I justified the position, and frankly, it's pretty easy to do. We are killing it with the 2017 recruiting class to date. Only a fool would look at the facts surrounding the situation and suggest otherwise.
There's something special going on.
- Thread starter Red Honcho
- Start date
I justified the position, and frankly, it's pretty easy to do. We are killing it with the 2017 recruiting class to date. Only a fool would look at the facts surrounding the situation and suggest otherwise.
Explain. Evaluate the recruiting accomplishments of Nebraska Football through March during any one of the last 15 years. Illustrate that one of those years approaches the accomplishments of our staff to date.
I disagree that you justified your position. You just typed it in all caps, so that doesn't count as justification.
Killing it is subjective, I already told you that, but you don't seem to understand. Subjective means that it is 'opinion' based. There is no way to prove it one way or another.
Instead you resort to name calling or other personal insults. This implies that you have nothing else to argue for your position.
I'm gonna take a guess here, but I think what really upsets you is the fact that you study this recruiting thing a lot. You probably spend an inordinate amount of time studying everything there is to know about 17 & 18 year olds, which I personally find kind of creepy. But this results in you thinking you are some kind of recruiting expert.
I haven't seen anything from you to justify that.. only capital letters, name calling, and a silly attempt to flip the table.
Let's see your data, do an analysis, show everyone why we should take what Archie has to say seriously.
Killing it is subjective, I already told you that, but you don't seem to understand. Subjective means that it is 'opinion' based. There is no way to prove it one way or another.
Instead you resort to name calling or other personal insults. This implies that you have nothing else to argue for your position.
I'm gonna take a guess here, but I think what really upsets you is the fact that you study this recruiting thing a lot. You probably spend an inordinate amount of time studying everything there is to know about 17 & 18 year olds, which I personally find kind of creepy. But this results in you thinking you are some kind of recruiting expert.
I haven't seen anything from you to justify that.. only capital letters, name calling, and a silly attempt to flip the table.
Let's see your data, do an analysis, show everyone why we should take what Archie has to say seriously.
Terrible turn of events in that game. We can absolutely put that one on Riley and Purdue. Regardless of who's at QB, better play calling and clock management has to happen!
Rather than making the majority prove their position (everyone else seems to think things are going mighty fine, except you), why don't you enlighten us as to why recruiting isn't going well right now? The reason for the name calling, whether it is warranted or not, is because you look foolish claiming Wisconsin and Iowa are recruiting better than us. That is plain ridiculous. The only way they will maintain their position over us is if they all of a sudden reel in a bunch of 4 star players. Do you think that will happen? So only a fool will point out team rankings in April. And you wonder why name calling occurs...
Edit: The other thing you keep forgetting about is the interest we are receiving from top notch talent across the nation that we haven't received in a number of years. Obviously, they won't all commit, but how long has it been since we have 5 star guys saying, "I gotta check out Nebraska"? Getting top talent on campus is a step that has been missing for quite some time, and now that seems to be changing as well. Looking at all the signs, things look pretty good as far as I'm concerned (And most others in this thread as well).
Last edited:
IF, if we can maintain the current trajectory, we would likely finish with a top 15 class, maybe top 10 depending how the points play out. Killing it? I don't know, I won't argue with the statement, but it's only 4 guys, it's April, and two of them we thought we were getting for quite awhile. So, it looks good to me right now, but not to the point of unbridled enthusiasm at least for me.
We have around 100 offers out to top 250 players. Around 30 are already committed elsewhere. How well we do with the remaining players waiting to decide will determine our finish in terms of class rankings. Seems like last year, we got one rivals top 250 player, Lamar Jackson, from the "deciders" category. Will we be able to gain or maintain recruiting momentum for blue chippers, hopefully.
We have around 100 offers out to top 250 players. Around 30 are already committed elsewhere. How well we do with the remaining players waiting to decide will determine our finish in terms of class rankings. Seems like last year, we got one rivals top 250 player, Lamar Jackson, from the "deciders" category. Will we be able to gain or maintain recruiting momentum for blue chippers, hopefully.
1) The ranking doesn't matter one damn bit right now.
Says who? Why does the ranking exist if it doesn't matter? Wouldn't other recruits like to see where a team is ranked too? So why do you say it doesn't matter?
2) Rivals rankings are, in part, based on class numbers. Four is not equal to eight.
