[washingtonismoney]

Let me preface this by saying that the most important thing regarding the subject of Chris Owusu is his health and whatever he needs to be doing in order to regain and maintain in.

That being said, I think commentators and people generally are very much overstating the actual, in-game impact Owusu has had for the team this season: people are suggesting that the team is totally without a deep threat, that there's no speed on the team now, etc. etc.

I can't speculate as to why they believe that, but it's not true at all that Owusu was a deep threat this season. 2009 Chris Owusu was a superb deep threat and playmaker--in fact, if we had 2009 version of Chris Owusu, we'd be a much, much better team. Instead of being a close-run thing, as it is now, going unbeaten would be something I'd be pretty confident about.

By this point in the season, 2009 Owusu had 7 plays of 30 yards or more (receiving or rushing). 2011 Chris Owusu has four. If anything, this understates the wide gap in big play ability, because 2009 Chris Owusu was an instant field position advantage, much better than either 2011 Chris Owusu or Ty Montgomery. Put it this way: if we had 2009 Owusu just for kick returns, I think we win the USC game in regulation, and perhaps relatively comfortably. 2011 Chris Owusu is targeted mostly for long handoffs, after which he's expected to run after catch. It's an effective play, but not a terribly explosive one--he averages 10 yards per catch, which is the kind of statistic stereotypically attached to slow white guys whom we call "possession receivers." If Ty Montgomery can play at even half the level of his USC game, particularly his yards after catch, then losing 2011 Owusu is not a brobdingnagian loss on the playing field, however large the loss is to his health.

[washingtonismoney]

Let me preface this by saying that the most important thing regarding the subject of Chris Owusu is his health and whatever he needs to be doing in order to regain and maintain in.

That being said, I think commentators and people generally are very much overstating the actual, in-game impact Owusu has had for the team this season: people are suggesting that the team is totally without a deep threat, that there's no speed on the team now, etc. etc.

I can't speculate as to why they believe that, but it's not true at all that Owusu was a deep threat this season. 2009 Chris Owusu was a superb deep threat and playmaker--in fact, if we had 2009 version of Chris Owusu, we'd be a much, much better team. Instead of being a close-run thing, as it is now, going unbeaten would be something I'd be pretty confident about.

By this point in the season, 2009 Owusu had 7 plays of 30 yards or more (receiving or rushing). 2011 Chris Owusu has four. If anything, this understates the wide gap in big play ability, because 2009 Chris Owusu was an instant field position advantage, much better than either 2011 Chris Owusu or Ty Montgomery. Put it this way: if we had 2009 Owusu just for kick returns, I think we win the USC game in regulation, and perhaps relatively comfortably. 2011 Chris Owusu is targeted mostly for long handoffs, after which he's expected to run after catch. It's an effective play, but not a terribly explosive one--he averages 10 yards per catch, which is the kind of statistic stereotypically attached to slow white guys whom we call "possession receivers." If Ty Montgomery can play at even half the level of his USC game, particularly his yards after catch, then losing 2011 Owusu is not a brobdingnagian loss on the playing field, however large the loss is to his health.

[Roberton3]

I'd agree, but with one big caveat: because defenses adjust, it's always hard to tell how much an individual player contributes.  Did other teams play their safeties deeper because of Owusu, thus giving more room to run the ball?  Did they shade the safeties toward his side of the field, opening up space for other receivers?  I suspect that at least some of the time, they did.

[Roberton3]

I'd agree, but with one big caveat: because defenses adjust, it's always hard to tell how much an individual player contributes.  Did other teams play their safeties deeper because of Owusu, thus giving more room to run the ball?  Did they shade the safeties toward his side of the field, opening up space for other receivers?  I suspect that at least some of the time, they did.

[washingtonismoney]

I'd agree, but with one big caveat: because defenses adjust, it's always hard to tell how much an individual player contributes.  Did other teams play their safeties deeper because of Owusu, thus giving more room to run the ball?  Did they shade the safeties toward his side of the field, opening up space for other receivers?  I suspect that at least some of the time, they did.

