“We don’t rebuild, we just reload.”
That’s a common axiom you hear with most any great team at any level – high school, college or pro. Keep in mind, as a Nebraska fan, I saw a program that fit that description at one time and could on its way back to fitting it. Such programs use that statement based on the premise that the foundation and culture of their organization is so strong that despite losing quality players, the team will remain a contender.
Dave Matter, who is a columnist for the Columbia Daily Tribune (Missouri), suggested in his Memorial Day column that the Missouri Tigers football program has reached the stage where it “reloads” rather “rebuilds.”
Matter’s opening paragraph read:
“A shortened version of ‘Mondays’ on count of the holiday, but this week we’re talking about reloading. When your gun runs out of bullets, you don’t manufacture a new weapon. You simply reload. (Especially if you’re living in Columbia these days.) When it comes to college football, the line of demarcation that divides the nationally elite programs and the pretenders is the capacity to reload rather than rebuild.”
Keep in mind, the Tigers lose quarterback Chase Daniel, wide receiver Jeremy Maclin and tight end Chase Kaufman to graduation. Those players triggered an offense that put up staggering numbers.
I would not necessarily put Matter into the same category as some overzealous Missouri fans because he later made the distinction of reloading pertaining to the offense rather than the program as a whole. Nonetheless, I think Matter and a segment of Missori fans have been enjoying too much adult Kool-Aid or funny cigarettes if they think the program has reached a stage where it “reloads.”
Let me get this straight. Missouri has never won a Big 12 championship and only won two divisional titles in the past two years. They lost their record-setting quarterback and all three starting wide receivers for this year which contributed heavily to those two divisional titles. So, what then is the reason we should suddenly put Missouri into the “reload” category, might I ask? Let's wait for the next few years to play out before we declare that Missouri “simply reloads these days.”
I think a lot of people in Columbia are going to be in for a rude awakening. Missouri has never “reloaded” in its entire history. Memo to Missouri: Put together five consecutive nine-win seasons and then maybe you can say stuff like that. Missouri fans also don’t seem to get that they owe as much to Nebraska being in the tank for their success as to the talent increase at their own school. Keep in mind, they creamed two teams coached by Bill Callahan and another (the 2008 team) still had many Callahan remnants. They also lost to a 2002 Nebraska team that went 7-7 and a 2004 Husker club that went 5-6.
While the 2007 and 2008 teams were decent for Missouri, how would they have fared against Nebraska in its prime? From 1993 to 2001, how many games would either of those teams have won against Nebraska? My guess is that the 2007 Tigers would have won three games at the most (1998, 2000 and possibly 2001) and last year's team probably only would've been able to beat an injury-ravaged 1998 Husker team. In other words, the greatest Missouri teams ever would have still been hammered by Nebraska's average teams of the 90s.So the concern in Columbia shouldn't be so much on whether or not they can “reload,” but when will Nebraska be doing it again.
Thursday, May 28, 2009
Monday, May 25, 2009
Former Husker track star Thompson has amazing courage
On this site, we’ve talked ad nausea about how the University of Nebraska football team is like a fallen champion trying to rebound.
Well, another former Husker superstar very much fits that category – Tressa Thompson, who starred as a shot putter and discus thrower. The Bloomfield, NE native was a three-time NCAA shot put champion and record-setter at Nebraska. I had the pleasure of covering Thompson as a student sports reporter at the Daily Nebraskan. Little did I or anyone know the trials and tribulations Thompson would have later. Thompson lived for years in the whirlpool of cocaine and meth, stealing, lying and cheating. Thompson’s problems have been featured on two episodes of “Intervention,” which is a TV program on the A&E Network. The most recent, which was the “Follow-Up” edition came on Memorial Day.
Each show shadows one or two subjects that suffers an addiction (i.e. drugs or alcohol) or has any mentally and/or physically damaging problem and believes that they are being filmed for a documentary on their problem. Their situations are actually being documented in anticipation of an intervention by family and/or friends. Each participant has a choice: go into rehabilitation immediately, or risk losing contact, income, or other privileges from the loved ones who instigated the intervention.
Often, other tactics are used to persuade the addicted person into treatment, which vary depending on the situation; some of these include threats to invoke outstanding arrest warrants, applying for custody of the addict's children, foreclosing on the addict's property, and break-up of marriages or other relationships. The producers usually follow up months later to monitor the addicted person's progress and film it for "follow-up" episodes of the series or for shorter "web updates" available on the show's website.
The “Followup” episide showed Tressa returning to Nebraska for the first time since her intervention eight months early to attend her mother’s wedding.
Following the first episode, Tressa was sent to a 90-day intensive in-patient therapy known as "Hope By The Sea" in San Juan Capistrano, CA. She also reportedly went from the treatment facility to a sober living facility to continue her sobriety. According to the show Tressa has been sober since October 2007. She attempted to qualify for the 2008 Olympics only to fall short of that goal.
She is training to make an athletic comeback and wants to someday open a treatment facility. With her experience and sober life as an example, I am sure she can help transform many lives.
One of the underlying issues of Thompson’s addiction was her family’s guilt trip and lack of accepting Tressa for her being a lesbian. Tressa’s inner loneliness steered her to developing an addiction to meth, then leading her to steal money from her parents and friends. She also stole a gun from her father and pawned it to buy more drugs. Tressa lost the trust of her family.
I have watched these episodes whenever A&E re-airs them and one thought crosses my mind. Yes, Tressa ultimately chose to do drugs and she has had to suffer the ramifications – of which there have been many. Losing a once promising athletic career as well as losing the trust of a family that loved her.
However, I’m also inclined to think that if Tressa family had not ostracized her for being a lesbian, I don’t think her addiction even remotely reaches the point that it did. Maybe, it wouldn’t have even happened at all.
Her parents and sister (Rachel Pinkleman) are all guilty of shaming Tressa about her lifestyle, using the most ass backwards reasons such as Tressa’s homosexuality is “a sin.” I consider myself a conservative (well, a moderate one) and though I might not like the lifestyle, suggesting it is a sin is over the top. Of the four people, her mother (Sybil) seems to have the clearest grasp of the big picture in that this process is about Tressa recovering and feeling comfortable with who she is.
The biggest culprit is her dad. He lumps homosexuality in the same category as liars, drunkards and fornicators. And he then goes out and commits adultery, which led to the divorce of his now former wife. I have three words to describe Jim Thompson – hypocritical, asinine and idiotic.
Memo to Jim: If you want to play this bible thumping game about homosexuality, just remember one thing. One of the Ten Commandments in the Bible says, “Thou shall not commit adultery.” However, there is no commandment in the Bible that says: “Thou shall not become a homosexual.” Without getting overly religious, yes there are passages in the bible that discourage homosexuality but they are not in the Ten Commandments like adultery.
I did not know Tressa enormously well outside of covering her as an athlete but every time we talked, she had a certain glow about her. She had a personality that lit up a room. It’s nice to see that personality return. I remember writing a letter to Tressa after her episode first aired. She e-mailed me back and we exchange e-mails at various times. I’m actually flattered that she still remembered me.
If Tressa makes a comeback athletically, great. However, the biggest victory in this whole matter was that Tressa received the help that she needed. Her journey has been hard; especially with some family not completely understanding who she truly is.
Members of Husker Nation, continue to wish you the very best in your recovery, Tressa.
Well, another former Husker superstar very much fits that category – Tressa Thompson, who starred as a shot putter and discus thrower. The Bloomfield, NE native was a three-time NCAA shot put champion and record-setter at Nebraska. I had the pleasure of covering Thompson as a student sports reporter at the Daily Nebraskan. Little did I or anyone know the trials and tribulations Thompson would have later. Thompson lived for years in the whirlpool of cocaine and meth, stealing, lying and cheating. Thompson’s problems have been featured on two episodes of “Intervention,” which is a TV program on the A&E Network. The most recent, which was the “Follow-Up” edition came on Memorial Day.
Each show shadows one or two subjects that suffers an addiction (i.e. drugs or alcohol) or has any mentally and/or physically damaging problem and believes that they are being filmed for a documentary on their problem. Their situations are actually being documented in anticipation of an intervention by family and/or friends. Each participant has a choice: go into rehabilitation immediately, or risk losing contact, income, or other privileges from the loved ones who instigated the intervention.
Often, other tactics are used to persuade the addicted person into treatment, which vary depending on the situation; some of these include threats to invoke outstanding arrest warrants, applying for custody of the addict's children, foreclosing on the addict's property, and break-up of marriages or other relationships. The producers usually follow up months later to monitor the addicted person's progress and film it for "follow-up" episodes of the series or for shorter "web updates" available on the show's website.
The “Followup” episide showed Tressa returning to Nebraska for the first time since her intervention eight months early to attend her mother’s wedding.
Following the first episode, Tressa was sent to a 90-day intensive in-patient therapy known as "Hope By The Sea" in San Juan Capistrano, CA. She also reportedly went from the treatment facility to a sober living facility to continue her sobriety. According to the show Tressa has been sober since October 2007. She attempted to qualify for the 2008 Olympics only to fall short of that goal.
She is training to make an athletic comeback and wants to someday open a treatment facility. With her experience and sober life as an example, I am sure she can help transform many lives.
One of the underlying issues of Thompson’s addiction was her family’s guilt trip and lack of accepting Tressa for her being a lesbian. Tressa’s inner loneliness steered her to developing an addiction to meth, then leading her to steal money from her parents and friends. She also stole a gun from her father and pawned it to buy more drugs. Tressa lost the trust of her family.
I have watched these episodes whenever A&E re-airs them and one thought crosses my mind. Yes, Tressa ultimately chose to do drugs and she has had to suffer the ramifications – of which there have been many. Losing a once promising athletic career as well as losing the trust of a family that loved her.
However, I’m also inclined to think that if Tressa family had not ostracized her for being a lesbian, I don’t think her addiction even remotely reaches the point that it did. Maybe, it wouldn’t have even happened at all.
Her parents and sister (Rachel Pinkleman) are all guilty of shaming Tressa about her lifestyle, using the most ass backwards reasons such as Tressa’s homosexuality is “a sin.” I consider myself a conservative (well, a moderate one) and though I might not like the lifestyle, suggesting it is a sin is over the top. Of the four people, her mother (Sybil) seems to have the clearest grasp of the big picture in that this process is about Tressa recovering and feeling comfortable with who she is.
The biggest culprit is her dad. He lumps homosexuality in the same category as liars, drunkards and fornicators. And he then goes out and commits adultery, which led to the divorce of his now former wife. I have three words to describe Jim Thompson – hypocritical, asinine and idiotic.
Memo to Jim: If you want to play this bible thumping game about homosexuality, just remember one thing. One of the Ten Commandments in the Bible says, “Thou shall not commit adultery.” However, there is no commandment in the Bible that says: “Thou shall not become a homosexual.” Without getting overly religious, yes there are passages in the bible that discourage homosexuality but they are not in the Ten Commandments like adultery.
I did not know Tressa enormously well outside of covering her as an athlete but every time we talked, she had a certain glow about her. She had a personality that lit up a room. It’s nice to see that personality return. I remember writing a letter to Tressa after her episode first aired. She e-mailed me back and we exchange e-mails at various times. I’m actually flattered that she still remembered me.
If Tressa makes a comeback athletically, great. However, the biggest victory in this whole matter was that Tressa received the help that she needed. Her journey has been hard; especially with some family not completely understanding who she truly is.
Members of Husker Nation, continue to wish you the very best in your recovery, Tressa.
Saturday, May 23, 2009
Would a Bowl Game in San Diego be a Holliday?
The closer the season gets, the more the predictions keep on coming.
For the Nebraska Cornhuskers, most preseason polls have them rated as high as No. 16 and as low as No. 24. Recently, Collegefootballnews.com did its early Bowl Game prognostications. The website pitted Nebraska taking on Oregon in the Holliday Bowl.
Predictions should always been taken for what they are worth, ehich at this point is not a lot. Keep in mind, most people were bullish about Nebraska having a breakthrough season in 2007 but a strange thing happened, the Huskers imploded to a 5-7 record, thus ending the Bill Callahan era.
Last season, most people tabbed the Huskers as low as 7-5 (for the pessimists) to as high as 10-2 (for the Kool-Aid sippers). Nebraska went 9-4 including a 26-21 Gator Bowl win over Clemson on new Years Day, capping a finish of winning six of their final seven games.
Most people seem to think 9-3 in the regular season is a reasonable expectation. Keep in mind, the Holliday Bowl has featured teams with nine or more victories the last three seasons. The last time the Huskers played in the Holliday was 1998 during a 9-3 regular season. The Huskers lost that game to Arizona 23-20.
We’ve heard the term “progress” mentioned so many times during the Callahan regime. The Huskers went 27-22 in that four-year span, failing to qualify for a bowl game twice.
Our friends at bigrednetwork.com posed the question of is the Holliday Bowl something to get excited about? That question to me represents a double-edge sword.
I remember in 2006, my wife and I were expecting our first of now three children. I wanted to go to Nebraska’s bowl game. Depending on the outcome of our Big 12 title game against Oklahoma and how many Big 12 teams drew BCS bowl bids, our choices ranged between the Holliday Bowl in San Diego, the Cotton Bowl in Dallas or the Champs Sports Bowl in Orlando. My wife inferred that San Diego would be nice. I added that as a city I’ll take San Diego but as a Bowl Game I’ll take Dallas because it’s on New Years day when the whole nation is watching.
Five turnovers later in the Big 12 Title Game, we drew Auburn in the Cotton Bowl. I flew to Dallas and with the exception of watching Callahan’s blown fake punt on his own 30-yard line that led to a 17-14 loss, I had a good time, even though I still love to choke him for calling that play.
Where the Huskers land during the bowl season not only depends on the Huskers win-loss record but how many Big 12 teams get a BCS Bowl bid.
That said, if CFNews.com is right, a Holliday Bowl berth is a tough sell in terms of “are the Huskers back?” Right now, I’d view it as a lateral step. Meaning, it’s not the enormous step forward of last year but it’s not a step in reverse either.
Then again, I have to see the season in real time to make that assessment.
For the Nebraska Cornhuskers, most preseason polls have them rated as high as No. 16 and as low as No. 24. Recently, Collegefootballnews.com did its early Bowl Game prognostications. The website pitted Nebraska taking on Oregon in the Holliday Bowl.
Predictions should always been taken for what they are worth, ehich at this point is not a lot. Keep in mind, most people were bullish about Nebraska having a breakthrough season in 2007 but a strange thing happened, the Huskers imploded to a 5-7 record, thus ending the Bill Callahan era.
Last season, most people tabbed the Huskers as low as 7-5 (for the pessimists) to as high as 10-2 (for the Kool-Aid sippers). Nebraska went 9-4 including a 26-21 Gator Bowl win over Clemson on new Years Day, capping a finish of winning six of their final seven games.
Most people seem to think 9-3 in the regular season is a reasonable expectation. Keep in mind, the Holliday Bowl has featured teams with nine or more victories the last three seasons. The last time the Huskers played in the Holliday was 1998 during a 9-3 regular season. The Huskers lost that game to Arizona 23-20.
We’ve heard the term “progress” mentioned so many times during the Callahan regime. The Huskers went 27-22 in that four-year span, failing to qualify for a bowl game twice.
Our friends at bigrednetwork.com posed the question of is the Holliday Bowl something to get excited about? That question to me represents a double-edge sword.
I remember in 2006, my wife and I were expecting our first of now three children. I wanted to go to Nebraska’s bowl game. Depending on the outcome of our Big 12 title game against Oklahoma and how many Big 12 teams drew BCS bowl bids, our choices ranged between the Holliday Bowl in San Diego, the Cotton Bowl in Dallas or the Champs Sports Bowl in Orlando. My wife inferred that San Diego would be nice. I added that as a city I’ll take San Diego but as a Bowl Game I’ll take Dallas because it’s on New Years day when the whole nation is watching.
Five turnovers later in the Big 12 Title Game, we drew Auburn in the Cotton Bowl. I flew to Dallas and with the exception of watching Callahan’s blown fake punt on his own 30-yard line that led to a 17-14 loss, I had a good time, even though I still love to choke him for calling that play.
Where the Huskers land during the bowl season not only depends on the Huskers win-loss record but how many Big 12 teams get a BCS Bowl bid.
That said, if CFNews.com is right, a Holliday Bowl berth is a tough sell in terms of “are the Huskers back?” Right now, I’d view it as a lateral step. Meaning, it’s not the enormous step forward of last year but it’s not a step in reverse either.
Then again, I have to see the season in real time to make that assessment.
Thursday, May 21, 2009
Sports journalism is not the "toy department"
Sometimes you have to have a little free floating hostility.
Yes, this blog is geared primarily toward University of Nebraska football because it’s my alma mater and I have a passion for it. However, I feel the need to blog about something that has been on my mind for a long time.
I'm a sports reporter/photographer for two weekly newspapers in the Napa Valley (located in Northern California). Throughout my career, I have had the opportunity to cover every level of sport from Little League to the NFL. The pay is far from the greatest but I couldn’t imagine myself being happier doing anything else. I also enjoy this recreational blogging about Husker football. For this entry, however, my spirit moves me a little different.
There’s one statement I’ve heard, be it in newsrooms or just in general that is not just my pet peeve but a major psychotic hatred. Within some newspapers, sports has been mockingly called the “toy department.” For starters, I think anyone who has ever used such a description is ignorant at best and an elitist piece of crap at worst. I swear, the value of those statements is about as pointless as testy rhino spit.
True, as sports journalists, we do not concern ourselves with serious problems and nor do we solve all of the worlds problems. And please, don’t come at me with the card of “well, you get to go to games for free.” At which point, I say, “teachers get into their classrooms for free,” and “doctors go into their operating room for free.”
What we cover matters just as much as anyone else in the newsroom. There are people who “only” pick up newspapers because of sports. There are also people who “only” watch a newscast because of sports.
If what we covered was so unimportant, then explain to me why sports coverage has grown in importance as sport has grown in wealth, power and influence.
If you want to say that sports journalists do not concern themselves with “serious” topics, OK fine, but don’t sit there and call us “the toy department.” That statement has about as much value as recycled urine. Every time, I hear someone make that statement, I want to puke.
In fact, I would even beg to differ that sports reporters do not deal with serious topics. Granted, it might not be everyday but look at matters such as Major League Baseball players using performance enhancing drugs.
Sports journalists are like any other reporter in that we must find a story rather than just rely on press releases or information given by the team or school we cover. Our stories also involve verifying facts and that part of the job can be a little murky just like a news reporter encounters in their beat.
My biggest issue with anyone calling sports “the toy department,” well, there are many but I’ll start with the fact that we face more intense deadline pressure than news reporters because sporting events take place much close to deadlines (i.e. covering Friday Night high school football). In the process, we are also expected to uphold the same journalist standards as any other news reporter in the process.
We also work more nights and weekends and sacrifice more time away from our family than anyone in the newsroom if not the entire newspaper.
I do not address this topic looking for anyone to play a violen. Lord knows, no one makes us do what we do. I would not trade it. Just remember, anyone who calls sports “the toy department,” if you punch first, I will punch back.
Yes, this blog is geared primarily toward University of Nebraska football because it’s my alma mater and I have a passion for it. However, I feel the need to blog about something that has been on my mind for a long time.
I'm a sports reporter/photographer for two weekly newspapers in the Napa Valley (located in Northern California). Throughout my career, I have had the opportunity to cover every level of sport from Little League to the NFL. The pay is far from the greatest but I couldn’t imagine myself being happier doing anything else. I also enjoy this recreational blogging about Husker football. For this entry, however, my spirit moves me a little different.
There’s one statement I’ve heard, be it in newsrooms or just in general that is not just my pet peeve but a major psychotic hatred. Within some newspapers, sports has been mockingly called the “toy department.” For starters, I think anyone who has ever used such a description is ignorant at best and an elitist piece of crap at worst. I swear, the value of those statements is about as pointless as testy rhino spit.
True, as sports journalists, we do not concern ourselves with serious problems and nor do we solve all of the worlds problems. And please, don’t come at me with the card of “well, you get to go to games for free.” At which point, I say, “teachers get into their classrooms for free,” and “doctors go into their operating room for free.”
What we cover matters just as much as anyone else in the newsroom. There are people who “only” pick up newspapers because of sports. There are also people who “only” watch a newscast because of sports.
If what we covered was so unimportant, then explain to me why sports coverage has grown in importance as sport has grown in wealth, power and influence.
If you want to say that sports journalists do not concern themselves with “serious” topics, OK fine, but don’t sit there and call us “the toy department.” That statement has about as much value as recycled urine. Every time, I hear someone make that statement, I want to puke.
In fact, I would even beg to differ that sports reporters do not deal with serious topics. Granted, it might not be everyday but look at matters such as Major League Baseball players using performance enhancing drugs.
Sports journalists are like any other reporter in that we must find a story rather than just rely on press releases or information given by the team or school we cover. Our stories also involve verifying facts and that part of the job can be a little murky just like a news reporter encounters in their beat.
My biggest issue with anyone calling sports “the toy department,” well, there are many but I’ll start with the fact that we face more intense deadline pressure than news reporters because sporting events take place much close to deadlines (i.e. covering Friday Night high school football). In the process, we are also expected to uphold the same journalist standards as any other news reporter in the process.
We also work more nights and weekends and sacrifice more time away from our family than anyone in the newsroom if not the entire newspaper.
I do not address this topic looking for anyone to play a violen. Lord knows, no one makes us do what we do. I would not trade it. Just remember, anyone who calls sports “the toy department,” if you punch first, I will punch back.
Sunday, May 17, 2009
Beware of the Kool-Aid -- college football rankings are flowing
The 2009 college football season might been a little less than four months away but preseason rankings have come out and the fun is only beginning. Or is it really fun to read about rankings during the offseason?
It is a time to drink the Kool-Aid. The question is does your Kool-Aid come in a glass or a bong?
Most years as a Nebraska fan, I personally could not give a damn but entering the 2009 season, I feel a little differently. It’s just nice to see our name on people’s list. Keep in mind, the Huskers went 44-32 from 2002-2007. That’s a 57.9 percent winning mark if you are scoring at home with two bowl-less seasons thrown into the. Pathetic when you consider it takes six wins out of 12 games to become bowl eligible. This was a program, mind you, that was accustomed to winning well over 75 percent of its games from 1960-2001.
Sportsillustrated.com ranks the Huskers at No. 24 in its preseason poll with Texas Tech at No. 23 and Notre Dame at No. 25.
