Pedro Guerrero Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 I would take the three Nebraska kids that went/are going to Iowa over any of the ones at KSU. That's just my view on things. Did anyone see Shada this past weekend? He is 100 times better then McCardle is or will ever be at the D1 level. Isn't Russell kind of a trouble maker? I thought he got the boot from the Central BB team last year and already got in trouble at North Star. Quote Link to comment
hootin' annie's goatfarm Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 Hello, so that is the reason why I & everyone else has not seen any stats on derrick russell, it is because of disciplinary reasons...& this kid is still going to be given a D1 scholarship...& let alone the fact that he only-truly has one year of starting or even playing high school football under his belt...& that merits a scholarship to KSU...his 40 time is 4.67, which is good-ok for D1 wr's...his routes & hands are so-so for D1 wr's... Yes, he and bullock have scholarship offers, but they have not been asked to visit one of KSU game as of yet... I guess, with discipline problems russell probable will not even be asked to walk-on at UN... As for bullock I like him, (saw him last year) he is aggressive, has good hands, & has become a go-to-guy, who has a lot of catches & yards this year...but, his 40 time is 4.69, which is so-so for D1 wr, and he is only 6'0", which doesn't fit the mold of the new UN wr...yet, I hope he walks on...his father played at UN...plus, I could see him as a pilkington-type wr, who can pick up big first downs in a few years...maybe. Also, as for tarpinian, downing has been at millard north, quite a bit (gossip I know but I heard three times in the last couple of weeks) to talk with young, & I wonder if he has talked to tarpinian? - I know that tarpinian has been solid on his verbal to Iowa, and that he camped at Iowa over the summer, so there has been an interest there for a while...yet if UN begins to take notice, who knows? Quote Link to comment
BigRedDallasTexan Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 4.67 in the 40 is good for a D1 WR? that's news to me. Quote Link to comment
StuckinChicago Posted October 20, 2005 Share Posted October 20, 2005 It is.... if your 6'4'' or taller. Mike Williams ran a 4.69, and was first round draft pick. He was 6'5'' however. Quote Link to comment
huskerhonk Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Hey folks, this is my first ever post, and I just wanted to say that we just can't give up free rides to guys because they are local. They still need to be able to play in the system, and bring something to the table. Quote Link to comment
BigRedDallasTexan Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 It is.... if your 6'4'' or taller. Mike Williams ran a 4.69, and was first round draft pick. He was 6'5'' however. I had no clue. I think i'd rather take my chances with a slightly smaller but much faster reciever. A couple of big guys are good but i'd rather have a big tight end and fast revievers. Quote Link to comment
BigWillie Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 So you wouldn't want possession receivers like Jerry Rice, Michael Irvin, Keyshawn Johnson just because they are not fast? Getting YAC guys are great, but you need those big guys in the red zone to go up over someone, or even much that tough catch in traffic. These track star guys are nice, but I'd rather have a few more possession guys than a couple guys who will stretch the field. Don't get me wrong, you still need those speedy receivers, but your team shouldn't be based around them. Quote Link to comment
StuckinChicago Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 Small speedy guys is what we have now. We need bigger guys in this offense that will make tough catches and bull forward a few yards. Every once and a while you also get a guy like Mike Williams, who doesnt have the flashy forty, but is an exceptional athlete who can make the tough catches and get the yac Quote Link to comment
BigRedDallasTexan Posted October 21, 2005 Share Posted October 21, 2005 I'm definitley not trying to say that I don't want the big recievers. If it came across like that I apologize. What i'd really like is a good mixture of both types of recievers. It's rare to get a guy with the talents of Mike Williams and I don't believe we should recruit a guy just because he is big (I'm sure the coaches aren't doing this). What I meant when I said i'd like a smaller reciever that is faster, is that I would be willing to sacrafice a couple inches in order to gain a few tenths of a second in the 40. Just because a guy is big I don't think that he should earn a scholarship if he doesn't have the other skills necesarry to be a good wide out. I'm sure i've made this sound thoroughly confusing but I do agree with both of you. 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.