FanNation - The Republic of Sport

I know of some judokas that might take offense to your definition of a "man"....

More like "Little Nicky" (Saban).

On a more worrisome note, if Jackson gets booted off the team and avoids jail time, he'll probably head back home to La.. It would be logical for him to then try to get a spot on the team he publicly rejected for the Vols - LSU.

I hope that doesn't happen, for LSU's sake. If Jackson needs to find a new team to play for, there plenty of them who are desperate enough for a quality DB to try and rehabilitate him. LSU, however, doesn't need the distraction, and coach Miles has already had to let one talented - but flawed - player go somewhere else (Perilloux). Surely Coach Miles wouldn't deliberately walk into another Perilloux situation.

Would he?

Well, at this point I'm glad that Janzen Jackson picked the Vols instead of the Tigers. Jackson should be glad, too, because things would have been different if he and his buddies had held up a Tiger fan at a gas station in Baton Rouge.

Nobody here would say "well, he plays for LSU, so it's all good with me." Jackson would be lucky if the only consequence for robbery was jail (if he survived the initial encounter, that is). It's more likely that (a) he would be recovering from serious injury (or worse), (b) he would already be suspended, and likely kicked off the team, and (c) the Tiger faithful would be clamoring for him to get the max jail sentence.

It's better for all involved that he went to Tennessee.

I think you're right up to a point, but it leads directly back to UM's original premise in his comment.

Yes, the current NFL smartguys would hesitate to pick Tebow, but I think it would be more because he doesn't "fit" the current style of play that most pro teams use. They have pro-set offenses, and have staffed accordingly.

Try replacing Carson Palmer or Jay Cutler with St. Timmy of the Everglades, and the team would flop. Not because Tebow is a bad QB, nor would it be because the other skill players on those teams suddenly suck wind. It would be because Tebow's preferred style of play (and the one that makes him so good at Florida) doesn't mesh with the offensive scheme and personnel of the team.

Tebow will have to go to a team that either (a) is willing to commit to brainwash..., er, "re-training" him to be more of a pro-set QB, or (b) go to a team who's offensive scheme and personnel can actually play to his strengths. Not many of those types of teams in the pros; Atlanta could have plugged him right in when Vick went to the slammer, though.

Well, lets balance things out, then. If a team has 6-12 "legitimate" first/second rounders, and most wash out, then what about the also-rans? How many NFL stars were 'surprise' performers drafted late (or not at all)?

For every Ryan Leaf and Akili Smith (both are first-round busts), I'll spot you a Lance Moore (undrafted) and Marques Colston (7th round).

My point is that the NFL talent guys rarely get it right in the first few rounds. In my mind, that means that a college team with a few "stars" may actually have a good roster of TRUE pro-ready players.

So if you believe that most college teams with 'star power' don't actually have pro-ready "stars", then balance that against the fact that they're just as likely to have a bunch of no-name wunderkinds that will have long, productive pro careers.

In terms of pro-ready players on any given college team, it all balances out regardless of how you look at it.

Well, I wouldn't count on that. Who would have thought that a HS offensive alignment (Wildcat) would make such a splash in college, then move to the pros? If it works, and if a team believes THEY can make it work, then just about anything is possible (including an option in the pros).

And, I agree with your comment on Vick. That's a perfect example of why building a team around a player's skillset is bad (as opposed to the Patriot ethic of building your team around a system, then finding players with the skills to play IN the system). That's the only way I think that the spread could work in the pros; otherwise, another Vick/Atlanta scenario is one injury (or indictment) away.

One other example: look at what happened to the Dolphins when Ricky Williams decided to become a full-time herb gardener and couldn't play.....

BTW: Andy Staples has a good article on why he thinks your 'Jackets option offense will make real waves in the BCS... http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/2009/writers/andy_staples/09/09/georgia-tech/i ndex.html

Again, no arguments here. But if speed and size are all that matter, then in my mind it's still a tossup.

I watched Darren Sproles play at K-State. He isn't much bigger (or faster) now than he was during his college senior year with the 'Cats. Or, how about Carson Palmer in his senior year vs. his first year or two in the pros?

"Elite" college teams are the breeding grounds for most pro teams. And with the insane amount of money payed to rookies these days, it's obvious that the pro teams expect them to play and contribute immediately. Would that be so if these players weren't damn_near ready to play pro ball already? 6 months between graduation and the first pro game isn't much time for them to "develop" into a pro player.

Again, I think that most "elite" college teams are already filled with pro-ready players as juniors or seniors, and would probably hold their own against the bottom tier NFL teams on any given day (in the neutral setting that I mentioned earlier). However, "elite" pro teams (like the Pats, or the Colts from a year or two ago, or even the Packers now) would humiliate nearly every college team they played.

I may be wrong (correct me if I am), but didn't the pros stop the annual game between college all-stars and pros because the pro teams were getting beaten?

But, jesting aside, this argument reminds me of an argument I once had with a friend who was a Green Beret about who was the bigger badazz - SEAL's or Green Berets? The answer is NEITHER! They are both good at what they do, in the theater in which they do it.

Using your analogy: given a NEUTRAL setting for a game between the best college team and one of the worst NFL teams, if you make it a "fair fight" and adjust the playing rules so that there isn't an obvious bias towards the pro or college game, then I think it's a tossup.

Yes, pro teams have the "best" athletes that money can buy. But college team players don't play for a paycheck (unless you play for USC). As such, the advantage they have is FLEXIBILITY! College teams have always felt free to adjust their gameplan and player sets as needed (even in the middle of the game). Pro teams are more stodgy, although the roster cap on active players probably has as much to do with that as anything.

But if you give USC, Florida, Texas, or any other truly "elite" college team time and film to prepare, then I'll give them even odds against any of the bottom 8 teams in the NFL (with the caveats I mentioned above).

Sheppard and Randle in the slot with both wideouts? Scary. How about empty backfield, Sheppard and HOLLIDAY in the slot (Sheppard in motion one way, Trindon the other), Tolliver posts long and LaFell crosses behind the LBs....

That's a living, breathing nightmare for any D coordinator (assuming our O-line can give JJ time to throw, run, hand off to either slot man, or whatever)!

BTW: how's living in Florida agreeing with you? Are the gator (or 'noles or 'canes or Bulls fans treating you as the resident Tiger fan?

Then again, back to the original thread topic...

Houston Nutt didn't invent the WildCat (Wild Hog?), but he took it to the next level with absolute perfection in the College game. Think on that - taking a High School offensive alignment, and making it work in College....

What does that say, then, about taking a COLLEGE offensive alignment (spread) to the pros? Is HS to college less of a leap than college to the pros? I don't think so.

And again, I suffered through the Chiefs 2008 season, but I admit that I saw a spark of something new (dare I say "FUN") in the last part of the season with Thigpen running a pro spread. No, they didn't win games. But they won a lot of battles with a patchwork offense put together late in the season with second and third-stringers.

Most of the folks I know that watched those games came away thinking that maybe, just maybe, the Chiefs have hit on something. Then King Carl got the boot (Yay!), then Herm got the boot (Boo!), and now we're rebuilding back into a more traditional (i.e DULL) pro team.

Frankly, I think that calling the NFL the No Fun League is pretty accurate these days. Really - how FUN can it be, if you're a Patriots fan, to watch endless drubbings of opponents week after week? Or if you were a Colts fan a few years back? Or Denver and Elway even further back?

I remember the days of the Cleveland Browns under Cheatin' Sam and Brian Sipe. They didn't call them the Cardiac Kids for nothing, and darn if those games weren't FUN to watch! And watching Thigpen and the Chiefs with their "pro spread" last year was the first time I felt that a pro game was fun to watch again in a LONG time. Most other folks I know around KC feel the same way (unless your name is Jack Harry - local numbnuts sportscaster).

Bah, I give up. The NFL is all about money. They have their formulas, their "position templates". Most games these days are about as fun as watching fudge cook. I'll stick with college games.

Thank you for correcting my mistake. I always appreciate getting the right information.

I don't disagree with you, but my earlier point still stands - a SYSTEM team that commits to the spread, and gets the right players to PLAY the spread, could work in the NFL.

Vick is a physical freak, no doubt. He succeeded on his own when the rest of the team couldn't play sandlot ball. And Tebow is no Michael Vick. But...

What if a team committed to the spread and THEN got Tebow to run it? We all know what happens when a speedy running QB (spread or not) goes to a team that doesn't support his athletic style (I call Vince Young to the stand as a witness in this case...).

