bartshan-83

I think Losman (or whoever is our QB these days) should be allowed to start in shotgun with the ball in his hands and just yell "Hike" when he wants the play to start. Like playing in your backyard.... Might make things a little less uneven...

Well I haven't re-watched any games, but with TiVo I do tent to rewind a lot of plays during the game. My opinion on our WRs blocking pretty much falls in line with what a lot of other people think. Reed: Physical blocker...seems to me to take pride in it (ala Hines Ward). I think his build (more short and stocky for a WR) really plays up to this skill. Aiken: 2nd best blocker (behind Reed IMO) and quite good at it. If he could be at all productive catching the ball, I would love to see him on the field more. Moulds: Actually, I don't really know much. He seems to be a physical blocker who holds his blocks downfield but I admit I only ever watch him block if it is like at the end of a long gain and he happens to be in the picture. Evans: IMO, terrible. Doesn't block anyone and when he tries, he holds. Remember last year when he nullified McGahee's TD vs. the Rams on that amazing stay-in-bounds-miracle run? He grabbed the guys jersey when Willis was like 10 yds from the endzone. Stupid. He has a few holds this year too that have wiped out some of the few nice outside runs by WM. I think Reed and Aiken can hold their own blocking against any CB. As many people have said, I would really much like to see Josh back next year as in addition to his blocking, he has really shown something more in the receiving game.

I got some too: Chuck Norris won 'Jumanji' without ever saying the word. He simply beat the living sh-- out of everything that was thrown at him, and the game forfeited. Chuck Norris doesnt shave; he kicks himself in the face. The only thing that can cut Chuck Norris is Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris frequently signs up for beginner karate classes, just so he can "accidentally" beat the sh-- out of little kids. One day Chuck Norris looked in the mirror and said "No one outstares Chuck!" He is still there to this day. Chuck Norris does not hunt because the word hunting infers the probability of failure. Chuck Norris goes killing. Bullets dodge Chuck Norris. Chuck Norris likes to knit sweaters in his free time. And by "knit", I mean "kick", and by "sweaters", I mean "babies". Chuck Norris' action figure has slept with more women then most men. Chuck Norris recently had the idea to sell his urine as a canned beverage. We know this beverage as Red Bull. The original theme song to the Transformers was actually "Chuck Norris--more than meets the eye, Chuck Norris--robot in disguise," and starred Chuck Norris as a Texas Ranger who defended the earth from drug-dealing Decepticons and could turn into a pick-up. This was far too much awesome for a single show, however, so it was divided. And my favorite: When Chuck Norris plays Oregon Trail his family does not die from cholera or dysentery, but rather roundhouse kicks to the face. He also requires no wagon, since he carries the oxen, axels, and buffalo meat on his back. He always makes it to Oregon before you.

I agree...but the rollouts take the onus off the OL. Yeah they still have to block, but not as well. JP will buy extra time by getting away and our incompetent blockers' inability to do their jobs will be less damaging. I do get your point about Willis though. While 8 carries is not nearly enough...how many 1 yd gains do you sit through before going a different direction? Would people have been happier if his stat line read 25 carries for 10 yds. as opposed to 8 for 3?

I would really like to see the rollouts that we were all told were going to be a staple of our offense. JP throws very well on the run (probably because there aren't 3 guys in his face every time) and it seems to be our only somewhat consistenly successful play. Roll him out ALL THE TIME. Get him out of the pocket as much as possible. Sure the defense will adjust, but make them defend against that primarily. Then pound the ball with Willis. As it stands, the defenders just bull rush our guys out of the way on evey play whether its a pass or a run. They bust into the backfield and disrupt everything. Almost every QB skill that Losman has right now is weak or undeveloped. The one quality that he has (besides pure arm strength) that equals or surpasses the majority of starting QBs is his mobility. Put it to use for God's sake.