Collegefootballnews.com ranks Nebraska at No. 17 with Georgia at No. 16 and Virginia Tech at No. 18. CBSsportsline.com has the Huskers at No. 21 with TCU at No. 20 and BYU at No. 22. ESPN.com rates the Huskers at No. 19 with California at No. 18 and Kansas at No. 20. Athlon Sports, meanwhile rates the Huskers at No. 16 with Florida State rated at No. 15 and LSU at No. 17.
What does all of this stuff mean? Well, nothing unless the Huskers prove they are worth their salt during the season after enjoying a bounce-back campaign in head coach Bo Pelini’s first season, going 9-4 but most importantly finishing the season winning six of their last seven including a 26-21 come-from-behind win over an underachieving but talented Clemson team.
Again, I put very little stock in preseason college football rankings because for one thing it’s conjecture and secondly, we do not truly know what will happen. If I knew what was going to happen, I’d be selling you gold and not being a drunken recreational blogger.
What I take out of the preseason rankings is not about whom I think Nebraska is better than or who is better than Nebraska. What I take out of it is that a) Pelini has made football at Nebraska matter again and b) other people are taking notice. The balance of power in the Big 12 resides in the South with Texas and Oklahoma being genuine threats to win the National Title. There are some things to like about this Husker team and other things that should concern you. For starters, both offensive and defensive line should be solid, the defense should continue to improve, which is a good thing since the Big 12 is the modern-day WAC and to a lesser degree Pac-10. The cause for concern, however, is breaking in a new starter at quarterback.
From a win-loss standpoint, this Husker team should at least match last years’ output and with a few breaks, surpass it. The biggest sign that the recent preseason ratings mean that football matters again in Lincoln, look at the teams that immediately flank the Huskers in various the polls. Here’s a closer look:
Sports Illustrated:
Texas Tech: The Huskers and Red Raiders meet in Lincoln on Oct. 17. Many NU fans have Texas Tech’s 70-10 route in 2004 fresh in their mind but it should be noted that Nebraska was a fumbled LeKevin Smith interception away from winning in 2005 and a desperately thrown Joe Ganz interception away from winning last year’s game in Lubbock.
Notre Dame: Enough already of the talk of how Notre Dame improved as last season progressed. The thrill of the blowout win over Hawaii in the Hawaii Bowl temporarily glossed over the disappointing season that saw them lose four out of their last five regular season games. They lost at home to a 3-9 Syracuse team. Enough said. For all the talk of how great a mind head coach Charlie Weis is, great coaches don’t go a combined 10-15 in two seasons at Notre Dame.
Collegefootballnews.com
Georgia: I hesitate to say the Bulldogs had a disappointing season in 2008. After all, 10-3 in the SEC is pretty good but keep in mind Georgia entered ’08 with the hype of being a National Title contender. They also lost quarterback Matthew Stafford, who was the No. 1 pick in the NFL draft but they typically reload pretty well. That said, the SEC might be overhyped but it’s still pretty formidable.
Virginia Tech: The Hokies, who are rated No. 5 by Athlon, will represent a key litmus test for Nebraska when the two teams meet in Blacksburg on Sept. 19. VaTech edged the Huskers in Lincoln 35-30 in 2008. The Hokies always field a strong defense and special teams and get eight starters back offensively. If Nebraska wins this one, a 10-2 season seems like a slam-dunk. A loss won’t kill the Huskers but with one surpassing last year’s record becomes more of an uphill climb.
ESPN.com
California: Every season (oh, since say 2005) the Bears, followed closely by Oregon, are the trendy pick in the Pac-10 to dethrone USC. Then the Trojans still prevail and make a run at the National Title. As good as the Bears have become under Jeff Tedford, they have reached their ceiling and are nothing more than a bad girlfriend – a tease. While we’re at it, put Oregon in the same category. Despite this being a so-called rebuilding year, the Trojans should prevail in the Pac-10.
Kansas: Most people favor the Jayhawks to edge Nebraska and Missouri for the Big 12 North title because of the return of Todd Reesing at quarterback and Derek Meier and Desmond Briscoe at receiver. Nebraska and Missouri, meanwhile, have the quarterback and receiver corps depleted by graduation. The pundits forget one thing; the Jayhawks trio put up great numbers last year but loses three offensive linemen and three linebackers.
Athlon Sports:
Florida State: Like Nebraska, Florida State is like a fallen champion trying to recover. Christian Ponder gives them some stability at quarterback and the offensive line has grown up together but the Seminoles lost some key players on defense.
LSU: Just think, two years ago, Pelini was a defensive coordinator on a National championship team. This is a talented but yet mysterious club. Keep in kind, on the way to winning the National Title, the Tigers lost 51-59 in triple overtime to Arkansas but also needed a West Virginia loss to Pittsburgh to get back into the title game. LSU is a talented club but is also coming off a disappointing 8-5 season despite some of that disappointment being salvaged by a bowl game win over Georgia Tech. The Tigers are more talented the Huskers but Nebraska could have better team by season’s end.
CBSsportsline.com
TCU: Just four starters return on defense, but there were some decent backups ready to step in and the secondary should be among the best in the Mountain West. The offense might not be great but should be serviceable.
BYU: The Cougars need to prove once again that they can be considered among the elite of the non-BCS conference teams. They were supposed to be Utah, but melted down against the top teams.
So they you have it, the rankings mean nothing more than Husker football at least matters again. Now it’s time to matter more.
It is a time to drink the Kool-Aid. The question is does your Kool-Aid come in a glass or a bong?
Most years as a Nebraska fan, I personally could not give a damn but entering the 2009 season, I feel a little differently. It’s just nice to see our name on people’s list. Keep in mind, the Huskers went 44-32 from 2002-2007. That’s a 57.9 percent winning mark if you are scoring at home with two bowl-less seasons thrown into the. Pathetic when you consider it takes six wins out of 12 games to become bowl eligible. This was a program, mind you, that was accustomed to winning well over 75 percent of its games from 1960-2001.
Sportsillustrated.com ranks the Huskers at No. 24 in its preseason poll with Texas Tech at No. 23 and Notre Dame at No. 25.
Collegefootballnews.com ranks Nebraska at No. 17 with Georgia at No. 16 and Virginia Tech at No. 18. CBSsportsline.com has the Huskers at No. 21 with TCU at No. 20 and BYU at No. 22. ESPN.com rates the Huskers at No. 19 with California at No. 18 and Kansas at No. 20. Athlon Sports, meanwhile rates the Huskers at No. 16 with Florida State rated at No. 15 and LSU at No. 17.
What does all of this stuff mean? Well, nothing unless the Huskers prove they are worth their salt during the season after enjoying a bounce-back campaign in head coach Bo Pelini’s first season, going 9-4 but most importantly finishing the season winning six of their last seven including a 26-21 come-from-behind win over an underachieving but talented Clemson team.
Again, I put very little stock in preseason college football rankings because for one thing it’s conjecture and secondly, we do not truly know what will happen. If I knew what was going to happen, I’d be selling you gold and not being a drunken recreational blogger.
What I take out of the preseason rankings is not about whom I think Nebraska is better than or who is better than Nebraska. What I take out of it is that a) Pelini has made football at Nebraska matter again and b) other people are taking notice. The balance of power in the Big 12 resides in the South with Texas and Oklahoma being genuine threats to win the National Title. There are some things to like about this Husker team and other things that should concern you. For starters, both offensive and defensive line should be solid, the defense should continue to improve, which is a good thing since the Big 12 is the modern-day WAC and to a lesser degree Pac-10. The cause for concern, however, is breaking in a new starter at quarterback.
From a win-loss standpoint, this Husker team should at least match last years’ output and with a few breaks, surpass it. The biggest sign that the recent preseason ratings mean that football matters again in Lincoln, look at the teams that immediately flank the Huskers in various the polls. Here’s a closer look:
Sports Illustrated:
Texas Tech: The Huskers and Red Raiders meet in Lincoln on Oct. 17. Many NU fans have Texas Tech’s 70-10 route in 2004 fresh in their mind but it should be noted that Nebraska was a fumbled LeKevin Smith interception away from winning in 2005 and a desperately thrown Joe Ganz interception away from winning last year’s game in Lubbock.
Notre Dame: Enough already of the talk of how Notre Dame improved as last season progressed. The thrill of the blowout win over Hawaii in the Hawaii Bowl temporarily glossed over the disappointing season that saw them lose four out of their last five regular season games. They lost at home to a 3-9 Syracuse team. Enough said. For all the talk of how great a mind head coach Charlie Weis is, great coaches don’t go a combined 10-15 in two seasons at Notre Dame.
Collegefootballnews.com
Georgia: I hesitate to say the Bulldogs had a disappointing season in 2008. After all, 10-3 in the SEC is pretty good but keep in mind Georgia entered ’08 with the hype of being a National Title contender. They also lost quarterback Matthew Stafford, who was the No. 1 pick in the NFL draft but they typically reload pretty well. That said, the SEC might be overhyped but it’s still pretty formidable.
Virginia Tech: The Hokies, who are rated No. 5 by Athlon, will represent a key litmus test for Nebraska when the two teams meet in Blacksburg on Sept. 19. VaTech edged the Huskers in Lincoln 35-30 in 2008. The Hokies always field a strong defense and special teams and get eight starters back offensively. If Nebraska wins this one, a 10-2 season seems like a slam-dunk. A loss won’t kill the Huskers but with one surpassing last year’s record becomes more of an uphill climb.
ESPN.com
California: Every season (oh, since say 2005) the Bears, followed closely by Oregon, are the trendy pick in the Pac-10 to dethrone USC. Then the Trojans still prevail and make a run at the National Title. As good as the Bears have become under Jeff Tedford, they have reached their ceiling and are nothing more than a bad girlfriend – a tease. While we’re at it, put Oregon in the same category. Despite this being a so-called rebuilding year, the Trojans should prevail in the Pac-10.
Kansas: Most people favor the Jayhawks to edge Nebraska and Missouri for the Big 12 North title because of the return of Todd Reesing at quarterback and Derek Meier and Desmond Briscoe at receiver. Nebraska and Missouri, meanwhile, have the quarterback and receiver corps depleted by graduation. The pundits forget one thing; the Jayhawks trio put up great numbers last year but loses three offensive linemen and three linebackers.
Athlon Sports:
Florida State: Like Nebraska, Florida State is like a fallen champion trying to recover. Christian Ponder gives them some stability at quarterback and the offensive line has grown up together but the Seminoles lost some key players on defense.
LSU: Just think, two years ago, Pelini was a defensive coordinator on a National championship team. This is a talented but yet mysterious club. Keep in kind, on the way to winning the National Title, the Tigers lost 51-59 in triple overtime to Arkansas but also needed a West Virginia loss to Pittsburgh to get back into the title game. LSU is a talented club but is also coming off a disappointing 8-5 season despite some of that disappointment being salvaged by a bowl game win over Georgia Tech. The Tigers are more talented the Huskers but Nebraska could have better team by season’s end.
CBSsportsline.com
TCU: Just four starters return on defense, but there were some decent backups ready to step in and the secondary should be among the best in the Mountain West. The offense might not be great but should be serviceable.
BYU: The Cougars need to prove once again that they can be considered among the elite of the non-BCS conference teams. They were supposed to be Utah, but melted down against the top teams.
So they you have it, the rankings mean nothing more than Husker football at least matters again. Now it’s time to matter more.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
Osborne right -- within reason -- on officiating issue
Nebraska Athletic Director Tom Osborne would like to reapply an old Big Eight policy to Big 12 officiating, according to a story from the Omaha World Herald on Friday.Osborne added Thursday that at next week's league meetings he'll try to gain support for coaches to be able to ask the conference to "rest" an official because of repeated substandard work."If you feel somebody has really not measured up," he said, "you could request that he not work any of your games the next year."
Osborne also added that he expects his suggestion to go over, "like a lead balloon."Coaches are not allowed to talk about officiating; therefore giving them no recourse if they believe the same referee has done a poor job repeatedly.
One example of a Big 12 referee that has raised the ire of Husker coaches (well specifically Bill Callahan in 2005) is Steve Usecheck.
Just to refresh your memory and this is just one example, Callahan showed his displeasure with Usecheck in a 2005 31-24 loss to Oklahoma raising his index finger and quickly drew it across his neck as Usechek jogged away. The incident occurred after Sooner running back Kejuan Jones scored on a 17-yard touchdown early in the fourth quarter to put the Sooners ahead 31-17. Callahan argued that officials missed a holding call on the play. His discussion with Usechek, and the subsequent gesture, was televised by ABC.
In one respect, I could not agree more with the sentiment that referees should be benched if a coach has no confidence in them. After all, this is not union work. For one, it seems like every referee has a different idea of “holding” and “pass interference.” In baseball, every umpire seems to have a different idea on balls and strikes. In basketball, every ref seems to have a different idea of what a foul is.
The big questions, however, are who would be the person to decide whether a ref should be benched or not? Would there be a panel of other refs who look at job performance or would the government try to stick their hands in that also?
I also think there should be a limit on how many times a coach can make this request, say one time per year or two – max. Think about it, if a team is say 2-10 and thinks it is getting an unfair shake every week, the pool of referees is bound to dry up in a huge hurry.
I once had a conversation with a former high school-league commissioner who theorized that anyone on an emotionally thinking level claims that the quality of officiating has declined in recent years, but they fail to realize one thing.
Given the abuse referees take, people are not beating the door down to become one. That statement makes almost too much sense, because who in their right mind wants to deal boorish behavior? Let's face it, for the most part, refs only hear from people when they are mad. How often do you hear someone say, "Good call, ref," and mean it genuinely as opposed to carrying a biting undertone? Very seldom.
Before I go any further, if you think the ref is "out to get your team" after most every call that goes against your team, you are out to lunch. On the other hand, if you are one of these self-righteous people who gets on your high horse and always claims that a coach or athlete is "whining" when they address a call, you are equally out to lunch.
Heck, if you're a coach, athlete or fan, it's your right to disagree with a call that goes against your team because criticism is fair as long as it's valid. After all, people are human.
Osborne also added that he expects his suggestion to go over, "like a lead balloon."Coaches are not allowed to talk about officiating; therefore giving them no recourse if they believe the same referee has done a poor job repeatedly.
One example of a Big 12 referee that has raised the ire of Husker coaches (well specifically Bill Callahan in 2005) is Steve Usecheck.
Just to refresh your memory and this is just one example, Callahan showed his displeasure with Usecheck in a 2005 31-24 loss to Oklahoma raising his index finger and quickly drew it across his neck as Usechek jogged away. The incident occurred after Sooner running back Kejuan Jones scored on a 17-yard touchdown early in the fourth quarter to put the Sooners ahead 31-17. Callahan argued that officials missed a holding call on the play. His discussion with Usechek, and the subsequent gesture, was televised by ABC.
In one respect, I could not agree more with the sentiment that referees should be benched if a coach has no confidence in them. After all, this is not union work. For one, it seems like every referee has a different idea of “holding” and “pass interference.” In baseball, every umpire seems to have a different idea on balls and strikes. In basketball, every ref seems to have a different idea of what a foul is.
The big questions, however, are who would be the person to decide whether a ref should be benched or not? Would there be a panel of other refs who look at job performance or would the government try to stick their hands in that also?
I also think there should be a limit on how many times a coach can make this request, say one time per year or two – max. Think about it, if a team is say 2-10 and thinks it is getting an unfair shake every week, the pool of referees is bound to dry up in a huge hurry.
I once had a conversation with a former high school-league commissioner who theorized that anyone on an emotionally thinking level claims that the quality of officiating has declined in recent years, but they fail to realize one thing.
Given the abuse referees take, people are not beating the door down to become one. That statement makes almost too much sense, because who in their right mind wants to deal boorish behavior? Let's face it, for the most part, refs only hear from people when they are mad. How often do you hear someone say, "Good call, ref," and mean it genuinely as opposed to carrying a biting undertone? Very seldom.
Before I go any further, if you think the ref is "out to get your team" after most every call that goes against your team, you are out to lunch. On the other hand, if you are one of these self-righteous people who gets on your high horse and always claims that a coach or athlete is "whining" when they address a call, you are equally out to lunch.
Heck, if you're a coach, athlete or fan, it's your right to disagree with a call that goes against your team because criticism is fair as long as it's valid. After all, people are human.
Thursday, May 14, 2009
Roger Craig belongs in the NFL Hall-of-Fame
Bleacherreport.com hit a nerve with me.
The internet site published a story in Wednesday’s edition on the San Francisco 49ers home page arguing that former Nebraska running back Roger Craig deserves to be in the NFL Hall-of-Fame.
This story hits a nerve with me because I grew up in Northern California (Napa, CA to be exact) as a 49er fan. The 49ers became the revered dynasty that most people know them as today when I became old enough to understand football. Keep in mind, I was born in 1972.
San Francisco drafted Craig in 1983 and another former Husker (Tom Rathman) in 1986. I had a great NFL team to root for in the 49ers, they haven’t been relevant since 2002 but I digress. I just needed a good college team to root for – but Cal and Stanford just didn’t do it for me. They still don’t. USC has a great tradition in football. So does UCLA in basketball – but rooting for a Southern California team was a hard sell for me. Well, it still is as much as I respect their tradition. So I became a Husker fan in 1986. I later became a Husker graduate in 1997.
I moved back to Northern California in 1998. Sorry, I can’t bring myself to saying “NoCal” or “SoCal.” That sounds way too damn dorky and juvenile. When I hear people those terms, it sounds like a pipsqueak that has not reached puberty yet.
Back to Craig for just a moment. Well, for the rest of this commentary. Bleacherreport.com chronicled how Craig was the first player in NFL history to run and receive for at least 1,000 yards in the same season. He ran for 1,050 yards on 214 carries and led the NFL with 92 catches for 1,016 yards. He scored a team high 15 touchdowns.
In 1988, Craig was named NFL Offensive Player of the Year by the Associated Press. He ran for a career high 1,502 yards and caught an additional 76 passes for 534 yards.
Marshall Faulk achieved the 1,000-1,000 club status as a member of the St. Louis Rams in 1999 but is widely received a slamdunk choice for the Hall-of-Fame mostly because he totaled 12,279 rushing yards in his 13 year career. Keep in mind; rushing for 10,000 yards is normally viewed as a right of passage to the Hall-of-Fame. Craig, however, had to run on muddy fields at Candlestick Park in December while Faulk played his entire career in a dome-stadium on the Astoturf.
Craig rushed for 8,189 yards but had just two 1,000 yard rushing seasons. He also added 4,911 more yards as a receiver on 566 catches, scoring 73 touchdowns (56 running, 17 receiving) in the process while playing both fullback and running back. He also had to share carries with Wendell Tyler and Tom Rathman.
His final memory to some 49er fans is a costly fumble that enabled the New York Giants to beat San Francisco 15-13 in the 1991 NFC Championship game. Some 49er fans I have spoken to have said, “Well, if Craig didn’t fumble the 49ers would have Threepeated as Super Bowl Champs.” Sorry, wouldn’t have happened.
Keep in mind, quarterback Joe Montana got knocked out of that game thanks to Giants defensive Leonard Marshall’s crushing blow. Steve Young, who later went on to have a Hall-of-Fame career replaced Montana. Let’s face it, Young could not have been trusted in a big game then. Heck, he was a hit or miss proposition in a big game after he became an All-Pro and NFL MVP in 1992.
Again, Craig might not have the gaudy rushing stats of say Faulk or Tiki Barber. However, with Craig’s hybrid style of playing running back, you have to look beyond numbers and see how he revolutionized the game as we know it today. When you watch NFL running backs like say Bryan Westbrook, LaDanion Tomlinson or Reggie Bush operate as dual threats – just remember, they owe a debt of gratitude to Craig because he started the change of a trend where the running back primarily carried the ball. As opposed to carry, catch AND pick up blitzes.
And oh, by the way, Craig has three Super Bowl rings, two more than Faulk, Westbrook, Barber, Tomlinson and Bush combined.
The internet site published a story in Wednesday’s edition on the San Francisco 49ers home page arguing that former Nebraska running back Roger Craig deserves to be in the NFL Hall-of-Fame.
This story hits a nerve with me because I grew up in Northern California (Napa, CA to be exact) as a 49er fan. The 49ers became the revered dynasty that most people know them as today when I became old enough to understand football. Keep in mind, I was born in 1972.
San Francisco drafted Craig in 1983 and another former Husker (Tom Rathman) in 1986. I had a great NFL team to root for in the 49ers, they haven’t been relevant since 2002 but I digress. I just needed a good college team to root for – but Cal and Stanford just didn’t do it for me. They still don’t. USC has a great tradition in football. So does UCLA in basketball – but rooting for a Southern California team was a hard sell for me. Well, it still is as much as I respect their tradition. So I became a Husker fan in 1986. I later became a Husker graduate in 1997.
I moved back to Northern California in 1998. Sorry, I can’t bring myself to saying “NoCal” or “SoCal.” That sounds way too damn dorky and juvenile. When I hear people those terms, it sounds like a pipsqueak that has not reached puberty yet.
Back to Craig for just a moment. Well, for the rest of this commentary. Bleacherreport.com chronicled how Craig was the first player in NFL history to run and receive for at least 1,000 yards in the same season. He ran for 1,050 yards on 214 carries and led the NFL with 92 catches for 1,016 yards. He scored a team high 15 touchdowns.
In 1988, Craig was named NFL Offensive Player of the Year by the Associated Press. He ran for a career high 1,502 yards and caught an additional 76 passes for 534 yards.
Marshall Faulk achieved the 1,000-1,000 club status as a member of the St. Louis Rams in 1999 but is widely received a slamdunk choice for the Hall-of-Fame mostly because he totaled 12,279 rushing yards in his 13 year career. Keep in mind; rushing for 10,000 yards is normally viewed as a right of passage to the Hall-of-Fame. Craig, however, had to run on muddy fields at Candlestick Park in December while Faulk played his entire career in a dome-stadium on the Astoturf.
Craig rushed for 8,189 yards but had just two 1,000 yard rushing seasons. He also added 4,911 more yards as a receiver on 566 catches, scoring 73 touchdowns (56 running, 17 receiving) in the process while playing both fullback and running back. He also had to share carries with Wendell Tyler and Tom Rathman.
His final memory to some 49er fans is a costly fumble that enabled the New York Giants to beat San Francisco 15-13 in the 1991 NFC Championship game. Some 49er fans I have spoken to have said, “Well, if Craig didn’t fumble the 49ers would have Threepeated as Super Bowl Champs.” Sorry, wouldn’t have happened.
Keep in mind, quarterback Joe Montana got knocked out of that game thanks to Giants defensive Leonard Marshall’s crushing blow. Steve Young, who later went on to have a Hall-of-Fame career replaced Montana. Let’s face it, Young could not have been trusted in a big game then. Heck, he was a hit or miss proposition in a big game after he became an All-Pro and NFL MVP in 1992.
