Mickey could be our Dabo

[Tuco Salamanca]

Have you never been to Manhattan Kansas?

Give me one example of a coach winning at a very high level for a sustained period that wasn't in the middle of a talent hotbed. And even if you come up with one, is that the norm or an outlier?. Everyone knows this (except you two chuckleheads) it's not defeatist. It's fact. I deal in facts. Have you forgotten how Tom Osborne did it? Was he lucky? He built a foundation of hard-working local guys that didn't see the field until their junior year. Then he went to the coasts to bring the majority of his speed and skill guys, none of whom were very good passers. What you are asking is nearly impossible. Hoping you can recruit better than most teams is not a strategy.

And that was nearly 30 years ago. As I have said a million times before, but it goes on deaf ears because it doesn't fit the narrative. For the majority of his tenure, Osborne had to win his fairly weak 8 team league and 4 non league games schedule he helped schedule, and then a single post season game. Only the last 2 years did he have to win a conference championship game and then a single bowl game. He failed to beat a 4 loss Texas team in one of those 2 years. If he was coaching today, he would likely have to win a conference title and 2 more games against top 4 teams to win a national championship. You aren't doing that with a bunch of hard working guys and non passers

 

[huskerfan1414]

Once again you are one that thinks it is either or. Of course you have to develop players. But you seem to be ok with developing the middle of the road guy rather than top or upper middle of the road guys.

It seems you are the one making it either or. Youre assumig these guys cant recruit top talent to nebraska just because you say so. Nebraska is not kansas.
We can pull in good talent and do nothing with it.
With success comes more recruiting.
Bill callahan sucked as coach. NCs arent given out in february. For every coach who wins games but cant win NCs theres a bunch of charlie strongs ron zooks and bill callahans who can recruit but can't win anything because they cant develop.
No, I dont want kirk ferentz or his recruiting, and neither do most, thats a straw man argument you use a lot.

I dont think we’re far off and I want good recruiters too. Id rather have mickey or deon than a lot of these guys. but nebraska is so far down the crapper that I dont think its “Iowa mentality” to want to be sure we find a coach who has proven he can actually COACH and make his talent better.

 

[huskerfan1414]

And that was nearly 30 years ago. As I have said a million times before, but it goes on deaf ears because it doesn't fit the narrative. For the majority of his tenure, Osborne had to win his fairly weak 8 team league and 4 non league games schedule he helped schedule, and then a single post season game. Only the last 2 years did he have to win a conference championship game and then a single bowl game. He failed to beat a 4 loss Texas team in one of those 2 years. If he was coaching today, he would likely have to win a conference title and 2 more games against top 4 teams to win a national championship. You aren't doing that with a bunch of hard working guys and non passers

Compare non conference schedules in the 70s, 80s, and most of the 90s to today.
And how many games did they play per season? Harder or easier to get to 9?
Trying to minimize the success of one of the greatest college football coaches of all time does not help your arguments, at all.

 

[dinglefritz]

We're likely to get one of those guys as our coach and get on to winning a lot of games. When that happens, you'll need to show yourself to the door.

You’re sure testy these days ….

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Compare non conference schedules in the 70s, 80s, and most of the 90s to today.
And how many games did they play per season? Harder or easier to get to 9?
Trying to minimize the success of one of the greatest college football coaches of all time does not help your arguments, at all.

That isn't the point. It isn't minimizing anything. It is comparing the difficulty to win a title in 2022 as compared to the Osborne era. When you have to win a conference title game, then win 2 games, within a week, against 2 other top 4 teams, winning a title is much more difficult. There is a reason why teams that don't have more than 50% of their roster as 4 and 5 star players aren't winning titles.

In 1994

Nebraska would have had to beat Florida/ Colorado depending on the poll then beat either Miami or Penn St.

In 1995
Nebraska would have had to beat Tennessee then the winner of Florida vs Northwestern

Neither of those seasons would Nebraska have had to win a conference title game.

In 1997
Nebraska won the conference title game vs aTm but would have then had to beat Tennessee, then the winner of Michigan vs. Florida St.

To pretend that it would not have been more difficult to win those games and a national title is insane. Could it have happened? sure, Could it happen in 2022? history doesn't support a bunch of hard working farm kids and QBs that cannot throw winning titles. But you can hope if you want.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

It seems you are the one making it either or. Youre assumig these guys cant recruit top talent to nebraska just because you say so. Nebraska is not kansas.
We can pull in good talent and do nothing with it.
With success comes more recruiting.
Bill callahan sucked as coach. NCs arent given out in february. For every coach who wins games but cant win NCs theres a bunch of charlie strongs ron zooks and bill callahans who can recruit but can't win anything because they cant develop.
No, I dont want kirk ferentz or his recruiting, and neither do most, thats a straw man argument you use a lot.

I dont think we’re far off and I want good recruiters too. Id rather have mickey or deon than a lot of these guys. but nebraska is so far down the crapper that I dont think its “Iowa mentality” to want to be sure we find a coach who has proven he can actually COACH and make his talent better.

Nope, I have repeatedly stated that you have to develop along with recruit. My point is that developed 4 stars are going to win more games than developed 3 stars. For crying out loud look at what happens when Ohio St, Penn St or Michigan and their well developed 4 and 5 stars play anyone, in a conference title game, from the west and their highly developed 3 stars. You can put your head in the sand all you want, but it doesn't change the results.

 

[huskerfan1414]

Nope, I have repeatedly stated that you have to develop along with recruit. My point is that beating developed 4 stars is going to win more games than developed 3 stars. For crying out loud look at what happens when Ohio St, Penn St or Michigan and their well developed 4 and 5 stars play anyone in a conference title game from the west and their highly developed 3 stars.

Your hyperbole is saying much more than that.
No one disagrees that well developed four stars are better than well developed three stars. Where are you getting that?

 

[huskerfan1414]

That isn't the point. It isn't minimizing anything. It is comparing the difficulty to win a title in 2022 as compared to the Osborne era. When you have to win a conference title game, then win 2 games, within a week, against 2 other top 4 teams, winning a title is much more difficult. There is a reason why teams that don't have more than 50% of their roster as 4 and 5 star players aren't winning titles.

In 1994

Nebraska would have had to beat Florida/ Colorado depending on the poll then beat either Miami or Penn St.

In 1995
Nebraska would have had to beat Tennessee then the winner of Florida vs Northwestern

Neither of those seasons would Nebraska have had to win a conference title game.

In 1997
Nebraska won the conference title game vs aTm but would have then had to beat Tennessee, then the winner of Michigan vs. Florida St.

To pretend that it would not have been more difficult to win those games and a national title is insane. Could it have happened? sure, Could it happen in 2022? history doesn't support a bunch of hard working farm kids and QBs that cannot throw winning titles. But you can hope if you want.

And it would have been the same for all those other teams. Nebraska won those titles whether you like it or not. Nebraska was the best team in cfb those years whether you like it or not.
Im not arguing that farm kids are needed to win titles. I want a coach who can recruit AND coach. Just hiring a recruiter doesnt work out that often, when they cant coach.
Im arguing that trying to minimize or rationalize away osbornes success is a non-starter in making whatever point you're trying to make.

 

[oldjar07]

No, the point is that coaches that focus on recruiting and were good recruiters as assistants understand the importance and value of recruiting as they rise through the ranks and eventually become head coaches.

Coaches that didn’t recruit well, and on staffs where the head coach relied mainly on development and “fit” don’t put an emphasis on recruiting as they rise through the ranks and eventually become head coaches.

The first kind will hire guys who recruit the second will hire developers and “fit finders”

I'd definitely choose someone who could develop over someone who can recruit if I had to choose. But the good thing is you don't necessarily need to choose. We need both, not one or the other. There's coaches out there who can do both and we need to be targeting them. That's how Osborne got to be as successful as he was because he could both recruit and develop at extremely high levels.

 

[oldjar07]

Again, they recruit the same way that Iowa and Wisconsin do.

This is the defeatist and inferiority complex that most Nebraska fans have. We can't recruit at a high level because we aren't in talent rich area. We will never recruit with the big boys because insert any of 100 whiny ass reasons here. If he can't recruit to one midwestern town, why do you think he will be able to recruit to another?

There's one position where you absolutely must recruit at a high level and compete with the top schools in the country for the absolute best available and that's the qb position. Everywhere else you can find plenty of lower rated guys who are every bit as good as the higher rated guys. There's been several Big 10 schools who have put out top 10 defenses with middling recruiting rankings. There's been several Big 10 schools that put out quality lines, running backs, and serviceable receivers with middling recruiting rankings. The one position you absolutely must hit at is QB, which many of these same schools have failed to get. If the next coach can bring in a top notch qb, I could care less what the recruiting rankings are.

 

[oldjar07]

Your hyperbole is saying much more than that.
No one disagrees that well developed four stars are better than well developed three stars. Where are you getting that?

I do actually. There's more 3 stars in the league than 4 stars I believe.

 

[huskerfan1414]

I do actually. There's more 3 stars in the league than 4 stars I believe.

Id be interested in seeing that stat, but something you need to consider is the sample size. There are more three star rated recruits every year than there are 4 star.
Looking at it by percentages would be a more accurate reflection.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

And it would have been the same for all those other teams. Nebraska won those titles whether you like it or not. Nebraska was the best team in cfb those years whether you like it or not.
Im not arguing that farm kids are needed to win titles. I want a coach who can recruit AND coach. Just hiring a recruiter doesnt work out that often, when they cant coach.
Im arguing that trying to minimize or rationalize away osbornes success is a non-starter in making whatever point you're trying to make.

Again, I am not minimizing what Osborne accomplished. I am simply saying that putting your team together like Osborne did in the 1990's won't get you the same results in the current college football environment. There is a reason why Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan St, Washington, whoever else you want to put out there aren't winning games in the college football playoff. You can have great run games, and play great defense with your lower rated and "highly developed" teams, but when you play teams that are more talented, you lose.

Name a program or a team that won a title with a bunch of 3 star players that work hard and a QB that doesn't throw the ball efficiently. It simply doesn't happen. Coaches like Leipold and Klieman have no history of recruiting top tier talent. What they do is get the best of their mid level talent. Again, if that is where Nebraska wants to go as a program, then fine. But in 4 or 5 years when Nebraska is winning 8 or 9 games per year and not competing for or winning Big Ten titles, then don't complain that we aren't winning Big Ten titles.

As I stated several times before, we have been down this road. Solich and Pelini were both winning 70% of their games, and Nebraska fan wasn't happy with that level of success and both of those coaches were shown the door. So when a new coach has that same level of success what makes you think that he won't meet the same fate?

When you hire a coach, you can't hire them with "the walk" expectation, if the ultimate goal is to "run". That happened with Pelini and Solich. Those guys could walk just fine.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

There's one position where you absolutely must recruit at a high level and compete with the top schools in the country for the absolute best available and that's the qb position. Everywhere else you can find plenty of lower rated guys who are every bit as good as the higher rated guys. There's been several Big 10 schools who have put out top 10 defenses with middling recruiting rankings. There's been several Big 10 schools that put out quality lines, running backs, and serviceable receivers with middling recruiting rankings. The one position you absolutely must hit at is QB, which many of these same schools have failed to get. If the next coach can bring in a top notch qb, I could care less what the recruiting rankings are.

Where you theory fails, is that all of those Big Ten teams that you reference, are run first and run often offenses. Top notch QBs don't want to go to a school where they are only going to throw the ball 20 times per game.

