Life in the Red Group

Posted by: Mr HH on February 22, 2012 9:26AM CST So, Coach wants to measure and analyze responses to predetermined questions from 18 year olds to help measure them up for what Nebraska needs? I have 6 kids and have tried that, but I can ask the same question to the same kid and get several different answers on any given day lol

Posted by: Bo Knows on February 22, 2012 9:36AM CST Mr. HH I don't think the questions are so much for the kids as for the teachers, coaches, counselors who know them.

Posted by: bigcajunhusker on February 22, 2012 10:01AM CST Assess away, but at the end of the day, you need commitments from the highest ranked recruits you can get, and lots of them. Patience is great, and getting too many commitments too early is a doomed strategy, for many different reasons (just ask Mack Brown how well that has worked out for Texas). You have to strike a balance and be sure you don't spend so much time analyzing that you don't do anything to bring about commits.

Posted by: RED KOOL-AID DRINKER on February 22, 2012 10:15AM CST yeah lets get all those high star recruits. Maybe we can be where Texas and Notre Dame are. OH thats right we had a better record than those guys. Lets let BO and his coaches do the recruiting,I believe they know just a little more than we do[at least me any way].

Posted by: fleaflicker on February 22, 2012 10:21AM CST I really don't think this will make a great amount of difference in recruiting.....what will is what the Husker coaches do with them after they're here. Development and fitting the scheme to the talent is key....IMO, Pelini and crew are still trying to master that element.

Posted by: Ray in Bellevue on February 22, 2012 10:29AM CST Oh well, at least Bo realizes that he can do better with recruiting. That's a start, anyway.

Posted by: fleaflicker on February 22, 2012 10:38AM CST Sip.....I appreciate the topic of your article. IMO, the last two seasons have shown an obvious lack of mental and physical toughness within the Husker team. We all get hung up with the recruiting.....which is dam important.....but being a blue collar tough football team with a swagger that "we are tougher than anybody" is the only way we will again start winning championships. I would be interested to know if Pelini has tweeked his "process" to get his players to be more consistant in their focus and toughness?

Posted by: mike5790 on February 22, 2012 10:40AM CST flea, I think they are looking for incremental improvements here, and as long as the consultant isn't bilking the AD out of money, that's OK. bigcajunhusker, what metric do you use to judge the rankings (priority) of ranking those who rank the recruits. If you want to see just what a mess that'd be, go and try to pick stocks based on analysts ratings. There are patterns, and you can get an idea, but the idea of "highest ranked recruits" is a bit like building an NFL team solely based on individual workouts at the combine (as an extreme example). I think a better question is what this subtly says about what Bo thinks about his current process, and maybe the current team? Or perhaps he's just trying to get an edge on the 3* that really are better than the "experts" think?

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 22, 2012 10:41AM CST For the love of all that it is good and holy, can people stop saying we don't want 5* recruits and using Texas as an example. A) We want 5 * recruits. If you have such a hangup about the term, think of it as saying we want freak super athletes. Look at some film of 5 * recruits. They are big, fast, and strong. B) Mack Brown won a NC and kicked butt when he had top notch recruits and assistant coaches. He still gets great recruits but without the supporting staff, his team is struggling. That does not show recruiting doesn't matter. It shows the importance of good coaching. Coaching + talent = success. C) It is worth reminding everyone that the #1 prospect in the country in '11 was sacking our QB in the bowl game. Yeah, those freak athletes often contribute as freshmen. But why would we want that?

Posted by: RED KOOL-AID DRINKER on February 22, 2012 10:43AM CST You don't fit the scheme to fit the player. You get the player to fit your scheme. Tom always recruited a player who fit into his offense ,not the other way around. BO has an idea of the offense he wants and Beck wants,he now recruits to that style.

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 22, 2012 10:52AM CST I've been critical of Bo's recruiting, but he deserves real praise here. It was bad strategy to put most of this year's class together in January. Now, Bo is addressing that saying that they want half of the class by the summer. Awesome. Great idea getting an outside perspective on their recruiting. I am sooooo glad that they are not being complacent here. Recruiting is one piece of the puzzle that is a NC. GBR!

Posted by: Silicon Valley Husker on February 22, 2012 10:57AM CST Bo should really just be consulting with the LITR. I have never seen such a collection of recruiting "experts" in my life. We all know the inner workings of the program better than Bo and understand his strategy better than he does. I'm surprised he hasn't sent checks to all of us already.

Posted by: joe t on February 22, 2012 11:02AM CST Let's stop the myth that TO won his NC's and had all his success from walk-ons and 2 stars. TO was a really good recruiter...in today's "rankings", Frazier, Gill, Taylor were all 5 star QB's. His running backs were mostly 4-5 stars as well. His OL recruiting was a position to fit the scheme of the offense, stocky run blockers who would hit low and drive to the next level which was not the prototypical NFL lineman. But very successful in college. Same as his blocking WR. Anyway, gofor2 nailed it....you gotta bring in upper level talent and have good coaching. One or the other will only get you average results. I want the 5 star freak of nature athletes who can cover the field, instead of the slow walk-ons at safety who are always a step or two late in making a play.

Posted by: Ture Husker on February 22, 2012 11:02AM CST I'm sure they'll be helping with how to sell DONU as well. Analytics can't hurt, esp. when you're gut has not necessarily been delivering the goods.

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 22, 2012 11:04AM CST VincentFo- TO ran the triple option. That was a unique scheme requiring players with nonstandard skill sets (for example, WRs that can hold blocks are more important than WRs that can stretch a defense). We don't have a hard to fit scheme anymore. We need a dual threat QB, but other than that our scheme fits with any great athlete. Other than a pocket passer, name one type of player that doesn't fit our scheme. We could use a great scat back as well as a great power back. We can use burner WRs as well as hands WRs. Our "multi" offense make us compatible with multiple talent sets. And yeah we do want fast LBs on defense, but all the freak athlete LBs are SEC fast. So, that point is moot.

