Well... Dick Butkus spent time as a LB at Illinois- he was a top ten vote getter for the Heisman in 1964 or thereabouts...several schools claim the Linebacker U title
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@coinkat said:
Maybe you can add a picture of Nile Kinnick's Heisman too
Yes, of course.
Nile Kinnick, is the only Iowa Hawkeye to ever win the Heisman trophy, he won it in 1939. Tragically, Nile Kinnick died in 1943 at the age of 24 during a training flight while serving as a United States Navy aviator during World War 2. I would not consider him a bust, but a hero who died serving his country.
A true American hero who paid the ultimate price. Thanks for that nugget DD, I learn something new every day on here!
@coinkat said:
Maybe you can add a picture of Nile Kinnick's Heisman too
Yes, of course.
Nile Kinnick, is the only Iowa Hawkeye to ever win the Heisman trophy, he won it in 1939. Tragically, Nile Kinnick died in 1943 at the age of 24 during a training flight while serving as a United States Navy aviator during World War 2. I would not consider him a bust, but a hero who died serving his country.
A true American hero who paid the ultimate price. Thanks for that nugget DD, I learn something new every day on here!
You're welcome buddy, I learn a lot every day on here as well!
@doubledragon said:
Eric Crouch, Nebraska, 2001 winner. He was another great college athlete that could do it all, throw, run, and even catch on occasion.
This guy was drafted by the Rams, they wanted him to play WR but he wanted to play QB. So this moron gave all his money back to the Rams, left the team to sign elsewhere to play QB and never signed on with another team lol. He cost himself millions
@doubledragon said:
Eric Crouch, Nebraska, 2001 winner. He was another great college athlete that could do it all, throw, run, and even catch on occasion.
This guy was drafted by the Rams, they wanted him to play WR but he wanted to play QB. So this moron gave all his money back to the Rams, left the team to sign elsewhere to play QB and never signed on with another team lol. He cost himself millions
I remember that, what an idiot. A lot of people felt he shouldn't even have won the Heisman trophy that year, Rex Grossman should have. I think Eric Crouch tried to play in the CFL as well, but he never amounted to anything.
There are of course many reasons for why this happens. A lot of them touched on here.
Out of curiosity, and perhaps to spur conversations, I'd like to hear from @keets specifically what he thought was so wrong with the comment by @coinkat
Football progression is weird and humbling for the players. the best players is High School are usually way, way better than everyone else and they know it. when they get to College they discover there are others just as fast, just as dominant. the next step up is the shocker: suddenly things are so equal that there isn't much distance between the best and the worst. in fact, some lower level College players fully mature into the best NFL players. that's the X-factor that voters for the Heisman don't and can't figure out.
@doubledragon said:
Eric Crouch, Nebraska, 2001 winner. He was another great college athlete that could do it all, throw, run, and even catch on occasion.
This guy was drafted by the Rams, they wanted him to play WR but he wanted to play QB. So this moron gave all his money back to the Rams, left the team to sign elsewhere to play QB and never signed on with another team lol. He cost himself millions
I remember that, what an idiot. A lot of people felt he shouldn't even have won the Heisman trophy that year, Rex Grossman should have. I think Eric Crouch tried to play in the CFL as well, but he never amounted to anything.
Exactly, he owns a parks and recreation equipment company or some nonsense now I read
I never said there was anything "wrong" with the post, what I said was and you should probably delete that ridiculous post. the member who posted it is an intelligent guy but the reasoning and comparison is ridiculous. both awards, The Heisman and Academy, are given for a snapshot in time, but that's where and comparison and equality ends. take any movie, any actor/actress, any aspect of the movie itself such as musical score/photography/costumes, they are judged for that and only that moment represented in the film. we don't look at something like "Dances With Wolves" after 20 years and think it sucks because we don't like any subsequent work of Kevin Costner. that movie was stunning and will always be so. then look at the Heisman winners who are pretty much judged on what they do after the award.
look at Johnny Manziel. as a freshman he threw for 3,706 yards, 26 touchdowns while rushing for 1,410 yards and 21 touchdowns. he was such a dynamic player that he earned the nickname "Johnny Football" until he played in the pros where he was "Johnny Flop" with the Cleveland Browns. most fans don't remember him at Texas A&M, just with Cleveland and the NFL. Manziel might be the poster child for my football progression comment: out of HS he might have been the best player in the Nation, in college he did things that only a select few in NCAA history have done, only to be slapped by reality in the NFL when he couldn't do what others did as a matter of routine. I watched it unfold every Sunday while he was with the Brownies and it hurt to watch.
@keets Do you think his attitude. IE. I know it all and my athletic ability is enough. I can still party like college. I don’t need film or anyone etc or he just wasn’t that good in the NFL. Do you think if he did everything right he might have made it?
W.C.Fields "I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
@2dueces said: @keets Do you think his attitude. IE. I know it all and my athletic ability is enough. I can still party like college. I don’t need film or anyone etc or he just wasn’t that good in the NFL. Do you think if he did everything right he might have made it?
..........
I know you aren't asking me, but I'll chime in.
In the case of Manziel, i think he could have made it in the NFL based on the phenomenal skill set he displayed in college. But the writing was on the wall even before he left College Station.
