Offensive Line

[flatwaterfan]

B.C didn't end the walkon program but he did reduce the numbers. Said he didn't know how he would coach that many players. The first year he was here he 'conditioned' the team to weed out the roster.

 

[zoogs]

I am curious because I don't know where to go get the numbers, but if someone could list the size of each of the walk-on classes from 2004 to present? I know we have an incredibly large one this year.

 

[Enhance]

Having to resort to using walk ons means that you can't judge talent worth a crap and we don't have any scholly players that are good enough to play. I have never understood why the fan base overrates walk ons so much.

I feel like this is a pretty obvious answer - the fan base has been spoon fed walk-on success stories for the past couple of decades. Many of the greatest Husker players and greatest Husker stories were walk-ons. It's been a huge part of the tradition and culture at Nebraska for years, more-so during the Osborne era. Osborne knew how to effectively incorporate walk-ons into the program, and the system we ran allowed them to progress and contribute to our team, when most other division one schools didn't really sniff at them.

Debate about whether we need them or whether we rely on them too much is one thing, but they're not "overrated".

 

[AFhusker]

Having to resort to using walk ons means that you can't judge talent worth a crap and we don't have any scholly players that are good enough to play. I have never understood why the fan base overrates walk ons so much.

I feel like this is a pretty obvious answer - the fan base has been spoon fed walk-on success stories for the past couple of decades. Many of the greatest Husker players and greatest Husker stories were walk-ons. It's been a huge part of the tradition and culture at Nebraska for years, more-so during the Osborne era. Osborne knew how to effectively incorporate walk-ons into the program, and the system we ran allowed them to progress and contribute to our team, when most other division one schools didn't really sniff at them.

Debate about whether we need them or whether we rely on them too much is one thing, but they're not "overrated".

Osborne had 120 walk ons a year. What is the percentage of those that became successful? It's very, very low and that is where I think fans overrate that part of the program. I don't think people realize that it's literally one or two kids that even make the roster out of 120 or so walk ons. Now with the rules that NCAA made in the late 90's that limited GA's, the walk on program had to be reduced, so that makes it even harder to find the diamonds in the rough. That is where Frank made his biggest mistake. He relied on it even with the reduced numbers instead of recruiting like he should have.

 

[AFhusker]

Having to resort to using walk ons means that you can't judge talent worth a crap and we don't have any scholly players that are good enough to play. I have never understood why the fan base overrates walk ons so much. And FYI NU never stop accepting walk ons, they were reduced during the Solich era due to the NCAA rules on cutting back GA's. It was kept at the same level ever since.

Which we all know is a load of crap since Callahan flat came out and said he was taking less walk-ons because he wanted a more "managable" roster.

BTW that was some pretty deep covert op info you just passed on there. My salt water aquarium guy must not have the same Level 4 Husker Clearance as yours.

I really don't care if you like the info or not, I'm just passing on what I heard, take it or leave it. I will be laughing when you are bitching about how terrible the Oline is and how Taylor still runs into sacks since he still has 0 pocket presence.

I'll pass on a few more:

Positives:

Green is the #2 RB and has looked great. Abdoullah is just a return guy now, there is that big of a gap between the two.

Heard/Seisay have looked great with a lot of help from Bo.

Reed is 100% and looks great again.

The only other negative that I haven't mentioned is that the DL looks like crap too. Kaz has a lot of work to do with these guys, of course it's hard with a lot of the starters out, but the second string guys are not very talented.

A quote about the OL is "The guys that have the skills don't have the brains to match, and the guys with the brains don't have the skill." So that is what we have to look forward too on the OL this season. Center is obviously our biggest problem.

 

[HuskerTrucker]

This lack of having a real center to play center may be the undoing of this offensive line this season if someone don't step up and take on the job, and do it well. I am not sure you can play in the Big Ten and not have a very good center.

 

[AFhusker]

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:

Isn't it funny how people will continue to make excuses for a guy how has done nothing but steal money from the school and has clearly failed in his duties but can't be fired because of his connections. Yet the guy who was able to recruit and send OL to the NFL is called soft and is crucified.

