That's a better pace than our last staff was in their second season. And, we are in on a lot of really good talent right now for the 2017 class.

Can we get an update on this list?

Sure....
Average star rating goes to 3.56

 

[cm husker]

Recruiting is a numbers game. Sure, half of them didn't pan out (that's normal) - but that means with this class we still got 16 solid contributors, 6-7 were great. Bo's classes of 17-19 and consistently undersigning meant if he hit 50% of his targets (which he didn't) we still only got 8-9 contributors. Bo's classes usually included about a 40% transfer rate, a 30% hit rate, and a 30% miss rate - leaving us with 6-7 guys contributing. Look at that 2011 class we all thought was so great at the time. Out of the 11 4* recruits that made that class promising, 5 transferred, 1 never showed, 2 never managed to really contribute. On down that list you've got Pirman, Carter, Davie, Price, Allen and Bondi that never really got into the starting rotation. That leaves what, 6 out of 20 that held their own...out of what was supposed to be the anchor class for Pelini. This class is the standard of the era.

Stars correlate to potential, anyone that argues against that is being ridiculous. But ultimately it's about the numbers. You have to sign to the limit, we can't have 7 walk-ons earning scholly's in a given year.

Bo liked stars but he liked his hunches better. Callahan was the best recruiter we have had after Tom left. We shall have to wait and see on Riley, but the pantry was ultimately bare for him.

Like... This isn't remotely true. Stop repeating the idea that the "pantry is bare." What an appalling insult to guys like TA, Collins, Westy, Gerry, Reilly, etc.

So many good guys thrown under the bus to justify a .500 coach registering essentially a .500 season.

You listed guys that are starting, how about listing their backups? It has been stated many times by the media and coaches that we are short on bodies. I honestly think you don't pay attention to half the sh#t you argue about. If you did, you wouldn't be wrong so many times.

One of the positions that was supposedly very thin going into the season was linebacker. What position group arguably performed the best this season? Other than WR, the linebackers. Despite the notion that they were very thin on both talent and depth.

Why? Because that is arguably the best coached group on the team.

Coaching does matter.

 

[Red_October]

Recruiting is a numbers game. Sure, half of them didn't pan out (that's normal) - but that means with this class we still got 16 solid contributors, 6-7 were great. Bo's classes of 17-19 and consistently undersigning meant if he hit 50% of his targets (which he didn't) we still only got 8-9 contributors. Bo's classes usually included about a 40% transfer rate, a 30% hit rate, and a 30% miss rate - leaving us with 6-7 guys contributing. Look at that 2011 class we all thought was so great at the time. Out of the 11 4* recruits that made that class promising, 5 transferred, 1 never showed, 2 never managed to really contribute. On down that list you've got Pirman, Carter, Davie, Price, Allen and Bondi that never really got into the starting rotation. That leaves what, 6 out of 20 that held their own...out of what was supposed to be the anchor class for Pelini. This class is the standard of the era.

Stars correlate to potential, anyone that argues against that is being ridiculous. But ultimately it's about the numbers. You have to sign to the limit, we can't have 7 walk-ons earning scholly's in a given year.

Bo liked stars but he liked his hunches better. Callahan was the best recruiter we have had after Tom left. We shall have to wait and see on Riley, but the pantry was ultimately bare for him.

Like... This isn't remotely true. Stop repeating the idea that the "pantry is bare." What an appalling insult to guys like TA, Collins, Westy, Gerry, Reilly, etc.

So many good guys thrown under the bus to justify a .500 coach registering essentially a .500 season.

You listed guys that are starting, how about listing their backups? It has been stated many times by the media and coaches that we are short on bodies. I honestly think you don't pay attention to half the sh#t you argue about. If you did, you wouldn't be wrong so many times.

One of the positions that was supposedly very thin going into the season was linebacker. What position group arguably performed the best this season? Other than WR, the linebackers. Despite the notion that they were very thin on both talent and depth.

Why? Because that is arguably the best coached group on the team.

Coaching does matter.

talent doesnt hurt either

 

[cm husker]

Recruiting is a numbers game. Sure, half of them didn't pan out (that's normal) - but that means with this class we still got 16 solid contributors, 6-7 were great. Bo's classes of 17-19 and consistently undersigning meant if he hit 50% of his targets (which he didn't) we still only got 8-9 contributors. Bo's classes usually included about a 40% transfer rate, a 30% hit rate, and a 30% miss rate - leaving us with 6-7 guys contributing. Look at that 2011 class we all thought was so great at the time. Out of the 11 4* recruits that made that class promising, 5 transferred, 1 never showed, 2 never managed to really contribute. On down that list you've got Pirman, Carter, Davie, Price, Allen and Bondi that never really got into the starting rotation. That leaves what, 6 out of 20 that held their own...out of what was supposed to be the anchor class for Pelini. This class is the standard of the era.

Stars correlate to potential, anyone that argues against that is being ridiculous. But ultimately it's about the numbers. You have to sign to the limit, we can't have 7 walk-ons earning scholly's in a given year.

Bo liked stars but he liked his hunches better. Callahan was the best recruiter we have had after Tom left. We shall have to wait and see on Riley, but the pantry was ultimately bare for him.

Like... This isn't remotely true. Stop repeating the idea that the "pantry is bare." What an appalling insult to guys like TA, Collins, Westy, Gerry, Reilly, etc.

So many good guys thrown under the bus to justify a .500 coach registering essentially a .500 season.

You listed guys that are starting, how about listing their backups? It has been stated many times by the media and coaches that we are short on bodies. I honestly think you don't pay attention to half the sh#t you argue about. If you did, you wouldn't be wrong so many times.

One of the positions that was supposedly very thin going into the season was linebacker. What position group arguably performed the best this season? Other than WR, the linebackers. Despite the notion that they were very thin on both talent and depth.

Why? Because that is arguably the best coached group on the team.

Coaching does matter.

talent doesnt hurt either

Are you referring specifically to the LB group? Or is that a general statement. I agree that talent doesn't hurt (duh).

But the LB group was not considered particularly deep or overly talented coming into the year.

 

[BigRedBuster]

Recruiting is a numbers game. Sure, half of them didn't pan out (that's normal) - but that means with this class we still got 16 solid contributors, 6-7 were great. Bo's classes of 17-19 and consistently undersigning meant if he hit 50% of his targets (which he didn't) we still only got 8-9 contributors. Bo's classes usually included about a 40% transfer rate, a 30% hit rate, and a 30% miss rate - leaving us with 6-7 guys contributing. Look at that 2011 class we all thought was so great at the time. Out of the 11 4* recruits that made that class promising, 5 transferred, 1 never showed, 2 never managed to really contribute. On down that list you've got Pirman, Carter, Davie, Price, Allen and Bondi that never really got into the starting rotation. That leaves what, 6 out of 20 that held their own...out of what was supposed to be the anchor class for Pelini. This class is the standard of the era.

Stars correlate to potential, anyone that argues against that is being ridiculous. But ultimately it's about the numbers. You have to sign to the limit, we can't have 7 walk-ons earning scholly's in a given year.

Bo liked stars but he liked his hunches better. Callahan was the best recruiter we have had after Tom left. We shall have to wait and see on Riley, but the pantry was ultimately bare for him.

Like... This isn't remotely true. Stop repeating the idea that the "pantry is bare." What an appalling insult to guys like TA, Collins, Westy, Gerry, Reilly, etc.

So many good guys thrown under the bus to justify a .500 coach registering essentially a .500 season.

You listed guys that are starting, how about listing their backups? It has been stated many times by the media and coaches that we are short on bodies. I honestly think you don't pay attention to half the sh#t you argue about. If you did, you wouldn't be wrong so many times.

One of the positions that was supposedly very thin going into the season was linebacker. What position group arguably performed the best this season? Other than WR, the linebackers. Despite the notion that they were very thin on both talent and depth.

Why? Because that is arguably the best coached group on the team.

Coaching does matter.

talent doesnt hurt either

Are you referring specifically to the LB group? Or is that a general statement. I agree that talent doesn't hurt (duh).

But the LB group was not considered particularly deep or overly talented coming into the year.

And yet the proved that they actually were.

 

[cm husker]

Funny how good coaching tends to make standard talent shine.

That's kind of the point here. It wasn't like people completely misevaluated the depth and athleticism of the LBs. It's that they were coached up to execute well, and that allowed guys (including the dreaded walkons) to step up and excel when called upon because of injury. There were also some schematic things that helped our LBs (similar to how Bo's system tended to help DBs).