It appears to be partially based on numbers, and partially based on recruit quality. Both are important. I never said four was equal to eight.. (I think you are wanting to argue 4 is greater than or equal to 8)
3) Good quality? Unreal. Studs. Four of them. Studs that were at the very top of our boards. One is a USC legacy and is out of prime CA territory. One is an Ole Miss legacy and is out of prime CA territory. One is one of the best talents in the 500 mile radius. One is join up in the ranking provided he stays healthy, but honestly, I could care less if he does.
Yes, Good Quality. Does it matter whether you think they are a stud or not? Define that, or are you planning on breeding them or something? How do you know what is on the very top of our board? The offer list is out there, but no one can see how they are ranked internally by the staff, and that could be very different from the national ranking.
Also, I could care less of a kid's legacy. Legacy is only potential if the kid's got some of the parents genes. Their parents legacy has zero actual bearing on anything substantive on the field. I will admit that the parents do have an impact in the decision making process, but legacy alone doesn't impact on the field results.
You're basing a lot of this on hype.. and I agree, we got a lot of that right now. I don't have a problem with how the recruits are rated. They have generally high marks. We got 4 of them, and a lot of hype.
It's the amount of Hype that has me concerned and wanting to tap the brakes and pull people back down to earth. That's it.
We can do this all day if you like.
No. We all know the narrative on this board for many, many years is that stars = championships. We've been told repeatedly that only teams that finish in the top 10-15 in recruiting have a realistic shot at winning it all. I'm not pumping the brakes on anything. Get on board, or get run over.
Banker may not work out at Nebraska... That remains to be seen. However, there are few things you should consider.
1. When Bill Callahan hired Kevin Cosgrove, Bill was completely out of the loop about the progression of modern college football. THe Spread offense within the Big 12 was really in its infancy, and Callahan had never seen it yet in the NFL. Without a true understanding of Spread concepts, this made his choice of Cosgrove a colossal failure. Cosgrove, had been coaching in the Big Ten since the 80's. At that time, the Big Ten offenses had not ever implemented spread principals. Offenses were almost all showing 2 back alignments and drop back QB's in pro sets. It was almost like a college basketball coach from 60's coming in to defend the pick and roll without any understanding of defending shooters beyond the 3 point line.
2. Banker has been coaching defense in the Wide open Pac 12 for the last decade. He's seen it all. You're not going to surprise him with schematic nuances. When Texas Tech dropped 70 on the Huskers in 2004, Cosgrove seriously had no clue how to stop the Red Raiders from a schematic standpoint.
3. Nebraska switched from Zone coverage and matchup zone principals under Bo to Man coverage and some cover 2 under Banker...This shift is similar to the offensive switch from Solich to Callahan. This transition was magnified because their was no depth at linebacker, no consistent edge pass rush, and the only DB's with experience had been deeply engrained into the Matchup Zone of Bo....
You also had a bunch of newbies in the 2 deep earn their stripes :
- Dedrick Young
- Tyrinn Ferguson
- Chris Weber
- Aaron Williams
- Chris Jones
- Antonio Reed
- Luke Gifford
- Freedom
- Marcus Newby
- Dzuris
Then they also had guys like the following dealing with injuries and suspensions:
- Banderas
-Gangwish
- Vince
- KW
- Maurice
- Freedom
-Rose -Ivey
- Jon Rose
- Cockerell
- Weber
The only starters who played in every game were McMullen, Maliek, Kalu, and Gerry. Nebraska will have a legit scholarship 2 deep at every position in 2016. You should probably judge Banker after 2016...
The improved depth will also help immensely with special teams.
Nobody knows how this recruiting class will finish - but I think we can all agree that the current state of our recruiting is very encouraging. Especially coming off a losing season. No we probably won't land every 4-5-star player we are in on, but if you look at the big picture, we are building some great potential pipelines - especially in California/Calabasas. Having Keyshawn Johnson on our side is huge with his influence in youth football out there.
I don't know if Riley will get it done on the field, but at the very least, he's probably going to leave the next staff with some solid talent and a positive culture to work with. It didn't seem that way last October, so I don't blame myself and others for being pessimistic then. But there's much more reason for optimism now and the season doesn't start for another 5 months, so we might as well be positive for now and we'll see what happens on the field this fall.
I don't know if Riley will get it done on the field, but at the very least, he's probably going to leave the next staff with some solid talent and a positive culture to work with. It didn't seem that way last October, so I don't blame myself and others for being pessimistic then. But there's much more reason for optimism now and the season doesn't start for another 5 months, so we might as well be positive for now and we'll see what happens on the field this fall.
then it seems we are behind schedule already and shouldn't be quite so eager to lavish in all the hype..
Where should we be at this point? I'd personally like to see us at 'double' what we have right now. 8 guys, same star quality. That would put us in the top 10 I would think.
Last edited:
However, you forgot to mention that little thing like facts... Banker's defenses have NEVER been great statistically or in any capacity (I remember OSU fans warning us about him). We will see if I'm wrong, but I doubt it.
That's actually not true. Here are his Total defense #'s
2006: #2 in the PAC 10- 333 yards per game
2007: #1 in the PAC 10 - 306 yards per game
2008: #2 in the PAC 10 - 312 yards per game
2009: #4 in the PAC 10 - 342 yards per game
2010 and 2011- OSU was rebuilding and finished middle of the PAC 12 in total defense
2012: #4 in the PAC 12- 349 yards per game.
When he has talent, his defenses have been very good, and really good vs. the run....
And he has access to more talent at Nebraska than he ever had consistently at Oregon State. Again, you should judge him after seeing an experienced defense with depth in 2016.
Last year was disappointing. I remain skeptical but hope my skepticism is proven wrong in the long run.
With that being said, everything since the bowl game has seemed to indicate a positive trajectory. The win over UCLA, along with how it was done, gives me optimism for the coming season. Lots of young players got valuable experience so that should help. Recruiting for the upcoming class has been tremendous and hopefully it can continue.
The choice for me is really be skeptical and negative or skeptical and positive. I'm choosing to be skeptical and positive until given a reason otherwise. The start to this class alone warrants a positive outlook. I wanted hope that the future will be better than this past season and I've received that hope since the bowl game. GBR!
With that being said, everything since the bowl game has seemed to indicate a positive trajectory. The win over UCLA, along with how it was done, gives me optimism for the coming season. Lots of young players got valuable experience so that should help. Recruiting for the upcoming class has been tremendous and hopefully it can continue.
The choice for me is really be skeptical and negative or skeptical and positive. I'm choosing to be skeptical and positive until given a reason otherwise. The start to this class alone warrants a positive outlook. I wanted hope that the future will be better than this past season and I've received that hope since the bowl game. GBR!
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
This coming from the guy who has proven he has no idea how the rankings he cites (to complain about) work.
So which is it? People love to say the rankings don't mean anything on one hand, and yet on the other hand, they say it does mean something (ie. need a top 10-15 class). So which is it?
Look, I double checked.. even if we doubled our current class to 8 guys (same quality), effectively doubling our score, it would only put us at 11th.
We need to do better than we currently are.
So you're suggesting that finishing in the 10-15 range at the end of the cycle is not good enough?
No.. where did you get that idea?
I said if we doubled it, we would only be at 11 (I thought maybe in the top 10, See post 133)
We are not 'doubled'.. we are half that.
Last edited:
If it goes at the trajectory it is going we will be Top 5. Let's say we land 2-3 of these 5* prospects we are on, then we land 8 more 4*'s that is a Top 5 class ladies and gentlemen and the best part about this claim is it is not far fetched this year.
5* we have a legit shot at
Wyatt Davis
Tyjon Lindsey
Joseph Lewis
Tyler Shelvin
Darnay Holmes
I can't even keep up with the 4*'s
Good is good bro... Great coaches find a way/scheme/recruiting method to get results. And to use my Pelini example when he was fired(I said at the time if he is such a great coach we'll see in the offers from universities-- Youngstown state- nuff said) if banker is such a good coach why haven't their been any programs trying to pull him away from Riley? Nada bro- sorry that
So you believe we should be at eight right now? With similar rankings to the four committed?
If so, explain that to me please. Why does it matter if they are committed now, after the spring game, in July?
Finally, please define a successful class ranking for 2017.
So now, because we have felt good about a couple commits for awhile, they are less impactful? Your commentary omits that our staff has spent OVER A YEAR recruiting a couple of our commits. The old 'we thought we were going to get them for awhile' commentary is ridiculous given what it took to start our class with this nucleus of players. Sheesh.
I'd like to see us be higher yes. In front of Iowa. In front of Wisconsin.
Don't you get tired of the mad rush at the end of the year to fill the class?
A successful class ranking for 2017 is a rank of 25 or above, this is basically a pass/fail model. Now if we had a top 10 class or heck, even top 15 class, that would be pretty exciting.
I actually think the staff is working with commits to spread them out over a period of time. Take careful notice of when each guy is committing. They are spaced out so that each guy can have his moment, and in my opinion, because each big splash projects the Nebraska name back into the spotlight. It's clever and I think it's purposeful. I also think it's working. Our name is constantly being talked about on recurring pages, on social media, etc.
