All this shows is our walk-ons are beating out our highly rated scholarship players because our walk-ons are pretty damn good....
should have hired
- Thread starter BayAreaBigRed
- Start date
No it's showing that our roster was mismanaged by the last staff. Our walk ons are not that good.
Walk on players are there to support the team by bolstering the Scout Team in practice to give the
#1's a high level to practice against. They should not be starting over recruited players at this high of rate. There will always be pleasant exceptions but should not be the rule. I am just pointing out that there is something pointing to lesser talent from the recruited players than should be at this point. Not flaming just a thought.
#1's a high level to practice against. They should not be starting over recruited players at this high of rate. There will always be pleasant exceptions but should not be the rule. I am just pointing out that there is something pointing to lesser talent from the recruited players than should be at this point. Not flaming just a thought.
Do any of you actually take time to look at the roster instead of just saying that the walk-one all suck. Out of the 10 walk-ons, 2 are fullbacks, a position that is rarely used anymore. Most teams probably fill this position with washed up scholarship players, our first is one of the best players and athlete on the team. 2 walk-ons are receivers. They are decent players and good athletes, but leave a lot to be desired as receivers. I don't think Reilly should be starting at wr. Utter is starting over Foster aND other scholarship linemen. We've had highly ranked OL classes quite frequently recently. Fyfe is the backup qb. We've had bad development in the qb position and our highly ranked recruits have struck out in terms of developing into a D1 qb.
On the defensive side, I haven'the seen much of Dzuris. He probably can't be worse than McMullen at the DE spot. Weber is far better than Banderas has been. Ganges is pretty good. I don't know anything about Simpson. And the biggest problem on the whole team, our secondary, has no walk-ons on the 2 deep.
Don'the give me this no talent excuse. Our walk-ons are very talented, are starting above many highly rated scholarship players, and they deserve to be playing.
Then what happened? I think his point is that even though b
You're missing the point and pretty much arguing for the other side of the argument. Yes, we recognize that a lot of the walk ons are more talented the some of the scholarship players. That is ok in exceptional cases. But in our case it is happening way too much. It doesn't mean the walk ons are bad. It means that the previous staff was missing on the scholarship players. You need to go outside of the program to get a good measure for this. The measure will be the NFL draft. Apart from Collins (assuming he goes pro), does NU have a single other guy drafted? That is telling.
Not sure about the rest of your thoughts, but his point was pretty clear, he said even with 5 losses by 13 points total we are closer to being undefeated than we ever were with Bo. My point was with our only loss last year at this point being a 5 point loss on the road against a top 5 team, he was wrong.
What does the NFL Draft have to do with winning in college football? Any team in college football would take these players in their two deep. Every team misses on scholarship players. Probably half of them will never pan out just like half the walk-ons won'the contribute much. But the top half of the walk-ons have the desire, drive, and ability to be good division 1 football players.
This year the more talented two deep has won 6 of the 8 games.
That is interesting stuff. I do have a question though. Nebraska conveniently starts 12 guys on offense.. that way they can throw two walk on full backs and two walk on receivers on that list. What happens to all these numbers when you take 2 walk on players off the offense so it is actually a fair comparison? Is Nebraska still the worst in 6 of the 8 games?
Comparing to Alabama isn't that relevant. No one things that Bo's lazy arse ever recruited very well-certainly wouldn't compare to the best recruiting team year in and year out.
Did you say that with a straight face?? The NFL draft is a clear indicator of the level of talent from a given team. Historically, teams that perform at a high level have a large number of draft picks. Are there exceptions? Sure...but not many. Remember the teams from the 90's? They had a high number players that went on to the NFL. All the teams now competing for titles will have a large number of draft picks? In the big 10, tOSU, MS and Michigan will have more draft picks than NU. If you really don't think there is a correlation between the NFL draft numbers and the talent on a given college football team then this conversation is pointless.
And, no, any college football team would not take our players in their two-deep. In our starting lineup, we probably have a WR, a DT, maybe an O-lineman, and a linebacker (when healthy) that would start for other teams that are relatively highly rated. A schools might take guys of our two-deep, but for the good schools these guys would be in their two deep. NU does have a talent problem. And beyond the talent gap at the starting spots, they also have a major major depth problem. The team is absolutely depleted in terms of talent, except for a few bright spots.
This year the more talented two deep has won 6 of the 8 games.
Two things
first, I expect more from a Mod.
second, stop telling folks they don't know football. They are entitled to their own opinion just like you.
Blaming walk-ons is ridiculous. Osborne had plenty of teams full of walk-ons in the 2 deep. So did Bo and they still won. And let's break this all down. Which walk-on don't you like?
- Janovich and Reilly would play just about anywhere.
- Please tell me that your not really counting Fyfe and Jordan. Have they seen a meaningful snap all year?
