OSU led the conference in three-and-outs. Penn State allowed five more first downs per game than OSU's defense did.

Therefore, you'll see that Connor had anywhere from five to twenty more opportunities PER GAME to get (or assist with) a tackle.

That's at least 60 more opportunities in a season (and maybe as many as 240).

Even if you were to be conservative and take the low number, you'll see that giving Laurinaitis 60 more opportunities over the course of the season would bring his numbers in line with Connor's numbers, if not probably exceed them.

With stats, you gotta go with apples to apples.

College awards have become a big joke recently anyway, they barely get the right guy the trophy.

How Kevin Smith or Ray Rice didn't win the Doak Walker is beyond me. Rice only ran for 1,700 yds plus back to back. Smith might actually break the record of my favorite player of all time, one of the greatest running backs ever to play the game.

They gave at least 8 trophies to SEC players, what the hell is that?

Where is your statistic on total rushing yards allowed?!?!?!?!  That's so important!  Penn State doesn't even come close to leading the nation.

Oh yeah, and then there's that thing about how both defenses performed in head-to-head matchup.  What?  Penn State had one offensive touchdown?  Oh.  Ohio State scored over 35 points?  Really?  Against a team boasting Dan Conner?  What were Beanie Wells's stats? Hmm, over 100 yards, a score?...it was at Happy Valley?  No way!  lol.

If Dan Conner was so good, then Penn State wouldn't have allowed as many points or yards as they did.  That Indiana game was a joke.  The Hoosiers made your linebackers look like Swiss cheese.

I really can't figure out why you Lions fans are even upset about this.  Your team went from being a conference favorite to middle-of-the-pack (and the pack wasn't very good).  You were supposed to survive the conference with only 1 loss this year.  Instead, you lost 4, most of them embarrassing.  Stop trying to make something out of nothing.

Your beef is with Joe Paterno.  NOT with James Laurinaitis.

>>Before you make random statements you should actually look up the numbers.<<

>>There is no arguing that stat<<

Actually, there is. Those numbers are based on the assumption that LA was on the field for 756 plays and DC was on the field for 817. That assumption is incorrect, therefore the numbers are incorrect.

While DC was in all games through the fourth quarter, LA only played in a few fourth quarters (and didn't play in the second half at all for two games). He also played through a painful hip pointer.

In other words, LA achieved comparable numbers to DC even though he only played a small % of the downs that DC did, and was injured when he played them.

Still, even if someone thinks that DC was more deserving, stats alone don't win trophies. LA's leadership of the best defensive unit in CFB makes him a viable candidate alone.

Someone on our site put it best: "The people who hand out these awards look at more than the basic stats that a player puts up... [neither] Dizon and Conner were true leaders. LA one that award for one very simple reason - he's the leader of the best defense in the nation."

No, I'm arguing AGAINST that assumption... that's the assumption that platiumkid argued, and why the tackles-per-game stat is imaginary.

There is absolutely no question that LA played far, far fewer downs than DC did. True, PSU had one or two blowouts during the season, but (1) they were not nearly as dominant as OSU is, and (2) PSU is nowhere as deep as OSU is - Tressel usually starts rotating his starters out in the second and third series. No question LA played sparingly in the second half of most games, and was even relieved on a regular basis throughout the first half of every game. DC played into the fourth quarter of most games.

Nobody who saw both teams play would dream of arguing who played for more snaps. It's irrelevant, anyway. LA was clearly the better linebacker - more clinical, more precise; much, much stronger and faster; and above all, a better leader. The fact that he played with faster and stronger teammates than DC did does not make DC a better linebacker.

All of which brings us back to an earlier point: even if some feel that DC is a better linebacker, it doesn't matter, because the entire CFB world knows that AJ Hawk was robbed two years ago by an inferior PSU linebacker, and this vote was in part to make up for that snub. No matter how good DC was this year, he was never going to win it. No way could they get away with snubbing the best LB twice in three years, especially when the snub involves the same two teams. Again, even if you think DC was better, consider this as the Downtown Athletic Club's "I'm sorry for snubbing OSU two years ago" vote.

>>But even if you assume Laurinaitis had another 60 plays and he made the tackle on 20% of those plays that's only 12 tackles and he still falls short of Connor.<<

Sorry, I'm lost there... don't understand what you mean. LA had fewer snaps than Connor did, not "60 more." Where does the additional 12 come from?

>>Was it Laurinitis' leadership that failed him when Illinois ran the ball down Ohio State's throat with the game on the line in the fourth quarter?  Or was he just blocked?<<

I suppose he was blocked. Almost exactly like how Illinois blocked Connor all day long when PSU lost to the Illini, too. Hilarious how you knock LA for losing to a team that Connor also lost to. At least LA didn't lose three more games on top of it like Connor did.

So Connor and his defense should have stopped the Illini and got the ball back for the offense, if he was so superior. OR, you could argue that OSU's offense turning the ball over twice on their last two possessions cost them against Illinois, too. It's six to one and half-dozen to another. Both defenses allowed Illinois to rush for more than 200 yards. The Illini earned both victories.