Edited to add: Manziel never put in the level of work at college either. In order to have succeeded in the NFL, he would have needed to completely reinvent himself. And he never did that. So I am second-guessing my original answer.
I think the best decision Manziel could have made was to stay at Texas A&M for his last two seasons. his choice of coming out when he did was all ego and money, but that placed him with a franchise that was in turmoil --- the Cleveland Browns. the writing should have been on the wall when he slipped past number 20, pro scouts understood what picking him would mean. Cleveland had a new owner(mid-2012) and a rookie Head Coach who must not have gotten the text message!!!
Manziel could have used some good advisors, maybe they would have been able to convince him to stay in school for another one or two years, basing a decision on the draft class and where he might end up at. in the end he probably just wasn't big enough to be a pro quarterback./ his immense talent overcame that in HS and college, just not in the pros. he was boy playing with men.
Specifically what I think or thought was not so wrong...My apologies for not making the type bold.
My view of Athletics (whether professional or not), Art and what matters in general... is that if there is going to be awards, the awards must have meaning based in an objective standard that has some basis for measurement. While I understand that there are those that enjoy the friendly discussion of who is the best and reducing that into a simple chart or ranking, that really defeats the what is important which is the historical record in terms of how it is recorded. And this is only part of the connection between the Academy Awards and the Heisman Trophy which is really a fallacy and does more harm to tracking an accurate historical record.
My argument, which I will admit, was not communicated well is simply that the process of selecting the best whether it be Best Actor/Actress and Best Picture and a Heisman Trophy winner is simply not that different. We know this because of the process and how candidates are carefully packaged and promoted. This is reasonable time to explain how and why the Academy Awards were created... The motion picture industry went through a transition from Silent to Talkies and there was a need to promote the industry to establish that this was not a passing fad, but the waive of the future. So this blossomed into a stiff competition... studio v studio and personalities scrambling to get the right parts that will create a buzz. So this should sound familiar in terms of what universities and sports writers undertake in their Heisman campaigns.
My view remains that there has to be a basis for a reasonable comparison for any candidate for any award. So part of the similarities include winners and loosers... Orson Welles directed Citizen Kane. And that film is a masterpiece that has withstood the test of time because it was innovative and set a standard that was not appreciated at the time. While Casablanca was without question, is my candidate for the best film to ever come out of the Warner Brothers Studio, Humphrey Bogart did not win best actor for his most iconic role. I could go on and on about how ridiculous the Academy Awards are in terms of nominations, winners and why going through a process of highlighting films that merely benefit those that simply don't need the publicity has been a monumental failure. Edward G. Robinson never even received an academy award nomination despite terrific performances in Double Indemnity (Paramount 1944) and Key Largo (Warners 1948). And there are others... but this needs to begin and end somewhere.
So are you ready for a Heisman discussion? Instead of looking back at all the pictures in this thread, lets take a look at afew Heisman ballots... 1963 and 1964. Please keep in mind in would like to use other years... especially 1953... to illustrate my point. So Roger Staubach won in 1963 and John Huarte won in 1964. Dick Butkus received votes in both years and finished 3rd in 1964. So how does one compare Huarte and Butkus? I met John Huarte when I was kid and he actually took the time to play football with us at our school yard. And this was likely in the 1969-70 time frame. There was no press or anyone present trying to score brownie points. I thought it was amazing he would take time to play with kids like me but he did. I mention that story in passing because Huarte was a real person and I would not want this to come across as if Huarte was not deserving... but it begs the question how one compares a Quarteback at Notre Dame to a Offensive lineman at Illinois. The 1963 season went better for Butkus/Illinois but the upset loss to Michigan likely ended his 1963 hopes... the year Staubach won. As for 1964, I think ND finished unbeaten and was National Champion. In contrast, Illinois was 6-4 and did not repeat as Big Ten champs. So the question is which player left the lasting impact on the game? While I would argue it clearly was Butkus, that still does not get past my initial problem which is that there is simply no viable basis for comparing the two.
Are differences are really quite simple... You see my thought process as ridiculous and I see the process by which the best is going to be selected as ridiculous
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Did you really take the time to read what I wrote?
4 minutes later and a response that misses the mark seems to prove my point...
What should effect his status is how that player CHANGED THE GAME. John Huarte is a terrific person and a great athlete. DICK BUTKUS CHANGED THE GAME. He is an icon and now has awards named after him. A college team is exactly that... a team. And a QB or running/fullback back gets a benefit from the offensive line. There are so many Heisman winners that simply were only as good as their offensive line. And in part, that might be part of the reason USC, Ohio State an in the earlier years Notre Dame had as many winners as they did.
Part of why I chose the academy awards as comparison is because of recognizing progression in terms of making films what they need to be... there were the trailblazers and those that got in the way. Awards rarely recognize trailbazers because there are those too entrenched in the awards process that are simply obsolete and unable to recognize talent even if it bit them.
edited closing sentence
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@coinkat said:
A college team is exactly that... a team. And a QB or running/fullback back gets a benefit from the offensive line. There are so many Heisman winners that simply were only as good as their offensive line. And in part, that might be part of the reason USC, Ohio State an in the earlier years Notre Dame had as many winners as they did.
You understand, don't you, that what you've written here about colleges applies with equal or greater force to the NFL? I agree that anyone who doesn't accept the absolute truth about what you've said has no business trying to identify who deserves a Heisman trophy. But the resistance to accepting the absolute truth of this same principle with regard to the NFL is mighty, and the people resisting the most have no business trying to identify who is or is not a great NFL player.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
@coinkat said:
A college team is exactly that... a team. And a QB or running/fullback back gets a benefit from the offensive line. There are so many Heisman winners that simply were only as good as their offensive line. And in part, that might be part of the reason USC, Ohio State an in the earlier years Notre Dame had as many winners as they did.
You understand, don't you, that what you've written here about colleges applies with equal or greater force to the NFL? I agree that anyone who doesn't accept the absolute truth about what you've said has no business trying to identify who deserves a Heisman trophy. But the resistance to accepting the absolute truth of this same principle with regard to the NFL is mighty, and the people resisting the most have no business trying to identify who is or is not a great NFL player.
College awards are for college players. Every sport has tons of examples like this. This thread is about the NFL busts, which usually means high picks who underperformed. There are some that never even made the league (and not due to legal troubles). This year's POY in CBB was a 2nd rd pick and may or may not ever do anything.
Heisman, like a lot of individual team sport awards usually goes to the most dynamic player on the best team (or so). Being that and being a star at the next level are completely different. As mentioned before, player progression, scheme, and injuries all play in. Also, some times a skill set translates and sometimes it just doesn't. Sorry for another basketball reference (there aren't a ton of other football leagues) but Jimmer Fredette can average 40 in China against pros, and 30 in college against future pros, but can't get a sniff in the NBA. Dominating one level doesn't mean you'll dominate the next, especially when the pool gets so much smaller (less diluted).
why do NFL Scouts/Coaches/Owners entrust talent evaluation to fans and media outlets?? shouldn't NFL Teams be in a better position to evaluate all players on the field instead of just whoever throws, catches or runs the ball??
And frankly I have little interest in what you (Keets) have written or continue to write because you seem to be part of the problem instead of a participating in recognizing that there is in fact a problem. And this is fair given the fact that you wrote you had no interest in what what I wrote after the fact that you had to comment earlier that my comments were ridiculous or my thought process was so wrong. Seems history is not on your side.
There are years... other than 1964... that reflect what is wrong instead of what should be far more reasonable in connection with Heisman voting. Capturing the historical record accurately is far more significant than an award that... more often than not...fails to summarize or reflect what is important in terms of what is or was a real reflection of a college football season.
The only regret I have about what I have posted thus far is that it does not address the core question. Instead, it dives into a deeper question as to the process and questions what few seem willing to contemplate.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Nothing as to JC Caroline and what he did at the horseshoe against Ohio State in 1953. That game alone should have been a Heisman moment. Oh but wait... being the NCAA rushing leader for the season is not enough. And maybe what Caroline and Illinois did about 68 years ago still withstood the test of time in that those records may still stand.
But who cares about an Illinois 41-20 thrashing of Ohio State? Easily swept under the rug over time because no one is paying attention.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
The only regret I have about what I have posted thus far is that it does not address the core question. Instead, it dives into a deeper question as to the process and questions what few seem willing to contemplate.
Don't be so hard on yourself, I think you did address the primary part of the core question when you said that football is a team game. There is an assumption - an entirely baseless assumption - that the "best" players are the QB, the RB and the WR, in that order, on every team in every year. By that "logic" the QB, occasionally a RB, and rarely a WR, playing for the "best" team must necessarily be the "best" player. Just a passing acknowledgement that football is a team game completely erases that argument, and too many Heisman voters, mirroring the general public, refuse or are unable to acknowledge that blindingly obvious truth.
I don't remember watching him play at Wisconsin, but my guess is that JJ Watt was probably the best player in college football in his last season there, just as he was the best player in the NFL his first few seasons in Houston. But he plays defense, so he is effectively ineligible for awards.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
Nothing as to JC Caroline and what he did at the horseshoe against Ohio State in 1953. That game alone should have been a Heisman moment. Oh but wait... being the NCAA rushing leader for the season is not enough. And maybe what Caroline and Illinois did about 68 years ago still withstood the test of time in that those records may still stand.
But who cares about an Illinois 41-20 thrashing of Ohio State? Easily swept under the rug over time because no one is paying attention.
..............
It is important, in my opinion, to be cognizant of the fact that we cannot rely on the media and pundits and voters to let us know what the greatest or most important accomplishments/incidents/whatever are. I think i understand what you are getting at @coinkat .
Sad and true for decades and that is part of the problem. Thanks for acknowledging that you think I was harsh on myself... I see it as being objective in the event I was not clear.
There is a larger issue at stake here which I have not touched on in any detail until now... And this is what really bothers me. It is about what transpired and how that record was captured and most importantly... how it will be remembered.
Part of what I am trying to communicate is simply to prevent what is important from being lost and forgotten by Main Street America. Some will laugh at the notion but those are the exact folks who need to know and appreciate what it is they have missed. And there is the challenge. It is about creating a path that matters to what is truly important instead of the fabricated Readers Digest condensed version of sports history that misses the essence of what matters and how often what matters s really experienced. Awards simply help condense history to make it what it wasn't...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@doubledragon said:
Eric Crouch, Nebraska, 2001 winner. He was another great college athlete that could do it all, throw, run, and even catch on occasion.
