Mel Kiper vs. Mcshay

[knapplc]

I'm with Michael on this one. Eddie George over Tommie was rediculous. Then we had Woodsen over Peyton Manning 2 years later. It's a popularity contest and they get it right about 10 percent of the time.

And there's a solid case for Grossman and Dorsey when Crouch won it, too. To me it seems like they rarely get it right.

[Husker4lif3]

I'm with Michael on this one. Eddie George over Tommie was rediculous. Then we had Woodsen over Peyton Manning 2 years later. It's a popularity contest and they get it right about 10 percent of the time.

 

The Big Ten used to be the medias favorite in those days and now it has seemed to change to the SEC. Can anyone say TEBOW.

[Vince from ShamWOW]

linkage?

 

 

It was on sportscenter just now, do not believe that there is a video link on espn yet. It was discussed under the topic Heisman Frontrunner.

 

 

It was a good segment.

 

 

Yes it was, Kiper was getting a little fired up I liked it.

 

 

I think Kiper is a little intimidated by McShay and certainly miffed that ESPN brought in a second Draft "Guru".

[junior4949]

I kind of thought Frost was the one that got shafted. He was the first NU QB to have a 1000/1000 season, and only like the 7th QB in D1 up to that point. I realize the 1000/1000 thing has almost become the norm. now, but at the time it was a very big deal.

[skersfan]

On the Doug Gotlieb show last night, Mel Kiper has Suh as #1 pick. But the most interesting thing was Gotlieb saying that Suh was the most dominant DL he had ever seen. He is really in Suh's corner.

 

He needs to get to the CCG and have a heck of a game. I think the final is after that game (correct) Doing well against Colorado will be a great time to show the country what he is. I am a huge Suh fan, we have had some great defensive players, but of all I have seen, he is the best, Glover has always been my favorite, but Suh just does so many things, he destroys the offense one way or another.

[irafreak]

I'm with Michael on this one. Eddie George over Tommie was rediculous. Then we had Woodsen over Peyton Manning 2 years later. It's a popularity contest and they get it right about 10 percent of the time.

And there's a solid case for Grossman and Dorsey when Crouch won it, too. To me it seems like they rarely get it right.

I think Crouch was the winner due to his game changers against OU and Missouri. I think Crouch got the nod because he was electric...much like woodson in 97.

[knapplc]

I'm with Michael on this one. Eddie George over Tommie was rediculous. Then we had Woodsen over Peyton Manning 2 years later. It's a popularity contest and they get it right about 10 percent of the time.

And there's a solid case for Grossman and Dorsey when Crouch won it, too. To me it seems like they rarely get it right.

I think Crouch was the winner due to his game changers against OU and Missouri. I think Crouch got the nod because he was electric...much like woodson in 97.

That's a good point. And I think the Colorado and Miami games, along with the fact that we back-assed our way into the MNC game, are why most people now talk of Crouch as "overrated." He was a worthy candidate for the Heisman, and it wasn't an exceptional year (like this year). Revisionist history is hurting Crouch's legacy, but they're not going to take the award away from him at this point.

[Guy Chamberlin]

The Heisman is always going to be flawed, but I think Tommy Frazier actually got a lot of respect in '95 and continues to get it today, despite never having a pro career. In '95 Frazier had 604 yards rushing and 1,362 yards passing, hitting 56% of his passes. People like stats and Frazier's weren't eye popping, but he was clearly a leader and he vaulted passed players with better stats for second place.

 

Actually, Frazier's 31 TDs were a pretty good stat.

 

But Eddie George got the Heisman curse, losing his last two games, and Tommy got his second National Championship. Worked out fair enough, I think.

[Guy Chamberlin]

I think Crouch kinda hurt his own legacy. Everyone knew he was a player, but he wasn't a quarterback, not in any kind of pro football sense. When the NFL wasn't able to accomodate him, he came off as a bit of a whiner.

[junior4949]

I think what hurt Frazier the most actually was a direct result of the 94' season when Berringer for the most part landed us into the NC game. For all practical purposes, the 95' season would have happened regardless of whether Frazier or Berringer played. It's my belief he didn't win the Heisman because he could have been replaced and the team would have continued to roll.

[EZ-E]

I liked how fired up Kiper was getting too! I really hope that Suh gets to go to the ceremony. Get some publicity for NU.

[junior4949]

I'm thinking Suh owes 25% of his signing bonus to the Nebraska defensive coaching staff. Last year, we all king of rolled our eyes when the coaches said the strength of the team was going to be the DL because of how horrible they played in 07'. If Cosgrove was still the DC, I'd be willing to bet that Suh would be lucky to get drafted in the first 3 to 4 rounds.

[skersfan]

I think he may owe some to Crick then. Crick is a player and they are not having to pay attention to him which takes a little off of Suh. To bad it could not have happened last year when we at least had an offense.

 

I doubt Suh gets to the Hypsman awards, due to our ranking. He will laugh all the way to the bank though is my guess.

[knapplc]

I'm thinking Suh owes 25% of his signing bonus to the Nebraska defensive coaching staff. Last year, we all king of rolled our eyes when the coaches said the strength of the team was going to be the DL because of how horrible they played in 07'. If Cosgrove was still the DC, I'd be willing to bet that Suh would be lucky to get drafted in the first 3 to 4 rounds.

Amen. Walking into the 2007 season, when Carl made that statement, I believe I really did roll my eyes. They were so porous the year prior. But man... that's a heck of a turnaround.

[junior4949]

It goes back to the Dennard thread. Are we seeing a great D because of the players or because of the coaching? IMO, the players have always been here. The previous staff just didn't develop any of it. Now that the athletes have the coaching, their potential is being realized. We are seeing the results on the field. Personally, I'd like to apologize to every defensive starter from 2004-2007. The previous staff probably cost some of these guys millions.