What's with all the talk about how bad our talent is
- Thread starter WestCoastCornhusker
- Start date
- Status
This post looks to me like you're trying to pick a fight. I won't oblige you.
I'll bite on this one. How do you define talent? Recruiting rankings can tell you alot but under Bobo our moderately ranked recruiting classes didn't tell the whole story as alot of the high level talent ended up transferring. It'd be interesting to see what our "average" star ranking was by the classes junior or senior year. I think that number would shock alot of people.
All anyone needs to do is look at the all Big 10 teams and the answer should be crystal clear to even the most ardent trolls.
I think we have some good, not great, talent. We have little depth. Maybe we have 65 (just picking a number, it may be way off) players that are at a high enough level that they can reliably contribute. We need at least 15 more of em. I don't see how anyone could argue.
It's because they did S&C testing and they have a scientific method for measuring athletic ability, and the results of those tests said there are more great athletes playing volleyball than football. And the football team has about 100 more players.
So it's no longer up for debate. They're 20 deep with guys who wouldn't have made the team as a walk on 20 years ago. Per performance testing.
So it's no longer up for debate. They're 20 deep with guys who wouldn't have made the team as a walk on 20 years ago. Per performance testing.
I have said multiple times that there were many in-game coaching mistakes. There's no arguing that. I'm just not convinced the guy can never be successful here like many believe.
I would argue that since Bo started recruiting, our lack of success is due to a combination of bad coaching and lack of talent.
I hope Riley is successful too....but I'm not going to sit around and bash our players, when we have a coach who is perennially average, and we excuse him of the results this year.
We blame TA because his last game was horrible in any league. This year's failures were as a team.
Imagine how many sacks we would have given up if TA had actually tried to go through his progressions.
We blame TA because his last game was horrible in any league. This year's failures were as a team.
Imagine how many sacks we would have given up if TA had actually tried to go through his progressions.
Maybe it isn't some great conspiracy theory or some "narrative" being forced on the masses. Maybe it just is what it is, we are not very athletic across the board.
You realize of course everyone thinks they have more talent then the next guy. The record says who you are the talent baloney is for losers.
Yes. That simple. Hopefully Riley is the one to fix it 1 season its enough to tell.
Riley and Langsdorff IMO are at fault for all our losses. What will you be saying this time next year?
Gotta dissagree with this. There is plenty of blame to spread around but saying it's ALL on the coaches is wrong.
They must test how well the girls are at cooking and cleaning. Seriously, did you even read what you quoted? When did Beav say anything about testing girls for football?
I'm sure Boyd has no idea how to adjust his testing to different sports and genders. Everything caters to football all the time.
Good friend of mine held a Husker position record for performance up until recently. When Boyd came out with what he said, he said, "If Boyd says that we don't have a talented/athletic team, we don't. And it's telling as to why we aren't winning."
We had an interesting talk about Callahan and "did we give him enough time". The knee jerk reaction is "he was horrible" but at the end of the day you need athletes and talent. With the talent he had on D and the studs he had coming in on O (namely a future first round draft pick at QB), could Callahan have won going forward? It was an interesting conversation in that our talent levels would have been at or superior to the best teams in the conference. With that being true, would he have won at least one conference championship over the next 7-8 years of given the chance? Feels like he might have. So should we have kept him instead of bringing in a guy who didn't win any and a guy who went 5-7 in his first season?
Crazy to think about right?
We had an interesting talk about Callahan and "did we give him enough time". The knee jerk reaction is "he was horrible" but at the end of the day you need athletes and talent. With the talent he had on D and the studs he had coming in on O (namely a future first round draft pick at QB), could Callahan have won going forward? It was an interesting conversation in that our talent levels would have been at or superior to the best teams in the conference. With that being true, would he have won at least one conference championship over the next 7-8 years of given the chance? Feels like he might have. So should we have kept him instead of bringing in a guy who didn't win any and a guy who went 5-7 in his first season?
Crazy to think about right?
I have been hearing a lot on message boards and Omaha radio about Neb having more talent than Iowa.
O Line. No
RB No
QB No
TE No
LB No
D Backs No
DL Yes
WR Yes
So what is the basis of this arguement? Star rating? Recruiting class rank? Neither of those helps you on the field. Being Neb, Mich, Penn State, etc does not give you more talent by default.
No, this is all a bunch of excuses on why we had a losing record. Now that the table has been set, some of you will just accept and repeat those excuses over and over for the next several years.
The truth is, Bo would have won 9 games again. Mike Riley has good points, but a winning record is not one of his strengths, never has been, never will be.
So keep feeding yourself the excuses, it is going to be a long several seasons.
The truth is, Bo would have won 9 games again. Mike Riley has good points, but a winning record is not one of his strengths, never has been, never will be.
So keep feeding yourself the excuses, it is going to be a long several seasons.
Don't even know why I'm responding to this, will probably regret it, but here goes... are you brain dead? What was Oregon State's record the 30 years before Riley arrived? Riley has had more winning seasons at Oregon State than any coach in the school's history. From 1972-1996 they won 4 games in a season only 4 times... And that was the best it got! 8 of Riley's 14 seasons at OSU he had a winning record on the season. They've been to 19 bowl games in their school's history... Riley has taken them to 9 of those 19.
If you want to say Bo would have won 9 games, go ahead... You can say that. You can't prove it, but if it makes you feel better, go ahead and say it. But it is flat out ridiculous to say a winning record has never been a strength for Riley, nor will it ever be.