If we are in a 'mad rush' to fill this class I'll be concerned. But waiting on 4-6 blue chip players to make their final decision isn't a mad rush. Essentially all blue blood programs across the country do the exact same thing.
If true, that is clever. Their use of social media this year has been nothing short of excellent as well. I've commented numerous times on how effective I think their strategy has been on that.
I'm guilting of wanting results that are in lock step throughout the year and along with everyone else.
I'm just not ready to give them a huge pat on the back after four commits. I do think they are working hard at it.
Less impactful? I've said nothing about impact. We continue on the same path, we finish top 15, maybe top 10.
The "old we thought we were going to get them for awhile" commentary is ridiculous. You're making me laugh at that one.
You stated that "...but it's only 4 guys, it's April, and two of them we thought we were getting for quite awhile."
That statement strongly minimizes the massive effort put forward by the coaches, for over a year, to establish the four person nucleus that is providing us big time positive pub.
I think you'll eventually have to accept that in some ways Nebraska is going to have to do things differently than many other programs. We can't develop a reciting strategy similar to USC, Florida, or Alabama. It won't work here. I'd also hope that what the strategy we are building works better than (e.g.) Iowa/Wisconsin - and the results to date suggest our approach will work better provided we continue on the same path. Have a horrible season? All bets are off. No doubt. But continue to show improvement on the field and this class could be incredibly salty.
For a little while I was actually tracking and for the most part agreeing with your points even if you were going way over the top trying to make them. But now you have me lost. You are really worried that on April 7 (10 months before NSD) that you aren't ahead of Wisky and Iowa when the rankings are skewed in a major way by quantity? I could understand if it was say 6 months down the road (and they were still ahead) when schools were starting to get around the 20+/- range of commits...rivals only counts each schools top 20 recruits in its rankings so it is around that point were quality is the dominant factor.
Speaking of "that point"...recruiting 10-15 years ago is a completely different animal then it is today. The result of a decade plus of recruiting evolution of kids giving verbals earlier and earlier each year has finally led to a new paradigm in which there is almost two recruiting seasons because of a pressure to make a decision before someone else takes their spot:
1) When you load up on kids who are basically saving a spot in their favorite's class (this does not mean that is every kid's intention...will get back to this...but it's become more common than you think and some kids don't even realize they are doing it...they just think they are keeping their options open in case something changes...such as their mind)
2) When you are trying to hold on to the the kids you still want, poach kids committed to other schools and land the kids who weren't sure where they wanted to go AND realized that the schools that really want them will wait on them.
Now I said I would get to the fact that not all kids are just holding spots. To me the key to winning the first part is to build a foundation of kids who are truly committed. That is one reason having a smaller group of verbals (at this point) isn't necessarily a negative as long as you are building a class (i.e. you have commits) and they are with kids like KJJ and Gebbia who appear to be quite solid and good enough to attract others. So who gives a crap if other schools have 4 or 5 or 10 more kids (at this point) who might or might not even stick...with some of them only sticking because other schools don't bother trying to steal them.
Honestly, I was with you when you were trying to make the point that NU wasn't "killing it." As you said it is subjective but on the other hand I don't think there is a way to spin your school's start as being bad. It's a good to very good start (imo...though imo saying "killing it" was overkill). So concentrate on what your school is building and stop worrying about what Wisky and Iowa are at this moment...I highly HIGHLY doubt they are going to be close to ranked where they are now come February.
Last edited:
I appreciate the backing, but it appeared that others wanted to come to some sort of understanding to end the arguing, so I was hoping to find a way to put the differences aside and move on. I've more than made my point, and others have made theirs. So it is what it is.
yeah...wasn't exactly backing you in my postI appreciate the backing, but it appeared that others wanted to come to some sort of understanding to end the arguing, so I was hoping to find a way to put the differences aside and move on. I've more than made my point, and others have made theirs. So it is what it is.
Wrong bro
2007 - 8th in defense osubeavers.com
I sincerely hope your right and with right players but picking 4 or 5 decent years when he started in 1998 I believe is cherry picking. Great players always make coaches better (Bo in 2009-11), mcbride (1992-1997). We live in a what have u done lately world and last 5 years he has struggled, period. I love this discussion though and your arguments are dually noted and enlightening-- and again I HOPE you are right and I am wrong!!
Your argument of great players making coaches look better actually favors what Banker might accomplish here at Nebraska. If he had some decent success at Oregon State with decent players but not great players, how will things be this coming fall and in the years to come when we have even more great players on the field?
Similar threads
