What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Reggie Bush - AFS (After Fresno State) (1 Viewer)

Oh, I don't know who all is watching the Texax/Texas A&M game.... but Young has just had his 3rd fumble of the game to all those who think Bush fumbling was a huge problem. 3 fumbles on the day, 1 lost and an Int. :popcorn:

 
Don't have time to read this whole thread, but some of the posts here are ludicrous and are made by people who should know better.Vince Young is a sensational QB having a sensational year. Sure, he might not become a great NFL QB, but that's irrelevant. The guy has almost single handedly taken his team to the top of college football He's an underrated passer and his running skills are off the charts, especially for a guy his size (although it's incredible at any size).Those bashing Young just have no clue.Reggie Bush might be the greatest college RB I have ever seen. I generally think I've been watching this sport longer than 95% of the others around here and I can't recall seeing a more impressive RB. What he added to his game this year (or was able to prove) is his inside running. We already knew he could catch passes like the best receivers out there, and now we know he can pound it inside as well.His moves are dynamic and he combines power with stop and go lightning speed and moves. Those who argue he had an unimpressive string of games have no clue. He has been awesome every step of the way even if it isn't reflected in the stats. Those who argue he isn't the best player on his own team or even the best RB make me wonder if they've ever paid attention to this sport.I don't know who will win the Heisman. My latest prediction is that Young will get the votes. They are obviously difficult to compare as they play such disparately different positions. Young touches the ball almost every single play.But for me personally, it comes down to Bush. As I said, he might be the greatest RB I have seen play college football. He is that good and I've been saying so since his freshman year.A tough call, to be sure. And I must add the caveat that I am a USC alum. But I'm also their toughest critic. Reggie Bush should win the Heisman.

 
As much as people forget, there have been LOTS of gamebreaker types like Bush.
Riiiight, sight for me please all these other players who can average 8.6 yds per carry throughout a season while being the 3rd leading rusher in the nation.....
I never made that specific caveat. If you could lower your blinders, you'd realize that the college game has been littered with players who are special at a variety of things and are gamebreakers by every sense of the word. It's somewhat discouraging that you seem to have taken the flag as Myopic Reggie Bush fan without acknowledging the INDISPUTABLE fact that Vince Young, Matt Leinart, and Lendale White are all very special players.

Colin

 
Lastly, the game today makes the Heisman a 2 pony race between Leinart and Bush since Young has basically been asked to hand off today. Fair enough, congrats to whichever Trojan wins it.However, I'll continue to say that it's a shame that so many people get so hung up in Reggie Bush's jock that they refuse to even acknowledge that a player like Vince Young is similarly special for a variety of reasons.Colin

 
If you want my opinion on the matter it is this. Bush is, like you said, game planned for just as much as both Leinart and Young if not more. Seeing the disparity in position and touches per game, that alone is an amazing feet. By your own admission Bush is at least in the same realm as Young and he is as you and all the other Bush-whackers call him is not even a true primary RB. Again, I ask you to think about that for a minute. A RB that isn't even touching the ball anywhere close the amount normally associated with RB1 levels is being game planned for in the same ballpark as your golden boy QB who touches it EVERY PLAY OF THE GAME. This is very telling as to who the best and most dynamic player in the nation is. It's #5 at USC.
So you're saying an opposing D can game plan for two players on one offense as much as one? Maybe the coaches take half the week off before they play Texas? (That would explain my Jayhawks performance... ;) ) Nobody is arguing that Bush isn't in the same realm of talent as Young, it's plain to see that they are both among the most talented players in football.
...and again you guys are trying to put words in other peoples mouths. No, I believe the supporting cast for Texas is FAAAR greater than you and Colin are giving them credit for. They have a top 3 Oline who is simply amazing in pass protection, 2-3 fantastic RBs and 3-4 super talented WRs. None are the household names you will find at USC (which should be expected given USC success), but they are all being severly underrated by you guys in your love affair with Young IMO.
Your comment - Bush is game planned for as much as Young or Leinart, not mine. I said Texas has good players, if Leinart = Young, and Bush is the best player in football, surely you're not saying that Texas has the same amount of talent overall.

