A
Who had more talent than Nebraska in the west last year? The only team you could argue is Wisconsin. If you would look back at the star average of the Pelini classes, he was bringing in more higher rated players than the rest of the west. It isn't saying much because most of the west never had great classes on paper. Wisconsin possibly had more talent the past 4 or 5 years because Bielema had a good system put in place and his players outperformed the rankings. The likes of Iowa, Minnesota, and Northwestern were never putting together better classes on paper in in that span. Nebraska had the talent to win th division last year, but for what ever reason played poorly most of he season. It's year two and the transition is over. It's 9 or 10 wins or bust unless we have a lot of key injuries.
No they won't because Nebraska on paper has had more talent than anyone in the west according to rivals are ruining classes the last 4 or so years. I guess you could revisit the rivals rankings and maybe they aren't good at projecting talent. That is another issue. Wisconsin is the only team I would say had better talent possibly because Bielma knew how to recruit to his system as good as anyone. Their classes were never ranked highly.
You can spin it anyway you want, but game management alone cost us three games last year. Pelini could even figure out a way to beat the likes of Purdue and Illinois. It's a big year for Riley. We had to hear how a moron could win 9 games the prior years. Riley should have no problem. The schedule is there to get to 9 or 10 wins. The next couple years the schedule is going to get much tougher.
I went back to 2011 to 2014 of the BIG west teams and looked at the overall rankings. Here is the average. Nebraska 29, Northwestern 71, Wisconsin 48, Minnesota 58, Illinois 58, Iowa 46, Purdue 71. Rivals might have to reevaluate their methods of rankings if Purdue had more talent than Nebraska. Another couple things that hurt Nebraska is Pelini had some smaller classes and would have had a higher ranking if he took more kids. The star rankings are very similar to Riley's so far. Pelini was most likely going to have a top 25 class in 2015 before his firing. That class ended up 28 in the transition. The Purdue has more talent debate is laughable. Put up whatever fancy graph you want, but it is all spin. Like I said Nebraska had enough talent to win the west the last couple years and didn't for whatever reason.
The biggest thing I see from this is Pat Fitzgerald is one of the best coaches out there. If he had top notch talent he would be considered a top coach. Minnesota and Wisconsin also exceeded the recruiting ranking expectations.
Last edited:
Rankings don't factor in players no longer around for whatever reason, out for a game, passed on depth chart by someone else, etc.
Depth charts, go look at each game then come let everyone know.
Depth charts, go look at each game then come let everyone know.
Their argument is that Janovich, Weber, Reilly, Gangwich, and Foltz (RIP) did not belong on a P5 roster as they are/were walk-ons. A UNL journalism grad made a spreadsheet and stuck a 2* rating on all the walk-ons, calculated an average, and proclaimed Purdue had more talent.
Yea and Nebraska still had more talent than Purdue by a ways. What units on Purdue were better than ours last year? You aren't going to find many if any. Anyone who says Purdue, Illinois, and some others we lost to had more talent have an agenda. We went into last year thinking we had good talent and poor coaching prior to Riley, but losses started piling up, and since some had an agenda it couldn't be the fact the coaching was substandard. It went from poor coaching to no talent, to the Pelini virus. However, in game coaching alone lost three games last year. It's a new year now, so all will be forgotten if Riley and co. step up and win games. The nice guy talk won't matter if he doesn't produce. Anything less than 8 wins is a failure.
Listen man, it's simple. Nebraska, as an entire team, had more talent than Purdue. You won't see me post anything else. Point blank, that simple. There's no disagreement from me, so quit pretending like I'm saying anything else.
However, the 2-deep in that game for both teams showed Purdue had a slight edge in average Rivals stars. Point blank, that simple. My memory may be off, and it's possible it was other teams but from what I remember from social media, it is what I stated.
You're responding without understanding what you're responding to.
Well, that and Purdue got up considerably and took us out of our run first game plan. That required a lot of passing attempts by the back up walk-on QB. So, numbers get skewed. Imagine that. Of course, that doesn't fit the narrative of quite a few critics ITT.
