Husker in WI

13 hours ago, floridacorn said:

Interesting that Bonner is switching back to WR.  Not surprised because he wasn't utilized as a mismatch out of the backfield and there are more natural lead blockers at FB, but that seems like quite a physical transformation to yo yo between over the course of 12 months.  

Yeah, I noticed that as well and I think it's a good sign. I still like him as an H-Back type, but it's in everyone's best interest to make sure he develops WR skills and isn't just an unusually athletic FB who we only use for a handful of snaps per game.

I would think the year at FB gave him enough of a foundation that he can focus on WR and still play FB in certain packages. I don't think the reverse (working mostly at FB and then playing WR) works. The good news is I don't think they put a ton of bad weight on him to play FB, physically he looks like Quincy Enunwa and that will play at WR and as a light situational FB.

Just now, BigRedBuster said:

I didn't know freshmen, that aren't going into this year's draft, ever worked out at pro-day.

They don't, but someone has to throw the ball for the WRs. A lot of times it's alumni or the current QB, we just don't really have any of those. Martinez coming back would be a bit odd, Thompson is somewhere else, and the guys working out in front of scouts would have been wise to politely decline Haarberg  throwing to them.

4 hours ago, GoDucks349 said:

Can anyone tell how good or bad Colorado will be? They really need an offensive line or Shadar will have another broken bone in his back. It's hard to run or throw when you're looking at the sky threw 300 pound defensive linemen.

 

Offensive lines typically take time to become great offensive lines. With the roster turnover, it's hard to believe they can become great quickly. 

I think it's going to be similar to last year - they did marginally better in the portal at OL this year, and they signed a 5-star OT. But it'll be a totally new line again, and just ask Alabama how rough the transition can be even for uber-talented true freshman Tackles. I expect a potentially explosive offense with a bad OL that isn't going to run the ball, and a very bad defense.

Sheduer also seems to be channeling 2018-19 Aaron Rodgers where he just will not risk interceptions, which leads to terrific TD/INT ratios but also extra sacks and a mediocre yards per attempt. Bad OL + QB who is obsessed with his passing stats is how you end up allowing almost 5 sacks a game, and that hasn't changed.

36 minutes ago, GretnaHusker14 said:

Add Jimari Butler to the list!

I wonder how they figure out the 85 - is it first come first serve? Feel like it would have to be, I don't think they would bump a guy because he's down on the depth chart and a starter signs up. But it's clearly not limited to scholarship guys which is interesting. Most teams won't have the same degree of this problem, but we have ~45 guys not on the 85 and most of them would jump at the chance to be included in the game. Like no offense to Derek Branch, but if he's in the game and Marques Buford isn't because he was the 86th guy to try and opt in that's not great for the consumer.

Sticking with 85 man rosters is kinda dumb IMO anyway - I don't need complete realism in roster management, but it seems like implementing walk-ons would not be difficult. Instead of only getting walk-ons when you don't have enough players at a position (and them counting against your 85), you should also get a set number of walk-ons based on prestige level (who do not count against the 85). If they hit a certain overall or play more than a handful of snaps, you can either add them to the 85 or they'll transfer. Have a very low but non-zero chance of a generated walk-on actually being a decent player and/or developing super quickly.

9 hours ago, GoDucks349 said:

 

FYI: As to the 275# DL men, a quick look at the Nebraska roster lists 13 DLs at 275 or less. Oregon roster lists no one under 280#. In my opinion,  weight isn't everything, they have to be athletic as well, so actually I discount the weight comment above quite a bit. 

Some of that just comes down to how positions are grouped on the rosters, and the fact that we have a lot of walk-ons that inevitably end up at DL because they aren't athletic enough to go anywhere else. Most of the sub-275 guys are edge players, which Oregon lists as OLBs and also don't have any 275+. A few young guys are also significantly heavier than their currently listed weight at this point.

But all in all I agree size is helpful (and Oregon has comparable size to Big Ten teams), but not everything. I do think the grind of Big Ten play will get to Oregon more than they think, but a lot less than it's going to impact USC/UCLA. 

1 hour ago, Loebarth said:

Wisconsin @ 6.5 (seems low to me)

Their schedule is a little rough - Penn State, Oregon, and Alabama would be huge upsets. I'm pretty low on USC, but it's not at Camp Randall so that would be an upset too. Then all it takes is losing 2 out of @Iowa, @NW (has had Wisconsin's number for a while), @us, and Minnesota. Plus South Dakota is sneaky good, and traveling to Rutgers is never fun. I'll put it this way, I could see a 5-6 win season more easily than an 8 win one but neither would shock me. Anything under 5 or above 8 would be a surprise.