Now I'm asking for clarification. If Texas has 2-3 "fantastic" RBs, 3-4 "Super-talented" WRs, where's the line between fantastic/super-talented and elite?

Once again, Colin has it right though, unless Young takes over the 4th quarter, Mack Brown is giving the Heisman to USC, while playing for the Championship. Fair call for a coach, his concern has to be the team first, but it's too bad he isn't utilizing Young more.

 
It's somewhat discouraging that you seem to have taken the flag as Myopic Reggie Bush fan without acknowledging the INDISPUTABLE fact that Vince Young, Matt Leinart, and Lendale White are all very special players.
:lmao: Please tell me where I ever mentioned that the other guys you listed were not special. :loco:
 
Both Vince Young and Bush are elite college players. I do think that one has to go back perhaps as far as Orenthal James himself to find a game breaker at a top program like Mr Bush.The Heisman is typically awarded to the best college RB or QB (once in a blue moon a WR). Reggie Bush is a better at RB, by a higher margin than Young is at QB. Bush defined his greatness in big games in which USC needed him to excel in order to win (Notre Dame, Fresno State). It is niave to point to other games in which his stats were marginal because USC has other talented players that can gain yards and score TDs and propel USC to easy wins against lesser opponents. To penalize Bush (who is still the best player in college football in a "relative" sense) because USC feeds all of their elite players is foolish.Young is fed big stats in each and every game, many of which have been complete blowouts in a conference that is not as strong as usual. If Vince was playing along with Ricky Williams in the Texas backfield it would not make Young less "great".Heisman winner, Reggie Bush.

 
It's somewhat discouraging that you seem to have taken the flag as Myopic Reggie Bush fan without acknowledging the INDISPUTABLE fact that Vince Young, Matt Leinart, and Lendale White are all very special players.
:lmao: Please tell me where I ever mentioned that the other guys you listed were not special. :loco:
Please point out where you gave any acknowledgement to Young.COlin

 
Once again, Colin has it right though, unless Young takes over the 4th quarter, Mack Brown is giving the Heisman to USC, while playing for the Championship. Fair call for a coach, his concern has to be the team first, but it's too bad he isn't utilizing Young more.
I love it, yeah because Brown forced Young to fumble the ball 3 times and throw a pick. Young has not played well today, face it. He has missed open guys several times thus far today and is not running well to make up for it. He also had another pass directly into coverage droped that likley would have been taken back for 6. It's a bad game, get over it and stop trying to blame it on the coach.
 
Once again, Colin has it right though, unless Young takes over the 4th quarter, Mack Brown is giving the Heisman to USC, while playing for the Championship. Fair call for a coach, his concern has to be the team first, but it's too bad he isn't utilizing Young more.
I love it, yeah because Brown forced Young to fumble the ball 3 times and throw a pick. Young has not played well today, face it. He has missed open guys several times thus far today and is not running well to make up for it. He also had another pass directly into coverage droped that likley would have been taken back for 6. It's a bad game, get over it and stop trying to blame it on the coach.
This is your finest moment. Let me paraphrase what I've gathered from you in this thread.1. Reggie Bush is the best player in college. Ever. Period.

2. When Bush has a bad game, it's not his fault because hey, there are other great players on his team so he shouldn't be penalized for getting fewer touches.

3. However, without Bush, USC, despite having other great players, isn't as good a team as UT would be without YOung.

4. Vince Young, conversly, is to blame for any statisticaly bad performances.

5. And oh yeah, did I mention Vince YOung is nowhere near the talent of Reggie Bush.

Does that cover it?

 
It's somewhat discouraging that you seem to have taken the flag as Myopic Reggie Bush fan without acknowledging the INDISPUTABLE fact that Vince Young, Matt Leinart, and Lendale White are all very special players.
:lmao: Please tell me where I ever mentioned that the other guys you listed were not special. :loco:
Please point out where you gave any acknowledgement to Young.COlin
I haven't done it in this thread, but have in others. I have not once said a single bad thing about Young as a college football player in this thread or others. It doesn't make him a bad player that Bush is simply better. Both are elite, but Bush is the best and most deserving of the Heisman. Not once have I ever suggested that Young was not elite. You seem to have a hard time acknowleging that your opinion of Young is in the minorty.
 
