Dude it is the same thing. Walk-on or scholarship it doesn’t matter. It’s either a good move to sit for 3 years rather than potentially play right away or it isn’t.
Remaining Recruiting Targets
- Thread starter DudznSudz
- Start date
Dude it is the same thing. Walk-on or scholarship it doesn’t matter. It’s either a good move to sit for 3 years rather than potentially play right away or it isn’t.
Winning changes everything. Kids can be swayed as the year unfolds. We need to get our swagger back.
That's a BS excuse. Alabama and Clemson both had top 10 defenses and were among the fastest scoring offenses in the country. Georgia also had a top 15 offense and defense. There's no reason at all why we can't be a top 30 defense most years and get into the top 10 once in awhile.
I agree with this. The key is depth. There has to be little to no drop off between #1 and #2 so that you can rotate guys out when they start to get winded. S&C is going to help, but ultimately we have to develop quality depth.
Bama and Clemson are probably the only two real outliers to the whole general rule of thumb. We don't have and don't appear to be bordering on receiving the kinds of talent they do in the quantities they do in the near or mid future. Georgia could probably get the same treatment considering the talent they have in their own state. Georgia is also sort of the under achiever of the SEC seeing as they have no remotely recent national titles. All those teams also have head coaches who are gurus on the defensive side of the ball and more or less went out and bought the best offensive coordinators available to handle the offense. I like our DC but it's be hard to argue he's among the best we can afford.
Bama also made most of its hay as a defensive jugggernaut playing saban pro style ball and has only relatively recently modernized their offense. Well after their reputation and several rings were established. If Scott played a dominant decade of os-bone football and then sort of let the momentum on the defensive side of the ball carry itself into an offensive makeover he'd probably have an easier time of D recruiting too
Please note that in my original comment everyone is going to have their own view of what good is defensively and offensively.
For some folks being top 30 in D and maybe top 15 in O is awesome. Other folks might point out that Banker had us in the 40s somewhere and in the 30s in certain categories so if Scott only managed to put a black shirt D on the field that's only a few yards a game better than Bankers we may as well pack this whole thing up right now.
Last edited:
I meant to say Georgia and bama have defensive HC...not all the schools. dabo obviously with his background in offense
We're not getting the same recruiting rankings on offense as Bama or Clemson, yet there's a good chance with Frost our offense can be just as good. And like I said, I wasn't even asking for a top 10 defense like they had. I think we can have a lot of success with a consistent top 30 defense and right now we're nowhere close to that. And no, we shouldn't be satisfied with a Banker level defense.
One of the few things good about getting old is I've learned not to get spun up about recruiting until February (or now the December signing period). In the past I've felt good in the fall, then several players bail at the last minute. Other times I wring my hands all fall and we get some good commits late and everything is OK. Other times recruiting seems to go well in summer/fall, we sign them, then before you know it half of them are gone for one reason or another.
Frost has indicated he likes to have around half the class going into fall, then get the other half after the season starts because Lincoln gameday is a huge selling point. That may not be the best way to go when competing with other schools who have full classes of good players by now and he may have to change his philosophy. But right now the staff seems to be going about it like they said they would.
Frost has indicated he likes to have around half the class going into fall, then get the other half after the season starts because Lincoln gameday is a huge selling point. That may not be the best way to go when competing with other schools who have full classes of good players by now and he may have to change his philosophy. But right now the staff seems to be going about it like they said they would.
We're running a fairly unique offensive system which was designed to address the fact that schools like Oregon were never going to go toe to toe with schools like Bama with inferior talent.
As of yet no one has really invented such a thing on the defensive side of the ball.
Given the way the stats laydown most years there's usually not a huge spread between a D ranked 30 and a D ranked 40. So it's quite possible that statistically we're not going to be way way better than a Banker defense on paper.
However I think we're hanging our hat on the fact that our defense will probably be on the field more than Bankers so in a per minute breakdown we're doing better. And also the fact that disruption and TOs is the one stat where we clearly want to be better. And our offense is designed and more or less relies upon the fact of scoring quite at a much higher pace than an NFL style ground and pound. So we don't necessarily have to hold teams to 14ppg or whatever Bama does to win
So that's sort of the other half of this equation. Frost gone out of his way on a couple of occasions to basically say he's not going to get a Top five class every year nor does he want to run the type of program where he's have to do shady things just to keep up with the Bama Joneses.
While he's going to take the best players he can get he's more or less running a development program rather than a parade all American everywhere program. And he seems to be perfectly fine with that
When a Tom Osborne acolyte comes to Nebraska and publicly declares the fullback dead....you know there's a new sheriff in town and whatever rules of thumb people had in their mind about how Nebraska will win football games are more or less going out the window
Last edited:
Dare I say it but because of Frost's coaching background he is more philosophical aligned with Kelly and here at dear old NU people like Riley and Callahan. Using motion, timing, formations and in Kelly's world speed to create mismatches on offense and more or less play good enough on defense.
I think where Frost will separate himself is that he's going to have more accountability in most facets of the program and primarily in the weight room. He's also going to try and paste on some semblance of physicality to what what is widely regarded as a soft Oregon offense.
But the basic ingredients remain the same basketball on grass and an athletic D that can keep up with the minutes required out of them and hopefully enough TOs to juice the score even more
I think where Frost will separate himself is that he's going to have more accountability in most facets of the program and primarily in the weight room. He's also going to try and paste on some semblance of physicality to what what is widely regarded as a soft Oregon offense.
But the basic ingredients remain the same basketball on grass and an athletic D that can keep up with the minutes required out of them and hopefully enough TOs to juice the score even more
Might be a good separate thread topic...but it would be fun to see what people think Frost will do when he says "would like to integrate some of the TO physicality with the Oregon offense".
I feel like there's an inherent limit to that statement given the framework within which he's structured the O. The blocking scheme is not just take the man in front of you and put him on his ***. The fullback is gone. And while we have a couple of traditional TE on the roster now, Frost more or less is looking for big Slot receivers type of play out of his TE's with body types more akin to NU's own Wilson Thomas (6-5/200 ish) than say a Mike Ditka.
I feel like there's an inherent limit to that statement given the framework within which he's structured the O. The blocking scheme is not just take the man in front of you and put him on his ***. The fullback is gone. And while we have a couple of traditional TE on the roster now, Frost more or less is looking for big Slot receivers type of play out of his TE's with body types more akin to NU's own Wilson Thomas (6-5/200 ish) than say a Mike Ditka.
Bamas D regressed while their offense took off. They finished 16th last year in total D, while their offense finished 6th.
The year before, bamas O finished 29th, yet their D finished 1st.
So yea, theres a correlation here.
Bama went from number 1 to number 21 in yards per play allowed so it was a pretty significant decline.
It is going to be really interesting to see what happens over the next couple of years to Saban's "genius" with all of the staff turnover they've had. At some point, he's going to go full on Bobby Bowden and not be able to keep it going. I'm betting it happens within the next 3 years.
This is perfectly accurate; what Oregon did was decide to exploit weaknesses and attack relentlessly on offense. The D was more of a “Eh, just go out and play D,” and until Oregon had to play tough *** Auburn with Cam Newton, or until Stanford wised up and decided to become the grind-you-***-to-death Wisconsin of the Pac12, it worked. If a team scores over 60 points, you are probably not going to beat them.
What Frost is doing comes from that school. He’s just trying to marry as many Osborne-era Midwest tough-as-nails principles in there as he can, to try to hedge against the only real weakness Oregon had: strength and defensive grit.
Why would the defense be on the field more? Our offense didn't run much hurry up at all last year. And if your offense can move the chains effectively, your offense should be on the field more, not the defense. Our TOP was pretty average last year but I think the main thing holding it back was our defense couldn't get off the field to save it's life. Giving up 3rd and long plays and giving up chunks of yards each play will kill TOP more than anything the offense does.
We've already done it on the defensive side here recently. In 2009, you can make the argument we were the best defense in the entire country. If we had the best defense in 2009, why couldn't we at least have a good defense now? I don't buy that you can't have a great offense and a great defense at the same time.
Yeah, that's the position group Alabama has had the most trouble with, especially last year they weren't so great.
To be fair, Oregon's offense lost them the natty vs Auburn. 19 pts doesn't win many games.
Yea, they dumped hurts.
They go through coaches like crazy, so that doesnt matter either, thats excuses,especially since their previous play has shown it doesnt matter.
They had the same coaching staff and they had the same problems we had last year on defense. They had poor tackling, gave up a lot of yards, and couldn't get off the field on 3rd downs.
That's not true. At some point it starts to matter. People make all sorts of excuses for coaching changes here, why wouldn't it be the same at Alabama?
