Riley just said more commits coming....

[Tuco Salamanca]

Can we use the Alabama model and cut the fat every year to get us to 25 a class ?Of course they do have some actual talent attrition which would be great if Nebraska had that problem

Can we? Yes. Will we? Doubtful

The issue to me is multifaceted.

1- Riley doesn't seem to be a win at all costs guy.
2- there are only about 55 to 60 kids that are getting actual playing time. The rest will be practice players their whole career.
3- odds are that you will just replace under performers with more under performers.

IMHO, you could do more good by not redshirting a majority of your freshman classes. Players are coming in more physically and more mentally ready to play. If a player is great, they won't be here 4 years let alone 5, if a player is average, why do you want to give him 5 years, just replace him with another player every 4 years.

I would reserve redshirting freshman to interior linemen only. Then I would use redshirts for players who may get injured in the offseason to preserve a year if they need it.

Sign 22-25 players every year rather than 15-18. Picking from 100 players every 4 years increases the odds of finding the special talent more than picking from 80 players every 4 years. It equates to an extra recruiting class every 4 years. No brainer. But that's just me.

Edit- That gets you to the 22 to 25 that cycle out like they have at Alabama, but without the negative connotation associated with the "cutting the fat" that Alabama has.

2nd edit - I know others believe different, but just cutting the fat will get more difficult with the guaranteed 4 year scholarships, where athletic performance cannot be used as a reason to cut the player.

 

[HBK4life]

I am pretty sure Riley is talking about the kicker, Pickering, as the one coming in the next 24 hours.

https://nebraska.rivals.com/news/fi...-liked-what-he-found-at-nebraska?preview=true Is he really a 5 star? We need a kicker.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

https://nebraska.rivals.com/news/fi...-liked-what-he-found-at-nebraska?preview=true Is he really a 5 star? We need a kicker.

Unless Matya is a liar. Ha ha ha

 

[cdriftt24]

Beginning to think this commit is of the silent variety?.... I'm cool with that as long as it's not another leave us at the alter silent commit.

 

[bleedhuskerred]

https://nebraska.rivals.com/news/fi...-liked-what-he-found-at-nebraska?preview=true Is he really a 5 star? We need a kicker.

I was about 90 seconds in when I realized Hudl film on kickers is pretty boring.

 

[jeans15]

These three and Darlington as already mentioned. Also, it would be nice to be proven wrong but I'm concerned Matt Snyder and Daishon Neal may never be contributors. Hopefully all of these guys end up having a great year this year and this is a moot point though.

Daishion Neal will be a sophomore and he was running with the ones in the Spring game. This isn't college basketball where tons of young guys play early.

 

[Husker.Wed.]

These three and Darlington as already mentioned. Also, it would be nice to be proven wrong but I'm concerned Matt Snyder and Daishon Neal may never be contributors. Hopefully all of these guys end up having a great year this year and this is a moot point though.

I think King was rotating in with the 1s. He bit down on the fake when Gebbia ran for his touchdown. He had one tackle. Newell was not listed as playing in the Spring Game. Is he injured? He has been practicing at DE. Neal played with the Reds. I watched him and he seemed to be doing OK. He had one assist and I seem to recall Ameer referring to him as an up and comer. Not sure about Snyder. He played for the Reds, but had no catches. I don't think he was thrown to. He has been injured a lot.

 

[dinglefritz]

Yeah, but you expect to receive the same, so no reason not to be excited.

Plus, early high ranked commits can spark more to commit, so the side benefits are still positive either way.

The down side is what happened to Texas taking all those highly ranked kids before their senior year. I'm not sure if it was a lack of development or

I think King was rotating in with the 1s. He bit down on the fake when Gebbia ran for his touchdown. He had one tackle. Newell was not listed as playing in the Spring Game. Is he injured? He has been practicing at DE. Neal played with the Reds. I watched him and he seemed to be doing OK. He had one assist and I seem to recall Ameer referring to him as an up and comer. Not sure about Snyder. He played for the Reds, but had no catches. I don't think he was thrown to. He has been injured a lot.

Snyder has drawn some praise from Riley and Langsdorf this spring. Newell I think was dinged up and may not have played.

 

[Nebraska Fan]

There are always a few players that could be candidates for a medical exemption. Nebraska just hasn't gone that route much in the past.

 

[DerHusker]

Newell was not listed as playing in the Spring Game. Is he injured? He has been practicing at DE

That's strange as I saw him on the field.

 

[Morgan747]

Can we use the Alabama model and cut the fat every year to get us to 25 a class ?Of course they do have some actual talent attrition which would be great if Nebraska had that problem

Does Alabama give 4 year scholarships like we do?

 

[dockentwo]

Does Alabama give 4 year scholarships like we do?

Hey Y'all, whats this graduating thing?

 

[dockentwo]

Can we? Yes. Will we? Doubtful

The issue to me is multifaceted.

1- Riley doesn't seem to be a win at all costs guy.
2- there are only about 55 to 60 kids that are getting actual playing time. The rest will be practice players their whole career.
3- odds are that you will just replace under performers with more under performers.

IMHO, you could do more good by not redshirting a majority of your freshman classes. Players are coming in more physically and more mentally ready to play. If a player is great, they won't be here 4 years let alone 5, if a player is average, why do you want to give him 5 years, just replace him with another player every 4 years.

I would reserve redshirting freshman to interior linemen only. Then I would use redshirts for players who may get injured in the offseason to preserve a year if they need it.

Sign 22-25 players every year rather than 15-18. Picking from 100 players every 4 years increases the odds of finding the special talent more than picking from 80 players every 4 years. It equates to an extra recruiting class every 4 years. No brainer. But that's just me.

Edit- That gets you to the 22 to 25 that cycle out like they have at Alabama, but without the negative connotation associated with the "cutting the fat" that Alabama has.

2nd edit - I know others believe different, but just cutting the fat will get more difficult with the guaranteed 4 year scholarships, where athletic performance cannot be used as a reason to cut the player.

This ought to be posted at the top for at least some period of time. Has learnings and reflections, some of which I have wanted to summarize for a long time.

 

[HBK4life]

GBR Designs‏@GBRDesigns 5h5 hours ago




Expect a couple additions soon. #WaveThatFlag

#GBR

 

[MITCH492]

. . . ?. . .Who might they be? ?

 

[ellobo]

Can we? Yes. Will we? Doubtful

The issue to me is multifaceted.

1- Riley doesn't seem to be a win at all costs guy.
2- there are only about 55 to 60 kids that are getting actual playing time. The rest will be practice players their whole career.
3- odds are that you will just replace under performers with more under performers.

IMHO, you could do more good by not redshirting a majority of your freshman classes. Players are coming in more physically and more mentally ready to play. If a player is great, they won't be here 4 years let alone 5, if a player is average, why do you want to give him 5 years, just replace him with another player every 4 years.

I would reserve redshirting freshman to interior linemen only. Then I would use redshirts for players who may get injured in the offseason to preserve a year if they need it.

Sign 22-25 players every year rather than 15-18. Picking from 100 players every 4 years increases the odds of finding the special talent more than picking from 80 players every 4 years. It equates to an extra recruiting class every 4 years. No brainer. But that's just me.

Edit- That gets you to the 22 to 25 that cycle out like they have at Alabama, but without the negative connotation associated with the "cutting the fat" that Alabama has.

2nd edit - I know others believe different, but just cutting the fat will get more difficult with the guaranteed 4 year scholarships, where athletic performance cannot be used as a reason to cut the player.

Not sure I agree with you unless you are recruiting at a Bama level which is a group of 2 or 3 programs at the moment. If a player is not contributing by his 5th year it is now the common practice to not invite them back. Because school (for the players) is now a year round thing, with almost all of them starting classes immediately after HS graduation, if they can't find a way to get a degree in 4 years then the kid and the program are doing something very wrong. Thus, not letting kids come back for a 5th year is no longer looked down upon and in many cases the kids are ready to move on with their lives instead of sitting the bench for another year.

On the flip side, how many times have you seen a kid start to really put things together in his 4th year and wonder what could have been if he hadn't burned his RS and had one more year? Sure we probably aren't talking future high draft picks but rather solid contributors who might be fringe NFL players. But have enough of those guys as veterans with a good mix of 3/4 year guys that can leave early for the NFL and you can (in a given year) have enough depth, leadership and experience to make a run at a title.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Not sure I agree with you unless you are recruiting at a Bama level which is a group of 2 or 3 programs at the moment. If a player is not contributing by his 5th year it is now the common practice to not invite them back. Because school (for the players) is now a year round thing, with almost all of them starting classes immediately after HS graduation, if they can't find a way to get a degree in 4 years then the kid and the program are doing something very wrong. Thus, not letting kids come back for a 5th year is no longer looked down upon and in many cases the kids are ready to move on with their lives instead of sitting the bench for another year.

On the flip side, how many times have you seen a kid start to really put things together in his 4th year and wonder what could have been if he hadn't burned his RS and had one more year? Sure we probably aren't talking future high draft picks but rather solid contributors who might be fringe NFL players. But have enough of those guys as veterans with a good mix of 3/4 year guys that can leave early for the NFL and you can (in a given year) have enough depth, leadership and experience to make a run at a title.

A couple of things. I think the opposite is true with regards to level of recruiting. If you are not recruiting high-level players why do you want them on your program for more than four years?

You can look at examples at Nebraska right now in Hannon and Johnson who did not announce their intention to leave until after the recruiting cycle was over. Those are two scholarships that will go unused or given two players that are not elite. If those players would have not redshirted, they would have used up their eligibility after four years and the scholarships would have been available. Adam Taylor is a perfect example of both, had he not redshirted and just completed his freshman year he could have redshirted his sophomore year when he was injured. but now he's going into his fifth year and is basically a special teams contributor at best.

I just think by year three in the program you have a pretty good idea on if that player is ever going to contribute to your team.

As far as the number of guys on the team that don't contribute until the red shirt senior year who make you think, gosh I wish I would've been able to have them around for one more year, I don't think there's as many as you do.

 

[ellobo]

A couple of things. I think the opposite is true with regards to level of recruiting. If you are not recruiting high-level players why do you want them on your program for more than four years?

You can look at examples at Nebraska right now in Hannon and Johnson who did not announce their intention to leave until after the recruiting cycle was over. Those are two scholarships that will go unused or given two players that are not elite. If those players would have not redshirted, they would have used up their eligibility after four years and the scholarships would have been available. Adam Taylor is a perfect example of both, had he not redshirted and just completed his freshman year he could have redshirted his sophomore year when he was injured. but now he's going into his fifth year and is basically a special teams contributor at best.

I just think by year three in the program you have a pretty good idea on if that player is ever going to contribute to your team.

As far as the number of guys on the team that don't contribute until the red shirt senior year who make you think, gosh I wish I would've been able to have them around for one more year, I don't think there's as many as you do.

A few things:

1) If the premise is you are going to bring in elite younger guys to replace mediocre older guys then sure...if you think you are going to start recruiting like Bama then clear as much room as possible. However, if you are a tier or two below that (in recruiting) your best shot at winning a title is to have a more developed, veteran team that knows your system and is physically more mature. Young less talented teams tend not to knock of the Bamas of cfb.

2) I'm not talking about guys who don't contribute until their 5th year nor am I talking about guys who are just special teamers. I'm talking about guys who start or are solidly in the rotation at their position. Not inviting non-contributors back for a 5th is now the common practice. If you told me NU allows all 5th year seniors back I guess I would have to be believe you but it would surprise me.

3) you brought up two players that decided to leave after the recruiting cycle was over. Well, another thing that I'd have to believe you on (but would surprise me) is your coaches had no clue this would happen. It is the coaches' job to have an idea how many spots they have. It is why recruiting classes are always larger than the # of players who run out of eligibility. Speaking of which, 9/10 times you hear a "choose" to not play out their eligibility it really wasn't their choice. If a kid gets his degree I have no issue with a staff telling a kid to move on after 4 years if they don't have a role on the team.

4) Let me give you an example of what I'm talking about: Michigan had 4 true seniors start at DB last year. Only one is expected to be drafted high with the other 3 expected to go late or be UFAs - good players but not a lock to make an NFL roster. One is an amazing athlete and big time recruit. However, he played a different position in HS, it took until midway through his junior year to crack the starting lineup and still is learning the position. With another year he could have moved up in the draft. A second one got burned for a game tying TD his frosh year, sulked about it (emotionally not ready), sat the bench for a couple years before reemergening his senior year (he was actually ahead of future AA Jourdan Lewis when they were both freshman and has better measureables). The 3rd is a solid player (was a 4*) and team leader who just doesn't have ideal NFL size. So instead of breaking in 4 new starters in the secondary, Michigan could have had 3 5th seniors (all with NFL potential) and let the best of the youngsters fight it out for the last spot...and if a second youngster beat one of them out then you have a veteran coming in as the nickel which is a great problem to have.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

I don't want to confuse the issue with all the ancillary stuff being brought into the topic.

Bottom line, in my opinion, redshirting is becoming an outdated process. The hit/ miss ratio on a recruit is at best 50/50, cycling 100 players every 4 years instead of 80, increases the effective hit ratio much like a 3 pointer does in basketball. More players are ready or able to contribute in year 1 or 2. Elite players leave after 3 years. The gap between the average RSsenior and the above average Soph is marginal.

It isn't really about recruiting like anyone else does, it's simply about numbers plus effective and efficient roster management.

 

[nebcountry]

I don't want to confuse the issue with all the ancillary stuff being brought into the topic.

Bottom line, in my opinion, redshirting is becoming an outdated process. The hit/ miss ratio on a recruit is at best 50/50, cycling 100 players every 4 years instead of 80, increases the effective hit ratio much like a 3 pointer does in basketball. More players are ready or able to contribute in year 1 or 2. Elite players leave after 3 years. The gap between the average RSsenior and the above average Soph is marginal.

It isn't really about recruiting like anyone else does, it's simply about numbers plus effective and efficient roster management.

I agree.

I'm of the firm opinion that redshirting should only occur on a well thought out and strategic or situational basis (i.e. injury of a contributor, identified backup like a qb).

The days of just redshirting almost every freshman wastes potential years for future recruits.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

I agree.

I'm of the firm opinion that redshirting should only occur on a well thought out and strategic or situational basis (i.e. injury of a contributor, identified backup like a qb).

The days of just redshirting almost every freshman wastes potential years for future recruits.

I am not totally against redshirting some interior linemen. But totally agree on injury.

I am probably biased because I know the kid and believe pre-injury the kid was progressing into a solid player, but if Adam Taylor wouldn't have redshirted, he could have used the redshirt his 2nd year when he got hurt in fall camp.

 

[TruHusker]

Can someone give some concrete examples of Alabama (they seem to be the control/comparison group) "trimming the fat?" The few articles I have read show a steady stream of their players going to the NFL, junior and seniors. That is totally different. I am not saying it doesn't happen, but just to say it happens doesn't mean it does. Our coaches sit down with kids and tell them exactly where they are at on the depth chart, what they need to work on and what the future looks like. That is totally different than telling a kid he is out of a scholarship for whatever reason.

While it is a numbers game of hits and misses, there is so much more that goes on. Take Lamar Jackson for instance. Great size, speed and it appeared he had all he needed to succeed. Turns out the freshman year was a pretty difficult experience. Some kids struggle with the mental aspect of things and how many times have we heard about players finally having the light come on. It is a matter of them coming together physically and mentally. Some will never make it, others will but at different times.

I can just see this board when and if the thinning of the heard ever takes place in earnest at Nebraska that Joe Jones is told there isn't much hope and his scholarship is revoked only to have him show up at Competitor U and be successful. The coaches have a very difficult decision to make and anyone who has worked with kids, and that's what these guys are, knows that things change for them in all areas of their lives both up and down.

I also want to be known as a school that does things right, we expect kids to honor their commitment to the university not knowing what will happening in their 4-5 years and we should do the same with them as they grow up physically and emotionally. When a kid is offered a scholarship there are expectations on both sides - who gets to determine that? Fans?

Addition: There are cases where an athlete is not doing what they need to do to be prepared, whether that is in the classroom or on the field, that brings in an entirely different set of questions - each party has their part to do both in the evaluation period and during the time they are in school. Who is to say a kid didn't blossom when it could be he didn't fit the system or the coach wasn't the greatest at bringing out their best.

 

[ellobo]

I don't want to confuse the issue with all the ancillary stuff being brought into the topic.

Bottom line, in my opinion, redshirting is becoming an outdated process. The hit/ miss ratio on a recruit is at best 50/50, cycling 100 players every 4 years instead of 80, increases the effective hit ratio much like a 3 pointer does in basketball. More players are ready or able to contribute in year 1 or 2. Elite players leave after 3 years. The gap between the average RSsenior and the above average Soph is marginal.

It isn't really about recruiting like anyone else does, it's simply about numbers plus effective and efficient roster management.

Your last line I agree with. However, where the line is drawn in the sand we differ on. I don't disagree that more players are ready to contribute early. However, that doesn't mean they are at both their physical or mental peak early...heck, many don't even reach until they are a few years into their NFL careers (if they make it that far). And sure, the more kids you bring in the more chances you have to hit on one. But I still see a few issues with your thinking:

1) You say the younger guy is above average while the older guy is average. This implies your program has gotten better at recruiting. That's a different argument. Now before you go back to hit rate...let's talk reality: unless you are a Bama or tOSU who turn away 4 stars...a bigger class tends to mean taking more projects. Which isn't a bad thing but it also tends to mean they need more time to develop which speaks to why red shirting is good.

2) You keep bringing up "elite" players. How many of them do you think are truly out there each year? Every year you see more and more players declare for the draft early only to get picked late or not get drafted at all. Just because you can leave doesn't mean you should. So many of these kids would have had a better shot of making the NFL if they stayed in college longer...because they are not elite...however...a year or two longer in college could have been the developmental difference between a four or five year NFL career and never even making a practice squad

3) Speaking of which...the difference between a non-elite soph and non-elite senior is not marginal. Knowing were to take you first step/how to use you hands/getting leverage/technique/etc, being able to recognize and adjust to the other team, a year more in a college level S&C program, etc. makes you not only a better player but a way more consistent one

4) It's not just #s. I promise you that if Riley brought in 50 of you and 50 of me each year...the 400 of us on campus would lose every game...as you get to the back half of your class you have diminishing returns...so why not get more time to develop the front half...you don't have to offer the back half a 5th year

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Your last line I agree with. However, where the line is drawn in the sand we differ on. I don't disagree that more players are ready to contribute early. However, that doesn't mean they are at both their physical or mental peak early...heck, many don't even reach until they are a few years into their NFL careers (if they make it that far). And sure, the more kids you bring in the more chances you have to hit on one. But I still see a few issues with your thinking:

1) You say the younger guy is above average while the older guy is average. This implies your program has gotten better at recruiting. That's a different argument. Now before you go back to hit rate...let's talk reality: unless you are a Bama or tOSU who turn away 4 stars...a bigger class tends to mean taking more projects. Which isn't a bad thing but it also tends to mean they need more time to develop which speaks to why red shirting is good.

2) You keep bringing up "elite" players. How many of them do you think are truly out there each year? Every year you see more and more players declare for the draft early only to get picked late or not get drafted at all. Just because you can leave doesn't mean you should. So many of these kids would have had a better shot of making the NFL if they stayed in college longer...because they are not elite...however...a year or two longer in college could have been the developmental difference between a four or five year NFL career and never even making a practice squad

3) Speaking of which...the difference between a non-elite soph and non-elite senior is not marginal. Knowing were to take you first step/how to use you hands/getting leverage/technique/etc, being able to recognize and adjust to the other team, a year more in a college level S&C program, etc. makes you not only a better player but a way more consistent one

4) It's not just #s. I promise you that if Riley brought in 50 of you and 50 of me each year...the 400 of us on campus would lose every game...as you get to the back half of your class you have diminishing returns...so why not get more time to develop the front half...you don't have to offer the back half a 5th year

Sorry. I stopped reading after point 1. Because clearly you don't follow Nebraska recruiting. Thanks for the input.

 

[jshald]

Moore bros are the silents.

 

[maplesyrup95]

Moore bros are the silents.

Gotta be. Tom Loy knows his stuff.

Either that or it's a combo of Goodrich, Pickering and Bleich.

 

[ellobo]

Sorry. I stopped reading after point 1. Because clearly you don't follow Nebraska recruiting. Thanks for the input.

You are new to this recruiting thing aren't you

 

[bigboxes]

Sorry. I stopped reading after point 1. Because clearly you don't follow Nebraska recruiting. Thanks for the input.