We could go on and on, but the point is the same. Your argument that Connor is superior because OSU lost to Illinois is weak.

(Sorry for another parent post, for some reason my nested replies aren't posting.)

>>but if you don't understand the difference between the two scenarios in terms of linebacker play, I can't help you.<<

If you're serious about nitpicking over which "loss" was more attractive, speculating about final drives and seconds left and fourth downs and such, then you certainly won't have a problem agreeing with everyone else in CFB that the Illini were given two TDs by the officials against OSU. That's no more of a stretch than what you're arguing (and it has the benefit of being proven in hindsight).

Everything you use as "weight" for your argument can be used against you. You speak of the difference in LB play late in the 4th quarter... but what about the rest of the game? Where was Connor when Illinois was rushing for over 200 yards and beating PSU? Oh right, the same place LA was when Illinois rushed for over 200 yards against his defense. Being blocked and surprised by the spread option.

Under no circumstances can you argue that Connor's loss to Illinois was "better looking" than LA's. Especially when you can't argue against the official's involvement (PSU didn't lose 14 points on officials' mistakes).

Seriously, dude, if you can't understand that PSU's loss was no more attractive than OSU's loss, then "I can't help you," either.

carolinaeasy - you won't find a person in CFB who isn't a Penn St. fan that will agree with you that Pos was better overall player than Hawk in 2005. Not a single one. Everyone knew that the vote was a sympathy vote for his injury, a' la' Dorsey this year. No argument here about Pos' 2006 season, but consensus and history have revealed the 2005 vote as a classic snub of Hawk. Proof? Hawk started as a rookie in the NFL, and is one of the best LB's. Pos is still trying to qualify for jockstrap washing duty for the Bills.

All I was doing was pointing out the fallacies in your own arguments. You're the one who brought up Illinois. You're also the one who keeps ignoring PSU's other three losses.

Where was Connor in the fourth quarter against UM? His defense allowed a long, punishing, 80 yard drive by UM in the 4th quarter, and then couldn't prevent UM from running the clock out. Sounds exactly to me like the same thing you're dinging LA and his defense for when you bring up Illinois.

What about MSU? Connor and his defense allowed two TD drives in the 4th quarter there, one a 40 yard, the other a long, punishing 80 yard. Penn State's offense did everything it was expected to in that game... that loss hangs squarely on the PSU defense's inability to stop the Spartans in the fourth quarter.

What about OSU? The Akron Freakin' Zips played better defense against OSU than Connor and crew did, keeping OSU to almost 100 fewer yards of offense.

Where was Connor for those losses? I'm not suggesting that he should do everything himself, but the best player on your team should absolutely be held responsible for massive and aberrant breakdowns like that. You can't blame PSU's performance this season on Morelli or Paterno. (BTW, your "Morelli fumbling on the ten yard line against Illinois with a minute or so left" statement is not accurate... there was five minutes left when that happened, and it was near the 20, not the goal line. Ya, I watched that game.)

Your Nittany blue sunglasses are preventing you from seeing the big picture, that LA was the leader and the stud linebacker on the best defense in the nation, one year after winning the Nagurski, and two years after the Downtown Athletic Club embarrassed itself in front of the nation by snubbing OSU's Hawk. Whereas Connor was the leader and the stud linebacker on a defense that never lived up to its massive preseason hype and was totally responsible for at least two regular season losses.

It's not just about stats. It's about overall performance, achieving your potential, and being successful. And that's why DC didn't win.

First I said (paraphrasing), "If you're going to consider stats, at least make it apples to apples by considering tackles vs. number of snaps." You said, "yeah but LA couldn't stop Juice Williams!!" Nothing about hey, yeah, I wonder what their tackles per snap actually are, or I see what you mean, LA didn't play nearly as much as Connor did. Instead, let's start an argument on Illinois!

So I responded, "Connor had probs with Illinois too, on top of losing three more games. Besides, Hawk was snubbed two years ago." You said, "yeah but Morelli's fumble on the ten! posluszny's arm!! eleventy!!"

I then gave a laundry list of reasons that PSU's defense, led by Connor, was directly responsible for at least two of the team's four losses. You said, "appendicitis!! Thirteen yard line, not ten!! 2:08 left, not 5!! Can't you see how this makes LA inferior?!?"

You're only trying to distract from the main point rather than convince me of Connor's worthiness. I get it - all you have is Connor's higher number of tackles, stats which I showed time and time again were apples to oranges and taken out of context. From there, all you have is "illinois!! Juice Williams!! Leadership!!"

The bottom line is that both LBs had an argument, perhaps both even "deserved" the trophy, but LA earned it through meeting his preseason hype and contributing to a defense that was much better. If you can put together a critical argument AGAINST that statement, or otherwise argue that Connor did those things better than LA, I'll be happy to hear it. Otherwise, go ahead and start another diversive tangential argument about how I missed a comma in this post or something. I'll read your response without further commentary, letting you have the last word.