 

[Enhance]

Having to resort to using walk ons means that you can't judge talent worth a crap and we don't have any scholly players that are good enough to play. I have never understood why the fan base overrates walk ons so much.

I feel like this is a pretty obvious answer - the fan base has been spoon fed walk-on success stories for the past couple of decades. Many of the greatest Husker players and greatest Husker stories were walk-ons. It's been a huge part of the tradition and culture at Nebraska for years, more-so during the Osborne era. Osborne knew how to effectively incorporate walk-ons into the program, and the system we ran allowed them to progress and contribute to our team, when most other division one schools didn't really sniff at them.

Debate about whether we need them or whether we rely on them too much is one thing, but they're not "overrated".

Osborne had 120 walk ons a year. What is the percentage of those that became successful? It's very, very low and that is where I think fans overrate that part of the program. I don't think people realize that it's literally one or two kids that even make the roster out of 120 or so walk ons. Now with the rules that NCAA made in the late 90's that limited GA's, the walk on program had to be reduced, so that makes it even harder to find the diamonds in the rough. That is where Frank made his biggest mistake. He relied on it even with the reduced numbers instead of recruiting like he should have.

I don't have the exact numbers, but we were littered with walk-ons, especially in on the offensive line and in the backfield under Osborne.

Again, the exact number of successful players is irrelevant to a lot of the fan base - the fact that we had several successful walk-ons is why people cling to it. Today's game is different and we can't use walk-ons like we could in the past, but they still play a very important role here. We have 23 offensive linemen, many of which are walk-ons. That's really awesome.

 

[AFhusker]

Having to resort to using walk ons means that you can't judge talent worth a crap and we don't have any scholly players that are good enough to play. I have never understood why the fan base overrates walk ons so much.

I feel like this is a pretty obvious answer - the fan base has been spoon fed walk-on success stories for the past couple of decades. Many of the greatest Husker players and greatest Husker stories were walk-ons. It's been a huge part of the tradition and culture at Nebraska for years, more-so during the Osborne era. Osborne knew how to effectively incorporate walk-ons into the program, and the system we ran allowed them to progress and contribute to our team, when most other division one schools didn't really sniff at them.

Debate about whether we need them or whether we rely on them too much is one thing, but they're not "overrated".

Osborne had 120 walk ons a year. What is the percentage of those that became successful? It's very, very low and that is where I think fans overrate that part of the program. I don't think people realize that it's literally one or two kids that even make the roster out of 120 or so walk ons. Now with the rules that NCAA made in the late 90's that limited GA's, the walk on program had to be reduced, so that makes it even harder to find the diamonds in the rough. That is where Frank made his biggest mistake. He relied on it even with the reduced numbers instead of recruiting like he should have.

I don't have the exact numbers, but we were littered with walk-ons, especially in on the offensive line and in the backfield under Osborne.

Again, the exact number of successful players is irrelevant to a lot of the fan base - the fact that we had several successful walk-ons is why people cling to it. Today's game is different and we can't use walk-ons like we could in the past, but they still play a very important role here. We have 23 offensive linemen, many of which are walk-ons. That's really awesome.

It is if you don't care about winning division or conference titles. It just shows either how bad we are at evaluating OL talent in recruiting, or we are the unluckiest team in the country with injures. I'm thinking the former, and that it won't get better until we get better coaching at the position. I just hope it doesn't cost Bo his job because we can't give our QB's any time to get the ball to our very good skill position talent. But after the scrimmage today, it's not looking good at all.

 

[Mierin]

I just hope it doesn't cost Bo his job because we can't give our QB's any time to get the ball to our very good skill position talent. But after the scrimmage today, it's not looking good at all.

So they had a secret scrimmage on Easter that they hid from the media and your "friend" was privy to it?

 

[zoogs]

Spring Game isn't the only scrimmage -- I obviously can't confirm this, but would it be too surprising that the team would be practicing on a Sunday, and that some people might have attended it, during which a scrimmage was held?

