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.
Saturday, May 16, 2009
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)