I get that Sam is trying to make a point, but I am not sure what good it is going to do. If you went back and looked at the NU depth chart from 1997 you would see a lot of former walk-ons on it and there would be a ton of pride in seeing that.Here's a better version of that:
Depth Chart for Fresno State
- Thread starter knapplc
- Start date
Mavric
Yoda
Sam is trying to find any way he can to push the "not enough talent" narrative.
Considering there's only 8-9 true freshmen on the chart, there are 15-20 more names than scholarship players. So there's going to be quite a few walk-ons.
Mavric
Yoda
Disagree here. He is about the best athlete (though Banderas is much better than many give him credit for) but I don't think he's close to the best LB, definitely not "by far." MRI and Young are definitely better.
I guess I am just tired of Sam and Lee and am ready for the season to start. Sam has been so down on this team for so long we all get it. Play the games and see what happens.
ColoradoHusk
Donor
It looks like a lot of people here don't like Sam McKewon, but here are his thoughts on the depth chart.
http://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/sam-mckewon-s-takes-on-the-husker-depth-chart/article_e2f0f422-6e1e-11e6-97bf-83d2de3f0f7a.html
http://www.omaha.com/huskers/blogs/sam-mckewon-s-takes-on-the-husker-depth-chart/article_e2f0f422-6e1e-11e6-97bf-83d2de3f0f7a.html
His thoughts on the depth chart are fine, all he is trying to do with tweeting out that pictures of the depth chart is stir a pot.
ColoradoHusk
Donor
I think his points on the number of walk-ons are valid. I think there are some depth issues on the roster, which is shown in the number of walk-ons and the large number of redshirt and true freshman on the depth chart.
Mike Riley's offensive systems are built around the pass. The rush is secondary. If the pass works, the rush adds to your offensive weapons. If the pass doesn't work, you get behind the sticks and you have to pass more. If you do it long enough and get behind on the scoreboard, you have to pass to catch up. Pass first coaches often say, as Billy C. did, "Well, once we got behind, we had to pass and so the numbers got out of whack."
Trouble is that you don't have to pass when Nebraska is trailing 17-7 in the middle of the second quarter.
It is the feeling of a lot of Husker observers that a solid ground game would set the stage for a more efficient pass game. Not the other way around.
Devine not being at the top of the depth chart, possibly because Newby can pass pro better than Devine, could be a tip toward that pass game.
To be fair, it could also be an indicator that Newby has taken control at RB and is ready for a break out season.
Last year, we were told that the run would be featured and that Tommy's ability to hurt defenses with his feet would be a great addition to Mike's system as a luxury he didn't ever have before.
When the season got going, Mike tended to lean on the pass more than the run. Because that is what he is comfortable with.
A guy can have a bad plan. He can fail. And that doesn't mean he wants to do it or is plotting to do it. The coach can simply believe his plan will work when evidence suggests it won't.
Mavric
Yoda
Eh ... I think the issue is mostly with how they did the depth chart. When you list six tight ends and three fullbacks, a good chunk of those are going to be walk-ons. Your backup PK, P and Snapper are often going to be walk-ons. Other than that, there are 11 walk-ons. I don't think that's too big of a number.
With about 12 true freshman who are expected to redshirt (and thus not on the depth chart) plus two ineligible transfers (Lee and Williams), there are only about 70 scholarship players available. To be three deep at each position plus specialists would be 69 players.
Adam Taylor, Lavon Alston, Dwayne Johnson and Charles Jackson are the only scholarship players (non-true-freshmen) I see not on the depth chart. Two of those have battled injuries their entire career. On is a RS Frosh who missed all of last year.
Last edited by a moderator:
knapplc
Active member
I think the question of the number of walk-ons starting is valid. Five out of 22 players is just over 20%. That seems pretty high.
This isn't the 1980s & 1990s, when walk-ons were guys that SDSU, Wyoming & sometimes Northern Iowa are signing. These are guys those guys don't give scholarships to, and in the 85-scholarship era, those are decent players. Tom used to have those guys walk on but they're not footing the bill for their own education anymore. It costs more than twice as much to go to college now as in 1985 when the legend of the walk-on at Nebraska was in its heyday.
This isn't the 1980s & 1990s, when walk-ons were guys that SDSU, Wyoming & sometimes Northern Iowa are signing. These are guys those guys don't give scholarships to, and in the 85-scholarship era, those are decent players. Tom used to have those guys walk on but they're not footing the bill for their own education anymore. It costs more than twice as much to go to college now as in 1985 when the legend of the walk-on at Nebraska was in its heyday.
RedDenver
New member
If that's the point he's trying to make, it's undermined greatly by 3 walk-ons on what is widely believed to be one of the best receiving corp in Husker history.
alwayshusking
New member
All depends on how good the walk on is and how much we are counting on them. Reilly at WR is good. Dzuris as starting DE is not. Weber at backup LB is good, Hahn starting at LG probably isn't.
Mavric
Yoda
Yes and no. One is a fullback. Going forward that may be a scholarship position more often but it's been a walk-on position for most of what anyone can remember. One is due to injury and (possibly) not wanting to burn a redshirt for a game or two. And one is one of the best WRs in the B1G.
