Locked due to no posts in 60 days. Report 1st post if need unlocked JC WR Jaelen Strong offered; Sandland's teammate

[FCHusker]

Agreed. Especially when you talk about a JUCO with Sandlands and Johnsons talent. You take kids with that kind of talent no matter what!

 

[Red Reign]

Exactly....looks like we are going to sign 27 or 28 kids this year which gives us room for 3-4 JUCOs to help us....

We will probably always take 2-3 a year....which makes sense and as you said not screw up the class balance...

You will probably always take 2-3 a year....as has been Bo's average....




We're actually at a spot where we can have enough schollies we can easily add a couple and not screw up the class number balance.

Need is need, and there are spots where, for whatever reason, we have a hole or two in the progression or are losing several SR's this year and could use immediate help. I don't think you are ever at a place where you can just say 'we aren't taking any JC's'. The trick is not taking 5 every class, because then it becomes self-perpetuating.

 

[BubbaGene]

Thanks for the responses, guys. ***, I too thought they were pretty flush at WR. I can see going after DTs. Just about every year this is a position with holes in the depth chart....and now OT too....

 

[FeelLikeAStranger]

Thanks for the responses, guys. ***, I too thought they were pretty flush at WR. I can see going after DTs. Just about every year this is a position with holes in the depth chart....and now OT too....

Not so much at WR...tough position for us to get commits historically and we are somehat top-heavy. DT is a position of need at almost every school perpetually.

This is one aspect of college football that I feel the average fan doesn't appreciate...you are ALWAYS playing catchup somewhere in the depth chart/eligibility/position-class balance. It doesn't take long to get in a bind. It took 4 years to catch up and balance Callahan's doings and in the process, other holes appear.

 

[Red Reign]

As SB alluded too, if you can get a 4-3 JUCO guy of this klds talent at WR you don't hesitate...yeah we are in good, but not great shape at WR right now thus, he would be a great addition....

Thanks for the responses, guys. ***, I too thought they were pretty flush at WR. I can see going after DTs. Just about every year this is a position with holes in the depth chart....and now OT too....

 

[Red Reign]

Yup always a need somewhere.....and taking 20 JUCO recruits in 2005 and 2006 put us deep in a hole as you know...

Not so much at WR...tough position for us to get commits historically and we are somehat top-heavy. DT is a position of need at almost every school perpetually.

This is one aspect of college football that I feel the average fan doesn't appreciate...you are ALWAYS playing catchup somewhere in the depth chart/eligibility/position-class balance. It doesn't take long to get in a bind. It took 4 years to catch up and balance Callahan's doings and in the process, other holes appear.

 

[N2FL]

Exactly....looks like we are going to sign 27 or 28 kids this year which gives us room for 3-4 JUCOs to help us....

We will probably always take 2-3 a year....which makes sense and as you said not screw up the class balance...

IMPO if Nebraska is going to take 4 JUCO players this year, I think I would go TE, S, DT, OT. Of course thats all things being equal with the kids grade.

 

[jslsker]

IMPO if Nebraska is going to take 4 JUCO players this year, I think I would go TE, S, DT, OT. Of course thats all things being equal with the kids grade.

I'd agree with this with the exception of taking a DE over OT. We seem intent on looking for a JUCO WR though.

IMO, JUCOs are an area where Nebraska can/needs to gain an advantage in. Kind of like the new version of the Prop 48s. I think we should always be taking 3-5 per year.

 

[Red Reign]

Disagree on 3-5 a year.....2-3 most years is the ideal amount in my opinion....any more than that would as FLAS put it mess with the annual class balance...

I also think we already have a pretty good advantage in JUCO players....i.e. David, Gomes, Stafford and Seisay come to mind....

I'd agree with this with the exception of taking a DE over OT. We seem intent on looking for a JUCO WR though.

IMO, JUCOs are an area where Nebraska can/needs to gain an advantage in. Kind of like the new version of the Prop 48s. I think we should always be taking 3-5 per year.

 

[N2FL]

I'd agree with this with the exception of taking a DE over OT. We seem intent on looking for a JUCO WR though.

IMO, JUCOs are an area where Nebraska can/needs to gain an advantage in. Kind of like the new version of the Prop 48s. I think we should always be taking 3-5 per year.

You know what, I actually meant to put DE instead of DT. I would go TE, S, DE, OT. I would go OT over DT, WR or anywhere else simply because Nebraska has tremendous talent already in place at those spots. At WR, Nebraska will lose their #3/#4 WR after this year in Marlowe. With guys like Turner, Westerkamp and Allen making strides and impresses coaches, I dont see losing Marlowe as a major loss to the position. After '13, Nebraska will only lose Quincy Enunwa. He will be a big loss but with two recruiting classes before that happens - to recruit HS WR's and get them acclimated to Beck's system, I think thats the better stradegy with WR.

As for DT, unless Nebraska can get a commitment from a guy of the caliber of Toby Johnson or Quincy Russell, I dont think they should go the JUCO route here either. There is so much young talent, even with the uncertain career of Todd Peat. Nebraska should stay as they have been and continue to recruit HS kids, redshirt them, and get them into the molding stage.