That is good to know. That said it might have an impact on any potential changes to the recruiting staff as t would mean two two most questionable position coaches are the two best recruiters. Definitely a dilemma.
thorsin and Oliver aren't good enough
- Thread starter Chambers1
- Start date
- Status
That Championship was won with a total of 8 wins. It was great and exciting but we could win 10 games including 6 conference games and still be 2 games be two games two losses away from even being in the title game this year. Again, great that we have the championship banner but would it have won any year since?
It's not a dilemma at all...we are not the MAC or some fringe program in the AAC. It's not unreasonable to ask for coaches who are decent recruiters and who can actually coach. Otherwise we are literally talking about Ron Zook. I'll never understand how he was such a good recruiter, but the talent was squandered once they landed in Champaign.
As I have pointed out before, the reason why NU was able to win a share of the 2000 B1G crown with only 6 league wins is that the league was unusually strong and deep.
Any team was capable of beating any other. Of the 11 teams, SEVEN ended with non-losing conference records, and each of the remaining four won at least 2 games, possibly against one of the top teams. There were no real weak teams (case in point, one of the 'weaker' teams was MSU, and one of their 2 victories was over co-champion PU, then ranked #9). At least 5 teams were ranked at the end of the regular season, or after the bowls, and a few others were ranked at some point in the season.
One could argue that managing to win 6 league games under such tough conditions was actually a huge accomplishment.
I've seen him as much as you have Turk and probably a little more. You don't know this but you and i saw the same sample and I respectfully disagree with your opinion. I don't profess to know everything about QB play, but you're right in that he's got a live arm and shows some moxie for sure. The only other thing I know is that to play QB with his measurables is that he'd better be the second coming of Doug Flutie. He's a nice player and (I mean this as a compliment to the kid) he gives us a great look on the scout team. But if he sees the field in meaningful action, there is an awful lot wrong with our recruiting.
However, one of us will be proved right and the other one wrong. Whichever way it goes, I hope it benefits the program and I certainly won't be crowing about it if I'm right. I'm certain he's a great kid and I want him to get all the benefits of being at NU.
DF was apparently 5-10. TJ is being LISTED as 6-1 (perhaps even 6-2).
Is he much shorter than listed?
If he is indeed 6-1 or taller then he isn't that short for a college QB with decent running ability. In fact, even in the NFL one can find successful QB's 6-1 or under.
Besides DF, another well-known case is Drew Brees, who is only 6-0. Of course, not everyone has the skills either of those had.
Perhaps a better "role model" for TJ may be Persa, whose listed height is 5-11 (2 inches shorter than TJ's).
All that said, there most be reasons why he didn't get a single FBS offer (even from the MAC or similar leagues). But I'd say physique is NOT likely to be one, certainly not the main one.
One could also ask what "strong" teams were there? Not one team won more than 9 games. In bowl games, NU got bum-blasted by Nebraska, 66-17. Purdue got beat by Washington, 34-24; Ohio State was beaten soundly by South Carolina, 24-7. Only Michigan squeaked past Auburn by a FG, 31-28; and Wisconsin edged UCLA by a point 21-20. Why not say "five good teams, none of them great". A balanced conference? Of course. Strong? Hmmmm....
Oh, and who cares if one of the weaker teams was MSU? MSU was 5-6 and stunk that year, just like Nebraska stinks this year. Was 3-8 Iowa good because they beat Northwestern that year? MSU had always been erratic until Dantonio started coaching there. Even Saban struggled at MSU.
Just a contrarian viewpoint...
As I mentioned, at least 5 teams were ranked either by reg. season's end or post bowl. I wouldn't automatically downgrade a team b/c it lost its bowl game. The bowl match-ups may have been unfavorable.
Anyhow, even if the conference wasn't as strong as the voters apparently thought, the fact that it was BALANCED is sufficient to sustain my point. The key is that the difference between top and bottom wasn't very pronounced (as reflected by the fact that 7/11 teams managed non-losing records), hence surviving all that with 6 wins was actually quite an accomplishment.
I mentioned MSU precisely because although they only won 2 B1G games, one was against a co-champ then ranked #9. This, and 3-5 IOA's win over co-champ NU reflect the situation that year, with 'weak' teams perfectly capable of defeating the top ones (co-champ Mich barely escaped defeat by 'awful' 2-6 Ill).
Like I said, balanced, but not necessarily strong. Michigan was probably the strongest team talent-wise, but they got clipped by two novel spread offenses.
One could get the same result if the entire conference was weak.
The fact that so many teams were ranked just before or after the bowls suggests that the conference was in fact strong, but that isn't central to my argument. As I said, what matters for my point is that the conference was very BALANCED top to bottom.
Taking it one step further, if the Big Ten champions were all strong teams, they should have played well against other FBS teams out of conference. NU got smoked by TCU, Michigan lost to a mediocre 6-6 UCLA team, and Purdue lost to 9-3 Notre Dame.
Balanced, but weak. One could argue that if there was one good team, they could have run the table against all these 2-loss Big Ten champions who could only beat one team in a bowl game.
Balanced, but weak. One could argue that if there was one good team, they could have run the table against all these 2-loss Big Ten champions who could only beat one team in a bowl game.
Last edited:
so, how tall is he, in your estimation?
Other than height, why would he not get an FBS schoolie? His highlights do seem impressive (then again, most do). At least he seems to have above average arm strength, and seems relatively elusive and moderately fast...apparently with reasonable long distance accuracy (at least in the highlights...maybe he doesn't hit the long passes consistently?).
I'd be happy to chat about this in private but not here. If you can figure out how to send me a message on here have at it.
Um you couldn't be more incorrect. I asked a player on the current team, and one who has started games this year, if green was going to ever get a shot. He said, and glades can back this up, "no, not even ahead of Lloyd Yates". If you would like proof, I would be glad to oblige you.
So, GCG2003, who's in the know, and myself, who's also in the know, both have said you're wrong. And I've told you this before, too.
Go up to the upper right corner and hover over your name. A dialogue box will appear and click on conversations. Enter the name of the poster you wish to talk to (in this case, FeliSylvestris) and type a message. All messages are private between yourself and the posters you designate for the conversation. It's pretty intuitive if my instructions here aren't clear. You may have some messages waiting for you, too.
The academics are an advantage. Focus on the 30 percent of prospects who can get in.
His instincts on 3rd and 13 on the game-winning drive Saturday were *terrible*.
</s>
Just... No. They aren't. It's a selling point for the smaller population that can get in and have emphasized academics in making their college choice, but that incremental gain is nowhere near enough to offset the reduced population of players NU can recruit (which also eliminates much of the top-shelf recruits in the country). I can't tell you how many times we used to find a player we really liked on tape who self-reported decent grades only to get his actual transcript and realize we had to stop recruiting him before we even started because he had no chance to get in.
You realize all he's doing is picking a player that won't see the field. Then whenever the QB that is playing (Thorson, Alviti, Yates, Smith) struggles even a little bit, he can post some BS like "Fitz needs to stop being loyal to "his guys" and have some real competition with someone like TJ Green who's the best QB on the roster." Then 6-8 people will agree with him because a QB grass is always greener (pun intended) on the other side. He's done the same thing for years. When Colter was in, it was we needed TS at QB so Colter could be WR. When it was TS playing hurt, we needed Oliver. Then it was Alviti, followed by Thorson. Then when Thorson was obviously going to be the starter, he back tracked and said it should be Oliver. Now that Thorson isn't perfect (but is 8-2) he's touting TJ Green knowing that none of us will ever see him throw a pass.
It is so much fun reading post about QB from this board. If there is one place not to find expert advice on QB play, it is our board. We have bitched about every good QB, played up every bad QB, turned NFL QB into bench-warmers and bench-warmers into NFL pros. We know less about QB play then any board in the history of internet boards but we still want to claim our superior knowledge. So, we are 8-2 and I don't see anyone who has asked or answered the basic question which would help determine if we need a different QB. Take any NU QB in the last century and the conditions of the game. Would it had made a difference in our record if they would have been our QB this year? My answer is no. I don't think it was QB play that lost those games for us. Because that would be saying we would be a Top 5 team if it we had a better QB and I don't think that is keeping us from being a Top 5 team. I think CT is a very good freshman QB. He has erratic play but he gives defenses fits because he can suddenly run for 30 yards and turn the game around. As I defensive linemen, I much rather have Oliver back there because I can go after him on passing downs and not worry about him running. CT throws a less accurate ball but with greater velocity. Oliver is accurate but hangs just a bit making it easier to intercept if he stares down the receiver. He throws best when he throws early. CT throws best when he throws late. I am no expert. I just observe. But I don't think we would be 8-2 with JO starting all the games. I could be wrong and maybe we would have the same record but it just doesn't feel that way.
I remember last year when he was telling everyone that Thorson is The Truth, the future of the program.
I'll also assume that had Green not been the son of a former NFL QB (and a pretty damn good one for a long time), Turk would never mention his name.
I'll also assume that had Green not been the son of a former NFL QB (and a pretty damn good one for a long time), Turk would never mention his name.
I 1 BILLION percent agree with this. This is why I don't try and dissect the innards of football, let alone a specific football position, because I don't know what I'm talking about. I'll always defer to those who do know the game, you know, like the paid professional coaching staff at NU. This is why I love calling a certain poster out.
That said, we're all guilty of it from time to time; it's part of being a fan. We all think some play calls are dumb, schemes don't work here and there, etc.
It's just the complete spamming of a message board that I read all day, every day to help curb an insatiable appetite to decapitate my boss by one poster in particular that drives me crazy.
And how many recruits did you not need to spend time on because they wouldn't have a chance of getting in? The transcripts allow you to prioritize. Every staff has finite time. NU has X time split between 30 percent of high school football players. Iowa has it split between, say, 90 percent. NU can spend less time prioritizing, because the transcript does the job. Fewer to evaluate, more time to spend on evaluating and prioritizing individuals.
What makes NU unique is an advantage.
The conference was balanced but pretty weak. There were three teams tied for the lead and two lost their bowl games. In fact, the Big 10 was 2-4 in bowls with two champions going down and the third (Mich barely beating Auburn in the CItrus (#2) bowl. The 4th place OSU also lost as did MN. We won because the conference was balanced and weak. Only other winner was WIS in a one point game.
Let us say 7-2 (yes he was the starter but we had yet to score when he went down)
Looks to me as if Ohio State, Alabama etc. are able to prioritize their recruits pretty well. We do have appeal to certain kids, but other schools have a huge recruiting advantage over us in the number of available top-end players and always will unless we drop our academic standards.
Meaning that the "strong " teams were not that strong. Again as Glades said, look at OOC vs power 5 type opponents. The conference was at a low point.
Sorry, but that's just not how it works. Even the process of getting a transcript and processing it is more time-consuming than you might ever imagine. The recruiting office has to spend a boatload of time on getting and processing transcripts that just doesn't happen at other places.
The recruiting office and position coaches get reams of data on potential recruits, be it from high school coaches pushing their own players, high school coaches recommending players in the area, paid scouting services, the recruiting offices scanning local papers for top-performers, etc. At a place like Iowa (or any other program that can get in guys based on the NCAA minimums), they can safely move ahead in their evaluation without going through a rigorous academic check.
Before we even start recruiting a guy at NU, we have to take those names, send out transcript requests, get the transcripts back (which is often not an easy task), then evaluate them for viability with NU's admissions. As you point out, resources are finite and this is a TREMENDOUS expenditure of resources that could otherwise be used in actually recruiting players.
