All Time Husky Football Team - RB
by John Berkowitz on Jan 23, 2009 7:46 AM PST
Email
PrintThe tallies for the Quarterback position are in and Marques Tuiasosopo was your top pick by a wide margin followed by Warren Moon and Billy Joe Hobert.
Mark Brunell, Bob Schloredt, Sonny Sixkiller, Jake Locker, and Don Heinrich received honorable mention.
If I was picking one, two, three I would have gone with Tuiasosopo, Heinrich, and Hobert.
My vote for best of all time went to Tuiasosopo. IMHO nobody took over a game like he did.
Who is the best Running Back in Husky History?
We have some great names led by the "King" himself Hugh McElhenny who old timers suggest was only second to the great Jim Brown. Too young to have seen him play? Here is some video on the "King".
George Wilson and Chuck Carroll come from other era's but were both consensus first team All Americans who led their team to Rose Bowl games.
Joe Steele was called the most important recruit of the Don James era.
Napoleon Kaufmann had legs that were as quick as a needle in a sewing machine.
Corey Dillon had one terrific season where I think he may have been the best RB in the country.
The voting is open and it will only last twenty four hours before we move on to the next position.
51 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
As much as I want to say Steele or Napoleon...
I have to go with Corey Dillon. His combination of size, power & speed was unstopable. If he would have played four years here he would own every running record we have as well as some national records. His career here was brief and that is really the only strike against him. Dick Baird always says that Corey was the best football player he ever coached. That pretty much says it all.
I had to go with the Record Holder...
Kaufman was on the NC team and hold to many big records for me not to pick him.
I was also going to mention Lewis...
… plus, Corey was definitely the best back in the country in his one year. He was amazing. Nevertheless, Nap was a phenom and a classmate, so I’ll go with him.
"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.
Check the film before you vote
You need to check the film on McElhenny before you vote.
Too bad I wasn’t able to dig up active film on Wilson and Carroll.
WOW
That was great film! I would still have to go with the guy who holds all the records and played on the NC game but he would be my 2 or 3 either in front of or behind Dillion.
I appreciate that ...
… and the long line of Dawgs in my family have been waging this very debate since as far back as I can remember. If you recall, my original tagline on my since-banned “Minny C” profile was “shake the hand that shook the hand of Hustlin’ Hugh” – my grandfather’s favorite greeting to me whenever we saw each other. Nevertheless, I still have to go with Nap.
"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.
McElhenny
is my vote, although he alledged said he had to take a pay cut when he went to the Niners.
Nip’s feet would move so fast he’d lose his balance and fall down…fun to watch because you never knew when he could break one, same for Beno returning punts, Beno was a good RB as well..
Dillon was a beast, academics were not his forte.
Joe Steele was the one that opened the other instate PSA’s eyes to Washington and a great running back until his injury slowed him down.
Greg Lewis is another fav.
Rankin?
Jack
I never voted on QB because I was stuck...
between Mark Brunnell (an unbelievable talent and leader but was shafted when he got injured and BJ Hobert took his spot) and Warren Moon. But I put my emotions aside so add 1 vote to the Warren Moon tally for QB.
BEST RB?
I was in school same time as Nip, exciting as he was he was pretty much a boom or bust runner, and I personally hate that type of style. I remember Nip falling over his feet as much as I remember his long runs.
Dillon was hands down the most talented but 1 year doesn’t cut it.
My heart says Jacque Robinson because he came up big in some of the biggest games in modern UW history.
My heart also says WILLIE HURST. If you never saw him I couldn’t explain it to you. If you saw him you know that the guy epitomized Husky football as much as Tui.
But I’m voting….McElhenny.
Why?
Because it’s always been McElhenny and no one since has been that great to take his crown.
Napoleon Kaufmann & Greg Lewis
How may 100 yard performances did Greg Lewis have in his senior year at UDub? I think I remember 9 or 10. Truly a great Husky runningback.
But my vote goes to Kaufmann. The guy was as electrifiying as Reggie Bush. Do you all remember his very first carry as a Husky? Toss/sweep, untouched, for 60-something yard touchdown.
His entire college career was awesome and to me he is the bench mark for Husky runningbacks. Vote for Napoleon!