This guy was drafted by the Rams, they wanted him to play WR but he wanted to play QB. So this moron gave all his money back to the Rams, left the team to sign elsewhere to play QB and never signed on with another team lol. He cost himself millions
So Bradford was a thief for taking the money and Couch a moron for giving it back. You are a tough cookie ; )
Im watching you
m
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
@doubledragon said:
Eric Crouch, Nebraska, 2001 winner. He was another great college athlete that could do it all, throw, run, and even catch on occasion.
This guy was drafted by the Rams, they wanted him to play WR but he wanted to play QB. So this moron gave all his money back to the Rams, left the team to sign elsewhere to play QB and never signed on with another team lol. He cost himself millions
So Bradford was a thief for taking the money and Couch a moron for giving it back. You are a tough cookie ; )
Im watching you
m
😂😂😂. Good point M, But I will say that if Bradford spent as much effort on trying to be a better QB as he did nursing injuries he might have been a HOF’er. Hence the thief comment
The only regret I have about what I have posted thus far is that it does not address the core question. Instead, it dives into a deeper question as to the process and questions what few seem willing to contemplate.
Don't be so hard on yourself, I think you did address the primary part of the core question when you said that football is a team game. There is an assumption - an entirely baseless assumption - that the "best" players are the QB, the RB and the WR, in that order, on every team in every year. By that "logic" the QB, occasionally a RB, and rarely a WR, playing for the "best" team must necessarily be the "best" player. Just a passing acknowledgement that football is a team game completely erases that argument, and too many Heisman voters, mirroring the general public, refuse or are unable to acknowledge that blindingly obvious truth.
I don't remember watching him play at Wisconsin, but my guess is that JJ Watt was probably the best player in college football in his last season there, just as he was the best player in the NFL his first few seasons in Houston. But he plays defense, so he is effectively ineligible for awards.
So JJ Watt didn’t benefit from any other variables? There are 10 other guys on D last time I checked, and if DB’s are doing their job blanketing the WR’s and the QB needs more time to look for an open WR and gets sacked by Watt the CB’s don’t get any credit? Watt did it all by himself? Or if the starting OL is injured and the back up is in, the DC moves Watt to line up against him and runs him over. All players benefit from something. There is a much smaller pool of NFL caliber QB’a than DL and a much smaller pool of Elite QB’s
Walker Proof Digital Album Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
So JJ Watt didn’t benefit from any other variables? There are 10 other guys on D last time I checked, and if DB’s are doing their job blanketing the WR’s and the QB needs more time to look for an open WR and gets sacked by Watt the CB’s don’t get any credit? Watt did it all by himself? Or if the starting OL is injured and the back up is in, the DC moves Watt to line up against him and runs him over. All players benefit from something. There is a much smaller pool of NFL caliber QB’a than DL and a much smaller pool of Elite QB’s
Once you see it, you can't unsee it. Pay attention to any sentence or statement that begins with the word "so". What follows, invariably, is false; a misstatement of what the person being addressed actually said. See example above.
What you have provided, perk, is an argument that I have made - and that you have dismissed - many times. Football is a team sport, and it is impossible - not merely difficult, but literally impossible - to identify a greatest player. If your argument is consistent with that, then obviously I won't disagree. But what you seem to be trying to do is to argue that identifying a DL as an MVP is impossible, but identifying a QB as an MVP isn't. If that's your argument then it's so silly that I won't bother with a rebuttal. In the end, though, I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Given that everyone on the field - and the QB moreso than any other player - is benefiting from what the players around him are doing, why can't JJ Watt be the best player?
In my opinion, uninfluenced by any stats, just from watching them play the game, JJ Watt was the best football player in the league for several years running. For a couple of those years, I didn't see anyone I thought was even close. But it's just an opinion.
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
So JJ Watt didn’t benefit from any other variables? There are 10 other guys on D last time I checked, and if DB’s are doing their job blanketing the WR’s and the QB needs more time to look for an open WR and gets sacked by Watt the CB’s don’t get any credit? Watt did it all by himself? Or if the starting OL is injured and the back up is in, the DC moves Watt to line up against him and runs him over. All players benefit from something. There is a much smaller pool of NFL caliber QB’a than DL and a much smaller pool of Elite QB’s
Once you see it, you can't unsee it. Pay attention to any sentence or statement that begins with the word "so". What follows, invariably, is false; a misstatement of what the person being addressed actually said. See example above.
What you have provided, perk, is an argument that I have made - and that you have dismissed - many times. Football is a team sport, and it is impossible - not merely difficult, but literally impossible - to identify a greatest player. If your argument is consistent with that, then obviously I won't disagree. But what you seem to be trying to do is to argue that identifying a DL as an MVP is impossible, but identifying a QB as an MVP isn't. If that's your argument then it's so silly that I won't bother with a rebuttal. In the end, though, I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Given that everyone on the field - and the QB moreso than any other player - is benefiting from what the players around him are doing, why can't JJ Watt be the best player?
In my opinion, uninfluenced by any stats, just from watching them play the game, JJ Watt was the best football player in the league for several years running. For a couple of those years, I didn't see anyone I thought was even close. But it's just an opinion.