But what about other players like Doug Flutie? Or even Brian Sipe?

I'm not saying that Tebow will take the NFL by storm. But, in line with the original topic of this thread, if Tebow went to a team that ran the spread (or something like it), I think he would do very well.

Defense scares me. Chief is one of the best, but I think it might take him more than a few months to rebuild from the fiasco of the two-headed monster from last year (dual defensive coordinators).

Offense looks a little better. Very vanilla against the Huskies, no Russell Sheppard, and

Um, ever hear of Michael Vick? He sure didn't look too shabby when he called his QB draws, or QB sweeps, or QB whatever-type-of-run-you-choose.

Again, don't think that because it hasn't been done in the NFL that it CAN'T be done. Any oldtimers remember the days of the Houston Oilers with two TE's and Earl Campbell running sweeps for half their plays? "Everybody" said that you "can't run that much and win games"...

Bum Phillips proved them wrong. That team also proved that you can't build your entire offense around the skills of one player and hope for long term success, since Earl didn't last too long and now has to sell smoked sausage for a living.....

Uh, who in college ball would you equate to the Patriots? Or the Steelers? I would think that both Ohio State and Oklahoma would rank pretty high in the college ranks, and neither play the spread (although the Sooner run-n-gun with Bradford comes close). The Gators handled them pretty well, I think.

And before you accuse me of being a Gator homer, I'll tell you that bleed Purple and Gold and live for Saturday nights in Tiger stadium! I don't normally say nice things about Florida, but I also try to be honest and somewhat fair about the things I actually DO say (which is why I give Coach Nutt props for the WildHog - McFadden and company sure spanked my Tigers with it two years ago....)

PS: Regarding the "West Coast" offense. I remember the days when the Niners stunk up Candlestick (and the rest of the league) for YEARS. Then the "West Coast" offense came out; it was innovative, fast, and exciting to watch. No, there weren't as many bombing runs as most other NFL offenses had. But it sure generated a LOT of points.

At the time, it was "new" to the NFL. Now, the West Coast is old hat; Teams play it, and also know how to defend against it. So, to defeat the current crop of fast, strong, and highly-skilled defenders, the pros have turned both to the past AND to the future; there is more emphasis now on old-school "pro set" passers that heave the long ball than I've seen for many years. And the "wild hog" is also becoming quite the rage in the pros (I refuse to call it the "wildcat" because I respect Coach Nutt too much to let the pro's steal his idea and rename it).

The only thing you can count on in the pros is that offenses MUST change to defeat the defensive schemes - and highly skilled defensive players - that teams must face 16 times a year (or maybe more, if they're lucky). Bring back the old (pro-set dropback passing)? No problem, if it works. Try something new (wild hog)? Sure; if it works, throw it in too.

So, why not the spread? Yes, it would take a little time to take hold (just like the West Coast did). But to say that it would NEVER work is just plain wrong. Eventually, defenses would gear up and smother it just like every other "new" offense the pros roll out. And then, something else will emerge; Maybe the Georgia Tech/Navy triple option?

Spaceman Spiff, re: "...try that in the pros with a 53-man roster and lose your starting QB, you're hung for the rest of the season."

Is it really that different in college ball? If you depend on skill players to make your offense work (like Saint Timmy of the Everglades), then yes, you're at risk if you lose your star QB. However, if you're a "system" team, then you recruit and develop team members that can play the system.

The best example of that in college ball is Texas. What happened when Vince Young left for the pros? Another capable QB stepped in to the system and took over very well thank you. Now, Colt McCoy isn't a Vince Young; he throws better, and isn't as good of a runner. But the offensive system at Texas is pretty much the same now as it was when Vince was there.

In the pros, look no further than the Patriots; Success with Bledsoe; then with Brady, and then when Brady went down Cassel filled in admirably. At New England, is it the system, or is it the players? As the Chiefs in a few weeks what they think of their 60 million dollar man from the Patriots, and I think you'll find that it's the system that makes the Patriots so good (and finding players that can play in that system).

More obvious "system" teams from the past: San Francisco under Bill Walsh, Dallas under Tom Landry.