Posted by: RED KOOL-AID DRINKER on February 22, 2012 11:11AM CST Never said we don't want or need a 5 star recruit,if we get one fine,but it shouldn't be a priority. Alot of those 5 star recruits have the feeling of entitlement,that no matter what they should play. I want a kid who wants to be here for the school and the state and wants to earn what he gets. I don't put a lot of store in these groups like rivals or the others. My son was a great basketball player in MO. He made several all-star teams. The recruiting services contacted him and wanted him to sign up for their service and depending on how much money we could give them they offered to put the stars behind his name. We decided not to be bought that way and he received a scholarship from a University in California and moved out there,he no longer plays,but got a great education and is now pretty well set in business and doing great. I am not going to say that all kids that have stars are signing up with these services. That was our experience with them,so that's why I don't put a lot of stock into the recruiting services.

Posted by: JohnTh on February 22, 2012 11:14AM CST you guys are great,but anything new and concerning DONU coachs or recruiting you have a knee jerk reaction,in that you will find the grey inside a silver lining.. Give BO and company a bit of credit and a bit of your patience.

Posted by: PlyNeb on February 22, 2012 11:20AM CST The competition for five stars is intense, so it it very difficult to get them to come to a small town in the middle of nowhere, particularly when the Huskers have had little success on the national stage in the last 15 years. The last five * I can remember the Huskers recruiting was Marlon Lucky and while he was a good player, he was nothing special. Need to identify the players and concentrate recruiting efforts on the best players we have a reasonable expectation of signing to an LOI.

Posted by: fleaflicker on February 22, 2012 11:22AM CST vince.....not if they can't fit into the scheme....Coaches have to utilize the talent they have and not try to put a square peg into a round hole. Ideally you always have players to fit your desired scheme....but it doesn't always work out that way.

Posted by: Ray in Bellevue on February 22, 2012 11:23AM CST Valley El Supremo is susposed to be our Blog coordinator. I'm sure that he can give Bo our thoughts to avoid any further recruiting screwups.

Posted by: RED KOOL-AID DRINKER on February 22, 2012 11:23AM CST Gofor2, I think that people put to much emphasis on the stars,some of the five stars earned them,but a hard nosed,skilled 3or 4 star can sometimes be better than a five star,just like walk-ons,once in a while you get that diamond in the rough. I am not saying we shouldn't go after the many stared athlete,but it isn't the end of the world if we don't land them. Nebraska has had great success with classes ranked real low,but that was with Tom,BO is not Tom and I am not going to compare the two. I trust BO will recruit well and we will once again be where we were. Thats why I am a devout red kool-aide drinker,I don't look at the stars. I watch the players that come to DONU and what they do on the field.

Posted by: casualobserver on February 22, 2012 11:26AM CST Maybe we could get a 2 for 1 deal with the research firm that has outside professionals for helping out BO. Could be Doc may want to borrow them too!

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 22, 2012 11:30AM CST Vincent- Fair enough. My attitude towards the 5*s is that old Cheap Trick song, "I want you to want me." But again, I don't agree with Nebraska bias about the elite recruits. Yeah, some are cocky attention hogs. But so are some 3*s. There are plenty of modest 5* that hate the recruiting game. They generally commit early and without fanfare. A player can be a superior high school athlete and have a good character. See Tim Tebow for example.

Posted by: Busiekcreek on February 22, 2012 11:30AM CST Today is February 22, 2012. Give me some good reasons why a 17 year old would want to come to Lincoln for his college football career. On the other side of the coin what would be reasons why a recruit would choose to go somewhere else. There are probably some good reasons why the recruiting has fallen to such a state as to require the hiring of a professional firm.

Posted by: Silicon Valley Husker on February 22, 2012 11:31AM CST Ray...I'm fine with him leading as long as I get my share of the check for consultation. I specialize in "Master of the Obvious" evaluations.

Posted by: RED KOOL-AID DRINKER on February 22, 2012 11:32AM CST Bottom line is that we all want what is best for the Huskers. It's a good sign when we may not see eye to eye on a topic,but can discuss it with out the name calling. Everyone has an opinion on how to get back where we want to be and in my opinion none of us is completely wrong or right. I respect your ideas on any given topic,so here's to all the opinions and the right to talk about them and to agree or disagree,but with mutual respect

Posted by: TomOs on February 22, 2012 11:37AM CST How did G.Gilbert fit into Tx's O.. I think he was the (or close) top QB in the nation his senior year..

Posted by: Ray in Bellevue on February 22, 2012 11:45AM CST VincentFo But, what are they doing on the field, with all due respect? Rex is our only superstar, a 4 star, now that David has left. Who else has excelled other than our kicker? Nothing to brag about with WRs yet, or OL. RBs could be good if ever used. DL is just average. Compton is finally showing some promise at LB. And, the safeties and corners have struggled. I just don't see a lot of talent being displayed anywhere. Maybe, it is the new conference? Maybe, it is the new offense? But, the defense hasn't changed. Maybe, it is new coaching at several positions? Or maybe, the talent just isn't obvious yet? That is my hope for 2013 with more development and experience, those 3 and 4 stars will shine through. Or, ugh, maybe enough talent just isn't there anywhere on the roster? That would really be a knock against subpar recruiting after 4-5 years. We know already that depth is pretty much non existant everywhere except RB. But, can we even find starters that can play well enough to win a division title, depth or no depth, with or without injuries? I just don't see anything happening in 2012. My hope is that 2013 will give us the depth, coaching continuity, system continuity, and enought coached-up talent to do more than finish behind the leaders. It would help if recruiting would also pick up with more 4 star and some 5 star players, just to give us a running start.

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 22, 2012 11:45AM CST Cheers to that Vincent

Posted by: Ray in Bellevue on February 22, 2012 11:49AM CST Valley El Supremo is susposed to share his big earnings with co-cordinators. It's probably just an oversight. Keep giving us analysis, and I'm sure you will be rewarded in the end. Also, remember, this is the time of year when it is better to give than to receive.

Posted by: TomOs on February 22, 2012 11:50AM CST Ray.. you might be surprised by the O-line next fall.. there is talent there, can we get it out of them.. thats big question.

Posted by: Ray in Bellevue on February 22, 2012 11:53AM CST TomOs I like pleasant suprises! Go Huskers!

Posted by: JohnTh on February 22, 2012 12:00PM CST Vincent @11:32 am-----------I wholeheartedly agree!!!! Just like to shakeup the troops from time to time. GBR!!!!!!!!!!!!! GOt to get a tall cool glass of red koolade!!!!!!!!!

Posted by: Fitzy on February 22, 2012 12:06PM CST You know how to get top recruits? WIN GAMES...

Posted by: Ray in Bellevue on February 22, 2012 12:09PM CST Fitzy It's the chicken and the egg dilemna.

Posted by: boomboom on February 22, 2012 12:13PM CST I'm all for recruiting 'tough guys' but lets get some fast ones too

Posted by: Fitzy on February 22, 2012 12:16PM CST OR ... If you cannot win the game... it better be against a very good team and you better not get blown out of the water. (see: Wisconsin and Michigan games) It also helps if you win Bowl games or at least look well coached in losing... Those are the areas we need work on this year... Should be an easy fix...

Posted by: Silicon Valley Husker on February 22, 2012 12:34PM CST I just reread the blog title.....Pelini wrote a novel? What is it called? Is it on Amazon? Is it a secret that no one is allowed to read?

Posted by: Country Husker on February 22, 2012 12:57PM CST Apparently the title is "recruiting idea." As in 'Pelini's novel, "Recruiting Idea."' The movie is coming out in the fall.

Posted by: Country Husker on February 22, 2012 1:01PM CST <--- I decided to post with this picture of Ray when he was younger in honor of his "Go Huskers" comment. Who's old enough to remember Lil Abner? Apparently, me.

Posted by: Country Husker on February 22, 2012 1:06PM CST <---Even better.

Posted by: Thehusker on February 22, 2012 1:18PM CST Pelini is two years from being fired.....COMMITMENT TO EXCELLANCE PELINI STYLE

Posted by: RED KOOL-AID DRINKER on February 22, 2012 2:04PM CST Country,I remember LIL Abner,does that make us old,lol. Daisy Mae, Dogpatch. There's a Dogpatch USA in Arkansas. Ray I don't think looks like that,but he probably does have that rain cloud hovering over him[no offense Ray]

Posted by: BUCK4NU on February 22, 2012 2:05PM CST Man I hate Morons!

Posted by: NU1995 on February 22, 2012 2:08PM CST Vincent Fo said: "You don't fit the scheme to fit the player. You get the player to fit your scheme." Some have said we didn't have the scheme for the Big 10. Or the players to fit the scheme or the scheme that fit our players. So apparently you DO have to fit the scheme to the conference? Baloney. Which fits nicely in a sandwich. A **** sandwich. You can fit the scheme to the players if you are a good coach. You play to their strengths. Did we have bad coaches? or just players with no strengths? Colleges do tend to fit players to their scheme in place. Apparently we haven't been doing this either?

Posted by: RED KOOL-AID DRINKER on February 22, 2012 2:09PM CST To which Moron are you speaking of Buck[as if I didn't know] I started to say or write something,lol,but thought I would just ignore the comment

Posted by: RED KOOL-AID DRINKER on February 22, 2012 2:16PM CST NU1995 point taken,but I believe you will see some differences this coming year. It definetly wasn't the year or the defense we all expected to see last year. Not sure if it was injuries or who we lost from the defense last year[don't really like the injury thing though,you will always have them,just needed someone else to step up] I am confident that BO will right the ship and get her guns loaded for this next trip into the Big 10

Posted by: BUCK4NU on February 22, 2012 2:31PM CST Vince. Just Sayin!

Posted by: Robka on February 22, 2012 2:35PM CST Svh well said. The coaching knowledge on this blog is unbelievable. I don't know why schools have a hard time finding a good coach to win a MNC? All they have to do is hire one of the hundreds of armchair head coaches on the LITR;). Until one of these bloggers show me their MNC rings I will continue to trust Bo BO BIG RED!!!

Posted by: NU1995 on February 22, 2012 2:42PM CST Whats an MNC? I know what an NC is...M? Minolta National Championship? Monday Night Championship? Midwest national championship? Not a coach anymore. I couldn't figure out what the M stood for. But I can tell when chicken salad isn't being made.

Posted by: Robka on February 22, 2012 2:43PM CST People tend to forget that Bo has a ring. Just like dr. Tom, Bo had 2 win his as coordinator first before he wins one as a HC. I just hope he can do it a little faster then TO;) BO BIG RED !!!

Posted by: NU1995 on February 22, 2012 2:45PM CST you forget Tom had one or two as a coordinator as well. Did he get credit for that?

Posted by: Robka on February 22, 2012 2:47PM CST Nu1995 MNC = mythical national championship, this refers to the fact that we don't have a true championship format. Unlike almost every other sport. GO BIG PLAYOFF!!!

Posted by: NU1995 on February 22, 2012 2:48PM CST misread...you said just like dr tom he had to win as coord first. missed the first period after ring.

Posted by: NU1995 on February 22, 2012 2:49PM CST thanks for clarifying...I see now!

Posted by: Father of future Husker on February 22, 2012 2:50PM CST MNC = Mythical National Championship ...as in, it's a "myth" since there is no real playoff.

Posted by: Silicon Valley Husker on February 22, 2012 2:54PM CST Country.....nice picture of Ray, but I think we all prefer the avatar that "perks up" the blog. Thehusker.....since it's excellence you seek, please start with a commitment to correct spelling. Wouldn't normally go there, we all have typos, but its on that site in several places.

Posted by: NU1995 on February 22, 2012 2:59PM CST so we really weren't champs in 1994, or 95 or 70 or 71. 97 doesn't count either, it was really michigan. and 70 wasn't really Texas? (Now that might qualify as mythical.) and PSU wasn't really the champs in 82 because they cheated with the weird shaped field. So we would have won. And we were also champs in 84, because if we had went for the tie we would have won. However, for REAL, we weren't champs in 1996 because we missed the playoffs because we lost N-N to ASU. Oh wait, the regular season was the playoff. i understand the idea of mythical...but I don't agree with it. Everybody had their chance. and does every year. They also get to make their own schedule.

Posted by: Robka on February 22, 2012 3:16PM CST Nu1995 we are MNC champs those years, but there has NEVER been a real div1a championship played. Facts are facts. GO BIG PLAYOFF!!!

Posted by: NU1995 on February 22, 2012 3:22PM CST so Bo is full of it? He said we are here to win championships. And I KNOW he doesn't just mean BiG championships.

Posted by: Silicon Valley Husker on February 22, 2012 3:24PM CST NU....I sold camera gear in HS at a drug store...nice 35mm stuff back in the film days. Minolta was scary at the time. Sort of the Ford Pinto. They did improve but I wouldn't want their National Championship....Div II level.

Posted by: Silicon Valley Husker on February 22, 2012 3:28PM CST Yes, please tell Alabama that they didn't win a national championship this year. They won a unicorn, not a title. No one has ever celebrated the current titles because we know that they are all meaningless.

Posted by: Wrestler on February 22, 2012 4:19PM CST SVH, I am a Nikon man? Does that meet with your expert approval? My "Big Red Train" for success conductor, VincentFo said it best on here? I respect your ideas on any given topic,so here's to all the opinions and the right to talk about them and to agree or disagree,but with mutual respect Robka, thx for beating the drums for D1 playoffs? Biggest travesty in sports today is the BCS crap system, for selecting two for the NC? In my mat sports, elite athletes do their talking the talk and walking the walk, on the mats for the proving whose best? So it should be for D1 FB as well? Big Dance in pumpkin warts has it right? Will a number 1 seed of four win the NC, or will a team that is not supposed to win do it? At least they have a chance for the proving? Whatever Coach Bo decides to try for the recruiting game is fine with me, since he is the surrogate CEO for Husker FB? TG unlike Hawkins, his outside consultant isn't Dominos? "Respect All and Fear None" Quarter past 6 am Thursday here in HK? Got quota? Go Pot Bellied Pigs! Remember, season pending is mutually exclusive from season past? GBR! Zhou Da Hong!

Posted by: Silicon Valley Husker on February 22, 2012 4:29PM CST Wrestler....Nikon is good stuff, although in the digital realm, several very good photographers tell me that Canon has the edge. I have a Nikon digital SLR myself...had a Canon in the days of film, so I guess I picked #2 both times?

Posted by: PT Husker on February 22, 2012 4:30PM CST Heard Sean Callihan talking about The Sterup Kid from Hastings today. He has put on about 40 lbs and had a great Redshirt season. Said he will challenge for the 2 deep this spring. The foundatiobn for success on O is the line. It is getting there.

Posted by: Islander/Husker on February 22, 2012 4:47PM CST I would like to know. is the (gofor2) the original Gofor2? His posts at times do not come across as the original. Could be wrong though. One way to find out. And only a few on the LITR would know this, PT for sure. The question. What is the secret that I refuse to reveal?

Posted by: Islander/Husker on February 22, 2012 4:50PM CST The (gofor2) would need to answer.

Posted by: atskooc on February 22, 2012 5:15PM CST i'm confused. just two weeks ago coach els said every one of the recruits we got for this past class was a plan-a recruit, which means they were all top priority. if every kid we bring in is a top priority kid, why do we need a recruiting consultant to help us bring in top priority kids? something's amiss.

Posted by: Silicon Valley Husker on February 22, 2012 5:23PM CST Islander....different (gofor2). Maybe we should ask for a rename to (gofor2)2 to avoid confusion. :) I haven't seen anything from the original in some time. Originally, we thought some troll was trying to imitate but the new one turned out not to be a troll.....but not the original.

Posted by: PT Husker on February 22, 2012 5:32PM CST IH, both Rluben and I have tryed to contact the origional to no avail. Hope all is well.

Posted by: Islander/Husker on February 22, 2012 5:53PM CST Thanks guys. I to hope all is well for him too. He has not posted since last year I don't think. I know that his profession of saving lives as a Dr. makes him a very busy guy.

Posted by: Low Country Husker on February 22, 2012 5:57PM CST IH, can't imagine this Gofor would know much about Tetralogy of Fallot.....maybe he does!

Posted by: Silicon Valley Husker on February 22, 2012 6:39PM CST Low...that sounds like something I had at an Italian restaurant recently. Is that a seafood dish?

Posted by: Low Country Husker on February 22, 2012 6:42PM CST Funny SVH, how are you doing today?

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 22, 2012 6:45PM CST I am not the original gofor2. I could change my name, but would that help at this point? (I could try [Pacer] to avoid confusion. jk) It was confusing for me at first as well.

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 7:47PM CST "Posted by: joe t on February 22, 2012 11:02AM CST Let's stop the myth that TO won his NC's and had all his success from walk-ons and 2 stars.' Let's stop the myth that those players you say didn't contribute did in fact contribute right along side those highly recruited players. Somehow I don't think C. Schlesinger was a national 4 or 5 star level recruit, yet he managed to do okay. and contribute to a national title. I'm pretty sure I could come up with about 30-40 other examples of players on those national title teams that weren't recruited by every school in the country. Don't get it twisted, it's always been a nice mixture and balance of Highly rated and highly sought after recruits from around the country mixed with a few in state recruits, mixed with a bunch of in state walkons, and a few out of state walkon...with the occasional Canuck walkon thrown in the mix. MOST of us know exactly how it was built and WHY it was successful. Some still need educated.

Posted by: big red 1 on February 22, 2012 7:56PM CST rluben>Agree with you 100% Were are people all of a sudden getting this idea that the walk on program did not contribute or work? A big scheesh for the month!!

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 8:01PM CST Another thing some of you "it's only about the 4-5 stars" guys can't comprehend and probably never will is that the walkons and 2-3 star guys far outnumber(ed) the 4-5 star guys every year and Push those guys to either perform, get better or get out of the way. The insignificance you place on the dudes who aren't touted as the be all end alls coming out of HS tells me exactly how much you actually know about what goes on during a season or the course of a practice session, or in the weigth room yadda yadda. Just because a kid has a few more stars don't mean they don't have to earn their spot on the field by beating out someone who wants that spot just as bad as the highly ranked dude wants it...it's called competition and it pushes everyone to higher heights. Without the passion of the backups pushing the starters you don't as much...so to run off at the mouth about kids not contributing is WAY OFF BASE.

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 8:03PM CST Jamal Tuner learned the hard way you can't just go through the motions this last season...it cost him coveted playing time.

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 22, 2012 8:12PM CST For the record, I am in the camp that the walk-on program was a huge part of our past success. Nebraska should be proud of our history and our walk-on program is part of that history. However, I don't think it can play the same role today. Advances in recruiting, limited scholarships, advances in weight training, and a standard offensive scheme, all work against our the effectiveness of our walk-on program. (A bunch of us posted at length about this the other day. I am only mentioning it now, because I didn't want anyone to think that I was denying our walk-on program's fine history.) History, check. Present day, much more limited role (but great for kickers).

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 8:14PM CST I'm not doggin J. Turner, He switched positions unselfishly, and made some nice things happen when he was on the field. He has obvious talent, but even he admitted he didn't bring it every day, and that just won't fly in big boy football.

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 8:20PM CST I agree it's not the same as it was numbers wise..it can't possibly be. Maybe the biggest contributing factor is the lack of a Freshman or J.V. program with a full time separate staff playing a 5-6 game schedule against Jucos and other D1 JV's. Without 2 distinct programs and the staff to accomodate them, it's pretty much near impossible to have the numbers they once had. It's still important, maybe even more so now, it can give you an edge with the scholy limits.

Posted by: big red 1 on February 22, 2012 8:42PM CST One of the unique aspects of Nebraska is everything it means to the while state. So the more young men , and the more towns around your state you get involved , the stronger you are going to be. Bo Pelini Nu 2011 recruiting guide.

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 22, 2012 8:43PM CST I don't buy the walk-on program as motivation idea. 1. Other schools have highly-motivated, hard-working players without a big walk-on program. They are not lollygagging at LSU. 2. It is not true that only the underdogs work hard. Rex works as hard as any walk-on. And Rex would work just as hard, if there wasn't a walk-on program. Let me concede a point. Some players (regardless of their stars) need outside motivation. And our coaches can use walk-ons as motivation. That I buy. But the idea that we can't have highly-motivated and hard-working athletes without a walk-on program....I can't see it.

Posted by: big red 1 on February 22, 2012 8:46PM CST Every one has to remember it is going to take time to even bring the walk on program back around after Calisham destroyed it. This is and was his most idiotic idea that he had come up with. I myself am glad Bo and Tom got the program restarted as it will only make us stronger in the long hall. GBR

Posted by: Jackson1 on February 22, 2012 8:52PM CST Sounds like BO got sold that swamp land in Florida. I think we have a Coaching Staff who are starting to doubt themselves. I've read IT many times on this blog......Football isn't that tough; don't make it tougher than neceassary. This "new tool" is designed to FILTER OUT prospects......NU needs to figure out how to FILTER IN more talent!

Posted by: big red 1 on February 22, 2012 8:53PM CST Gofor> This is where your thinking is a little skewed 1. We do not have the hot bed of recruiting like say LSU or Bama. 2. The walk one's push the skollies to do better. It comes down to either play or get out of the way. This is what helps NU in pushing the skolies to there potential and beyond. Also I do not fully buy into the star rankings as I believe they are to inconsistent.

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 8:54PM CST I strongly disagree that limited scholarship numbers has a negative impact on the walkon program or that it makes it even less important. I strongly disagree that the weight room, or any advances in training have any sort of significant impact on whether or not walkons can or can't contribute any more than it did 20 years ago. The same facilities, staff and training table, tutors, ect , ect are available to walkons that are available to scholarship athletes. Standard offensive scheme? Give me a break, athletes are athletes, they aren't limited to playing in one style of damn Offense of Defense. I played in at least 4 or 5 styles of O and 3-4 styles of D, some may be better suited towards one scheme or another, but to think an athlete can't make an adjustment is just narrow thinking. So you saying that Roger Craig and Tom Rathman played the same style of Offense for the Niners as they did in college? And of course you can't have a speedy Slot or wide reciever in TO's style of option, just ask Irving Fryar, Von Shepard, Bell, Dana Brinson and on and on. Sure......... So let me get this straight, Corey S. played FB in the I formation with a heavy dose of option for 12 years for the Lions, that's what you are trying to tell me? And every linemen who played at Nebraska and went on to play in the NFL only played on teams that ran lot's of options and smashmouth football...because they were recruited to pay in our style of O at Nebraska? Quit reading what someone self annointed expert tells you is what and use your noggin man.

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 8:55PM CST I guess maybe you think walkons aren't allowed to sit in the front of the bus or eat and train with the other players or drink from the same fountains and such.

Posted by: big red 1 on February 22, 2012 8:57PM CST Jackson> I don't think that is the case at all. Were do you see or read that BO is doubting himself?? I'm waiting, and waiting , and waiting. The cone of silence is all I hear. Go home puppet boy.

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 8:58PM CST I'm just messing with ya [gofor2] I know you're on of the good guys.

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 8:58PM CST One of the good guys not on them

Posted by: big red 1 on February 22, 2012 9:01PM CST rluben> Me myself I am just trying to educate the masses. LOL

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 22, 2012 9:04PM CST I am not directing this at anyone in particular. But is this about being the best football team or is this about some moral play about good v. evil? Cause sometimes I get the feeling that people want Husker football to be some underdog Hollywood movie. We are the good guys. We have amazing character but not much talent. We beat the bad guys. They have tons of talent but no character. They are lazy and arrogant. We are determined and hard working. The morale of the story is good character triumphs in the end. Again, I am not calling anyone out about this. And this is more of a feeling than a well thought out idea. But sometimes on LITR, I think, "This isn't about our football team anymore."

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 9:07PM CST So you're calling former scholarship players who have publicly stated that seeing the passion, desire and work ethic the walkons displayed while they were at Nebraska Liars? It's Propaganda? Of course not every player needs motivation, but extra competition and fire in practice sure don't hurt either. When you see someone's love and passion about something as special as say "Husker Football"...you can't help but catch a little of that vibe yourself if you are around it day after day.

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 9:08PM CST We have always went after talent from coast to coast. It's not some new concept, always has been that way, always will be that way.

Posted by: Jackson1 on February 22, 2012 9:09PM CST Why would BO feel the need to bring in some consultants? If he really felt he was "getting it done" there wouldn't be a need to inject another "unknown" variable. This move is nothing more than a CYA move on BO's part. It looks like BO's best recruiting vein is the sons of former Huskers......that's a real solid plan for sure. Take a look at this year's recruits, we probably signed as many as three who won't academically qualify. That my friends is the "ultimate compromise" it is all about an education....isn't it??

Posted by: big red 1 on February 22, 2012 9:10PM CST Gofor2> Here is another way to think about it and it involved me directly. Think of the walk on program as the reserves (BBall) and scollies as the varsity. It was our job of the reserves to fill in holes and push the varsity for playing time. This I did and did pretty good. I was not the best shooter nor the fastest but nobody and I mean nobody beat me on fast break defence. People knew they were not going to get the easy basket on me. this is like the walk ons. Even in this day and age of all digital people are going to be under the radar (see Worfileld Chadron State as ex.) This makes us who we are. This makes Nebraska football.

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 9:10PM CST Nope just some of us aren't going to let people try to twist what's what into something it isn't.

Posted by: big red 1 on February 22, 2012 9:14PM CST Jackson> Were are u coming from on three that will not qualify academically?

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 22, 2012 9:16PM CST Rluben- Here is why I think that the offensive scheme does matter. In the triple option, WRs need to be able to hold their blocks. It is a key part of the offense scheme. WRs blocking is a secondary skill for modern offense schemes. Nice if you have it, but not crucial. So, we could attract WRs that are not recruited by other school but could be hugely helpful for us. That is my best example. But I make the similar cases for other positions. Being a run dominate team made us better able to find niche players (walk-ons and lesser rated recruits) that could help us. Our past scheme fit better with the walk-on program than does our present scheme.

Posted by: Jackson1 on February 22, 2012 9:18PM CST Big Red 1 Do some research.....it isn't too hard to figure out who is "on the bubble". IF they qualify then they might someday play for us........hopefully smarter than dumber. YES.....they call that compromising and eventually we'll pay a price for it!

Posted by: big red 1 on February 22, 2012 9:19PM CST Jason Peter said it the best in his video Husker Century. Without a doubt , one of the reasons (walk-ons) why Nebraska football is where it is today That statement was made almost twenty years after the fact that he was not playing any longer.

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 9:24PM CST Why would Tom sit down and discuss football with another coach who handed him his azz in a bowl game and together try to figure out what could be done to avoid that from happening in the future. Son..you gots to get you some of these smaller faster Defensive hybrid type players almost a backer, not quite a safety..that's how you handle "Our speed" by negating it with your own speed. Duherrrr? Chalrie, guess what, we've been going about this all wrong, guess how we stop their speed on the edge and perimeter....wait for it, wait for it...SPEED MAN...we put players who are a little smaller than we have been using but are faster and can set the edge, cover a back or a slot or a TE, but can stuff the run too. We tweak our scheme a bit too to accomodate this new speed we will go recruit and get this, we can also send them on blitzes and they can get there faster. Waddaya think Charlie? Uhhh what did you say Tom, you lost me at speed, what's that? Fast backers who are small? Uhhhhhhhh.... Uhhhhhhhhhhhhh.. okay, you da boss. Walks away twirling hias finger around his ear. Yeah why would coaches make adjustments to how they do things when they are coming up a little bit short with how they been doing them. Wait for it...wait for it.... To try and improve, to move forward, to get better, to strive to reach the goals they have set. Why did teams start lifting weights and using nutritional science, why was Nebraska the first football team in America to hire a fulltime strength coach? Some people ask some goofy azz questions on here sometimes just to try to talk smack.

Posted by: big red 1 on February 22, 2012 9:25PM CST Jackson> They either qualify or they don't. I have been on Rivals site and I do not see anything about not qualifying. Try another one.

Posted by: Jackson1 on February 22, 2012 9:26PM CST gofor2 The "old scheme" was trashed with Frank Solich. You aren't suggesting a return to that boring run based offense that virtually guaranteed 10+ wins a year are you? Don't you know that 5* Players want no part of that wiining strategy? Don't you know that all that 5* NFL bound QBs won't want to play for Big Red? We went thru this 10 years ago and decided the WCO / Spread Offense is for US! GoFor give it some time....don't you know it took T.O. 1,005,999 years to win his first NC? If we weren't patient we may never have won an NC (might have won twice as many)!

Posted by: PT Husker on February 22, 2012 9:29PM CST The funny part of this discussion is everybody is right. Of course we need high profile players to be successful. But once in awhile one or two or maybe more some of thof tose low profile types shocks the world. Or fills a need as a backup. I would guess theat every program in the country has some kids that no body ever heard of sprinkled throught out their two deep. Not all the "stars" turn out and not all the nobodies are cannon fodder.

Posted by: Jackson1 on February 22, 2012 9:29PM CST BIG RED 1 A number of them haven't qualified yet, but most will. The majority of them don;t have the High School credit yet....but they will. There's at least three who are on the bubble with grades &/or ACT.