Maybe they've tilted safeties towards Owusu, but safeties have (in general) been playing extraordinarily close to the LOS. Not quite up to Gerhart standards, but pretty close.

[washingtonismoney]

I'd agree, but with one big caveat: because defenses adjust, it's always hard to tell how much an individual player contributes.  Did other teams play their safeties deeper because of Owusu, thus giving more room to run the ball?  Did they shade the safeties toward his side of the field, opening up space for other receivers?  I suspect that at least some of the time, they did.

Maybe they've tilted safeties towards Owusu, but safeties have (in general) been playing extraordinarily close to the LOS. Not quite up to Gerhart standards, but pretty close.

[fullmetal]

I absolutely believe that Owusu forces defensive coordinators to adjust their game plans.  In fact, I would be okay with (on a moral/ethical level) playing Owusu this Saturday purely for the decoy aspect and never throwing to him (and thus hopefully not subjecting him to serious impact).

[fullmetal]

I absolutely believe that Owusu forces defensive coordinators to adjust their game plans.  In fact, I would be okay with (on a moral/ethical level) playing Owusu this Saturday purely for the decoy aspect and never throwing to him (and thus hopefully not subjecting him to serious impact).

[Redrum]

That's not an absolute true fix on where the program administration sits on this issue,  but  I'm betting that starting the on-again/off-again freshman indicates they're thinking serious thoughts re Owusu.

[Redrum]

That's not an absolute true fix on where the program administration sits on this issue,  but  I'm betting that starting the on-again/off-again freshman indicates they're thinking serious thoughts re Owusu.

[Farm93]

That's not an absolute true fix on where the program administration sits on this issue,  but  I'm betting that starting the on-again/off-again freshman indicates they're thinking serious thoughts re Owusu.

The reward/benefit seems so small compared to the risk.  As it stands, I think most of us are in the same place here.

I fear/suspect if I lived in a different part of the country, that didn't really care about the long-term health of the "students", there might be a different perspective that would dominate this board.

[Farm93]

That's not an absolute true fix on where the program administration sits on this issue,  but  I'm betting that starting the on-again/off-again freshman indicates they're thinking serious thoughts re Owusu.

The reward/benefit seems so small compared to the risk.  As it stands, I think most of us are in the same place here.

I fear/suspect if I lived in a different part of the country, that didn't really care about the long-term health of the "students", there might be a different perspective that would dominate this board.

[dabigv13]

One perspective that we haven't really heard here is from Owusu- can you imagine how frustrating it must be for him, that through the maliciousness of others along with dumb luck, he will likely miss the biggest game of his entire career? And on a morning when he will probably wake up feeling fine?

As a student, I loved playing intramural football; I taped up dislocated fingers, twisted ankles, and played through it all for completely meaningless games. For the fun, for the competition, for your teammates. Owusu I'm sure has played through much worse physical injury, probably for some of the same reasons. The perspective it would take to rest easy with the decision not to play is honestly beyond me. To sit, not because it's gonna hurt to play through, or maybe even be impossible to play through, but the vague percentage chance that something bad could happen.

Poor, poor guy.

[dabigv13]

One perspective that we haven't really heard here is from Owusu- can you imagine how frustrating it must be for him, that through the maliciousness of others along with dumb luck, he will likely miss the biggest game of his entire career? And on a morning when he will probably wake up feeling fine?

As a student, I loved playing intramural football; I taped up dislocated fingers, twisted ankles, and played through it all for completely meaningless games. For the fun, for the competition, for your teammates. Owusu I'm sure has played through much worse physical injury, probably for some of the same reasons. The perspective it would take to rest easy with the decision not to play is honestly beyond me. To sit, not because it's gonna hurt to play through, or maybe even be impossible to play through, but the vague percentage chance that something bad could happen.

Poor, poor guy.