I dont even understand what you are asking. It sounds like you are asking which players from the drafts he ran (98-01) were part of the good Philly teams. That is exactly what I posted....everyone in that post (besides Rossum I guess). Yeah the Eagles never won the big one (thats why I put dynasty in quotes...it was hardly that), but they were GOD AWFUL for the years leading up. In his time there he got them: -An elite QB who has made them great. -An anchor LT who is still guarding that QB. -A MLB who is still the heart of their D. -A DT who is obviously very well missed this season as their great defense hasn't been up to snuff. FA moves: -Picked up Jon Runyan who has anchored the other side of that line for the last 6 years. Top tier RT (except against Strahan...ugly). -Picked up Hugh Douglas who registered 51.5 sacks in 66 games with Philly. Look, I mean I'm not trying to make him out to be the best GM in football. To me, his work is very inconsistent and if he really has had a huge say in our recent drafts and moves, then I'm even less impressed. But there is no denying that he built a winner in Philly and I do believe he would be an improvement over our other Tom.

He did build the Philly 'dynasty.' During his tenure he made some great moves and the Eagles were widely considered to be the best managed team in the NFL (leading the league in smallest amount of dead-cap space for a long time I believe). His drafts are inconsistent, but he did pick some great players and got some good value. Highlights 1998 RD 1: Tra Thomas: should have been OUR pick...thanks RJ RD 3: Jeremiah Trotter: GREAT find in round 3 RD 3: Allen Rossum 1999 Not a whole lot here, but made the very difficult and verrrry unpopular choice of picking McNabb over Ricky Williams. I think that turned out ok... 2000 RD 1: Corey Simon. Thats about it 2001 Nada...very very Butler-esque as he knew he was on the way out (he left the Eagles like a month after the draft I think) and may have mailed it in. He took a dreadful Philly team and built a foundation for an elite squad that pretty much dominated the NFC for 4 years. Who knows if that was Reid or him or both?

espn.com is reporting that Reeves has been hired as a "special consultant", not HC. " McNair said he hired Reeves to get an outside opinion of his organization and that he would spend time talking with coaches, watching practice and reviewing game film." Reeves

Actually I graduated last year so it is an alumni lottery I guess. I was surprised about the two tickets too. I mean, I'm sure the demand:supply ration is like 20:1 so why not spread it around a little more and give one per person. I guess it is so in case your friend doesn't get one, then you can use your two. Thanks though...I don't have much luck with ND ticket lotteries in the past (graduation tix being one case )...hope it works out. Have fun at the game!

B-E-A-utiful. Could not have said it better.

Anybody making any trips? I'm in a lottery for two Fiesta tickets from ND, and I'm def gonna try to swing it if that comes through. Who's going where? For a specific team or just for a good game?

Was that so hard? Could have made this your first reply.... All right, I thought he was like 215-220. Dropping to 215 may have been a stretch, but does he at all seem like an explosive runner? I had just thought that we were getting the guy that could take it all the way or that would beat LBs to the corner on sweeps and pitches. Very possible that it is almost entirely the fault of the OL and/or coaching, but he seems slow to me. I like Willis a lot and I'd take him over Travis every day, but it just seems like something is missing.

what did I make up? the only fabrication I can see in this thread is you implying that I think all RBs 225+ suck.

Thank you...that is what I was asking. It seems pretty obvious he has lost some speed, and I am wondering if he is better as a big back or more suited to be the one he was advertised as coming out of the U.

Yeah cause I said any of that... You have a helluva of a way of conversing....

While Willis is certainly not the best back in the league, I believe he has top 3 or top 5 potential no doubt. One of my beefs though is his size. While it is impossible to accurately judge any offensive skill player as long as they are playing behind our excuse for an OL, I still feel that Willis is too big and his size may be hurting his production. Now this is in no way an attempt at a Travis v. Willis debate; that horse is dead and bloodied. But I feel like some of the big reasons we got McGahee were that he had things that Travis lacked. One of these skills was the supposed "home run threat." People said Henry was a basic grind-it-out back that was never a threat to break the big one. I fully agree....but how is that different from Willis. The man is like 230 lbs. now. He has not even come close to breaking a big one yet. Plus, to me, he looks much slower coming around the corners than he did last year. He never seems to get the corner ever and since his stiff-arm is apparently in hiding, this results in a bunch of 1 yd. gains. The second new addition he was going to add was his superior receiving skills. I always thought Henry was very unfairly villified with regards to his receiving prowess. Marshall Faulk he is not, but I never thought he was terrible or that Willis had shown anything at all that was better. Again, I think WMs size may be hurting him here too. The majority of successful pass-catching RBs are small, shifty types. Willis just doesn't seem to have this. I will heap plenty of blame on the OL and our coaching staff for somehow consistently running the absolute worst screen passes in the NFL, but he just doesn't wow me at all when he does have room. Before he tore his knee up, WM was known as an explosive back. While he may not be 100% yet, explosive is the last word I would use to descibe him. I have never had to rehab like did, but is it possible he just lifted weights like a demon while he couldnt do speed or agility and his game has suffered for it? There are too many things wrong with this team, but I just wonder if Willis would be a much different player if he was around 215. Thoughts?