Again, Craig might not have the gaudy rushing stats of say Faulk or Tiki Barber. However, with Craig’s hybrid style of playing running back, you have to look beyond numbers and see how he revolutionized the game as we know it today. When you watch NFL running backs like say Bryan Westbrook, LaDanion Tomlinson or Reggie Bush operate as dual threats – just remember, they owe a debt of gratitude to Craig because he started the change of a trend where the running back primarily carried the ball. As opposed to carry, catch AND pick up blitzes.
And oh, by the way, Craig has three Super Bowl rings, two more than Faulk, Westbrook, Barber, Tomlinson and Bush combined.
Tuesday, May 12, 2009
Examining football myths
Last July, I took the plunge and decided to add the NFL Network to my cable subscription plan.
Yes, I confess to being a borderline football junkie. After all, that comes with the territory when you are a University of Nebraska alum.
The network was launched during the 2003 season and includes game broadcasts, up-to-the-minute news around the NFL, and various features. Among those features are various “Top Ten” lists, such as top ten quarterbacks of all time and so forth.Just recently, the network aired a feature of Top Ten Football Myths. The list primarily geared itself toward the NFL but definitely has a degree of truth for the college game as well. We are all guilty of uttering these myths but watching this show kind of made me re-examine the beliefs.
10) Tackle stats are accurate
On one hand, the statistic is important because after all, if the defender (or defenders) does not make the tackle, the play continues for perhaps a touchdown. However, they do not accurately gauge how valuable a player is to his team. How valuable is someone if he is making most of his tackles say 10 or more yards downfield? And if a running back goes straight into the line of scrimmage greeted by a wall of defenders, who really made the tackle?
But it comes down to the fact that tackle stats cannot always be trusted. Each NFL and college team employs a stat crew for its home games. That crew's final statistics are deemed official: yardage for rushing, passing, receiving and various kick returns plus field goal and punting distances, sacks, interceptions, touchdowns. However, most NFL teams and perhaps college too do not acknowledge the press box tackle stats as official. Following games, defensive coaching staffs break down the films on their own and award a new set of tackle numbers. Those are listed by each team as its "official" tackle count.
9) It’s tough to repeat as Super Bowl or National Champions
There is a kernel of truth to this idea but more so as college football national champions. In the Super Bowl era, eight of the 17 franchises that have won Super Bowls have repeated as champions (the Pittsburgh Steelers did it twice in the 1970s). In college football, only three teams have repeated as National Champions (1978-1979 Alabama, 1994-1995 Nebraska, and 2003-2004 USC).
Repeating is harder in the college game because the most games that a team can afford to lose and still have a shot at the National title is two games (i.e. LSU in 2007) and even that is an aberration. Many times, even one loss kills a team’s National Title hopes. In the NFL, a team can lose as many as six regular season games, get hot in the playoffs and then raise a Vince Lombardi trophy.
College or NFL, however, if a team has a proven formula that works as far as developing and keeping its players, it is going to be good enough to win it all again. If anything, this phrase should be changed to either “it can be hard to repeat” or “it’s hard to ‘Threepeat.’”
8) You should punt on fourth down
If the situation is fourth down and less than one yard, you hear fans and commentators bristle, “If you can’t make a half-yard, you don’t deserve to win.” That’s a philosophy that I champion but simple mathematics suggest that regardless of your decision, the result will be a hit-or-miss proposition. And no, don’t give me the argument that the coach is “a genius if it works, a dummy if it doesn’t.”
Please, folks, it’s not that simple. The outcome of a decision does not make it good or bad — what’s important is the reason behind it. Field position and game momentum play a role in decision-making. If a team faces say fourth-and-one from its own 20, it makes more sense to punt than it would if the ball was at midfield or deeper into the opponents’ territory.The difference is that at the 20, you risk giving the ball up to your opponent in prime scoring territory.
That said, I find it amazing how some coaches develop a reputation for being mavericks or river boat gamblers, tossing caution to the wind and taking the chance on fourth down more often than their rivals. The ones that don’t fall into this category get labeled as ones with “no guts,” or something along those lines.
7) Dome teams are soft
The argument you frequently hear is that dome teams are weak and can’t handle the elements. It is generally believed that upper management of dome teams attempt to build teams that are suited to play best in perfect indoor conditions but they almost always succeed at creating teams incapable of slugging it out in a postseason street fight.
At a disadvantage in the postseason? More often than not yes. After all, dome teams have played ten conference title games on the road – losing all ten. Soft, however, is only true in some cases but not across the board. Most people see teams like the Indianapolis Colts or the St. Louis Rams as finesse oriented teams. However, Bum Phillips’ Houston Oilers teams played a physical brand of football led by Earl Campbell. Jim Mora’s New Orleans Saints had plenty of defenses that inflicted pain on opponents.
On the college side, Syracuse, Idaho, Minnesota, Tulane, and Houston come to mind as dome teams but notice how none of those team are the “brand names” of college football.
6) Icing the kicker works
This strategy is employed by defending teams to disrupt the process of kicking a field goal just prior to the snap. Typically, either a player or a coach on the defending team will call time out just as the kicker is about to attempt a game-tying or game-winning field goal. This is intended to make the kicker nervous and increase the likelihood of him missing the kick.
So is it effective?
Scott Berry, who is a statistician and the former chairman of the Statistics in Sports section of the American Statistical Association, where every field-goal attempt made in the 2002 and 2003 seasons was studied. It was concluded that, for field goal attempts of higher difficulty in the 40-55 yard range, icing the kicker causes the likelihood of a successful attempt to drop by about ten percent. On shorter kicks, the effect was found to be negligible.
I must say I’m hardly surprised. What other job is a kicker thinking about throughout the game other than kicking off and kicking field goals or extra points? I doubt he’s spending the game thinking about that Cover Two defense or that “sluggo” route by the X receiver.
5) Quarterback needs a rocket arm
Anyone believing this idea knows about minus-10 percent about football. Granted, John Elway and Brett Favre could throw a strawberry through a locomotive and had Hall-of-Fame careers. However, guys Joe Montana, Tom Brady, and Troy Aikman didn’t wow anyone with their arm strength and had Hall-of-Fame careers.
If quarterback success was based solely from physical attributes, players like Andre Ware and Jeff George would both be headed to the Hall of Fame. Nevertheless, finding signal callers is becoming more about accuracy, intelligence and intangibles than it is overall physical skills. There have also been plenty of strong-armed high school quarterbacks that couldn’t cut the mustard in college.
4) You have to run to set up the pass
I believe teams need to have at least a presentable running attack but the fact that it sets up the pass is an outmoded idea. I find this idea to have gray areas even though as a Husker fan, I enjoyed watching them pound teams into submission. There is definitely truth to the idea that a team needs to have a genuine running threat if it wants to win a championship. College and NFL Teams are more likely to win with a 100 yard rusher (probably two-thirds of the time) than a 300 yard passer (about 50 percent of the time).
The one difference being in the college game teams run variations of the Spread Offense, where the quarterback is an extension of the running game. In the NFL, quarterbacks are more likely to use their mobility to buy extra time trying to find a receiver downfield.If a team has a dominant quarterback, then the need for a dominant running game is not great. However, if a team has a average or worse quarterback, then it had better have a strong running game if it wants a chance to win.
3) A player should not lose his job to injury
Puuullleeeaaaasssseeeeee!
Now there’s a copout if I ever heard of one. What a stupid question. It’s one thing to have that rule in high school but pro sports and college to a lesser extent are about a business, as much as some people hate to admit it. As a coach, your job is to play the guy that gives you the best chance to win. If you buy this theory, then Lou Gerhig should have his Hall-of-Fame induction revoked. While we’re at it, Kurt Warner and Tom Brady should return their Super Bowl MVP trophies.
2) Defense wins championships
Given that that the rules of the game (both college and pro) favor offenses, this theory holds less water than say 25 years ago but don’t kid yourself – defense matters. Just ask the 2000 New York Giants, 2001 St. Louis Rams, 2002 Oakland Raiders and 2007 New England Patriots. What do those teams have in common? Well, they all had a supposedly unstoppable offense going into the Super Bowl that got shut down by a bad ass defense.
The college game? How about those 2008 Oklahoma Sooners that got their jollies scoring 60 points a game. Well, they scored a friggin’ whopping 14 points against a superior Florida Gator defense.
You might not need a dominant defense to win a championship but until teams with soft defenses win a championship for ten years in a row, I’m not buying the theory that the game has changed.
As a whole, defensive teams tend to be more consistent, especially from year to year. QBs have off days, conditions break down, etc. It's much easier to plug in a talented new defender than it is to replace a QB or OL (especially multiple).
1) Prevent defense prevents you from winning
I’ve been very guilty of echoing this sentiment but I’ll back off to some degree. A true prevent defense is a “Hail Mary” defense where you drop seven or eight defenders near the goal-line. How many Hail Mary attempts actually work? One out of every 20, maybe.
Fans confuse a “soft zone” with a prevent. Well, it’s not the same. A soft zone means that all the safeties and cornerbacks are playing back, five or ten yards off the line. The free safety will often play as much as 20 yards back. There will be no jamming of receivers on the line. The zone means that each defensive back is responsible for an area of the field, so they're all watching the quarterback's eyes instead of running stride for stride with a receiver. It is very easy for the offense to make short plays against this defense, gaining four to eight yards per play, but it's almost impossible for the offense to make a big play of 20 or more yards against this sort of defense.
I do, however, echo the sentiment that if your normal defense apparently was very successful at stopping their offense and getting you to a place where the game is all but won. Why change what is working in the last minutes? Still, one frequently sees the prevent defense hauled out in the last few minutes of a game that is not close.
Yes, I confess to being a borderline football junkie. After all, that comes with the territory when you are a University of Nebraska alum.
The network was launched during the 2003 season and includes game broadcasts, up-to-the-minute news around the NFL, and various features. Among those features are various “Top Ten” lists, such as top ten quarterbacks of all time and so forth.Just recently, the network aired a feature of Top Ten Football Myths. The list primarily geared itself toward the NFL but definitely has a degree of truth for the college game as well. We are all guilty of uttering these myths but watching this show kind of made me re-examine the beliefs.
10) Tackle stats are accurate
On one hand, the statistic is important because after all, if the defender (or defenders) does not make the tackle, the play continues for perhaps a touchdown. However, they do not accurately gauge how valuable a player is to his team. How valuable is someone if he is making most of his tackles say 10 or more yards downfield? And if a running back goes straight into the line of scrimmage greeted by a wall of defenders, who really made the tackle?
But it comes down to the fact that tackle stats cannot always be trusted. Each NFL and college team employs a stat crew for its home games. That crew's final statistics are deemed official: yardage for rushing, passing, receiving and various kick returns plus field goal and punting distances, sacks, interceptions, touchdowns. However, most NFL teams and perhaps college too do not acknowledge the press box tackle stats as official. Following games, defensive coaching staffs break down the films on their own and award a new set of tackle numbers. Those are listed by each team as its "official" tackle count.
9) It’s tough to repeat as Super Bowl or National Champions
There is a kernel of truth to this idea but more so as college football national champions. In the Super Bowl era, eight of the 17 franchises that have won Super Bowls have repeated as champions (the Pittsburgh Steelers did it twice in the 1970s). In college football, only three teams have repeated as National Champions (1978-1979 Alabama, 1994-1995 Nebraska, and 2003-2004 USC).