It's somewhat discouraging that you seem to have taken the flag as Myopic Reggie Bush fan without acknowledging the INDISPUTABLE fact that Vince Young, Matt Leinart, and Lendale White are all very special players.
:lmao: Please tell me where I ever mentioned that the other guys you listed were not special. :loco:
Please point out where you gave any acknowledgement to Young.COlin
I haven't done it in this thread, but have in others. I have not once said a single bad thing about Young as a college football player in this thread or others. It doesn't make him a bad player that Bush is simply better. Both are elite, but Bush is the best and most deserving of the Heisman. Not once have I ever suggested that Young was not elite. You seem to have a hard time acknowleging that your opinion of Young is in the minorty.
Just as you seem to have a hardtime acknowledging that prioir to last Saturday, Bush was running in 2nd place of Heisman polls/voting/surveys everywhere and based on one game, which Young equalled earlier in the year, BUsh is being given a sick amount of man-love.Colin

 
It's somewhat discouraging that you seem to have taken the flag as Myopic Reggie Bush fan without acknowledging the INDISPUTABLE fact that Vince Young, Matt Leinart, and Lendale White are all very special players.
:lmao: Please tell me where I ever mentioned that the other guys you listed were not special. :loco:
Please point out where you gave any acknowledgement to Young.COlin
I haven't done it in this thread, but have in others. I have not once said a single bad thing about Young as a college football player in this thread or others. It doesn't make him a bad player that Bush is simply better. Both are elite, but Bush is the best and most deserving of the Heisman. Not once have I ever suggested that Young was not elite. You seem to have a hard time acknowleging that your opinion of Young is in the minorty.
Just as you seem to have a hardtime acknowledging that prioir to last Saturday, Bush was running in 2nd place of Heisman polls/voting/surveys everywhere and based on one game, which Young equalled earlier in the year, BUsh is being given a sick amount of man-love.Colin
chances of Bush winning the Heisman after today: 100%
 
It's somewhat discouraging that you seem to have taken the flag as Myopic Reggie Bush fan without acknowledging the INDISPUTABLE fact that Vince Young, Matt Leinart, and Lendale White are all very special players.
:lmao: Please tell me where I ever mentioned that the other guys you listed were not special. :loco:
Please point out where you gave any acknowledgement to Young.COlin
I haven't done it in this thread, but have in others. I have not once said a single bad thing about Young as a college football player in this thread or others. It doesn't make him a bad player that Bush is simply better. Both are elite, but Bush is the best and most deserving of the Heisman. Not once have I ever suggested that Young was not elite. You seem to have a hard time acknowleging that your opinion of Young is in the minorty.
Just as you seem to have a hardtime acknowledging that prioir to last Saturday, Bush was running in 2nd place of Heisman polls/voting/surveys everywhere and based on one game, which Young equalled earlier in the year, BUsh is being given a sick amount of man-love.Colin
chances of Bush winning the Heisman after today: 100%
You get the award for "Showing up late to declare the Obvious."COlin

 
It's somewhat discouraging that you seem to have taken the flag as Myopic Reggie Bush fan without acknowledging the INDISPUTABLE fact that Vince Young, Matt Leinart, and Lendale White are all very special players.
:lmao: Please tell me where I ever mentioned that the other guys you listed were not special. :loco:
Please point out where you gave any acknowledgement to Young.COlin
I haven't done it in this thread, but have in others. I have not once said a single bad thing about Young as a college football player in this thread or others. It doesn't make him a bad player that Bush is simply better. Both are elite, but Bush is the best and most deserving of the Heisman. Not once have I ever suggested that Young was not elite. You seem to have a hard time acknowleging that your opinion of Young is in the minorty.
Just as you seem to have a hardtime acknowledging that prioir to last Saturday, Bush was running in 2nd place of Heisman polls/voting/surveys everywhere and based on one game, which Young equalled earlier in the year, BUsh is being given a sick amount of man-love.Colin
chances of Bush winning the Heisman after today: 100%
You get the award for "Showing up late to declare the Obvious."COlin
:thumbup:
 
1. Reggie Bush is the best player in college. Ever. Period.

Wrong again, Barry Sanders was IMO. No season comes close to his. Should I change this pic in my av to aid you with this view of mine?

