Bryan Brokop will not be here next year

ajehealth

Sophomore
Mar 4, 2014
206
148
0
For sure I think we bring in 3 in this class for the OL, but would not be surprised if we brought in 4.
 

TwinsRRUs_rivals79748

All-Conference
Oct 1, 2011
6,818
4,193
0
When looking at the scholarship distribution chart for players that have not contributed or who do not appear to be future contributors at this point in time, he was on the list.

Frost has a program to run and needs the best players he can get so he can win. Only the strongest survive in the top programs around the country. Hopefully Frost can catch us back up with those schools on the field.

Good luck to him in his future. GBR
 

inWV

All-Conference
Sep 22, 2007
14,194
4,844
91
Anyone up for an offensive line depth
Cavanaugh was a horrible coach....if people can't handle the truth, so be it. BB was a by product of that....not his fault.
Brokop may not have received stellar coaching, but the Jaimes kid and the other Olinemen in Brokop's recruiting class did not seem to be so affected.
 
Aug 18, 2016
16,645
10,921
113
Yep...it was not as surprise. Still plenty of scholarship OL. We had 1 or 2 too many on scholarship as it is.

I beg to differ. If Frost had enough OL he wouldn’t be looking at adding JUCO guys for next year to fill in the depth. We have14 on scholarship right now. The last 2 classes one Riley and one Frost with only 2 OL signings each. That is thin no matter how you slice it and how many walk one you plan on making contributions. You need 16 OL minimum.
 

dinglefritz

Heisman
Jan 14, 2011
51,776
13,295
78
I beg to differ. If Frost had enough OL he wouldn’t be looking at adding JUCO guys for next year to fill in the depth. We have14 on scholarship right now. The last 2 classes one Riley and one Frost with only 2 OL signings each. That is thin no matter how you slice it and how many walk one you plan on making contributions. You need 16 OL minimum.
14 scholarship and a couple of walk on's who's play probably exceeds some of the scholarships guys. I agree we need more depth, but in the short term we should be fine. You take a JUCO kid because he's physically ready to go usually and can be an immediate upgrade in your depth chart. Obviously with departures and some of the recruiting failures, we have room for a JUCO or two to balance out our classes.
 
Aug 18, 2016
16,645
10,921
113
Cavanaugh was a horrible coach....if people can't handle the truth, so be it. BB was a by product of that....not his fault.

Not his fault? That’s asinine. He spent 2 years in the program and underachieved. Coaching may have had added to it, but if he had any potential it would have been discovered this spring and he wouldn’t have continues to be buried on the depth chart.
 
Aug 18, 2016
16,645
10,921
113
14 scholarship and a couple of walk on's who's play probably exceeds some of the scholarships guys. I agree we need more depth, but in the short term we should be fine. You take a JUCO kid because he's physically ready to go usually and can be an immediate upgrade in your depth chart. Obviously with departures and some of the recruiting failures, we have room for a JUCO or two to balance out our classes.

Who are the 2 walk ons? You don’t take JUCOs next year for depth unless you don’t have depth. JUCOs are looking to play not be back ups.
 

dinglefritz

Heisman
Jan 14, 2011
51,776
13,295
78
Who are the 2 walk ons? You don’t take JUCOs next year for depth unless you don’t have depth. JUCOs are looking to play not be back ups.
You take a difference maker JUCO O linemen even if you already have your "16" scholarship guys. So even if you have enough depth, you never turn down the chance to upgrade that depth. As far as walk ons go, I was including Conrad but Hunter Miller looks like a guy who could contribute and Shefke looks the part as well. Those lower unit guys are there to develop. You take a JUCO because you're sure he can help you right away. The bottomline is that the #13,14,15 and 16 O linemen aren't probably going to get in any games but you hope they have enough talent and work ethic to be worth developing.
 
