.
- Thread starter Cruel Halo
- Start date
I think there’s arguments to be made all around, but see the RB room right now (or WR at times in recent history) decimated with injury. Minus a solid group of walk-ons the team isn’t even practicing.
I don’t know how everything is managed, but it doesn’t necessarily mean the walk-ons are getting in the way of much. NCAA also caps numbers during certain times of year I think as far as official participation.
Without knowing exactly which walk-ons may emerge, throw more at the wall and see what sticks.
Yeah, I'm not gonna jump off a cliff about it, but I think our roster is too big. It's only my opinion, but I think to manage a roster this huge effectively your staff has to be 100% on point and organized. Maybe they're getting there but we haven't seen it yet.
I have said this repeatedly. You can only have so many coaches on the field. Divide the players and reps however you want. Do you want a lot of players to get fewer reps or fewer players to get more reps? Can you imagine walking in and seeing that many guys, in shear numbers, ahead of you? I just don't think it does justice to all players, walk-on or scholarship. JMHO
Neb has the highest ratio of players per coach of any power 5 school
something I’d be quite concerned about if I were offered a scholarship - am I going to get the same 1:1 or small group teaching and development at Neb as other schools with a third less players competing for reps/drills or individual coaching
something I’d be quite concerned about if I were offered a scholarship - am I going to get the same 1:1 or small group teaching and development at Neb as other schools with a third less players competing for reps/drills or individual coaching
Last edited:
Correct me if I'm wrong but I thought Tomich was prop 48, not a walk on. Edit:. Google is my friend. Prop 48 and walk on.
Last edited:
I suspect this time next week we will hear of a number of walkons as well as lower level reserves have entered the transfer portal. MSU had 6 players enter the portal on the 26th, 2 days after their spring game. The roster numbers will come down, hang on.
GBR!
GBR!
This does make me chuckle a bit... you are assuming 3 or 4 scholarship transfers but no walk on transfers. You are also assuming no scholarship transfers in from other schools. I guess if it helps you make you point that we have more walk ins than scholarship players, why not present it in the way that beat makes your point.
On the other hand, you could just as easily have gone with current numbers and made the same point without having to fudge numbers. And you would be right. We do have a ton of walk ons, more than we need.
For future reference, no need to unnecessarily inflate the numbers to make your argument. Either wait for the transfers to hit, or use the current numbers on the roster.
I think Tomich might be #1, he was a two time all American. Barron Miles is in the Hall of Fame (cfl)
Wow, never knew Redwine was a walk on. These guys all from yester year, except the kickers, and kickers are usually walkons across the country.
I would hope we have some non official coaches running the practices for the walkons seperately, and weed them out to identify which ones could potentially make it. For the official staff coaches to do this is insane and can explain why this staff underperforms.
I'm curious to know what the rational is for having such a big roster. You're going to get a handful of guys that will break through, but is it worth the overall bloat? It seems that there are more downsides to having so many players on the team versus having a more selective number. If 166 is good, why not shoot for 200? Surely they know who has a legitimate shot of being on the team. If you're the fourth stringer and a walk-on, you are practice squad chum. That's a high price to pay.
Covid is why its so high.
We will always have a lot of walkons.
Look up TO's thoughts on walkons.
Disagree with TO if you must.
We will always have a lot of walkons.
Look up TO's thoughts on walkons.
Disagree with TO if you must.
Here’s my thought. I suspect you need approximately 50 players for the scout team and in this time of the transfer portal it’s highly unlikely a true freshman or redshirt freshman or sophomore, on scholarship, is part of that group. So after a year or two a lot of these guys move on, thus the need to replenish. The % of this group that ever see game action let alone meaningful snaps is ridiculously small. They walkon to stay part of the game at the highest level with the slight chance that their friends/family might see them in action on the field in Memorial Stadium.
GBR!
That was when he was allowed to have a different set of coaches overseeing the Freshman team and the walkons. Now it's a drain on the staff to focus and be efficient and effective during limited practice time.
This is dumb.
If you don't think the front line, 3-deep, is NOT getting the bulk of the reps and attention from the coaches, then I have some Alpine Property to sell you in Iowa.
Last edited:
How did they do this in the past? Was there more “assistant coaches” because this is not the first time Nebraska has had this many football players on the team to go through spring and summer training. Before title IX back in the 80’s and 90’s we had many, many more, right, or am I wrong?
Yes, way more assistant coaches, they even had a bunch of recruiters doing nothing but recruiting.
You are claiming that scholarship players are “80 or so.” Is it 80? Or 82? 83? You claim 80 or so. You also claim some will be transferring to get us down to what... 78? 76? But you make no mention of any walk ons that will transfer. I think the current scholarship number is 83, not “80 or so.” Even with transfers out, we will almost surely be getting a few transfers in. Our scholarship numbers will be pretty close to 85, if not exactly 85. Don’t be mad at me for your waffling on the numbers.
Your argument is there are more walk ons than scholarship players. Fine. Make that your argument. But to make up in your mind that we only have 80 or so (with transfers out after spring, leaving us below the 80 mark) is disingenuous.
Let your argument be “we have too many walk ons.” That’s a solid argument in and of itself.
Sorry, I think you had a quote in the original that I must’ve erased “Tru’s” name somehow.
you just went back 30+ years with those 9 guys. I don't want 86 walk-ons limiting how much time a coach spends with the 2 deep.
I have a friend who has finished the second year as a walk-on. He says they don't get much coaching. How can they? Frost wants to limit practice time and hold in the morning. TO worked with the walkons. Old Charlie told a story about working with the lower units and they were not getting it done correctly. TO kept making them for it over and over. Charlie said coach the only people you are punishing is the coaching staff. TO told Charlie that was part of the job.
What is dumb is that IF the 3 deep is getting the bulk of the reps, (approx 70 players). Why do you need 96 players to split the rest? Couldn't you get it down to say 140 or better yet, 120 and split the leftover reps between 50 and not 96?
Even if your GAs are doing the reps for the 96 I mentioned above, is that a good use of time for GAs?
I didn't @ you. I responded to another ill-informed post. An @ is when I type @Cornicator, as you can see that didn't not happen.
Now if you don't want people to respond to your posts, then don't post. OR don't post stuff that you can't actually back up with numbers or actual facts. Like your 3-4 defense stuff from a couple of weeks ago, where you didn't respond to my questioning you about Jeremy Pruitt running a 3-4 at Georgia under Richt, before Smart took over.
Also, could you fit another negative in your sentence? "If you don't think the front line 3 deep isn't getting the bulk of the reps" I needed to write down the number of negatives to make sure it was an even number.
Last edited: