Speaking of notable walk-ons, whatever happened to Matt Damon's nephew from Miami who came to Nebraska as a walk-on a few years ago and then just seemed to vanish?
Feel free to blast me here with this take... but I was unaware he hadn't played football before. I find it odd we are turning down high school athlete of the year finalists in our own state who played football for walk-on spots but have room for Jackson. I love the story and do not doubt his heart or character, and i'm not saying this is a bad move. Just is interesting to me.
Feel free to blast me here with this take... but I was unaware he hadn't played football before. I find it odd we are turning down high school athlete of the year finalists in our own state who played football for walk-on spots but have room for Jackson. I love the story and do not doubt his heart or character, and i'm not saying this is a bad move. Just is interesting to me.
I definitely am not opposed to giving someone that served our country a chance, especially for some of the reasons you mentioned. I am intrigued by the decision to turn all-state walk-ons away in favor of him. Not playing football before and trying to make an impact on the field is really difficult. That being said, you can stick him on kickoff and tell him to go run as fast as he can into someone and that doesn't take too much experience.Maybe Coach Riley wanted to give someone a chance that served our country. In turn maybe Mr. Jackson can help turn some of the players on the roster into men which will benefit them when they take off the pads for the last time.
I am going to look at this as a win win situation for a man who served our country with distinction and the knowledge/work ethic he can bestow within the football program.
A big Hip Hip Hooray for former Navy Seal Damian Jackson and Coach Mike Riley.
Just asking here. We are the ones who set the walk on limit correct? So couldn't we just increase it 1 for this kid without affecting others?I definitely am not opposed to giving someone that served our country a chance, especially for some of the reasons you mentioned. I am intrigued by the decision to turn all-state walk-ons away in favor of him. Not playing football before and trying to make an impact on the field is really difficult. That being said, you can stick him on kickoff and tell him to go run as fast as he can into someone and that doesn't take too much experience.
I guess that's where i'm at with it... we increased by one to take this kid who has never played football (I get the locker room influence, maturity, all that) but we couldn't increase it by 1 to give an all-state player in two different sports a chance. I would do it differently but I don't have a problem with what Riley and them are doing, I just find it intriguing. They are definitely aware of the walk-on program but it is definitely more national of a walk-on program now than it has ever been.Just asking here. We are the ones who set the walk on limit correct? So couldn't we just increase it 1 for this kid without affecting others?
I am guessing that not knowing how to swim and earning the Trident is more than just "really difficult". They would be insane to turn this guy away even if he doesn't make the grade. They are also insane for turning away an all state kid for the walk on program. Both could possibly wash out but both may have what it takes. Just .I definitely am not opposed to giving someone that served our country a chance, especially for some of the reasons you mentioned. I am intrigued by the decision to turn all-state walk-ons away in favor of him. Not playing football before and trying to make an impact on the field is really difficult. That being said, you can stick him on kickoff and tell him to go run as fast as he can into someone and that doesn't take too much experience.
I don't see it as one or the other. Sometimes coaches, right or wrong, decide the best thing for a kid is take a scholarship with a smaller program and enjoy his opportunity as a student athlete.I guess that's where i'm at with it... we increased by one to take this kid who has never played football (I get the locker room influence, maturity, all that) but we couldn't increase it by 1 to give an all-state player in two different sports a chance. I would do it differently but I don't have a problem with what Riley and them are doing, I just find it intriguing. They are definitely aware of the walk-on program but it is definitely more national of a walk-on program now than it has ever been.
Who are the HS athlete of the year finalists we turned down? Did we deny them tryouts? Are we sure their measurables are better than this guys?Feel free to blast me here with this take... but I was unaware he hadn't played football before. I find it odd we are turning down high school athlete of the year finalists in our own state who played football for walk-on spots but have room for Jackson. I love the story and do not doubt his heart or character, and i'm not saying this is a bad move. Just is interesting to me.
You know I think this is a distinction that needs to be noted. This kid is not a preferred walk on. He came to campus on his dime, than tried out. Any all state kid would probably expect to be a preferred walk on. Thus he would not come to school with the hope of a walk on slot after a tryout. Also he would have already technically had his tryout at a FNL or some other on campus event.Who are the HS athlete of the year finalists we turned down? Did we deny them tryouts? Are we sure their measurables are better than this guys?
I'm with ya. I thought you could have as many walkons as you wanted.Just asking here. We are the ones who set the walk on limit correct? So couldn't we just increase it 1 for this kid without affecting others?