2012 Bison

[HuskerFan]

I was wondering if Bison lost a lot of players from lastyears team, or do they have most of them coming back to where they can make another run at a national championship.

[Herd]

Gone on Def, starters:
2 LBs Evans and Wilson
DE Boyer
FS Eaves

Bison are very deep with solid backups at each position on Defense. These senior players had great heart and leadership, but the defense should be in great shape talent wise in 2012, with the capability of being very good once again. For the defense in 2012, it could take some time before they find the chemistry to be great. I expect a very talented D, but one that could be inconsistent until the leaders emerge. The defensive backfield could be the best ever at NDSU in the next two years with a combo of speed & coverage, and the ability to hit. The production and leadership of Wilson and Evans will be the hardest area to replace as I see it for the Bison.

Gone on Off, starters:
RB McNorton
WR Halloway
TE Veldman
OL Cornick and Richards

Talent at RB could be better in 2012, but McNorton has been a rock the past 2 years. It could take time for a new OL to mesh, and the running game could be inconsistent to start the year. I predict the balance to shift to the air a little in 2012 with a slew of new WR talent, some holes to fill on the OL, and a QB who keeps getting better. WR will go from Halloway carrying the load to lots of talented young guys. Hopefully the production comes and is balanced in 2012. OL is solid with lots of options, but the talent and leadership of the guys leaving was top notch. TE production was descent in 2012, and we loose our 6'7 target, but we have good bench strength at this position. I expect a better offense and more production in 2012 which is needed as the defense works to come together.

Special Teams, gone:
K & P Jastram and Voightlander

A fall off is expected as new guys learn the position. It doesn't get much better than the solid years by Jastram and Voight. We will see in 2012. Don't discount the importance of senior leadership in the kicking game, as you will note when you are frustrated in 2012.
_____

I expect that at some point in 2012, the team will peak and play at the 2011 level, and better offensively than last year. (defense doesnt get much better). How quickly will it come, can they sustain solid play for another playoff run like 2011? Will the defense find leaders like the 2011 class(hats off to them)? Don't bet against it.

[HerdBot]

We are loaded for the next 2 years. Its a rare window of opportunity we need to take advantage of.

[CaBisonFan]

We are loaded for the next 2 years. Its a rare window of opportunity we need to take advantage of.

Agreed...there were so many young players that contributed in a big way. Some of these guys will step into leadership roles easily...because they already were, in a way. Talent will not be an issue...nor will depth.

I think that the passing game needs to become more versatile, and in general, the offense a little more prolific.

The formula needs to change a little in order for us to win the conference again. We will need a strong passing game down in Iowa. I expect to see really good things from our young receiving corps. Vraa needs to have a breakout year...among others.

I want to see some playing time for our #2 quarterback this year...but I don't expect coach to make this happen. He seems to have a bit of tunnel vision when it comes to developing depth here. We have enormous talent & depth at qb.

I don't expect a letdown. The Bison will roll into the new season as though it were an extension of the last. It won't stop.

I absolutely agree that the departing seniors will be missed. They were awesome...to say the least.

We should get the #1 rating to start the year. These guys will fight 'very' hard to keep it. If healthy, there's no reason to give it up.

[DjKyRo]

These senior players had great heart and leadership, but the defense should be in great shape talent wise in 2012, with the capability of being very good once again. For the defense in 2012, it could take some time before they find the chemistry to be great. I expect a very talented D, but one that could be inconsistent until the leaders emerge.

Nothing to contribute aside from parroting this line of thought. I think the contributions Chad Willson made in his short time with the team really are understated, and might/will be missed in the next season unless someone else can step up. I like the fire Grant Olson has off the field and think he can really emerge as a leader, but it'll really be intriguing to see who steps up in spring ball.

[JustinTyem]

Agreed...there were so many young players that contributed in a big way. Some of these guys will step into leadership roles easily...because they already were, in a way. Talent will not be an issue...nor will depth.

I think that the passing game needs to become more versatile, and in general, the offense a little more prolific.

The formula needs to change a little in order for us to win the conference again. We will need a strong passing game down in Iowa. I expect to see really good things from our young receiving corps. Vraa needs to have a breakout year...among others.

I want to see some playing time for our #2 quarterback this year...but I don't expect coach to make this happen. He seems to have a bit of tunnel vision when it comes to developing depth here. We have enormous talent & depth at qb.

I don't expect a letdown. The Bison will roll into the new season as though it were an extension of the last. It won't stop.

I absolutely agree that the departing seniors will be missed. They were awesome...to say the least.

We should get the #1 rating to start the year. These guys will fight 'very' hard to keep it. If healthy, there's no reason to give it up.I dont get what ur saying??? When the game was in hand,Bohl put Esley in the game. Do you want for craig to put Esley in the game right away??? Are you not happy with Brock,Im cunfused???

[CaBisonFan]

I dont get what ur saying??? When the game was in hand,Bohl put Esley in the game. Do you want for craig to put Esley in the game right away??? Are you not happy with Brock,Im cunfused???

Esley got very few snaps...imo. When games were in hand Brock was there almost until the very end...and in some cases...the last snap.

[MNLonghorn10]

ill miss jastrams field goals.

i wont miss his extra points.

[DjKyRo]

Esley got very few snaps...imo. When games were in hand Brock was there almost until the very end...and in some cases...the last snap.

Esley got plenty of snaps in the two non-conference games, and got plenty in the first half of the St. Francis game when the outcome was still (technically) in doubt. We didn't exactly have a lot of "running away with it" opportunities outside of the Missouri State game in conference play for Esley to step in for. Which game would you like Brock to have been taken out of? UNI? Youngstown? Illinois State, Indiana State?

Bohl did fine with the backup snaps, IMO.

[JustinTyem]

Esley got very few snaps...imo. When games were in hand Brock was there almost until the very end...and in some cases...the last snap.This is the first time I Disagree with you CaB. I agree with DjKy,what game you want Esley to clean up??? When you the Starter,You Finish the game when it is still to close.There was only one Reg season game(The Marker game) that the score large was enough to hand the game to the back-ups. And the WIU game could have been another one but the Defense let them get back into the game. And when its the Play-offs,You finish EVERY GAME like its your LAST one,you start with your #1's and finish with'em!!!!

[CaBisonFan]

Little different philosophy on quarterbacks here. I liked what Florida did when they had Leaks & Tebow. When Leaks was finished, they still had a field leader with experience. Worked reasonably well.

What games Dj?...Most
Oh well...another crazy Ca opinion...:rimshot:...putting in an ultra-talented qb for a few plays here and there...not just for handing the ball off during mop-up. Depth of experience doesn't matter at qb. Got it. Not worth arguing about.

[DjKyRo]

Little different philosophy on quarterbacks here. I liked what Florida did when they had Leaks & Tebow. When Leaks was finished, they still had a field leader with experience. Worked reasonably well.

What games Dj?...Most
Oh well...another crazy Ca opinion...:rimshot:...putting in an ultra-talented qb for a few plays here and there...not just for handing the ball off during mop-up. Depth of experience doesn't matter at qb. Got it. Not worth arguing about.

Don't feel that that's a legitimately feasible application of a two-quarterback system with the pieces NDSU has. Comparing NDSU and Florida's styles is totally bunk - totally different styles and, as the adage goes, if you've got two quarterbacks, you've got zero. We won a national championship with Brock as the singular clear leader at QB. You'd have changed that formula when it won us a title?

[Tatanka]

ill miss jastrams field goals.

i wont miss his extra points.
every once in a while, he did that for you, so no worries.

[CaBisonFan]

Don't feel that that's a legitimately feasible application of a two-quarterback system with the pieces NDSU has. Comparing NDSU and Florida's styles is totally bunk - totally different styles and, as the adage goes, if you've got two quarterbacks, you've got zero. We won a national championship with Brock as the singular clear leader at QB. You'd have changed that formula when it won us a title?

Yeah...our style and Florida's during their NC runs is exactly the same. I 'did' notice that we won the championship with one qb.

[A1pigskin]

I think Cornick and Richards are the biggest loss.

[jimmyptubas]

I think Cornick and Richards are the biggest loss.


I agree completely. Lost a lot of size and just some really stellar players on that O line. I'm sure there are good players coming up in the ranks though....i'm sure I could look to find out too...maybe later.

[BisonNeil]

I think Cornick and Richards are the biggest loss.

Completely agree!

I also agree with CA. If Brock goes down last year there would be no NC. A backup has to get some meaningful snaps. Think Mertens here. Steve Walker was an ironman (except for knee injury last game of his So season) and Mertens never got to play (Miss Valley St only meaningful snaps) even though there were lots of blowouts Mertens never got the game to slow down for him until he was the man. I would hate to see any of out current backups be put in such a position again.

[NorthernBison]

Completely agree!

I also agree with CA. If Brock goes down last year there would be no NC. A backup has to get some meaningful snaps. Think Mertens here. Steve Walker was an ironman (except for knee injury last game of his So season) and Mertens never got to play (Miss Valley St only meaningful snaps) even though there were lots of blowouts Mertens never got the game to slow down for him until he was the man. I would hate to see any of out current backups be put in such a position again.

2011 is moot now but I think Coach needs to find a way to get more meaningful game snaps for our #2 QB. When Brock had to leave the NC game, is there anybody who thought Esley was ready? I'm not talking about platooning QB's but we cannot be unprepared for the QB going down.

[unbison]

What if what if do you guys sleep at night with as much as you come up with hypotheticals:(

[steelbison]

I'm really confused. Neil and CA what is a meaningful snap?

Is it when we are down in the fourth quarter to SIU? When we are up 3 in the third against UNI?

Could you imagine if Bohl put in our backup QB in for some "meaningful snaps" and he made one play to lose us the game.


You guys would be the first on here saying Bohl should be fired...


Serious guys I want to hear what a "meaningful snap" means to you.


Personally I didn't see a time to play the back-up other than when he played last year.

[BisonNeil]

I'm really confused. Neil and CA what is a meaningful snap?

Is it when we are down in the fourth quarter to SIU? When we are up 3 in the third against UNI?

Could you imagine if Bohl put in our backup QB in for some "meaningful snaps" and he made one play to lose us the game.


You guys would be the first on here saying Bohl should be fired...


Serious guys I want to hear what a "meaningful snap" means to you.


Personally I didn't see a time to play the back-up other than when he played last year.

I think the #2 should get a series, or perhaps two, in the game. He can go three and out as well and as easily as Jensen can and throw a sideline pass to Holloway as well. So, you seriously have no problem with having a #2 who is as inexperienced as Esley is? As tough as SHSU defense was, when Esley came in for Jensen there was no way anyone knew if Brock could come back. The O really struggled with their D, it was only going to be worse with a QB who hadn't played since the second game of the season. I guess if you are comfortable with that, good for you.

[Twentysix]

I think the #2 should get a series, or perhaps two, in the game. He can go three and out as well and as easily as Jensen can and throw a sideline pass to Holloway as well. So, you seriously have no problem with having a #2 who is as inexperienced as Esley is? As tough as SHSU defense was, when Esley came in for Jensen there was no way anyone knew if Brock could come back. The O really struggled with their D, it was only going to be worse with a QB who hadn't played since the second game of the season. I guess if you are comfortable with that, good for you.

It was very obvious brock was taken out for the concussion test and that was all. I remember saying that during the game in the stands while it was happening..

[TransAmBison]

I think the #2 should get a series, or perhaps two, in the game. He can go three and out as well and as easily as Jensen can and throw a sideline pass to Holloway as well. So, you seriously have no problem with having a #2 who is as inexperienced as Esley is? As tough as SHSU defense was, when Esley came in for Jensen there was no way anyone knew if Brock could come back. The O really struggled with their D, it was only going to be worse with a QB who hadn't played since the second game of the season. I guess if you are comfortable with that, good for you.
I have to say that line of thinking would/could get a coach fired quite easily. You seem to always see a significant flaw in the Bison game plan, but this one takes the cake. Some of our games one or two series could have meant the game. The best players should be on the field whenever possible. How many teams throw in an experienced qb regularly during the heat of the game? Not saying it doesn't happen, but not often. I do think Bohl could pull the trigger a bit earlier on pulling the starter when the game is in hand, but that is a completely different argument than what you present.

[bisonboone11]

Does anyone know how the other top teams are looking as far as returning starters? The only team that I know much about is the Griz, and from what I have heard, they lost 9 starters on defense.

On another note, I'm going to have to agree with the majority here that I don't think it's worth risking a loss just to get a #2 QB some meaningful snaps based on the chance of our starter getting injured. Very fews teams do that, and I think there is a reason for that.

[OrygunBison]

Given as little gametime experience as Mertens had prior to becoming the starter and what became of two seasons of Bison football as a result, I'm stunned that any Bison fan would argue that we should not be forcing the effort in getting reps to the #2. Good lord, you guys have a short memory. As great as our season was last year, that thought has permeated throughout for me. If Brock goes down, we're screwed, at least for a few series...which can easily be the difference in a game/season in the MVFC. Talent is only one ingredient to building a successful QB.

Just get him in for at least one series every half, regardless of what is going on. Work it into the game plan. It'll mess with the defenses that we're facing anyway because they'll have to scheme for a change in pace. Esley has the talent to do it. Just get him in. Do it in the first and third quarter if you don't want it to be at a crucial time relative to the clock. Just make it happen.

In no way am I saying that Brock's not our guy. The dude has been awesome.

[TransAmBison]

Given as little gametime experience as Mertens had prior to becoming the starter and what became of two seasons of Bison football as a result, I'm stunned that any Bison fan would argue that we should not be forcing the effort in getting reps to the #2. Good lord, you guys have a short memory. As great as our season was last year, that thought has permeated throughout for me. If Brock goes down, we're screwed, at least for a few series...which can easily be the difference in a game/season in the MVFC. Talent is only one ingredient to building a successful QB.

Just get him in for at least one series every half, regardless of what is going on. Work it into the game plan. It'll mess with the defenses that we're facing anyway because they'll have to scheme for a change in pace. Esley has the talent to do it. Just get him in. Do it in the first and third quarter if you don't want it to be at a crucial time relative to the clock. Just make it happen.

In no way am I saying that Brock's not our guy. The dude has been awesome.Don't you think every team out there faces the same circumstances? Why don't all teams put the second string in like you suggest? C'mon, second string is for mop up time...which I think Bohl doesn't pull the trigger on soon enough, but putting the second string in sooner is not something hardly any team is going to start doing.

[OrygunBison]

Don't you think every team out there faces the same circumstances? Why don't all teams put the second string in like you suggest? C'mon, second string is for mop up time...which I think Bohl doesn't pull the trigger on soon enough, but putting the second string in sooner is not something hardly any team is going to start doing.

So you want to follow what every other team is doing? I know what you're getting at but we're not exactly "followers" in how we approach coaching up our kids. For what it is worth, I've been frustrated with this issue for every single team that I follow. I've never understood the logic of not planning ahead on this issue. It destroys teams all the time but nobody ever seems to learn.

[THEsocalledfan]

I have to say that line of thinking would/could get a coach fired quite easily. You seem to always see a significant flaw in the Bison game plan, but this one takes the cake. Some of our games one or two series could have meant the game. The best players should be on the field whenever possible. How many teams throw in an experienced qb regularly during the heat of the game? Not saying it doesn't happen, but not often. I do think Bohl could pull the trigger a bit earlier on pulling the starter when the game is in hand, but that is a completely different argument than what you present.

+++++++++Glad to see one poster on this board has common sense. Pretty simple choice here: Play Thorton more last year and risk losing the conference and national titles. Or, do what they did. That seemed to work out okay, don't you think? (Oh crap, I forgot that we only shared the conference title, so the season was an obvious failure....)

I can't even believe this is a dicussion. This only valid point is what TAB said that Bohl could pull the trigger a little sooner. That is my only beef.

[Bison06]

So you want to follow what every other team is doing? I know what you're getting at but we're not exactly "followers" in how we approach coaching up our kids. For what it is worth, I've been frustrated with this issue for every single team that I follow. I've never understood the logic of not planning ahead on this issue. It destroys teams all the time but nobody ever seems to learn.

I understand the logic you are trying to present here, but it can't work that way at the QB position. It is far too big of a risk, to put a "meaningful snap" in the hands of a guy that has proven he isn't as good as the starter. You get the backup snaps in practice and when the game is out of hand.

What you are suggesting is possibly trading a win today for a win in the future, I say take the win today and prepare for tomorrow's game tomorrow.

[344Johnson]

Maybe do the traditional thing and give him mop-up time, but run a normal offensive series on that drive...don't just hand the ball off repeatedly, throw the ball a bit.

[NorthernBison]

+++++++++Glad to see one poster on this board has common sense. Pretty simple choice here: Play Thorton more last year and risk losing the conference and national titles. Or, do what they did. That seemed to work out okay, don't you think? (Oh crap, I forgot that we only shared the conference title, so the season was an obvious failure....)

I can't even believe this is a dicussion. This only valid point is what TAB said that Bohl could pull the trigger a little sooner. That is my only beef.

That's what I was getting at. There have been times where the outcome really isn't in doubt and simply getting the #2 out there ONE SERIES earlier amounts to meaningful snaps. It also serves to remove the #1 from a few less hits.

We're just a bunch of rubes throwing crap out there. What else do we have to talk about? The Sioux nickname discussion gets old after a while and basketball is just too painful a subject right now.

For perspective, every other position on offense and defense sees some substitution of players. Even when the games are tight. That virtually assures us that we will never have to throw a raw player out there when it counts. Yet, it is somehow different for the most important position on the field.

[OrygunBison]

I understand the logic you are trying to present here, but it can't work that way at the QB position. It is far too big of a risk, to put a "meaningful snap" in the hands of a guy that has proven he isn't as good as the starter. You get the backup snaps in practice and when the game is out of hand.

What you are suggesting is possibly trading a win today for a win in the future, I say take the win today and prepare for tomorrow's game tomorrow.

Your logic is perfect if you have no faith in your backup QB. You are assuming the worst. I think this is something that can start small at the beginning of the season and expand as the backup is developed. Force the issue.

I'm with SoCalled. I can't even believe this is a discussion...given our not so distant past.

[bisonboone11]

Given as little gametime experience as Mertens had prior to becoming the starter and what became of two seasons of Bison football as a result, I'm stunned that any Bison fan would argue that we should not be forcing the effort in getting reps to the #2. Good lord, you guys have a short memory. As great as our season was last year, that thought has permeated throughout for me. If Brock goes down, we're screwed, at least for a few series...which can easily be the difference in a game/season in the MVFC. Talent is only one ingredient to building a successful QB.

Just get him in for at least one series every half, regardless of what is going on. Work it into the game plan. It'll mess with the defenses that we're facing anyway because they'll have to scheme for a change in pace. Esley has the talent to do it. Just get him in. Do it in the first and third quarter if you don't want it to be at a crucial time relative to the clock. Just make it happen.

In no way am I saying that Brock's not our guy. The dude has been awesome.

It seems like you are contradicting yourself. You're saying that if Brock goes down for even a few series, that could easily be a game/season in the MVFC if we are forced to put an inexperienced backup in the game. However, the alternative that you are suggesting is still taking the same risk, but we are choosing to take the risk, which may have never been necessary. We would be willfully putting an inexperienced QB in the game and hoping it doesn't cost us that game/season. Wouldn't it be better to hope we never have to risk our game/season on putting a backup in the game? If we are forced to, then our hand is forced and we can hope we make it through that game. It just seems like an unnecessary risk.

[OrygunBison]

It seems like you are contradicting yourself. You're saying that if Brock goes down for even a few series, that could easily be a game/season in the MVFC if we are forced to put an inexperienced backup in the game. However, the alternative that you are suggesting is still taking the same risk, but we are choosing to take the risk, which may have never been necessary. We would be willfully putting an inexperienced QB in the game and hoping it doesn't cost us that game/season. Wouldn't it be better to hope we never have to risk our game/season on putting a backup in the game? If we are forced to, then our hand is forced and we can hope we make it through that game. It just seems like an unnecessary risk.

Admit it. You were dropped on your head as a little one, right?

[bisonboone11]

Admit it. You were dropped on your head as a little one, right?

Haha.... Why?

[Professor Chaos]

Brock Jensen is so good the Saints put a bounty on him.

[Bison06]

Your logic is perfect if you have no faith in your backup QB. You are assuming the worst. I think this is something that can start small at the beginning of the season and expand as the backup is developed. Force the issue.

I'm with SoCalled. I can't even believe this is a discussion...given our not so distant past.

I am not saying I don't have faith in the backup, I am saying I have less faith in him than the starter. You risk losing a game today to have a more experienced team in the future.

I am all for getting the backup some snaps, but only when the game is in hand.

What you are also discounting is the starter getting out of the rhythm of the game when you randomly take him out of game.

Sometimes you just have to worry about winning now and the future will be taken care of in the offseason.

[bisonboone11]

I am not saying I don't have faith in the backup, I am saying I have less faith in him than the starter. You risk losing a game today to have a more experienced team in the future.

I am all for getting the backup some snaps, but only when the game is in hand.

What you are also discounting is the starter getting out of the rhythm of the game when you randomly take him out of game.

Sometimes you just have to worry about winning now and the future will be taken care of in the offseason.

Exactly. It doesn't make sense to put the backup in and risk a game now so we might be safe later, if we make the playoffs. That's like saying, "I'm gonna go crash my car to make sure the safety system works correctly in case I get in an accident later. Yeah, I may get hurt now, but at least I'll know what I have in case I get in an accident later."

[OrygunBison]

I am not saying I don't have faith in the backup, I am saying I have less faith in him than the starter. You risk losing a game today to have a more experienced team in the future.

I am all for getting the backup some snaps, but only when the game is in hand.

What you are also discounting is the starter getting out of the rhythm of the game when you randomly take him out of game.

Sometimes you just have to worry about winning now and the future will be taken care of in the offseason.

So you're saying "Don't be stupid about it." Yeah, that makes sense. My point is to make it a point to work it in - to make it part of the rhythm of the game. Turn it into an advantage. That COULD happen, right?

Again, we lost 2 years of Bison football because of going the opposite route. I mean, why on earth would you take Steve Walker out of the game??

[Bison06]

So you're saying "Don't be stupid about it." Yeah, that makes sense. My point is to make it a point to work it in - to make it part of the rhythm of the game. Turn it into an advantage. That COULD happen, right?

Again, we lost 2 years of Bison football because of going the opposite route. I mean, why on earth would you take Steve Walker out of the game??

You think that we struggled at the QB position because Nick Mertens didn't get enough snaps as the backup? What was the story the second year he was the starter?

I was there the day Steve Walker played in his first game ever, he had never had a snap before that day IIRC. His lack of experience meant nothing on that day.

[bisonboone11]

So you're saying "Don't be stupid about it." Yeah, that makes sense. My point is to make it a point to work it in - to make it part of the rhythm of the game. Turn it into an advantage. That COULD happen, right?

Again, we lost 2 years of Bison football because of going the opposite route. I mean, why on earth would you take Steve Walker out of the game??

Mertens is a horrible example. How much better did he get when he was getting every "meaningful" snap? Sometimes, a guy just isn't the right guy to have under center no matter how many meaninful snaps he gets. I highly doubt that a few series the year before would've magically transformed him into a good QB.

Why don't more people purposely crash their cars and risk injury just to see if they'll be alright if they got in an accident later? It's a similar theory. Sometimes you have to trust that you're safe. If something goes wrong, you have to trust the tests that were conducted in a controlled environment (i.e. trust what Esley has done in practice and in "non-meaningful" snaps.)

[BisonNation11]

Pardon me for not knowing all known facts or taking the time to look them up, but isn't there a guy named Tom Brady who, if my memory serves me correctly, took the reigns at both the college and NFL levels without any "meaningful snaps"? Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe both situations have turned out well for him. Either you're ready and have what it takes to be solid backup or you don't. If the backup had the skills to be number 1 he would be.

[CAS4127]

Mertens is a horrible example. How much better did he get when he was getting every "meaningful" snap? Sometimes, a guy just isn't the right guy to have under center no matter how many meaninful snaps he gets. I highly doubt that a few series the year before would've magically transformed him into a good QB.

Why don't more people purposely crash their cars and risk injury just to see if they'll be alright if they got in an accident later? It's a similar theory. Sometimes you have to trust that you're safe. If something goes wrong, you have to trust the tests that were conducted in a controlled environment (i.e. trust what Esley has done in practice and in "non-meaningful" snaps.)

I'll volunteer for all high speed/no seat belt ones, Tranny, AG, Note, Rock, Dj, Tanka and all the other slugs who were part of the cardboard blowup of me. Find one of those SUV's that rolled easy with Goodrich tires on them, and stuff them all in their at the same time-->Perfect!!!

Also, your "i.e." reference qualifies in the thread by Tony about "things you see in writing but never hear in conversation". Have you ever used that when talking to a hot chick? . . . wait, that assumes you have talked to a hot chick-->sorry!!

[OrygunBison]

As a huge Michigan fan, I hated Tom Brady when he was at the helm. The dude was clueless and had absolutely no poise in the pocket. Couldn't run worth a shit either. One of my least favorite Wolverine QB's in recent memory. I'm still puzzled by his success in the NFL given what we saw from him in the Blue and Maize.

Thanks for helping to make my point. Sometimes more than just a few snaps are what it takes to bring out the greatness in a talented athlete. I still think Mertens is the perfect Bison example. Had he started 2008 with some level of confidence, I think the next two years would have been so much better. Combine his lack of confidence with no options behind him and it was a recipe for disaster. Conversely, if Mertens was so bad as you say, perhaps some real game time as a backup would have made that obvious and they would have recruited differently in '06/'07 or perhaps we would have looked at developing Parsons instead. Hell, maybe Esleys not even the real #2 right now. We have a couple of other highly recruited QB's. How the hell are you going to know until the shit is real. I think Mertens is a clear example either way you look at it.

Admittedly, my perspective is not as refined as most of the great football minds of BV.

[NorthernBison]

I'll volunteer for all high speed/no seat belt ones, Tranny, AG, Note, Rock, Dj, Tanka and all the other slugs who were part of the cardboard blowup of me. Find one of those SUV's that rolled easy with Goodrich tires on them, and stuff them all in their at the same time-->Perfect!!!

Also, your "i.e." reference qualifies in the thread by Tony about "things you see in writing but never hear in conversation". Have you ever used that when talking to a hot chick? . . . wait, that assumes you have talked to a hot chick-->sorry!!

I never use Latin in my conversations either. I can honestly say I've never uttered the words "id est".

By jove, I believe he also got the usage correct. I'm assuming he meant it to mean "in other words" or "that is".

I googled the usage to check because I wasn't sure if he shouldn't have used e.g. Turns out that "exempli gratia" is way sexier and some of the young bucks here should file it away in case they ever actually talk to a hot chick. Hear that DJ?

Edit: Maybe the last comment should have been directed toward Ming. I don't remember who had the "dating" issue.

[bisonboone11]

As a huge Michigan fan, I hated Tom Brady when he was at the helm. The dude was clueless and had absolutely no poise in the pocket. Couldn't run worth a shit either. One of my least favorite Wolverine QB's in recent memory. I'm still puzzled by his success in the NFL given what we saw from him in the Blue and Maize.

Thanks for helping to make my point. Sometimes more than just a few snaps are what it takes to bring out the greatness in a talented athlete. I still think Mertens is the perfect Bison example. Had he started 2008 with some level of confidence, I think the next two years would have been so much better. Combine his lack of confidence with no options behind him and it was a recipe for disaster. Conversely, if Mertens was so bad as you say, perhaps some real game time as a backup would have made that obvious and they would have recruited differently in '06/'07 or perhaps we would have looked at developing Parsons instead. Hell, maybe Esleys not even the real #2 right now. We have a couple of other highly recruited QB's. How the hell are you going to know until the shit is real. I think Mertens is a clear example either way you look at it.

Admittedly, my perspective is not as refined as most of the great football minds of BV.

What if your backup QB goes in there and loses a game for you? You go through the rest of the season, and the starting QB never gets hurt. You miss the playoffs because you had one too many losses. I guess you know what you have as your backup, but it cost you a season that could've been successful if you would've just stuck with your starting QB. Was that really worth the risk? How does that build the confidence of your backup or anyone on the team?

[56BISON73]

I understand the concern some have about the back up getting some reps. But can anyone show me a team that pulled their QB to get some reps in a meaningful part of the game? It doesnt happen. Even when a team has a lead they leave the starters in to give them more reps and get in a groove when the going is good. Only until the game is well in hand do the back ups come in.

Getting Mertens extra snaps wouldnt have helped him. He tore it up in practice but couldnt put it together in a game.

[KSBisonFan]

As a huge Michigan fan, I hated Tom Brady when he was at the helm. The dude was clueless and had absolutely no poise in the pocket. Couldn't run worth a shit either. One of my least favorite Wolverine QB's in recent memory. I'm still puzzled by his success in the NFL given what we saw from him in the Blue and Maize.

Thanks for helping to make my point. Sometimes more than just a few snaps are what it takes to bring out the greatness in a talented athlete. I still think Mertens is the perfect Bison example. Had he started 2008 with some level of confidence, I think the next two years would have been so much better. Combine his lack of confidence with no options behind him and it was a recipe for disaster. Conversely, if Mertens was so bad as you say, perhaps some real game time as a backup would have made that obvious and they would have recruited differently in '06/'07 or perhaps we would have looked at developing Parsons instead. Hell, maybe Esleys not even the real #2 right now. We have a couple of other highly recruited QB's. How the hell are you going to know until the shit is real. I think Mertens is a clear example either way you look at it.

Admittedly, my perspective is not as refined as most of the great football minds of BV.

My question is: What the hell happened to your avatar? Where's the cheerleader with her ankle behind her head? "Exempli gratia", very dissapointing.

[X-Factor]

You think that we struggled at the QB position because Nick Mertens didn't get enough snaps as the backup? What was the story the second year he was the starter?

I was there the day Steve Walker played in his first game ever, he had never had a snap before that day IIRC. His lack of experience meant nothing on that day.

Thank you for posting this! Why people continue to pull the Mertens card is beyond me. Are people that myopic to actually believe it all could have been prevented with a "few extra snaps"? LMFAO

[56BISON73]

You think that we struggled at the QB position because Nick Mertens didn't get enough snaps as the backup? What was the story the second year he was the starter?

I was there the day Steve Walker played in his first game ever, he had never had a snap before that day IIRC. His lack of experience meant nothing on that day.

Exactly. Some players can step up. Others cant. You can also try to groom a player--but for how long? Some players just cant be effective at the next level. Most you will find on the bench. Some actually make it to the field because there isnt any other option.

[OrygunBison]

Exactly. Some players can step up. Others cant. You can also try to groom a player--but for how long? Some players just cant be effective at the next level. Most you will find on the bench. Some actually make it to the field because there isnt any other option.

So you're saying it is better to not know what he was capable of until gametime when it mattered most? Even with your logic, it seems that at worst, some meaningful game time reps would have helped coaches understand the dim future with him at the helm. As you say, he was tearing it up in practice so who knew? We had all our eggs in that basket. Obviously, there was a recruiting failure at play as well but with a little foresight, that could have been corrected.

Personally, I think Mertens had it in him if he'd have had better development in his first two years but I understand that that is a very unpopular opinion here at BV...and I'm all about winning popularity contests. Using someone else' example of Tom Brady, it took 4 years for him to develop into anything that was worth a damn. How'd that work out?

Again, I'm not saying to fuck up the flow and rhythm of the game. Just get something started and see if it can be expanded. Brock should still be getting 90% of the snaps, maybe more. Maybe less in the case of a St. Francis type game. Just get the #2 in there. Hell, if nothing else, I'd love to see something - anything - different come out of Vigen.

[OrygunBison]

My question is: What the hell happened to your avatar? Where's the cheerleader with her ankle behind her head? "Exempli gratia", very dissapointing.

Sorry, I was tired of that pic. My new one doesn't seem to transfer very well as a small avatar. "MIND THE GAP" from the London Underground. Maybe I'll take a picture of my wife's panties with the same phrase on them...not with her in them, of course...

[KSBisonFan]

So you're saying it is better to not know what he was capable of until gametime when it mattered most? Even with your logic, it seems that at worst, some meaningful game time reps would have helped coaches understand the dim future with him at the helm. As you say, he was tearing it up in practice so who knew? We had all our eggs in that basket. Obviously, there was a recruiting failure at play as well but with a little foresight, that could have been corrected.

Personally, I think Mertens had it in him if he'd have had better development in his first two years but I understand that that is a very unpopular opinion here at BV...and I'm all about winning popularity contests. Using someone else' example of Tom Brady, it took 4 years for him to develop into anything that was worth a damn. How'd that work out?

Again, I'm not saying to fuck up the flow and rhythm of the game. Just get something started and see if it can be expanded. Brock should still be getting 90% of the snaps, maybe more. Maybe less in the case of a St. Francis type game. Just get the #2 in there. Hell, if nothing else, I'd love to see something - anything - different come out of Vigen.

Can Vigen change your avatar back to the cheerleader with her ankle behind her head? If he can I'll stop being negative toward him. Go Vigen!

[56BISON73]

So you're saying it is better to not know what he was capable of until gametime when it mattered most? Even with your logic, it seems that at worst, some meaningful game time reps would have helped coaches understand the dim future with him at the helm. As you say, he was tearing it up in practice so who knew? We had all our eggs in that basket. Obviously, there was a recruiting failure at play as well but with a little foresight, that could have been corrected.

Personally, I think Mertens had it in him if he'd have had better development in his first two years but I understand that that is a very unpopular opinion here at BV...and I'm all about winning popularity contests. Using someone else' example of Tom Brady, it took 4 years for him to develop into anything that was worth a damn. How'd that work out?

Again, I'm not saying to fuck up the flow and rhythm of the game. Just get something started and see if it can be expanded. Brock should still be getting 90% of the snaps, maybe more. Maybe less in the case of a St. Francis type game. Just get the #2 in there. Hell, if nothing else, I'd love to see something - anything - different come out of Vigen.

Do you also think that all the 2s need to get in meaningful reps? Is there any team that you know of that puts the #2 in just to give him reps? I do understand what you are thinking and you would think that would be conventional wisdom. But for what ever reason its not in the football world except for the pros in the exhibition season.
There are hundreds of players who when called upon step up when the #1 goes down and they havent gotten meaningful game reps. Its called preparation.

[bisontown]

Maybe we should have put Mertens in with 25 sec. left against Sam Houston, then we would know what he was capable of. Haha, or not, this might be the most idiotic topic I have heard on here yet. You wonder why no one else does this? How you don't think we should follow the lead of others and do things our own way?

Well maybe the reason nobody else does this is it moronic. Somebody else said it best. Try to win today, prepare the backups to win next year or the year after. If they have to play this year, hopefully their preparation helps them win now. You will never see backup QB's get meaningful reps in a close game, unless that team is out of the playoff hunt or both QB's are even as far as level of play.

[tcbison]

All I can say to this thread is :facepalm::facepalm::facepalm:.

[OrygunBison]

As near as I can tell, the Bison give reps to the #2 for every position other than QB, P, and K. That is a LOT more than most teams, it seems. That's been working out pretty darn well for us. So far, I haven't seen an argument for not doing it for the QB other than "nobody else does it" with the wisdom being that it absolutely MUST be a one-size-fits-all kinda thing. That may be correct but I just don't see the harm in getting meaningful reps in a way that is calculated and planned for.

Using examples like bisontown did of the SHSU game in '07 just isn't productive. Of course, we wouldn't have done that. Perhaps that's a game that you don't play #2. Perhaps you do as a change of pace. Who knows?

As far as the stupidity that some of you see in this discussion, just don't participate if you don't like it. Some people might actually be interested...well, maybe not. Point is, why don't you go visit another thread about scheduling UND or UND's nickname or whatever. There's literally 100's of pages of that shit. Rather than bitch about this thread, why not just masturbate over your keyboard in one of those threads. At least I'm trying to have a conversation that is at least somewhat meaningful to Bison Football and which I'm actually curious about.

[56BISON73]

As near as I can tell, the Bison give reps to the #2 for every position other than QB, P, and K. That is a LOT more than most teams, it seems. That's been working out pretty darn well for us. So far, I haven't seen an argument for not doing it for the QB other than "nobody else does it" with the wisdom being that it absolutely MUST be a one-size-fits-all kinda thing. That may be correct but I just don't see the harm in getting meaningful reps in a way that is calculated and planned for.

Using examples like bisontown did of the SHSU game in '07 just isn't productive. Of course, we wouldn't have done that. Perhaps that's a game that you don't play #2. Perhaps you do as a change of pace. Who knows?

As far as the stupidity that some of you see in this discussion, just don't participate if you don't like it. Some people might actually be interested...well, maybe not. Point is, why don't you go visit another thread about scheduling UND or UND's nickname or whatever. There's literally 100's of pages of that shit. Rather than bitch about this thread, why not just masturbate over your keyboard in one of those threads. At least I'm trying to have a conversation that is at least somewhat meaningful to Bison Football and which I'm actually curious about.

You bring up some interesting points-questions. I really dont have a definitive answer for you on the QB thing. The reason the some of the backups get to play is regularly is a thing called situational football. We substitute alot depending of the situation at the time. This goes for the O and the D. Other teams dont substitute at all. In that regard its not that the back ups get time because they want them to get more reps, its predicated on the games situation at the time.

[Bison06]

As near as I can tell, the Bison give reps to the #2 for every position other than QB, P, and K. That is a LOT more than most teams, it seems. That's been working out pretty darn well for us. So far, I haven't seen an argument for not doing it for the QB other than "nobody else does it" with the wisdom being that it absolutely MUST be a one-size-fits-all kinda thing. That may be correct but I just don't see the harm in getting meaningful reps in a way that is calculated and planned for.

Using examples like bisontown did of the SHSU game in '07 just isn't productive. Of course, we wouldn't have done that. Perhaps that's a game that you don't play #2. Perhaps you do as a change of pace. Who knows?

As far as the stupidity that some of you see in this discussion, just don't participate if you don't like it. Some people might actually be interested...well, maybe not. Point is, why don't you go visit another thread about scheduling UND or UND's nickname or whatever. There's literally 100's of pages of that shit. Rather than bitch about this thread, why not just masturbate over your keyboard in one of those threads. At least I'm trying to have a conversation that is at least somewhat meaningful to Bison Football and which I'm actually curious about.


I think there have been many well thought out arguments/reasons why playing the backup isn't a good idea, it seems you have chosen to ignore them.

The reason I think the QB position is "special" along with K, P and longsnapper in that it isn't wise to play the backup unless necessary is how important they are to each and every play. The QB touches the ball on 99.9% of snaps, they have a rhythm in the game, they have a familiarity with the center and the flow of everything. Taking that away to get the backup some reps is unnecessary at best and reckless at worst.

Some things in football, I agree, are done mindlessly because that is the way it has always been done so we'll do it that way. Other things are "conventional wisdom" because they actually make sense. As is the case here.

There is an old saying that Vince Lombardi lived by that I think is very true, "most games are won and lost on 5-7 plays, the only problem is you don't know which plays they are, so you have to give it your best on every single one". To take that a step further, you have to put your best player at that position on the field at every opportunity to win a football game. Putting in a backup just to get him some reps in a tight football game, which is what it would have to be to get "meaningful" reps is not giving you the best chance to win.

This is why I think it is a bad decision to play the backup just to get him some reps.

[OrygunBison]

You bring up some interesting points-questions. I really dont have a definitive answer for you on the QB thing. The reason the some of the backups get to play is regularly is a thing called situational football. We substitute alot depending of the situation at the time. This goes for the O and the D. Other teams dont substitute at all. In that regard its not that the back ups get time because they want them to get more reps, its predicated on the games situation at the time.

Yeah, I get the situational thing. I've seen the same thing with some QB's. Leak/Tebow obviously come to mind. In general, I've always been against the 2 QB system and am certainly not remotely suggesting it here. Just wondering if there was a way to get meaningful game time experience.

There are a couple of coaches that are really challenging the norm of college football. Out here, we have Chip Kelly. (I know some of you guys hate all of my Duck references but it is what I see the most.) Chip's focus on O has been to increase the tempo. He treats the QB more like a point guard in basketball. It has been very successful. He also goes for it on 4th down probably 50% of the time and 2-pt conversions in almost every game for no apparent reason. Essentially, he likes to keep the defense guessing and to create an environment where they need to guess right in a diminished timeframe.

I'm not saying that we channel any of Chip's teachings. Only pointing out that just because no one else is doing it, doesn't mean that it shouldn't be done. The game evolves. Somebody needs to be first in everything. In general successful FCS don't seem to run pro set style offenses. We do and we just won a mf'ing title bucking the trend of those around us.

One thing that I also think about is recruiting and player retention. Who was that guy that was behind Mertens/Parsons that left the program? He was a decent QB, right? If even the #2 never sees the field, how do you expect to keep backfilling behind him? Kids these days expect to see the field these days. I feel like some of that contributed to our lack of QB recruiting success and having no options behind NM.

[OrygunBison]

Taking that away to get the backup some reps is unnecessary at best and reckless at worst.

This statement is fundamental to your argument. I don't agree that it has to be true. My entire point has been that there must be a way to accomplish both objectives in a way that does not sacrifice competitiveness.

If you so adamantly disagree, it must be because you feel that ANY risk out of the norm would not be wise in football. Take away that Colton Heagle fumble-pitch to MWill on the last play of the first half of the Gophers game. Take the fake punt away in the NC game. Or a dozen or more times that our secondary took a chance for an int rather than a safe hit/tackle.

You don't win games and national championships by being timid and safe. You win them by being calculated in every risk that you take on the field and by executing flawlessly. If you don't have the personnel to do something, then don't. We DO have the personnel to do this.

[Bison06]

This statement is fundamental to your argument. I don't agree that it has to be true. My entire point has been that there must be a way to accomplish both objectives in a way that does not sacrifice competitiveness.

If you so adamantly disagree, it must be because you feel that ANY risk out of the norm would not be wise in football. Take away that Colton Heagle fumble-pitch to MWill on the last play of the first half of the Gophers game. Take the fake punt away in the NC game. Or a dozen or more times that our secondary took a chance for an int rather than a safe hit/tackle.