- Hovey is solid. made some fine plays last Saturday. What don't you like about him?
- Utter, one of those guys that beat out scholarship players. We have a handful of 4-stars and 5.7 guys that Utter beat out. Shall I list them? We always seem to have a walk-on starting now a days on the O-line.the fact that there's only 1 in the 2 deep is an improvement.
D walk-ons
- Gangwish started last year. So...
- Webber is a pretty good Mike LB. What don't you like about him? He's out played the 4-star Army All American Banderas thus far this year.
- Does Simpson play that much?
- Dzuris probably wouldn't play most places. We are thin at DE, I'll give you that. But he's the only walk-on that actually plays that isn't the talent we'd normally see.
You do realize of course that Tom Osborne passed on Paul Johnson right? Other than money part of the sticking point supposedly was that Johnson wanted to bring his whole staff and wouldn't agree to bring back Barney, Ron and Marvin. Don't know if that is completely accurate or not. On top of that Mr. Big Money Booster wanted Bo. Blame Tom not SE. I don't think Johnson was an option for several reason this last go round.
Somehow, that doesn't make me feel any better about our team - cuz we'll still be home for the holidays.
Great point. Michigan is winning with physicality and great defense in spite of a very mediocre QB.
I've been very impressed with the job our LB & WR coaches have done. And both are excellent recruiters.
This 2 guys for sure. Also, Hank Hughes. Every place this guy goes, they have great run defenses. It's not a coincidence. Hank has a lot to do with that.
Michgan has also had highly ranked recruiting classes under Hoke and those guys are playing in the trenches right now. Their lines are WAY better than ours. Period. It all starts up front and now Harbaugh is doing a good job of coaching his QB to not lose games for them.
Monte Kiffin has been by his phone since 2004, so there's that.
Turner Gill will get Nebraska going by listening to Jimmy Swaggert over the p.a. During practices.
Scott Frost is lighting it up at Oregon.
These have been fan choices before, the fans are no better at choosing.
Turner Gill will get Nebraska going by listening to Jimmy Swaggert over the p.a. During practices.
Scott Frost is lighting it up at Oregon.
These have been fan choices before, the fans are no better at choosing.
You absolutely can count Fyfe. If there was a legit D1 recruit as a backup we might have some legit options to go to. We don't.
As far as Hovey, he isn't getting the PT he is now at most schools.
And of course Dzuris.
Again, people really are missing the point. No one said that a few walkons can't be great surprises an contribute in a big fashion. That's exactly what you listed above. But when 25% of your travel roster is made up of walkons that means you have a depth problem. Look at the D-line and D-end situation. We simply don't have the horses to plug in. Our QB situation isn't good for similar reasons. I could go on.
And the fact that a walkon is currently starting does not prove your point. It can just as easily prove the contrary point.
We need more talent granted but this thought( excuse) that because of the number of walk ons, we are losing games is plain flat stupid and a lie. We have not lost these games because of the walk ons that have actually played in fact we would have looked worse with out the ones that actually have playing time
That is the point though, no one is saying Nebraska is losing due to walk on contributions, Nebraska is losing due to the lack of contributions from the many scholarship players who are underachieving.
No real difference maker at d end or linebacker has hurt this team considerably, and it is directly due to recruiting whiffs. Bo had Suh, David, & Gregory as a difference maker, all consecutively.
On offense he has had a back that would get 2 yards when needed, which masked horrible line play, but has now become a glaring hole.
Yes you can have a walk on or 2 playing, but at this level, they shouldn't consistently be anything but scout team players.
This year the more talented two deep has won 6 of the 8 games.
This is little more than a contrivance built to justify a losing record at the expense of the players on the roster. So someone else made it. Are they gainfully employed as recruiting analyst, with a job to rate players? Because they did rate players. Arbitrarily a 5.0 has been "stuck" on every walk-on that was non-rated in high school. BUT, every other player rating is from the high school rating. So, is it a "where are they now", or "a where were they in high school" metric?
As I see it, there's only 3 ways to make this metric "have legs to stand on".
1. Give every walk-on that was unrated in high school a "0" score.
2 Have a person gainfully employed as a recruiting analyst that assigns ratings, review our 2-deep walk-ons and give the ratings they should have had in high school.
3. Rate all the players as they are NOW, not some high school rating. And this would be the only way to say who has more talent, even if it is one analysts opinion.
This year the more talented two deep has won 6 of the 8 games.
This is a great point as far as this particular chart is concerned. I haven't seen all the charts but at least for this one if you remove one of the walk-ons the starters change from a 5.57 up to 5.6 which is higher than Purdue. Not sure if the wrong chart was posted or if this is pre-emptive excuse for Purdue being more talented than Nebraska now too.
First- You expect more from a Mod? You mean you don't like people to bring evidence and facts to back up their arguments?
