Tristan Gebbia is a HUSKER
- Thread starter red runner
- Start date
I think we will land at least one five star. I'm hoping for three because I am greedy.
We could also use a really good tackle and a really good JUCO DT. Another good TE wouldn't hurt either
Momentum is a heckuva thing and we have some great momentum going right now! Can't wait to see how this class turns out.
It seems clear that the top players love Riley's NFL experience, his offensive system and the relationship built with WR coach Williams. What is lacking (and potentially similar to the Callahan years) is a strong connection to the defensive side of the ball. There isn't really all that compelling of a reason to commit to the Huskers if you're a star defensive player. The head coach really wants very little to do with the defense. The two star assistant coaches are the offensive coordinator (NFL experience) and wide receiver coach (a guy who bleeds WR coaching and connects with players.)
I think Parella is an upgrade on the defensive side. Maybe Bray will get some love based on what he's done with very little.
These recruits who are doing their best work to get their friends to come had better work their magic on some stud defensive players because as we've seen historically, the teams who compete for championships almost all have stout defenses.
I think Parella is an upgrade on the defensive side. Maybe Bray will get some love based on what he's done with very little.
These recruits who are doing their best work to get their friends to come had better work their magic on some stud defensive players because as we've seen historically, the teams who compete for championships almost all have stout defenses.
Yes having a former DC of the Cowboys as your secondary coach is a lack of connection. A position which arguably has been the best recruited early in Riley's tenure until the WR turned it up this year.
Top to bottom, our three most even recruiters might be Bray, Parella and Stewart on the Defensive side of the ball. Williams is awesome too. Langs is good for his one guy a year. Cav has done pretty well and Davis is more of a one guy a year guy.
Don't let the early returns for a couple positions on the Offense cloud the bigger picture.
That LB they have committed is supposed to be just a freak athlete. Don't be shocked if he gets a fourth star. They got some nice LBs last year as well, or are we forgetting that Quay was a 4-star with some services?
Don't be shocked if Dismuke or Domann ends up playing WILL, either.
We also seem to be forgetting that Jackson and Dismuke were 4-star DBs, Tony Butler high 3-star CB, Domann high 3-star ATH.
They crapped the bed on the DL last year, hence bye-bye Hank. Otherwise I don't know how much more you want on the defensive recruiting.
Thanks all for pointing out my error. My memory is apparently too short as I've been seeing a lot of hype about WRs and QBs, but as many of you have pointed out, it appears that the defensive talent is also getting the upgrades we need.
Very excited about the future.
Very excited about the future.
I agree. These days, a pro-style offense is as niche as the option attack was back in the day. Big fan of going this route.
So now it is OK to say that Coan's plays against horrible competition?
And BTW...congrats to you guys...huge pickup
I think it's ok if you're a husker fan. All other fans cannot suggest this.
I am not kidding myself, and in fact agree, but I'd attribute to the previous staff's (comparatively) lackadaisical approach to recruiting, or the fact that we didn't run a pro style offense that would fit their skills.
The suggestion from your previous statement would have the reason be something like these two players never would have been recruited because Pelini would have had to fawn over them, or because they would stick up for themselves (or something like this), and Bo wouldn't have that, as he only recruits people he can manipulate and who think he is God's gift to college football.
That is what I was objecting to. Did Bo recruit Abdullah because he could manipulate him, and he just happened to take Rex because his talent outweighed the risks of being unable to manipulate him? We also managed to get some high ranked guys during his time here, not as much as we would have liked, but some - were they all manipulable? (E.g., Nick Gates, the Davis twins, Niles Paul, Terrel Newby, Randy Gregory). All this seems to assume, also, that BP had a substantial effect on recruiting, and I'm not sure that's true. He didn't seem to give much of a **** (maybe that was your point?)>
I do not doubt that Bo Pelini cared a lot about control, way too much about control. Given what we saw at a distance, he seems to fit the profile of an authoritarian personality. I still don't see how that had an effect on his recruiting that you're claiming it did, unless you mean something else.
It might make me old and dare I say boring but I actually enjoy watching "line em up smash mouth football" better than the 55-48 no defense shootouts that seem to be becoming more the norm in CFB these day. Now I'm not suggesting going back 40 or so years to where the forward pass was for 3rd and long only but a good balanced attack that wears out other teams is fun to watch imo.
Speaking of which, I actually think running a pro-style O helps your D. You still have to get the athletes that can run with spread teams but my observation has been that teams whose Ds practice against a physical O tend to be way more physical themselves and late in the season are better...now that might seem a bit obvious but looking at it the other way isn't as obvious...Ds that practice against the spread tend to get pushed around and breakdown late in the season...even against other spread teams.
That's kind of what I meant...a pro-style (smash-mouth) O vs. a spread...sure some spreads are more physical than others but I've never heard of anyone calling a pro-style more of a finesse O.
Better yet you can still run fullback traps out of pro-style sets....Winking
Yeah, I've never understood why some people around here think a pro style offense can't include a power run game.
These things aren't mutually exclusive.
These things aren't mutually exclusive.
It seems to work fairly well for Alabama.
Honestly I'm surprised people do think that and I kind of assumed that when talking an O that uses inline TEs, FBs, has a QB under center, shorter splits between OL, etc (aka a pro-style O) that you are talking power football. This doesn't mean a team isn't balanced, doesn't go 3 or 4 wide, doesn't use slots, doesn't use the shotgun (though not as a base) or even high tempo, etc...the modern pro-style is more of a multiple offense but if it doesn't have a power component to it then I'm not sure I'd call it pro-style.
Whether or not an offense is "pro-style" has more to do with the verbiage and the overall concepts (particularly in WR route tree) than it does % of run plays or what the formation is.
A lot of the NFL offense has come to look like college. Teams were using wildcat, some run zone-read, etc. Any way you slice it, it's about trying to get numbers advantages and favorable matchups.
Yeah, when I hear "pro-style attack" I think of a power running game with a QB that can toss it to highly skilled, big play receivers.
I generally equate it with WCO concepts. Which, other than that little flat route to the FB, I would struggle to articulate...
2015 recruits: (They signed with Riley, not Bo so don't say they are Bo's recruits.)
Carlos and Khalil Davis-4 stars
Avery Anderson-4 star
Eric Lee-4 star
Dedrick Young-5.7 3 star, started as a true freshman.
2016 recruits:
Lamar Jackson-Damn near 5 star, best DB in California.
Marquel Dismuke-4 star
JoJo Domann-Highly underrated. Will play this fall IMO.
Pernell Jefferson-Highly underrated. Guy was committed to OU before coming here.
Defensive stars will want to come play for Bray, Parella, Stewart and Banker.
I'm not a coach, so maybe someone can explain it better than I, but how it was to a commoner like me by an actual coach was:
The primary difference between a spread and a pro-style is not how many WRs are on the field, if your QB can run or not, the size of the players (we'll get back to that)...but rather the splits on the OL (the distance between each OL)...what truly makes a spread a spread is how spread out your OL are.
When you think of it from a run game perspective...I might not be using the right terms but how it was explained to me is that what spreading out your OL does is create lanes...what the runner is looking at (reading) is which lanes the D is crashing/filling and tries to find one that isn't filled...think of a read option where a QB might read which lane a DE fills before decided to keep the ball or give it to a back depending on which is better positioned to hit the empty lane.
On the other hand, in a pro-style your OL are grouped closer together (at least at the snap) and the idea is to create a hole by over-powering a (hopefully weak) point on the other team's D...it's more about creating the point of attack and trying to dictate where the ball will go.
Now as I said I'd get back to the size thing...when you are trying to dictate the point of attack it often helps to have some bigger guys including skill guys like TEs and FBs...if you bring more hats and power to that point of attack it is easier to create holes. But that doesn't mean you have to always be in two TE sets with a FB to make it work. In fact that can be counter productive as it makes you too predictable. A modern pro-style can go from a power rushing look to a "spread out" formation by simply subbing two players...but what doesn't change much is the splits on the OL (though you might have OL go from a 3 point stance to a two point)
I'm sure there is way more to it than that...just what was explained to me.
WRs having a much deeper route arsenal is part of it, as is the QB going through more of a progression. The knock you hear on some guys in the draft is they were only running a few routes or making a couple of reads.
Yeah, I think complexity is the biggest part of a pro-style offense. Basically, all those things that would require strategy to gain an edge on the competition, rather than just athleticism (which seems to be mostly what the spread is based on, getting athletes in space). (The joke was specifically in reference to the WCO, which is predicated on shorter routes).
You expect the QB to be able to read the defense, anticipate routes, and audible
Though complexity varies regarding what is expected for WRs, you might think they are also reading the defense and running different routes accordingly (or, also, as you put it, more routes). I know the Patriots do a lot of option routes, but they also have one of the more complex systems (one reason why many veteran receivers successful in other places fail there).
I heard Boomer Esiason talk about the WCO (and learning it under one one of its inventors Sam Wyche)...he said the difference (from the QB perspective I guess) was really the footwork. He called it "hopping." Before that he would drop back, scan the field and when he found his man he would set his feet and throw. In the WCO he "hopped" through his progressions...meaning he would hop his feet into place to where the first read was...if not open then he'd hop his feet to the next read...and down onto the last read. He said it was really quick (running through the progressions) but once one was open he already had his feet set and just threw the ball...I guess this lends itself to quicker than usual checking down to shorter throws but on any throw (including long ones) the QB gets the ball out faster...he said it was hard to learn because it required incredibly precise footwork and lighting quick anticipation (because you have little time to determine if a guy is open between "hops") but once mastered is almost impossible to stop.
Hope I gave his description some justice...
Makes sense, as it is predicated on getting the ball out quickly, and in that capacity the short-passing game becomes similar to the progress you might expect to get from a really good run game.