Sunday, November 2, 2008

you're the best around...really??

last night texas tech utterly outplayed texas in a huge game in nearly every way...and that galls me to say it...but, you have to give credit to the red raiders...i screamed expletives at the screen every time colt mccoy threw a pass that a receiver dropped...the first half was flat out deplorable play by the longhorns...way too many penalties overall...and that terrible interception...not to mention that hair-pulling loss in the last the few seconds of the game...

anyhow, i usually enjoy keeping up with the heisman "race" simply because i find it utterly fascinating...but i always found it curious that when a team lost, it affected a player's chances for winning the heisman...it doesnt make a whole lot of sense since you are looking for the best player in college football, not the best player on the best college football team...

i found this little article that echoed some of my thoughts...now, why i do think that his examples were a bit flawed (graham harrell was very very good out there), he had a point...what i thought was so interesting a couple of years ago when troy smith and brady quinn were on the radar for the heisman, i recall several commentators making statements to the effect that troy smith would win the heisman, but that he would not be very successful in the pros...it's like saying,"dude, you are the best!...but, this is about the best you'll ever be"...lol...

oh, and i just have to remark on john elway...i know this is old news, but let's take a look at his thoughts on quarterbacks in the NFL..
"JaMarcus Russell's only chance at NFL success is to get out of Oakland. OK, maybe that's harsh. But we all know it's his best chance at success," Elway writes.

The fastest way to ruin a quarterback is to put him on a bad team, with a bad line, with no weapons, with no continuity in the coaching staff. That pretty much describes the current Raiders. The game has passed Al Davis by, and he's the only one who doesn't know it. Every time the Raiders get a good coach -- Mike Shanahan, Jon Gruden, Norv Turner, etc. -- who doesn't buy into Al's outdated program, he fires him.

"It's this kind of organizational instability that can ruin a quarterback, like the Texans ruined David Carr and the Browns ruined Tim Couch. A young quarterback, especially a No. 1 guy with the weight of a city's expectations on his shoulders, can wilt. A young quarterback needs a calm, steady influence on and off the field. The first three years for an NFL quarterback are rocky no matter what. He needs a coach to teach him the game of football and a kind of father figure to nurture him and get him through the tough times off the field.

"Too bad JaMarcus didn't have the leverage I had in 1983; then he could've avoided the Raiders all together. ...

"I feel for JaMarcus. Physically, he has it all. He's an unbelievable talent -- strong arm, tall, big. In the right situation, he could have a great NFL career. In Oakland, he has almost no chance."


wow...i have no idea how to respond to that...this is like vince young's momma saying that he cant handle the pressure because people arent nice and why cant they just be nice to him...her baby just needs some love and cuddles so that he can play well!...

...

this is like archie manning telling everyone to not tackle his son...um....again...really??...

first of all...the challenges in pro football are no secret...if you want to raise your hand and say "pick me! pick me!" in the draft, then you better have a fucking clue, son, about what the hell goes on in the field...i have no sympathy and no pity...talent will get you nowhere real fast if you dont have the drive and desire to practice and do what it takes...

every person is in charge of their own performance...if you want to be better, then you better find the next train to better training not superstar status...

the ridiculous assumption elway makes that these players need a "daddy" to hold their hand and show them really cool power points to make them better players makes no sense...it is their job to make themselves strong and capable...unless the contract states "the franchise agrees to hold your dick every time you piss and wipe your ass after every shit you take" it is flat out stupid to assume that they will be there to make you better...they are there to make money...i know...shocker...

i will say this, however, a poorly managed franchise/team will not lead to successful players...that is fact...but again...no one is forcing these kids to sign contracts...coaches are like teachers...you have some that inspire and others that drive you to madness...so, basically if you failed chemistry it's because of a mean, terrible teacher...or like saying "i failed at the pass rush because i had a mean coach that didnt talk to me and tell me what to do"...how many of these guys actually ask how to be better?...i wonder...

this all comes from what really drives pro football...money...but that is another rant altogether...

ah, where are the good old days when they would just hide a prospect in a hotel room so that other teams couldnt sign him?....

cg (feeling terribly cranky because both texas and texans lost this weekend...oh, the tragedy!)

EDIT: in more uplifting news, the giants are totally ass-raping the cowgirls...i love the giants...um...only when the play the 'girls, i mean...

1 comment:

Percy said...

I like your football analysis.. very insightful and well thought out.
The Heisman is 'suppose' to be for the best college athlete... regardless of pro potential or the record of the team.. BUT...
Last year it should have been McFadden, but he played for Arkansas, instead Tim Teebo won..

Coaching does make a huge difference in the pro's combined with drive..
Take Tom Brady.. low draft pick, but excellent coaching AND the drive he has.. There are many, many examples both ways of high draft picks falling on their faces, and low picks doing quite well...

Nice post cg!
I can talk football too you see!