Also, since 2000, NO team that has less than 50% of their roster as 4 and 5 stars have won a national title and only very, very rarely has a team that doesn't meet the 50% threshold even won a CFP game.

But again, you can hope to be the exception to the rule, if you want. I choose not to

 

[KingBlackshirt]

Mickey doesn’t like Whipple as his OC

 

[TheHuskerFreak]

I have no interest in a coach's ethnicity. I care about getting a guy that can win. Mickey got turned down for a HBCU head coaching gig. Did they not hire him because he's black? Seems awfully racist to want a hire a man simply because of the color of his skin.

He just isn't a good coach. If nebraska hires Mickey, we are in serious trouble for the next several years. Nebraska will be at the kid's table of the sport where we cheer for feel good Disney like stories and hope for the best instead of wanting to compete with the best.

 

[NikkiSixx]

I think every person that has turned away from MJ is a member of the herd mentality, which by definition means they don't know anything anyways and we're lucky the decision is not up to them.

We are going to be brining in a bunch of new line recruits, and we will keep our skill players and next year will be a different story with a new OC and DC.

The guys that want to blow it all up, are just being emotional and don't really want to hurt the program further, I hope.

 

[king_kong_]

I do actually. There's more 3 stars in the league than 4 stars I believe.

in an average year, there are 1,800 4-stars and 10,700 3-stars. there are only about 5,000 2-stars.

more than half the players who receive stars are given 3

so, it would stand to reason that just based on volume there would be more 3 stars than any other in the league, just like in college

NFL drafts are comprised of only 5.5% of them compared to 22.4% of 4-stars, however

 

[drubendall]

You’re sure testy these days ….

Yep, I need to take a break from it.

 

[oldjar07]

Where you theory fails, is that all of those Big Ten teams that you reference, are run first and run often offenses. Top notch QBs don't want to go to a school where they are only going to throw the ball 20 times per game.

Also, since 2000, NO team that has less than 50% of their roster as 4 and 5 stars have won a national title and only very, very rarely has a team that doesn't meet the 50% threshold even won a CFP game.

But again, you can hope to be the exception to the rule, if you want. I choose not to

Winning a national title is an exception to the rule, especially at a place like Nebraska, so I don't mind if we take that approach. I think it's the only way we can win a national title if we prove to be the exception.

 

[oldjar07]

in an average year, there are 1,800 4-stars and 10,700 3-stars. there are only about 5,000 2-stars.

more than half the players who receive stars are given 3

so, it would stand to reason that just based on volume there would be more 3 stars than any other in the league, just like in college

NFL drafts are comprised of only 5.5% of them compared to 22.4% of 4-stars, however

Breaking down the 255 NFL Draft picks by star recruiting rankings

A look at how each star-ranking performed during this draft.

www.google.com

3 star recruits alone in the NFL draft outnumber 4 star and 5 star recruits combined. If you combine 2 stars or unranked with the 3 stars, there is about twice as much talent overall in this group compared to the 4 and 5 star group. There's a ton of talent in the 3 star ranks and we need to stop with the myth that our problem is recruiting high 3 stars.

 

[oldjar07]

Again, I am not minimizing what Osborne accomplished. I am simply saying that putting your team together like Osborne did in the 1990's won't get you the same results in the current college football environment. There is a reason why Wisconsin, Iowa, Michigan St, Washington, whoever else you want to put out there aren't winning games in the college football playoff. You can have great run games, and play great defense with your lower rated and "highly developed" teams, but when you play teams that are more talented, you lose.

Name a program or a team that won a title with a bunch of 3 star players that work hard and a QB that doesn't throw the ball efficiently. It simply doesn't happen. Coaches like Leipold and Klieman have no history of recruiting top tier talent. What they do is get the best of their mid level talent. Again, if that is where Nebraska wants to go as a program, then fine. But in 4 or 5 years when Nebraska is winning 8 or 9 games per year and not competing for or winning Big Ten titles, then don't complain that we aren't winning Big Ten titles.