So my point is that if a team were to EMBRACE the spread, and then build a "system" team around the spread, then it shouldn't be hard to play that type of offense with 53 pros. If you play the spread and depend on skill players to "make it work", then you've got problems regardless of whether you're playing pro, college, or sandlot ball.

Oh, I don't know about being afraid. Kansas City put together a "spread" offense late last season with Tyler Thigpen at QB. No, they didn't win any games, but they sure gave opposing teams FITS with the spread. At times, most people watching late last year were watching that offense grow and wondered if that was the wave of the future for the Chiefs. Alas, it was not to be. Mssr. Haley and company arrived from the high-flying Arizona offense, and promptly trashed what could have been the first NFL spread offense for a more traditional NFL power/drop-back "pro" offense. Forget the fact that Herm built that offense with the few uninjured players he had left; he built a spread offense with players that could actually PLAY the spread. I don't have a crystal ball, but I wonder what could have been if Coach Haley had chosen to draft and build around the core of a successful (and innovative) new offense at KC instead of taking the more traditional path of "out with the old, in with the new" - although there's nothing "new" about the offense he's installing in KC. Oh well, I guess that's why I like college football more than the pros; more innovation, more drama, EVERY game counts, and guaranteed suspense because of player turnover.

FireHerm, re: "....Herm drafted Croyle..."

You say that as if it were a BAD thing. Brody has a rap for being injured, but he IS a good, traditional NFL-style passer. He has a big arm and even bigger heart (I know, I watched him play for YEARS in the SEC against my favorite teams). Maybe now, in hindsight, he either wasn't a good fit for the Chiefs, or he doesn't have the durability to play in the NFL...

But at the time, given his history at 'Bama and his QB style, he was a steal in the third round.

We can all look back and point to mistakes made in the past that should have been obvious. But at the time, I'll disagree with you on Croyle. Unless you watched him more than I did when he was in college, and saw something that most SEC fans didn't see, then you're just shooting sour grapes, not talking sense.

All rookies are gambles, and their success (or failure) is equally dependent on their skills AND how well their new teams grow them. Like Herm, I don't know if Brody will ultimately be successful in KC or not. However, I won't second-guess the decision to draft him. Gripe about how the Chiefs mismanaged him, gripe about not doing enough due diligence on his durability, complain to King Carl about drafting him in the third round as a potentially solid relief pitcher, then throwing him to the wolves as the new 'hope for the future'.

Complain all you want, but that doesn't change the fact that at the time, drafting him was a good idea. After all, he could have been the next Joe Flacco.....

"...if you were given a GM job at anything and you came in and the main guy in charge of day to day operations had a record like Herms would you retain him... No!!!"

Actually, you're wrong. I HAVE done that several times; not as a football GM, but as a IT director at several companies. When you're brought in to those situations as the new director, usually the 'team' is distraught, unhappy, and underperforming. It's very easy to blame the managers and team leads, but that's the easy way out.

The harder - and better - way is to evaluate the talent you have, look at what you need to do (and want to do) in the near term, and then decide if there's a good fit between the people you have and the needs of the company.

In my last two jobs, I came in to doom-and-gloom situations where the senior managers were blamed for all the failures (usually by the outgoing director). However, while there's always one (or more) under-achievers, I've found that the folks still there were talented and able to succeed; their failures were the result of inept management and poor direction, not a lack of skills.

Okay, so that's not football, but in a sense it's darn near the same thing. Anyone living in KC for more than three days during the reign of King Carl KNOWS that he ruled with an iron fist. Herm never had a chance while Carl was around. He (and his team) were distraught, unhappy, and underperforming. Personnel were poorly managed and and even more poorly used (look at how they used Glenn Dorsey, he would have been a monster if they'd played him correctly).

Sound familiar? It does to me. I don't have a crystal ball, and can't say for certainty that he will succeed next year. But you asked what << I >> would do, and I would give Herm another year.

Bad as last year was, there were glimpses of real progress, and if not for a single bad call here - and a missed FG there - and a dropped pass over there - the Chiefs would be near .500, if not higher. That's quite an accomplishment for a team with so many new starters, on it's 3rd string QB, and so many key injuries.

Herm deserves another year, if for no other reason than to prove that the improvements and hope we occasionally saw resulted from REAL potential, not just fluke performances and bad management.

Blame Carl, not Herm, and let the coach finish out his contract! You asked what I would do? There's my answer......