This argument is pointless. It punishes our guys for beating out/replacing injured higher ranked guys at the same position. If that's the hill you want to die on saying Purdue was more talented, go ahead, but under no logical circumstances was that team more talented than ours, period.
Just a general question, not at anyone in particular...when is it okay to officially call a walk-on talented? Since high school star rankings are the end-all-be-all to label a kid/team/roster talented, how long do we have to wait until a walk-on can be included in the "talented" group? All-league, drafted, make an NFL roster? What are the "talent" rules and guidelines?
I guess the same question could include 2-star and low 3-star players as well. Like, is JJ Watt talented yet?
I guess the same question could include 2-star and low 3-star players as well. Like, is JJ Watt talented yet?
And don't even start giving me any of those combine numbers of his or the NFL Defensive POY crap. I ain't hearing that.
My sarcasm isn't thick enough.
All I'm saying is that zero coaches in America would take Purdue's roster or two-deep last year over Nebraska's. There has to be something more than taking rivals' freaking high school ratings as gospel for when a kid is talented or not.
It's not an argument, it's stating a fact. What I stated doesn't punish anyone, I just shared a fact that I read on social media. Pretty sure it was a graph on Twitter for something like seven or eight games, can't recall for sure. Their 2-deep had a higher ranking than Nebraska's 2-deep. Again, I could be remembering the wrong game.
Purdue, as a team, was not more talented. Purdue, as a team, was not more talented. Purdue, as a team, was not more talented. Purdue, as a team, was not more talented. Purdue, as a team, was not more talented. Purdue, as a team, was not more talented. Purdue, as a team, was not more talented. Purdue, as a team, was not more talented. Purdue, as a team, was not more talented. Purdue, as a team, was not more talented.
If I need to repeat it some more, I'll gladly paste that a few more times.
Well, there you go again describing reality. So; IMO, if we become the one run game plan, the undefeated by phone , call it in group propose; thats the D-plan we will face every game until.......... !
IMO the coaches are going to go for a dominant run game; but :
- TE's and receivers will be running the ball also.
- We will lob the ball long every so often.
- We will have a lot of trap plays and misdirection.
- qb will have some options.
- screens every where.
- a short passing game; including what used to be called :underhanded forward laterals; which are harder to detect.
- fullbacks involved; running and receiving.
- rb's as check down receivers, in open zones.
- A stellar group of receivers; laying wood and at times brushing and breaking wide open.
- An ornery run blocking line ( in place , but young ).
So whats the point ? You have to be able to punish a D for stacking the box; or playing up vs the run !! It Creates a lot of opportunities. TA has had multiple 70% plus completion quarters in this system; which is still developing and IMO he didn't fathom at times. So though its true we are a year away from true qb independence ( where we can substitute to strength ); If the light is on for TA , its a great system. We can get a D on its heels; with uncovered receivers and the occasional gaping holes for the running backs.GBR.
You don't just take what the D gives you. You confuse it; exploit it; then stuff it down their throat.
This would be a good topic, assuming it could stay civil throughout. I'm really curious what the opinion of many would be.
Watt is the best you have, from 2007?
Obviously, there are others. But that is an obvious and extreme one that everyone knows. Nobody cares about the 2-star that performed like a "high 3-star."
I do. I also care about 2-stars that perform less than that, it does work both ways.
Getting it closer to home; are they Willis, Marsh, Martin, Sutton, Evans type 2-stars or are they Jake Cotton or Ganz type 2-stars?
Yes, I know. I do not though. I've been fairly clear in my disagreement with using star ratings as a measure of talent once a kid gets on campus, so there's not much chance I'm going to spend extra time researching the star rating/college production ratio. I'd much rather just wait until I see the production, then analyze the talent. I've always been a results guy, and I also don't see perceived potential based almost strictly on athletic ability(star rating) as talent. Way too many other factors come in to play for the kids who actually produce.
Not saying I wouldn't be interested in seeing some kind of study there because I am somewhat curious, but it's not my cup of tea.
