Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 21 to 40 of 51

Thread: Returning QB's

  1. #21

    Default Re: Returning QB's

    I don't think we have a returning QB, but I think our starting QB could be playing wide receiver by week 5 or 6. At least that's been the trend for us the past few seasons.

  2. Default Re: Returning QB's

    Quote Originally Posted by IowaBearcat View Post
    UCM @ Hays week 1. Should be a good test.
    IMO, it's too bad a game this big is week 1. Two of the four teams that I think could make real noise within and without the conference this year and one will really feel way behind the 8 ball before Labor Day.

  3. #23
    Join Date
    Nov 2017
    Posts
    76
    Rep Power
    1872

    Default Re: Returning QB's

    Quote Originally Posted by Hornetfan View Post
    Braxton Marstall is a three year starter for ESU. Overall he's 18-7 as a starter for the Hornets and the only returning QB in the MIAA with a playoff win. And it wasn't a game manager type playoff win - he threw for 481 yards in the win against UMD in 2016. Plus he's got five of his top six receivers back from last year.
    Returning SR QB Marstall
    Returning SR RB Nault
    Returning SR WR Brown

    Emporia is going to be gooooooood on offense

  4. #24
    Join Date
    Aug 2017
    Location
    The Open Road
    Posts
    544
    Rep Power
    36396

    Default Re: Returning QB's

    Quote Originally Posted by Predatory Primates View Post
    Yeah NW looks stacked at RB. Do they return a lot of OL?
    That OL was..... well

  5. #25

    Default Re: Returning QB's

    Quote Originally Posted by EveryCatAWildman View Post
    Returning SR QB Marstall
    Returning SR RB Nault
    Returning SR WR Brown

    Emporia is going to be gooooooood on offense
    Also return SR s-back Denzel Strong, SR WR Jordan Reed, SR WR Jordan Jackson, SR WR Tyler Harris, 4th year JR RB Kai Callins...the skill positions are pretty loaded. O-Line will be young, with only two seniors neither of whom has started a game. They do have two really good junior tackles in Estevan Arana and Steve Williams that both have a lot of starting experience, but the rest will be young.

  6. Default

    Quote Originally Posted by catz54 View Post
    For NW (only team I know about this year)

    We aren't returning either kid that played last year. Who will start is the big question of the year. Whomever will have lots of support around him on the offensive side. One of either Wright, Kowalski, or Brannan. Wright and Brannan can both run. Apparently, the freshman QB from Illinois could make some noise, but i have never seen a True Freshman that could start for Northwest at QB and I don't think this year will be an exception.

    So instead of #FindAWay, this year’s hashtag should be #FindaQuarterback?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  7. #27

    Default Re: Returning QB's

    Quote Originally Posted by lleachieshusband View Post
    So instead of #FindAWay, this year’s hashtag should be #FindaQuarterback?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk
    Well I think we have talent, just have to settle on one. All of them are also young, which traditionally has been a struggle in the system. However today's game is different. Younger kids are learning more at a young age and have the ability to grasp concepts quicker. It's hard to quantify. It's not that kids are smarter now, it's just that more and more they are exposed to various concepts younger and come in so much more highly skilled.

    For instance, my high school when I was there ran basic power football with some passing. Lots of iso, QB lead and occasional counters. Now that same high school is incorporating zone read concepts with RPOs, option routes and allowing the QB to change the play at the line some. All of that was unheard of when I was in high school.

  8. #28

    Default Re: Returning QB's

    Quote Originally Posted by catz54 View Post
    Well I think we have talent, just have to settle on one. All of them are also young, which traditionally has been a struggle in the system. However today's game is different. Younger kids are learning more at a young age and have the ability to grasp concepts quicker. It's hard to quantify. It's not that kids are smarter now, it's just that more and more they are exposed to various concepts younger and come in so much more highly skilled.

    For instance, my high school when I was there ran basic power football with some passing. Lots of iso, QB lead and occasional counters. Now that same high school is incorporating zone read concepts with RPOs, option routes and allowing the QB to change the play at the line some. All of that was unheard of when I was in high school.
    When I was in high school it was leather helmets, no facemasks :)

  9. Default Re: Returning QB's

    Quote Originally Posted by IowaBearcat View Post
    UCM @ Hays week 1. Should be a good test.
    Absolutely! That first game will be a good indicator of how Central's season will go.