Repeating is harder in the college game because the most games that a team can afford to lose and still have a shot at the National title is two games (i.e. LSU in 2007) and even that is an aberration. Many times, even one loss kills a team’s National Title hopes. In the NFL, a team can lose as many as six regular season games, get hot in the playoffs and then raise a Vince Lombardi trophy.
College or NFL, however, if a team has a proven formula that works as far as developing and keeping its players, it is going to be good enough to win it all again. If anything, this phrase should be changed to either “it can be hard to repeat” or “it’s hard to ‘Threepeat.’”
8) You should punt on fourth down
If the situation is fourth down and less than one yard, you hear fans and commentators bristle, “If you can’t make a half-yard, you don’t deserve to win.” That’s a philosophy that I champion but simple mathematics suggest that regardless of your decision, the result will be a hit-or-miss proposition. And no, don’t give me the argument that the coach is “a genius if it works, a dummy if it doesn’t.”
Please, folks, it’s not that simple. The outcome of a decision does not make it good or bad — what’s important is the reason behind it. Field position and game momentum play a role in decision-making. If a team faces say fourth-and-one from its own 20, it makes more sense to punt than it would if the ball was at midfield or deeper into the opponents’ territory.The difference is that at the 20, you risk giving the ball up to your opponent in prime scoring territory.
That said, I find it amazing how some coaches develop a reputation for being mavericks or river boat gamblers, tossing caution to the wind and taking the chance on fourth down more often than their rivals. The ones that don’t fall into this category get labeled as ones with “no guts,” or something along those lines.
7) Dome teams are soft
The argument you frequently hear is that dome teams are weak and can’t handle the elements. It is generally believed that upper management of dome teams attempt to build teams that are suited to play best in perfect indoor conditions but they almost always succeed at creating teams incapable of slugging it out in a postseason street fight.
At a disadvantage in the postseason? More often than not yes. After all, dome teams have played ten conference title games on the road – losing all ten. Soft, however, is only true in some cases but not across the board. Most people see teams like the Indianapolis Colts or the St. Louis Rams as finesse oriented teams. However, Bum Phillips’ Houston Oilers teams played a physical brand of football led by Earl Campbell. Jim Mora’s New Orleans Saints had plenty of defenses that inflicted pain on opponents.
On the college side, Syracuse, Idaho, Minnesota, Tulane, and Houston come to mind as dome teams but notice how none of those team are the “brand names” of college football.
6) Icing the kicker works
This strategy is employed by defending teams to disrupt the process of kicking a field goal just prior to the snap. Typically, either a player or a coach on the defending team will call time out just as the kicker is about to attempt a game-tying or game-winning field goal. This is intended to make the kicker nervous and increase the likelihood of him missing the kick.
So is it effective?
Scott Berry, who is a statistician and the former chairman of the Statistics in Sports section of the American Statistical Association, where every field-goal attempt made in the 2002 and 2003 seasons was studied. It was concluded that, for field goal attempts of higher difficulty in the 40-55 yard range, icing the kicker causes the likelihood of a successful attempt to drop by about ten percent. On shorter kicks, the effect was found to be negligible.
I must say I’m hardly surprised. What other job is a kicker thinking about throughout the game other than kicking off and kicking field goals or extra points? I doubt he’s spending the game thinking about that Cover Two defense or that “sluggo” route by the X receiver.
5) Quarterback needs a rocket arm
Anyone believing this idea knows about minus-10 percent about football. Granted, John Elway and Brett Favre could throw a strawberry through a locomotive and had Hall-of-Fame careers. However, guys Joe Montana, Tom Brady, and Troy Aikman didn’t wow anyone with their arm strength and had Hall-of-Fame careers.
If quarterback success was based solely from physical attributes, players like Andre Ware and Jeff George would both be headed to the Hall of Fame. Nevertheless, finding signal callers is becoming more about accuracy, intelligence and intangibles than it is overall physical skills. There have also been plenty of strong-armed high school quarterbacks that couldn’t cut the mustard in college.
4) You have to run to set up the pass
I believe teams need to have at least a presentable running attack but the fact that it sets up the pass is an outmoded idea. I find this idea to have gray areas even though as a Husker fan, I enjoyed watching them pound teams into submission. There is definitely truth to the idea that a team needs to have a genuine running threat if it wants to win a championship. College and NFL Teams are more likely to win with a 100 yard rusher (probably two-thirds of the time) than a 300 yard passer (about 50 percent of the time).
The one difference being in the college game teams run variations of the Spread Offense, where the quarterback is an extension of the running game. In the NFL, quarterbacks are more likely to use their mobility to buy extra time trying to find a receiver downfield.If a team has a dominant quarterback, then the need for a dominant running game is not great. However, if a team has a average or worse quarterback, then it had better have a strong running game if it wants a chance to win.
3) A player should not lose his job to injury
Puuullleeeaaaasssseeeeee!
Now there’s a copout if I ever heard of one. What a stupid question. It’s one thing to have that rule in high school but pro sports and college to a lesser extent are about a business, as much as some people hate to admit it. As a coach, your job is to play the guy that gives you the best chance to win. If you buy this theory, then Lou Gerhig should have his Hall-of-Fame induction revoked. While we’re at it, Kurt Warner and Tom Brady should return their Super Bowl MVP trophies.
2) Defense wins championships
Given that that the rules of the game (both college and pro) favor offenses, this theory holds less water than say 25 years ago but don’t kid yourself – defense matters. Just ask the 2000 New York Giants, 2001 St. Louis Rams, 2002 Oakland Raiders and 2007 New England Patriots. What do those teams have in common? Well, they all had a supposedly unstoppable offense going into the Super Bowl that got shut down by a bad ass defense.
The college game? How about those 2008 Oklahoma Sooners that got their jollies scoring 60 points a game. Well, they scored a friggin’ whopping 14 points against a superior Florida Gator defense.
You might not need a dominant defense to win a championship but until teams with soft defenses win a championship for ten years in a row, I’m not buying the theory that the game has changed.
As a whole, defensive teams tend to be more consistent, especially from year to year. QBs have off days, conditions break down, etc. It's much easier to plug in a talented new defender than it is to replace a QB or OL (especially multiple).
1) Prevent defense prevents you from winning
I’ve been very guilty of echoing this sentiment but I’ll back off to some degree. A true prevent defense is a “Hail Mary” defense where you drop seven or eight defenders near the goal-line. How many Hail Mary attempts actually work? One out of every 20, maybe.
Fans confuse a “soft zone” with a prevent. Well, it’s not the same. A soft zone means that all the safeties and cornerbacks are playing back, five or ten yards off the line. The free safety will often play as much as 20 yards back. There will be no jamming of receivers on the line. The zone means that each defensive back is responsible for an area of the field, so they're all watching the quarterback's eyes instead of running stride for stride with a receiver. It is very easy for the offense to make short plays against this defense, gaining four to eight yards per play, but it's almost impossible for the offense to make a big play of 20 or more yards against this sort of defense.
I do, however, echo the sentiment that if your normal defense apparently was very successful at stopping their offense and getting you to a place where the game is all but won. Why change what is working in the last minutes? Still, one frequently sees the prevent defense hauled out in the last few minutes of a game that is not close.
Thursday, May 7, 2009
Winning might not be everything -- but, dammitt, it's more fun!
When legendary Green Bay Packers coach Vince Lombardi coined the phrase "winning isn't everything, it's the only thing," more than a handful of reasonable adults became overbearing when it came to youth sports.
For that matter, they developed that same boorish mentality when following their favorite college or pro teams. As a University of Nebraska alum, we have always been proud of our passion. However, that zeal can also have a polarizing view. In one circle that passion is great. In another circle, people will bristle, “You guys need to get a life!”
I find the latter view rather comical in that those who are outwardly passionate about their team sometimes automatically seem to get persecuted by some people as being “over the edge” or “win at all costs” or “a fan with no life.” On the other hand, those who are not zealous in an outwardly demonstrative way get labeled as “soft” or “apathetic.”
As if there were no in between.
Anyhow, that classification made me think back to another conversation I had with a former high school assistant football coach. This fellow asked me, “Vince, isn't it easier to cover a winning team than a losing team?” The reason this fellow used the word “cover” is because I have been a sports reporter on a variety of levels (from little league to the NFL) and started this recreational blog about four months ago.
As one who has had the chance to cover everything from little league to the NFL, I would say the answer to that question is “yes and no” but more the former than the latter. If the team I cover is a winning one, my paycheck doesn't increase all of a sudden. In one respect, my job doesn't change whether the team I cover wins or loses. Cover the game. Report on it objectively. Talk to the coach and/or players after the game. Same thing with this blog that focuses primarily on Nebraska football. The only difference is that since I am a fan, I can get away with being less objective.
From my view, however, yes - it is easier to cover a winning team regardless of competition level but is especially true from high school age and younger.
At the pro and college level, media members have an unwritten rule of “no cheering in the pressbox.” That rule sounds good in theory because as media members you are paid by your news organization, not the team or school as the case may be.
On the other hand, I've seen media members go out of their way to be too harsh on the team they cover just to prove they don't play favorites. That approach isn't good either because it comes off as too adversarial.
Covering sports at the younger level (i.e. high school and younger), however, is a different ball of wax. In multiple high school towns, you don't dare show any form of allegiance because the "rival" school is looking for a reason to go to the Bush League "you're against us" card. I use the term Bush League because it typically comes when the individual is on the losing side of the argument and he or she plays that card in a desperate attempt to get even.
In one high school towns, sports reporters have a little more latitude to have a partisan approach. I have somewhat mixed feelings about that procedure because it might lead to having clouded objectivity.
I will admit, however, that covering my local teams when they win is certainly far more pleasurable simply because, in general, athletes under age 18 have a psyche too fragile to want to read about anything construed as negative (i.e. a loss) in the newspaper.
On the other hand, I don't need to worry about that if the team wins or loses but plays well in the process. Plus, the senior year of high school is going to be the pinnacle of most people's athletic career.
In addition, I get asked from time to time, "How do you decide sports coverage or what your main story is?" Well, there's no hard and fast rule because every week presents a different dynamic. In addition, some weeks I might have more stories that are lead material than I know what do with but others might be more of a challenge. The main things I seek are timelines, newsworthiness and, of course, is the team winning. If a team plays well but loses, I'll have no problem making them the lead or going longer on a story.
Some people might say, "Well, do youth sports have to be about winning?" To some degree, I would say yes because people read a community sports section by and large for positive news. After all, there's more than enough negativity to go around by watching newscasts. There's also plenty of unfavorable news on Sportscenter pertaining to pro athletes breaking the law.
If I cover a local team that constantly loses, I'm certainly not going to omit the final score because I've got to draw the line somewhere. If I bury the story, however, it's not because I don't like the players and coaches in question.
Instead, I do it because having been a high school athlete myself of a team that stunk and got little coverage, I felt my hometown paper did the team a favor by not shining the light of us because we got plenty of razzing at school on our own without it.
Again, I think the idea of "winning doesn't matter" is pure nonsense. Notice how those buying into that notion often believe that having fun matters more.
Some folks would even argue that the reason winning is not important is that one out of every 100 high school seniors in America are going to get a scholarship to play a sport beyond high school.
True, however, I would argue that's all the more important reason to preach the importance of winning.
