FB: Minnesota Intercollegiate Athletic Conference

[USTBench]

What's a Hvistendahl? 

[sju56321]

It's like a tree in N.D., very rare.

[USTBench]

It's like a tree in N.D., very rare.

There's a pretty girl behind every one!

[tmerton]

We interrupt this discussion to bring you news of another miracle in Oz-land. 

Say, isn't that 007?

[SUMMIT!!!!!]

It's like a tree in N.D., very rare.

There's a pretty girl behind every one!

there is one behind BOTH trees?? wow!

[USTBench]

We interrupt this discussion to bring you news of another miracle in Oz-land. 

Say, isn't that 007?

Underneath a train is no place for a baby.

[TC]

I think you're proving my point about Hvistendahl.  The mere fact that Elliot had 15 more games and only 84 more receptions and only 130 more yards speaks volumes. 

You do realize that those 15 extra games came against playoff teams, including 3 games against Mount Union, right?  And that, while he only had 130 more yards, he also had 23 more receiving TDs.

And in two of the biggest games of his career, Elliott had 15 carries for 136 yards and a TD against Linfield in the West Regional finals and 11 carries for 110 yards and a TD against Mount Union in the Stagg Bowl.  Those numbers aren't account for in his edreceiving stats, obviously, but they seem good.

That and when you consider that Hvistendahl averaged almost exactly 1 TD/game for his career, if you give him an extra 15 games to match Elliot, the TD numbers would be close to identical.

Hvistendahl:  40 TDs, 42 games.  Elliott:  63 TDs, 57 games (plus 8 rushing TDs, 5 punt return TDs and 2 kick return TDs).  Extrapolate out all you'd like, he ain't catching up.  And again, that's without taking into account the dramatic difference in opponent difficulty.

And lets not forget, Hvistendahl was a true senior.  Unlike Elliot, he never had a medical hardship. 

I have no idea where you are going with this.  Are you really blaming Elliott for getting hurt his freshman year?  Do you really think an extra season of watching practices gave him some some otherworldly advantage?  Do you think the coaching staff made up the injury in 1999 as part of their master plan to win the 2003 Stagg Bowl?  I really don't get it.  But...

Hvistendahl's freshman year he only had 295 yds receiving.  His sophmore year he had 1137.
Elliot's redshirt freshman year, 2000, he had 500 yds.  So when they were both technically the same age, SH = 1137, BE = 500.

...I also don't get where you are getting Elliott's freshman year numbers from.  He had 60 catches, 967 yards, and 14 TDs.

Hvistendahl's senior year he had 1860 yds.  BE, his redshirt junior year had 1484 yds rec.  His redshirt senior year he had 1319.  No knock on Elliot for getting hurt as a freshman.  But what happens to Hvistendahl's career numbers if you throw out his 295 as freshman and give him another year of experience like BE had as redshirt senior. 

I realize that is all conjecture, but I think it says a ton that Hvistendahl had the numbers he had, considering what he did as freshman and without the benefit of a redshirt/medical hardship. Also, keep in mind, his freshman year was his first as a WR, since he was a RB in high school.

Still no idea what you're talking about, but if you insist that Elliott was somehow helped immensely by sitting out a year with injury I guess I'll have to concede the point.

Guys, I just don't get it.  I'm not at all trying to take away from Elliot.  He was an all-time great.  I know, I played against him and we had to try to stop him.  But you are totally nuts if you think Hvistendahl was not in B.E.'s class. 

I think there is probably two things affecting this argument.  1- There is some understandable Johnnie bias.  You guys love Elliot, because he's your guy and because he was a great player.  I totally get that.  2- I think there are a ton of guys in this argument who A) never actually saw Hvistendahl play a single game, and so know of him only as a name (and because he wasn't a Johnnie, not a name that gets brought up multiple times a season) or B) only saw him play 4 games his entire career, aka, when he was playing your team.  As compared to BE, who Johnnie posters saw play multiple times.

I agree that just pointing to the stats and picking the better player is stupid (and probably impossible).  I also agree that I'm probably biased towards Blake Elliott because I saw him singlehandedly beat Mount Union, Linfield and a bunch of other really, really good teams.  And it's probably unfair to Hvistendahl because he never had the opportunity to do the same thing.  And I only saw Hvistendahl play once.  Or never, I don't remember.

All that said, I still find it almost impossible to believe that Hvistendahl was better than Elliott.

I mean, someone has actually argued that had Decker gone to SJU, he may have put up BE type numbers!!  Really, can we all at least admit that as good as Hvistendahl and Elliot were, Decker is hands down in another class?  I mean, he's doing their type of thing at the DI level!!

Sarcasm really doesn't translate well to on-line message boards, does it?

[sju56321]

TC- if we had Blake for tomorrow, we might only lose by 7.

[D O.C.]

Please do not go flooding my PM box or reply on this board and break the J code BUT,

out of respect, if Hvistendahl is going to be spelled correctly then Elliot should be.

[TC]

That raises a bunch of questions, zip--would we be able to bring Keating or Linneman back to throw him the ball?  Kofoed?  Blake formation?  Direct snaps?  Also, would you start him in place of Wimmer or alongside him?  

Regardless, I bet he'd have a pile of kick return yards.  

[VOJ]

TC- if we had Blake for tomorrow, we might only lose by 7.

If we had Blake, Hood and McCambridge we would still probably lose by 15

[Touchdown Tommy]

TC- if we had Blake for tomorrow, we might only lose by 7.

I think you mean Kofoed...


Ladies and Gentlemen that bitch slapping was brought to you by the esteemed TC.  The caliber of talent or lack thereof for each playoff opponent is the one thing that the statistics refuse to show...

RE: LWD

I will choose to ignore his ridiculous rant late last night.  There are so many false statements within it that my head is spinning.  The Little Wiener Doggie knows this and is clearly just trying to get a rise out of TDT.

Wonka: Au contraire, the shrine to the Dirty Deuce resides at Red Hot Bennie's McMansion in Medina.  DustySJU can attest to her fondness for the Monster from Melrose...

[cobbernation]

It's like a tree in N.D., very rare.

There's a pretty girl behind every one!

Pretty girls in N.D.  I will wait for that Ripley's Believe or Not episode for confirmation!   

[WithasilentK]

TC-I agree with all of your points and your stance but this:

Disclaimer:  I don't know what Elliot's injury was.

One year can make a very very big difference.  There are devestating injuries that are different, but he obviously was able to come back.  Having an extra year to develop is huge.  There's no getting around that.  Strength, speed, and maybe most importantly, smarts, gain each year with work in the offseason.  One more year of development is a big deal.

That being said, I don't think it has any merit in this discussion.  Four years on the field is four years on the field when you're discussing who's better.

[USTBench]

It's like a tree in N.D., very rare.

There's a pretty girl behind every one!

Pretty girls in N.D.  I will wait for that Ripley's Believe or Not episode for confirmation!   

Many of them become Cobbers...so bite your tongue!