As I stated several times before, we have been down this road. Solich and Pelini were both winning 70% of their games, and Nebraska fan wasn't happy with that level of success and both of those coaches were shown the door. So when a new coach has that same level of success what makes you think that he won't meet the same fate?

When you hire a coach, you can't hire them with "the walk" expectation, if the ultimate goal is to "run". That happened with Pelini and Solich. Those guys could walk just fine.

Osborne's 90s teams weren't anything like these teams and even the late 80s teams I think were a cut above most of them.

 

[leodisflowers]

I think every person that has turned away from MJ is a member of the herd mentality, which by definition means they don't know anything anyways and we're lucky the decision is not up to them.

We are going to be brining in a bunch of new line recruits, and we will keep our skill players and next year will be a different story with a new OC and DC.

The guys that want to blow it all up, are just being emotional and don't really want to hurt the program further, I hope.

Yeah, this is the thing people don't realize. If Mickey stays, you probably keep most of the team together. You might get Palmer back and CT and if you can go do some things on the line it shapes up for a decent offense. Also, the Defense is pretty young and has played a lot better. Outside of a monster name, you could have a mass exodus of players and you essentially start from scratch. Lot's of holes to fill on the lines, but there is a decent group to start with, especially on the O side.

 

[dinglefritz]

There's one position where you absolutely must recruit at a high level and compete with the top schools in the country for the absolute best available and that's the qb position. Everywhere else you can find plenty of lower rated guys who are every bit as good as the higher rated guys. There's been several Big 10 schools who have put out top 10 defenses with middling recruiting rankings. There's been several Big 10 schools that put out quality lines, running backs, and serviceable receivers with middling recruiting rankings. The one position you absolutely must hit at is QB, which many of these same schools have failed to get. If the next coach can bring in a top notch qb, I could care less what the recruiting rankings are.

And still though you can find QBs for your system who can develop and win a bunch. Landing guys like LSU’s transfer Daniels or Bama’s Qb can transform your offense. They’re tremendous athletes with very good arms.

 

[king_kong_]

Breaking down the 255 NFL Draft picks by star recruiting rankings

A look at how each star-ranking performed during this draft.

www.google.com

3 star recruits alone in the NFL draft outnumber 4 star and 5 star recruits combined. If you combine 2 stars or unranked with the 3 stars, there is about twice as much talent overall in this group compared to the 4 and 5 star group. There's a ton of talent in the 3 star ranks and we need to stop with the myth that our problem is recruiting high 3 stars.

The reason for the above is that there are 10x more 3 stars than 5 stars and 5x more 3 stars than 4 stars every single year

 

[king_kong_]

Dabo is a great example of a position coach being elevated to head coach at a major program and doing very well. Who are the others? There had to have been more than 1 guy in all of the history of college football that has pulled this off.

You’d certainly think there’d be more than one single example of a MAC coach becoming a P5 success, but alas, there is but one example there, too

 

[king_kong_]

Dabo is a great example of a position coach being elevated to head coach at a major program and doing very well. Who are the others? There had to have been more than 1 guy in all of the history of college football that has pulled this off.

You’d certainly think there’d be more than one single example of a MAC coach becoming a P5 success without needing to take a demotion first, but alas, there is but one example there, too

zero coaches have gone from D2 to P5 sustained success

 

[WHCSC]

You’d certainly think there’d be more than one single example of a MAC coach becoming a P5 success, but alas, there is but one example there, too

What about G5 coaches that go on to have success at P5?

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

What about G5 coaches that go on to have success at P5?