If a young man or woman has only one chance to play youth sports, why not make the most of it?
Having said that, winning and competition are indeed important but it falls on the adults to preach it in a constructive manner.
Contrary to what some may think, there are ways of doing it. Certainly, an occasional
loss can be a useful learning tool, but not preaching the importance of competition gives youngsters a delusional idea of what they will face in the real world.
In my real world, I enjoying covering winners and if the team loses, I focus no more on the negative than necessary.
If the home team plays well but loses a close game, I have no problem delving further because there's no shame attached to that idea. Plus, at least the team had a chance to win.
Just remember, whether you are covering the team as a media member or rooting them on as a fan, it doesn’t suck to win more than you lose. It’s just that there is a right and wrong way to preach the importance of winning.
For that matter, they developed that same boorish mentality when following their favorite college or pro teams. As a University of Nebraska alum, we have always been proud of our passion. However, that zeal can also have a polarizing view. In one circle that passion is great. In another circle, people will bristle, “You guys need to get a life!”
I find the latter view rather comical in that those who are outwardly passionate about their team sometimes automatically seem to get persecuted by some people as being “over the edge” or “win at all costs” or “a fan with no life.” On the other hand, those who are not zealous in an outwardly demonstrative way get labeled as “soft” or “apathetic.”
As if there were no in between.
Anyhow, that classification made me think back to another conversation I had with a former high school assistant football coach. This fellow asked me, “Vince, isn't it easier to cover a winning team than a losing team?” The reason this fellow used the word “cover” is because I have been a sports reporter on a variety of levels (from little league to the NFL) and started this recreational blog about four months ago.
As one who has had the chance to cover everything from little league to the NFL, I would say the answer to that question is “yes and no” but more the former than the latter. If the team I cover is a winning one, my paycheck doesn't increase all of a sudden. In one respect, my job doesn't change whether the team I cover wins or loses. Cover the game. Report on it objectively. Talk to the coach and/or players after the game. Same thing with this blog that focuses primarily on Nebraska football. The only difference is that since I am a fan, I can get away with being less objective.
From my view, however, yes - it is easier to cover a winning team regardless of competition level but is especially true from high school age and younger.
At the pro and college level, media members have an unwritten rule of “no cheering in the pressbox.” That rule sounds good in theory because as media members you are paid by your news organization, not the team or school as the case may be.
On the other hand, I've seen media members go out of their way to be too harsh on the team they cover just to prove they don't play favorites. That approach isn't good either because it comes off as too adversarial.
Covering sports at the younger level (i.e. high school and younger), however, is a different ball of wax. In multiple high school towns, you don't dare show any form of allegiance because the "rival" school is looking for a reason to go to the Bush League "you're against us" card. I use the term Bush League because it typically comes when the individual is on the losing side of the argument and he or she plays that card in a desperate attempt to get even.
In one high school towns, sports reporters have a little more latitude to have a partisan approach. I have somewhat mixed feelings about that procedure because it might lead to having clouded objectivity.
I will admit, however, that covering my local teams when they win is certainly far more pleasurable simply because, in general, athletes under age 18 have a psyche too fragile to want to read about anything construed as negative (i.e. a loss) in the newspaper.
On the other hand, I don't need to worry about that if the team wins or loses but plays well in the process. Plus, the senior year of high school is going to be the pinnacle of most people's athletic career.
In addition, I get asked from time to time, "How do you decide sports coverage or what your main story is?" Well, there's no hard and fast rule because every week presents a different dynamic. In addition, some weeks I might have more stories that are lead material than I know what do with but others might be more of a challenge. The main things I seek are timelines, newsworthiness and, of course, is the team winning. If a team plays well but loses, I'll have no problem making them the lead or going longer on a story.
Some people might say, "Well, do youth sports have to be about winning?" To some degree, I would say yes because people read a community sports section by and large for positive news. After all, there's more than enough negativity to go around by watching newscasts. There's also plenty of unfavorable news on Sportscenter pertaining to pro athletes breaking the law.
If I cover a local team that constantly loses, I'm certainly not going to omit the final score because I've got to draw the line somewhere. If I bury the story, however, it's not because I don't like the players and coaches in question.
Instead, I do it because having been a high school athlete myself of a team that stunk and got little coverage, I felt my hometown paper did the team a favor by not shining the light of us because we got plenty of razzing at school on our own without it.
Again, I think the idea of "winning doesn't matter" is pure nonsense. Notice how those buying into that notion often believe that having fun matters more.
Some folks would even argue that the reason winning is not important is that one out of every 100 high school seniors in America are going to get a scholarship to play a sport beyond high school.
True, however, I would argue that's all the more important reason to preach the importance of winning.
If a young man or woman has only one chance to play youth sports, why not make the most of it?
Having said that, winning and competition are indeed important but it falls on the adults to preach it in a constructive manner.
Contrary to what some may think, there are ways of doing it. Certainly, an occasional
loss can be a useful learning tool, but not preaching the importance of competition gives youngsters a delusional idea of what they will face in the real world.
In my real world, I enjoying covering winners and if the team loses, I focus no more on the negative than necessary.
If the home team plays well but loses a close game, I have no problem delving further because there's no shame attached to that idea. Plus, at least the team had a chance to win.
Just remember, whether you are covering the team as a media member or rooting them on as a fan, it doesn’t suck to win more than you lose. It’s just that there is a right and wrong way to preach the importance of winning.
Wednesday, May 6, 2009
How much upside is there to Paulus coming to NU?
Between Robert Marve and Greg Paulus, I have heard several reasons why Nebraska fans want – or don’t want – a transfer quarterback.
The reasons in favor are primarily centered on the graduation of Joe Ganz, the departure of Patrick Witt and the fact that the Huskers will have very little game experience at the position. The reasons against both players coming to Nebraska stem from the Sam Keller experiment. Keller transferred from Arizona State and started nine games during Nebraska’s 5-7 season in 2007 before sustaining a season-ending injury. However, it should be pointed out that the Zac Taylor experiment worked out pretty good. Taylor was a JC transfer who played two seasons at Nebraska, earning Big 12 Offensive player of the Year honors.
Marve is a former Miami quarterback who departed following his redshirt freshman season. Based on NCAA regulations, Marve will be eligible for two seasons, starting in 2010, meaning he has to sit out the 2009 campaign.Marve started 11 games in 2008, throwing for 1,293 yards with nine touchdowns and 13 interceptions while splitting time with true freshman Jacory Harris. Marve was suspended for Miami's season opener and for the Hurricanes' Emerald Bowl loss to Cal for violations of team rules.Sports Illustrated also reported that after Marve decided to transfer, Miami coach Randy Shannon refused to release him to any ACC or SEC school or to any school in Florida. An appeals panel amended Marve's release, allowing him to transfer on scholarship to any school except an ACC member, Florida, Tennessee or LSU.
Paulus spent the last four seasons playing point guard at Duke University and is reportedly interested in broadcast journalism as a possible grad school option while he plays football. Paulus has been exploring the possibility of playing one year of quarterback at the college level — with Syracuse and Nebraska seeming to head his list of options.
While Paulus has spent the last four seasons playing basketball, he is a former national high school football player of the year but how much can he really add to Nebraska’s program now? On the other hand, it’s not as if Paulus has been sitting on the couch eating potato chips the last four years either. He has been an elite athlete. But seriously, even Joe Montana would struggle some if he hadn’t played football in four seasons.
Let’s revisit Marve, who at last check was leaning toward Purdue, for just a moment. He brings baggage. He was suspended twice for violating team rules. While we do not have information of “why” he was suspended, getting suspended “twice” during your freshman year is a definite red flag. In addition, second-year Miami head coach Randy Shannon seems like a good person of character. These are not the loose-ship Hurricanes of the Jimmy Johnson or Dennis Erickson eras.
I would be a little more receptive of Paulus joining the program but don’t really see a huge up or down side to him coming to Nebraska. He has not played football since his senior year of high school. While he has succeeded at a high level for a brand name Div. I-A program in basketball, how will that translate in football?
The competition and publicity he would bring are good but more so the latter. As of now, Zac Lee is viewed as the front-runner to be Nebraska’s quarterback but that’s mainly by default because he has been in the program the longest.
One year is not enough time for Paulus to truly make a difference for the team. What would he be, No. 3 on the depth chart and that’s if true freshman Cody Green redshirts.
Paulus would be less likely to come with a prima dona mentality than Marve. Keep in mind, Paulus did play for coach Mike Krzyzewski. I can’t think of too many (if any) head cases that have come out of his program – and keep in mind, Duke is to college basketball what Nebraska is to college football. I am sure that Husker head coach Bo Pelini and the staff is being honest with Paulus regarding the odds of playing are less than 10 percent. With that said, I doubt Paulus will have unrealistic expectations.
The reasons in favor are primarily centered on the graduation of Joe Ganz, the departure of Patrick Witt and the fact that the Huskers will have very little game experience at the position. The reasons against both players coming to Nebraska stem from the Sam Keller experiment. Keller transferred from Arizona State and started nine games during Nebraska’s 5-7 season in 2007 before sustaining a season-ending injury. However, it should be pointed out that the Zac Taylor experiment worked out pretty good. Taylor was a JC transfer who played two seasons at Nebraska, earning Big 12 Offensive player of the Year honors.
Marve is a former Miami quarterback who departed following his redshirt freshman season. Based on NCAA regulations, Marve will be eligible for two seasons, starting in 2010, meaning he has to sit out the 2009 campaign.Marve started 11 games in 2008, throwing for 1,293 yards with nine touchdowns and 13 interceptions while splitting time with true freshman Jacory Harris. Marve was suspended for Miami's season opener and for the Hurricanes' Emerald Bowl loss to Cal for violations of team rules.Sports Illustrated also reported that after Marve decided to transfer, Miami coach Randy Shannon refused to release him to any ACC or SEC school or to any school in Florida. An appeals panel amended Marve's release, allowing him to transfer on scholarship to any school except an ACC member, Florida, Tennessee or LSU.
Paulus spent the last four seasons playing point guard at Duke University and is reportedly interested in broadcast journalism as a possible grad school option while he plays football. Paulus has been exploring the possibility of playing one year of quarterback at the college level — with Syracuse and Nebraska seeming to head his list of options.
While Paulus has spent the last four seasons playing basketball, he is a former national high school football player of the year but how much can he really add to Nebraska’s program now? On the other hand, it’s not as if Paulus has been sitting on the couch eating potato chips the last four years either. He has been an elite athlete. But seriously, even Joe Montana would struggle some if he hadn’t played football in four seasons.
Let’s revisit Marve, who at last check was leaning toward Purdue, for just a moment. He brings baggage. He was suspended twice for violating team rules. While we do not have information of “why” he was suspended, getting suspended “twice” during your freshman year is a definite red flag. In addition, second-year Miami head coach Randy Shannon seems like a good person of character. These are not the loose-ship Hurricanes of the Jimmy Johnson or Dennis Erickson eras.
I would be a little more receptive of Paulus joining the program but don’t really see a huge up or down side to him coming to Nebraska. He has not played football since his senior year of high school. While he has succeeded at a high level for a brand name Div. I-A program in basketball, how will that translate in football?
The competition and publicity he would bring are good but more so the latter. As of now, Zac Lee is viewed as the front-runner to be Nebraska’s quarterback but that’s mainly by default because he has been in the program the longest.
One year is not enough time for Paulus to truly make a difference for the team. What would he be, No. 3 on the depth chart and that’s if true freshman Cody Green redshirts.
Paulus would be less likely to come with a prima dona mentality than Marve. Keep in mind, Paulus did play for coach Mike Krzyzewski. I can’t think of too many (if any) head cases that have come out of his program – and keep in mind, Duke is to college basketball what Nebraska is to college football. I am sure that Husker head coach Bo Pelini and the staff is being honest with Paulus regarding the odds of playing are less than 10 percent. With that said, I doubt Paulus will have unrealistic expectations.
Sunday, May 3, 2009
What will Nebraska's offense ultimately morph into?
A fair amount discussion of the Nebraska football team has been what will the offense morph into? That question is not so much geared for 2009 but more so for the extended portion of the Bo Pelini era.
Last season, the Huskers incorporated various elements of “The Spread” but still also had rudiments of the “West Coast Offense” left behind from the Bill Callahan regime. Some have theorized that Nebraska will morph into being a Spread offense while others have mused that Pelini prefers that the Huskers move toward becoming an I-formation, power-running team.
The prevailing theme, however, seems to be that offensive coordinator Shawn Watson will adapt the offense to whatever talent he possesses at his disposal.
Look at last before season when a percentage of Husker fans, citing a lost identity as a physical team under Callahan, emphasized how the team needs to get back to power football that involves use of the fullback.
It took four and half games to discover that the Huskers simply did not have the personnel to be that way so Watson junked the heavy sets and ran the ball out of the spread formation a lot more. As a result, the Huskers became a much more efficient offense.
You see, I find it laughable how people get on their high horse and say, “You can’t win unless you run the ball,” or “You can’t win unless you throw the ball,” or “You win by running the option,” or “You win by running the West Coast Offense.”
I say, “Nonsense” to all of those statements. You win by doing what you do well. If your personnel is such that you run better than throw – then run it. If your personnel is such that you can pass better than run – then throw it.
I don’t give a rat’s behind what scheme a team runs, the key is to execute your scheme better than the opposition executes theirs.
“Balance” is also another buzzword you hear from football talking heads. The biggest misconception with the word balance is that sometimes it is associated with “how often” a team runs and throws. Let’s take a few examples from say a college football game with 70 snaps:
Scenario A:
Passing: Complete 16-of-35 passes; Rushing: 35 attempts, 213 yards.
That is not a balanced offense because the team averaged 6.0 yards per carry but also completed 45.7 percent of its passes. The number of running and passing plays might be the same but the level of efficiency was not.
Scenario B:
Passing: Complete 22-of-35 passes; Rushing: 35 attempts, 115 yards
That is not a balanced offense because the team completed 62.8 percent of its passes but also averaged only 3.2 yards per carry. Again, the number of running and passing plays might be the same but the level of efficiency was not.
Scenario C:
Passing: Complete 9-of-15 passes; Rushing 55 attempts, 279 yards
That is a balanced offense because the team completed 60 percent of its passes and averaged 5.1 yards per carry. The disparity in running plays versus passing plays might be significantly different but both were done equally efficient. It does not mean the team cannot pass the ball. They just chose not to do so.
Scenario D:
Passing: Complete 36-of-55 passes; Rushing 15 attempts, 65 yards.
That is a balanced offense because the team completed 65.4 percent of its passes and averaged 4.2 yards per carry. The disparity in running plays versus passing plays might be significantly different but both were done equally efficient. It does not mean the team cannot run the ball. They just chose not to do so.
Last season, the Huskers incorporated various elements of “The Spread” but still also had rudiments of the “West Coast Offense” left behind from the Bill Callahan regime. Some have theorized that Nebraska will morph into being a Spread offense while others have mused that Pelini prefers that the Huskers move toward becoming an I-formation, power-running team.
The prevailing theme, however, seems to be that offensive coordinator Shawn Watson will adapt the offense to whatever talent he possesses at his disposal.
Look at last before season when a percentage of Husker fans, citing a lost identity as a physical team under Callahan, emphasized how the team needs to get back to power football that involves use of the fullback.
It took four and half games to discover that the Huskers simply did not have the personnel to be that way so Watson junked the heavy sets and ran the ball out of the spread formation a lot more. As a result, the Huskers became a much more efficient offense.
You see, I find it laughable how people get on their high horse and say, “You can’t win unless you run the ball,” or “You can’t win unless you throw the ball,” or “You win by running the option,” or “You win by running the West Coast Offense.”
I say, “Nonsense” to all of those statements. You win by doing what you do well. If your personnel is such that you run better than throw – then run it. If your personnel is such that you can pass better than run – then throw it.
I don’t give a rat’s behind what scheme a team runs, the key is to execute your scheme better than the opposition executes theirs.
“Balance” is also another buzzword you hear from football talking heads. The biggest misconception with the word balance is that sometimes it is associated with “how often” a team runs and throws. Let’s take a few examples from say a college football game with 70 snaps:
Scenario A:
Passing: Complete 16-of-35 passes; Rushing: 35 attempts, 213 yards.
That is not a balanced offense because the team averaged 6.0 yards per carry but also completed 45.7 percent of its passes. The number of running and passing plays might be the same but the level of efficiency was not.
Scenario B:
Passing: Complete 22-of-35 passes; Rushing: 35 attempts, 115 yards
That is not a balanced offense because the team completed 62.8 percent of its passes but also averaged only 3.2 yards per carry. Again, the number of running and passing plays might be the same but the level of efficiency was not.
Scenario C:
Passing: Complete 9-of-15 passes; Rushing 55 attempts, 279 yards
That is a balanced offense because the team completed 60 percent of its passes and averaged 5.1 yards per carry. The disparity in running plays versus passing plays might be significantly different but both were done equally efficient. It does not mean the team cannot pass the ball. They just chose not to do so.
Scenario D:
Passing: Complete 36-of-55 passes; Rushing 15 attempts, 65 yards.
That is a balanced offense because the team completed 65.4 percent of its passes and averaged 4.2 yards per carry. The disparity in running plays versus passing plays might be significantly different but both were done equally efficient. It does not mean the team cannot run the ball. They just chose not to do so.
Friday, May 1, 2009
Wistrom worthy of Hall-of-Fame honor
First of all, and I think all Nebraska football fans will agree to this, congratulations are definitely in order for Grant Wistrom.
Wistrom, who played defensive end at Nebraska from 1994-1997 and in the NFL from 1998-2006, is a entering the College Football Hall of Fame this year.
Wistrom, who played on three National Championship teams, holds the school record for tackles for loss with 58.5 for 260 yards and ranks second with 26.5 sacks, had his No. 98 retired during the 1998 season. His career totals include 206 total tackles, 26.5 sacks for 178 yards, one interception, four forced fumbles and one fumble recovery.
Wistrom was a two-time first-team CoSIDA Academic All-American and became the 13th Husker to win the NCAA's highest honor, the NCAA Top Eight Award, in 1997. He also earned the National Football Foundation and College Football Hall of Fame Postgraduate Scholarship following his senior campaign and was the Big 12 Male Athlete of the Year for the 1997-98 season.
Wistrom was the 12th overall pick in the 1998 NFL draft by the St. Louis Rams (1998-2003) and later played for the Seattle Seahawks (2004-2006). Wistrom played in three Super Bowls, winning one in 1999.
Certainly, there are many players from Wistrom’s era that are Hall-of-Fame worthy but Wistrom is undeniably worthy.
Wistrom is one of my personal favorite Huskers of all time. There are many things I will remember about him – his intensity being the biggest – but what I remember most is he and defensive tackle Jason Peter (who was the No. 6 overall pick by the Carolina Panthers) opting to stay in school for 1997 instead entering the NFL draft. No one would have blamed either had they entered the draft because after all, both would have been Top Ten picks and already had two National Titles. They were leaders both vocally and by example in helping the Huskers get a share of the title with Michigan in 1997. Personally, I think Michigan was the second best team in the nation bu I digress.
What I remember about Wistrom was that the big money of the NFL never seemed to hange him like you see with so many others.
While I was a student at the University of Nebraska, writing for the Daily Nebraskan, I interviewed him at various times and saw him at the weekly press conferences.
In 1998, while I was working for the Napa Valley Register, I was assigned to cover a game in San Francisco between the 49ers and Rams. I was on the field during pregame warmups. Wistrom came out of the tunnell and looked at me a few times. You know, that look that says, “I know you from somewhere but can’t figure out where?” He walked over to the 30-yard line to stretch. Then he walked over to me and we started chatting. He was friendly as ever.
One year later, the Rams were in San Francisco again as I was assigned to cover the game. The Rams, who had been terrible for a decade, were on their way to a Super Bowl winning season. The 49ers, meanwhile, had been a perrenial power from 1981-1998 but were sinking to the depths that season.
I remember going into the Rams locker-room. I sought out Wistrom and asked if he had a few minutes. He could not have been more welcoming.
Wistrom, who played defensive end at Nebraska from 1994-1997 and in the NFL from 1998-2006, is a entering the College Football Hall of Fame this year.
Wistrom, who played on three National Championship teams, holds the school record for tackles for loss with 58.5 for 260 yards and ranks second with 26.5 sacks, had his No. 98 retired during the 1998 season. His career totals include 206 total tackles, 26.5 sacks for 178 yards, one interception, four forced fumbles and one fumble recovery.
Wistrom was a two-time first-team CoSIDA Academic All-American and became the 13th Husker to win the NCAA's highest honor, the NCAA Top Eight Award, in 1997. He also earned the National Football Foundation and College Football Hall of Fame Postgraduate Scholarship following his senior campaign and was the Big 12 Male Athlete of the Year for the 1997-98 season.
Wistrom was the 12th overall pick in the 1998 NFL draft by the St. Louis Rams (1998-2003) and later played for the Seattle Seahawks (2004-2006). Wistrom played in three Super Bowls, winning one in 1999.
Certainly, there are many players from Wistrom’s era that are Hall-of-Fame worthy but Wistrom is undeniably worthy.
Wistrom is one of my personal favorite Huskers of all time. There are many things I will remember about him – his intensity being the biggest – but what I remember most is he and defensive tackle Jason Peter (who was the No. 6 overall pick by the Carolina Panthers) opting to stay in school for 1997 instead entering the NFL draft. No one would have blamed either had they entered the draft because after all, both would have been Top Ten picks and already had two National Titles. They were leaders both vocally and by example in helping the Huskers get a share of the title with Michigan in 1997. Personally, I think Michigan was the second best team in the nation bu I digress.
What I remember about Wistrom was that the big money of the NFL never seemed to hange him like you see with so many others.
While I was a student at the University of Nebraska, writing for the Daily Nebraskan, I interviewed him at various times and saw him at the weekly press conferences.
In 1998, while I was working for the Napa Valley Register, I was assigned to cover a game in San Francisco between the 49ers and Rams. I was on the field during pregame warmups. Wistrom came out of the tunnell and looked at me a few times. You know, that look that says, “I know you from somewhere but can’t figure out where?” He walked over to the 30-yard line to stretch. Then he walked over to me and we started chatting. He was friendly as ever.
One year later, the Rams were in San Francisco again as I was assigned to cover the game. The Rams, who had been terrible for a decade, were on their way to a Super Bowl winning season. The 49ers, meanwhile, had been a perrenial power from 1981-1998 but were sinking to the depths that season.
I remember going into the Rams locker-room. I sought out Wistrom and asked if he had a few minutes. He could not have been more welcoming.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)