You don't win games and national championships by being timid and safe. You win them by being calculated in every risk that you take on the field and by executing flawlessly. If you don't have the personnel to do something, then don't. We DO have the personnel to do this.

I haven't said that and I wouldn't say that is my football style at all. I am speaking about this particular situation and I feel the benefits are outweighed by the risks is all.

I said this in an earlier post and it seems you have passed over commenting on it, but you are discounting what taking the starter out does to his confidence and rhythm. What is your take on that?

Edit: Also, how can you say we have the personnel to do this when our backup is unproven?

[OrygunBison]

I haven't said that and I wouldn't say that is my football style at all. I am speaking about this particular situation and I feel the benefits are outweighed by the risks is all.

I said this in an earlier post and it seems you have passed over commenting on it, but you are discounting what taking the starter out does to his confidence and rhythm. What is your take on that?

Edit: Also, how can you say we have the personnel to do this when our backup is unproven?

Your two questions:

#1 - I've never bought into the confidence thing if you're being clear that your starter hasn't changed. I think it is more of a rhythm thing that I'd be concerned with. That's why it would have to be particularly calculated, like following a long offensive drive or perhaps a 3-and-out stand by the defense. I think you'd want to be flexible and pull the plug if you're feeling the momentum might be at risk. I also think that you could open up the playbook a bit by doing this. No 2 QB's are the same so find a way to get something different out of it...maybe. See if it can be an advantage rather than a burden. If you work for two or three games to feather it into the gameplan, it won't be an issue after that.

#2 - The backup is virtually the only part of the equation that is unproven. We have the personnel surrounding him to have a very smooth transition. Our supporting personnel are stellar. (Provided that we backfill well on the OL.)

I think the flaw in this is the OC. I'm sure he'd only call running plays and QB draws...plays where the QB doesn't have to be the field general, as it were. This would be almost fruitless.

Perhaps it's a dumb idea. I just still haven't seen a compelling reason against it yet. We've all seen disastrous results of a 2 QB system where the coach was trying to figure out who the starter was going to be. Rhythm and confidence are really shaky in that context. We wouldn't have the same dynamic at play here.

[Bison06]

Your two questions:

#1 - I've never bought into the confidence thing if you're being clear that your starter hasn't changed. I think it is more of a rhythm thing that I'd be concerned with. That's why it would have to be particularly calculated, like following a long offensive drive or perhaps a 3-and-out stand by the defense. I think you'd want to be flexible and pull the plug if you're feeling the momentum might be at risk. I also think that you could open up the playbook a bit by doing this. No 2 QB's are the same so find a way to get something different out of it...maybe. See if it can be an advantage rather than a burden. If you work for two or three games to feather it into the gameplan, it won't be an issue after that.

#2 - The backup is virtually the only part of the equation that is unproven. We have the personnel surrounding him to have a very smooth transition. Our supporting personnel are stellar. (Provided that we backfill well on the OL.)

I think the flaw in this is the OC. I'm sure he'd only call running plays and QB draws...plays where the QB doesn't have to be the field general, as it were. This would be almost fruitless.

Perhaps it's a dumb idea. I just still haven't seen a compelling reason against it yet. We've all seen disastrous results of a 2 QB system where the coach was trying to figure out who the starter was going to be. Rhythm and confidence are really shaky in that context. We wouldn't have the same dynamic at play here.

I guess it's just a difference in the way you and I think about the game of football.

I like getting the backup reps in practice, which by the way would have been against the best defense in the nation on Tuesday afternoons, and during mop up time. As a coach if you can't make an definitive evaluation of a player in those two settings you shouldn't have the job. The starter needs reps to get better each day and each game too to develop his skills. I think if you start implementing this "philosophy" eventually you will see a starter who has 200 less reps throughout the season and that may have an unwanted effect on his game.

It's a slippery slope and I think in this case, conventional wisdom has merit.

[Bison06]

Your two questions:

#1 - I've never bought into the confidence thing if you're being clear that your starter hasn't changed. I think it is more of a rhythm thing that I'd be concerned with. That's why it would have to be particularly calculated, like following a long offensive drive or perhaps a 3-and-out stand by the defense. I think you'd want to be flexible and pull the plug if you're feeling the momentum might be at risk. I also think that you could open up the playbook a bit by doing this. No 2 QB's are the same so find a way to get something different out of it...maybe. See if it can be an advantage rather than a burden. If you work for two or three games to feather it into the gameplan, it won't be an issue after that.

#2 - The backup is virtually the only part of the equation that is unproven. We have the personnel surrounding him to have a very smooth transition. Our supporting personnel are stellar. (Provided that we backfill well on the OL.)

I think the flaw in this is the OC. I'm sure he'd only call running plays and QB draws...plays where the QB doesn't have to be the field general, as it were. This would be almost fruitless.

Perhaps it's a dumb idea. I just still haven't seen a compelling reason against it yet. We've all seen disastrous results of a 2 QB system where the coach was trying to figure out who the starter was going to be. Rhythm and confidence are really shaky in that context. We wouldn't have the same dynamic at play here.

This is not something to take lightly, momentum is fickle and fleeting, and in football is nearly everything in a game. By the time you start to feel it slipping away it is could be too late to regain it. Weird things happen in football games and a coach will never risk losing a game because he wants to get the backup some reps.

[CAS4127]

This is not something to take lightly, momentum is fickle and fleeting, and in football is nearly everything in a game. By the time you start to feel it slipping away it is could be too late to regain it. Weird things happen in football games and a coach will never risk losing a game because he wants to get the backup some reps.

This thread and resulting discussion is like a bad Soap Opera-->you can tune in once every few days, and very little has changed or occured.

[Bison06]

This thread and resulting discussion is like a bad Soap Opera-->you can tune in once every few days, and very little has changed or occured.

That's a pretty accurate description of every thread on Bisonville in March.

[OrygunBison]

This thread and resulting discussion is like a bad Soap Opera-->you can tune in once every few days, and very little has changed or occured.

Vigen changed my avatar. Does that count?

[KSBisonFan]

Vigen changed my avatar. Does that count?

That's the kind of change we need around here.....even better than the cheerleader. I'm on the Vigen bandwagon starting.......now.

[bisonboone11]

Given as little gametime experience as Mertens had prior to becoming the starter and what became of two seasons of Bison football as a result, I'm stunned that any Bison fan would argue that we should not be forcing the effort in getting reps to the #2. Good lord, you guys have a short memory. As great as our season was last year, that thought has permeated throughout for me. If Brock goes down, we're screwed, at least for a few series...which can easily be the difference in a game/season in the MVFC. Talent is only one ingredient to building a successful QB.

Just get him in for at least one series every half, regardless of what is going on. Work it into the game plan. It'll mess with the defenses that we're facing anyway because they'll have to scheme for a change in pace. Esley has the talent to do it. Just get him in. Do it in the first and third quarter if you don't want it to be at a crucial time relative to the clock. Just make it happen.

In no way am I saying that Brock's not our guy. The dude has been awesome.

I think you said it best yourself in the bolded font. It doesn't take much to lose a game/season in the MVFC. So why would you choose to take this chance when you may very well get through the season without having to take that chance? You admitted that it's risky to have a #2 QB come in the game, so why would you purposely take that chance? If you don't trust your #2 QB enough for him to fill in if the starter gets injured, you need to find a new #2.

[OrygunBison]

I think you said it best yourself in the bolded font. It doesn't take much to lose a game/season in the MVFC. So why would you choose to take this chance when you may very well get through the season without having to take that chance? You admitted that it's risky to have a #2 QB come in the game, so why would you purposely take that chance? If you don't trust your #2 QB enough for him to fill in if the starter gets injured, you need to find a new #2.

You again make my point. I'd like it to happen in a way that we can control it, in the setting that we chose rather than in the middle of the fray when the game may be on the line. This is the entire point.

[bisonboone11]

You again make my point. I'd like it to happen in a way that we can control it, in the setting that we chose rather than in the middle of the fray when the game may be on the line. This is the entire point.

The way we control it is in practice and in blowouts. As you said, it doesn't take much to lose a game/season in the MVFC. One play could cost us the entire season in the competitive MVFC. The problem is, that play can occur at any point in the game. Why choose to take the risk when it may never be necessary?

The best way that I can think of to explain this is the car accident analogy. Why don't you go crash your car and test out the safety system? At least you would know it's coming, so you would be the one controlling it. That way, if you get in an accident later when you aren't in control of it, you'll have an idea of how safe you'll be. Sure, you may break your neck in your "controlled" test, but it must be worth it, right?

[bisonboone11]

You again make my point. I'd like it to happen in a way that we can control it, in the setting that we chose rather than in the middle of the fray when the game may be on the line. This is the entire point.

I think we should find out where all of this is stemming from. I believe it stems from one of two things: 1) You were a backup in high school or junior high and felt you deserved more playing time than you got; and/or 2) Your children now are backups and they deserve more playing time and this would be your solution to get you or your children more playing time.

[CAS4127]

Vigen changed my avatar. Does that count?


That's the kind of change we need around here.....even better than the cheerleader. I'm on the Vigen bandwagon starting.......now.

Now we are getting somewhere. Changer your avatar as you suggest changing QB's and all will be right with the world!!

[OrygunBison]

I think we should find out where all of this is stemming from. I believe it stems from one of two things: 1) You were a backup in high school or junior high and felt you deserved more playing time than you got; and/or 2) Your children now are backups and they deserve more playing time and this would be your solution to get you or your children more playing time.

I love it how people have to be so be so un-civil when they disagree with someone in our current society. Real productive.

[Bison06]

I love it how people have to be so be so un-civil when they disagree with someone in our current society. Real productive.

I just keep disagreeing with you so I can see your avatar again :)

[NorthernBison]

I love it how people have to be so be so un-civil when they disagree with someone in our current society. Real productive.

That was quite the cheap shot. I admire your composure.

[BlueBisonRock]

I just keep disagreeing with you so I can see your avatar again :)

I'm with Orgyun on this one. For the same end reason as you.

How about putting the original into the Bikini thread OB?

[OrygunBison]

I'm with Orgyun on this one. For the same end reason as you.

How about putting the original into the Bikini thread OB?

It's actually in there somewhere. I really don't offer anything original very often. You know that.

[BlueBisonRock]

It's actually in there somewhere. I really don't offer anything original very often. You know that.

That may be. However, you do have the talent to get some thick, opinionated, and pissed off individuals to take the bait. (Case in point: Griz vs. SHSU).

Original or not, I will now go through the entire thread looking for that shot.

Just here for the finer things in life.

[Grizzled]

Heard we had some off season minors and a fight amongst a couple teammates this offseason.

[tjbison]

Heard we had some off season minors and a fight amongst a couple teammates this offseason.

Oh god here we go

[Bison06]

Heard we had some off season minors and a fight amongst a couple teammates this offseason.

Minors are news I suppose, but unless someone was hurt badly during this fight that is a non issue for me.

[bisonboone11]

I love it how people have to be so be so un-civil when they disagree with someone in our current society. Real productive.

Check out page 4 of this thread. "Admit it. You were dropped on your head as a little one, right?"... I didn't begin being un-civil until long after you began. However, I do apologize for coming down to your level. I was simply trying to figure out what is the basis of your illogical argument. But again, I apologize for dropping down to your level. You can have your opinion, and everyone else can have theirs.

[BisonNeil]

Heard we had some off season minors and a fight amongst a couple teammates this offseason.

Haven't heard about the MIPs. The only fight I heard about was the one AJ got into when he was drunk, putting the moves on a woman and her boyfriend roughed him up and put him in the hospital. I don't think that was a teammate though, but I could be wrong.

[344Johnson]

Heard we had some off season minors and a fight amongst a couple teammates this offseason.

I have a class with some players. I heard them talking a bit about a fight and I think it resulted in a broke nose or something. I think they were drunk which would make sense.

Also, minors..I wont cry over players getting those unless they are getting 2 or 3.

[EndZoneQB]

Haven't heard about the MIPs. The only fight I heard about was the one AJ got into when he was drunk, putting the moves on a woman and her boyfriend roughed him up and put him in the hospital. I don't think that was a teammate though, but I could be wrong.

Who is AJ?

Where was the team?? Gotta travel together! lol

[344Johnson]

Who is AJ?

Where was the team?? Gotta travel together! lol

That could have resulted in several ballplayers pounding the piss out of a guy. That would be bad news..

[EndZoneQB]

That could have resulted in several ballplayers pounding the piss out of a guy. That would be bad news..

Generally, that means no one touches anyone else. One guy isn't going to start a fight knowing 20 other guys are going to be right behind. Plus, then your teammates can also talk you off the ledge(like quite trying to steal someones GF, get your own).

[MNLonghorn10]

nobody knows who aj is..?

[steelbison]

I think the #2 should get a series, or perhaps two, in the game. He can go three and out as well and as easily as Jensen can and throw a sideline pass to Holloway as well. So, you seriously have no problem with having a #2 who is as inexperienced as Esley is? As tough as SHSU defense was, when Esley came in for Jensen there was no way anyone knew if Brock could come back. The O really struggled with their D, it was only going to be worse with a QB who hadn't played since the second game of the season. I guess if you are comfortable with that, good for you.


BN sure the back-up could go three and out. But he could throw a pick six as well. Why would you risk losing a game to get a guy meaningful snaps? I don't get it.

Is this just a QB thing or should we bench M Will a few series as well to get his back up some meaningful snaps.

I'll be honest. This opinion of back-ups getting playing time with the game on the line is beyond idiotic. Thank god your not coaching this team

[Bison06]

BN sure the back-up could go three and out. But he could throw a pick six as well. Why would you risk losing a game to get a guy meaningful snaps? I don't get it.

Is this just a QB thing or should we bench M Will a few series as well to get his back up some meaningful snaps.

I'll be honest. This opinion of back-ups getting playing time with the game on the line is beyond idiotic. Thank god your not coaching this team

Agreed 100%.

Let's take you off the job for a week or two and bring in a new guy. That way in case you leave we will have someone who we know can already do your job.

That big sales meeting you have next week that could make or break our company. We are going to send the new guy, just so we know if he can do it when you leave.

[OrygunBison]

I'm not sure why you guys are so pissy about it. You behave as if a NC could not have been won if a single variable would have been different. I am 100% positive that if we'd have lost the game to SHSU because Brock could not come back, you'd all be piling on about this point. That is the BV way. Hindsight is easy. Planning ahead, you need to be able to see all the liabilities and provide contingencies for them. You say that the point is idiotic but I think it is just absolutely crazy to not even remotely consider it given our recent QB challenges. Man, you guys have a short memory.

[tcbison]

I'm not sure why you guys are so pissy about it. You behave as if a NC could not have been won if a single variable would have been different. I am 100% positive that if we'd have lost the game to SHSU because Brock could not come back, you'd all be piling on about this point. That is the BV way. Hindsight is easy. Planning ahead, you need to be able to see all the liabilities and provide contingencies for them. You say that the point is idiotic but I think it is just absolutely crazy to not even remotely consider it given our recent QB challenges. Man, you guys have a short memory.

I guess to me the QB position is just too important to let a backup play that won't be starting for 3 years(or play due to an injury). Also, say they pull Brock Jensen for a series, what kind of message does that send to your starting QB who is the leader of your team. I can just see the conversation. Brock we are going to pull you even though you are completing 70% of your passes and haven't had a turnover in 3 games so we can play a backup QB just in case you get hurt or to plan for when you will be gone 3 years later. Now other positions I think you can sub more because fatigue becomes a factor like DL or LB. A position like QB I don't think fatigue becomes a factor at all. It is kinda like pulling Jastram this year to give a backup K a shot at a FG when Jastram has only missed 2 FG all year! That would just be stupid.

Back to Mertens because you brought him up a few times. I honestly believe he didn't have IT. Granted I do think the coaches made a mistake but I don't think it was because he didn't play enough before he got the starting job. I think the mistake was not having a backup behind him and telling him he couldn't scramble because he could get hurt. That is where the coaches screwed up IMHO. The problem with Merten's was he never got better and started for 2 years. I wish I could find the quote, when Mertens threw his OL under the bus saying he was not getting enough time to throw and was on his back a lot. I believe it was after his first year starting. That to me told me that Merten's was not a leader of the football team which the QB has to be.

[OrygunBison]

Back to Mertens because you brought him up a few times. I honestly believe he didn't have IT. Granted I do think the coaches made a mistake but I don't think it was because he didn't play enough before he got the starting job. I think the mistake was not having a backup behind him and telling him he couldn't scramble because he could get hurt. That is where the coaches screwed up IMHO. The problem with Merten's was he never got better and started for 2 years. I wish I could find the quote, when Mertens threw his OL under the bus saying he was not getting enough time to throw and was on his back a lot. I believe it was after his first year starting. That to me told me that Merten's was not a leader of the football team which the QB has to be.

Based on your (and many other BV'ers) opinion on his talent - or lack thereof - this is just another situation where some playing time would have uncovered gross weakness in his abilities and our recruiting strategy could have been modified at a greater pace the year or two before he was our only option. Honestly, to me, Mertens is a perfect example no matter how you look at it.