[needle]

As a kid, Tom Waddle was one of my favorite receivers to watch. But he took a tremendous amount of punishment as a receiver in the NFL in an era when Steve Atwater highlights were the epitome of cool.

Maybe a comparision between Owusu and Waddle, now in this 40s, isn't fair, but I don't think it's completely far off, either.

On the bright side for Waddle:

With a wife, four young daughters, an impending move, a daily radio show on ESPN Radio 1000 in Chicago and enough side gigs to occupy all the "spare time," Tom Waddle doesn't possess the energy to worry about things he can't control.

Less so:

Waddle said it's too hard to determine how many concussions he may have sustained during his six-year career as a fearless, over-the-middle receiver for the B.ears in the early '90s.

"It was nothing where I woke up the next morning throwing up," he said.

But given the recent attention and ongoing research on the lasting damage that playing football can have on the brain, Waddle's bouts of periodic fogginess are scary, he admits. "Not to be overly dramatic, but there are days when what I'm thinking I want to say just doesn't come out of my mouth," he said. "I can't seem to make the connection of what I want to say and saying it. There are times when I can't process everything, where I feel like I'm thinking things through, but I can't verbalize it for some reason.

"Being in the media for so long, it's your job, so you learn to do it on a decent level. But some days are much harder than others, and I can't process it all."

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/co...id=4903185

[needle]

As a kid, Tom Waddle was one of my favorite receivers to watch. But he took a tremendous amount of punishment as a receiver in the NFL in an era when Steve Atwater highlights were the epitome of cool.

Maybe a comparision between Owusu and Waddle, now in this 40s, isn't fair, but I don't think it's completely far off, either.

On the bright side for Waddle:

With a wife, four young daughters, an impending move, a daily radio show on ESPN Radio 1000 in Chicago and enough side gigs to occupy all the "spare time," Tom Waddle doesn't possess the energy to worry about things he can't control.

Less so:

Waddle said it's too hard to determine how many concussions he may have sustained during his six-year career as a fearless, over-the-middle receiver for the B.ears in the early '90s.

"It was nothing where I woke up the next morning throwing up," he said.

But given the recent attention and ongoing research on the lasting damage that playing football can have on the brain, Waddle's bouts of periodic fogginess are scary, he admits. "Not to be overly dramatic, but there are days when what I'm thinking I want to say just doesn't come out of my mouth," he said. "I can't seem to make the connection of what I want to say and saying it. There are times when I can't process everything, where I feel like I'm thinking things through, but I can't verbalize it for some reason.

"Being in the media for so long, it's your job, so you learn to do it on a decent level. But some days are much harder than others, and I can't process it all."

http://sports.espn.go.com/chicago/nfl/co...id=4903185

[OutsiderFan]

I absolutely believe that Owusu forces defensive coordinators to adjust their game plans.  In fact, I would be okay with (on a moral/ethical level) playing Owusu this Saturday purely for the decoy aspect and never throwing to him (and thus hopefully not subjecting him to serious impact).

I just watched the first half of Stanford on offense against OSU last night.  It's hard to tell from TV angles, but with rare exception OSU played its Safeties at least 12 yards deep, even after Owusu went out.  The thing I found fascinating was even when Stanford went to 3 TE sets without any WRs (mostly before Toilolo went out), OSU still played its Safeties deep.  You would think when the offense is bunched together tight that the Safeties would creep up, but OSU kept theirs back.  This demonstrates just how fearful OSU was of the play-action pass.  In other words, even when Stanford goes to the "we're going to run it down your throat formation," defenses still feel threatened by the pass because they know the TEs are a threat.  I would argue as long as Fleener or Toilolo is on the field, the Safeties have to respect the over the top passing threat.  This makes me believe not having Ertz realy isn't as big a deal as people are thinking.  Would it be better to have him?  Sure, but not having him isn't going to make the offense very much less potent.