No. I never stated it was “Impossible” for any player to be MVP, what I was getting at and I thought was pretty straight forward was that you always mention the “Team” part of the game to dismiss that the QB gets the lions share of MVP talk, I don’t completely disagree with you but for you to say Watt was MVP or the “Best” player on the field for however long I simply threw out the same type of argument that you use against QB MVP talk. Watt was a great player, well deserving of MVP consideration. “So” do you see my point or not? I’m not arguing with you, I’m asking if you can agree that any argument used against a QB for MVP can be said about Watt or any other player who is under consideration for best player or MVP
@perkdog said:
I’m not arguing with you, I’m asking if you can agree that any argument used against a QB for MVP can be said about Watt or any other player who is under consideration for best player or MVP
Putting aside the confusion I've got over why you disagreed with this argument the hundred or so times I made it, yes, I agree. The MVP can play any position on the field, and it is literally impossible to objectively identify which one it is. While it is undeniably true that what a DL does on the field is much less dependent on what others on his team are doing than what a QB does - since QBs are by far the most dependent on what others are doing - a DL, an OL, a LB, a RB, a CB, a WR, and a S all depend on their teammates doing what they're supposed to do in order for them to do what they're supposed to do (do it well, anyway).
It is an oxymoron to hand out individual awards in a team game. It's silly. But, if the awards are to be given, and if I had a vote, I'd have voted for Watt several times. That's as categorical a statement as I think any reasonable person could ever make about an NFL MVP (or GOAT).
This is for you @thisistheshow - Jim Rice was actually a pretty good player.
😂😂😂. Good point M, But I will say that if Bradford spent as much effort on trying to be a better QB as he did nursing injuries he might have been a HOF’er. Hence the thief comment
That’s why you can’t draft a QB and fail to protect him. Bradford, RGIII and others had their careers stolen from them by inferior lines. At least some got paid for their pain.
😂😂😂. Good point M, But I will say that if Bradford spent as much effort on trying to be a better QB as he did nursing injuries he might have been a HOF’er. Hence the thief comment
That’s why you can’t draft a QB and fail to protect him. Bradford, RGIII and others had their careers stolen from them by inferior lines. At least some got paid for their pain.
I definitely agree about protection but I think RG3 hurt his kneee on a designed run play? And Bradford played the injury game everywhere he went
@perkdog said:
I’m not arguing with you, I’m asking if you can agree that any argument used against a QB for MVP can be said about Watt or any other player who is under consideration for best player or MVP
Putting aside the confusion I've got over why you disagreed with this argument the hundred or so times I made it, yes, I agree. The MVP can play any position on the field, and it is literally impossible to objectively identify which one it is. While it is undeniably true that what a DL does on the field is much less dependent on what others on his team are doing than what a QB does - since QBs are by far the most dependent on what others are doing - a DL, an OL, a LB, a RB, a CB, a WR, and a S all depend on their teammates doing what they're supposed to do in order for them to do what they're supposed to do (do it well, anyway).
It is an oxymoron to hand out individual awards in a team game. It's silly. But, if the awards are to be given, and if I had a vote, I'd have voted for Watt several times. That's as categorical a statement as I think any reasonable person could ever make about an NFL MVP (or GOAT).
No disrespect but please don’t be confused and think I’m agreeing with you 100% because I’m absolutely not, and neither is the thousands of other analysts that have covered NFL since its inception. The QB is the biggest piece of the puzzle when we building a franchise, literally your one of the very few that argue against that. I understand your point/s but again the point/s you make can be used against any player so I’m sticking with the QB being the most important for me. You can build your team around Watt and Ken Anderson, I’d prefer Brady and LT. Cheers 🍻
#LetsGoSwitzerlandThe Man Who Does Not Read Has No Advantage Over the Man Who Cannot Read. The biggest obstacle to progress is a habit of “buying what we want and begging for what we need.”You get the Freedom you fight for and get the Oppression you deserve.
Comments
Not a trophy winner but still .............
"When they can't find anything wrong with you, they create it!"
Really. That’s amazing to me. No Penn State linebacker? It used to be Linebacker U.
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
Well... Dick Butkus spent time as a LB at Illinois- he was a top ten vote getter for the Heisman in 1964 or thereabouts...several schools claim the Linebacker U title
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Bingo! In college these guys are the big fish in the pond. In the NFL they are just one the fish in an ocean.
A true American hero who paid the ultimate price. Thanks for that nugget DD, I learn something new every day on here!
You're welcome buddy, I learn a lot every day on here as well!
This guy was drafted by the Rams, they wanted him to play WR but he wanted to play QB. So this moron gave all his money back to the Rams, left the team to sign elsewhere to play QB and never signed on with another team lol. He cost himself millions
I remember that, what an idiot. A lot of people felt he shouldn't even have won the Heisman trophy that year, Rex Grossman should have. I think Eric Crouch tried to play in the CFL as well, but he never amounted to anything.
There are of course many reasons for why this happens. A lot of them touched on here.
Out of curiosity, and perhaps to spur conversations, I'd like to hear from @keets specifically what he thought was so wrong with the comment by @coinkat
Football progression is weird and humbling for the players. the best players is High School are usually way, way better than everyone else and they know it. when they get to College they discover there are others just as fast, just as dominant. the next step up is the shocker: suddenly things are so equal that there isn't much distance between the best and the worst. in fact, some lower level College players fully mature into the best NFL players. that's the X-factor that voters for the Heisman don't and can't figure out.
