Thanks Adam. Appreciate your insights. As for #2, I was pretty much thinking 2 years when I said "X number of years". Seems to me that after 4 years a coach has had the opportunity to implement his system with his recruits and the results should start to show (or not show as the case may be).
How can we make sure the idea gets in front of MR, MP and BE to be thought through and potentially implemented?
True, but the sophistication of the rating gurus is getting better and better. The elite players are just that, "elite." Sure some kids will develop and mature physically. However, it is no obscure fact that we currently lack overall talent. How many Big 10 first team and second team players did we have? We lack team speed. We lack physicality. We are extremely lacking at depth for all position groups. Simply put, that all adds up to talent. When I hear coaches talk about spending time working on scheme and technique, which is very important, all it says to me is that we lack physical playmakers. When you play in the line, you need to be able to physically dominate dominate the guy across the line. Technique helps, but strength, speed and quickness is what really gets the job done. We do not have that.
Great, because if we play it up right, I think the idea can not just spur more interest in walking on, but get the interested kids to improve their performance. I love to see the locals make it at NU.
But a lot of what you post here falls under talent evaluation and that is what recruiting is all about. The recruiting services do a good job of it, but they arent perfect. The coaches need to evaluate and find guys who are the great athletes and capable of being coached. Some of them arent 4 and 5 star kids. While you were clearly underrated as a prospect coming out of high school, you were still very physically gifted. I was a good high school football player as well, but I wouldn't have been able to come remotely close to what you accomplished because I wasn't nearly as athletically gifted. That's not to dimish the obsession with perfection that you had to have to be as great as you were. Clearly you put in the work as well, but no amount of coaching up or want to would have helped me have the athletic career that you had. It's helped me be a beer league softball all-star and the sexiest man in a uniform though. At least that's what @ChitownHusker wife tells me.
GFOA- I completely agree. It usually means more to local kids as well.
BigRedFox- If there's two highly recruits side by side, all things equal I would always recruit the kid that lives closer. They are less likely to become unhappy, get home sick, transfer etc... But you always have to recruit abroad just simple because that's where a lot of talent is. \
Mack The Shark- You make great points. I think what I'm saying is, a lot of talent evaluation is based on how high profile you and/or your high school team's success. My high school team was not great and the program wasn't that well off either. The evaluators missed that and miss a lot of things. Hence the ridiculous amount of Pro Bowlers who were not highly recruited. Once I got to Nebraska and a good program that's when I grew and started getting noticed. That's something that's hard to evaluate in recruiting. I just recorded tomorrow's show and I talk about intangibles at the end of it. Intangibles is why Deshaun Watson and Clemson beat Alabama. Also, I'm sure you are the sexiest man in a uniform, but I'll take your wife's word for it.