  10. #30
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    16,497
    Rep Power
    237518

    Default Re: Returning QB's

    Quote Originally Posted by UCMfootballdad View Post
    Absolutely! That first game will be a good indicator of how Central's season will go.
    Poor Central seems to have started with tough games the last 10 years straight or so. No MSSU or NSU in sight for you guys.

    It seems like you had the top 3 teams the first 3 games most of those years.
    Will the 'O' go?

  11. #31
    Join Date
    Oct 2011
    Location
    Lake of the Ozarks
    Posts
    1,057
    Rep Power
    44130

    Default Re: Returning QB's

    Quote Originally Posted by Peyton21dad View Post
    When I was in high school it was leather helmets, no facemasks :)
    Now, you are not that old! :) Me, on the other hand.

  12. #32

    Default Re: Returning QB's

    Quote Originally Posted by Predatory Primates View Post
    Poor Central seems to have started with tough games the last 10 years straight or so. No MSSU or NSU in sight for you guys.

    It seems like you had the top 3 teams the first 3 games most of those years.
    It's the problem of consolidating a ton of great programs in the same league.

  13. #33

    Default Re: Returning QB's

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon View Post
    It's the problem of consolidating a ton of great programs in the same league.
    But is it really a problem? Granted it means that some teams that are really good are going to miss the playoffs. There are going to be some really good 6-5, 5-6 teams since for every win for one team there has to be a loss for another.

    But I would rather have high quality football across the league with a couple of teams capable of winning a national championship and 3-4 teams that are good enough to make some noise in the playoffs (even though they won't all make it), 3-4 more that have the ability to knock anyone off and then maybe two crappers that get destroyed most weeks. It's more exciting (and I think would drive more traffic) than having one awesome team, 1-2 really good ones that provide a challenge to the top dog, 1-2 decent teams and seven terrible teams that the top five just beat on every week.

    But I'm also a guy that likes the silo schedule because you basically know what you are getting week in and week out. And you get a true champion and measuring stick of the league if everyone plays everyone and there is no BS about how a team was only good because of the schedule they played.

  14. #34

    Default Re: Returning QB's

    Quote Originally Posted by Hornetfan View Post
    But is it really a problem? Granted it means that some teams that are really good are going to miss the playoffs. There are going to be some really good 6-5, 5-6 teams since for every win for one team there has to be a loss for another.

    But I would rather have high quality football across the league with a couple of teams capable of winning a national championship and 3-4 teams that are good enough to make some noise in the playoffs (even though they won't all make it), 3-4 more that have the ability to knock anyone off and then maybe two crappers that get destroyed most weeks. It's more exciting (and I think would drive more traffic) than having one awesome team, 1-2 really good ones that provide a challenge to the top dog, 1-2 decent teams and seven terrible teams that the top five just beat on every week.

    But I'm also a guy that likes the silo schedule because you basically know what you are getting week in and week out. And you get a true champion and measuring stick of the league if everyone plays everyone and there is no BS about how a team was only good because of the schedule they played.
    I have a totally opposite opinion on almost all these points.

    If deserving teams miss the playoffs...that means they aren't in the playoffs. I want the best teams in the playoffs. I know it's not always perfect because of regionalization, but I'd still like to make it as good as I can.

    Traffic (my issue, no one else's) is not driven by parity. Traffic is driven by greatness. If UCM is 9-2 and in playoff contention versus 7-4 and eliminated, more UCM folks will visit. Traffic is best with the largest schools with the largest fan bases in contention and in the playoffs. Sure, there can be traffic spikes when there are good games, but that won't typically happen unless both teams are in playoff contention. Let's take UCM and Lindenwood and throw them in the GLVC. They play each other the last game of the season. 10-0 UCM versus 9-1 Lindenwood has a lot of interest. Both teams are likely playoff contenders if not in the playoffs already. Instead, put them in the MIAA. Now UCM is 7-3 and LU is 6-4. Both are likely out of the playoffs and no one is talking about the game. It's still the same two teams playing and they're still as good as they were. The only difference lies in who the teams had played previously.

    In reality, I don't know that expansion of the league has changed the league dynamic that much. Aside from Fort Hays last year, none of the newcomers has truly impacted the conference. So I can't really say that expansion has caused teams to miss the playoffs. When i was thinking of teams in the past that were playoff worthy, I was thinking about UCM, Washburn, Western, and Omaha (not all in the same season). The problem would exist whether or not the conference had expanded to 12 provided all teams had maintained their previous levels of excellence.

    I think the MIAA, before expansion, was exactly how you described your ideal conference. As far as traffic goes, I think the best configuration is a 10 team conference with about five tiers (historically):+

    T1: Pitt, Northwest
    T2: Western, Central, Washburn
    T3: Emporia, Truman
    T4: Southern, Baptist
    T5: Rolla

    As you know, I hate the conference-only schedule. Yes, you know what you get week in and week out and eventually year in and year out - and that's the problem. Boredom. Missouri Southern has basically played the same schedule for the past decade. If not for some defections it would be exactly the same.

    I'm probably different than most, but shared championships and *****ing contests about league titles don't bother me a bit. I'm sure ESU didn't throw away their MIAA trophy from 2003 even though they had to share it with four other teams. I'm sure it's still listed in the media guide. Yes, I know you can argue that "at least everyone played each other to get that result." I'm simply illustrating that a clean champion cannot be guaranteed.

    After all, what do these national champions have in common?

    2017 Texas A&M-Commerce
    2014 CSU-Pueblo
    2012 Valdosta State
    2007 Valdosta State
    2003 Grand Valley
    2000 Delta State
    1996 Northern Colorado.....and I got lazy after that.

    I miss going to watch Chadron State at Washburn. I saw Chadron, Winona, and South Dakota play at Western. Northwest played a ton of great teams. Washburn beat a 1-AA team. Central almost did in Jim's first year there.

  15. #35

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon View Post
    I have a totally opposite opinion on almost all these points.

    If deserving teams miss the playoffs...that means they aren't in the playoffs. I want the best teams in the playoffs. I know it's not always perfect because of regionalization, but I'd still like to make it as good as I can.

    Traffic (my issue, no one else's) is not driven by parity. Traffic is driven by greatness. If UCM is 9-2 and in playoff contention versus 7-4 and eliminated, more UCM folks will visit. Traffic is best with the largest schools with the largest fan bases in contention and in the playoffs. Sure, there can be traffic spikes when there are good games, but that won't typically happen unless both teams are in playoff contention. Let's take UCM and Lindenwood and throw them in the GLVC. They play each other the last game of the season. 10-0 UCM versus 9-1 Lindenwood has a lot of interest. Both teams are likely playoff contenders if not in the playoffs already. Instead, put them in the MIAA. Now UCM is 7-3 and LU is 6-4. Both are likely out of the playoffs and no one is talking about the game. It's still the same two teams playing and they're still as good as they were. The only difference lies in who the teams had played previously.

    In reality, I don't know that expansion of the league has changed the league dynamic that much. Aside from Fort Hays last year, none of the newcomers has truly impacted the conference. So I can't really say that expansion has caused teams to miss the playoffs. When i was thinking of teams in the past that were playoff worthy, I was thinking about UCM, Washburn, Western, and Omaha (not all in the same season). The problem would exist whether or not the conference had expanded to 12 provided all teams had maintained their previous levels of excellence.

    I think the MIAA, before expansion, was exactly how you described your ideal conference. As far as traffic goes, I think the best configuration is a 10 team conference with about five tiers (historically):+

    T1: Pitt, Northwest
    T2: Western, Central, Washburn
    T3: Emporia, Truman
    T4: Southern, Baptist
    T5: Rolla

    As you know, I hate the conference-only schedule. Yes, you know what you get week in and week out and eventually year in and year out - and that's the problem. Boredom. Missouri Southern has basically played the same schedule for the past decade. If not for some defections it would be exactly the same.

    I'm probably different than most, but shared championships and *****ing contests about league titles don't bother me a bit. I'm sure ESU didn't throw away their MIAA trophy from 2003 even though they had to share it with four other teams. I'm sure it's still listed in the media guide. Yes, I know you can argue that "at least everyone played each other to get that result." I'm simply illustrating that a clean champion cannot be guaranteed.

