Where Is It OK to Start Walk-Ons?

BigRedBuster said:
If the team was successful, no. 

But, your example is pretty nonsensical. 
Click to expand...
What qualifies successful?

If the team went 9-3 and won the west with a bunch of walk-ons starting, you wouldn't be disappointed that we didn't have the scholarship talent to win those other 3 games?

Only a title season would make starting a bunch of walk-ons a nonfactor in my opinion. Otherwise you're still left with the what could of been possibilities.

 
This guy has a pretty solid list of Nebraska's walk-ons over the years.

https://sites.google.com/site/nebraskafootballhistory/walk-ons

Here's his All Walk-On Team, with a few of my own added in.

uYuvX4m.png


 
default_28 said:
What qualifies successful?

If the team went 9-3 and won the west with a bunch of walk-ons starting, you wouldn't be disappointed that we didn't have the scholarship talent to win those other 3 games?

Only a title season would make starting a bunch of walk-ons a nonfactor in my opinion. Otherwise you're still left with the what could of been possibilities.
Click to expand...
If we won a national championship with 22 walk-ons, would you be upset we were starting walk-ons?

This has about the same probability as Mav's example of starting 22 walk-ons.

 
BigRedBuster said:
If we won a national championship with 22 walk-ons, would you be upset we were starting walk-ons?

This has about the same probability as Mav's example of starting 22 walk-ons.
Click to expand...
No, as my comment says, I would have no issue with 22 walk-ons if we won the whole thing. Anything short of that though, and I would be disappointed. I'm not anti walk-ons if they're the best we have, but I think that if you're starting large numbers of them in your team then success is a much more specific outcome.

 
default_28 said:
No, as my comment says, I would have no issue with 22 walk-ons if we won the whole thing. Anything short of that though, and I would be disappointed. I'm not anti walk-ons if they're the best we have, but I think that if you're starting large numbers of them in your team then success is a much more specific outcome.
Click to expand...
Let's be clear.  The original question in the OP didn't have anything to do with numbers of walk-ons starting.  It had to do with what position would you be upset that a walk-on was starting.  Very different discussion.

So, let's stick with reality and that's anywhere from maybe 2-4 walk-ons starting.  I have absolutely zero problem with that if those are the best players at the position and they are playing at a high level...no matter what position that is.

Now, as to the question of "success".  Sitting here right now, if we started 4 walk-ons next year and they compete at a level needed for the team to go win 10 games next year, I would be very happy.  If we are starting 4 walk-ons 5 years from now and we still haven't won a conference title, I would be disappointed.  But, I wouldn't automatically blame the walk-ons  That's ludicrous and not fair to them.  If the scholarship players can't beat them out, that's on THEM....not the walk-ons.  AND....there are 18 other starters (scholarship players)  that play a major roll in not winning championships too.

 
BigRedBuster said:
Let's be clear.  The original question in the OP didn't have anything to do with numbers of walk-ons starting.  It had to do with what position would you be upset that a walk-on was starting.  Very different discussion.

So, let's stick with reality and that's anywhere from maybe 2-4 walk-ons starting.  I have absolutely zero problem with that if those are the best players at the position and they are playing at a high level...no matter what position that is.

Now, as to the question of "success".  Sitting here right now, if we started 4 walk-ons next year and they compete at a level needed for the team to go win 10 games next year, I would be very happy.  If we are starting 4 walk-ons 5 years from now and we still haven't won a conference title, I would be disappointed.  But, I wouldn't automatically blame the walk-ons  That's ludicrous and not fair to them.  If the scholarship players can't beat them out, that's on THEM....not the walk-ons.  AND....there are 18 other starters (scholarship players)  that play a major roll in not winning championships too.
Click to expand...
I'm trying to imply that I would be blaming Joe Walkon for not winning enough games, just that at some point if your scholarship players are routinely getting beat out by guys that didn't get a good enough offer to play somewhere else it's a problem. I agree with the points you've made about us having had successful walk-ons at every position, and that there are 18 other guys on the field. That's the reason that I brought up the number of walk-ons to begin with, if forced to start a WO at any position even QB you can overcome that with superior talent at the other positions. If its more than a couple though.....

 
default_28 said:
I'm trying to imply that I would be blaming Joe Walkon for not winning enough games,
Click to expand...


I'm assuming you worded this wrong.

To the rest of your post.

If a kid grows up in Cozad Nebraska without exposure to recruiting services and camps, is asked to walk-on and beats out players....because he is actually damn good.  I don't give a flying rip if he's a walk-on and it has absolutely no part of if I'm upset that he's beating out scholarship players.  Why would it???  He's playing at a high level and playing for the Huskers.  I don't understand your logic.....just because other schools didn't offer him out of HS???  I'm just damn happy we found him and have him on our team.

You seem to be assuming the walk-on is more than likely going to be the weakest link on the team.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
I'm assuming you worded this wrong.

To the rest of your post.

If a kid grows up in Cozad Nebraska without exposure to recruiting services and camps, is asked to walk-on and beats out players....because he is actually damn good.  I don't give a flying rip if he's a walk-on and it has absolutely no part of if I'm upset that he's beating out scholarship players.  Why would it???  He's playing at a high level and playing for the Huskers.  I don't understand your logic.....just because other schools didn't offer him out of HS???  I'm just damn happy we found him and have him on our team.

You seem to be assuming the walk-on is more than likely going to be the weakest link on the team.
Click to expand...
That is exactly what I'm assuming. We're not the only school that scouts Nebraska, and the kids that are in state and elite get recognized. Is it possible for a kid to be a late bloomer or to slip through the cracks? Of course, but that should be the exception not the rule. You're making it about an individual position battle, and saying its no concern. I'm talking about the team as a whole and what it means for us on an institutional level if too much of our talent is dependent upon uncovering these hidden gems.

To be clear, if a kid from Cozad is more talented than the other players than he should play and good on him. I'm not going to root against him just because he wasn't highly recruited or from the south, but if our coaches didn't think he was as good as players they did offer scholarships to, why is it hard to believe that I might come to that same conclusion.

 
default_28 said:
That is exactly what I'm assuming.
Click to expand...
Why?

So...if Danny Woodhead would have walked on and became the starter....to you....he still would have been the weakest link on the team.

default_28 said:
To be clear, if a kid from Cozad is more talented than the other players than he should play and good on him. I'm not going to root against him just because he wasn't highly recruited or from the south, but if our coaches didn't think he was as good as players they did offer scholarships to, why is it hard to believe that I might come to that same conclusion.
Click to expand...
Ummm....you can have the same opinion out of HS.  But, if the kid excels in Lincoln and beats out the scholarship players, it's obvious the coaches have changed their minds.....many times then giving the kid a scholarship.

So, the coaches can change their minds.  The bigger question is....why can't you?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I get the QB thing, but in a situation where we're changing systems it wouldn't be surprising if Bunch is just a better fit for the offense than Gebbia.

In a few years it will be more of a head-scratcher if a walk-on is starting there.

 
Starting a walk on at QB shouldn't happen unless it's in an extreme emergency because if the coach did anything right, there would be enough scholarship QB's developed enough to start.

The top programs in the country don't do it and neither should Nebraska.

 
StPaulHusker said:
Starting a walk on at QB shouldn't happen unless it's in an extreme emergency because if the coach did anything right, there would be enough scholarship QB's developed enough to start.

The top programs in the country don't do it and neither should Nebraska.
Click to expand...
Which is exactly why Turman started and played about half the game against Kansas State in '94.  All the scholarship QB's behind Frazier and Berringer had left the program (Tony Veland also switched to safety) and Turman was then the 3rd string QB.  People want to act like he "won" the starting job in fall camp and he started a bunch of games for the '94 team.

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