DaveH Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 It's also hard to get kids to commit to Husker football when you're getting your butts handed to you by Texas Tech. Hey, I heard a while back that he's done away with the large roster, and the amount of walkon's that were being accepted? Is this true? Yes, the walk-on program has been cut down. There are still walk-on's just not as many. If they can bring something to the team of value, they can make the team. Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 I remember about 10 or 12 years ago when 2/3rd's of the kids were walkons... We were winning national titles with kids that were just showing up, to tryout... Quote Link to comment
DaveH Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 I remember about 10 or 12 years ago when 2/3rd's of the kids were walkons... We were winning national titles with kids that were just showing up, to tryout... I would be pissed at that if I were a scholarship player in the time you mention. Sure, walk-ons were on the team and some of em turned out pretty damn good. Everyone has walk-on's including oklahoma? Does that mean they are " winning national titles with kids that were just showing up, to tryout..."? No because that is a gross over generalization. Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted October 11, 2004 Share Posted October 11, 2004 ok, that it may well be, but, that told me something about those kids trying to walk on... That they made it, they might not have the most talent in the world, but they had heart and guts... And like they said in Full Metal Jackets, "guts is enough"... Quote Link to comment
AR Husker Fan Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 ok, that it may well be, but, that told me something about those kids trying to walk on... That they made it, they might not have the most talent in the world, but they had heart and guts... And like they said in Full Metal Jackets, "guts is enough"... That would be true only if the team was composed predominately of walk-ons. It never was, and certainly not during the championship years. There is no doubt that NU over the years managed to glean a few gems from the walk-ons, but they hardly dominated the lineup, much less formed the basis of the team. Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Yeah, but now with Callahan there, do you even think the kids that are walking on, even have a chance to compete? Quote Link to comment
DaveH Posted October 12, 2004 Share Posted October 12, 2004 Yeah, but now with Callahan there, do you even think the kids that are walking on, even have a chance to compete? Yes. But really, how will any of us know? I will bet you that some day some bitter player, that was never really good to begin with, will show up and say "I never got my fair chance!" No, it is most likely the fact that you suck! Quote Link to comment
AR Husker Fan Posted October 14, 2004 Share Posted October 14, 2004 Yeah, but now with Callahan there, do you even think the kids that are walking on, even have a chance to compete? I don't see why not - the reason Callahan stated for reducing the numbers of walk-on players was to allow for more direct individual instruction of the ones that remain. If anything, then, there is a better chance they will develop. Quote Link to comment
Benard Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Yeah, but now with Callahan there, do you even think the kids that are walking on, even have a chance to compete? I don't see why not - the reason Callahan stated for reducing the numbers of walk-on players was to allow for more direct individual instruction of the ones that remain. If anything, then, there is a better chance they will develop. Does he just look at his plays in practice like he does in a game or does he actually coach in a practice. Quote Link to comment
AR Husker Fan Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Yeah, but now with Callahan there, do you even think the kids that are walking on, even have a chance to compete? I don't see why not - the reason Callahan stated for reducing the numbers of walk-on players was to allow for more direct individual instruction of the ones that remain. If anything, then, there is a better chance they will develop. Does he just look at his plays in practice like he does in a game or does he actually coach in a practice. Not sure how that addresses the issue. Assume he "just looks at" them in practice. Even then, the smaller number of walk-ons gives them a better chance of standing out on natural talent. If he does more than watch, which I suspect is true, then the smaller numbers gives the walk-ons more opportunities for individual coaching. Quote Link to comment
DaveH Posted October 15, 2004 Share Posted October 15, 2004 Yeah, but now with Callahan there, do you even think the kids that are walking on, even have a chance to compete? I don't see why not - the reason Callahan stated for reducing the numbers of walk-on players was to allow for more direct individual instruction of the ones that remain. If anything, then, there is a better chance they will develop. Does he just look at his plays in practice like he does in a game or does he actually coach in a practice. I still don't get what you are saying with that. What exactly does coaching look like? Yelling at players? Are you watching him the whole time he is on the sidelines? Quote Link to comment
DaveH Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 Yeah, but now with Callahan there, do you even think the kids that are walking on, even have a chance to compete? I don't see why not - the reason Callahan stated for reducing the numbers of walk-on players was to allow for more direct individual instruction of the ones that remain. If anything, then, there is a better chance they will develop. Does he just look at his plays in practice like he does in a game or does he actually coach in a practice. I still don't get what you are saying with that. What exactly does coaching look like? Yelling at players? Are you watching him the whole time he is on the sidelines? So? Quote Link to comment
Armistead Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 I saw more problems with our play calling early in the TT game than anything else...the final score was a product of a few different factors.. 1) Play calling by BC was terrible early and they had few choices late 2) the defense was very good for most of the 1st half,considering the position they foun themselves in 3) the Big 12 loves to eat its own...Leach was throwing the ball and running the score up because he knows he will never have the chance to do it agin...sad fact if you are a Texas Tech fan and a matter of Fact if you are a Husker 4)BC should have run the ball when it got outta hand and tried to eat the clock...he didn't The Idea that we fire BC is something I was thinking the night of the game, I don't see the need...BC and the rest of the staff are pro's who have don e a nice job coming in late last year...The AD botched the transition Sunny days are ahead....Remember that we have been apart of some great years and we will be on top agin in the near future....Most fans have never expeienced the joy of wining like we have don't get to high when we win and don't get to low when we lose....just remember we are the among the top 3 programs to ever play college football....perspective...have a nice day Quote Link to comment
DaveH Posted October 16, 2004 Share Posted October 16, 2004 I saw more problems with our play calling early in the TT game than anything else...the final score was a product of a few different factors.. 1) Play calling by BC was terrible early and they had few choices late 2) the defense was very good for most of the 1st half,considering the position they foun themselves in 3) the Big 12 loves to eat its own...Leach was throwing the ball and running the score up because he knows he will never have the chance to do it agin...sad fact if you are a Texas Tech fan and a matter of Fact if you are a Husker 4)BC should have run the ball when it got outta hand and tried to eat the clock...he didn't The Idea that we fire BC is something I was thinking the night of the game, I don't see the need...BC and the rest of the staff are pro's who have don e a nice job coming in late last year...The AD botched the transition Sunny days are ahead....Remember that we have been apart of some great years and we will be on top agin in the near future....Most fans have never expeienced the joy of wining like we have don't get to high when we win and don't get to low when we lose....just remember we are the among the top 3 programs to ever play college football....perspective...have a nice day I agree. I would have liked to see a bunch of running late in the TT game just to get the hell out of there! Oh welll, today is a new game. GBR! Quote Link to comment
walksalone Posted October 18, 2004 Share Posted October 18, 2004 This is Bill Callahan we're talking about... I'd like to offer two pieces of evidence... 1) 2002 Superbowl, when all he did was throw the ball, and the TB defense had them for lunch 2) 5 minutes to go in the game against Pitt, let's throw on 1st down... I could come up with more, but I will refrain... Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.