Jump to content


Where Is It OK to Start Walk-Ons?


Recommended Posts

6 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:

I think it only matters when that walk-on doesn't seem to be performing and we are wondering why the scholly player is riding pine... Like when Dylan Utter kept getting worked 

This. If a guy is performing, people will be excited about a walk on starting. If he is struggling out there, people will start asking questions.

Link to comment

There are 2 ways of thinking about this.

 

The no-brainer way - you start the walk-on if he's better.

 

 

But maybe the question was more wondering, if a walk on is starting, does that mean our recruiting sucks? And at what positions must the recruiting suck if we have walk ons starting there?

 

That's what's been debated here quite a bit.

Link to comment

2 minutes ago, bugeater17 said:

I mean technically Baker Mayfield was a walk-on initially (after he transferred to OU). 

Mayfield actually walked-on at Texas Tech after getting some non-Power 5 scholarship offers.  He did start at one of the top high school teams in Texas, and wasn't a "typical walk-on" guy.  I can't remember if he won the Texas Tech job outright as a true freshman or ended up starting due to injury, but he did start as a true frosh.  When he wasn't guaranteed the starting job the following season, that's when he decided to transfer to OU.

Link to comment
32 minutes ago, default_28 said:

One or two walk-ons starting isn't a concern, 3-4 and maybe you should worry about your player assessment in recruiting. 

This is sort of where my mind is at.

 

To be clear, I believe you play the best player. Period. It doesn't matter if they're a walk-on or a highly touted recruit from Florida. But, I also believe it's fair to evaluate the player assessment and recruiting if it's warranted. Year one under Frost is going to receive some leniences and those are deserved. However, if you're routinely 'missing' on guys you need to hit on and supplementing with a walk-on, that may require some soul searching. It's just very case dependent.

 

It's not one over the other in all cases. There were definitely some times in recent Husker history where I felt a former walk-on was largely starting because of a lack of depth and reliable competition at that spot.

 

In some of the above examples, I think people will view quarterback differently just on the inherent nature of the position. Fair or not, some people won't want to hear that a walk-on is starting at the most important position on the field.

Link to comment
56 minutes ago, Moiraine said:

There are 2 ways of thinking about this.

 

The no-brainer way - you start the walk-on if he's better.

 

 

But maybe the question was more wondering, if a walk on is starting, does that mean our recruiting sucks? And at what positions must the recruiting suck if we have walk ons starting there?

 

That's what's been debated here quite a bit.

 

I won't deny that's how it's commonly framed, though I would take some exception to it.

 

Walk-ones are merely players who have yet to get a scholarship. They're not worse players. They weren't even necessarily unrecruited players. They simply, for one reason or another, do not yet have a football scholarship. Many eventually do get one. Do they suddenly become better when that happens?

 

Coach DeWitt said it best. He doesn't necessarily know who is a scholarship player and who isn't, and he doesn't necessarily care.

 

 

Link to comment

I think it's okay to start a walk-on at any position they are the best player. Period.

Sure that may at times indicate some failure of recruiting but there are never any guarantees and it is what it is. Best player plays. Don't care if it's a 5 star ESPN top 50 player or a walk-on from Podunk Nebraska.

Link to comment

Scheme change and injuries are two factors to consider before evaluating recruiting. Since we rarely recruit the ready to play 5 stars, development could be an issue. If higher rated recruits aren’t willing to put in the work then better screening of recruits’ character is needed. Frost is facing all these issues so if a walkon starts I won’t be surprised.

Link to comment
48 minutes ago, brophog said:

 

I won't deny that's how it's commonly framed, though I would take some exception to it.

 

Walk-ones are merely players who have yet to get a scholarship. They're not worse players. They weren't even necessarily unrecruited players. They simply, for one reason or another, do not yet have a football scholarship. Many eventually do get one. Do they suddenly become better when that happens?

 

Coach DeWitt said it best. He doesn't necessarily know who is a scholarship player and who isn't, and he doesn't necessarily care.

 

 

 

 

Walk ons are walk ons for a reason. They either aren't as good as the scholarship players or were underestimated by coaches. That can change in a season or even less time.

 

There are those from both categories who have potential that wasn't noticed by the coaches and turn into great players. 4-5 years is a long time - players can improve a lot in that time.

 

Long story short, I disagree that walk ons aren't worse (when they join the program). Most are worse - that's why they're walk ons. That said, a walk on starting doesn't mean the scholarship players are bad. It can also mean the walk on turned into a great player.

Edited by Moiraine
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...