    After all, what do these national champions have in common?

    2017 Texas A&M-Commerce
    2014 CSU-Pueblo
    2012 Valdosta State
    2007 Valdosta State
    2003 Grand Valley
    2000 Delta State
    1996 Northern Colorado.....and I got lazy after that.

    I miss going to watch Chadron State at Washburn. I saw Chadron, Winona, and South Dakota play at Western. Northwest played a ton of great teams. Washburn beat a 1-AA team. Central almost did in Jim's first year there.

    I miss the non-con. Got to travel up to South Dakota in 2012 with FHSU, had SD-Mines and Jewell at home in 2013 (poor programs but at least different schools coming to town). It would be great to have a SWOSU or NWOSU come to Hays or play some old RMAC rivals.

    It makes much more sense to try and get as many teams from the MIAA to the dance as possible rather than beat up on each other and potentially have worthy teams miss. May not have “one true champion” but who really cares?


    Sent from my iPhone using Tapatalk

  16. #36

    Default Re: Returning QB's

    Quote Originally Posted by Brandon View Post
    I have a totally opposite opinion on almost all these points.

    If deserving teams miss the playoffs...that means they aren't in the playoffs. I want the best teams in the playoffs. I know it's not always perfect because of regionalization, but I'd still like to make it as good as I can.

    Traffic (my issue, no one else's) is not driven by parity. Traffic is driven by greatness. If UCM is 9-2 and in playoff contention versus 7-4 and eliminated, more UCM folks will visit. Traffic is best with the largest schools with the largest fan bases in contention and in the playoffs. Sure, there can be traffic spikes when there are good games, but that won't typically happen unless both teams are in playoff contention. Let's take UCM and Lindenwood and throw them in the GLVC. They play each other the last game of the season. 10-0 UCM versus 9-1 Lindenwood has a lot of interest. Both teams are likely playoff contenders if not in the playoffs already. Instead, put them in the MIAA. Now UCM is 7-3 and LU is 6-4. Both are likely out of the playoffs and no one is talking about the game. It's still the same two teams playing and they're still as good as they were. The only difference lies in who the teams had played previously.

    In reality, I don't know that expansion of the league has changed the league dynamic that much. Aside from Fort Hays last year, none of the newcomers has truly impacted the conference. So I can't really say that expansion has caused teams to miss the playoffs. When i was thinking of teams in the past that were playoff worthy, I was thinking about UCM, Washburn, Western, and Omaha (not all in the same season). The problem would exist whether or not the conference had expanded to 12 provided all teams had maintained their previous levels of excellence.

    I think the MIAA, before expansion, was exactly how you described your ideal conference. As far as traffic goes, I think the best configuration is a 10 team conference with about five tiers (historically):+

    T1: Pitt, Northwest
    T2: Western, Central, Washburn
    T3: Emporia, Truman
    T4: Southern, Baptist
    T5: Rolla

    As you know, I hate the conference-only schedule. Yes, you know what you get week in and week out and eventually year in and year out - and that's the problem. Boredom. Missouri Southern has basically played the same schedule for the past decade. If not for some defections it would be exactly the same.

    I'm probably different than most, but shared championships and *****ing contests about league titles don't bother me a bit. I'm sure ESU didn't throw away their MIAA trophy from 2003 even though they had to share it with four other teams. I'm sure it's still listed in the media guide. Yes, I know you can argue that "at least everyone played each other to get that result." I'm simply illustrating that a clean champion cannot be guaranteed.

    After all, what do these national champions have in common?

    2017 Texas A&M-Commerce
    2014 CSU-Pueblo
    2012 Valdosta State
    2007 Valdosta State
    2003 Grand Valley
    2000 Delta State
    1996 Northern Colorado.....and I got lazy after that.