As far as your statements about messing with our leader's confidence, I just don't think that'll be an issue with Brock. The dude has IT and he's not going to lose IT because the coaches have a real conversation with him about mentoring and making a little space. Brock's a team player, very confident in his own abilities and wise to the needs of the team.

Again, it is not as if I'm saying to squeeze it in regardless of the scenario on the field, just to find common-sense opportunities to get #2 some meaningful time. I disagree that confidence and/or rhythm are reasons holding us back given who our #1 is at the current time. We have almost the perfect situation to make this happen.

[tcbison]

Based on your (and many other BV'ers) opinion on his talent - or lack thereof - this is just another situation where some playing time would have uncovered gross weakness in his abilities and our recruiting strategy could have been modified at a greater pace the year or two before he was our only option. Honestly, to me, Mertens is a perfect example no matter how you look at it.

As far as your statements about messing with our leader's confidence, I just don't think that'll be an issue with Brock. The dude has IT and he's not going to lose IT because the coaches have a real conversation with him about mentoring and making a little space. Brock's a team player, very confident in his own abilities and wise to the needs of the team.

Again, it is not as if I'm saying to squeeze it in regardless of the scenario on the field, just to find common-sense opportunities to get #2 some meaningful time. I disagree that confidence and/or rhythm are reasons holding us back given who our #1 is at the current time. We have almost the perfect situation to make this happen.

OK, so more playing time would have for sure make Mertens better? Are you 100% sure of that? So how come he didn't get better after starting for 2 full years? And to say Merten's never got playing time before he started is inaccurate. He played the whole second half against Mississippi Valley State. The backup to Merten's was a problem when Parsons didn't come back and Brekke transferred which left us dangerously thin at QB. Remember during the spring game where Merten's was on both the Green and the Gold team?

I just don't understand when and where you take out a starting QB like Walker or Jensen to "make a little space" for a backup QB. Give me some examples of what game and when you would do this? Pick a game and let me know.

Honestly, I think LSU is a perfect example. They had a stud QB with Jamarcus Russel. He went to the NFL and Matt Flynn got to start only 1 year. Guess what they did that year? Won the National Championship. What the hell? How did that happen? That flies in the face of your whole argument.

[tcbison]

As far as your avatar goes, can you change it to Amanda Pflugrad? That would be my vote.

[OrygunBison]

OK, so more playing time would have for sure make Mertens better? Are you 100% sure of that? So how come he didn't get better after starting for 2 full years?

Good lord, some of you guys only read part of a post before you respond.

[TransAmBison]

Good lord, some of you guys only read part of a post before you respond.
They are going green! By not reading the whole post they are conserving energy! Don't you have some chickens to feed? :D

[OrygunBison]

They are going green! By not reading the whole post they are conserving energy! Don't you have some chickens to feed? :D

The last of those birds is in my freezer. We've eaten the other ones. Best damn organic, free range chicken EVER. We massaged them daily for the last two weeks before we lopped their little heads off. What a peaceful, then sudden, way to meet your maker.

Sleep well, my little poultry buddies.

[BisonNeil]

nobody knows who aj is..?

Sorry, the news spot was about AJ Van Voorhis.

[VanClubPres]

I love BV. Two years and a National Championship later, threads still derail to Mertens. :)

[WYOBISONMAN]

I love BV. Two years and a National Championship later, threads still derail to Mertens. :)

Because it was like watching a horrid train wreck......perhaps the worst one you see in your entire life.....and you don't forget those type of events.

[herdmember]

Last year's senior class was phenomenal, and it's obviously a no brainer better class than the 2012 senior class will be.

On second glance, I think the 2012 senior class may be better than I initially thought, however. According to the Gobison roster, there are only 9 seniors next year, compared to 18 last year. When you glance over next year's senior class, there isn't the exciting superstar since there is only one lock/probable starter (Lund) and another guy that has started alot in his career and may this year. (Jemison - although my guess to start are Olson, Littlejohn, Beck) The interesting thing about the 2012 senior class is every player has at least played some important minutes.

Here is the list of next year's seniors according to GoBison:
Beckius (has started in important games), Boyd (special teams and possibly in corner rotation next year), Bruhn (played alot), Buehner (played at backup FB and I believe special teams?), Gion (very good special teams player prior to injury), Hagen (has played on the D line), Lund (starter on O line), Jemison (had started alot, very good on special teams), Ollman (filled in nicely when needed with some big plays including the interception return for a TD vs Illinois State).

In summary, next year's senior class is never going to go down as a great class. My only point is due to all of the seniors having at least played some important minutes, the class is better than you may think at first look. Will any of these guys make the leap in their senior year to being dominant players?

[BadlandsBison]

Sounds like the fullback Buehner won't be back unfortunately. He plans to graduate. Lots of freshman FBs this year though. We need one to step up.

[DjKyRo]

Sounds like the fullback Buehner won't be back unfortunately. He plans to graduate. Lots of freshman FBs this year though. We need one to step up.

Pouring one out for #31.

[tony]

Sounds like the fullback Buehner won't be back unfortunately. He plans to graduate. Lots of freshman FBs this year though. We need one to step up.

Great to hear that he's graduating in four... that's quite an accomplishment for a DI athlete.

[DjKyRo]

Now taking all bets on who will lead the team in tackles for 2012. Odds-on favorite is Heagle.

[Bison06]

Now taking all bets on who will lead the team in tackles for 2012. Odds-on favorite is Heagle.

Do you have a list of who the leading tacklers have been in years past?

[NorthernBison]

Now taking all bets on who will lead the team in tackles for 2012. Odds-on favorite is Heagle.

I hope you are wrong. Typically, a safety leading the team in tackles is a bad sign. In our league, the Linebackers should be at the top and usually are.

It does depend on whether you are talking total tackles or just solo tackles. We have had a safety in the top 4 of total tackles the past three years (Heagle, Eaves, and Belmont).

[KSBisonFan]

Now taking all bets on who will lead the team in tackles for 2012. Odds-on favorite is Heagle.

I'll take Beck with Heagle 2nd.

[BadlandsBison]

Great to hear that he's graduating in four... that's quite an accomplishment for a DI athlete.

Yeah still a positive exit for Amos. And he leaves with a ring :)

Sent from my SCH-I500 using Tapatalk

[X-Factor]

I hope you are wrong. Typically, a safety leading the team in tackles is a bad sign. In our league, the Linebackers should be at the top and usually are.

It does depend on whether you are talking total tackles or just solo tackles. We have had a safety in the top 4 of total tackles the past three years (Heagle, Eaves, and Belmont).

Im not so sure thats true. Craig Dahl comes to mind. He was near the top or at the top in tackles on some pretty amazing defenses.

Sent from my DROID BIONIC using Tapatalk

[BisonNeil]

Last year's senior class was phenomenal, and it's obviously a no brainer better class than the 2012 senior class will be.

On second glance, I think the 2012 senior class may be better than I initially thought, however. According to the Gobison roster, there are only 9 seniors next year, compared to 18 last year. When you glance over next year's senior class, there isn't the exciting superstar since there is only one lock/probable starter (Lund) and another guy that has started alot in his career and may this year. (Jemison - although my guess to start are Olson, Littlejohn, Beck) The interesting thing about the 2012 senior class is every player has at least played some important minutes.

Here is the list of next year's seniors according to GoBison:
Beckius (has started in important games), Boyd (special teams and possibly in corner rotation next year), Bruhn (played alot), Buehner (played at backup FB and I believe special teams?), Gion (very good special teams player prior to injury), Hagen (has played on the D line), Lund (starter on O line), Jemison (had started alot, very good on special teams), Ollman (filled in nicely when needed with some big plays including the interception return for a TD vs Illinois State).

In summary, next year's senior class is never going to go down as a great class. My only point is due to all of the seniors having at least played some important minutes, the class is better than you may think at first look. Will any of these guys make the leap in their senior year to being dominant players?

Although I am hesitant to pour rain on your parade let's keep one thing in mind here as you evaluate the "seniors".

The seniors that just played their last season signed in 2007. Other than JUCOs like Pike and Willson, the only other senior who was not recruited out of high school in that year was Preston Evans who had to play as a TFr.

As far at the ones you listed, only two were recruited out of high school and signed in 2008, Lund and Hagen. The rest are 2009 recruits or JUCOs such as Boyd. So, while you may not think they are a great class, let's keep in mind that some of these seniors were only in the system for four years, not five like it should be (as far as I am concerned). Bohl and his staff, because of some other very weak classes before 2007, had to trade most of next years seniors best year for their worst year. Sad, but true nonetheless.