Let's live in reality once again. The game was once 21-16 in the 3rd quarter with Purdue leading. They were never up by a huge amount until the 3rd quarter. Our game plan was garbage. We passed 48 times with a backup with his first career road start. Purdue was ranked in the 100s in rush defense and we never tried to establish the run. It would have also kept our poor defense off the field. If we establish a run game we most likely win.
One thing I appreciated from a poster the other day is that QSU offered 17 five stars last year ( if I recall correctly ); and got two. These were defending National Champions. Its not so easy. One would expect that most here assume its a higher success rate; I know it adds up over the years. ..... Its CFB; so there are upsets every week. Just some random comments here. The number was a 40% wash - out for five stars I believe - but also a high all-star rate some years. I do believe our staff can go to a camp and see what looks like potential pro ability - on a physically gifted and developable player and jump in before others, regardless of the stars. The reason a great post gets jumped ( the poster that pointed out 98% don't get rated and may not have been in the system long); is that there aren't so many diamonds out there unnoticed ; when they are grabbed its not mentioned enough in the general news. Plus the services upgrade stars quickly; based on offers and camps ( so a one or two star might jump to a four star after a camp or two and An NU OFFER ); so looking back it might seem like just another four star. GBR
The quote could be found; but coach T O and N ran their own board of top rated players by position. The ratings companies have come a long way since; but it can still be somewhat misleading by stats from dominant HS teams and competition levels. Essentially Coach O said it wasn't necessarily true that if the top 50 players had to say yes if N offered; that it would be good enough talent, by his evaluation, that he would make his 25 offers ( For "trolls ", he would need a bigger pool ).GBR
Not familiar with you, or anyone else for that matter, the above does clear it up going forward. Believe it or not but I'm in agreement with you to an extent as far as once they're on campus. So much can happen either way.
Two 5-stars is a nice haul, there's only three teams that did better; Alabama, Georgia and Clemson. A quick check shows there was 31 total 5-stars in that class. 40% of 5-stars washing out isn't a bad number, that means 18 didn't wash and 12 did. I assume it's a much higher % for 4-stars, 3-stars, 2-stars, etc. I understand the 40% you mention isn't towards the OSU class you brought up as they just arrived on campus, so maybe it wasn't fair for me to use the 40% on that class; hopefully the point stands though. Crap, another study, maybe @PeliniTheCrutch will head that study and get it to us pronto. Yes, I'm joking.
Very good points you make, thanks for the nice reply.
YES ; enjoying your posts. The stats have been posted here; so someone may have them available and repost them; but it is as you suspect.
Wisdom is understanding 40% isn't a bad number. Many top posters suffer here; from responses directed at them by those who seem to think success should be 100%. People are human ( or close ), opposing coaches adapt; opponents hit back. There is still a competitor quote on Memorial stadium I believe.
I think the weird assumption is even if a walkon earns a scholarship, they must be inferior in some way. There are some walkons that develop and turn out to be superior athletes and better competitors than some of the out of state scholarship guys.
You don't have to go away from a run game if you're down 6-13 points. You guys are making it sound like we were down by 28 early which we weren't. The game didn't get out of hand until the 3rd quarter. We didn't even try to establish a run game and deserved to lose with that poor game plan. The best way to protect a poor defense is to run the ball and play keep away. You also would have protected your backup qb who gave away quite a few points off turnovers. If I remember correctly Fyfe turnovers helped Purdue score 14-21 points which was ball game right there. We didn't even try to do it against the worst run defense in the BIG. It was a poor coaching job.
Good to know we're not even waiting for losses, but instead, we're preemptively making excuses for lack of talent. How much more time do we have to blame Pelini? He also was responsible for 9/11.
A
anon_umk0ifu6vj6zi
Guest
Good to know a discussion on roster can upset someone so much. As for your Pelini gripe, I would say as long as someone wants to, and the Blo apologists really should not have a problem with it. Every year he was here, nothing was his fault and everyone was out to get him.... right?