Exactly, he owns a parks and recreation equipment company or some nonsense now I read
specifically what he thought was so wrong
I never said there was anything "wrong" with the post, what I said was and you should probably delete that ridiculous post. the member who posted it is an intelligent guy but the reasoning and comparison is ridiculous. both awards, The Heisman and Academy, are given for a snapshot in time, but that's where and comparison and equality ends. take any movie, any actor/actress, any aspect of the movie itself such as musical score/photography/costumes, they are judged for that and only that moment represented in the film. we don't look at something like "Dances With Wolves" after 20 years and think it sucks because we don't like any subsequent work of Kevin Costner. that movie was stunning and will always be so. then look at the Heisman winners who are pretty much judged on what they do after the award.
look at Johnny Manziel. as a freshman he threw for 3,706 yards, 26 touchdowns while rushing for 1,410 yards and 21 touchdowns. he was such a dynamic player that he earned the nickname "Johnny Football" until he played in the pros where he was "Johnny Flop" with the Cleveland Browns. most fans don't remember him at Texas A&M, just with Cleveland and the NFL. Manziel might be the poster child for my football progression comment: out of HS he might have been the best player in the Nation, in college he did things that only a select few in NCAA history have done, only to be slapped by reality in the NFL when he couldn't do what others did as a matter of routine. I watched it unfold every Sunday while he was with the Brownies and it hurt to watch.
in short, the comparison was just ridiculous.
@keets Do you think his attitude. IE. I know it all and my athletic ability is enough. I can still party like college. I don’t need film or anyone etc or he just wasn’t that good in the NFL. Do you think if he did everything right he might have made it?
"I spent 50% of my money on alcohol, women, and gambling. The other half I wasted.
..........
I know you aren't asking me, but I'll chime in.
In the case of Manziel, i think he could have made it in the NFL based on the phenomenal skill set he displayed in college. But the writing was on the wall even before he left College Station.
Edited to add: Manziel never put in the level of work at college either. In order to have succeeded in the NFL, he would have needed to completely reinvent himself. And he never did that. So I am second-guessing my original answer.
I think the best decision Manziel could have made was to stay at Texas A&M for his last two seasons. his choice of coming out when he did was all ego and money, but that placed him with a franchise that was in turmoil --- the Cleveland Browns. the writing should have been on the wall when he slipped past number 20, pro scouts understood what picking him would mean. Cleveland had a new owner(mid-2012) and a rookie Head Coach who must not have gotten the text message!!!
Manziel could have used some good advisors, maybe they would have been able to convince him to stay in school for another one or two years, basing a decision on the draft class and where he might end up at. in the end he probably just wasn't big enough to be a pro quarterback./ his immense talent overcame that in HS and college, just not in the pros. he was boy playing with men.
Specifically what I think or thought was not so wrong...My apologies for not making the type bold.
My view of Athletics (whether professional or not), Art and what matters in general... is that if there is going to be awards, the awards must have meaning based in an objective standard that has some basis for measurement. While I understand that there are those that enjoy the friendly discussion of who is the best and reducing that into a simple chart or ranking, that really defeats the what is important which is the historical record in terms of how it is recorded. And this is only part of the connection between the Academy Awards and the Heisman Trophy which is really a fallacy and does more harm to tracking an accurate historical record.
My argument, which I will admit, was not communicated well is simply that the process of selecting the best whether it be Best Actor/Actress and Best Picture and a Heisman Trophy winner is simply not that different. We know this because of the process and how candidates are carefully packaged and promoted. This is reasonable time to explain how and why the Academy Awards were created... The motion picture industry went through a transition from Silent to Talkies and there was a need to promote the industry to establish that this was not a passing fad, but the waive of the future. So this blossomed into a stiff competition... studio v studio and personalities scrambling to get the right parts that will create a buzz. So this should sound familiar in terms of what universities and sports writers undertake in their Heisman campaigns.
My view remains that there has to be a basis for a reasonable comparison for any candidate for any award. So part of the similarities include winners and loosers... Orson Welles directed Citizen Kane. And that film is a masterpiece that has withstood the test of time because it was innovative and set a standard that was not appreciated at the time. While Casablanca was without question, is my candidate for the best film to ever come out of the Warner Brothers Studio, Humphrey Bogart did not win best actor for his most iconic role. I could go on and on about how ridiculous the Academy Awards are in terms of nominations, winners and why going through a process of highlighting films that merely benefit those that simply don't need the publicity has been a monumental failure. Edward G. Robinson never even received an academy award nomination despite terrific performances in Double Indemnity (Paramount 1944) and Key Largo (Warners 1948). And there are others... but this needs to begin and end somewhere.
So are you ready for a Heisman discussion? Instead of looking back at all the pictures in this thread, lets take a look at afew Heisman ballots... 1963 and 1964. Please keep in mind in would like to use other years... especially 1953... to illustrate my point. So Roger Staubach won in 1963 and John Huarte won in 1964. Dick Butkus received votes in both years and finished 3rd in 1964. So how does one compare Huarte and Butkus? I met John Huarte when I was kid and he actually took the time to play football with us at our school yard. And this was likely in the 1969-70 time frame. There was no press or anyone present trying to score brownie points. I thought it was amazing he would take time to play with kids like me but he did. I mention that story in passing because Huarte was a real person and I would not want this to come across as if Huarte was not deserving... but it begs the question how one compares a Quarteback at Notre Dame to a Offensive lineman at Illinois. The 1963 season went better for Butkus/Illinois but the upset loss to Michigan likely ended his 1963 hopes... the year Staubach won. As for 1964, I think ND finished unbeaten and was National Champion. In contrast, Illinois was 6-4 and did not repeat as Big Ten champs. So the question is which player left the lasting impact on the game? While I would argue it clearly was Butkus, that still does not get past my initial problem which is that there is simply no viable basis for comparing the two.