Ignorance never stopped anyone from having an opinion.

 

[ellobo]

Ignorance never stopped anyone from having an opinion.

Couldn't agree more

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

Can someone give some concrete examples of Alabama (they seem to be the control/comparison group) "trimming the fat?" The few articles I have read show a steady stream of their players going to the NFL, junior and seniors. That is totally different. I am not saying it doesn't happen, but just to say it happens doesn't mean it does. Our coaches sit down with kids and tell them exactly where they are at on the depth chart, what they need to work on and what the future looks like. That is totally different than telling a kid he is out of a scholarship for whatever reason.

While it is a numbers game of hits and misses, there is so much more that goes on. Take Lamar Jackson for instance. Great size, speed and it appeared he had all he needed to succeed. Turns out the freshman year was a pretty difficult experience. Some kids struggle with the mental aspect of things and how many times have we heard about players finally having the light come on. It is a matter of them coming together physically and mentally. Some will never make it, others will but at different times.

I can just see this board when and if the thinning of the heard ever takes place in earnest at Nebraska that Joe Jones is told there isn't much hope and his scholarship is revoked only to have him show up at Competitor U and be successful. The coaches have a very difficult decision to make and anyone who has worked with kids, and that's what these guys are, knows that things change for them in all areas of their lives both up and down.

I also want to be known as a school that does things right, we expect kids to honor their commitment to the university not knowing what will happening in their 4-5 years and we should do the same with them as they grow up physically and emotionally. When a kid is offered a scholarship there are expectations on both sides - who gets to determine that? Fans?

Addition: There are cases where an athlete is not doing what they need to do to be prepared, whether that is in the classroom or on the field, that brings in an entirely different set of questions - each party has their part to do both in the evaluation period and during the time they are in school. Who is to say a kid didn't blossom when it could be he didn't fit the system or the coach wasn't the greatest at bringing out their best.

I don't have any names of specific players but I do know that Alabama and others were recruiting 25 or more players each year. In most of those seasons they would end national signing day with more than the 85 allowable scholarships and had to cut players at the end of the school year. Not all of them left on their own orcwent to the draft.

As far as cutting players goes, my theory does not involve cutting players. It simply is about increasing the efficiency in recruiting. If the bust rate is 50/50 and I recruit 25 kids per year then each year I have 12.5 kids who are makes. Or 50 over a 4 year period. If I only recruit 20 kids per year and 10 are makes over that same 4 year period I have only 40 makes.

I don't think the Nebraska fan base would support the dismissing of players in an effort to trim the fat for many of the same reason you mentioned.

 

[jflores]

I don't have any names of specific players but I do know that Alabama and others were recruiting 25 or more players each year. In most of those seasons they would end national signing day with more than the 85 allowable scholarships and had to cut players at the end of the school year. Not all of them left on their own orcwent to the draft.

As far as cutting players goes, my theory does not involve cutting players. It simply is about increasing the efficiency in recruiting. If the bust rate is 50/50 and I recruit 25 kids per year then each year I have 12.5 kids who are makes. Or 50 over a 4 year period. If I only recruit 20 kids per year and 10 are makes over that same 4 year period I have only 40 makes.

I don't think the Nebraska fan base would support the dismissing of players in an effort to trim the fat for many of the same reason you mentioned.

And if they would, it does not appear the conference would.

 

[TheBeav815]

IMO you guys are looking at the RS thing from the wrong angle.

You're seeking to find reasons why redshirting is bad rather than to ask yourself how often a true freshman makes a meaningful, year-long contribution. Having a true freshman start is incredibly rare. The angle you need to take is why is it worth their while to spend that year rather than have that time to transform their body, wrap their brains around the football concepts they're being asked to learn.

Jackson is a great example. He likely projected best as a safety, we plugged him in at CB hoping he could push for a #1 job right away and be the next Ralph Brown. He struggled, regressed, and played less as the year wore on. Now there is a battle at Safety and where he could be a very talented RS-Fr with a year of work at safety battling for that job, he's a Soph trying to get his mind right playing (arguably) his 2nd-best position.

Tre Bryant played some, but you'd be hard pressed to make the case that he was a make-or-break player last year. You look at how he ran in the spring, how he's figuring to be the #1 guy, what would it be like to get 3-4 years of him as a starter vs 2-3 years?

 

[mwulf]

And if they would, it does not appear the conference would.

http://bamahammer.com/2013/02/28/al...-roster-cuts-are-part-of-nick-sabans-process/

 

[mwulf]

Can someone give some concrete examples of Alabama (they seem to be the control/comparison group) "trimming the fat?" The few articles I have read show a steady stream of their players going to the NFL, junior and seniors. That is totally different. I am not saying it doesn't happen, but just to say it happens doesn't mean it does. Our coaches sit down with kids and tell them exactly where they are at on the depth chart, what they need to work on and what the future looks like. That is totally different than telling a kid he is out of a scholarship for whatever reason.

http://www.cbssports.com/college-fo...er-front-its-still-alabama-and-everyone-else/

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

IMO you guys are looking at the RS thing from the wrong angle.

You're seeking to find reasons why redshirting is bad rather than to ask yourself how often a true freshman makes a meaningful, year-long contribution. Having a true freshman start is incredibly rare. The angle you need to take is why is it worth their while to spend that year rather than have that time to transform their body, wrap their brains around the football concepts they're being asked to learn.

Jackson is a great example. He likely projected best as a safety, we plugged him in at CB hoping he could push for a #1 job right away and be the next Ralph Brown. He struggled, regressed, and played less as the year wore on. Now there is a battle at Safety and where he could be a very talented RS-Fr with a year of work at safety battling for that job, he's a Soph trying to get his mind right playing (arguably) his 2nd-best position.

Tre Bryant played some, but you'd be hard pressed to make the case that he was a make-or-break player last year. You look at how he ran in the spring, how he's figuring to be the #1 guy, what would it be like to get 3-4 years of him as a starter vs 2-3 years?

If Lamar Jackson blows up and becomes a top pick in the draft he won't spend 4 years here. If he regresses more, then players like Bookie, Blades and Chase Williams may just play over him. At which point why would you want him on the team for the 5th year. Same with Bryant.

I am not thinking about their ability to contribute their freshman year. That is ancillary to the theory. The theory is based on the fact that only about half the players recruited contribute significantly in games. If you recruit like you should, you will continue to add talent to the roster and replacing the "normal" player every year should be able to be accomplished.

Simply put, and this may sound bad, but the developing of the player isn't my concern when recruiting players because half will contribute and half won't.

 

[nebcountry]

IMO you guys are looking at the RS thing from the wrong angle.

You're seeking to find reasons why redshirting is bad rather than to ask yourself how often a true freshman makes a meaningful, year-long contribution. Having a true freshman start is incredibly rare. The angle you need to take is why is it worth their while to spend that year rather than have that time to transform their body, wrap their brains around the football concepts they're being asked to learn.

Jackson is a great example. He likely projected best as a safety, we plugged him in at CB hoping he could push for a #1 job right away and be the next Ralph Brown. He struggled, regressed, and played less as the year wore on. Now there is a battle at Safety and where he could be a very talented RS-Fr with a year of work at safety battling for that job, he's a Soph trying to get his mind right playing (arguably) his 2nd-best position.

Tre Bryant played some, but you'd be hard pressed to make the case that he was a make-or-break player last year. You look at how he ran in the spring, how he's figuring to be the #1 guy, what would it be like to get 3-4 years of him as a starter vs 2-3 years?

I posted earlier in this thread, so why not reply, right? First, it's not a question of doing away with RS'ing completely, it's using RS's wisely.

UNLESS, you can "clean up" your roster, you can be stuck with underachieving players for 5 years. Strawman number, 50% don't even cut it at a contributor level. For every 5th year senior that plays special teams or just rides the pine, we missed out recruiting a new player and the chance at an elite player.

Collins and Valentine both left with eligibility on the table. Some people are saying TLee will be one-and-done (not that TLee is a RS for us in the traditional sense). What is the likelihood of a draft-able RS junior to stick around to be a RS senior. We had a true junior CB that was thinking about going pro last year, Chris Jones.

This is a GENERAL statement, at just a contributor level, it's plug and play if your roster is not a wreck. Unless a player is elite, then they're replaceable.

 

[TheBeav815]

If Lamar Jackson blows up and becomes a top pick in the draft he won't spend 4 years here. If he regresses more, then players like Bookie, Blades and Chase Williams may just play over him. At which point why would you want him on the team for the 5th year. Same with Bryant.

I am not thinking about their ability to contribute their freshman year. That is ancillary to the theory. The theory is based on the fact that only about half the players recruited contribute significantly in games. If you recruit like you should, you will continue to add talent to the roster and replacing the "normal" player every year should be able to be accomplished.

Simply put, and this may sound bad, but the developing of the player isn't my concern when recruiting players because half will contribute and half won't.

That's using a tiny fraction of players who turn pro before their senior year to justify an approach to all recruits.

The sheer numbers tell you this isn't plausible. Half the class won't pan out, and you have somebody leave early for the draft what, once every 1.5 classes or so? I went back to 2010 and didn't see an average of one junior declaring per year. So that's what, 30-35 guys you don't redshirt because one goes pro?

The math isn't there to support that approach. It also ignored that you're not required to RS either all your freshmen or none of them. You get a freak talent, you play him. The rest need to RS. For every one guy you put into the draft as a junior, 34 more need to develop.

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

That's using a tiny fraction of players who turn pro before their senior year to justify an approach to all recruits.

The sheer numbers tell you this isn't plausible. Half the class won't pan out, and you have somebody leave early for the draft what, once every 1.5 classes or so? I went back to 2010 and didn't see an average of one junior declaring per year. So that's what, 30-35 guys you don't redshirt because one goes pro?

The math isn't there to support that approach. It also ignored that you're not required to RS either all your freshmen or none of them. You get a freak talent, you play him. The rest need to RS. For every one guy you put into the draft as a junior, 34 more need to develop.

No sir it isn't.

My theory is that the elite player isnt going to be here 5 years. Malik Collins didn't redshirt and left early. Vincent Valentine did redshirt and left early. You got 3 years on the field from each player. I agree that is a smallish number at Nebraska. But it doesn't really factor much into the equation.

Then you consider the players that don't ever contribute on the field. Those are the players that hurt the most. Because while they may leave after their 4th year, they don't always decide that until after spring ball. That contributes to why Nebraska has been under the 85 limit for several consecutive years. We try to make to put a positive spin on it by awarding walkons with a scholarship for a year. But the fact is, under my theory, there are multiple scholarships each year that should have been used in the previous recruiting cycle to get a player for 4 years not reward a guy that isn't a scholarship player. That isn't to say some of the former walk one don't deserve a scholarship, but the vast majority of the time, those players are identified early on Scott Shanle is an example, they aren't typically identified going into their 4th or 5th year. Again this is probably a smaller number, players like Hannon and Johnson. No reason to redshirt these guys as freshmen.

That leaves you with the biggest chunk of players. The guys that contribute somewhere some how and regular players. While there are some guys who are very good but not good enough to leave early, the "average" player in this group of players can be replaced by the next guy coming through the system. These players are typically not irreplaceable. Again what is the point in redshirting a player that can be replaced by one of the other 75 players not in their class?

I have stated it isn't hard and fast. But redshirting should be the exception not the rule.

For a test, get the current roster, list all of the players that redshirted in their careers not due to transfer or injury and list them out. Then show me the players that are simply irreplaceable and will contribute more than 3 years. Obviously we would have to limit this to players that are RS Sophs or older.

Every player still gets their four years if they choose to stay.

 

[TheBeav815]

How does getting guys out in 4 years rather than 5 solve your problem of being under your 85? We haven't been pouring enough water into the tub, so to solve that we're gonna open the drain wider?

 

[Tuco Salamanca]

How does getting guys out in 4 years rather than 5 solve your problem of being under your 85? We haven't been pouring enough water into the tub, so to solve that we're gonna open the drain wider?

It has to do with timing. Players are transferring or deciding not to play the 5th year after national signing day and spring football. They fill the 85 but they fill it with former walkons.

Again Hannon and Johnson are examples. If those two players had not redshirted, their scholarships would have been available for NSD 2017. But instead, they waited until after spring ball, presumably to give it one last shot. Now it's too late to fill them with a high school player in 2017, so they will go to a walkon for 1 year.