  • Like
Reactions: oldjar07

ajehealth

Sophomore
Mar 4, 2014
206
148
0
I beg to differ. If Frost had enough OL he wouldn’t be looking at adding JUCO guys for next year to fill in the depth. We have14 on scholarship right now. The last 2 classes one Riley and one Frost with only 2 OL signings each. That is thin no matter how you slice it and how many walk one you plan on making contributions. You need 16 OL minimum.

You are talking quality, I'm talking pure numbers. 15 is too much since it takes away depth elsewhere.
 
Aug 18, 2016
16,645
10,921
113
You take a difference maker JUCO O linemen even if you already have your "16" scholarship guys. So even if you have enough depth, you never turn down the chance to upgrade that depth. As far as walk ons go, I was including Conrad but Hunter Miller looks like a guy who could contribute and Shefke looks the part as well. Those lower unit guys are there to develop. You take a JUCO because you're sure he can help you right away. The bottomline is that the #13,14,15 and 16 O linemen aren't probably going to get in any games but you hope they have enough talent and work ethic to be worth developing.


Correct 13-16 should be redshirt freshmen. Developing. Not JUCO. Frost isn’t looking at just difference makers at JUCO OL, they are recruiting for depth, with multiple offers to JUCO OL
 

Husker.Wed._rivals

All-Conference
Feb 13, 2004
17,660
3,719
98
Sometimes it is not primarily due to the person, the boss, or the place, but rather is just not a good fit. I hope the young man finds another team, or some other calling, is a superstar in it, and looks back fondly at his time with the NU team.
 

oldjar07

All-Conference
Oct 25, 2009
9,473
2,015
113
I beg to differ. If Frost had enough OL he wouldn’t be looking at adding JUCO guys for next year to fill in the depth. We have14 on scholarship right now. The last 2 classes one Riley and one Frost with only 2 OL signings each. That is thin no matter how you slice it and how many walk one you plan on making contributions. You need 16 OL minimum.
Juco OL are some of the most valuable recruits out there. If you find one with enough talent, you take them no matter if they're juco or not. High school OLineman almost always require a year just to add on enough weight and strength to be able to play. It's kind of a waste of a year on scholarship compared to if you could get a juco guy with the size to play right away. Not to mention the OL is still a huge question mark and we need immediate help here.
 

HuskerO58

All-Conference
Sep 11, 2006
14,204
2,408
113
Juco OL are some of the most valuable recruits out there. If you find one with enough talent, you take them no matter if they're juco or not. High school OLineman almost always require a year just to add on enough weight and strength to be able to play. It's kind of a waste of a year on scholarship compared to if you could get a juco guy with the size to play right away. Not to mention the OL is still a huge question mark and we need immediate help here.
I agree with this as Oklahoma seems to always get a stud Juco OL commit every year or so & I doubt it's because they have depth concerns on the OL.
 
Aug 18, 2016
16,645
10,921
113
Juco OL are some of the most valuable recruits out there. If you find one with enough talent, you take them no matter if they're juco or not. High school OLineman almost always require a year just to add on enough weight and strength to be able to play. It's kind of a waste of a year on scholarship compared to if you could get a juco guy with the size to play right away. Not to mention the OL is still a huge question mark and we need immediate help here.

That isn’t what I am talking about. I was responding to the guy who said the Nebraska still has 1 or 2 too many offensive linemen.

As far as size to play right away, do you have any data that shows that JUCO linemen have any greater success rate than a High school linemen? Secondly, the wasted year of scholarship makes no sense either. Most OL will redshirt and aren’t wasting anything. So even after that year you have that player for 3 or 4 years. Most jucos will give you 2 years. Unless you can show me evidence that JUCO OL have a better success rate than a high school OL, I’ll almost always take 4 years of a guy over 2.
 

oldjar07

All-Conference
Oct 25, 2009
9,473
2,015
113
I don't know I'm guessing the success rate is pretty similar, but that's not the point. Most linemen coming out of high school take years to add weight and strength and most need about 3 to 4 years of development before they see significant playing time. Development is important of course but that's 2 or 3 years where the player isn't doing much but taking up roster space.

