AR Husker Fan

Given the log-jam at quarterback at USC, coupled with his mother's prodding, I'd have to agree - looking good for NU at this point. He has to assume that with a major shift in the offense, he can come into the fall with almost an even playing field on which to compete for a position. Even though the QBs on campus will have the spring to get somwhat acclimated, his raw ability and the limited time to learn the offense in the spring by the others must have him thinking NU.

I would have agreed until last night. In case anyone missed it, NBC News had a segment on this. That kind of publicity makes a lot of folks gun-shy - they may not care what antics occur, but they for damn sure don't want to have to worry about possible NCAA investigations and sanctions. A kid wants to go to a school in which he knows he'll get on TV, and sanctions threaten that. For that reason, I think it will hurt. I agree - in addition, as noted above, the more this kind of thing happens, the greater the chance of a reaction from the NCAA - and the sanctions that could follow. It's similar to the recent statements by Tagliabue regarding NFL players and taunting - the "Sharpie" and "Cell Phone" incidents. These things take time to accumulate and reach a saturation point - when they do, they result in a crackdown. Having something like this hit the national news programs indicates to me that we are reaching that point.

I actually don't have too much of a problem with those who have decommitted. I would be far more worried if they were doing so to go to powerhouse programs. They're not, which to me indicates that the reasons don't really have to do with Nebraska, per se, but with other factors - grades, proximity to home, that sort of thing. That means, to me, that had they committed to Nebraska and actually reported, there is a strong likelihood that they would never have contributed or remained. Better that they never report and take a scholarship than to have one wasted. Is this class better than what Solich would have at the same point in time? Always difficutlt to judge, but my honest opinion is, "Yes". It does appear that they are better athletes, at least. Having said that, athletisim alone can be a curse. Too often these "super" athletes are undisciplined, spoiled, and uncoachable - they are more concerned with "going to the next level" than doing what is best for the team. Yes, you have to have some of these "super" athletes. But total reliance on them is misplaced, I believe. Like it or not, character and commitment is important. Players have to understand that they must sacrifice, and that for the good of the team the athlete may have to develop or wait his turn. The "super" athlete is not used to this - he expects instant stardom and to have coaches bow to him, rather than the other way around. What a program needs, in the long run, are those rare "super" athletes that can sublimate their egos sufficiently to contribute to the team, rather than to their goal of getting an NFL contract. Partial qualifiers are not, necessarily, bad, but you have to carefully evaluate why they are partial qualifiers. Did they lack the discipline to work in high school? Are they incapable of really making the grade in college? Or were they simply deprived of the type of environment that most kids have - and have they demonstrated the traits to take advantage of that environment when offered by NU? Find enough of the latter, and you have something. Get too many of the former, and you have dissension and problems.

I wouldn't be too hard on the kid - he was in a JUCO for a reason. Academics will always be a problem for him, apparently, and had he chosen Nebraska there's a fair chance he never would have qualified - or his eligibility would at least always be hanging by a thread. In a way, he did Nebraska a favor in that regard.

While I haven't been on the Board that long, I wanted to take a moment to express my appreciation to all involved with the Board. Living out-of-state, it is incredibly difficult to get accurate, up-to-date information on NU. This Board solves that problem - and folks here know their stuff. And I appreciate the way this Board is administered - a lot of freedom to express yourself.

Well, I'm willing to bet that a redshirt year is coming. I'm concerned about the size/speed ratio also (see my earlier post in this thread), but I suspect that a year of training will significantly increase his weight and drop his forty time a bit. My first posting was to express my feeling that this quarterback won't be on the field much next year, absent significant injuries or complete frustration by the coaching staff toward the quarterbacks on campus - and I would hope that won't happen. A quick and accurate release is vital in a West Coast offense - but the good news is that quick feet isn't. A passing quarterback simply has to be able to "feel" the pressure, know where to slide, and take a few steps to that spot to buy some time. Look at Dan Marino, or more recently, Payton Manning. Neither carried the name "Twinkle-Toes", but both moved in the pocket at just the right time, in just the right direction.

Hehehe... You know, with the stud offensive lineman committing, you have to wonder if the coaching staff doesn't - waaaaaaaaaaaaaaaay deep in their collective heart - have a desire to keep the option and see what havoc these youngsters could cause a defense.

Actually, I'd guess just the opposite. A lot of kids recognize that they aren't scholarship material - it may take them time, and they may not like it, but they pretty soon realize that their only chance is to walk on. But they desperately want to play at Nebraska. They continue to work toward that goal. Now? They have to assume that if they aren't the cream of the walk-on crop, there's no need to bust their hump - they aren't going to even get a look.

