Where Is It OK to Start Walk-Ons?

Cdog923 said:
baker-throat-slash.gif
Click to expand...
That was an extreme emergency for TTU.  And Mayfield is the exception.  Not the rule.  Plus, he had D1 offers.

 
There's no reason not to start a walk on at QB if they're the best. But coaches should be better at evaluating talent for such an important position.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
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.

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?
Click to expand...
As to why, the same statistics that show that stars actually do correlate to success. Five stars pan out at a higher rate than 4 stars, and in general scholarship players are more talented than walk-ons. THERE CAN BE EXCEPTIONS. But the all walk-on team was posted in this thread and it's not as good as our current team IMO.

Danny Woodhead was a great player that had a nice NFL career, he wouldn't have been the worst player on the team, but I would still feel like we could have been stronger at running back if he was the starter.

 
default_28 said:
Danny Woodhead was a great player that had a nice NFL career, he wouldn't have been the worst player on the team, but I would still feel like we could have been stronger at running back if he was the starter.
Click to expand...
So....a kid who broke national rushing records at the level he was playing...and went on to have a pretty decent NFL career playing for Super Bowl championships........you would have been disappointed that he was starting at Nebraska if he walked on.

:facepalm:

I guess I'm done with the conversation.  You are typing words that I can not fathom as being reality.

Have a good day.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Walk-ons are players just as much as scholarship guys.   You play the best player at every position.  Period.   It is not even worth much discussion.   A coach who disrespects walk-ons won't have any walk-ons worth the tape and uniforms, etc.   A coach ought not ever have "pets" or award status based on anything other than merit as a player and contributor to the team.   The players will know it and it will ruin morale and unity in short order.   Any player who doesn't 'win' the job with his performance on the field should not be playing.  

 
Gets down to why they are starting. We've got former walk-ons playing in the NFL, sometimes they are just that good. Did we get slammed with injuries? Did we whiff in recruiting and end-up having to start somebody that shouldn't be more than depth?  The third instance is obviously not acceptable.  That goes across all positions, but there are obviously positions where it's easier to find walk-on help than others. Even at our peak we had walk-ons in on O-line. 

 
Answering strictly for myself...yes I would be okay with that.  Kids who are recruited and are scholarship athletes are not owed any playing time.  

And I know this is going to sound strange, but it is entirely possible that walk-ons might be better.  If a kid plays RB, is 6'0", 205 lbs, and runs say a 4.4 40 yard dash....but has not sent any tape to any recruiting site, and he plays on an 8 man football team, out in western Nebraska, what are the chances he'd be recruited by a school outside the state?  Teams like Ohio State, Clemson, etc...they don't need to come to podunk Nebraska to recruit because they have more than enough talent to fill their rosters in their own backyard(s).

In my hypothetical, let's say the Nebraska coaches find this kid late in the process and have already used all available scholarship for other players...

They then offer this RB out in western Nebraska as a preferred walk-on.  Let's say this kid then beats out the scholarship players.  He'd actually be the best player, but he'd be "tainted" with the walk-on tag which is more than a tad unfair and negative.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Sometimes walk-on’s develop to a much higher level if the stars align and they work well with a coaching staff at the college level. Wasn’t Clay Matthews originally a walk-on at USC?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Nvested said:
Sometimes walk-on’s develop to a much higher level if the stars align and they work well with a coaching staff at the college level. Wasn’t Clay Matthews originally a walk-on at USC?
Click to expand...


Yup.  Matthews underwent an incredible physical transformation once he got to SC.  He went from 6-1 165 to 6-3 240. 

I guess USC could be given a slight pass as when he walked on in 2004 USC was at the apex of their powers under Pete Carrol and the next year they signed Brian Cushing and Rey Maualuga.

https://dailytrojan.com/2011/01/26/matthews’-path-from-walk-on-to-nfl-star/

 
Xmas32 said:
Yup.  Matthews underwent an incredible physical transformation once he got to SC.  He went from 6-1 165 to 6-3 240. 

I guess USC could be given a slight pass as when he walked on in 2004 USC was at the apex of their powers under Pete Carrol and the next year they signed Brian Cushing and Rey Maualuga.

https://dailytrojan.com/2011/01/26/matthews’-path-from-walk-on-to-nfl-star/
Click to expand...
Below are basketball examples, but I think it is more true for football, as muscle tends to come after height. From the link below

Dennis Rodman - He was 5'6 in high school. Then at the age of 19, he went from 5'9 to 6'8.
 
David Robinson - 5'9 his junior year of high school and 6'7 his senior year and then 7'0 in College.
 
http://www.allheight.com/2012/12/late-growth-spurts-nba-players-tall.html
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top