• You do not need to register if you are not going to pay the yearly fee to post. If you register please click here or log in go to "settings" then "my account" then "User Upgrades" and you can renew.

Wish we could get this kid as a preferred walk-on

ShortSideOption

All Big 10
10 Year Member

Huskerthom

All Legend
5 Year Member
Offenses certainly changed tho.
True but you could make an argument that he might fit in better with todays offenses. He was a decent not great runner. When he had to take off though he had nice escapability though. I think one of the problems when he was at New England was they wanted him to just stay in the pocket. He did well up in canada because of his ability to run and throw on the run.
 

ShortSideOption

All Big 10
10 Year Member
The “anomalies” would never occur if someone didn’t have the balls to take a chance on them.
While true, that’s like saying “no one will ever get paid on double zero if no one bets on it” in roulette. Probably should still go after/bet on the players that pay out at a higher percentage.
 
While true, that’s like saying “no one will ever get paid on double zero if no one bets on it” in roulette. Probably should still go after/bet on the players that pay out at a higher percentage.
That's not quite fair. A double-zero is an unproven entity. A QB who threw for 5,000 yards as a 3-year starter for a decent-sized program in California? I'll see your gambling analogy and raise you one: For some teams out there looking for a QB, it's like they're holding 4 hearts and a 3-of-spades, but they don't want to drop the 3-of-spades because it will break up a pair. Go for the flush, dude! You've got about a 1-out-of-4 chance of it hitting, and you'll have a shot at winning the hand. Holding on to your pair of 3s? That's like betting your pile of chips on "00."
 

ShortSideOption

All Big 10
10 Year Member
That's not quite fair. A double-zero is an unproven entity. A QB who threw for 5,000 yards as a 3-year starter for a decent-sized program in California? I'll see your gambling analogy and raise you one: For some teams out there looking for a QB, it's like they're holding 4 hearts and a 3-of-spades, but they don't want to drop the 3-of-spades because it will break up a pair. Go for the flush, dude! You've got about a 1-out-of-4 chance of it hitting, and you'll have a shot at winning the hand. Holding on to your pair of 3s? That's like betting your pile of chips on "00."
The analogy I was going for is measureables which our coaches use, not stats. It’s statistically proven that a player X height has a better chance to be an FBS producer compared to someone under 6 feet. It’s why we turn away all state linemen that are 6 feet tall. It’s why more people bet on black or red as opposed to zero or double zero.

The statistics are what they are. How come there’s kids that have unreal high school stats every year that are small and we still are saying “he could be the next Danny Woodhead”? Woodhead graduated college over a decade ago and we are still quoting him when making cases for Mazour, Kautz, etc.

Woodhead still being quoted is the exact point I’m making. Hasn’t been another one that we can quote in over 10 years.

No idea where you took the gambling analogy. You lost me.
 
Last edited:
The analogy I was going for is measureables which our coaches use, not stats. It’s statistically proven that a player X height has a better chance to be an FBS producer compared to someone under 6 feet. It’s why we turn away all state linemen that are 6 feet tall. It’s why more people bet on black or red as opposed to zero or double zero.

The statistics are what they are. How come there’s kids that have unreal high school stats every year that are small and we still are saying “he could be the next Danny Woodhead”? Woodhead graduated college over a decade ago and we are still quoting him when making cases for Mazour, Kautz, etc.

Woodhead still being quoted is the exact point I’m making. Hasn’t been another one that we can quote in over 10 years.

No idea where you took the gambling analogy. You lost me.
First, just to clarify, I am NOT saying that Nebraska should take this kid. I'm saying that in ALL OF THE REALM OF COLLEGE FOOTBALL, there are schools who should take him if they need a QB. He's not even looking for a D-1 offer. They said that he'd contacted basically every program that offers full scholarships, and he still hasn't gotten one. Who's the crappiest team in D-2 that offers full scholarships? Are you saying that THEY couldn't use this guy? If you thought that I meant that Nebraska should take him, I never meant to imply that.

The gambling analogy is 5-card draw. Would you sit on a pair of 3's, or drop a 3 for a good shot at a flush? I'm saying that there are a lot of kids out there who have the measurables to be a college QB but couldn't hit a penned up bull in the @$$ with a bass fiddle. This kid can obviously throw the ball. Why not take a shot with him?
 

Pop Corn

Old Timer
15 Year Member
While true, that’s like saying “no one will ever get paid on double zero if no one bets on it” in roulette. Probably should still go after/bet on the players that pay out at a higher percentage.
I’d think that guys like Woodhead are glad not everyone thinks like that.
 

Native

ToungeInCheek since 2010
5 Year Member
I’ll bet on the big kids with speed and beat you and the little guys 9/10 years. ;)
 

Pop Corn

Old Timer
15 Year Member
I’ll bet on the big kids with speed and beat you and the little guys 9/10 years. ;)
I don't think you understand what I'm saying. I'm going to have the large fast guys too. But I will make room on my squad for this kid in case he turns out to be that modern version of Doug Flutie or Danny Woodhead. Especially if it is under the circumstances suggested in the OP --- as a walk on.
 
Top