Hmmmm…I’m not so sure that either the wishbone or the option attack can’t be the basis of a winning program. Regarding recruits, in particular skill players, it is true that the upper-echelon would eschew an option-based program. However, the way the option is run (and by “option” I mean both what Nebraska used to run and the wishbone), you don’t need top-flight receivers. What you need are individuals who can block, have sure hands, and decent - not blazing - speed. The whole idea of the passing game in an option attack is to catch the defense by surprise - run it at them with success until they commit so many defenders that the receivers can slip behind them. The key phrase being with success. Assuming that the team running the option recruits the correct offensive lineman, running backs and quarterback, there’s no reason that formula won’t work. But you would have to have exceptional speed in the backfield, and stud-hosses in the offensive line. I, for one, think that Nebraska could still do that - there are far more quarterbacks that can run an option attack than can run a passing attack. Running backs want the ball - something the option affords them to far greater effect than a passing attack. True, some backs may not go for it - they may want to catch passes out of the backfield in preparation for a shot at the pros. But all-in-all, I think most high school running backs don’t think that far in advance…they want the ball. And there is little doubt that for an offensive lineman, run-blocking beats pass-blocking. Like running backs, there may be a few that want to go to a passing school to enhance their chances at being drafted, but, again, I doubt most think that way. Regarding defensive speed that an option attack faces, there are two ways to counter that - or that argument. First, since so few teams still run the option, it means a defense has less time to prepare. This doesn’t mean that coaches don’t have the knowledge to defense the option - it means that there is frequently not enough time to teach the players to defend it correctly. Couple that with the second point - that option attacks are specifically designed to read the defense to see how they are committing, and to “move” to the open or undefended player or area. Today, so many of these pure athletes rely on just their athletic abilities - and don’t bother with proper technique. It’s tough, with just three or four days of practice, to “break” a defensive end from crashing down, or making a blind rush up field. That plays right into the hands of the option attack. And, again, if the offensive line can open sufficient holes in the middle to cause the defense to commit inside, then the edges become vulnerable. I don’t think, in recent years, that Nebraska’s offense was inherently flawed…I feel that the level of talent - especially in the offensive line and at tailback - was the culprit. I’d be willing to bet that with a commitment to recruit the right kind of talent, Nebraska could still win with the option. On the other hand, I’m a dinosaur, and never have coached, so what do I know? Still, I hate to see it go - it’s part of what made Nebraska unique and wonderful. And it still remains to be seen whether the top-flight skill position players want to come to the cold mid-west rather than to sunny California, Florida or Texas. That’s one of the reasons I’m a little worried about the use of the West Coast offense; why would an urban, warm weather kid - one who is unmindful of tradition - want to go to a cold weather school that does not have the kind of urban setting he is used to? With the option attack, Nebraska was a natural selection for the kinds of players that can make the attack go - strong run-blocking offensive lineman, quarterbacks who ran first but could pass adequately, receivers who lacked the blazing speed but understood the value of a well-executed downfield block and who had sure hands. Seems that the West Coast offense moves Nebraska away from its natural “constituency”, so to speak.

I find the reasoning for this to be dubious, at best. At one time, before the scholarship limitations, schools routinely had numbers similar to Nebraska. If they could handle them then, why not now? While it is always a slim chance, the occasional "break through" player will come from the walk-on ranks. Why take the chance on losing even that possibility?

6'4", 185 lbs and 4.9 speed?!?!?! Looks like either a redshirt year upcoming, or the offensive line had better be able to pass-block incredibly well from day one - if not, this one will end up in little pieces all over the backfield...

The only tact that I can see other school's using with these quotes is to allege that Callahan is not supportive of his players. However, most recruits won't care - they care about early playing time, getting on national TV, getting "prepped" for the NFL. Some care about the night life available. Hell, to a lot of kids today, last season is ancient history...

Sorry...didn't see the name when I glanced at the topic. I know Arkansas, for one, has offered on this one, but haven't heard that he's even considering them.

You aren't speaking of Zach Snider, are you? If so, he has orally committed to Arkansas recently - which, obviously, isn't final, but...

Also a good point. Since I live in a state whose team is in the SEC, I kind of got a close look at Mississippi State this year, and I'm not sure you can fault Blake for this year's team. Most, looking at the players, thought it was quite talented. However, for whatever reason, the players just up and quit on the coaching staff. I don't know why - Jackie Sherril has been on the hot seat for the last few years, and that didn't help. Also, Mississippi State, more than just about any other SEC team, relies on junior college transfers. While there are good people in the junior college ranks, there are also a fair number of them that are there because they wouldn't accept authority or follow the rules - wouldn't study, wouldn't listen, etc. I'm not saying Blake is a good choice - to be honest, I don't know whether he was at Mississippi State when they were winning. All I'm saying is that I don't think you can judge him on those the final two years of Oklahoma (they were trying to obtain talent, and without talent even the best coach will look bad) or last year at Mississippi State (where the players plain and simply gave up before the season began).

This is an area that I actually think could become a strength under Callahan. If he hires a top-notch defensive staff - basically with NFL experience - I have to think the level of teaching might even improve a bit. And it sure can't hurt to tell recruits, "Coaches So-and-So spent X number of years with six NFL teams. If you have the talent, we can best prepare you for the pros."

