Offensive Line

[Treand3]

Arod is playing the left side based off of the article I just read. (Pelini said he is playing opposite of Qvale.). Good article and backups what girlknowsfootball said. I like the fact that they are working the younger players more. Means the program is developing.

http://my.journalsta...ow_up_well.html

Read that earlier. Happy to see Carnes is becoming a more serviceable back up and that Green/Abdullah are improving. I'm really hoping one of them emerges as the clear number two, but I'm not holding my breath.

The last I heard from Ron Brown pretty much made me think that Abdullah has that number 2 spot until Aaron Green starts learning how to run between the tackles. Brown said that's something they are working on with Aaron, while Abdullah has improved a lot running between the tackles.

If Aaron ever wants to truly be a big time back, be has to get better there. I really hope he does.

 

[Danny Bateman]

Really? No one has said it yet? Honestly? Alright. I didn't want to have to be THIS guy, but I guess I'll have to step up to the plate...

FIRE BARNEY COTTON!!! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! :ahhhhhhhh :ahhhhhhhh :ahhhhhhhh

That is all. :backtotopic

 

[T_O_Bull]

Won't happen this year.

 

[bshirt]

The reinstatement of the walk on program the last few years is starting to pay off again. When one or two walk ons become a serious contender for playing time you acquire depth at a position without waiting for the next 'young' scholarship player to develop or not having to 'throw' them into the mix when they aren't ready.

Excellent point and well said. It helps.....

 

[caveman99]

The reinstatement of the walk on program the last few years is starting to pay off again. When one or two walk ons become a serious contender for playing time you acquire depth at a position without waiting for the next 'young' scholarship player to develop or not having to 'throw' them into the mix when they aren't ready.

Excellent point and well said. It helps.....

Hhhhhhmmmmm can you let me know what year it was that NU stopped accepting walk ons? Must have missed it, thanks.

 

[Enhance]

Really? No one has said it yet? Honestly? Alright. I didn't want to have to be THIS guy, but I guess I'll have to step up to the plate...

FIRE BARNEY COTTON!!! RABBLE RABBLE RABBLE! :ahhhhhhhh :ahhhhhhhh :ahhhhhhhh

That is all. :backtotopic

Trust me - I'm right at the front of the line of people who think Cotton shouldn't be our line coach. I'm not ready to call for his head just yet, though. 2012 and and 2013 are extremely important for his sake, especially 2013. There will be absolutely no excuse for lackluster offensive line play in 2013 with the amount of experience that we will have coming back, given that all other things remain constant (i.e. we don't lose many players for whatever reason, most of the offensive coaches stay, etc.)

That said, these will be years five and six with him in charge. Does any position coach really deserve five-six years to finally put a cohesive unit on the field? I've heard former lineman dish healthy amounts of criticism towards our players' technique and abilities. We'll just have to wait and see.

 

[bshirt]

The reinstatement of the walk on program the last few years is starting to pay off again. When one or two walk ons become a serious contender for playing time you acquire depth at a position without waiting for the next 'young' scholarship player to develop or not having to 'throw' them into the mix when they aren't ready.

Excellent point and well said. It helps.....

Hhhhhhmmmmm can you let me know what year it was that NU stopped accepting walk ons? Must have missed it, thanks.

Duh....I'm sure he was referring to it's reinstatement of emphasis or priority.

Can you let me know when Clownahan had three walkons start on his Oline? Must have missed it, thanks.

 

[kchusker_chris]

The reinstatement of the walk on program the last few years is starting to pay off again. When one or two walk ons become a serious contender for playing time you acquire depth at a position without waiting for the next 'young' scholarship player to develop or not having to 'throw' them into the mix when they aren't ready.

Excellent point and well said. It helps.....

Hhhhhhmmmmm can you let me know what year it was that NU stopped accepting walk ons? Must have missed it, thanks.

Duh....I'm sure he was referring to it's reinstatement of emphasis or priority.

Can you let me know when Clownahan had three walkons start on his Oline? Must have missed it, thanks.

Personally, I don't think this is a good thing. It means there are major issues elsewhere - whether it's recruiting, or development, or something else - we should not have to rely on 60% of our line being walk-ons when we recruit 3-5 OL each year. There are 20+ lineman on scholarship right now. Only 2 of them are better at their respective positions than the walk-ons? Not a good sign.

 

[RedDenver]

Personally, I don't think this is a good thing. It means there are major issues elsewhere - whether it's recruiting, or development, or something else - we should not have to rely on 60% of our line being walk-ons when we recruit 3-5 OL each year. There are 20+ lineman on scholarship right now. Only 2 of them are better at their respective positions than the walk-ons? Not a good sign.

Or our walk-ons are better than 20+ scholarship players - that bodes very well. It's all about perspective.

And didn't one of those walk-ons earn some All-B1G recognition?

 

[The Dude]

The reinstatement of the walk on program the last few years is starting to pay off again. When one or two walk ons become a serious contender for playing time you acquire depth at a position without waiting for the next 'young' scholarship player to develop or not having to 'throw' them into the mix when they aren't ready.

Excellent point and well said. It helps.....

Hhhhhhmmmmm can you let me know what year it was that NU stopped accepting walk ons? Must have missed it, thanks.

Duh....I'm sure he was referring to it's reinstatement of emphasis or priority.

Can you let me know when Clownahan had three walkons start on his Oline? Must have missed it, thanks.

Personally, I don't think this is a good thing. It means there are major issues elsewhere - whether it's recruiting, or development, or something else - we should not have to rely on 60% of our line being walk-ons when we recruit 3-5 OL each year. There are 20+ lineman on scholarship right now. Only 2 of them are better at their respective positions than the walk-ons? Not a good sign.

I don't think it's good or bad. It just is.

If a kid can play better than the other kids at his position, I don't care how he got here.

 

[kchusker_chris]

I don't think it's good or bad. It just is.

If a kid can play better than the other kids at his position, I don't care how he got here.

True, but I think we can all agree that on Day 1 that scholarship guy was far ahead in terms of athletic ability than the walk-on. It's why most of these guys are 5th year seniors, or late in their career when they get their playing time. So why are they passing up scholly guys who were superior to them on Day 1? It makes me think that we aren't developing the offensive line guys like we should, or there's motivational isssues, or we're recruiting the wrong type of guys.

And for whatever reason - we're seeing this predominantly on a single squad. A walk-on breaks through every once in a while at receiver, kicker (obviously), or in the defensive backfield....but why is there such a large percentage on the OL, and not in other areas if this is the 'norm'. there is a boatload of walk on receivers, and we all know Nebraska has a hard time recruiting receivers. why aren't there more playing? I still think there's something wrong w/ the offensive line, and this is just a single example of that. Rather than getting our scholly guys playing at a BCS level, we get our walk-ons coached up to play at a mid-major level...the same point our scholly guys end up.

 

[The Dude]

I don't think it's good or bad. It just is.

If a kid can play better than the other kids at his position, I don't care how he got here.

True, but I think we can all agree that on Day 1 that scholarship guy was far ahead in terms of athletic ability than the walk-on. It's why most of these guys are 5th year seniors, or late in their career when they get their playing time. So why are they passing up scholly guys who were superior to them on Day 1? It makes me think that we aren't developing the offensive line guys like we should, or there's motivational isssues, or we're recruiting the wrong type of guys.

And for whatever reason - we're seeing this predominantly on a single squad. A walk-on breaks through every once in a while at receiver, kicker (obviously), or in the defensive backfield....but why is there such a large percentage on the OL, and not in other areas if this is the 'norm'. there is a boatload of walk on receivers, and we all know Nebraska has a hard time recruiting receivers. why aren't there more playing? I still think there's something wrong w/ the offensive line, and this is just a single example of that. Rather than getting our scholly guys playing at a BCS level, we get our walk-ons coached up to play at a mid-major level...the same point our scholly guys end up.

I think it partly has something to do with high school football in Nebraska. We're not going to produce many college level WRs in this state. Lineman is a little different story. I know some of our walk on guys are able to take scholarships from other schools, but choose to walk on at Nebraska. Another reason is, recruiting is largely a guessing game. Just because a guy doesn't get a lot of offers, doesn't necessarily mean he's not as capable as the guy who has more exposure and gets more offers.

I don't think our line is as bad as we think it is. They're not playing at a mid-major level, we just have higher expectations for that unit than most schools, and it's been a very long time since we've had a group that has met that expectation. I believe we think a lot less of our offensive lineman than what the national perception is.

 

[RedDenver]

True, but I think we can all agree that on Day 1 that scholarship guy was far ahead in terms of athletic ability than the walk-on.

Maybe others will agree with a blanket statement like that, but I don't. And I'd rather have the "better player" than "more athletic ability" any day of the week.

 

['SkersRule]

Our OL is fine and so is our coach(es). Barney and Beck are on the same page schematically which makes a huge difference. Barney's style simply didn't mesh with Shawn Watson's soft, passive, west coast style. Bo and the rest of the offensive coaches have really addressed the OL depth issues through the past three years of recruiting and continue to look for high quality players that fit what they want to do offensively. We had a young OL last season with one true freshman, a couple of redshirt freshman, and three former walk-ons getting most of the snaps. Now with the offensive philosophy finally settled and entering the 2nd year with the same offense we're going to see the OL get better and better. And in truth, our OL actually played pretty well all last year and we can expect even further improvement.

 

[Hunter94]

Our OL is fine and so is our coach(es). Barney and Beck are on the same page schematically which makes a huge difference. Barney's style simply didn't mesh with Shawn Watson's soft, passive, west coast style. Bo and the rest of the offensive coaches have really addressed the OL depth issues through the past three years of recruiting and continue to look for high quality players that fit what they want to do offensively. We had a young OL last season with one true freshman, a couple of redshirt freshman, and three former walk-ons getting most of the snaps. Now with the offensive philosophy finally settled and entering the 2nd year with the same offense we're going to see the OL get better and better. And in truth, our OL actually played pretty well all last year and we can expect even further improvement.

:koolaid2: :koolaid2: :koolaid2: :koolaid2: :koolaid2: ......i'll have another.......... :koolaid2: :koolaid2: :koolaid2: :koolaid2: :koolaid2: