I think most lower classes of high school football don't have the type of athletes to delve in to the complexity of x's and o's as maybe class A Nebraska football. Whether or not the big school players actually understand why they do what they do is another question. There's no way an 8 man player knows 11 man defenses when he gets to a college campus. Way more moving parts.
Meh. He's got to figure it out or he'll cost himself hundreds of thousands of dollars. He's a one and done and this is a great chance for him to showcase his talents.
Which is exactly my point to this guy. Little things like position specific coaching, years of catching passes, running routes, and even being properly fitted for shoulder pads that allow you mobility to catch.....these are all of the little things, that add up to big things, which is why it makes no sense to rush Nelson into a starting role that he's not prepared for.
Who remembers when Kevin Greene tried to kill former Husker coach Kevin Steele on the sidelines during a game?
No one is rushing him. He will continue to play more as the season goes on. There is a reason he was a focal point of that first drive. They could have had Bonner in. But they didn't.
I'm not pushing for Bonner as much as I'm pumping the brakes on the poster who thinks Nelson should be a full time starter and there is no adjustment from 8 man western ne ball, to the BIG.
Respectfully disagree. I see him getting more into this role. He was out there quite a bit Saturday. We still haven't hit a bye yet and we have 2 byes, plus the extra day for Purdue.
I don't get the belief he is any good. He was terrible last year and he's been terrible for his whole career. Only way he looks good is if we are comparing him to Jeff Sims.
I hope you're right....I just think his playing time vs UTEP and UNI was a lot different than his playing time vs Rado....I think that will probably be the case against in conference play.
Not dogging Bonner here, but give me the choice between he and Nelson, and I'll take Nelson all day long. We've likely seen what Bonner has to offer, the potential upside for Nelson dwarfs Bonner.
Nelson has the physcal tools as well as the matchup advantage to be a main cog in the offense when he is in there. If he and DR ever get clicking, watch out.
You gotta keep guys with his kind of talent involved and I do think he'll have a larger role as time goes on. There's no need to put pressure on him just yet. I like that they're working him in and getting him reps and targets. I like the way they're managing their roster and the comfortable wins are going to pay off with experienced guys for next year after we lose most of our O and D line starters.
It takes years for skill position players to get any good at reading defenses and adjusting routes based on what the defense is doing. Most average players come and go and never really develop this skill. What 8 man ball does teach you is to find and get to open space. There's more opportunities to get the ball and make plays. I'd say developing those skills are way more important for a young playmaker to contribute right away than to be able to read a defense perfectly.
This team is plagued with a few guys who, in theory, are better blockers, but it hasn't held true yet.
I don't know why we haven't gotten Bonner the ball more
Like I said I'm not dogging Bonner, but we have some good sized kids out there and they need to be lighting some people up when their assignment is to block somebody.
No. What I'm saying is that if Carter Nelson played 11-man football, it would change nothing to where he's at now. He's not "behind" because he didn't play 11-man ball. He's "behind" because he didn't play Class A ball where he would have had to focus on one (maybe two) sports and had much better coaching.
Okay.
And you said there were "tons of examples of successful 8 man programs moving up to 11 man and seeing no drop off", because "it's the same game and it's all just blocking, tackling, catching and throwing."
Unity Council was mentioned on the radio today. I hadn't heard that it had been a thing this past year but it must be.
It's funny that you put quotations around something I didn't say. I never said, "tons of examples", but just from the top of my head; Howells, Lawrence-Nelson, Amherst, Elm Creek, Cross County. What I did say was "you see it all the time" and maybe I should have clarified that when schools do move from 8-man up to 11-man, is when you "see it all the time" (that school continues to be successful).
Verbatim you said "it happens all the time/tons of examples" is that better?
Hahaha. You say verbatim and still quoted me incorrectly.
My thought in posting that most lower class athletes really don't have a great understanding of what they're going to run into at a P5 school is that it may not matter that much whether it was 8 or 11 man. It's all going to be extremely different for them. The little I've watched of 8 man football I was impressed by how different it was. By all accounts Nelson is a very bright guy so I suspect he'll pick things up quickly but it has to be a huge jump. He looked great in the Polynesian Bowl but we run a pretty complex offense.
Better coaching, I mean, maybe.
Yes, verbatim means I can just quote what you mean. Not the word salad that you re-clarify every post...
This is probably pretty accurate.
I get what you are saying, but doesn't the fact that Nelson has ascended to the #2 spot after only arriving in summer point to it not being as hard as you say.? This is the deepest wr room I can remember and he keeps rising. They don't have to do that. Could have redshirted him. You seem to think he's going to hit a wall in his playing time this year. Based on what I've seen, I disagree. I don't think Rhule would keep moving him up the depth chart if he is only comfortable with 5 plays.
Time will tell. I hope I'm wrong and he's an honorable mention guy by the end of the year.....I just think if he's only capable of a few plays per game against UNI and UTEP, then it's probably not going to drastically change in conference play where there is less developmental time and more opponent specific.
But if you plan to play a player less as the season goes on, why move him from #3 to #2 on the depth chart? They could have listed him as "or". They could have left him at #3 and gave him 2 passes a game. He's theoretically 1 injury away from starting, the depth chart is to be believed. He's not a threat to leave, so no need to try to play to his ego by moving him up.
