FB: College Conference of Illinois and Wisconsin

[bleedpurple]

Several extraordinary statistics in association with NCC's dominating 41-14 victory over UW-Stout today. However, the most outstanding may be the passing stats compiled by last week's CCIW offensive player of the week Spencer Stanek who today hit on 24 of 26 attempts for 278 yards and 4 TDs. For good measure he ran 6 times for 50 yards (8.3 average) and another TD. On the surface, it sounds like there is a pretty good possibility of Stanek being named offensive player of the week for the 2nd week in a row.

------  Over 674 and 585 total yards in past 2 weeks,  love Spencer but I'll hope for the Offensive line as Off Player(s) of the Week

The O line did a very commendable job, but when a QB hits 24 of 26 passes for 4 TDs, it seems like it would require a very long stretch to present the award to anyone but Stanek. While its certainly possible the award might go to another player(s), his performance was superior to the point that its doubtful that Manning, Brady, Rodgers, or any other PRO QB could have compiled a higher completion percentage or efficiency rating than did Stanek yesterday. And for the topper, he added a rushing TD to initiate the afternoon's onslaught.

As (easily) predicted, NCC's Spencer Stanek wins his 2nd CCIW Offensive Player Of The Week award in a row. Erik Westerberg of Augie is the Defensive POW. NO Special Teams POW was selected.

http://northcentralcardinals.com/news/2013/9/23/FB_0923132850.aspx

No argument with Stanek being named player of the week. He had a great game, no doubt. However, the whole Manning, Brady, Rodgers thing is a bit of hyperbole. When someone is 24-26 it is easy to claim it's doubtful they would have had a higher completion percentage or efficiency rating. However, as good as Stanek played, it was not Brady or Rodgers-like.  They don't miss the easy flat pass to the right Stanek left short. Stanek also twice threw slightly behind the receiver on short slant passes and they made nice catches. If hit in stride, both result in longer gains.  Manning, Brady,and Rodgers also throw the ball away on the first drive instead of running out of bounds on the first drive right before the missed field goal. Again, Stanek played great. He was especially money on the fade TD passes. But lets get real, he was either throwing passes of 5 yards or less or he was throwing into WIDE OPEN spaces all day. Stout's pass defense was brutal.

[AndOne]

Several extraordinary statistics in association with NCC's dominating 41-14 victory over UW-Stout today. However, the most outstanding may be the passing stats compiled by last week's CCIW offensive player of the week Spencer Stanek who today hit on 24 of 26 attempts for 278 yards and 4 TDs. For good measure he ran 6 times for 50 yards (8.3 average) and another TD. On the surface, it sounds like there is a pretty good possibility of Stanek being named offensive player of the week for the 2nd week in a row.

------  Over 674 and 585 total yards in past 2 weeks,  love Spencer but I'll hope for the Offensive line as Off Player(s) of the Week

The O line did a very commendable job, but when a QB hits 24 of 26 passes for 4 TDs, it seems like it would require a very long stretch to present the award to anyone but Stanek. While its certainly possible the award might go to another player(s), his performance was superior to the point that its doubtful that Manning, Brady, Rodgers, or any other PRO QB could have compiled a higher completion percentage or efficiency rating than did Stanek yesterday. And for the topper, he added a rushing TD to initiate the afternoon's onslaught.

As (easily) predicted, NCC's Spencer Stanek wins his 2nd CCIW Offensive Player Of The Week award in a row. Erik Westerberg of Augie is the Defensive POW. NO Special Teams POW was selected.

http://northcentralcardinals.com/news/2013/9/23/FB_0923132850.aspx

No argument with Stanek being named player of the week. He had a great game, no doubt. However, the whole Manning, Brady, Rodgers thing is a bit of hyperbole. When someone is 24-26 it is easy to claim it's doubtful they would have had a higher completion percentage or efficiency rating. However, as good as Stanek played, it was not Brady or Rodgers-like.  They don't miss the easy flat pass to the right Stanek left short. Stanek also twice threw slightly behind the receiver on short slant passes and they made nice catches. If hit in stride, both result in longer gains.  Manning, Brady,and Rodgers also throw the ball away on the first drive instead of running out of bounds on the first drive right before the missed field goal. Again, Stanek played great. He was especially money on the fade TD passes. But lets get real, he was either throwing passes of 5 yards or less or he was throwing into WIDE OPEN spaces all day. Stout's pass defense was brutal.

