Tom did not land a "bunch" of top 10 classes, maybe 1-3 in 25 years, but far from a bunch, considering this staff has only been here for a year you should probably hold your horses. Also you need to consider the validity of a top 10 class then was even more questionable than it is today. Recruiting services had much smaller budgets and that was really early in the internet boom (90's). Without internet, recruiting services had to almost exclusively rely on who was offering a kid.
Thoughts on recruiting
- Thread starter big red22
- Start date
Tom did not land a "bunch" of top 10 classes, maybe 1-3 in 25 years, but far from a bunch, considering this staff has only been here for a year you should probably hold your horses. Also you need to consider the validity of a top 10 class then was even more questionable than it is today. Recruiting services had much smaller budgets and that was really early in the internet boom (90's). Without internet, recruiting services had to almost exclusively rely on who was offering a kid.
This year's class along with last year's will go a long way toward finally righting the ship. Whoever is coaching in 2017 will have a great deal of talent at his disposal.
Again, the problem is that pro-set offenses will not sufficiently mitigate talent disadvantages for Nebraska. Its increasing rarity doesn't necessarily make it more effective for those that employ it. Unlike the different flavors of the option, preparing against a pro-set offense doesn't require a distinctly different approach in order to defend it soundly.
A pro-set offense is about the least desirable modern offense Nebraska could run. NU should really be looking to emulate what Briles has done at Baylor. Nebraska is always going to be at a disadvantage in talent relative to other traditional powers. You need an offense that substantially mitigates that disadvantage.
Indeed, but IMHO it's less about the "type" of offense and more about the "identity". Meaning, do we recruit to, coach to, and teach consistent concepts and offensive philosophy? Is the coaching level excellent? Are the concepts simple to learn? Does the offense marry with the skill sets of it's personnel?
Teams like Kansas, Arkansas State, Baylor, et.al. utilized the spread to offset personnel disadvantages, with varying degrees of success. However, that only goes so far. Top talent and excellent, consistent coaching will usually triumph.
Think about our glory years. We didn't only run the option. Most of the time, we were going downhill at the heart of a defense, and they knew what was coming. It didn't matter.
You make an excellent point about the need to mitigate talent disadvantages. I agree that Nebraska will always have to take this into account and strategize accordingly, but I'm not sure if that automatically means we have to run a spread offense.
If I understand conceptually how the spread makes up for a lack of strength and athleticism, it's forcing the defense to defend more of the field; however, that same principle is not how NU had so much offensive success in the 90s. The I formation triple option offense is not a "spread" type of scheme yet NU had plenty of success running it. Just curious how you would account for this. Certainly there must be some other factors that we must consider when choosing an offensive identity.
Some folks aren't necessarily making a case to become a spread team. In fact, at least one of the examples is a case for becoming and I-formation/option team again.
I actually agree with everything you said. I meant to say that Briles and Baylor should just be one example of what Nebraska should be aiming for, not that the Briles offense is the only reasonable path.
Option offenses also strongly mitigate talent disadvantages. I know I'm in the minority, but I still think the option has substantial potential even today, and I think Nebraska is exactly the type of program that should run it. As you well know, even very talented defenses that don't play very sound assignment football against the option will often end up looking foolish. There are hardly any option teams these days, so opponents aren't ever going to get completely comfortable with playing against it. Georgia Tech has had its moments with the option, and Nebraska will always be able to recruit at a significantly higher level than GT. It sounds like HS football in NE is still heavily run-oriented (including option?), so that may be another positive consideration.
My main argument is not so much which style of offense Nebraska should adopt, but more the styles that it should avoid.
I'm not sure that NU needs to necessarily avoid pro sets. People have pointed out numerous times that Wisconsin, Iowa, and MSU run pro style offenses, but are traditionally a little more run oriented than we were this past year.
But that's an issue of play selection, rather than personnel. We have access to at least as much talent as two of those schools, and until lately, all of them.
We ran a pro style offense with a 3* wideout in Swift, a walkon in Peterson, and a 2* in Ganz. Sure, everyone would like to have Josh Rosen every year, but we were still fairly productive even scraping the bottom of the recruiting barrel.
In state talent wise, we've just fallen off the map. Selection of a different offensive system isn't going to mitigate the fact that in the mid 90's we had the choice of going to Childs, Benning, or Green from the metro. Now, we're lucky to get a back every couple years that is D1 capable in any system. The same would go for OL.
My thoughts were hit and miss, but all in all I think I was right for the most part.
[] - Right
[] - Wrong
[] - Not a right or wrong, just an observation
Last edited:
You really have no idea what your talking about do you? TO had 5 top 10 finishes alone from 1987-1996. So in case your math skills are as bad as your bullshit skills, that's 50% of the time TO was landing top 10 classes in that period alone. (reference posted below). He also had the #1 class in 1985. I am not making this shit up. I know he did very well in the early 80's & 70's. TO was a living room king.
But I agree recruiting rankings were different. Services were more reactive back then vs proactive and they weren't as easily available for everyone.
http://hailvarsity.com/news/college...husker-recruiting-rankings-1987-2012/2013/01/
Waaaay too early to tell what kind of ceiling this staff has in recruiting. Now that they have had a chance to form relatioships, expect 17' to be a pretty special class.
Waaay to early---how? The coaches did have the full year to recruit their guys, correct.
Perhaps if we can start winning 10,11 or 12 games, then recruiting will follow. We all know the big dog recruits want to play for a winner. Maybe this is what you were hinting at?
No. Im talking about them building relationships with more juniors like Keyshawn Johnson jr. And Gebbia. I am pretty confident next years class will be higher than 15th.