 

[Treand3]

I just hope it doesn't cost Bo his job because we can't give our QB's any time to get the ball to our very good skill position talent. But after the scrimmage today, it's not looking good at all.

So they had a secret scrimmage on Easter that they hid from the media and your "friend" was privy to it?

Totally not disparaging what he's saying but I thought there was no practice yesterday as well. Maybe he meant Saturday. :dunno

 

[Stumpy1]

Having to resort to using walk ons means that you can't judge talent worth a crap and we don't have any scholly players that are good enough to play. I have never understood why the fan base overrates walk ons so much.

I feel like this is a pretty obvious answer - the fan base has been spoon fed walk-on success stories for the past couple of decades. Many of the greatest Husker players and greatest Husker stories were walk-ons. It's been a huge part of the tradition and culture at Nebraska for years, more-so during the Osborne era. Osborne knew how to effectively incorporate walk-ons into the program, and the system we ran allowed them to progress and contribute to our team, when most other division one schools didn't really sniff at them.

Debate about whether we need them or whether we rely on them too much is one thing, but they're not "overrated".

Osborne had 120 walk ons a year. What is the percentage of those that became successful? It's very, very low and that is where I think fans overrate that part of the program. I don't think people realize that it's literally one or two kids that even make the roster out of 120 or so walk ons. Now with the rules that NCAA made in the late 90's that limited GA's, the walk on program had to be reduced, so that makes it even harder to find the diamonds in the rough. That is where Frank made his biggest mistake. He relied on it even with the reduced numbers instead of recruiting like he should have.

I don't have the exact numbers, but we were littered with walk-ons, especially in on the offensive line and in the backfield under Osborne.

Again, the exact number of successful players is irrelevant to a lot of the fan base - the fact that we had several successful walk-ons is why people cling to it. Today's game is different and we can't use walk-ons like we could in the past, but they still play a very important role here. We have 23 offensive linemen, many of which are walk-ons. That's really awesome.

It is if you don't care about winning division or conference titles. It just shows either how bad we are at evaluating OL talent in recruiting, or we are the unluckiest team in the country with injures. I'm thinking the former, and that it won't get better until we get better coaching at the position. I just hope it doesn't cost Bo his job because we can't give our QB's any time to get the ball to our very good skill position talent. But after the scrimmage today, it's not looking good at all.

I think what you are saying is BS...The kids that walk-on give everything they have to play for the team and that is why you see some of them getting playing time. Just because they walk-on, it doesn't mean that they aren't talented.

 

[TJ Alum Husker]

It actually shows how GOOD our coaches are at evaluating talent. Some of these High School kids just don't have the best facilities or coaching to reach their potential. Some are just late developers. The fact that they can see the potential in these kids is admirable. Remember, just because a kid wants to walk on, doesn't mean he will be allowed to. They choose the walk-ons. That said, I am with you on your point about our coaching the O-Line. It has not been what it should be. We can do much better than Barney Cotton if we choose to. Some of his decisions baffle me. Moving A-Rod from a position where he was an all-american in high school to tackle just kills me! It can't be for playing time because he won't start at tackle and he won't start at guard.

 

[Enhance]

It is if you don't care about winning division or conference titles. It just shows either how bad we are at evaluating OL talent in recruiting, or we are the unluckiest team in the country with injures. I'm thinking the former, and that it won't get better until we get better coaching at the position. I just hope it doesn't cost Bo his job because we can't give our QB's any time to get the ball to our very good skill position talent. But after the scrimmage today, it's not looking good at all.

Take out the walk-ons, we still have at least a two deep of scholarship players. One B1G team only has eight linemen on their roster right now - period. Would you rather be in that situation, or be in ours?

You're discussing two separate things. Having a walk-on is independent of being able to judge football talent. If you want to argue that we are bad at evaluating OL talent in recruiting because a walk-on is starting over a scholarship player, that's one thing. But arguing that having 23 linemen, many (but no more than half) being walk-ons, means we can't judge football talent, doesn't make sense.

Also, what scrimmage are you talking about?