Bleed---

Hyperbole is an intentional exaggeration. And while my reference to the aforementioned pro QBs was certainly intentional, strong argument argument can be made for the fact that little or no exaggeration was involved. I would ask if the pro QBs don't occasionally leave the "easy" flat pass a little short? Do they always hit receivers perfectly in stride? Do they ever throw slightly behind a receiver twice in a game only to be saved by nice catches by the receiver? And, do they occasionally run out of bounds rather than throwing the ball away? And, don't pro QBs often throw 5 yard passes followed by nice runs after the catch? I think the answer to each question is a resounding "yes" and furthermore, you can see evidence of such in almost any pro game you may care to view.

You indicate "no argument" with his selection as POW. Additionally, that Stanek played "great." However yet you seem to go out of your way to point out a few very slight flaws in an otherwise almost perfect performance which is especially impressive given that Mr. Stanek is NOT a professional QB.

The degree of your "nitpickingness' (is that a word?  ) takes me back many, many, many years to Mrs. Bufforfington's high school English class and the B grade I received on the best paper I wrote all year but, in which, I left out ONE comma in the appropriate place.

I sense that you're a student of the game and a great analyst. However, my suggestion would be that you lighten up a bit and remember D3 players are not pros. At least not those that play in the CCIW!     

* Stanek is only thr 4th player in the last half decade to win two consecutive POW awards!

[USee]

I think Stanek had an impressive performance but it just doesn't mean that much if the best players play great against weak competition. If Stanek had gone 26-26 I would have been impressed but not surprised. When Phil Simms completes 22-25 in a Super Bowl win, I said "Wow", but not for the Stout performance. Stanek has been a  very efficient and productive player for NCC. His issue is his performance late in big games. That's where I have seen him struggle. You can look back to 2010 and he turned it over 3 times in the 4th quarter against UWW with a 10-7 lead. Last year against Wheaton his fumble at the Wheaton 27 turned a 28-14 Thunder lead (about to be 28-21) into a 35-14 laugh-er. Against Linfield he threw 3 INTS in the 2nd half of what was a close game. Stanek's legacy will be about how he finishes this season and his performance against IWU and Wheaton down the stretch more than it will be what he did in easy wins against average opponents in my opinion.

[oldnuthin]

I think Stanek had an impressive performance but it just doesn't mean that much if the best players play great against weak competition. If Stanek had gone 26-26 I would have been impressed but not surprised. When Phil Simms completes 22-25 in a Super Bowl win, I said "Wow" but not for the Stout performance. Stanek has been a  very efficient and productive player for NCC. His issue is his performance late in big games. That's where I have seen him struggle. You can look back to 2012 and he turned it over 3 times in the 4th quarter against UWW with a 10-7 lead. Last year against Wheaton his fumble at the Wheaton 27 turned a 28-14 Thunder lead (about to be 28-21) into a 35-14 laugher. Against Linfield he threw 3 INTS in the 2nd half of what was a close game. Stanek's legacy will be about how he finishes this season and his performance against IWU and Wheaton down the stretch more than it will be what he did in easy wins against average opponents in my opinion.

You beat me to it 

[emma17]

Interesting comments on Stanek.
IMO - since the recognition is based upon one game and Not one season and Not a college career, I'd say the kid rightfully deserves the award for Player of the Week- this week.

As for the NCC- Linfield game, that loss is on the coaching decisions a whole lot more than it is on Stanek. Know your personnel and play to their strengths- it's such an easy concept yet so often ignored.

[USee]

No one argues the fact he deserves the award. As far as blaming the coaching for Linfield, when you lose there is always a lot of blame for all involved. I will say that my experience tells me that good players make plays run better.

[AndOne]

USee---

You reference a lot of **** that happened LAST year, but the problem is he won the awards for his CURRENT performance. You say you agree he deserves the award, but yet you seem to make a conscious effort to trivialize his accomplishments. Forgive me but this seems contradictory. I just don't understand your approach in this case.

Oldnuthin & USee----

I'm sorry, but I think any D3 college kid who hits 24 of 26 pass attempts, throws for 4 TDs, and runs for another TD has had a hell of a day whether that accomplishment has been attained against the #1 team in the country or the #150 team. And it doesn't matter whether the kid is wearing a red jersey, an orange one, a purple one, or a flamin' pink one. Its time to acknowledge the fact that 24 of 26 doesn't suck even if you and i are playing defense.   

[AndOne]

Since there are no awards given for locker rooms, hopefully I can provide a link to a Naperville Sun article detailing the Cardinals new football locker room upgrades without creating too much of a dustup!

* Be forewarned however, the article does include a quote from the very controversial Mr. Spencer Stanek so reader discretion is advised.      

http://napervillesun.suntimes.com/sports/ncc_upgrade-NAP-09252013:article
Click on BOTH small pictures.

[oldnuthin]

USee---

You reference a lot of **** that happened LAST year, but the problem is he won the awards for his CURRENT performance. You say you agree he deserves the award, but yet you seem to make a conscious effort to trivialize his accomplishments. Forgive me but this seems contradictory. I just don't understand your approach in this case.

Oldnuthin & USee----

I'm sorry, but I think any D3 college kid who hits 24 of 26 pass attempts, throws for 4 TDs, and runs for another TD has had a hell of a day whether that accomplishment has been attained against the #1 team in the country or the #150 team. And it doesn't matter whether the kid is wearing a red jersey, an orange one, a purple one, or a flamin' pink one. Its time to acknowledge the fact that 24 of 26 doesn't suck even if you and i are playing defense. 

Apparently Mrs. Bofforington's  5th grade English class was in composition not comprehension.Did you read Usee's post?He used the words impressive and impressed to describe Mr. Stanek's play. He also pointed out correctly, that Mr. Stanek has struggled in the big games in prior years. No derision for his play this week. I agreed because the facts bear out Usee's statement. While Usee correctly states that he threw 3 picks in the second half, he threw 5 picks for the game. My reading, and in my opinion any unbiased reading of the post boils down to this: Nice game this week, lets see if he can do it against top notch competition this year. to imply that the post was a knock on his play from this past weekend is ludacris.

(modified by GS for formatting)

[AndOne]

USee---

You reference a lot of **** that happened LAST year, but the problem is he won the awards for his CURRENT performance. You say you agree he deserves the award, but yet you seem to make a conscious effort to trivialize his accomplishments. Forgive me but this seems contradictory. I just don't understand your approach in this case.

Oldnuthin & USee----

I'm sorry, but I think any D3 college kid who hits 24 of 26 pass attempts, throws for 4 TDs, and runs for another TD has had a hell of a day whether that accomplishment has been attained against the #1 team in the country or the #150 team. And it doesn't matter whether the kid is wearing a red jersey, an orange one, a purple one, or a flamin' pink one. Its time to acknowledge the fact that 24 of 26 doesn't suck even if you and i are playing defense. 

Apparently Mrs. Bofforington's  5th grade English class was in composition not comprehension.Did you read Usee's post?He used the words impressive and impressed to describe Mr. Stanek's play. He also pointed out correctly, that Mr. Stanek has struggled in the big games in prior years. No derision for his play this week. I agreed because the facts bear out Usee's statement. While Usee correctly states that he threw 3 picks in the second half, he threw 5 picks for the game. My reading, and in my opinion any unbiased reading of the post boils down to this: Nice game this week, lets see if he can do it against top notch competition this year. to imply that the post was a knock on his play from this past weekend is ludacris.

Mrs. Bufforfington also thinks that you have confused the rapper Ludacris with the fact that your assertions are ludicrous.        

(modified by GS for formatting)

[Titan Q]

Some updates on the Titans...

http://www.pantagraph.com/sports/college/football/iwu-football-notes-fieldcrest-grad-anderson-going-strong-up-front/article_7291281a-2636-11e3-bdda-0019bb2963f4.html

[USee]

AndOne,

My point is more along the lines of what Oldnuthin said. Stanek is having an amazing run right now (through 2 games). His efficiency rating is 193, he has 0 INT's and 5 TD's, is completing 82% of his passes and is averaging 304yds per game in the air and 382 yds per game of total offense.

If you go back and look at the 2010 and 2012 seasons his Conference stats look like this:

2012:
165 efficiency, 1 INT/13 TD's,  66% completions

2010:
178 efficiency, 2 INT/5 TDs, 70% completions

Those are very good numbers for efficiency, completions, and TD/INT ratio. But look at his 2012/2010 stats for the full season (which includes playoffs)

2012:
151 efficiency, 11 INT/20TD's, 62% completions

2010:
165 efficiency, 7 INT/11 TD's, 64% completions

His numbers have been worse for a full season vs his conference performance. That helps illustrate my point and if you broke that down it is largely because of his performance late in playoff games. He has been a heck of a player for NCC and this season is his best start yet. If NCC wants to take that next step, they have to find a way to win down the stretch in big games (i.e. vs IWU and Wheaton---on the road) and in the playoffs.

As far as his accomplishments this week, I am ok with saying "Spencer Stanek is the best QB on the planet earth this week" although Peyton Manning fans may argue his 32/37 378 yds 3 TD performance Monday night was a close second.

[formerd3db]

USee:

I can understand where you are coming from.  I do not doubt you regarding IWU being among the top tier in competing for the CCIW title this year.  Nor am I saying that the this year's Hope team is better than the Trine team you say.  Although I'll give you that the 2010 Trine team was a great team and better than their 2008 team.  In 2008, Trine only beat Hope by one point 31-30 and only a poor 1-8 Olivet team by 21-10.  I would argue that the 2002 Alma team was as good as Trine's 2008 team; Alma was 9-2 that year and beat Wheaton in the regular season, although lost in to Wheaton in a rematch in a first round playoff game.  I'm sure you will agree that it is difficult to compare strength of teams over decades - the "climate" changes in those times.

Again, except for the 35-0 blowout 2 years ago, IWU has not overwhelmed Hope, even when Hope's teams were not that good i.e. the poor starts had among those recent years including the very uncharacteristic 3-7 consecutive seasons we had.  As I mentioned, I believe it will either be a close[r]  game or a blowout, not an "in betweener". That is based on my experience in watching/playing DIII football (and of course the MIAA) in an additional nine years above your 30 , but I've been wrong before.   Nonetheless, I do hope it is a good game and not a blow-out, despite whoever wins.  In that regard, it could still be a salvageable "plus" for the loser (similar to the Franklin situation that some of our colleagues were discussing after their first two games).   
 

All that said, obviously, we'll just have to wait until Saturday to see what plays out.

 

[wheels81]

I think Stanek had an impressive performance but it just doesn't mean that much if the best players play great against weak competition. If Stanek had gone 26-26 I would have been impressed but not surprised. When Phil Simms completes 22-25 in a Super Bowl win, I said "Wow", but not for the Stout performance. Stanek has been a  very efficient and productive player for NCC. His issue is his performance late in big games. That's where I have seen him struggle. You can look back to 2010 and he turned it over 3 times in the 4th quarter against UWW with a 10-7 lead. Last year against Wheaton his fumble at the Wheaton 27 turned a 28-14 Thunder lead (about to be 28-21) into a 35-14 laugh-er. Against Linfield he threw 3 INTS in the 2nd half of what was a close game. Stanek's legacy will be about how he finishes this season and his performance against IWU and Wheaton down the stretch more than it will be what he did in easy wins against average opponents in my opinion.

His first offensive player of the week award ths year came in spite of 1 of 2 of his fumbles being returned 53 yards for a TD. The other  fumble, which he recovered on his own, came when he was sacked later in the game.   

[oldnuthin]

USee---

You reference a lot of **** that happened LAST year, but the problem is he won the awards for his CURRENT performance. You say you agree he deserves the award, but yet you seem to make a conscious effort to trivialize his accomplishments. Forgive me but this seems contradictory. I just don't understand your approach in this case.

Oldnuthin & USee----

I'm sorry, but I think any D3 college kid who hits 24 of 26 pass attempts, throws for 4 TDs, and runs for another TD has had a hell of a day whether that accomplishment has been attained against the #1 team in the country or the #150 team. And it doesn't matter whether the kid is wearing a red jersey, an orange one, a purple one, or a flamin' pink one. Its time to acknowledge the fact that 24 of 26 doesn't suck even if you and i are playing defense. 

Apparently Mrs. Bofforington's  5th grade English class was in composition not comprehension.Did you read Usee's post?He used the words impressive and impressed to describe Mr. Stanek's play. He also pointed out correctly, that Mr. Stanek has struggled in the big games in prior years. No derision for his play this week. I agreed because the facts bear out Usee's statement. While Usee correctly states that he threw 3 picks in the second half, he threw 5 picks for the game. My reading, and in my opinion any unbiased reading of the post boils down to this: Nice game this week, lets see if he can do it against top notch competition this year. to imply that the post was a knock on his play from this past weekend is ludacris.

Mrs. Bufforfington also thinks that you have confused the rapper Ludacris with the fact that your assertions are ludicrous.        

(modified by GS for formatting)

You got me, I was thinking of his, Ludacris, old song as I typed my reply " Move @#$%^ get out the way"why I cannot say. So I sit corrected  Still, no cogent reply to to the comprehension vs composition assertion.