NoLongerN

Hey Mavric ... if I can recall your words [which I do], you stated, I had a "the sky is falling" view. To that I can say that it has been actually a comforting thing to see the posts since then with quite a few others expressing what they also have seen and observed. I will agree to a feeling of being "called out". On the matter of being "right" ... I don't really care. This I do believe ... I am not terrible wrong. Our record is proof enough. I stated what I felt and I think our beloved continues to have it's woes in the horrid OL and the DL doesn't get really have any particular guy who is worrisome to an opposing offense. It's all just part of the same core issues after coaching and the lack of any real decent development in the OL and DL. I continue to wait for another season and the "development" ... which is why I related to @84HuskerLaw and the perception of him being "always negative" [similar to your view of that post back then I suppose].

@84HuskerLaw and @The Scarlet Pimpernel. Thats a "ditto" here. I recall taking a beating for expressing the utter fail of the "horrid OL" and its play a few years back. In that, I was stating the "fail" of even Jurgens as a "bust". I get the beating I took for that. But, again, in comparison to what our history was [along with the championships and pride it generated], you can't "develop" a TE for two years to be a Center who can't snap a ball, then have one partially successful year [the rest of the OL totally sucked] and then have them move on to the NFL without hitting "paydirt" with him. I don't care if Jurgens got drafted high/well or is a great NFL pro. Here at Nebraska, we want our players to have success and make their mark here. I'm totally fine with what Remington did here. It doesn't matter to me how his NFL career went. To all this ... one gets castrated for stating the obvious in the OL and DL that continue to miss on recruiting hits and then the under developement of the player [glad to see more negativity on the OL and less praise of it this past year]. Who doesn't love another 4* player? No one. But like in fantasy football, you gotta be taking the best available on the board in each round for as you can't have WR's at every spot. So ya, we are celebrating a recruiting win at WR ... but man ... how 'bout getting a 4* or 5* at the OL or DL spot? If anything, the "good" OL recruiting in that one year proves you have to recruit well in multiple years at OL and then develop it. Presently, it appears that there is no radius or place of "inroads" where the footprint of is etched in recruiting or in our performance. I'm appreciating the fans that see this and recognize it. It isn't negative to me. Go Big Red!

@84HuskerLaw, say, thanks for your insight sir.

OU owns us.

I didn't want to take away or distract any thread ... so I'm putting this thought into this post which I actually started. As we are in the midst of what it looks like a lot of offensive pieces and specifically WR prospects selecting and perhaps selecting , for me, I've been watching the DL position [which can also be perhaps a few LB types who might grow into DL]. Anyway, of the list of guys I've been following, which are out best 4* type of guys, it looks like we might get 2 of them. Here are the guys: Poppel, Howard, Thompson and Lenhardt, Hill. We secured Poppel [LB], who might grow into DE. Looks like Howard committed to Oregon State. My guess is we are on the outside for Thompson and Hill [OU lean?]. So, it looks like Lenhardt is our next best hope. Any other thoughts or insights others have about who we are looking at who might be better than this list? It seems that this was the best we could hope for and we will only get 1, possible 2 of them. Thanks.

How does he pick Oregon State? What gives? OSU will have a fairly lackluster schedule by the time he plays. :-)

It's crazy to think, but if B1G would have moved to get OU/TX on board, then moved to USC/UCLA, the B1G would have had all of the TV markets and really boxed in the $EC.

Either Rutgers or us could be dropped with those pods and you would have a nice super conference. Outside of money, I think Nebraska would fit nicely in a lower tier super conference in the Midwest. I don't think we are safe and most definitely are at the bottom of this super conference in most every category. Thank God that our fan base/following merits us something. :-)

I would have taken OU and Texas first, which would have locked the $EC to expand with worse geography. Could have had OU/TX and then this back to back and really took better field position overall.

I get this and can actually appreciate it and take it at face value. Yet, Mickey is ranked near the top even before he came to . Prior, he recruited well and prior he also developed well. So, ya, I'm waiting to anoint him as a recruiting god ... but ... you would think and hope that you have something there. For me, maybe I'm reading more into your statement, but we don't really have any data to either to go negative or to speak less of Mickey. By most all accounts, MJ is going to be a great WR coach for us ... and might even be our next Head Coach.

So, does he lose his scholarship and all NIL money ... my guess is it's that takes the fall/loss?

Overall, following the Manning families as we have ... I just can't picture Texas as the "fit". Oh well, it doesn't really matter to me. I'm not a Texas fan nor am I butthurt over our experience with them.

I guess I might be clueless here ... but was this really our first choice and at the top of our board ... or just who is available for what we can get?

This is possibly doable. We probably need to win 6 this year with the easy schedule ... then hope to nab 4 next year and get all the non-conference games into the win column. :-)

OU owns our 500 mile radius.

OU owns our 500 mile radius.

I wonder if Corcoran knows what a "pancake" is? :-) Maybe the coaches could take him to an IHOP and then associate buying him five [5] pancakes, each representing putting a defender on his back. Ha ha.

It's just surprising that "that" is amazing to Corcoran. It explains a lot.

This was from 12 days ago. No mention of us but lays put what he is looking for. If we had a winning culture it seemed we would have a chance here. I'll be curious is gets one of those other two visits [LSU is the other it sounds like], but it doesn't sound like this guy has us in mind at all.

It would have been nice to have snagged Helms last year. Oh well. We just have to look to the next best TE recruit and move on. Unfortunately, Fidone is going to be like a Mormon missionary on his stint. He might contribute for a year but nothing to build around anymore. The way they guard his status makes me think they think he is a savior or something. I could see Coleman filling in that spot.

That's just awesome!

For me, if I'm the CEO of this recruiting cycle, I'm only taking game changers that I know will be the difference in my program at this stage in the year. Having said that, I think we learn a lot about "the recruiting eye" that targets another "middle C, C- type guy" [just going by the recruiting numbers]. So, the staff obviously believes in him and have him at the top of their board ... which is great. I'd be shooting for all 4* rated guys and then looking to out recruit them through the portal every year with guys who can beat them out. So, I hate to say it, but if the OL is the problem on the offense, I'm really not a fan of any kid to just take up a $50,000 scholarship for a year. My hope would be that he doesn't get any free cash ... but I realize that is the thing these days.

Ya, so the interesting part is was around 100 in ranking. TCU, who had Mathis, only had 15 sacks and had even less than us. They were like 125th in the country with Mathis having 4 sacks. The question now is if the BIG XII has better OL's then the B1G. So, if one player can really make the difference, TCU didn't bode well last year and it will be tougher in the B1G [as I see it]. We added other pieces so who knows. But, I don't think we are going to be that much better on D, just a small bump of improvement to modest. If its good to great then we will win 9-10 games for sure.

It's fascinating to see that teams like Kentucky and Missouri ranked #9 and #10 in the $EC with 29 sacks. So, they were below average in the $EC with 29 sacks. If we could get to 30 sacks, it would help, but 35-40 is more of what is needed to put us in the Top 3-4 in the B1G. Wisky had 39 last year.

If he got 10 sacks, that would about 20th in ranking in the country. Last year he ranked tied for #226 [of course playing mostly Big XII teams]. I think Nebraska was around 20 sacks, which is probably around 100th. To get into the Top 50 you need 30 sacks a year and to get into the Top 20 you need around 40 sacks a year. With the DL still being subpar and the pieces we lost on defense, the new influx will create hopefully some better numbers, if the equivalent numbers carry over. My hope will be that the impact is felt in the B1G games. Yet, my feeling is that we will be average against the B1G caliber teams. The DL and OL model we have had in place just wasn't built to endure B1G play or the national stage.