Second- It's obvious there are plenty of armchair QBs that just complain just to complain when they don't know what they are talking about.
Blaming walk-ons is not ridiculous, it's glaring evidence at how lazy the last staff was at recruiting and how bad they were at talent eval. I can guarantee TO didn't have almost 22% of his two deep walk-ons. Please tell me again, what did Bo win? They don't make 9 win trophies.
Lets also take into the fact that since 2012 Nebraska has lost an ENTIRE recruiting class to transfers, players being booted from the team, or players that don't contribute. An ENTIRE recruiting class...
-Jano is great, Reily is average and is a good backup.
-Not my chart, but yes they are counted because they are on our two deep which is the point of the chart in the first place.
-Hovey shouldn't be on the field in a significant role and that's why is role has been reduced from where it was the start of the year.
-Utter is hot garbage and so far, unfortunately the guys behind him are just as bad.
-Gangwish started because Gregory was injured.
-Webber has been great, really like him. More evidence of horrible talent eval. Banderas should have been playing TE like Barney wanted, but Bo said no.
-Freedom has been injured and horrible roster management again is forcing those types of guys to play.
We have zero game changing players on either side of the ball this year. That is the difference between this team and teams from the last seven years. We don't have a Ameer, Suh, Rex, David, Gregory etc.
When you recruit on levels of Northwestern, Illinois, and Purdue this is what you get:
It is not a "flat stupid lie." You practically make the case for me. I'm not saying it is the walkons' fault. I'm saying we should have better talent all around so we're not relying on so many walkons. Again, a few here and there that really over achieve their projections are great and something we should continue to foster. However, that isn't my point. As a sheer numbers game, when you have over 25% of your travel roster made up of walkons it means that you're doing poorly in terms of identifying the talent you put on scholarship. Typical numbers for programs that matter are well below 10%.
And no one is saying that it is just the walkons situation that is causing issues. Absolutely not. We've also had a number of bad coaching decisions late in games, some attitude issues and some bad game planning.
Last edited:
You're not comparing apples to apples by not having the same amount of players for each team. Those facts are not facts, they are misleading and incorrect. From the chart you posted, Nebraska has 12 players listed as starting on offense, Purdue is listed with 11 players. By adding another position to your chart, it adds two more walk-ons that can be included which skews the numbers to make it look worse. If you apply apples to apples, Nebraska has a higher rating of players than Purdue.
The 21.7% from your other chart is not accurate either. It's taking 46 players into account rather than the 44 that start. With this one error, the chart becomes invalid because it's not using correct data. For instance, how was the rest of the chart constructed? Was it with 44 players or 46? Were all 46 or were they mixing and matching to make it look worse for Nebraska?
If we presume the rest of the chart was counted using 44 players and Nebraska was 46, the Huskers are still not far and away the worst on the chart. With 44 players, they become 18.1% and a team that's undefeated has more. A team Nebraska lost to - BYU, also had a higher percentage than Nebraska.
All I read are excuses. It's amazing.
Last edited:
Dismiss whatever you want to push your anti Riley agenda. Facts are facts and it clearly states the info was taken from the depth chart from the game notes. Can't control that teams chose to list fullbacks or a Nickel etc on their DC. This is an example to show the big picture on why we are struggling. It's because we are trotting out the same amount of talent teams like Purdue and Northwestern do.
Firstly, I don't have any agenda to push. It's a message board, I come here for discussion and have for over a decade. I want this staff to succeed. As an alum and having lived in Lincoln a majority of my life, I want nothing more than relevant football being played here.
With that said you cannot call something a fact when it's not. The numbers speak for themselves without manipulating them to make it look worse than it is. That is why I spoke up.
Oh yes they are facts. It's obvious our star ranking is on par with teams like Purdue, Illinois, Northwestern etc. Like I said you can't control what positions teams list on their DC in the game notes. The terrible roster management and poor talent evaluation of the last staff is why we are seeing what we are seeing. Add to the fact we have zero difference makers on either side of the ball this season and this is what you get. It will take time for our new staff to get Nebraska to where it should be talent wise.
They only one who is pushing an agenda is you. The fact is we're 3-5. We have more than enough talent to be undefeated.
I understand every team has different positions listed on the depth chart. But if you're comparing one team with 44 players and the other to 46, it's not a fair comparison. The numbers are skewed.
Oh are we having the "can you win a national title with all walk-ons" conversation again?
All there is to this conversation is this: Pull the MNC winners for the last 10 years or so. Tell me how their recruiting classes were leading up to that. Discussion over.
NU's talent level is bad. Period.
All there is to this conversation is this: Pull the MNC winners for the last 10 years or so. Tell me how their recruiting classes were leading up to that. Discussion over.
NU's talent level is bad. Period.