    I miss going to watch Chadron State at Washburn. I saw Chadron, Winona, and South Dakota play at Western. Northwest played a ton of great teams. Washburn beat a 1-AA team. Central almost did in Jim's first year there.
    Our point of view is based on our own experiences. ESU has gone 13-2 in non-conference action under Higgins with a 9-1 record in the regular season. All of the regular season games were from 2007-2011 when the Hornets were a collective 19-36. Since going to the silo schedule the Hornets are 51-21 and have gone 4-1 against outside teams in the playoffs and a bowl game. So in my mind playing a conference only schedule has been good.

    No one around here really got excited about beating Western State 42-0 or Southwestern Okla. 48-17 or Langston 35-7 in the regular season. Most of our fans knew those games were hollow victories against teams that weren't competing at the same level (less scholarships) as the MIAA.

    Playing non-conference never really helped ESU either going back to 1998 when the Hornets went to Fargo and knocked off NDSU to open the season, finished 9-2 and still didn't make the playoffs. I know that if they hadn't lost to Truman or Northwest they would have been at least 10-1 and gone to the playoffs, but if all it takes is going 10-1 then what does it matter who you play in the non-conference. It's different than in basketball where you play 8-10 non-conference games and can build decent set of data - 30% of your schedule is much more significant than 18% of your schedule.

    Lastly - fans in the MIAA are spoiled on travel. Unless you are one of the outliers like UNK, NSU or LWU most of our trips are under five hours, meaning if a game starts at 2 pm and gets over at 5 pm you can probably still get home by 1 am if not earlier. When you start taking trips to Arkansas, Minnesota, South Dakota, Colorado, Texas to get non-conference games you are talking about 8-12 hour drives. A lot of fans are not going to make those trips. Not everyone is going to be able to get games with the Missouri teams in the GLVC and even if you do, isn't it just seeing a different set of teams over and over again?

  17. #37
    Join Date
    Oct 2004
    Posts
    16,497
    Rep Power
    237518

    Default Re: Returning QB's

    I like non-con games, but also like playing everyone.

    If the talk was "let's drop some teams and do 1-2 non cons", I would be all for it.

    If the talk is, "let's add teams, go to some weird bracket system and hope it's not too lopsided", I'm out.\

    It seems like in the past, 1-3 teams a year were actually willing abd able to schedule non-cons against great teams from other conferences while most of the others schedule crap teams to get a win, or mediocre teams who will likely finish with good records because they are in a weak conference. Still others will schedule whomever will play them to get a home game for the $$$. (looking at my alma mater here)

    Not worth it to me to divide the conference for that.
    Will the 'O' go?

  18. #38

    Default Re: Returning QB's

    A few years ago, when the playoff criteria/formula put so much more emphasis on OWP, OOWP, etc., I would have been all for figuring out a way to get out of conference games back in the MIAA. As of yet, there has been really no "punishment" for conferences that use "silo" scheduling. Until playoff selection starts reflecting what they have been saying and obviously deserving teams from the MIAA start getting left out of the playoffs, they have no reason to make any changes to the current format.

  19. #39

    Default Re: Returning QB's

    Quote Originally Posted by Predatory Primates View Post
    Poor Central seems to have started with tough games the last 10 years straight or so. No MSSU or NSU in sight for you guys.

    It seems like you had the top 3 teams the first 3 games most of those years.
    what's wrong with that? It generally means Juiced and before that Bill were gone by Oct 1 :)

  20. #40

    Default Re: Returning QB's

    Quote Originally Posted by Predatory Primates View Post
    I like non-con games, but also like playing everyone.

    If the talk was "let's drop some teams and do 1-2 non cons", I would be all for it.

    If the talk is, "let's add teams, go to some weird bracket system and hope it's not too lopsided", I'm out.\

    It seems like in the past, 1-3 teams a year were actually willing abd able to schedule non-cons against great teams from other conferences while most of the others schedule crap teams to get a win, or mediocre teams who will likely finish with good records because they are in a weak conference. Still others will schedule whomever will play them to get a home game for the $$$. (looking at my alma mater here)

    Not worth it to me to divide the conference for that.
    I don't think the MIAA will ever drop to ten teams overall, but the membership could change to where there are only ten teams playing football.
    I don't think that would be good for the conference in my personal opinion. If you get to many schools that don't have or really care about football they can start influencing decisions for the entire conference that could have unintended consequences for the football playing schools.

Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •