02Ram54

There are experts out there, of course, and books and programs, etc.

Sure. A prep school is a pretty common route for a DI player to take out of high school that doesn't have the grades or the core classes requirements finished. Louisville signed a 4 star WR last season, Josh Chichester, and he went to Harmony Community School this fall to get himself in order to play for the Cards. He enrolled this semester at U of L on scholarship. But it isn't just for players that don't have the grades, for example Amobi Okoye for U of L is a GREAT student, and that's why Auburn wanted him to go to a prep school- he graduated high school at 15. They wanted him to do a tour in prep school, then redshirt him so that he'd be a frosh at what they considered to be a more reasonable age to compete in college. Instead he went to U of L, and things have worked out pretty OK I'd say. The advantage of a JUCO depends on the aspirations. If a player wants to play D-IA football but isn't getting noticed (or again, doesn't have the grades) JUCO can be a good route to get developed and shine on a smaller stage and then be picked up ready to rock and roll in a few years by a big time program. If playing in D-IAA or DII is just as good to the student athlete, walking on at a smaller school is another option. Walking on at a big time school, without the benefit of good coaching in high school, means that a player is probably not going to get the instruction they need. Not knowing the details, it sounds like that's the case here. In any case, I'm not an expert. I just have the internet connection to sound like one.

Sounds like a natural football player, but raw. The lack of coaching is going to scare colleges off as much as anything. It sounds like he would benefit from prep school or JUCO to get a little coaching and a little time to work a reputation up.

Well, isn't that what was asked at the begining of the thread, if there was ever too much? But most people are answering 'No.'

Nobody? To me, it's easy to play tough and say "run 'em," but there HAS to be a point where it's too much.

So everybody that says running is acceptable in all cases, you believe that there is never a time when a coach might legitimately ask too much of the athlete?

:thumb::thumb::thumb:

I'm all for conditioning, and running to get the point across when the team isn't 'getting it' can be a useful tool, but there is such a thing as too much.

Do I have to wait for D or M?

On topic, Trinity is clearly numero uno but they aren't in a class all by themselves. It's still the Big Three (for now.)

Also, while Cincy has a similar population, I would be willing to say that it has a larger Catholic population.

Although I too think Trinity guys get a little worked up on the subject, Glaser has done this a couple of times now. Did he even acknowledge the Trinity game at all, say something like 'two losses and a game called in the first quarter?' If not, it was deliberate, and I can see where at this point in the game that it would be a little steaming.

Beaumont is destined for either WR or DB at U of L. Scout lists him as a WR for recruiting purposes.

I just remember it from the record breaking fiasco in WVa last year.

I think eventually the ref calls a 'T.' I don't know about in basketball, so this obviously a guess and some ref poster is going to come in and kick me, but in football there are rules against making a mockery of the game or its rules, and the ref can even go so far as to reward points or call the game over it.

I would certainly call it the norm, but it isn't the norm it was 10 years ago. The technology boom produced a lot of alternatives to standard business models, and some of those ideas are starting to spread out to more traditional corporations. Many companies are now more concerned with employees being happy, healthy and comfortable, because that equals productive; it also means attracting more talent, and as someone else mentioned, these kids that get the mohawks and piercings can be pretty intelligent and capable people.

Most kids that get mohawks cut them down when they get out of college. Most people that get tattoos get them somewhere that's covered when they wear a suit and tie (Mike Tyson is an idiot, and it shows.) If piercings are a problem getting a job, it'd have to be facial piercings, and those are the holes that close up the quickest; regardless, I know several people who have successfully interviewed for serious jobs with two of the three (I don't know anyone who's ever interviewed with a mohawk, but my roommate sports one to his cubicle job every once in a while.) And nineteen times out of twenty, these are correctable or coverable youthful expressions and don't go on to ruin someone's life. In the interest of full disclosure, I have no piercings, tattoos or mohawks. I used to have a very full head of curly hair and a set of choppers, but those are gone. Now, I have a discreet set that are the same 1/8 height as my hair, and a small chin beard. The biggest reason is that I was required to look professional for work, but that's just my dad. The trend is away from that, and as my generation gets older and more prominently placed in the business world, these attitudes will continue to recede. It used to be that if you interviewed with a beard or hair longer than what my Mother calls a Kennedy cut, you'd have the same problems. That's because the standard of the generation before was influenced by heavy percentages of military service. But even the standards that military service produces aren't 1950's crew cut- most of the young soldiers and sailors I know have tattoos and are pretty proud of them.

Maybe you can't see it, but it's happening in corporate America as we speak. Not everywhere, but it's a growing trend.

I believe Manual relies pretty heavily on a pair of young shooters.

I'd like to think that society benefits when you can't turn people into robots. Maybe that's just me.

In football, we were reqired to be clean shaven (hair was your own business) until my senior year. With the ban lifted, I immediatly sprouted a pair of mutton chops, and we got better... coincidence? I think not. :lol: I understand the desire to ask players to dress nicely (I agree to a certain extent, but suit and tie seems silly in a world where so many businesses have more casual standards) but the clean shaven/short hair thing is obviously military holdover, and I don't think we really should approach high school sports as a martial training program. That's what the JROTC is for.

Funny that the best post in support of Anderson has to come from you. I agree with the things you say. I would call Anderson a precocious and skilled runner, who does a lot of little things that put him in another class when he stepped on to the field. But he was not the star that in my opinion he should have been. If people would stop to think about that, there's a compliment in there, especially to a player with all of his college and possible pro career ahead of him. As to your first point, GBB, I don't meant that a player has to be Barry Sanders to be a contributor on the college level. I mean that at this level of play, a player that will end up as a high-major starter typically will have the type of play in big games that I described. They'll rise to the occasion on this level, the best example I can think of being Bush and Brohm in '02. I don't think Anderson has done that as well as others I've seen.

:lol: Not much of a rebuttal when you fail to actually address my points. Like I said, there is a natural and obvious difference between RB and DB in how much one player can be expected to take over a game. As to the accolades, they're well deserved. He has a lot of talent. No one has said that he doesn't. However, credits such as 1st Team All State can be and were matched by players with not a lot of D-IA potential. He was clearly second in votes to another RB, even if he did make first team, where Nick Petrino (great player, could QB for me any day of the week and twice on Fridays) doesn't exactly have recruiters trampling his mother's flower garden, but was possibly a more solid selection. He's fairly highly ranked in online recruiting guides, but that is CERTAINLY not the end-all as to who will be accomplished or star players on the next level. No one freaked out when I said basically the same thing during the season; I don't know why it's being taken so personally now.

1) My intent was to frame my concern about Anderson. I think I achieved that goal. Beaumont was just an example of a player that I thought played well through adversity in games of signifigance. I could have just as easily said Chase Minnifield, his performance against Trinity was spectacular. 2) Out of district games in the KHSAA structure are glorified practice sessions. By and large they don't matter in the grand scheme of things; for an example see Trinity '03. The only game outside of R2D4 and the playoffs that REALLY matters on X's schedule is Trinity. Those games you mentioned were not big games. X's really big games were against Trinity and Male. 3) You may think you're being clever by trying to frame my post as a rip on DBs, but it isn't so. RB is a position where a star player is expected to do big things on their own, more so than any other position in football. Corner backs can take away half the field, but it isn't the same thing. An interception doesn't just require a DB's ability- it also requires a QB throwing to his responsibility, and imperfections in that delivery. Even quarterback, a more pressure-packed position, isn't the same- in fact, it's the opposite, the QB is seen as probably the most team inter-dependant position on offense. Anderson, in the BIG GAMES where X faced adversity, didn't do the big things. Just my opinion, I've expressed it before, and I know that I'm not the only one that sees it that way. By the way, I still see Doug Beaumont as a WR for Louisville. They've had a lot of success with undersized recievers (Douglas currently, and you may remember a kid named Branch that caught a few balls for the Cards) and I think Beaumont is a playmaker and a half- they'll want the ball in his hand more than a couple of times a season.

I think that Anderson has a lot of talent. At this point I also think that RP might be on to something. The first time I saw Anderson play, I was REALLY impressed. I told the St. X photographer standing next to me that it was like watching someone hit the spin button on a video game, his football moves were excellent. I remain impressed with that aspect of his game. However, I also have developed a reservation about his game that I know RP shares, who is a rather impartial judge of talent in my opinion. I have never seen Anderson step onto the field and win the big game for his team, just put them on his back when they can't get it done without him. Anderson is at his most impressive in a blowout. I don't know if he's feeding on that vibe or what, but when X can't lose Anderson is a beast. He smells blood in the water or whatever, but when X has had momenteum on their side I've seen him be sick good. It's another story when X is struggling. I have never seen Anderson turn a game around when it was in serious doubt for X. When Curley went down against Trinity in the title game last year, X needed Anderson to step up and he didn't. I know it's a team effort, but Anderson is the star. He has the talent, and if you're going to be a bright light on the next level, that's when you should shine. And he didn't. Since then, I've predicted in big games (Trinity this year, against Male) that he wouldn't be able to make the difference. We obviously didn't get to see him in the Trinity game much, but I certainly felt that my point was made against Male. Beaumont and Male's defense shut him down. When Male was losing big to Manual last year, I saw Doug Beaumont put on a show. I've seen him do it since, the few times when Male REALLY needed him Beaumont delivered win or lose. Anderson just doesn't do it that way. That's the big hole I see in his game, and I think it might have something to do with whether he's really meant to be a running back in college, or if he should be in a less proactive position, like DB, where you don't have to Make the Play, you just make plays.