From there, our pool of potential offers has been reduced into two general categories: (I) top-flight recruits that pass our academic hurdles, but are being recruited by the "traditional powers" and (ii) lesser recruits who pass our academic hurdles, but might not be as strong on the football field. If/when a player passes that academic hurdle, we can move forward into our full evaluation (area coach getting a character evaluation, position coach evaluating his tape, coordinators evaluating the tape if there's a question on an offer, then Fitz signing off on the offer).
Add it all up and there is a whole lot more expenditure of finite resources that isn't necessary at other places.
Let's see. Basically you are not going to get a 5 star and about 3/4s of the top 250 you cannot even go after. Have to have a very high hit rate with the rest to put together a top team. And it is not like it is happening in a vacuum. Everyone is going after those same players. Not just the academic schools. How many times have you seen a guy that says academics are very important to them and then sign with one of the elite teams? Just saying, much higher academic standards are not an advantage.
So, how many teams out of 11 must be ranked by seasons end for a conference to be strong?
I counted FIVE of 11 teams ranked either right before or after the bowls.
A couple others were ranked at some point through the season.
If that isn't strong enough for you, your standards must be really high.
Regardless, winning 6 out of 8 when MOST TEAMS ARE OF COMPARABLE STRENGTH is a major accomplishment, because just about every team can defeat the other. This holds true whether most are strong or most are weak, That is my main point.
Anecdotally, NU seems to have longer, deeper relationships, and higher commit-to-offer ratios. (No good way to measure, but that's just my sense.) I would imagine that this is in part because NU's list of I plus II is smaller than the list at other schools. Smaller list, greater focus, deeper relationships, higher accept rates.
If you can't consider what makes you unique or special - that is, your brand - an advantage, then you shouldn't be in sales (or, relevantly here, recruiting).
Whatever. So weak that it had FIVE (of 11) teams in the top 25 right before or after the bowls.
Who the heck told you that losing a bowl game equates being weak. Other conferences have strong teams also. Bowl games try to match teams of comparable strength. When two evenly matched teams meet (even if both are EXTREMELY STRONG, like #1 vs #2) still ONLY ONE can win. If bowl committees did their job right matching teams, and the B1G got 2 of 4 wins, that isn't very surprising, since each team was facing another team of very comparable strength, meaning that each one had about a 50-50 chance of winning. Isn't it?
Northwestern was one of the best of a mediocre lot that season, which is the main point others have made. We're ranked along with Wisconsin this year in the western division, but both are flawed teams. Iowa is probably the only well-rounded team in the Western Division this year, and we'll know more about them after the B1G title game. Walker and company did a good magic act in 2000 by being ahead of the curve on the spread formation. He managed to outscheme several opponents despite Northwestern's lousy defense that year. When Nebraska had a few weeks to study before the bowl game, the results were not wonderful for NU. Was it a nice accomplishment to share the B1G title that year? Of course.
Say what you will.
When 5 of 11 teams are ranked either right before or after the bowls, plus a couple more are ranked at some point in the season, that is a fairly strong conference. No team was dominant, precisely because even the nominally weaker teams were relative strong, and were capable of beating any other.
SEVEN of 11 teams had a non-losing conference record. Each of the remaining 4 won at least 25% of their conference games.
All that means a strong conference from top to bottom. That s why there were 3 co-champs tied with 6-2 records.
Well, I've watched B1G football for more than 50 years, and that was not an outstanding year for the B1G. Part of the reason for the non-losing conference records was that the conference was weak at the bottom. We actually managed to lose to a very lousy Iowa team, keeping us out of the Rose Bowl that year, and I saw us beat an absolutely abysmal Illinois team 61-23 in the last game at Ryan that year. If your narrative is that the B1G was strong that year, good for you. I've seen it have much better years, including last year for that matter.
- Status