And beat everyone they faced,with worse than 60th rated recruiting classes. Their safeties were very bad, its why we got that transfer, he wasnt going to win his spot.
But, what we didnt have and they did was remarkable ball hawking, more important,and stressed by the staff.
Youre looking at non fits for this style of play,which are still ok, like TOP, but obviously not that important.
TOP and a old style power running game arent used,isnt an objective.
People in this thread were just talking about how it's justifiable to have a worse defense if they're on the field more, so TOP is relevant to the discussion.
Just because we have a certain style of play on offense doesn't mean we have to play defense a certain way. I think it's silly to accept mediocre play on defense just because you have a good offense.
No, TOP is pointless, that same ucf team that finished 106th in TOP was first in scoring, thus, the offense must have had the ball all game.
But no, this isnt that style of play, the games changed.Think big plays,turnovers etc.Quick scoring and getting turnovers,sure,you saw that defense miss tackles, because alot of times,they were out of position, in part due to poor safety play, in part, due to aggressive action by guys up front.
What youre talking about isnt including what happened, what I'm pointing out here.
Focusing on turnovers when your team doesn't know how to play fundamental defense is pointless. You saw that last year when our team couldn't get a stop and didn't get turnovers.
I agree with you TOP can be overrated and isn't an excuse to have a bad defense.
Good defenses don't have to choose between getting turnovers and playing solid fundamental defense. Good defenses can do both. Just look at Alabama or Clemson defenses or us in 2009 and 2010. Focusing only on turnovers at the detriment of playing good fundamental defense isn't smart in my opinion.
It start up front, no Mick, bad run support.
This year, were in much much much better shape there.
At backer, we should be good to very good, depending on health and if someone steps up.
Secondary, we are bigger at safety,better run support there too, and another year at db in experience.
But, they could still end up with similar numbers in TOP, or even yds per play given up, and us go 10-2.
But, we'll need those turnovers, we'll need a greater consistency from our O,which should come in AMs second year.
Good defenses that prefer TOP,and get stops, are only one way of playing defense.
Glad you picked bama and clemson, both have excellent D lines, which sets up turnovers, freeing up other guys to make them. Our D line, provided Green gets here, will be miles ahead of what weve had in awhile, which means our back seven can play more.
You do get more boom or bust, but knowing a turnover is most likely worth seven points, not just time off the clock for the defense to go again,is key here.
Early on, everyone was worrying, hurryup,more passing, how that effects our D etc, now, do a 180, with consistency on O, its what you want.
I need to add this. At any given time, we can stay home, not be aggressive, and get those stops, which is only a change of pace the opposing offense has to deal with, besides play calling as well.
I'm not making the argument for TOP. I don't really care about that. I just want a defense that can get a stop when they need to rather than feeling like there's no way they're going to get a stop. Turnovers are good too, but I don't think you can have a strategy based on that. Turnovers happen when you play good defense. When you have a strategy just based on getting turnovers, when it fails it fails badly as we saw last year.
We had an abysmal just run the clock out offense in 2009. Had we had any semblance of a competent offense we might have won a NC
It was year one and we played a backup QB for a good bit of it. While I don't think we'll ever be as fast as Oregon I bet Frost ups the pace as the team gets more comfortable in the system
No one is saying the defense can't be good but offense and defense are somewhat mutually exclusive when it comes to TOP.
No NCAA in over 100 years of football has ever fielded a team that had the potency of Oregon on offense and the potency of Bama on defense.
It just doesn't happen. Because if you're three and out good on defense every time then most coaches are going to sit on the ball with their O and deny the other team a chance to do anything. No one goes out there and tries to out their number one defense back on the field immediately.
And if you are Oregon good on O your defense is just going to be on the field alot because you are so efficient in scoring. So you necessarily are going to take ratings hits because your d is simply defending more than average.
I think everybody would love to have a team that had Oregon O and Bama D but it's never happened yet. Then we could have 25 possession let game and score on all of them and never lose.
Bama has gotten around this somewhat by having a ridiculous amount of talent but their best defenses were when they ran a pro style o.
There might be years where the D is lights out good and carries the husker offesne but with the way Scott has set up the program it's more likely going to be the other way round in most years
You are mostly quoting Tom osborne here...not Frost. TO was happy to get 100 first downs in a game.