What I really noticed when watching was how difficult it is to stop Stanford's offense simply by formation.  I mean they can go with the 3 TE /2 RB, everybody in a 3-point stance look and pass, and then they can go out of shotgun, single back with a TE split out, and run.  It's really hard to blitz effectively.  That's why the University of South Central had some success at least slowing Stanford's offense; they were able to get pressure with the front 4 and the threat of the pass rush gave the University of South Central's Linebackers a better shot at stopping the run.

Bottom line is Owusu being out isn't going to have any impact on where the Safeties play.  As long as Fleener is on the field, they have to play deep.  Not too many teams have a TE that can stretch the field.  Stanford does.

[OutsiderFan]

I absolutely believe that Owusu forces defensive coordinators to adjust their game plans.  In fact, I would be okay with (on a moral/ethical level) playing Owusu this Saturday purely for the decoy aspect and never throwing to him (and thus hopefully not subjecting him to serious impact).

I just watched the first half of Stanford on offense against OSU last night.  It's hard to tell from TV angles, but with rare exception OSU played its Safeties at least 12 yards deep, even after Owusu went out.  The thing I found fascinating was even when Stanford went to 3 TE sets without any WRs (mostly before Toilolo went out), OSU still played its Safeties deep.  You would think when the offense is bunched together tight that the Safeties would creep up, but OSU kept theirs back.  This demonstrates just how fearful OSU was of the play-action pass.  In other words, even when Stanford goes to the "we're going to run it down your throat formation," defenses still feel threatened by the pass because they know the TEs are a threat.  I would argue as long as Fleener or Toilolo is on the field, the Safeties have to respect the over the top passing threat.  This makes me believe not having Ertz realy isn't as big a deal as people are thinking.  Would it be better to have him?  Sure, but not having him isn't going to make the offense very much less potent.

What I really noticed when watching was how difficult it is to stop Stanford's offense simply by formation.  I mean they can go with the 3 TE /2 RB, everybody in a 3-point stance look and pass, and then they can go out of shotgun, single back with a TE split out, and run.  It's really hard to blitz effectively.  That's why the University of South Central had some success at least slowing Stanford's offense; they were able to get pressure with the front 4 and the threat of the pass rush gave the University of South Central's Linebackers a better shot at stopping the run.

Bottom line is Owusu being out isn't going to have any impact on where the Safeties play.  As long as Fleener is on the field, they have to play deep.  Not too many teams have a TE that can stretch the field.  Stanford does.

[washingtonismoney]

In other words, even when Stanford goes to the "we're going to run it down your throat formation," defenses still feel threatened by the pass because they know the TEs are a threat.  I would argue as long as Fleener or Toilolo is on the field, the Safeties have to respect the over the top passing threat.  This makes me believe not having Ertz realy isn't as big a deal as people are thinking.  Would it be better to have him?  Sure, but not having him isn't going to make the offense very much less potent.

I guess I would quibble with this a bit--Ertz's routes (which are usually intermediate-type stuff) force the defensive backs and linebackers to pay attention to him, often allowing for a better/quicker release for Fleener. So I do think Ertz is the more important of the two injured players, though I think Stanford can score either way.

[washingtonismoney]

In other words, even when Stanford goes to the "we're going to run it down your throat formation," defenses still feel threatened by the pass because they know the TEs are a threat.  I would argue as long as Fleener or Toilolo is on the field, the Safeties have to respect the over the top passing threat.  This makes me believe not having Ertz realy isn't as big a deal as people are thinking.  Would it be better to have him?  Sure, but not having him isn't going to make the offense very much less potent.

I guess I would quibble with this a bit--Ertz's routes (which are usually intermediate-type stuff) force the defensive backs and linebackers to pay attention to him, often allowing for a better/quicker release for Fleener. So I do think Ertz is the more important of the two injured players, though I think Stanford can score either way.

[fullmetal]

WIM, yeah, you're right.  The TE versatility hurts more when you don't know what the TE will do versus what you will know Owusu can do.

[fullmetal]

WIM, yeah, you're right.  The TE versatility hurts more when you don't know what the TE will do versus what you will know Owusu can do.