Be ticked off all you want, you have that right... but don't be ignorant and post garbage like that.
I think the issue that is being debated is not whether we have the same level of talent as we had in our best years. Its whether or not we had enough talent to beat Illinois, Purdue, Iowa, BYU, NW and maybe WI
I think its clear our depth is lacking and starting level talent is not what it was in the past. Its also I think pretty clear that we have more talent than Purdue
How many all Big 12 players did we have in 2007 @rrthusker?
That team had no talent too, right?
Maybe we don't have much talent right now, but the all conference teams don't mean much when your coaching sucks.
I don't get the point of having a coach. Seriously, if all being a coach is about is recruiting, then what makes Mike Riley better than anyone else? And I'm not saying that as a knock to Mike it's just rhetorical. It seems we often forget the coaching part of coach. "wait til he gets his players" is a favorite. But you could say that about ANY coach we could have hired named Riley or otherwise. I don't get this mentality or line of thinking. Now, Bo was not getting it done on or off the field and I dont think too many disagree with that, but to insinuate that our talent Is worse than Purdue or Illinois is just ridiculous. The truth is we have a 5-7 team. Blaming that all on mike is wrong, but blaming it all on the players is wrong too. And I hoped we would have higher expectations for mike Riley than "wait til he gets his guys", cuz if that's the standard you may as well take a shot in the dark with anybody and mike isn't that special. We should still expect our coaches to....ya know...coach.
We aren't saying otherwise... We all agree that coaching needs to improve... But when you overhaul systems there are growing pains whether you want to admit it or not. The 5-7 record is attributable to many different factors, both coaching and players' performance.
And I would say we do have higher expectations... But what we saw this year with a new system, well, we need the right players to run it. I'll give you one example. If we are gonna be a pro style offense, do you want A) Tommy to run it or B) someone who is a better decision maker and passer? If you said B then that means wait til he gets his guys.
Now if you want to argue that he shouldn't have gone pro style this year because of the kinds of players we have, that's a valid argument. But if the coaches are gonna install new systems it's only fair to give them a chance to get the players who can best run the new systems.
Sounds like you disagree with our current talent level. The problem is, as our recruiting class stands today, we are the same or worse than any point in recent memory for any class. But by all means continue to whitewash this class/Riley that is arguably worse than any recent class at the same point before xmas in the recruiting cycle.
Actually there was some analysis done of at least the star ranking of the starters of Purdue versus the starters of Nebraska for that game. Purdue's players had an average star ranking higher than NU's in large part due to all of NU's injuries on defense and at QB. On top of that our WALK ON backup QB threw 4 ints and their scholarship QB played well. So in fact at least on that day, Purdue had at least equal talent on the field and we turned the ball over FIVE times.
I'm gonna go on record and say that, unless the situation changes dramatically, sometime in mid February, our recruiting class for 2017 is gonna look even worse...
Don't know why it's so hard to get that measuring the class "as it stands today" is so silly. If you're gonna say this class is the worst in recent memory before Christmas come with facts. Convince me. I'm not just gonna take your word for it, you need to show me how much better all of Bo's classes were on December 21st during his tenure. You may be right, and if so, I will stand down. But I want to see the proof.
Which is what we could be saying with any other coach is my point.
I guess I just really want more proof that Mike is the right guy for the job other than "wait til he gets his players" after a 5-7 season. I'd like to be saying that after an 8 win season because improving would mean 9, 10 11 12 win seasons. Improvement for us now is >6.
If we win the bowl I'll be encouraged, so there's that.
You should have been encouraged by how we played the last 3 games. Good heavens we beat a team in the playoff and could have beat an undefeated Iowa team ranked in the top 10 if our QB had made better decisions.
But we don't have the talent to beat top ten teams. Err...wait...I guess? Yeah maybe we do.
5-7. Say it three times. It's not that crazy to be upset with that and fans that are shouldn't feel like women in Salem in 1690.
5-7. Say it three times. It's not that crazy to be upset with that and fans that are shouldn't feel like women in Salem in 1690.
We didn't have a bunch of guys play against Purdue that played against MSU and that includes TA. Time to let 5-7 go. Fans need to look at he big picture and how we in fact DID beat a top ten team late in the year as we got healthy and the kids grew more comfortable in the new systems. That's something we haven't done in a long long time and that gives me hope.
It was a great win. It was fun.
But One of 5. And Iowa was supposed to be much much worse and we were much healthier then, too.
Whatever. Go skers. Time for revenge against ucla
But One of 5. And Iowa was supposed to be much much worse and we were much healthier then, too.
Whatever. Go skers. Time for revenge against ucla
Well the good news is that the coaches have a year under their belt so they "better understand the Big 10", they have more time "to get buy-in from the players", they have a chance to recruit "better talent", hopefully realize that it is not Eli Manning behind center (and whatever). The bad news is that the last time MR had a team go 5-7, the following year his OSU team went 3-9.
Maybe it's talent, maybe it's coaching, and most likely a combination. But if we are going to suffer through losing seasons, I would have prefered investing the time in a coach that had shown a propensity or potential to win consistently. The talent conversation is subjective, we have fifteen plus years of demonstrated performance to judge coaching ability.
Maybe it's talent, maybe it's coaching, and most likely a combination. But if we are going to suffer through losing seasons, I would have prefered investing the time in a coach that had shown a propensity or potential to win consistently. The talent conversation is subjective, we have fifteen plus years of demonstrated performance to judge coaching ability.
Are you telling us that we are going 3-9 next season? Thanks for ruining my Christmas...
- Status