MAC is G5

 

[WHCSC]

MAC is G5

Oops. Then I don't believe KK's claim

 

[king_kong_]

Oops. Then I don't believe KK's claim

Dabo (wr coach), saban (G5 coach for 1 year, but 5 years before another HC job in P5), urban (G5), Kirby (coord) and Lincoln Riley (coord) are really the only coaches who’ve sustained top-level success

those are their backgrounds

nobody here seems remotely interested in hiring the top SEC defensive coordinator (for reasons unknown. that would be my first choice and I don’t even know who it is)

BoB would seem to have a profile that fits

 

[WHCSC]

Dabo (wr coach), saban (G5 coach for 1 year, but 5 years before another HC job in P5), urban (G5), Kirby (coord) and Lincoln Riley (coord) are really the only coaches who’ve sustained top-level success

those are their backgrounds

nobody here seems remotely interested in hiring the top SEC defensive coordinator (for reasons unknown. that would be my first choice and I don’t even know who it is)

I guess it depends on your definition of success. That is different for everyone.

 

[king_kong_]

I guess it depends on your definition of success. That is different for everyone.

Mine is regularly competing for a national title

you know, actual sustained success

if someone has a different definition they can take it up with Webster

 

[ridge22]

Dabo (wr coach), saban (G5 coach for 1 year, but 5 years before another HC job in P5), urban (G5), Kirby (coord) and Lincoln Riley (coord) are really the only coaches who’ve sustained top-level success

those are their backgrounds

nobody here seems remotely interested in hiring the top SEC defensive coordinator (for reasons unknown. that would be my first choice and I don’t even know who it is)

BoB would seem to have a profile that fits

Brian Kelly

 

[ridge22]

Dabo (wr coach), saban (G5 coach for 1 year, but 5 years before another HC job in P5), urban (G5), Kirby (coord) and Lincoln Riley (coord) are really the only coaches who’ve sustained top-level success

those are their backgrounds

nobody here seems remotely interested in hiring the top SEC defensive coordinator (for reasons unknown. that would be my first choice and I don’t even know who it is)

BoB would seem to have a profile that fits

Brian and Chip Kelly, Les Miles, Gundy,

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Osborne's 90s teams weren't anything like these teams and even the late 80s teams I think were a cut above most of them.

From a philosophy standpoint they sure were. Run the ball 60% plus of the time.

 

[scarletred]

Dabo (wr coach), saban (G5 coach for 1 year, but 5 years before another HC job in P5), urban (G5), Kirby (coord) and Lincoln Riley (coord) are really the only coaches who’ve sustained top-level success

those are their backgrounds

nobody here seems remotely interested in hiring the top SEC defensive coordinator (for reasons unknown. that would be my first choice and I don’t even know who it is)

BoB would seem to have a profile that fits

Bob Stoops, ( Defensive coord)but if you’re only naming present coaches I can see why you would miss him.

 

[king_kong_]

Bob Stoops, ( Defensive coord)but if you’re only naming present coaches I can see why you would miss him.

if we want a "sure thing", it's pretty clear the answer is to hire a top-level coordinator from a powerhouse

that limits our choice to o'brien and the like, which I would be fine with if we don't hand the keys to Mickey (my first choice - would instantly be the 4th most dynamic coach in the conference)

the big 12 coaches would satiate the morons here and win 5-8 games/year probably

 

[WHCSC]

would instantly be the 4th most dynamic coach in the conference

I'd love to see this list 🤣

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

if we want a "sure thing", it's pretty clear the answer is to hire a top-level coordinator from a powerhouse

that limits our choice to o'brien and the like, which I would be fine with if we don't hand the keys to Mickey (my first choice - would instantly be the 4th most dynamic coach in the conference)

the big 12 coaches would satiate the morons here and win 5-8 games/year probably

I mostly agree, I think it depends on where the coordinator is from and where he has coached previously. I look at Oregon as an example, they went after the Georgia DC, now rumors are he is a candidate for Auburn, after only 1 year. Even though he is from the midwest the vast majority of his coaching experience is at Memphis, Alabama and Georgia. It would make sense for him to want to get back to the SEC. Tucker was an example of a guy who went to a Big Ten school, coached at a couple of other Big Ten schools and in the NFL. Even though he was a Georgia DC, he doesn't appear to be an SEC guy like Lanning appears to be.