Crick for Heisman

[Nebula]

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?

His opinion is still valid skers, despite your insider status.

[lionsfan93]

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.

What makes you say this? I really don't understand why people continue to say stuff like this.

[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?

His opinion is still valid skers, despite your insider status.

I agree that Crouch had very good numbers. And I don't discount that or he should be respected for that. And he won the Heisman. But at least I can admit why he won it and it wasn't on his Sr year's body of work. I don't have blinders on and don't live in a dream world that he was "the bestest thing ever". If you want to use numbers as the argument that he won the Heisman well . . .. his numbers weren't even the best of all of college QBs for that year and he barley nudged out his own team mates as far as who was the most productive for the team. And making a statement that he "carried the team" so he deserves the heisman is even more ridiculous. It implies that if it wasn't for Crouch they wouldn't have been successful is very its very misleading. The guys he played with don't even consider him the most important part of that team.

 

If you're going to make an argument as to why he deserved it. . .then you need to make the argument that it was won on his career numbers. . .because. . .if you actually live in "non-fantasy land" that's how UNL spun the PR campaign to get him the votes that he got. They also pushed the fact with the voters that Tommie should have won it and that most voters polled after the beat down on Florida said they would have changed their vote had they actually seen Tommie play that year.

 

So. . .you have UNL saying Crouch should win it on career numbers not seasonal stats, and reminding voters of how they admitted they made a mistake not giving it to Tommie who BTW had also just won a poll for best college QB of all time, and you had a split vote in the south (which is the breaks of the game) and that's the real reason he won the award. I'm glad he did and that Nebraska has the award but I also know why because I don't have a 13 year old boys mentality.

 

I guess more than anything I'm taking exception with the fact that he actually believes Crouch was the leader of that team and "carried that team" when that wasn't reality. He's opinion isn't based on fact and so its wrong. That's how the world works. I can say its my opinion that Martin Sheen was one of our best Presidents, but since the West Wing is a make believe show. . it can't really be true...can it?

[Nebula]

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?

His opinion is still valid skers, despite your insider status.

I agree that Crouch had very good numbers. And I don't discount that or he should be respected for that. And he won the Heisman. But at least I can admit why he won it and it wasn't on his Sr year's body of work. I don't have blinders on and don't live in a dream world that he was "the bestest thing ever". If you want to use numbers as the argument that he won the Heisman well . . .. his numbers weren't even the best of all of college QBs for that year and he barley nudged out his own team mates as far as who was the most productive for the team. And making a statement that he "carried the team" so he deserves the heisman is even more ridiculous. It implies that if it wasn't for Crouch they wouldn't have been successful is very its very misleading. The guys he played with don't even consider him the most important part of that team.

 

If you're going to make an argument as to why he deserved it. . .then you need to make the argument that it was won on his career numbers. . .because. . .if you actually live in "non-fantasy land" that's how UNL spun the PR campaign to get him the votes that he got. They also pushed the fact with the voters that Tommie should have won it and that most voters polled after the beat down on Florida said they would have changed their vote had they actually seen Tommie play that year.

 

So. . .you have UNL saying Crouch should win it on career numbers not seasonal stats, and reminding voters of how they admitted they made a mistake not giving it to Tommie who BTW had also just won a poll for best college QB of all time, and you had a split vote in the south (which is the breaks of the game) and that's the real reason he won the award. I'm glad he did and that Nebraska has the award but I also know why because I don't have a 13 year old boys mentality.

 

I guess more than anything I'm taking exception with the fact that he actually believes Crouch was the leader of that team and "carried that team" when that wasn't reality. He's opinion isn't based on fact and so its wrong. That's how the world works. I can say its my opinion that Martin Sheen was one of our best Presidents, but since the West Wing is a make believe show. . it can't really be true...can it?

I wasn't saying his opinion was correct, I said it was valid. Just like everyone else has a valid opinion, regardless of whether they interact personally with members of the NU staff and team or not. I was commenting more on your dismissive tone, which struck a nerve with me.

 

Eric Crouch won one of the most disputed Heisman trophies in the last 25 years. That's a fact. His body of work in '01 was in no way the equivalent of Tommie's in '95 or even Suh in '09. Eric had some great highlight plays, won some big games, and was without question one of the best cfb players in '01. Was he the best? I don't know. Enough Heisman voters thought he was for him to win the award, so I don't think you can completely disregard that. He sure as hell was a better player than Dahrran Diedrick. I was with you on Kelsay, but Diedrick? C'mon man.

 

The one thing we actually agree on here is whether Eric carried the team or not. I don't think leaders of that magnitude traditionally flirt with quitting on the team when they aren't anointed the starter at ANY point in their career. Guys on the team take note of that sort of thing, naturally. Can someone rebound from that to become a strong enough leader to "carry a team on his back?" I'm skeptical. And you clearly don't think so.

 

Congratulations on the age of your mentality. Your parents must be very proud. (J/k )

[Hammerhead]

I'd make the argument that there were probably more deserving players than Crouch for the Heisman in '01, but I wasn't one of the voters responsible for deciding the Heisman winner that year, so my opinion's as meaningless as any other. Crouch was no doubt a tremendous athlete, good enough that he got the majority vote for the Heisman that year. Deserved? Maybe not, but opinions don't change facts.

 

I do think it's ironic that Frazier didn't win the Heisman in a year in which he (and the team) had a dominating performance in the national championship game, yet Crouch won it in a year in which Nebraska got spanked in the NC. Who knows? Perhaps if the Heisman was awarded after the national championship, we'd have a Heisman with a #15 on it instead of a #7.

[da skers]

 

I wasn't saying his opinion was correct, I said it was valid. Just like everyone else has a valid opinion, regardless of whether they interact personally with members of the NU staff and team or not. I was commenting more on your dismissive tone, which struck a nerve with me.

 

Eric Crouch won one of the most disputed Heisman trophies in the last 25 years. That's a fact. His body of work in '01 was in no way the equivalent of Tommie's in '95 or even Suh in '09. Eric had some great highlight plays, won some big games, and was without question one of the best cfb players in '01. Was he the best? I don't know. Enough Heisman voters thought he was for him to win the award, so I don't think you can completely disregard that. He sure as hell was a better player than Dahrran Diedrick. I was with you on Kelsay, but Diedrick? C'mon man.

 

The one thing we actually agree on here is whether Eric carried the team or not. I don't think leaders of that magnitude traditionally flirt with quitting on the team when they aren't anointed the starter at ANY point in their career. Guys on the team take note of that sort of thing, naturally. Can someone rebound from that to become a strong enough leader to "carry a team on his back?" I'm skeptical. And you clearly don't think so.

 

Congratulations on the age of your mentality. Your parents must be very proud. (J/k )

Ummmmm.....show me where I said Diedrick was a better player than Crouch. I think if you read what I wrote... . I said Kelsey was better but that Brown and Diedrick were nearly as important as Crouch was on offense and then explained why Diedrick was important. In fact I think I even (let me read back, yeah I did) stated "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."

 

Don't twist my words by trying to state I said there were better offensive players than Crouch.

[Nebula]

 

I wasn't saying his opinion was correct, I said it was valid. Just like everyone else has a valid opinion, regardless of whether they interact personally with members of the NU staff and team or not. I was commenting more on your dismissive tone, which struck a nerve with me.

 

Eric Crouch won one of the most disputed Heisman trophies in the last 25 years. That's a fact. His body of work in '01 was in no way the equivalent of Tommie's in '95 or even Suh in '09. Eric had some great highlight plays, won some big games, and was without question one of the best cfb players in '01. Was he the best? I don't know. Enough Heisman voters thought he was for him to win the award, so I don't think you can completely disregard that. He sure as hell was a better player than Dahrran Diedrick. I was with you on Kelsay, but Diedrick? C'mon man.

 

The one thing we actually agree on here is whether Eric carried the team or not. I don't think leaders of that magnitude traditionally flirt with quitting on the team when they aren't anointed the starter at ANY point in their career. Guys on the team take note of that sort of thing, naturally. Can someone rebound from that to become a strong enough leader to "carry a team on his back?" I'm skeptical. And you clearly don't think so.

 

Congratulations on the age of your mentality. Your parents must be very proud. (J/k )

Ummmmm.....show me where I said Diedrick was a better player than Crouch. I think if you read what I wrote... . I said Kelsey was better but that Brown and Diedrick were nearly as important as Crouch was on offense and then explained why Diedrick was important. In fact I think I even (let me read back, yeah I did) stated "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."

 

Don't twist my words by trying to state I said there were better offensive players than Crouch.

Fair enough. You did in fact say that an argument could be made for Josh Brown or Diedrick being nearly as important as Crouch in our offense in '01. I read it as "as important," which is not what you wrote.

 

I still don't think it was close. Pure athlete, game-breaking potential on our offense in '01 that you had to specifically game plan for? That belonged to Eric alone. No one was fretting over Brown or Diedrick any more than they usually would for any starter. If I was a betting man, I'd wager that every single DC that faced Nebraska that year specifically focused on how to take Eric Crouch out of the game to make guys like Brown and Diedrick be the ones to beat them. (Don't give me the "every team specifically focuses on the QB" rebuttal, either. We've both seen plenty of games where the defensive game plan is to make the other teams QB beat them through the air.)

 

Eric Crouch is Nebraska's all-time leader for total offense, for a storied program that ranks 4th all time in victories. That's enough for me to believe that he was the most important player on that '01 offense by a wide margin, and I really don't think you could make a strong argument otherwise.

[da skers]

 

I wasn't saying his opinion was correct, I said it was valid. Just like everyone else has a valid opinion, regardless of whether they interact personally with members of the NU staff and team or not. I was commenting more on your dismissive tone, which struck a nerve with me.

 

Eric Crouch won one of the most disputed Heisman trophies in the last 25 years. That's a fact. His body of work in '01 was in no way the equivalent of Tommie's in '95 or even Suh in '09. Eric had some great highlight plays, won some big games, and was without question one of the best cfb players in '01. Was he the best? I don't know. Enough Heisman voters thought he was for him to win the award, so I don't think you can completely disregard that. He sure as hell was a better player than Dahrran Diedrick. I was with you on Kelsay, but Diedrick? C'mon man.

 

The one thing we actually agree on here is whether Eric carried the team or not. I don't think leaders of that magnitude traditionally flirt with quitting on the team when they aren't anointed the starter at ANY point in their career. Guys on the team take note of that sort of thing, naturally. Can someone rebound from that to become a strong enough leader to "carry a team on his back?" I'm skeptical. And you clearly don't think so.

 

Congratulations on the age of your mentality. Your parents must be very proud. (J/k )

Ummmmm.....show me where I said Diedrick was a better player than Crouch. I think if you read what I wrote... . I said Kelsey was better but that Brown and Diedrick were nearly as important as Crouch was on offense and then explained why Diedrick was important. In fact I think I even (let me read back, yeah I did) stated "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."

 

Don't twist my words by trying to state I said there were better offensive players than Crouch.

Fair enough. You did in fact say that an argument could be made for Josh Brown or Diedrick being nearly as important as Crouch in our offense in '01. I read it as "as important," which is not what you wrote.

 

I still don't think it was close. Pure athlete, game-breaking potential on our offense in '01 that you had to specifically game plan for? That belonged to Eric alone. No one was fretting over Brown or Diedrick any more than they usually would for any starter. If I was a betting man, I'd wager that every single DC that faced Nebraska that year specifically focused on how to take Eric Crouch out of the game to make guys like Brown and Diedrick be the ones to beat them. (Don't give me the "every team specifically focuses on the QB" rebuttal, either. We've both seen plenty of games where the defensive game plan is to make the other teams QB beat them through the air.)

 

Eric Crouch is Nebraska's all-time leader for total offense, for a storied program that ranks 4th all time in victories. That's enough for me to believe that he was the most important player on that '01 offense by a wide margin, and I really don't think you could make a strong argument otherwise.

Nor would I try.

[huskerjack23]

 

I wasn't saying his opinion was correct, I said it was valid. Just like everyone else has a valid opinion, regardless of whether they interact personally with members of the NU staff and team or not. I was commenting more on your dismissive tone, which struck a nerve with me.

 

Eric Crouch won one of the most disputed Heisman trophies in the last 25 years. That's a fact. His body of work in '01 was in no way the equivalent of Tommie's in '95 or even Suh in '09. Eric had some great highlight plays, won some big games, and was without question one of the best cfb players in '01. Was he the best? I don't know. Enough Heisman voters thought he was for him to win the award, so I don't think you can completely disregard that. He sure as hell was a better player than Dahrran Diedrick. I was with you on Kelsay, but Diedrick? C'mon man.

 

The one thing we actually agree on here is whether Eric carried the team or not. I don't think leaders of that magnitude traditionally flirt with quitting on the team when they aren't anointed the starter at ANY point in their career. Guys on the team take note of that sort of thing, naturally. Can someone rebound from that to become a strong enough leader to "carry a team on his back?" I'm skeptical. And you clearly don't think so.

 

Congratulations on the age of your mentality. Your parents must be very proud. (J/k )

Ummmmm.....show me where I said Diedrick was a better player than Crouch. I think if you read what I wrote... . I said Kelsey was better but that Brown and Diedrick were nearly as important as Crouch was on offense and then explained why Diedrick was important. In fact I think I even (let me read back, yeah I did) stated "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."

 

Don't twist my words by trying to state I said there were better offensive players than Crouch.

Fair enough. You did in fact say that an argument could be made for Josh Brown or Diedrick being nearly as important as Crouch in our offense in '01. I read it as "as important," which is not what you wrote.

 

I still don't think it was close. Pure athlete, game-breaking potential on our offense in '01 that you had to specifically game plan for? That belonged to Eric alone. No one was fretting over Brown or Diedrick any more than they usually would for any starter. If I was a betting man, I'd wager that every single DC that faced Nebraska that year specifically focused on how to take Eric Crouch out of the game to make guys like Brown and Diedrick be the ones to beat them. (Don't give me the "every team specifically focuses on the QB" rebuttal, either. We've both seen plenty of games where the defensive game plan is to make the other teams QB beat them through the air.)

 

Eric Crouch is Nebraska's all-time leader for total offense, for a storied program that ranks 4th all time in victories. That's enough for me to believe that he was the most important player on that '01 offense by a wide margin, and I really don't think you could make a strong argument otherwise.

Nor would I try.

Why are you arguing then?

 

By the way, I didn't mean carrying a team in the leadership standpoint but in putting up numbers and scoring sense. So, if that's the misunderstanding, I'm sorry.

 

In that sense, it is a fact. In the sense that you describe, you know better than I certainly so I can't really comment.