@keets
Are differences are really quite simple... You see my thought process as ridiculous and I see the process by which the best is going to be selected as ridiculous
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
maybe look at it like this: why does a players performance after he's drafted into the NFL affect his status as a Heisman Trophy winner??
Did you really take the time to read what I wrote?
4 minutes later and a response that misses the mark seems to prove my point...
What should effect his status is how that player CHANGED THE GAME. John Huarte is a terrific person and a great athlete. DICK BUTKUS CHANGED THE GAME. He is an icon and now has awards named after him. A college team is exactly that... a team. And a QB or running/fullback back gets a benefit from the offensive line. There are so many Heisman winners that simply were only as good as their offensive line. And in part, that might be part of the reason USC, Ohio State an in the earlier years Notre Dame had as many winners as they did.
Part of why I chose the academy awards as comparison is because of recognizing progression in terms of making films what they need to be... there were the trailblazers and those that got in the way. Awards rarely recognize trailbazers because there are those too entrenched in the awards process that are simply obsolete and unable to recognize talent even if it bit them.
edited closing sentence
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Did you really take the time to read what I wrote??
I really have no interest in what you wrote.
Thanks for the reply Keets... have a nice weekend
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
You understand, don't you, that what you've written here about colleges applies with equal or greater force to the NFL? I agree that anyone who doesn't accept the absolute truth about what you've said has no business trying to identify who deserves a Heisman trophy. But the resistance to accepting the absolute truth of this same principle with regard to the NFL is mighty, and the people resisting the most have no business trying to identify who is or is not a great NFL player.
.......
Either way, Brady's the GOAT.
College awards are for college players. Every sport has tons of examples like this. This thread is about the NFL busts, which usually means high picks who underperformed. There are some that never even made the league (and not due to legal troubles). This year's POY in CBB was a 2nd rd pick and may or may not ever do anything.
Heisman, like a lot of individual team sport awards usually goes to the most dynamic player on the best team (or so). Being that and being a star at the next level are completely different. As mentioned before, player progression, scheme, and injuries all play in. Also, some times a skill set translates and sometimes it just doesn't. Sorry for another basketball reference (there aren't a ton of other football leagues) but Jimmer Fredette can average 40 in China against pros, and 30 in college against future pros, but can't get a sniff in the NBA. Dominating one level doesn't mean you'll dominate the next, especially when the pool gets so much smaller (less diluted).
why do NFL Scouts/Coaches/Owners entrust talent evaluation to fans and media outlets?? shouldn't NFL Teams be in a better position to evaluate all players on the field instead of just whoever throws, catches or runs the ball??
@dallasactuary
Yes... I get it.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
@keets @dallasactuary @thisistheshow
And frankly I have little interest in what you (Keets) have written or continue to write because you seem to be part of the problem instead of a participating in recognizing that there is in fact a problem. And this is fair given the fact that you wrote you had no interest in what what I wrote after the fact that you had to comment earlier that my comments were ridiculous or my thought process was so wrong. Seems history is not on your side.
There are years... other than 1964... that reflect what is wrong instead of what should be far more reasonable in connection with Heisman voting. Capturing the historical record accurately is far more significant than an award that... more often than not...fails to summarize or reflect what is important in terms of what is or was a real reflection of a college football season.
The only regret I have about what I have posted thus far is that it does not address the core question. Instead, it dives into a deeper question as to the process and questions what few seem willing to contemplate.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Nothing as to Dick Butkus...
Nothing as to JC Caroline and what he did at the horseshoe against Ohio State in 1953. That game alone should have been a Heisman moment. Oh but wait... being the NCAA rushing leader for the season is not enough. And maybe what Caroline and Illinois did about 68 years ago still withstood the test of time in that those records may still stand.
But who cares about an Illinois 41-20 thrashing of Ohio State? Easily swept under the rug over time because no one is paying attention.
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
Don't be so hard on yourself, I think you did address the primary part of the core question when you said that football is a team game. There is an assumption - an entirely baseless assumption - that the "best" players are the QB, the RB and the WR, in that order, on every team in every year. By that "logic" the QB, occasionally a RB, and rarely a WR, playing for the "best" team must necessarily be the "best" player. Just a passing acknowledgement that football is a team game completely erases that argument, and too many Heisman voters, mirroring the general public, refuse or are unable to acknowledge that blindingly obvious truth.
I don't remember watching him play at Wisconsin, but my guess is that JJ Watt was probably the best player in college football in his last season there, just as he was the best player in the NFL his first few seasons in Houston. But he plays defense, so he is effectively ineligible for awards.
..............
It is important, in my opinion, to be cognizant of the fact that we cannot rely on the media and pundits and voters to let us know what the greatest or most important accomplishments/incidents/whatever are. I think i understand what you are getting at @coinkat .
