If Benhart really is better, then I'm guessing we'll see him in his 4 games then won't we. No use burning his shirt now.
Walk-on honks get ready
- Thread starter inWV
- Start date
So playing a true freshmen would have little effect on the outcome...... thanks that was my point.
Team is always bigger than the individual. If Benhart makes us better than that is the priority. End of story.
You are like the baseball manager that is saving your ace for game seven when you are down 3-2 heading to game 6. It is cool to have him for game 7, but the odds are you don't get to game 7 without him in game 6.
You play to win for this week and this season. period
There's a lot of guys on the offensive line who haven't developed because of poor coaching. And are you really suggesting we should not redshirt players on the offensive line of all places? Seriously? It's the one position where 95%+ of all players coming in as freshman are nowhere close to being physically ready to play.
Yes, because they will be ready for years 2-4. I am not saying you play them as freshman, I am just saying that you don't redshirt them as freshman. If they turn out to be great players, then you play them for 3 years. If they turn out to be Raridon, you get rid of them in 4.
You always want to blame coaching. Nebraska has 16 scholarship offensive lineman. 1 is a 5th year senior. 3 are redshirt juniors. 1 is a true junior. The remaining 11 are sophomores or younger.
Of the starters, 2 (Jurgens and Hixon) have played for no one but Austin, 1 (Jaimes) has played for Austin more than Cavanaugh and 2 (Farniok and Wilson) are within 5 games of playing as much for Austin as they did for Cavanaugh.
That excuse has to be near it's expiration date, unless you are including Austin in the bad coaching.
What excuse? Austin hasn't proven to be any better than Cavanaugh. In year 2, the offensive line play is entirely on Austin.
They don't need to play in games to get better during their redshirt year. An entire year of a college strength and conditioning program and practices every week, you should be a lot better in your 2nd year whether or not you play at all in your first year. Not to mention at that age the amount of mental and physical development that can happen in one year is incredible. If you redshirt them, you get 4 years out of them to be productive players and contribute to the team. Rather than throw them out there in their first year when they are nowhere near physically or mentally ready, that year will effectively be a waste and then you only have the potential of 3 years left for that player to be a contributor to the team.
The excuse that coaching is the issue. Sometimes, actually most of the time, it is talent.
I didn't say they needed to play in games to get better during their freshman year. The freshmen, that don't redshirt, get the same year of college strength and conditioning and practices every week as those who did redshirt. All of the players should be better in their second year. If you redshirt them, you MAY get 4 years out of them but history shows that at least 50% wont give you those 4 years. Again, I didn't say throw them out there in their first year, they can continue to sit on the bench and practice as you wish. What I am saying is that there is no reason to give them 5 years of eligibility when you get the same production in 4.
You just simply move the incubation period from 5 years to 4. Junior replaces senior, rather than rs Jr replaces rs Sr. Plus you get to rotate out the non contributors after 4 year instead of 5.
Go to the other thread for my response that shows mathematically that redshirting can be better than not.
I look at the Oline a bit differently and it would be hard for a coach to apply. Clearly there are kids that based on athleticism look like great prospects to play after a couple of years, but aren't on the depth chart and need to add weight and strength. Then there are the kids that don't measure up to what you thought when you recruited them and don't have their head in the game when it comes to getting to where they can contribute. I'd RS the first kid and tell the second kid he's on a four year plan for now. Given that Olinemen generally don't contribute until year three, the second kid has a chance to "earn" the RS and bank a fifth year if he gets his act together.
But putting a RS on a likely recruiting bust is ill advised.
You really don't put a redshirt on them as far as how long the scholarship goes. IF they get to year 4 and aren't going to contribute, they're done whether they want to be or not. That is IF Frost hasn't encouraged them to look at other options before that time. Frost didn't offer a 5th year to several guys this last go around. They can take their 5th year and go elsewhere and a few have.