Just now, GSG said:

 

I agree that Brady is most likely going to be awful but Olsen is biased as f#&% and never shuts up. He's like 75-80% of the broadcast and the PBP guy misses calling plays because of it

I think across the board the color guys today spend way too much time trying to prove they are smart, and not enough time letting the play by play guys actually call the game. The former players definitely have some great insights, but sometimes less is more and all of the color guys I can think of struggle with that. Although that's better than when the play by play guy tries to throw it over to them for analysis and they just have nothing - I feel like that happened with Matt Millen a lot. And then he'd totally take over with some rant when they were just trying to call the game.

Honestly I usually have the volume down because most of the bother me for one reason or another, but some are a lot worse than others. I can tolerate Olsen, but he definitely talks too much.

15 hours ago, Decked said:

Just fine with that one 

Yeah -  went from starter in the spring game, to backup at the start of the year, to completely off the depth chart by the middle of the year. Clearly wasn't working out.

Big Ten Network is pumping out highlights for all significant players moving on. These aren't phenomenal - it's clearly just stitching together results from a database of plays, TOs + sacks +  blocked kicks + TFLs + PBUs + 3rd/4th down tackles with no 1st down gained and maybe more. Which is cool, but I've run across a few where the play was clearly mis-categorized (player not even on the field, or play result isn't anything of note), and it doesn't find things like open field tackles or big hits unless they also hit other criteria. 

In any case, Reimer's are out now and they appear to be going team by team so they might have some for Newsome/Brown/Henrich.

Apparently whatever database does not include PBUs, so the highlights for Newsome and Hill are shorter than they deserve. Hill also isn't leaving.

Looks like they're on to Northwestern, which is a shame because I wanted to see Henrich truck Dylan Edwards and sack Sheduer again. And then truck Braelon Allen, although thanks to the tripping no-call Mordecai got out of that one.

1 hour ago, Decked said:

Unlike anyone on the actual Nebraska roster I’ve actually been to a bowl game. 

Hey, Isaiah Neyor was Wyoming's leading receiver in the 2021 Famous Idaho Potato Bowl!

This class is insanely large.

Nice free article on 247:

https://247sports.com/college/football/recruiting/article/from-8-man-football-to-top-50-recruit-meet-carter-nelson-the-positionless-future-of-nebraska-226510040/

On 2/2/2024 at 9:12 PM, Mavric said:

Safety from Wisconsin.  Looks like Toledo was his only offer.  But appears to have been talking to Iowa State and Wisconsin.

 

 

Supposedly also had a walk-on offer from Penn State, so a pretty solid get as an out of state walk-on.

11 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

I’m not sure about this. But, I think On3 has had him a lot lower all along. 

He was the #1 overall in their initial 2024 rankings, but again that's after these kids Sophomore years so it's even more projection than the final rankings (which also project a lot). They did bump him down from that a while ago though, they've been lower on him than the others for a bit.

I don't think it's a huge deal, and if anything hopefully just adds a bit of a chip to his shoulder - a lot of great athletes take very minor slights personally. And I do think his college choice impacted his ranking, but not in a "they hate Nebraska" way. There's just a lot of development needed for any high school recruit to live up to 5-star status, and we have zero track record of helping that happen.

1 hour ago, MyBloodIsRed16 said:

How is somebody the number one player in his class for the better part of two years suddenly drop to #71 his senior year? 

Even after turning in a solid year?  

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.

23 minutes ago, BIG ERN said:

QB is the trickiest of positions for depth, especially with a freshman that we know is going to start. 

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.

6 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

What is that stat?  Players in playoffs who scored points and what college they played at?  If so it’s wrong.  

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:

1 minute ago, DefenderAO said:

HH any better than emergency 4th string QB means we don't like to learn or plan well.

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.

25 minutes ago, Archy1221 said:

Tonight? 

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/

Quote

 Preston Taumua, who missed most of his senior season while recovering from a knee injury, appears to be in line to get first-team reps at left guard in the game Friday night. The Nebraska signee hasn’t yet regained his old form but we absolutely love his potential at the next level.

25 minutes ago, Huskerfollower4life said:

Right it would be nice to add him but I think we are going to roll with the o-line we have.

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)

Quote

CARTER NELSON, TE, (NEBRASKA)

After arriving on the Island late Monday night due to some travel delays, the Nebraska signee didn’t show any rust and fit seamlessly into the offense. He was smooth and fluid with his movements, looking spry on out routes and reeling in a couple big receptions in red zone situations. Nelson was a favorite target of future Huskers teammate Dylan Raiola throughout the afternoon session and it was easy to see why — the impressive pass catcher got open often and was a very reliable target.

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. 

13 minutes ago, gossamorharpy said:

I assumed he'd be coming here as a part of the coaching staff but this doesn't rule him out from an analyst roll.  Gary patterson seems to have found a home on sarks staff in an analyst type position.  No recruiting expectations, can focus on gameplan/practice execution.  Not bad to get paid pretty good money to do that and be part of a progrum again without having the time commitment an official coaching/staff member would demand

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.