@dallasactuary
effectively ineligible for awards...
Sad and true for decades and that is part of the problem. Thanks for acknowledging that you think I was harsh on myself... I see it as being objective in the event I was not clear.
There is a larger issue at stake here which I have not touched on in any detail until now... And this is what really bothers me. It is about what transpired and how that record was captured and most importantly... how it will be remembered.
Part of what I am trying to communicate is simply to prevent what is important from being lost and forgotten by Main Street America. Some will laugh at the notion but those are the exact folks who need to know and appreciate what it is they have missed. And there is the challenge. It is about creating a path that matters to what is truly important instead of the fabricated Readers Digest condensed version of sports history that misses the essence of what matters and how often what matters s really experienced. Awards simply help condense history to make it what it wasn't...
Experience the World through Numismatics...it's more than you can imagine.
So Bradford was a thief for taking the money and Couch a moron for giving it back. You are a tough cookie ; )
Im watching you
m
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
😂😂😂. Good point M, But I will say that if Bradford spent as much effort on trying to be a better QB as he did nursing injuries he might have been a HOF’er. Hence the thief comment
So JJ Watt didn’t benefit from any other variables? There are 10 other guys on D last time I checked, and if DB’s are doing their job blanketing the WR’s and the QB needs more time to look for an open WR and gets sacked by Watt the CB’s don’t get any credit? Watt did it all by himself? Or if the starting OL is injured and the back up is in, the DC moves Watt to line up against him and runs him over. All players benefit from something. There is a much smaller pool of NFL caliber QB’a than DL and a much smaller pool of Elite QB’s
The harsh reality of the NFL. Take the money and don't feel bad. Loyalty is over rated.
https://www.yahoo.com/news/saints-cut-veteran-player-hour-163337862.html
Fellas, leave the tight pants to the ladies. If I can count the coins in your pockets you better use them to call a tailor. Stay thirsty my friends......
"coverage sack" is a term routinely used by announcers.
Once you see it, you can't unsee it. Pay attention to any sentence or statement that begins with the word "so". What follows, invariably, is false; a misstatement of what the person being addressed actually said. See example above.
What you have provided, perk, is an argument that I have made - and that you have dismissed - many times. Football is a team sport, and it is impossible - not merely difficult, but literally impossible - to identify a greatest player. If your argument is consistent with that, then obviously I won't disagree. But what you seem to be trying to do is to argue that identifying a DL as an MVP is impossible, but identifying a QB as an MVP isn't. If that's your argument then it's so silly that I won't bother with a rebuttal. In the end, though, I don't know what point you're trying to make here. Given that everyone on the field - and the QB moreso than any other player - is benefiting from what the players around him are doing, why can't JJ Watt be the best player?
In my opinion, uninfluenced by any stats, just from watching them play the game, JJ Watt was the best football player in the league for several years running. For a couple of those years, I didn't see anyone I thought was even close. But it's just an opinion.
No. I never stated it was “Impossible” for any player to be MVP, what I was getting at and I thought was pretty straight forward was that you always mention the “Team” part of the game to dismiss that the QB gets the lions share of MVP talk, I don’t completely disagree with you but for you to say Watt was MVP or the “Best” player on the field for however long I simply threw out the same type of argument that you use against QB MVP talk. Watt was a great player, well deserving of MVP consideration. “So” do you see my point or not? I’m not arguing with you, I’m asking if you can agree that any argument used against a QB for MVP can be said about Watt or any other player who is under consideration for best player or MVP
Putting aside the confusion I've got over why you disagreed with this argument the hundred or so times I made it, yes, I agree. The MVP can play any position on the field, and it is literally impossible to objectively identify which one it is. While it is undeniably true that what a DL does on the field is much less dependent on what others on his team are doing than what a QB does - since QBs are by far the most dependent on what others are doing - a DL, an OL, a LB, a RB, a CB, a WR, and a S all depend on their teammates doing what they're supposed to do in order for them to do what they're supposed to do (do it well, anyway).
It is an oxymoron to hand out individual awards in a team game. It's silly. But, if the awards are to be given, and if I had a vote, I'd have voted for Watt several times. That's as categorical a statement as I think any reasonable person could ever make about an NFL MVP (or GOAT).
That’s why you can’t draft a QB and fail to protect him. Bradford, RGIII and others had their careers stolen from them by inferior lines. At least some got paid for their pain.
I definitely agree about protection but I think RG3 hurt his kneee on a designed run play? And Bradford played the injury game everywhere he went
No disrespect but please don’t be confused and think I’m agreeing with you 100% because I’m absolutely not, and neither is the thousands of other analysts that have covered NFL since its inception. The QB is the biggest piece of the puzzle when we building a franchise, literally your one of the very few that argue against that. I understand your point/s but again the point/s you make can be used against any player so I’m sticking with the QB being the most important for me. You can build your team around Watt and Ken Anderson, I’d prefer Brady and LT. Cheers 🍻
That’s why you can’t draft a QB and fail to protect him.
this should be sent to the Bengals front office.
In 1980 Hugh Green finished 2nd to George Rogers.
You can build your team around Watt and Ken Anderson, I’d prefer Brady and LT. Cheers 🍻
If we built our teams in that way, do you know whose team would win? The team with the better offensive line.