Duh. My fault...I thought they finished 5th. Sorry Ducks...hate the system, not the teams.

ND being automatic is correct. But there was ONE at-large bid up for grabs....the one Ohio St. got. No?

Another plus for bringing in Martz....it's not like he would clash with the only current coach on our staff currently doing his job well

You know every week I find myself cheering for a major upset (as most people do), but this is the one week we need everything to go smoothly. An upset of either USC or Texas could end our BCS dreams. USC loses to UCLA: a). USC Remains in title game, UCLA (now 10-1) takes an at large. b). USC drops from title game and is replaced by LSU or PSU. UCLA still takes an at large. UT loses to CU: a). UT stays in title game, CU takes Big 12 auto....squeezes out 1 at large. b). UT drops out of title game, takes at large, CU takes Big 12 auto....squeezes out 1 at large. For the first time in awhile.......GO TROJANS! GO HORNS!

I agree with all your picks except Army-Navy. Navy is a very good and well-coached team and despite their bowl lockup, they are going to bring everything they have. Like you said, its the biggest game of a lifetime for some of the players....they're in it to win it for sure. I do think the games will be closer than some think. I don't know why, and I'm not calling any major upsets, but I think it will be a very good weekend of football.

I realize that calling the timeout helped Stanford a little bit as it did allow them to setup, but in my mind, that little advantage was insignificant next to allowing the clock to run and not giving us ample time for a drive. I agree with you, they WERE going to score. My beef was that Fouts was idignant and he didn't even stop to realize the full situation while he was lambasting us. About the final drive, I offered to bet anyone in the room $$ that we would win the game. My only fears were that: a. We would get into FG range and stall.....and i reeeeealllly did not want another FG attempt. b. Brady was kind of off anyway and I was nervous that he might try to force something and get another pick. It was a lot scarier than it should have been, but it was a good test of our resolve. Plus, we hadn't been on the road in almost TWO months....I think we let this one slip away under Tyrone.

I was sweating a little bit but I was 95% certain we would score on that last drive. It was amusing to hear dumbass Fouts spout off about what a terrible move it was for us to call timeout when Stanford had the ball at the 4. Between him and Fat Pig Keith it is unbearable to listen. I did question Weis' decision to let DJ kick that last field goal. If you saw the Cuse game last week, you saw how far his knee twisted on that last kick and it was obvious he was off tonight. I pray this month off gives him the time he needs to heal because we need a clutch kicker in the bowl game. DW....best night of his career and we sure needed every yard. The last TD run was one of the hardest runs I've seen in awhile. GO IRISH!!....Rest up boys.....Arizona awaits

Not true (unless that rule changed prior to 2002, but I doubt such a rule was ever created). See my post above. In 2002, we won 10 games in the regular season and were not invited to a BCS bowl. ANY team that wins at least 9 games and finishes in the top 12 of the BCS is eligible. That is the at-large rule. In our history, we have done this twice and have a 50% selection rate. Come on Mark, cut us some slack brother...

I feel what you are saying (Notre Dame will usually get the nod because of the $$$), but I think you are vilifying us without much reason. Since the BCS started in 1998, we have finished in the top 15 only twice and gone to a BCS bowl only once. In 2000, we finished the regular season 9-2 and #11 in the BCS. We went to the Fiesta Bowl vs. Oregon St. and were completely embarrassed. V-Tech or Nebraska probably should have gone instead of us. I will give you that one. In 2002, we finished the regular season 10-2 and #9 in the BCS. We were not invited to a BCS bowl and we ended up losing the Gator Bowl to NC St. (Our team was DECIMATED by injuries however). So twice we have been BCS eligible and once we were selected. We never had a "seven win season" and a BCS bid (I assume you were exaggerating but, with you, who knows ). I can't see how you can build a trend off of our once-ever BCS selection. I agree ND will probably be more likely than the average school to get an at-large BCS bid if they are eligible. But it is by no means a certainty as history shows.