FNL visit list....
- Thread starter HBK4life
- Start date
It might have escaped your attention but there were no 4* or better lineman on either line there for 2019. Along with a stretch of other positions.
You could just say "I don't like Cav" instead of trying to make him bad for a condition that exists in other position groups.
Well arguably the top player in the entire 2021 class came up from Houston and he is an offense linemen.
Go look at our line, Cav's recruiting is not the problem. Nebraska is evaluating and getting with kids before a lot of the big guys. Take in the fact we had serious injuries last season and have overhauled that room in the last few years I think Cav's "hot seat" is a little unfair considering everything.
Let's take the high road. It is never a question of not liking a person. I am not addressing JP because it is a wholly different discussion. The question is whether Cav is effective with recruits that our staff identifies as high on the board. I have not seen that he is.
This.
This is exactly why I ask folks when they say Cav isn't cutting it, which kid do they have a problem with?
It pretty quickly becomes apparent they are just star gazing. Which I get it, I'm more than excited to have all those stars in attendance.
The OL is a little bit different. Sichterman was named by many analysts probably one of our most under rated players, along with Jaimes. So we got two 4* caliber tackles last year who had good offers. We got Barnett who I think was a Rivals 150 Kid. Farniok was was Rivals 250 kid.
Our lowest rated OL might be Will Farniok (definitely not sure but a guess at 5.5) and he's a quintessential 500 mile radius win over a division rival well known eye for OL play (Iowa) and he's basically a Husker legacy at this point. The other one comes to mind might be Boe Wilson but we were pretty excited to have a guy with his frame and attitude.
Cav's guys will either get it done on the field or they won't, but he's doing a pretty good job on the trail and bringing in the frames that fit the need.
Edit: I guess Walker would technically be our lowest rated OL, but the kid is a straight up mountain and we were all happy to see this kid get the offer. There aren't too many Nebraska kids with the specs to play OT in a pro system.
Last edited:
OK. I can see this has turned into one of those things where it will never end. I am not going to bite again. You apparently believe that Cav is doing just fine, and I respect that. Let's hope you are right.
Not necessarily the case. Our OLine needs to improve. I just believe that the best olinemen we have, outside of Gates and maybe Foster, are rising RS Soph or younger. Coincidently, all of Cav's recruits will be RS Soph or younger. Last season they would have been RS freshmen, so I wasn't expecting them to be starters. Perhaps you were.
You just appear to be stating your opinion as fact when it comes to who the top players on the coach's board are.
OK. So, neither of us is on the staff. But I think we can both conclude that Bookie is high on the board for CB. Why? Because we read what the various recruiting sites write and we see the time and attention placed on him early. I think that is the point of these sites. As for the question of whether I think Cav's recruits should be starting, even the most talented high school offensive linemen find it difficult to start in such a short time. I therefore conclude that looking at whether a player is starting after such a short time does not tell much about whether an OL coach recruited well. Plus, a coach can be a good developer of talent, but bad recruiter. If one wants to understand if a coach is a good recruiter, for me, the first question is whether we are evaluating talent well and the second is whether we are getting who we want. I do not know enough to assess the first question. Last year, I watched the recruiting season unfold and concluded we did not do well on the second one. You can conclude differently. That was my judgment. I feel worse about things this year.
Analyst
Prior to contributing to HuskerMax, Jeremy Pernell co-founded the all football website N2FL.com. He served as the editor in chief of the college football portion of the website which focused heavily on recruitment and talent analysis, including the NFL Draft.
Getting who we want is relative. Landing the #1 guy on your board won't always happen. Sometimes getting #3 or #4 will have to suffice.
As far as this year goes, You simply can't compare it to other years. The numbers are to short. With an original class size of 15, and a huge need at WR and DB they simply couldn't take many OL. Add to that the number of OL already on scholarship (16), with 12 of those being RS Soph or younger, adding more freshmen OL isn't going to help you get over the hump in 2017 or 2018 although a couple of WRs and DBs may.
Thanks. So, what I would like to see is what he means by "promising." That word could be used for a diamond in the rough. I am sure the staff believes that Donte Burton and Tre Douglas are promising CBs, but they are putting in an awful lot of time and effort to instead land Bookie, Chase Williams, Christian Tutt and Mario Goodrich. It's a question of degree, not absolute judgments.
Again, I watched the entire recruiting season unfold last year and watched as we courted other O linemen and failed to land them. We then turned to other recruits whose competing offers were not from the peer group we want. We all hope these recruits prove them wrong. But the question is whether we are competing at the level of the peers we want, i.e. OSU, Alabama and the like. For the OL, we are not right now. At other positions, it is the case. I think some of you are being very generous, which as a fan I appreciate.
And the limited class tells me that we could be highly selective. But I am not seeing that unfold for O linemen. But maybe I am just plain wrong. Just telling you what I see.
