FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[seventiesraider]

On the subject of PeeWee football JCU's QB is Offensive Player of the week. That's pretty offensive to me.

[jam40jeff]

They did beat Capital this week (which seemed to go unnoticed on this board).  Not to say that's a huge accomplishment this year, but I don't think many here expected it.  If JCU can take one of the next two (I think they should), they will end up with a winning record in the OAC.

[seventiesraider]

They did beat Capital this week (which seemed to go unnoticed on this board).  Not to say that's a huge accomplishment this year, but I don't think many here expected it.  If JCU can take one of the next two (I think they should), they will end up with a winning record in the OAC.

O'Brien was the leading rusher in the game leading me to think Regis has abandoned to the forward pass

BTW After seeing Capital in "action" in Alliance, they were just totally without talent.

[seventiesraider]

PG85, leading receiver for the Colts in their victory over the Texans

[bignscarey]

They did beat Capital this week (which seemed to go unnoticed on this board).  Not to say that's a huge accomplishment this year, but I don't think many here expected it.  If JCU can take one of the next two (I think they should), they will end up with a winning record in the OAC.

O'Brien was the leading rusher in the game leading me to think Regis has abandoned to the forward pass

BTW After seeing Capital in "action" in Alliance, they were just totally without talent.

That's COLD! My observations are that there are some bright spots...Assman,Frankert,Jacobs and one guard.The team was totally out matched.The new"coaching staff"leaves a lot to be desired!

[HScoach]

Let's take it easy on Neal Seaman.  Even Bill Borchert, Jim Ballard, and certainly Gary Smeck had forgettable games as sophomores.  In fact Gary Smeck played better than he  had all year in the second half of the championship game with Rowan.  The fact is those guys had stars at every position, and were absolutely loaded on defense.  Seaman and his buddies are sophomores and man are they going to be good.  Maybe, like the 1998 team, it wont happen for some of them until the playoffs.   Can anyone believe LK is going to go over 300 wins in his 25th year!?

For the record, I'm not raining on his parade or saying he doesn't have a bright future.  Please remember the context of my response was to the notion that Seaman should be 1st team All-OAC.

[Raider 68]

Let's take it easy on Neal Seaman.  Even Bill Borchert, Jim Ballard, and certainly Gary Smeck had forgettable games as sophomores.  In fact Gary Smeck played better than he  had all year in the second half of the championship game with Rowan.  The fact is those guys had stars at every position, and were absolutely loaded on defense.  Seaman and his buddies are sophomores and man are they going to be good.  Maybe, like the 1998 team, it wont happen for some of them until the playoffs.   Can anyone believe LK is going to go over 300 wins in his 25th year!?

If the votes were by numbers through 8 games the Neal Seaman would be #1

1. Neal Seaman.... MTU  SO  8 222 152   6   68.5 2134 16 266.8
2. Andrew Miller..  HEID SR   8 251 137  10  54.6 2113 25 264.1
3. Jake Burns.....  MUSK SR   7 200 117  13  58.5 1341  3 191.6

Being only a sophomore does not help his case, but being third  because of it makes no sense to me. I always thought it was based upon performance. Also wins and losses must not matter either. Who is more valuable a QB who leads his team to 8 victories, or 4 of them? Seaman cannot control the talent around him only the HC coaches can for the respective teams, IMHO!

[Kira & Jaxon's Dad]

Let's take it easy on Neal Seaman.  Even Bill Borchert, Jim Ballard, and certainly Gary Smeck had forgettable games as sophomores.  In fact Gary Smeck played better than he  had all year in the second half of the championship game with Rowan.  The fact is those guys had stars at every position, and were absolutely loaded on defense.  Seaman and his buddies are sophomores and man are they going to be good.  Maybe, like the 1998 team, it wont happen for some of them until the playoffs.   Can anyone believe LK is going to go over 300 wins in his 25th year!?

If the votes were by numbers through 8 games the Neal Seaman would be #1

1. Neal Seaman.... MTU  SO  8 222 152   6   68.5 2134 16 266.8
2. Andrew Miller..  HEID SR   8 251 137  10  54.6 2113 25 264.1
3. Jake Burns.....  MUSK SR   7 200 117  13  58.5 1341  3 191.6

Being only a sophomore does not help his case, but being third  because of it makes no sense to me. I always thought it was based upon performance. Also wins and losses must not matter either. Who is more valuable a QB who leads his team to 8 victories, or 4 of them? Seaman cannot control the talent around him only the HC coaches can for the respective teams, IMHO!

EDIT: Heading for your stats:

PASSING AVG/GAME Team Cl G Att Cmp Int  Pct.  Yds TD Avg/G
1. Neal Seaman.... MTU  SO  8 222 152   6   68.5 2134 16 266.8
2. Andrew Miller..  HEID SR   8 251 137  10  54.6 2113 25 264.1
3. Jake Burns.....  MUSK SR   7 200 117  13  58.5 1341  3 191.6

[reality check]

I certainly am not trying to knock the kid either.  I think history has shown us though that Mount QB's are always going to put up great numbers and for that reason they are held to a higher standard when it comes to All-Conference. Even the platoon of Bruney/Burghardt put up ridiculous stats.  Those two combined to go 46 TD/14 INT and over 3900 passing yards.  They both wound up as Honorable Mentions in 2003 by the way in spite of very good numbers.

In the Mount system, the QB (no matter what his name is) can be penciled in for 35+ TD's and 3500 yards.  It's proven throughout the dynasty to be true.  Some were better than others though.  Seaman is a great talent and will no doubt have a fine career as he's already on his way but leading the conference in statistical categories doesn't automatically make you a first-teamer when you're quarterbacking the Purple Raiders (whether you, I or your grandma likes it or not). 

And why in the world is Jake Burns' name even in the mix?  Let's not just copy and paste the top three names off the stats page when talking all league.  He's behind Schlosser, Simmons, Seaman and Miller for sure.  After that it doesn't really matter.

[Raider 68]

I certainly am not trying to knock the kid either.  I think history has shown us though that Mount QB's are always going to put up great numbers and for that reason they are held to a higher standard when it comes to All-Conference. Even the platoon of Bruney/Burghardt put up ridiculous stats.  Those two combined to go 46 TD/14 INT and over 3900 passing yards.  They both wound up as Honorable Mentions in 2003 by the way in spite of very good numbers.

In the Mount system, the QB (no matter what his name is) can be penciled in for 35+ TD's and 3500 yards.  It's proven throughout the dynasty to be true.  Some were better than others though.  Seaman is a great talent and will no doubt have a fine career as he's already on his way but leading the conference in statistical categories doesn't automatically make you a first-teamer when you're quarterbacking the Purple Raiders (whether you, I or your grandma likes it or not). 

And why in the world is Jake Burns' name even in the mix?  Let's not just copy and paste the top three names off the stats page when talking all league.  He's behind Schlosser, Simmons, Seaman and Miller for sure.  After that it doesn't really matter.

Agree, that is just what the OAC says. No doubt Simmons and Schlosser rate higher.  OK, Do you have the criteria or seen what is used  for the voting? That would hopefully make the selections more clear.

[jam40jeff]

They did beat Capital this week (which seemed to go unnoticed on this board).  Not to say that's a huge accomplishment this year, but I don't think many here expected it.  If JCU can take one of the next two (I think they should), they will end up with a winning record in the OAC.

O'Brien was the leading rusher in the game leading me to think Regis has abandoned to the forward pass

BTW After seeing Capital in "action" in Alliance, they were just totally without talent.

That's COLD! My observations are that there are some bright spots...Assman,Frankert,Jacobs and one guard.The team was totally out matched.The new"coaching staff"leaves a lot to be desired!

You have to remember, anyone that doesn't have Mount Union-caliber talent at every position is considered "talentless" on this board.

[seventiesraider]

They did beat Capital this week (which seemed to go unnoticed on this board).  Not to say that's a huge accomplishment this year, but I don't think many here expected it.  If JCU can take one of the next two (I think they should), they will end up with a winning record in the OAC.

O'Brien was the leading rusher in the game leading me to think Regis has abandoned to the forward pass

BTW After seeing Capital in "action" in Alliance, they were just totally without talent.

That's COLD! My observations are that there are some bright spots...Assman,Frankert,Jacobs and one guard.The team was totally out matched.The new"coaching staff"leaves a lot to be desired!

Assman lead the team in passing, rushing and receiving at Mount. I rest my point

[jam40jeff]

Assman lead the team in passing, rushing and receiving at Mount. I rest my point

led

You said they were "totally without talent".  So Assman has no talent?

[skunks_sidekick]

Assman lead the team in passing, rushing and receiving at Mount. I rest my point

led

You said they were "totally without talent".  So Assman has no talent?

Well we all know Seventies has a tendency to couch things in the extreme, but when I read that I interpreted it to mean "totally without talent compared to where they were a few years ago".

I think of it as more of a comment on the current sad situation at CAP.  It just goes to show what a non-supportive administration can do to a program.

[jam40jeff]

Well we all know Seventies has a tendency to couch things in the extreme, but when I read that I interpreted it to mean "totally without talent compared to where they were a few years ago".

I think of it as more of a comment on the current sad situation at CAP.  It just goes to show what a non-supportive administration can do to a program.

That makes sense (and I agree Capital's football program is on a downward spiral).  That's not to say there isn't still some talent there, but the program as a whole is headed in the wrong direction.

It's just that I didn't pick that up from seventies's post.  It seems as if (this year at least, I don't remember him being this way in the past, maybe it's just do to him being down on the state of the OAC this year) he has been saying that nobody has talent outside of UWW and UMU.