With a juco linemen, you have a guy expected to contribute in 1 to 2 years and not taking up roster space just so he can develop. That's why juco OL are so valuable. As a position group they have 5 starting spots so it takes up a lot of roster space to fill those positions with quality players. Recruiting Juco OL makes the most of this roster space, and allows you to recruit fewer than 16 OL to field a quality starting lineup or whatever arbitrary number you say we should have.
 
Aug 18, 2016
16,645
10,921
113
I don't know I'm guessing the success rate is pretty similar, but that's not the point. Most linemen coming out of high school take years to add weight and strength and most need about 3 to 4 years of development before they see significant playing time. Development is important of course but that's 2 or 3 years where the player isn't doing much but taking up roster space.

With a juco linemen, you have a guy expected to contribute in 1 to 2 years and not taking up roster space just so he can develop. That's why juco OL are so valuable. As a position group they have 5 starting spots so it takes up a lot of roster space to fill those positions with quality players. Recruiting Juco OL makes the most of this roster space, and allows you to recruit fewer than 16 OL to field a quality starting lineup or whatever arbitrary number you say we should have.



It isn’t an arbitrary number, look at the scholarship distribution from the top teams in the country. They all have 16-18 scholarship linemen where 1 or 2 are former JC players. No one, except the person I replied to originally in this thread, and I guess now you, believe Nebraska has too many scholarship offensive linemen right now.

Most P5 schools will take a JC linemen, no doubt, Nebraska is in on multiple JC linemen, and not because they are looking to cut back on the number of linemen they have on the roster.

Where are you getting 3-4 years to develop and contribute? For crying out loud, there are RS freshmen and sophomores playing on almost every team in the country. Perhaps the best linemen on this year’s team is going to be a true sophomore.

The fact of the matter remains Nebraska does not have too many scholarship OL at 14. Regardless of where they come from, Nebraska is going to sign more than 3 OL in 2019, and will have more scholarship OL in 2019 than they do in 2018.
 

ajehealth

Sophomore
Mar 4, 2014
206
148
0
It isn’t an arbitrary number, look at the scholarship distribution from the top teams in the country. They all have 16-18 scholarship linemen where 1 or 2 are former JC players. No one, except the person I replied to originally in this thread, and I guess now you, believe Nebraska has too many scholarship offensive linemen right now.

Most P5 schools will take a JC linemen, no doubt, Nebraska is in on multiple JC linemen, and not because they are looking to cut back on the number of linemen they have on the roster.

Where are you getting 3-4 years to develop and contribute? For crying out loud, there are RS freshmen and sophomores playing on almost every team in the country. Perhaps the best linemen on this year’s team is going to be a true sophomore.

The fact of the matter remains Nebraska does not have too many scholarship OL at 14. Regardless of where they come from, Nebraska is going to sign more than 3 OL in 2019, and will have more scholarship OL in 2019 than they do in 2018.

SMH....you did not bother to read my post with real data showing you are wrong about the OL schoolly numbers. 15 is the most common number, not 16 to 18. You are way off base on this topic.
 
Aug 6, 2009
15,511
9,089
0
SMH....you did not bother to read my post with real data showing you are wrong about the OL schoolly numbers. 15 is the most common number, not 16 to 18. You are way off base on this topic.
Maybe he did not respond because you also laced your post with snarky insults. Your post was not civil.
 
Aug 18, 2016
16,645
10,921
113
SMH....you did not bother to read my post with real data showing you are wrong about the OL schoolly numbers. 15 is the most common number, not 16 to 18. You are way off base on this topic.

And we have 14 now, and will possibly be down to 13 when/if Barnett leaves.

We don't have 1 or 2 too many and didn't when Brokup decided to leave.
 
Aug 6, 2009
15,511
9,089
0
And 12 if the rumors about Decker giving up FB are true.
Exactly. Our numbers are low at offensive line. It is definitely a position of need in this recruiting cycle. And an infusion of one or two Juco's who have the physical attributes to play right away is not out of the question.