The offense Scott runs is about creating mismatches and attacking with speed to get chunk yardage and speed of execution to wear out your defense and prevent adjustments during the drive. Which create more mismatches and more chunk yardage. The Oregon style offense doesn't work as well if you take the speed out of it so Scott's going to avoid the 100 first downs four yards at a time if he can.
TO was driving and old tractor and enjoying every lemonade stand on the side of the road and scott is blowing through in a Lambo
Oregon had a top 15 defense in 2010, 2013 and 2014 in Opponents Points Per Play and Yards Per Play and not too bad in the other years as well.
We're currently at 8 commits. Lets be fairly conservative and say during the course of the season we end up with commits from the following realistic targets:
RB Sevion Morrison or Marvin Scott
WR Brenden Rice
TE Donavon Johnson
DE Joe Moore
DE Morven Joseph
LB Choe Bryant-Strother
LB Kaden Johnson
DB Christopher Townsel
That would put us at a reasonable 16 commits and would rank the class about 21st overall with roughly 6-8 players (4 countable) to add before the end of the 2nd signing day. (going 3 for 5 of the article's top 5/6)
If we round out well with:
WR Xavier Betts
OC Paula Vaipulu
DB Jacobe Covington
DB Darion Green-Warren
That gets us to 20 commits and we would be just outside the top 15 in ranking. (you could flip any of these 4 for any of the above commits pre/post 1st signing day)
We'll likely take 2-3 players on top of that 20. If those 2-3 players are higher than our two lowest rated commits out of the ranking we'll actually have a very likely shot at finishing inside the top 15.
Two Examples (there are more) of players who could fill those final spots rated higher than those two lowest overall rated players, who play at positions where we could take another player:
DT Marquis Black
LB Derrick Lewis
And that's without any surprise late 4* additions, no flips and means we won a couple good battles but also missed out on at least a couple guys we currently are in on (ie Jackson Bratton, Brennon Scott and Omar Manning)
It is very possible we land a top 15 class this year and landing lower than at least 18-20 would be extremely surprising at this point. We'd have to have at least one recruiter (looking at you Travis Fisher) completely bomb to land a sub 20 class.
RB Sevion Morrison or Marvin Scott
WR Brenden Rice
TE Donavon Johnson
DE Joe Moore
DE Morven Joseph
LB Choe Bryant-Strother
LB Kaden Johnson
DB Christopher Townsel
That would put us at a reasonable 16 commits and would rank the class about 21st overall with roughly 6-8 players (4 countable) to add before the end of the 2nd signing day. (going 3 for 5 of the article's top 5/6)
If we round out well with:
WR Xavier Betts
OC Paula Vaipulu
DB Jacobe Covington
DB Darion Green-Warren
That gets us to 20 commits and we would be just outside the top 15 in ranking. (you could flip any of these 4 for any of the above commits pre/post 1st signing day)
We'll likely take 2-3 players on top of that 20. If those 2-3 players are higher than our two lowest rated commits out of the ranking we'll actually have a very likely shot at finishing inside the top 15.
Two Examples (there are more) of players who could fill those final spots rated higher than those two lowest overall rated players, who play at positions where we could take another player:
DT Marquis Black
LB Derrick Lewis
And that's without any surprise late 4* additions, no flips and means we won a couple good battles but also missed out on at least a couple guys we currently are in on (ie Jackson Bratton, Brennon Scott and Omar Manning)
It is very possible we land a top 15 class this year and landing lower than at least 18-20 would be extremely surprising at this point. We'd have to have at least one recruiter (looking at you Travis Fisher) completely bomb to land a sub 20 class.
That has been argued about. According to the OWH posted numbers, NU is at 81/85. There are 15 kids who exhaust eligibility after this season. A couple of 4th year juniors might take their degree and move on and a few more will probably decide Lincoln is not for them. I'd say 20-22.
Wrt recruiting as it stands now, NU is 17th in average star ranking per Rivals, so the class as it stands has quality. These are kids who said yes to a team coming off of a 4-8 season. I don't follow recruiting closely enough to know what the remaining targets look like on Frost's board. Are there kids who are waiting to see what early Season 2 looks like before they start kicking the tires?
From Frost's comments, it seems he is pretty pleased with progress of player development and the general shift in team culture. I think the biggest thing that could happen for recruiting the 2020 class is being 4-0 and having ESPN Game Day in Lincoln on 9/28. That is an achievable goal.