Good points. I'm not convinced you can't win with the option. When you are one of only a handful of teams that run it, it makes it decidedly difficult to prepare on a week's notice. Second, I've always felt that if the talent level was there, any offense can be used - but the talent should dictate the type of offense. While Nebraska can, and should, recruit nationally, it's base is in states in which power football is based. Third, if the option was the problem, then how was Nebraska able to win national championships running it less then 10 years ago? Does that mean that suddenly coaches know how to defense the option better? I don't see that. No, to me it comes down to talent. Will the West Coast offense bring in the better talent? Maybe, maybe not. But I'd sure like to see Callahan retain the option for a few seasons, try and recruit to it, and see if he can find, for example, a passing-first quarterback who can run, receivers who can block downfield but can catch, and the absolute best offensive lineman available. If that fails, then perhaps a switch is necessary. But until then... I guess what I'm saying is that no one has demonstrated to my satisfaction that you can't win with the option, or that changing to the West Coast offense is necessary to recruit. Again, if that's the case, how did Nebraska do it in the '90s? Retain the option, intensify recruiting efforts, and let's see what happens. One of the wonderful things about Nebraska is that tradition - that ability to line up, with the defense knowing precisely what was going to happen, and still be able to march down the field.

While I think - I hope - that Callahan will be a good hire, I agree. I could not find fault with any of Solich's coaching - I felt that recruiting was the key. Seems to me that the level of talent has declined just enough to cause these problems. What I would have liked to have seen is the creation of a "recruiting department", so to speak. Something that identifies the absolute essential, top-notch recruits, and that does nothing but set up the recruit for the visits from the coaches and so forth. While this might have been going on at Nebraska - I don't know - it seems that recruiting was the issue...not the coaching of Xs and Os.

Generally, isn't a five year deal kind of the norm now? Seems to me most of the time that's what we hear. So why the extra year? It could be that Steve didn't have much choice. If I'm a coach looking at the situation, I have to note that a 9 win coach was fired. My only hope of any kind of security - especially if I'm going to make a complete sea change on offense - is that I can get a long-term deal. Makes it that much more painful to fire me while the shift in offenses is occurring. Insofar as a number of candidates had turned the job down, it kind of put BC in the driver's seat to make that kind of demand...and SP had to find someone soon with the signing date coming up, and the kind of redicule that was being endured. Could be, then, that six years was not SP's idea...he had no choice.

Most people place a lot of significance on the fact that skilled position recruits like the West Coast offense. But...let's assume you are in fact one of those people. Most likely, you hearld from Florida, California, Texas, and so forth. Why would you go out of state to a school when so many schools in your region also run it? Let's be honest...for a lot of recruits coming from urban areas in warm weather states, there is little or no interest in moving to a rural, cold-weather state. They want bright lights, warm weather, beaches and the like. Couple that with the fact that you have to be able to move the ball on the ground when the weather is bad, and I don't see a relience on the West Coast offense as being something that benefits Nebraska. I still think Nebraska needs to stick with some kind of option attack, or at least some form of power football. Yes, some diversification is good and necessary - helps keep defenses honest, to a degree. But I have to wonder if making this switch really will help in recruiting.

God, by nonsense, I hope you mean the reporting and not the substance of the report. Please tell me you mean the reporting!

Geez, one rated 4-stars, none rated 5. Not good.

Good point about Green Bay. The one exception is that they have Brent Farve - makes great decisions (most of the time) and has a wonderful arm. So while they are run oriented, Farve can take over with the passing game. I hope you're right about the "recruiting speak". Maybe Bill is doing just that - not abandoning the run, but trying to construct a passing game to complement it. I just hate to see the option abandoned - it is part of the tradition of the program.

What is worrisome about the West Coast offense is, as I see it, twofold. First, you have to "retool" the offensive line - convert it from a run-oriented group to a pass-blocking group. That's a tough transition, even assuming the members of the offensive line are the type of players that would excell in that type of blocking. Second, the West Coast offense functions well when it has a quarterback who can read the defense quickly, and get the ball to the open man in short order. They don't have to be the strongest arm in the world, but they have to be quick decision-makers. It always seemed to me that the quarterbacks who excelled in that offense were "passing" quarterbacks from the time they started playing the position. Those that aren't seem to not have the feel for the passing game, passing lanes, and openings in the defense that is necessary to make it work. I may be wrong, but I don't see anyone on the roster that fits the bill.

The same could be said of Tom Osborne, and he did pretty well… Ultimately, it comes down to how he is perceived by recruits. Does he connect one-on-one? Do parents like him? Does he appear honest, genuine, and interested in the kid as both a student and an athlete? I don’t know, but my gut says, “Yes”. A lot of that could be attributed to the difference in the pro world and the college world. College kids are more amenable to following the lead of the coach. And Oakland has always been a hotbed for discontent, it seems - or at least it seems to foster a setting in which players feel they can air the dirty laundry. I agree. When he tells a recruit that he can prepare him for a pro career if the recruit has the talent, he has instant credibility.