2022 Fall Camp Notes - Receivers and Tight Ends

funhusker said:
Good grief…

I’m just trying to figure out why someone would want to see someone unnecessarily stripped of a scholarship if it wasn’t required to get to the 85 limit.

Outside of vindictiveness…but it appears that’s all you got!
Click to expand...


@funhusker, I'm just seeing this today.

It would be strange to me to see moving on from a player as "vindictiveness".  The players are all looking out for there best interests ... and that is all well and good.  It appears that various schools are aligning themselves to be in particular conferences to put there interests first also.  

So, I my thoughts go, of the staff bieve it's to their best interest to move on from a player, it seems far that some type of strategy, plan and new type of contract and be made up that instills that we aren't stuck with an underperming player.  

So, even if worst came to worst, and we needed to get down to 85 players, with the New football world the players wanted ["show me the money"], if the coaches let go of a player they felt needed to go and it served the betterment of the team [even this year], I would have no problem with it.  I would find it refreshing and a statement to the players that it's different now on the coach side as well.  No one is safe.

 
BigRedN said:
@funhusker, I'm just seeing this today.

It would be strange to me to see moving on from a player as "vindictiveness".  The players are all looking out for there best interests ... and that is all well and good.  It appears that various schools are aligning themselves to be in particular conferences to put there interests first also.  

So, I my thoughts go, of the staff bieve it's to their best interest to move on from a player, it seems far that some type of strategy, plan and new type of contract and be made up that instills that we aren't stuck with an underperming player.  

So, even if worst came to worst, and we needed to get down to 85 players, with the New football world the players wanted ["show me the money"], if the coaches let go of a player they felt needed to go and it served the betterment of the team [even this year], I would have no problem with it.  I would find it refreshing and a statement to the players that it's different now on the coach side as well.  No one is safe.
Click to expand...
You still haven’t answered the question.

Why would coaches get rid of a good teammate if they didn’t need to?

Using your example from the post that caught my attention, what good would come from taking Hickman’s scholarship at this point?

 
funhusker said:
You still haven’t answered the question.

Why would coaches get rid of a good teammate if they didn’t need to?

Using your example from the post that caught my attention, what good would come from taking Hickman’s scholarship at this point?
Click to expand...
What Hickman lost his scholarship???? and all i would say that a scholarship isn't a guarantee. I believe that if they give a kid a scholarship its bc they believe he isn't going to be a cheerleader from the sideline meaning a contributor to the team success to win. I hope it wasn't Hickman bc i still don't know who left the program or got stripped of a scholarship.

 
Huskerfollower4life said:
What Hickman lost his scholarship???? and all i would say that a scholarship isn't a guarantee. I believe that if they give a kid a scholarship its bc they believe he isn't going to be a cheerleader from the sideline meaning a contributor to the team success to win. I hope it wasn't Hickman bc i still don't know who left the program or got stripped of a scholarship.
Click to expand...
Far as I know Hickman still has his scholarship.  He's also lettered all three years he's played.  I just don't get why anyone would use him as an example of cutting players for the sake of cutting players...

 
funhusker said:
Far as I know Hickman still has his scholarship.  He's also lettered all three years he's played.  I just don't get why anyone would use him as an example of cutting players for the sake of cutting players...
Click to expand...
I know why bc he is a local kid who people wanted him to succeed but he was a tweener. Not fast enough to be a wide receiver and not big enough for tight end? So i can understand why someone would use his name not saying its right but you been here for 3 years you should probably have a role on the team in the sense at least be a rotational player if anything. If not then you are just going to sit bc coaches are going to rely on them for their livelihood. 

 
Huskerfollower4life said:
I know why bc he is a local kid who people wanted him to succeed but he was a tweener. Not fast enough to be a wide receiver and not big enough for tight end? So i can understand why someone would use his name not saying its right but you been here for 3 years you should probably have a role on the team in the sense at least be a rotational player if anything. If not then you are just going to sit bc coaches are going to rely on them for their livelihood. 
Click to expand...
Hickman was the example @BigRedN used to state that players should lose scholarships if they aren’t “performing”.  I’m not trying to claim Hickman is the best TE in the room, but by all accounts he’s a great team mate, he’s a good dude, he does contribute, and like you said he’s a local recruit.

Why should a program cut a player like that at this point in the season when it appears NU already made the scholarship limit?  

I think it would be nothing more than a power move and a really bad look.  But some people get off on that, I guess…

 
Really happy to hear Omar Manning being the first name out of Mickey's mouth when asked about who was impressing so far. Also don't think I'd heard him specify that he's looking for 6 ready to play, but that does make sense. Gonna be competitive to get on the field. 

Mickey wasn't happy with today's practice though, and listed himself as the most consistent in the room which I think is pretty hilarious. 

 
Husker in WI said:
Really happy to hear Omar Manning being the first name out of Mickey's mouth when asked about who was impressing so far. Also don't think I'd heard him specify that he's looking for 6 ready to play, but that does make sense. Gonna be competitive to get on the field. 

Mickey wasn't happy with today's practice though, and listed himself as the most consistent in the room which I think is pretty hilarious. 
Click to expand...
For Manning, you hope its consistent and Mickey is still mentioning him 1st 3 weeks from now. Manning taking the lead on a spot is great for the season.

 
Husker in WI said:
Really happy to hear Omar Manning being the first name out of Mickey's mouth when asked about who was impressing so far. Also don't think I'd heard him specify that he's looking for 6 ready to play, but that does make sense. Gonna be competitive to get on the field. 

Mickey wasn't happy with today's practice though, and listed himself as the most consistent in the room which I think is pretty hilarious. 
Click to expand...
I'd be surprised if this wasn't the 6 as of early on...

1. Palmer

2. Martin

3. Manning 

4. Garcia-Castaneda

5. Washington 

6. Brown 

 
BIG ERN said:
I'd be surprised if this wasn't the 6 as of early on...

1. Palmer

2. Martin

3. Manning 

4. Garcia-Castaneda

5. Washington 

6. Brown 
Click to expand...


Yeah that seems about right. This is also the coach who called Brody Belt the best football player on the team, so if somebody goes down or underperforms he's probably #7.

 
Why isn't Omar Manning really not getting any preseason buzz? You would think bc obviously he is going to be a number 1 wr at his position he's playing (x,y,or z) he'd get some recognition like Trey Palmer. As much as i like Trey and he's quick and fast he didn't get to shine at LSU so you would think that they be in the same boat together at the very least right???? Yes i know Omar didn't do much himself last year but i would state the point that i believe that MJ is going to elevate the wr's play with how he coaches this year. 

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top