You see I look at things a little differently. I would not say that getting who we want is relative because by saying that, the word "want" loses all meaning. We decide who we want and we go after them. We hire great recruiters and go get them. We don't try, fail and then say, well, we really wanted the guys that we ended up getting. I know that that is not what you are saying. I am just trying to explain my thinking.
If you read carefully you'll note that the list of players he included are categorized as "top of the board" players who are leaning NU.
Trey Stratford is on that list. A player that you apparently share concern about.
We recruit in similar number and quality as Wisconsin, and they compete at the top of the league. We out recruit them at several other positions. I'm not hitting the panic button yet.
Who knows, in 90 days we might!
But I am not seeing how that adds anything to the conversation. By that line of thought, we "want" anyone that we offer and they are all the same. Of course, we know that that is not the case.
I think who we want isn't limited to only the top guy or guys on the board. There are too many variables in the process to simply say we want this guy and we should get him. If that was the case, Joseph Lewis would be in Lincoln and not LA. The list of guys you want at a position may very well be 8-10 deep. Sure you would rather get 1, 2 and 3 on the OL board each year but if you get 3, 7, 9 it's still guys you want.
Correct. And the good recruiters get us closer to the top.
IMO your definition fails because in recruiting, kids have 5, 10, 15, 20 offers. We throw out 180 offers to secure somewhere between 16 and 25 slots.
Want isn't simply a measure of You are a 5.9 four star, if you turn me down or just take more time than usual thinking, I'm going to take this 5.7 instead and so I've failed. Or conversely, Pledger shows interest and now other kids are politicked to the back of the line or out of the class altogether.
its not a linear relationship.
Never said anything about a linear relationship. How the recruiter gets it done is anything but linear. But, I fully believe they have priorities based upon an evaluation and what can be achieved. How high the list goes and what can be achieved depends heavily upon the skills of the recruiter.
This is a non-linear function.
Carson/Culpepper is sort of an instructive case. We could maximize our recruiting rating taking the 4* Culpepper over the 3* Carson. But Carson apparently maintains the slight edge in evaluation. (In reality we may take both, or just Culpepper this weekend if he makes the decision first, but it might depend on what they want to do with Stratford).
By your definition, this is a failure. In reality, whether a guy is a 5.5 or a 5.7 on rivals, is a fair bit more fungible to the staff than it is to us. (This was also demonstrated again with accepting Wildeman's commitment early. And again turning Avery away for Mapieu).
You are totally leaving out the recruit in your theory. This isn't a draft.
I look at it like dating. My date board number 1 is Jennifer Aniston, but if she doesn't want to leave her husband for me, I would be fine with landing my 8th choice in Jessica Alba.
I think you are assuming that I am focused on stars. I am not. I am focused on Plans A, B, C and D, and on competing offers. For me, it is very telling when we are competing against respected programs. There are a number of 3 * players that have offers from our desired peer group. If we evaluate them hirer, then that is our priority. What concerns me is when we select a player, fail, and continue on down the list too far.
So who is Plan A B C and D this year? Every recruit we pick up is not going to have an OSU or Bama offer.
I think we can all agree that OL is the hardest group to break into. Add the fact Cav's first class was Barnett (big recruiting win for the staff) and he is a RS Soph.. We were so injured last year we talked about pulling red shirts just for bodies.. not trying to build an excuse for coach Cab but let's not mistake the unknown for doing a poor job.
Plus, I think we can all agree that coach Riley has proven he is willing to get rid of coaches who are not pulling their weight. If he can not get the job done he will be gone so I don't understand the hate for the guy.
Plus, I think we can all agree that coach Riley has proven he is willing to get rid of coaches who are not pulling their weight. If he can not get the job done he will be gone so I don't understand the hate for the guy.
Ha. Nice analogy. The question is whether we have hired Brad Pitt or Ben Stiller as our OL coach.
Hate? We are discussing whether he is an effective recruiter. By all accounts, Cav is a good person. For example, his relationship with Milt Tenopir. He also may be a good teacher of the position. But the question tonight is strictly whether he is a good recruiter. No hate. Just dispassionate discussion.
Ha. Nice analogy. The question is whether we have hired Brad Pitt or Ben Stiller as our OL coach.
But it could also come down to her not wanting to live in Suburban Houston. Which really has nothing to do with my dating game just where I am located.
Let's try to find common ground. Those were examples of a desired peer group. There are others, e.g. PSU, Michigan, USC, Oklahoma, Florida, FSU, Clemson, LSU, Oregon, Texas A&M and the like. If I see several offers from that type of group, it is pretty clear that the recruit is a consensus high quality recruit.
The additions of ATH Houston Griffith and RB TJ Pledger give Nebraska 11 #Rivals250 attendees at this Friday Night Lights camp. #Huskers
1:40 PM - 21 Jun 2017
This is getting crazy. Add another #Rivals250 4-star to the list, as USC LB commit Raymond Scott will be at Friday Night Lights. #Huskers
1:36 PM - 22 Jun 2017
Looks like a USC LB commit will be visiting as well
