Husker in WI

Probably some combination of clicks, potential lack of mobility, and an effort to not let a high initial ranking (which is always a projection that includes growth that hasn't happened yet) continue to dictate the final rankings once they have the full high school career to look at. They specifically call out his -92 rushing yards as a senior in high school being incredibly low, even for a "pocket passer."On the last point, I do think there's some merit there. Some guys are freaks as underclassmen so they get ranked initially, and if they were maxed out and don't get any better as a junior/senior they probably shouldn't maintain that ranking. But realistically all prospects are risky, and being low on a 5 star QB going to school that has never had one is probably smart. If he is a stud, Nebraska fans will let them know about it for a really long time but that's it - it's not like they have him outside the top 100. And if Nebraska can't develop him effectively and he stalls out as a decent college player, it's a feather in their cap showing they know more than everyone else. Recruiting sites figured out quite a while ago that it is smart to factor in where a kid is going (or at least who has offered him) on the OL where very few people are equipped to talk about good versus great prospects. Just don't usually see it at other positions like QB, but I think it is likely one of the factors.

Yeah, I was hoping Purdy wouldn't like the portal options and come back to be honest - coming in at the same time as the new guys it is a tough sell to anyone with the talent to play. Purdy probably could hold them off and start this year, but in fairness to him the writing is on the wall and it's smart to go elsewhere if he wants to play. But the only guys who are going to come here at this point are guys who think they can play at this level when no one else does, and are ok with probably needing multiple injuries for that to happen. Those are probably guys like Woche and Longval, without the benefit those two have of already being in this system for a year. Unless (god forbid) there is a spring ball injury that opens the door, we're not interested in a one year rental and this is a bad situation for a multi-year guy who wants to play.

I believe so - it just doesn't account for the Chiefs-Bills game since it was tweeted prior to that one starting. Here's the updated one:

I expect him to improve with a full year actually being taught the QB position. And considering we only have 3 scholarship QBs and 2 are true freshman, Haarberg will be no lower than 3rd. I'm not excited about seeing him play QB again either, but I think it's reasonable to project that he could become a passable backup option.

Yep, tonight - although I think Taumua is one one team and Raiola/Nelson are on the other.

He wasn't a top performer, but did get a mention as a likely starter in the game despite still not being fully back from the injury: https://247sports.com/article/polynesian-bowl-top-performers-from-day-3-of-practice-225628443/

Not by choice, if we had a shot we'd 100% be trying. Iowa's OL hasn't been as good recently, but home can be a big draw and they still have 5 first round OL since 2010. It is really hard to play OL, especially Tackle, as a true freshman and that showed early in the year for him. But he improved a lot and this will be huge for Iowa if he does go home.

247 day 2 top performer (his travel was delayed so he wasn't at the day 1 practice)

Joe Philbin was the other name thrown around IIRC, but he's old and I don't think he's called plays since the 90s. What they should do is try to convince a young Rams or 49ers assistant to take the job - their scheme is in that ballpark, if they had someone who had an ounce of creativity and playcalling acumen they could be average pretty quickly. Bigger problem is recruiting, which is why I think they dodged a bullet with Chryst turning them down. He's be great for the Xs and Os, but they need to get some skill talent and he could not care less about recruiting. If they hire someone young with new ideas, I don't think it's a tough sell to bring in respectable backs and receivers. It's a Big Ten school with no competition for touches. But I don't think Ferentz will hire young, and the old creative guys are experienced enough to see they will be boxed in and probably be overruled by Kirk on guys they want to offer.

The money also does not matter because (in most cases) what they make as an analyst or assistant is deducted from their payout from the previous school. He's going to make around 3.5 million this year no matter what we pay him. We pay him more, Houston pays him less - it evens out. Probably worth waiting on his end too though, he'll have plenty of analyst offers and can scope out HC jobs.

Sounds like Paul Chryst was their OC target and he turned them down.

He's still susceptible to double moves and holding, but he improved a lot over the course of the year. Really turned it around and is probably an NFL corner if he keeps tightening it up this year.

Before their New Year's Eve game he tweeted this: And then had his best game of the year, 4/84 and a TD. So just trying to manifest that into a good game tonight - didn't work when he tried it again last week though, 2 catches for 10 yards after this one:

Hard to have somebody lined up when the guy in place wasn't giving any indication he was slowing down - people won't wait forever. I think the rumors of their demise are greatly exaggerated regardless of who they hire. I'm sure they want an experienced big name, but that wouldn't be a guarantee of success. And somebody with a smaller profile is not doomed to fail - the pressure is high without a doubt, but everything necessary to win a lot is there. They'll get dunked on in the media if it's Rees or Locksley or someone like that, but those might be better hires than some of the "big" names in reality.

Every school has a team (or at least a person) stealing signals, just not ones filming practices/games.

Awesome! Obviously still have to see how it shakes out on the field, but the staff has done an incredible job of bolstering weak spots this offseason - QB, RB depth, WR experience, G experience and size, LB depth. There's really not a position group I'm worried about, and there were several just a month ago. QB is thin (which is just how it is with that position these days) and some guys need to make good on their potential across the team - but they've hit every spot I had major concerns with.

I don't think we need to restart the whole argument that already happened a few pages ago. But 1) what should he have done to "fix" Haarberg or Sims in the pretty short amount of time he had? and 2) he implemented large amounts of option and only had them throwing the ball 35% of the time - those are attempts to play to their strengths and make the weaknesses less exploitable. I'd also disagree that Haarberg's decision making got worse - he wasn't successful early because he was making great decisions under pressure, it's because there were some timely drops by the defense and they were not prepared for the pass plays we had. They adapted and started holding onto the ball, I don't think he got worse at reading defenses or making the right decision. He just wasn't great at that to begin with. I don't have the expertise to dissect QB mechanics, but again to me it was bad from the start.

They also don't have an obvious HC candidate on their staff currently, so gotta assume they poach a huge name from a big school and kick off an insane coaching carousel. And if Harbaugh goes to the NFL too? Gonna be wild.

Wow.

I'm going to guess that winning a national championship might be a better experience than helping build a good program. Again I wish he would have stayed, but if any of the reasons listed were a factor he would have. Imagine there was a guy who could have transferred in here and played significant snaps every game in 1997 with a path to start in 98/99, but stayed at his old school instead. He misses a bowl game in 1997 - maybe he gets to one in 98/99, he does play more and probably plays well. We would not be saying "well that still worked out fine for him" even if he was an all-american there.

Starter both places - he's an immediate upgrade. Plug him in and we don't have to worry about Lutovsky making a big leap, Buckley taking to Guard quickly, or some freshman being thrown into the fire. I feel really good about Prochazka/Evans-Jenkins/Scott/Mazzccua/Benhart.

I'm not sure why that would be the assumption, or why playing a rotational role at Michigan before becoming the starter would hinder that. Guys want to win, and starting here is no guarantee of being developed into a draftable player - we haven't had a true LB drafted since 2012. I don't know his priorities, but Michigan has had 5 LBs drafted in that time and just won a championship. Sure, but would you rather win 10 games as a Senior after slogging through a few bowl-less seasons, or win 10 games as a Senior while also having played a sizable role on a national championship team your sophomore year? I don't know why we would discredit all of the years before the end of his career and say "well you ended up in the same place, should have stayed." I wish he was still on our team, but it's ridiculous to pretend it would have been better, or even comparable, for him personally to stay.