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 22, 2012 9:29PM CST rluben. I totally respect your ideas. You know the Xs and Os in a way that I will never. And I know that we both want the best for the Huskers. I enjoy bantering with you because you have interesting and informed ideas. Do I think past players were lying about being motivated by walk-ons? No. I said that coaches can use walk-ons as motivation. But without the walk-on program, good coaches would have found some other motivation (for the players that needed it). (At bottom, I am rooting for the walk-ons. I am not a Yankee fan (except Joba). But I see a fundamental difference between rooting for the underdog and pinning our hopes on the underdog.).

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 9:30PM CST That's just an excuse to justify your position. So what you are saying is Irving Fryar didn't fit into the triple option scheme? Rozier won the Heisman and rushed for over 2,000 yards because Fryar was an excellent downfield blocker and not because he was a vertical threat that had to be accounted for always thus taking at least one run support man from the secondary out the equation that Rozier had to run over or avoid? None of those linemen could play in any other scheme but the option? Come on man. Try again.

Posted by: big red 1 on February 22, 2012 9:31PM CST Jackson> are u mentally deficient?? That just maid no sense at all.

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 22, 2012 9:32PM CST PT- Stop playing the voice of reason. I know your earlier work. hehehe.

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 22, 2012 9:36PM CST BR1- Jackson is a negative nelly. He is one of the posters that make us appreciate Ray.

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 9:39PM CST It's all good [gofor2] I want very talented and highly recruited and ranked players to come to Nebraska too, always have wanted that to be the case and always do want that to be the case. I want the staff to be aggressive in that endeavor without selling their souls. I just don't put it all on who we get, I know from experience their is tons of talent everywhere you go...I'm good with who decides that the Huskers are who they want to play for. The whole entire process is fun to me when we have people in place who care about things like Tom, Bo and his staff care about Nebraska football.

Posted by: big red 1 on February 22, 2012 9:42PM CST night all.

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 9:46PM CST Some of what you say does have some truth to it. I don't think players have to be as physically or mentally as tough in our current schemes as they had to be back in the day. It takes a different mentality and mindset to go about imposing your will on your opponent play after play as opposed to trying to square dance with them about 60% of the time. I have yet to watch a HS Highlight tape in the last 5-6 years of teams that gets down n dirty and just shoves the ball down an opponents throat, it's all spread concept crap. Breeds and develops a little bit different player than my generation IMO. We don't need no stinkin 7-7 championships...we payed tackle football on gravel lots with stickers and holes and all sorts of cold things like glass and we did it for the joy of it. Now some parent would sue the owner of the lot if their kid got an owie playing there.

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 22, 2012 9:59PM CST Rluben- Nah. You are not getting what I am saying at all. Fryar was great because he could block (essential) but also be a deep threat (super star). It was the later ability that elevated the offense. Look at our WRs for '97 team. They were a key part of the team, but they didn't have the skills to play for standard offenses. But again, they were a key part of NC team. The Huskers have had amazing athletes that played beyond their triple option days. But they also had great stories of player that only got a chance because we had a unique offensive scheme.

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 22, 2012 10:03PM CST Can't post fast enough for my comments to stay on pace. Night BR1.

Posted by: boomboom on February 22, 2012 10:05PM CST I H 'football is easy'?

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 10:08PM CST You are right, recruiting is very very important, I just like to argue the other side of it. To keep things evened out I try to point out it's a process rebuilding things that have been destroyed maybe even more of a challenge here at "Nebraska" when you don't have a ton of population to pull your recruits from right in your own backyard and watching corn grow isn't as big a deal as it used to be.

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 10:12PM CST I just like to argue the opposite is all, lol. We are both right like PT said. My point, maybe, is you can't just lay it all on scheme or the players we got/get or this or that. So much more comes into play than just who you get or how you do what. It's why when you have a nice run it's special and didn't happen by accident.

Posted by: boomboom on February 22, 2012 10:12PM CST BR1 the walk on program is at the heart of the fullback program and the training table Go Big Red Meat

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 22, 2012 10:22PM CST rluben agreed.

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 10:26PM CST No I do get what you are trying to say. I call BS, because Both Von Shepard and Dana Brinson were very fast, nearly as fast as Fyar, and Bell a few years alter after them wasn't slow. The last thing I'd think of when I think of those dudes is shut down blockers. Fact is T.O. continued to try to recruit Fryar types although he's an extreme example because of his obvious doesn't come around often talents. It's not easy to get guys who just want to catch ball and dance in the endzone to come play big boy football, so he had limited success in attracting those types...to say he didn't want them or didn't try to recruit them is plain denial...they fit just fine in the option scheme if they were okay with not being the center of attention or not getting the ball 10 times a game. Even more of a home run threat in an O that can use them in devastating play actions....the threat alone of that is what makes the player(s) responsible for covering them play honest and not be quick to come support the run, they don't even have to be good blockers to be effective at taking their man out of the equation...now if they can attempt to make a block or get in the way and be a nuisance the you really got something going.

Posted by: HUSKER!!!! POWER!!!! on February 22, 2012 10:37PM CST I think the new method is kind of silly. People say all kinds of things and you're taking them at their word or hearing all kinds of things. I think it just leads to confusion and creates a runaround. It also involves more people in the process and more people who know your intentions, especially if the "experts" you hire are hired to the highest bidder. I like the TO and old-school approach better which is to talk to the recruit. If you're saying you need a firm to do that, you're saying you don't really know what you're looking at or your just adding more people to limit liability. I think if you do your job as it's been done for the last 30-40 years or so you should be able to accomplish what you're trying to do. Obviously I'm not a fan of it. It seems like silly bureaucracy to me. If it helps great but it seems strange to do that and I seriously doubt TO would take that approach over what he thinks himself about a recruit. JMO

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 10:49PM CST My point earlier on Fryar is contrary to what most seem to falsely believe....a vertical threat receiver actually can thrive and can enhance and option oriented offense, and add that explosive play making ability that actually helps open up the run game too and makes play action even more effective at the same time...it becomes a double edged sword that is hard to defend. Now did T.O. change his O to suit a talent such as Fryar when he had a dual threat QB? Hell no, what he did is wiped the drool off his chin and scheme up a bunch of plays that took advantage of what was there to take advantage of with that talent..or at the very least tweaked what was already in place. My point again is just because you run an option oriented run first I formation North South O, doesn't mean you are looking for receivers who can only run block...that's just silliness. Now if you are a HS team and you have almost zero speed or talent at receiver and you are trying to run a pro style O or a pass happy run n shoot style of O, then you may be in trouble and might think about trying to get away from that stuff and run the ball more and use them as blockers since that's all they can do....you can still use them on play actions now and then. No way, no how does a D1 college program go out of it's way to recruit receivers that aren't receivers but in fact are small fullbacks...that's just silliness.

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 10:50PM CST These of course are just my opinions, not the gospel on the subject.

Posted by: HUSKER!!!! POWER!!!! on February 22, 2012 11:00PM CST RL...Absolutely. TO's recruiting approach was simple. Get some speed in few spots and pound up front until it hurts. When teams get tight hit them in the seam or over the top. He was a great play caller as well and knew how to pick away at a defense and exploit their weakness or just wear them out physically by having more and stronger guys up front. The point is I agree. Fryar is a perfect example of TO getting playmakers to stretch the field. Slot guys could and have worked in those offenses. TEs got some good work in too, in the seams and in the red zone in a number of formations.

Posted by: rluben on February 22, 2012 11:31PM CST Our lack of actual dominating wideouts over the years is more than obvious, they just want the ball thrown to them and will go where they will have the opportunity to be the man more often than they would have in a run heavy offense...like duhhh. What you going to do if you're one of the top receivers in the country play for the team that is always at the top in rushing or go somewhere that likes to fling it around? You can't help if if you're too stupid to know you could actually thrive if you'd be willing to sacrifice the me me it's about me attitude a little.

Posted by: MercilessOne on February 22, 2012 11:32PM CST Love it! So much attention is paid to recruits' tapes and measurables. I love to see more attention paid to their psychology.

Posted by: Silicon Valley Husker on February 23, 2012 12:04AM CST Low...had to do work for a while. Horrible winter day here in the valley. 74 degrees. Wanted to leave at lunch to golf. Unseasonably warm...we need rain.

Posted by: [gofor2] on February 23, 2012 3:54AM CST Rlub- You are probably right. A WR could thrive in the triple option. But the reality was almost none did. The reality is that we had far more blocking WRs over the years than vertical threat WRs. The reality of the triple option created recruiting advantages and disadvantages. TO became a master of exploiting those advantages. Not only that, but other programs have changed as well. The spread offense needs a dual threat QB. Tommy Frazier or Eric Crouch would fit nicely into many programs today. But they were viewed sceptically and dismissed as novelties by the national press at the time. In the past, TO was able to find players other programs didn't want (walk-ons and low star recruits) and use them to his advantage, in part, because we ran the triple option.

Posted by: Fitzy on February 23, 2012 8:40AM CST The beautiful thing about this discussion is that nearly everyone has different ideas and thoughts and nearly everyone is right... just in different ways.

Posted by: Dread-Boi Shawty on February 23, 2012 9:18AM CST The only way we get back to the top is to get top athletes. Or to have a coaching staff that can turn 3 star players into 5 star athletes. I'm sorry the the days of that are done you need top athletes for your defensive and offensive scheme. Outside of the nwestern game we look slow and a step behind talent wise in our losses. With a young and in experience coaching staff we need better talent. Recruiting isn't what it was 10-20 years ago but it's no lie about what schools with top ten classes also won the national title

Posted by: RED KOOL-AID DRINKER on February 23, 2012 10:10AM CST dread, I thought we looked a little slow too. I wonder though,was it due to lack of speed on our D-line? or was it our defensive scheme to try and contain the running QB's

Posted by: PT Husker on February 23, 2012 10:32AM CST I thought it was more "out of position" than slow. although it did seem that our d line had their feet in concrete at times. On the back side the reads were late which led to playing catchup a lot.

Posted by: Dread-Boi Shawty on February 23, 2012 11:04AM CST Lack of speed n confidence on defense is a Terrible mix. In 09 are defense was flying and punching offense in the face. 2011 we seem lost scared and not sure of ourselves. Offense wise it's simple OL was all talk never showed up in big games. Tmart is not a qb nor a good athlete playing qb. The good talent an offense dont see the field enough. Abdullah green heard turner would be playing a lot more in sec country or out west .. We made Michigan wisky nwestern look extremely quick and fast like an SEC team. We need speed and smart football players

Posted by: bignick45 on February 23, 2012 1:04PM CST Some of u are just silly I was reading above that we would rather have 3*s cause the will work harder to prove them selves is just dumb YeAH there are 5* recruits whos have that 5 cause they are freakish with there talent. Then there are 5* aths who have busted there butts and have earned there 5* seriously It lies within the kid and and our coaching staff to progress there skill sets. LOOK at marlon lucky 5* recruit but did never really shine, with a diff staff he might have been a great. I think its nice to have a good mixture of recruits 2 3 4 5*s what ever u need to fill spots needed not just to get a recruit cause they have 5*s Andrus Peat Yeah 5*his film is good butt not great. In the under armour game he was slow and got beat several times. We have kids on our team from Local schools will pleasently surprise people this year. Reeves, Sturup local boys oo and my surprise pick MIke Mouldy that dude didnt play last year at all go watch his fim he is a beast

Posted by: Coopster on February 23, 2012 3:13PM CST The Cardinal Rule - This is how and what they look for at Stanford...http://www.sfgate.com/cgi-bin/article.cgi?f=/c/a/2012/02/22/SP9M1NAVBS.DTL