ATH Curtis Carter
- Thread starter Street Novelist
- Start date
zoogs
New member
No. If we are going to change coordinators it doesn't matter whether one HS kid is attached to the man or not. We're keeping Watson and it's not because he recruited a good QB this year.
I wonder where we stand with Willis Wright and Josh Reese, though?
Agree with you, EZ-E. Based on his comments, don't want him anymore.
I wonder where we stand with Willis Wright and Josh Reese, though?
Agree with you, EZ-E. Based on his comments, don't want him anymore.
Last edited by a moderator:
carlfense
New member
Love the ultimatum from Gilmore. I'm sorry Carter won't be a Husker, but I love that the coaches tell them if they shop around we aren't interested. Good move, imo. If they shop around they are usually gone anyways . . . and this way we can immediately get to work finding a replacement.
Good luck wherever you end up CC. (as long as it is not MU.)
Good luck wherever you end up CC. (as long as it is not MU.)
That's suicide in today's recruiting world. How many of our commits once commited to a different program? You take the commit when you get it, you'll win some, and you'll lose some. To pretend that kids won't look around is crazy.
carlfense
New member
I don't buy that. Once they are committed . . . they are committed. Do you think a guy like Rex Burkhead would shop around after committing? I sure don't think so. The Pelini's seem to want character guys.
zoogs
New member
On the fence about the ultimatum. Curtis sounded very bitter about it which makes me wonder if that's the right way to approach it. But we really don't know any specifics.
I do believe that players who are committed shouldn't take visits. I am not sure about a hard line but I can't argue too much against it. Just question how Gilmore handled this.
I do believe that players who are committed shouldn't take visits. I am not sure about a hard line but I can't argue too much against it. Just question how Gilmore handled this.
The Maudfather
New member
I can't argue with anything CC said. I think he is spot on. I too like that Gilmore gave him an ultimatum...could be one of the best things I've seen Gilmore do all year.
Bosnian_Husker77
New member
damnit i knew this would happen.. thanks zac lee, for living up to your potential of being a 4* player..
carlfense
New member
I thought you were the one contacting CC and telling us how solid his commitment was? Changing history?
yup. don't have to necessarily stop recruiting a kid, depending upon how the kid handles the situation, but it's important to clarify that a recruit that is actively interested in other schools will not be considered a commit by the staff and may or may not have a scholarship is they decide to recommit later. this is so that both sides clearly know where they stand.
Lava
New member
How can you say those comments are idiotic? Lee has been pretty bad, and we have gone back to being more run-oriented, and Green hasn't played much and not exactly lit it up when he has.
You may not like the comments, but you'd be lying to yourself if you said they weren't true.
Thing is, kid grew up an LSU fan. He wanted to go to LSU (probably still would if they'd offer), but they didn't offer. Even when LSU decided not to give him a scholarship, he took the high road and talked about how he still loved them and just felt he must not be what they're looking for. It was 100% class, then comes the explosion that Gilmore caused? Sorry, but Gilmore had to of seriously been a prick to piss Carter off so bad.
Last edited by a moderator:
I couldn't agree with you more. This kid has a lot of class, and in the end he has to do what's best for him. I wish it were Nebraska, but I can understand the kid not trusting his football career to Gilmore and Wats. Gilmore needs a taste of humble pie, and Wats needs to own up for his own offensive ineptitude (that really got me when he says the guys have a lot of maturing to do, and excluded himself from fault).
The one shining light from is if we lose more offensive recruits, that would have to force Bo's hand to make some coaching changes.
zoogs
New member
The strong language was part my emotional reaction to the decommit.
But I stand by what I said. The whole thing reeks of some (cough) Missouri coaches buzzing negativity into his ear and Curtis just lapping it all up.
Has he forgotten about last year? I guess everyone has a short term memory. The kind of offense we are running now, trust me, isn't by choice and it isn't Watson's preferred MO. We do it because it gives us the best chance to win. And that's what it is all about and I am glad that Watson can see this and not do the same thing over and over because it's the only thing he knows how to do. Changing schemes is a big deal, but that's twice now we've done it midseason because we needed to adapt, and twice that it has played at least a part in enabling us key victories.
We would love to work a slot guy into the offense. Nate, I believe, did a lot of slot work when Purify and Nunn were top dogs here. That's because he excelled there and gave us that option. We don't have that option right now because the slot guys needed to have good hands and run terrific routes. Curtis, if he comes in here and does that, adds that dimension to our offense and opens it up. To say that we are transitioning our philosophy to a Run, Run, Run offense and going for big, bulky possession receivers...is 100% recruiting backlash.
The more I think about it, the more I think Gilmore was in the wrong. We would love to sway another recruit who is committed to another school to come visit us. If Curtis needs time to explore, we should at the least be understanding about it, or find a different approach to use.
By the way, I am sure Watson is as hard on himself as he is on any of the guys. But as fans we love to stick it to the coaches rather than the players and they catch unfair amounts of flack for it. Watson's a competitor, and it kills him as much as any of us to see his offense not perform. He's not a guy to hang his players out to dry; he points the thumb. Cherrypicking quotes to justify one's dislike of him is totally unfair, IMO. But I also understand that since I support Watson, I'm just as likely to have tunnel vision only for the positives. Something to watch out for on both sides.
Last edited by a moderator: