Crick for Heisman

[GSG]

I think if anyone had a crystal ball and been able to see how dominant Suh would be in the NFL he would have easily won the Heisman.

I know what-ifs are stupid, but if he had blocked that field goal I think he might have won it

 

I almost said the exact same thing!

[lionsfan93]

I agree, Baker needs to step up in a big way. Ang I have heard that he has made tremendous progress in the offseason. I don't think Crick gets invited to New York, but I do think that he has a better chance that sweeps other awards such as the Outland, Nagurski, Lombardi, and the Bednarik.

[broganreynik]

I think if you compare where Suh was going into his senior season and Crick now, it's quite similar. If Crick can take that next step, I don't see why he can't be invited. We're going to have more big games this year than 2009, so that'll give Crick the exposure. If he performs close to how Suh did in his senior season, I wouldn't be surprised if he gets invited. It all depends if he can make that next step.

 

On a side note, I really appreciate that "dominate" hasn't been used in place of "dominant" in this thread. Just one of my pet peeves.

[bball_backer]

Crick's good, but I don't think he's quite on Suh's level. I guarantee he'll be a finalist for a lot of trophies this year, but I don't think the Heisman will be one of them.

Couldn't agree more. You don't have to completely change your game plan for this guy. Suh was a freak and should have won it hands down. But I guess if you have to see a lineman get it for the body of Suh's work it might as well be Crick. I mean Crouch owes his Heisman to Tommie getting the shaft.

This.

 

I don't think Crick will be close to what Suh was, but looking back on it I think more people realize they should have voted Suh than are willing to admit it. Crick won't be near Suh, but I don't think he'll have to. If we get late in the season and it's clear Crick is the nations top DT or even one of the top 2/3 elite DTs, he will get a little more attention than deserved simply because of what went down with Suh. (of course Nebraska will also have to be ranked in the top 10-15)

[da skers]

Crick's good, but I don't think he's quite on Suh's level. I guarantee he'll be a finalist for a lot of trophies this year, but I don't think the Heisman will be one of them.

Couldn't agree more. You don't have to completely change your game plan for this guy. Suh was a freak and should have won it hands down. But I guess if you have to see a lineman get it for the body of Suh's work it might as well be Crick. I mean Crouch owes his Heisman to Tommie getting the shaft.

 

Yeah, it had nothing to do with his body of work as a football player... He was the most dangerous football player on the offensive side of the ball period when he won the Heisman.

Lets not rewrite history. Crouch only inched out being the best guy on our team that year. If the voting wouldn't have been split in the Southwest area between Grossman and Dorey, Crouch wouldn't have gotten it.

[GSG]

On a side note, I really appreciate that "dominate" hasn't been used in place of "dominant" in this thread. Just one of my pet peeves.

 

+1

[Moiraine]

On a side note, I really appreciate that "dominate" hasn't been used in place of "dominant" in this thread. Just one of my pet peeves.

You're grammar is dominate. It dominant's mine.

[huskerjack23]

Crick's good, but I don't think he's quite on Suh's level. I guarantee he'll be a finalist for a lot of trophies this year, but I don't think the Heisman will be one of them.

Couldn't agree more. You don't have to completely change your game plan for this guy. Suh was a freak and should have won it hands down. But I guess if you have to see a lineman get it for the body of Suh's work it might as well be Crick. I mean Crouch owes his Heisman to Tommie getting the shaft.

 

Yeah, it had nothing to do with his body of work as a football player... He was the most dangerous football player on the offensive side of the ball period when he won the Heisman.

Lets not rewrite history. Crouch only inched out being the best guy on our team that year. If the voting wouldn't have been split in the Southwest area between Grossman and Dorey, Crouch wouldn't have gotten it.

I feel like a terrible fan right now, who would've been the next best guy on the team? I honestly don't remember that year beyond the terrible losses and the OU game.

[da skers]

Crick's good, but I don't think he's quite on Suh's level. I guarantee he'll be a finalist for a lot of trophies this year, but I don't think the Heisman will be one of them.

Couldn't agree more. You don't have to completely change your game plan for this guy. Suh was a freak and should have won it hands down. But I guess if you have to see a lineman get it for the body of Suh's work it might as well be Crick. I mean Crouch owes his Heisman to Tommie getting the shaft.

 

Yeah, it had nothing to do with his body of work as a football player... He was the most dangerous football player on the offensive side of the ball period when he won the Heisman.

Lets not rewrite history. Crouch only inched out being the best guy on our team that year. If the voting wouldn't have been split in the Southwest area between Grossman and Dorey, Crouch wouldn't have gotten it.

I feel like a terrible fan right now, who would've been the next best guy on the team? I honestly don't remember that year beyond the terrible losses and the OU game.

Overall I would say Kelsay was better and did more for the team. He was a monster that year 52 tackles at end with 5 qb sacks and 17 stops for a loss. Nationally no one knew much about that guy and made it to a second all American. On offense you could argue that Josh Brown or Darin Diedrick were very close to being as important as Crouch that year. Brown finished 3rd in scoring behind both those other two guys. And Dietrick lead the team in rushing and yards per carry (for more than 100 touches) even though he played in one less game and was banged up much of the year. (Thinking back Craver and Groce were solid as well). It was a solid team that year but there really weren't any guys you could say were heads and shoulders above the rest of them.

[Haspula]

Suh was robbed of the heisman award. I hope Crick gets a place in the vote though

[huskerjack23]

Crick's good, but I don't think he's quite on Suh's level. I guarantee he'll be a finalist for a lot of trophies this year, but I don't think the Heisman will be one of them.

Couldn't agree more. You don't have to completely change your game plan for this guy. Suh was a freak and should have won it hands down. But I guess if you have to see a lineman get it for the body of Suh's work it might as well be Crick. I mean Crouch owes his Heisman to Tommie getting the shaft.

 

Yeah, it had nothing to do with his body of work as a football player... He was the most dangerous football player on the offensive side of the ball period when he won the Heisman.

Lets not rewrite history. Crouch only inched out being the best guy on our team that year. If the voting wouldn't have been split in the Southwest area between Grossman and Dorey, Crouch wouldn't have gotten it.

I feel like a terrible fan right now, who would've been the next best guy on the team? I honestly don't remember that year beyond the terrible losses and the OU game.

Overall I would say Kelsay was better and did more for the team. He was a monster that year 52 tackles at end with 5 qb sacks and 17 stops for a loss. Nationally no one knew much about that guy and made it to a second all American. On offense you could argue that Josh Brown or Darin Diedrick were very close to being as important as Crouch that year. Brown finished 3rd in scoring behind both those other two guys. And Dietrick lead the team in rushing and yards per carry (for more than 100 touches) even though he played in one less game and was banged up much of the year. (Thinking back Craver and Groce were solid as well). It was a solid team that year but there really weren't any guys you could say were heads and shoulders above the rest of them.

Those are some great stats, but not MVP of the entire team stats. Especially when the defense turned into a sieve the last two games of the season.

 

These guys were completely solid and Kelsay is still in the NFL, highly paid as well, but Crouch had to put the entire team on his back (the defense and Solich's play calls were factors in that), and he came through.

 

That was a Heisman season, no doubt.

[HuskerFanChuck]

Would LOVE to see Crick get that love this year, and if he can beat Alberts sack record earlier than some think, and have a monster season in that respect, I think he will get the invite.

 

Point blank, Nebraska should be sporting five Heismans at this point. It's the very reason that a lot of people don't watch and can't stand the ceremony surrounding it. Too many politics, and too much assumption that offense is the only thing there is, and that offensive players are the only ones that matter. Suh got robbed that year. But then, Frazier got the hose job as well. Tommie was easily the best player in the nation in '95, and again, politics gave the Heisman to George.

 

Funny thing is, the one time when I DIDN'T believe a player deserved it was the time he got it. Manning got robbed in '97.

 

Anyhow... enough of the robbery that is the Heisman. Hope to see Crick just dominate the line this year!

[Blackshirts007]

what's a heisman?

[da skers]

Crick's good, but I don't think he's quite on Suh's level. I guarantee he'll be a finalist for a lot of trophies this year, but I don't think the Heisman will be one of them.

Couldn't agree more. You don't have to completely change your game plan for this guy. Suh was a freak and should have won it hands down. But I guess if you have to see a lineman get it for the body of Suh's work it might as well be Crick. I mean Crouch owes his Heisman to Tommie getting the shaft.

 

Yeah, it had nothing to do with his body of work as a football player... He was the most dangerous football player on the offensive side of the ball period when he won the Heisman.

Lets not rewrite history. Crouch only inched out being the best guy on our team that year. If the voting wouldn't have been split in the Southwest area between Grossman and Dorey, Crouch wouldn't have gotten it.

I feel like a terrible fan right now, who would've been the next best guy on the team? I honestly don't remember that year beyond the terrible losses and the OU game.

Overall I would say Kelsay was better and did more for the team. He was a monster that year 52 tackles at end with 5 qb sacks and 17 stops for a loss. Nationally no one knew much about that guy and made it to a second all American. On offense you could argue that Josh Brown or Darin Diedrick were very close to being as important as Crouch that year. Brown finished 3rd in scoring behind both those other two guys. And Dietrick lead the team in rushing and yards per carry (for more than 100 touches) even though he played in one less game and was banged up much of the year. (Thinking back Craver and Groce were solid as well). It was a solid team that year but there really weren't any guys you could say were heads and shoulders above the rest of them.

Those are some great stats, but not MVP of the entire team stats. Especially when the defense turned into a sieve the last two games of the season.

 

These guys were completely solid and Kelsay is still in the NFL, highly paid as well, but Crouch had to put the entire team on his back (the defense and Solich's play calls were factors in that), and he came through.

 

That was a Heisman season, no doubt.

If you talk to Crouch's team he didn't "have to put the team on his back". I know several of them. I've asked them. How about you?

[Hunter94]

Crick's good, but I don't think he's quite on Suh's level. I guarantee he'll be a finalist for a lot of trophies this year, but I don't think the Heisman will be one of them.

 

 

Crick is no Suh.....he just isn't.