Why do we hate Greg Lewis?
Not seriously “hate” but you know what I mean, all he did was produce but he never really won over the fanbase like his predecessors, admittedly myself included.
Was it the lack of sizzle in his running style?
I mean this is a hometown guy and actually if you think about it he was very much a brandon roy type for the football program. Great leader, great teammate, great representative of the university as a whole, everyone respected him.
Just thinking out loud about how Greg Lewis always seems to get sold short by Husky nation…
Hobert?
John correct me if I am wrong, but didn’t Hobert have just one season as a starter? Yes he went 12-0 as a starter, but if Brunell doesn’t get injured, Hobert doesn’t get his shot and stayes accustom to sitting on the bench.
Let’s be honest, the only reason Hobert is Hobert is because of injury to our starting QB Mark Burnell. One season does not extend you legendary status. The 91 national championship season was about the team, more precisely the defense led by Steve Emtman and Dave Hoffman. I can’t recall a time when Hobert was put in a situation to win a game for the Huskies- I’m sorry but I can’t.
Hobert was great don’t get me wrong, but his one season can’t carry him to legendary status. Brunell was our starter and their is no denying that. Hobert was in a position to make a name for himself by playing with arguably the best team in the entire nation. From what I am reading on the UW Dawg Pound surely it paid off in dividends. Hobert was great but not a legend…
Wrong
Hobert was the starter by default in ‘91 when Brunell went down, and went undefeated. Maybe Brunell would’ve gone undefeated too, we’ll never know. Hobert did rally the team on a number of occasions that season, Nebraska being a critical one.
More importantly, in the Spring of ’92 when the job was open for competition with Brunell 100% healthy again, Hobert beat him out and continued his undefeated streak by winning the first 8 games of the season until Hobert was suspended due to the private loan issue (which, as it turned out, was not against the rules and did not cause the UW program any sanctions).
There’s no way a rational person can consider Brunell a better Husky QB than Hobert. Now, as pro QB’s there’s obviously a difference, but that’s not what we’re talking about…
Not against the rules?
Taking a loan out and paying it back on his future earnings as a NFL player is certainly against the rules. Why do you suppose Reggie Bush allegations have popped up?
The Hobert scandal was major headlines that warrented a closer look into the program. And for that Hobert isn’t even on my radar in being on a list of this magnitude. The further Hobert is away from the program the better we are. He knew exactly what he was doing. Every college athlete must take an ethics course, either an academic course or one offered by the athletic program. Let’s just say Hobert failed that course.
Regarding Hobert: I loved the kid when he quarterbacked the team to the national championship. But once the headlines came out I had no choice but to disown him as a Husky. His headlines haunt this program to this very day.
that is silly...
…kird is right. Hobert never lost as a husky – and that went beyond just the NC season. His actions were not illegal … dumb, but not against the rules at the time. Don James is probably as much to blame as anyone for letting things get out of control. His resignation was a statement of protest as much as anything, but it had the perverse effect of making the preceding issues appear more serious than they were and starting the program down its declining path. To blindly scapegoat Hobert is sad and a mistake.
"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.
Wrong again
Go back and look at the NCAA and Pac-10 reports from ’93 – the UW was not penalized for anything relating to Hobert. The investigation determined that the loan by the family friend was permissible. He was not a UW booster, and the loan was based off a family connection.
And I’m pretty sure the L.A. Times was already working on their report on the summer jobs program in L.A. for Husky players when the Hobert loan story broke. Either way, you can’t blame Hobert for what happened since he didn’t break the rules. Blame the disgruntled former UW players from the late ’80’s whose allegations formed the basis of the sanctions – they’re the ones that intentionally sold-out the UW program.
It saddens me how many Husky fans are misinformed about this and have your attitude about Hobert. The poor guy was a great Husky and did not deserve the scorn thrown upon him. I suspect the whole incident affected him thereafter, and he would’ve been a better pro QB had he not been scarred by this incident.
Villified
You guys can spin it anyway you want, but in the end it was the beginning of the end. And your “… I’m pretty sure the LA Times …” bit is more or less based upon your assumptions and speculation. Fellas I am not alone on this one. Fox Sports NW did something quite simular to this article. It was something like “The Top 10 Best Quarterbacks in the NW”. The person on the show even stated Hobert was on the list but it wasn’t a very popular choice for some Husky fans.
To me Billy Jo Hobert was a great QB, but I sure as hell am not going to label him one of the very best, considering the windfire his loan created. I loved Hobert in 91 as much as the next Husky fan. But since those headlines came out, to me he is as villified as much as Pete Rose, Shoeless Joe, and Marky Mark McGuire. I am a big fan of Charlie Hustle (Rose), but he bet on baseball as an acting manager and deserved to be kicked out of the game. Marky Mark McGuire didn’t break MLB rules neither, but look at what he faces. Loved Hobert, but man the dude never saw the red flags.
Gekko & kirkd
Let me guess you two fellas were big Rick Nehiesel supporters. Rick broke NCAA rules and attempted to spin it anyway he could in order of staying clear of NCAA prosecution.
Nehiesel, a Ucla alum w/ a law degree didn’t know that betting on NCAA basketball was against NCAA policy. Are you kidding me Rick??? With your educational background? Betting on NCAA athletics as an employee or as a participant is the biggest no-no in the game. Let’s just say that Rick is the smartest dumb guy I’ve ever known.
If we can’t agree on this it’s cool. Let’s just hope our new coaching staff can run a clean program. I’m tired of the label “ProbationNation”. Good enough?
Conspiracy Theory
How much do you want to bet that Rick Neuhiesel got involved with that basketball pool knowing it could cost him his job? Here is what I am proposing:
Before the betting pool came to light, Rick went on the defense and called out both Oregon and Ucla for poaching recruits that had verbally commited to the UofW. If I recall I think I remember him saying something in the line of negative recruiting tactics and the headlines went national.
Could it be possible that Rick knew his talent at the UofW was shriveling up and that the only way he might be able to get out was to be illegally fired? I mean the guy is/was suppose to be a highly intellegent man, a smart man, where before he began his coaching career, he dabbled in the thought of becoming a lawyer. How is it that a man as smart as Rick Neuhiesel could do something as dumbfounded by engaging in an NCAA basketball betting pool? I find it hard to believe that a man as intellegent as Neuhiesel can act so irresponsible.
If this conspiracy theory is correct, the guy is smarter then we know him to be. The courts found the UofW illegally fired him and he was awarded millions of dollars. Yes his college career took a major hit, but he rebounded well as a quarterbacks coach in Baltimore. A few years away from the college scene and the guy lands one of the biggest head coaching jobs at one of the biggest college programs in the country- Ucla.
The “how dumb do you gotta be” question is baffling from such an intelligent man and it has me wondering whether or not this betting pool he was apart of was more or less choreographed so that he could flee the UofW unscathed, a program under his watch, where the talent was shriveling up. If any one part of this conspiracy theory is true, then surely the man they call the weasel is smarter then we all know him to be. Is it possible that he conjured all of this up? Makes you wonder…
You watch too much TV
Sounds like a good movie, but do you really believe that crap? I think Neuheisel is the main reason the UW has fallen so low, but haven’t you ever met somebody that is so smart, that they do stupid stuff. He thought he was too smart to get caught, it’s that simple.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
I liked Rick when he first got here – the enthusiasm, the big talk, the return of the gold helmets. I liked the flexibility he showed when he ditched his offense in favor of one featuring an option running attack that took full advantage of Tui and the near Rose Bowl his first season and the magical 11-1 Rose Bowl winning team the following year. I liked him landing in-state studs Paul Arnold, Reggie Williams and Dan Dicks and pulling in national guys like Charles Frederick, Nathan Rhodes, Donny Mateaki and others.
I didn’t like the bad publicity of his numerous recruiting infractions, I didn’t like the constant dalliances with other jobs, I didn’t like the abandonment of the running game after Tui graduated, I didn’t like the mediocre defenses, I didn’t like recruiting 6 WR’s in one class and the overall mediocre results in recruiting, I didn’t like the downward direction of the program after 2000.
After he lied about the 49ers job, I’d had enough. I was ready to see him go if he stumbled again, and the March Madness Calcutta pool was the last straw. In hindsight, he should’ve been kept on through that season before getting fired so the UW could’ve done a real coaching search instead of having to put Gilby in place since it was July.
Was it the beginning of the end? In a way, yes. But once again, Billy Joe’s loan did not cost the program anything in terms of sanctions – there was no institutional violation with regard to his loan. Billy Joe lost his eligibility, yes. But it was nothing more than that.
I don’t know for sure what the timing was on the L.A. Times investigation. I know the articles first came out in the beginning of December, and the Billy Joe story broke in the Seattle Times the first week of November, prior to the Arizona game. In most cases, significant investigative reporting such as the L.A. Times series takes more than 1 month to put together and publish.
Regardless, I find it odd that you’d blame Billy Joe for all of that when he in fact didn’t do anything that caused an institutional violation rather than blame the 5 former players from the late ’80’s who provided all the allegations of improprieties that the L.A. Times published and which formed the basis of the UW’s Pac-10 sanctions.
Billy Joe wasn’t a perfect guy – he made many mistakes off the field. But his actions only cost him his eligibility (and he could’ve contested that and returned for his Senior season had he wished). It was the actions of 5 bitter former players from the late ’80’s that brought down the UW program – those are the guys you should focus your anger on, not Billy Joe.
Nice spin again, but their are serious infractions if you lose your eligiblity- don’t you think? Yes I will agree with you that more people were involved, had to be but have those names surfaced? That is what I thought. All we have is the name Hobert. Again I loved the kid in 91- DAM straight I did, but his ill-advised actions caught the attention of the press, probably USC or Ucla alumni reporters who were tired of Washington kicking their collective asses.
Those names did surface. If you have the book “Bitter Roses”, re-read it, or search the L.A. Times archive. My copy of the book is sitting in a box in storage, otherwise I’d look it up for you. One of the names I seem to recall is Vince Fudzie.
Regarding Hobert, what spin? He committed an infraction which resulted in his loss of eligibility that season, but it was not an institutional violation and it did not result in any penalties for the UW.
Blame the players that ratted out the UW (and some think they exaggerated or made up the allegations due to lingering grudges they held against the program and DJ). Blame the booster(s) that broke rules. Blame the athletic administration for not monitoring their L.A. jobs program as vigorously as they did the Seattle jobs program.
But blaming Billy Joe because the story about his loan may have spurred investigations of the program by the L.A. Times is highly questionable reasoning.
I was wrong when I stated that Billy Joe did nothing wrong (obviously he did since he lost his eligibility), but it is true that what he did was not the reason the UW was hit with sanctions.
Now we're getting somewhere
Point noted about other people involved and I can agree. Maybe I was out of the loop when all this went down, maybe I was preoccupied with other hobbies of interest, but the Hobert-loan thing still sits rotting at the bottom of my stomach.
Who is your favorite player? Now picture that dude ruining his career and putting his team in harms way. Again I loved Billy Jo Hobert and to be quite honest I didn’t know anything about him until that triumphant 91 season. He was a really cool customer and made all the right decisions on the field. But the one decision he made off the field is still a sore gut-wrenching feeling that is rotting away in my stomach. I guess after this went down I wanted to hate him and I left it to fester.
Steve Sarkisian has the ability to heel that wound. I know he is pressing in regards to this initial recruiting class. But the real recruitment begins next season on the field. Win and the recruits will bang down his door ready to play for him. Sark is the only guy that can make the Hobert wound heel.
Hobert was Reckless just like Neuheisel was Reckless
It doesn’t make BJ or Ricky evil but they were both tragically flawed. Neither one of them should be considered for greatest Husky anything.
Barbara Hedges sold her soul in sticking by Slick Rick and you see what it got her.
Don James sold his soul in sticking by Billie Joe Hobert, by throwing Mark Brunnell under the bus he turned his back on the solid principles that were the foundation of Husky football. You see what it got the Dawgfather.
They both reaped what they sowed.
Don James sold his soul in sticking by Billie Joe Hobert, by throwing Mark Brunnell under the bus he turned his back on the solid principles that were the foundation of Husky football. You see what it got the Dawgfather.
Say what? I’m sorry, this doesn’t make any sense. DJ should’ve known that by starting Billy Joe things would end up with Billy Joe getting a loan that caused him to become ineligible? That’s a mighty big stretch there. This is just ridiculous revisionist history.
“There’s no way a rational person can consider Brunell a better Husky QB than Hobert.”
Really KirkD?? The word AT THE TIME from multiple players on the team was that Billy Joe Hobert kept the job over Brunnell because of personality not skills. The team LOVED BJ Hobert which was not a surprise because he was a swashbuckler and Brunnell was a God-fearing, no nonsense, coach/leader on and off the field.
And I would counter that any rational person that saw Brunnell play before he got injured would laugh at your suggestion that Hobert ever in his life was a better QB than Brunnell. Hobert’s personality was more popular with the team and he never lost, that’s why Brunnell didn’t get his job back.
There was no absolutely no surprise by anyone that knew the difference that Brunnell would have an excellent NFL career and BJ Hobert would have a cup of coffee.
You are misinformed my friend.
I’m sorry, you really think DJ would’ve placed Hobert as the starter in ‘92 over Brunell because of personality? I’m not buying it. If DJ thought Brunell was clearly the better guy, he’d have started.
I watched both QB’s play, and I have no qualms saying I thought Hobert was at least Brunell’s equal as a Husky. Brunell’s first year as a starter, before he got injured, was inconsistent. He was a sub-50% passer that year, and that was with at least as good an offensive supporting cast around him (Greg Lewis at RB, Bailey and McKay at WR, Pierce at TE) than Hobert had in ’91. Hobert put up much better numbers, and while Brunell was the better runner pre-injury, Hobert was no slouch as a runner either.
The difference in Brunell and Hobert’s NFL careers IMO came down to work ethic – Brunell had a far better one, and Hobert skated by on ability. That worked in college (and he was likely more motivated then, pre-scandal), but it didn’t work so well in the NFL. Hobert had the ability to succeed in the NFL, and he had a few moments that showed that – what he lacked was the will.
The entire team was more mature in '92!!
You’re actually giving credit to BJ Hobert for team-wide improvement is the same ridiculous myth that’s repeated ad nauseum but is not based on any facts but emotion because it was DJ’s best team.
And you seriously want to nitpick Brunnell’s stats in ‘91?? Brunnell put that team on his back in ’91, Brunnell was continually making plays with is feet as much as his arm. Jake Locker is a watered down version of Brunnell (and Locker isn’t even half the QB that Mark Brunnell was in ’91).
This is really disappointing how this myth about Billy Joe Hobert has resulted in the bashing and disrespect shown to Mark Brunnell when he was without question the better QB. He won the only true head to head competition they had!
Since you guys think i’m making this stuff up. I did some quick research and found something that sheds light on what the team thought of Hobert when he was riding the bench behind Brunnell.
Friday, September 7, 2001
By DAN RALEY
http://seattlepi.nwsource.com/huskies/38025_uw91champs.shtml
…
Still, there were obstacles to overcome. Midway through spring drills, Emtman and linebacker Donald Jones sandwiched quarterback Mark Brunell, the Rose Bowl MVP, sending him sprawling with a serious knee injury.
Brunell had been the leader on offense, an unstoppable running threat and the key to the everything. Now he was headed for surgery.
In one unpleasant afternoon, a potentially great Huskies team was handed over to Billy Joe Hobert, who, in practice, had inspired no one.
“We went home that evening, and (linebackers) James Clifford and Brett Collins and I were sitting around, and we freaked out,” Cunningham said. “We thought we were going to be lucky to go 5-6 with that jackass at quarterback. He couldn’t throw a spiral in practice. I was scared to death with that guy at quarterback.”
As it turns out, Hobert was simply a poor practice player. When the whistle blew for the first play at Stanford, he stepped into the huddle with a glint in his eye, practically foaming at the mouth. Everyone felt reassured.
A JACKASS THAT COULDN’T THROW A SPIRAL ABOUT SUMS IT UP FOR ME.
Seriously, we can agree to disagree but I’m definitely unhappy about the lack of respect shown to Mark Brunnell. He didn’t magically become better than Hobert when he reached the NFL, he was always better. Hobert’s lack of work ethic didn’t magically appear either, so that’s no excuse.
Finally, somebody with some common sense.
I’m surprised that anybody still thinks the QB really made much difference in 1991. When we look back on 1991 we remember the great DEFENSE, not the great offense. The offense was good, not great. I’m guessing here, but I bet Hobert didn’t throw for much more than 2,000 yards that year. The offense was a balanced run offense, you could have plugged almost any QB in and had the same success.
Brunell was the better QB, no disrespect to Hobert, he was a gamer, but not a great QB.
"Bow Down to Washington"
"Kick the tires and light the fires!"
Could have plugged any QB?
… right. that always works. Look, I love Brunell. He was the QB when I first got on campus. He had more physical skills than Billy Joe. I even had a class with him (medieval history if memory serves) and he came across as a cool, everyday guy. I’m a huge Brunell fan. Still, Hobert had a way of making plays. It was uncanny. Whenever you needed it, it was there. Spinning out of a sack, converting a third and long, throwing the ball away just before taking a hit, not throwing the dumb interception. Its hard to measure in stats … but he just made the offense work. With the exception of Tui, we haven’t seen that since then. B Huard and J Locker are both eminently more gifted QBs – but they did or have consistently frustrated by not making the plays (the ones that are there and some of the ones that are not). Stanback was obviously a much better athlete, but he could not keep the chains moving. Cody could sling it and had a running game for much of his tenure, but he had a tendency to make mistakes. 12-0 teams don’t do what they do without special play at QB – even if that special performance fails to register on the sizzle scale.
"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.
The ‘91 offense is under-rated by most Husky fans. Yes, the defense was awesome. But the offense wasn’t far behind. And you couldn’t have plugged just any QB on that team and expected the same success.
Folks, it’s not like Hobert was some chump – he was one of the most highly recruited QB’s in the country as a H.S. Sr, with offers from teams all across the country, including Miami, FL (the reigning QB kings at that time).
Hobert could’ve thrown for a lot more than the 2,200 yards he got that year, but the UW didn’t need him to because the run game was also very strong and the Huskies were rarely behind. But when they were (against Nebraska), Hobert was clutch in helping rally them.
Glad to Hear Somone on my side
206- I’m not convinced that these guys actually saw Brunell play as a sophomore in 90. Do we remember that Rose Bowl victory over Iowa? Fellas Brunell was the show in that Rose Bowl- a freakin’ sophomore at quarterback won the Rose Bowl MVP.
When Brunell was a sophomore, he was Jake Locker before their was a Jake Locker. The only difference in the two is Brunell had a better supporting cast then Locker. As of right now I compare Locker to only Brunell. Brunell had the better arm, but Locker had better running ability. Both were/are dual threat quarterbacks and to me the bench mark is Brunell.
Mark Brunell embodied everything that was good about the UofW. He was everything that the term “student-athlete” stands for. He was in my opinion the best student-athlete of that time and on that team w/ NFL talent and his pro career reflects it.
I’m going to go out on a limb again and offer this. What do we reap if Brunell isn’t sandwiched in practice by Emtman and Jones? Surely Brunell’s knee wouldn’t have been crushed. We’d have the 90’ Rose Bowl MVP quarterbacking arguably the best team in the country to a national championship season in 91. That would’ve been his junior year fellas. Then 92 roles around, and Hobert’s loan thus is not exploited in the media circus and the contraversy (spelling?) that followed the loan scandal, it may have been possible to repeat if it weren’t for the loan contraversy (again spelling?).
Bottom line Brunell was not the same QB he was before the knee crushing injury. He became more of a pocket QB rather then a dual threat guy. The dual threat guy was a better QB then the pocket QB guy we saw in 92 and thru out his pro career.
To me the best Washington quarterback I’ve ever seen was Mark Brunell. His sophomore campaign was lights out awesome! Tui is second on my list and Jake Locker has a chance to pass them both.
Mark Brunell is the benchmark!
206- I’m not convinced that these guys actually saw Brunell play as a sophomore in 90. Do we remember that Rose Bowl victory over Iowa? Fellas Brunell was the show in that Rose Bowl- a freakin’ sophomore at quarterback won the Rose Bowl MVP
I’ve watched UW football religiously since 1978, so yeah – I did watch Brunell play in ’90 as a RS-So. He was an exciting, good QB. But he was not a polished passer (see his 48% completion rate). I also watched Hobert play in ’91 as a RS-So, and he played better than Brunell did the year before (even granting the improvement in the team overall due to more experience). I also watched Hobert be named co-MVP of the Rose Bowl that season as a RS-So (just like Brunell had been the year before).
When Brunell suffered his knee injury, it forced him to become a better overall QB because he realized he had to work on his passing. He’s said so himself, and the results bear that out. While he wasn’t as lethal a runner after the knee injury, he was a much better passer.
I'm glad you like Brunell.
as far as classy Dawgs go, he’s near the top. I think kirkd and I are just arguing that Hobert accomplished some special things during his time under center and all the drudgery that has entailed cannot be laid at his doorstep.
"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.
Let’s review some facts here:
In 1990 (and it was 1990 when Brunell first started, not 1991), Brunell was a RS-So and Hobert a RS-Fr. Hobert was never much of a practice player. Is it any wonder Brunell won the job? And while he was good – he was a great runner and didn’t toss a lot of picks – he was also inconsistent as a passer (much like Locker is now) and completed only 48% of his passes. And while the defense was quite good (better statistically against the run in ’90 than in ’91) and Greg Lewis was winning the inaugural Doak Walker award for best RB, the team lost 2 games (including a critical meltdown against UCLA that cost the UW a shot at the National Championship.
In 1991, Brunell was a RS-Jr and Hobert a RS-So. Brunell of course entered Spring as the starter due to his experience and superior practice habits. Then his knee was torn up and UW players panicked about the carefree Hobert taking over. But much to their surprise, Hobert was outstanding in games. His numbers were far superior to Brunell’s from the year prior, and it wasn’t just a more experienced supporting cast – Hobert had a knack for making big plays at the right time. And this team didn’t stumble once, going undefeated.
In 1992, with Brunell again 100% healthy and a RS-Sr, Hobert, the RS-Jr, retained his starting position and was again undefeated as a starting QB until his loan issue surfaced and he lost his eligibility. Hobert’s numbers weren’t quite as good as in ‘91 but still very good. Brunell took over, and while he played well too, the Huskies lost 3 of the 4 games he started that year. All Brunell’s fault? Of course not. But the record shows there is no evidence to support the claim that Brunell was clearly better than Hobert.
I don’t get how saying that Brunell and Hobert were both very good QB’s is somehow “bashing” or “disrespecting” Brunell.
As for the NFL, I will stick by my claim that Brunell succeeded where Hobert didn’t due to Brunell’s vastly superior work ethic. And I also suspect Hobert carried a lot of mental baggage over how his UW career ended and never really got over it.
I again have to agree with kirkd
its outrageous to think that DJ would let politics decide his starting QB. Its not like he was a rookie HC at the time. If you really believe that, then you cannot simultaneously think that Don James was one of our greatest head coaches (which, of course, is ridiculous).
I loved Brunell, too … and, in fact, I remember hoping that he would win the job in ’92. He was more mobile and I remember being impressed with how much chemistry he had with his receivers. But BJ just had a knack for escaping trouble and making the right play. The cumulation of those “right plays” led to wins. I reluctantly have to give him the nod over Brunell as a higher impact player despite the fact that Brunell was more fun to root for.
"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.
POLITICS?? I SEE WE HAVE A MISUNDERSTANDING
I’m not referring to Politics.
1) FACT – Mark Brunell was the starter over BJ Hobert to begin with because he won the QB competition. He was better.
2) FACT – Brunell was injured and was physically unable to play, that is the only reason Hobert ever became a starter.
Now comes our misunderstanding or disagreement.
When BJ Hobert filled in for Brunnell, he rallied the team in a different way than Mark because of their difference in personalities, they were like night and day.. Hobert was one of the guys, a fiery risk-taker at Qb.
Let’s remember the Seattle Times article and think about what kind of players and personalities (not all criminals, but certainly not saints) that DJ often recruited. Brunnell was nothing like that, he was always very mature, centered and spiritual. His personality was different and it stood out, and made him somewhat separate from the rest of the team. He was a professional leader, not a drinking buddy. That’s what I’m talking about.
Add to that the fact that when DJ didn’t reinstall Brunnell as starter when every single coach worth his salt knows that Brunnell shouldn’t have lost his job to injury and that Billy Joe never lost a game giving Brunnell no opening.
Brunnell lost his job because of perceived team chemistry but it was really an unprincipled decision by DJ, particularly when Brunnell was always an exemplary leader and had met and exceeded every expectation of the coaching staff.
Brunnell got shafted by DJ, end of story.
wow - compelling argument ...
… I’m not sure I’m willing to go the “DJ shafted the QB” route … but I appreciate your point of view. Not many people willing to point out a flaw in the Dawgfather.
"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.
Billy Joe Hobert was the Jim McMahon (Chi Bears) of Husky Football.
A Gamer but not a Hall of Famer….yeah it rhymes.
Hugh McElhenny!!!
I got to say “The King”, McElhenny was far and above the best Rb in husky history. I do agree with Berk though in that if Dillon had played more than 1 year and continued the dominance I would have chosen him. There is a long list of terrific backs, it is a tough decision to make.
I remember my father speaking of him and how terrific a player he was and that it was nearly impossible to tackle him in the open field.
I voted McElhenny, but I’m a little surprised George Wilson hasn’t gotten any votes. By nearly all historical accounts, he was those teams in ‘23-’25 that went 28-3-3 and went to the first 2 Rose Bowls in school history.
I’d put McElhenny, Wilson and Kaufman in my top-3, with Lewis right behind. Dillon would be tops had he stayed another year and run roughshod over college football again. He might’ve become our first Heisman winner had he stayed another year…
Upon further review
have to take some of Hugh’s yards away. He was out of bounds on one of his last plays in the video. Still gotta go with him.
George Wilson
I would have to go with McElhenny, Kaufmann, and Wilson….pick one from each era.
There isn’t very much footage of the “King” as a Husky but the suff I have seen which is basically sideline footage is incredible and hard to follow. The NFL film is much better and it gives you a pretty good idea of his talent.
I have seen film on Wilson from the 1926 Rose Bowl and he was a tremendous player. Some people thought he was better than Red Grange.
Chuck Carroll is a guy I have never seen film on but had an incredbile career and deserves mention but since he died last year at 100 years old there aren’t a lot of people alive that saw him play.
I have talked to knowledgable people in the past who have saw McElhenny and Wilson play and they pick Hugh as the better back but Wilson as the best overall player because he starred both ways.
When we are done I am going to put together a popular vote all time team and a pre 1950 squad for all the old timers.
It’s inevitable that voting will tend to favor modern players since those are the people we saw play, but I think it’s important to keep alive the memories of the greats of the distant past. I suspect many Husky fans have little to no idea who George Wilson is or what his reputation is. It’s clear from reporting of the time that he was a fantastic player and a key part of one of the most successful stretches of Husky football.
Tough choices
It is difficult to compare eras. Like asking if Tiger is better than Jack. So I think you need to add some intangibles, and be thankful we have had so many to choose from.
I voted for Hugh, based on reputation, and a few very old clips. I have neer heard a convincing argument against him.
I think Joe Steele turned the program around and even so was under rated.
For sure Corey Dillon was the best for one year, but a flash doesnt win the vote.
I always thought Rashaan Shehee was very under rated as well. He was extremely dependable, as was Greg Lewis. They both took advantage of the one back spread that Gilby brought to the show.
The only knock I ever had on Nip was he seemed to get tackled one step away from it, on the other hand, no other back could consistently get to that point like he could. Like being awakened from a sexy dream just before the best part!!
I hope some of these young kids can bring back the memories, and create some new ones.
the problem with players deep in the past ...
… is that they played in an era where criticisms were not as deep and promotion not as pronounced. thus, these players capabilities get overly romanticized or forgotten altogether. Most fans will go with what they have personally observed and appropriately so.
"Greed is Good."
So is Rudy.
Old Timers
Chuck Carroll, George Wilson, and Hugh McElhenny were the type of players that would have been feature backs in any era of Husky football. They were the type of athletes who could transcend generations. It is tougher to say with linemen because they were so much smaller back then.
We just don’t have much film that is accesible from the 1920’s.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