2. When Bush has a bad game, it's not his fault because hey, there are other great players on his team so he shouldn't be penalized for getting fewer touches.

Please sight any time when I have mentioned or given any excuses for Bush having bad games. Looks as though your confusing poster... yet again.

3. However, without Bush, USC, despite having other great players, isn't as good a team as UT would be without YOung.

Again, never stated that either. Both teams would be great w/o each player IMO, but neither would be the team they currently are.

4. Vince Young, conversly, is to blame for any statisticaly bad performances.

Young is having a bad game, so yes he is to blame for his bad game. Just like Bush is to blame for his bad game(s)

5. And oh yeah, did I mention Vince YOung is nowhere near the talent of Reggie Bush.

True.

Does that cover it?
Funny, I think your the one who may need work on your comprehension skills in this thread Colin. Yet again you have put words in my mouth and confused my posts with others.It is blatently hilarious that you guys are trying to blame the coaches for costing Young the Heisman in comparison to Bush though. Bush has had less than 20 touches in 8 of his 11 games this year. If anyone should be crying about lack of ops from his coaching staff it should be Bush, not Young.

So to paraphrase for you yet again since you seem to be missing this over and over:

Yes, Bush and young are great players. I believe Bush to be the better of the 2 and best player in the country. Yes, both texas and USC have great supporting talent. Yes, both teams would still be great w/o the players in question, but neither would be at the same level as they are with such great players. Yes, Bush is a rare playmaker that can not simply be thrown in with the masses of "other" guys IMO. The fact that you even compare the game planning it takes to cover Bush (who isn't even on the field all the time) with that of a starting QB who touches the ball every play and is one of if not the most dynamic QB in the country right now is a tribute to his amazing abilities. Both players are good enough and surounded by enough talent too be held accountable for any mistakes or poor play they may encounter throughout the year.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Once again, Colin has it right though, unless Young takes over the 4th quarter, Mack Brown is giving the Heisman to USC, while playing for the Championship. Fair call for a coach, his concern has to be the team first, but it's too bad he isn't utilizing Young more.
I love it, yeah because Brown forced Young to fumble the ball 3 times and throw a pick. Young has not played well today, face it. He has missed open guys several times thus far today and is not running well to make up for it. He also had another pass directly into coverage droped that likley would have been taken back for 6. It's a bad game, get over it and stop trying to blame it on the coach.
Finally, you're right on something. ;) Young has had a terrible game today.

The parts I had watched (sorry, not sitting in front of the TV all game, I'm bouncing around between my boys, the net and the game) were parts where Young wasn't used the way he would be if Brown wanted him to gain votes. Now that may be because he is playing poorly today. Or it may be for many other reasons.

One game where Young is playing poorly, at a bad time. Costs him the Heisman, I'm ok with it.

 
1. Reggie Bush is the best player in college. Ever.  Period.

Wrong again, Barry Sanders was IMO.  No season comes close to his.  Should I change this pic in my av to aid you with this view of mine?

2. When Bush has a bad game, it's not his fault because hey, there are other great players on his team so he shouldn't be penalized for getting fewer touches.

Please sight any time when I have mentioned or given any excuses for Bush having bad games.  Looks as though your confusing poster... yet again.

3. However, without Bush, USC, despite having other great players, isn't as good a team as UT would be without YOung.

Again, never stated that either.  Both teams would be great w/o each player IMO, but neither would be the team they currently are.

4. Vince Young, conversly, is to blame for any statisticaly bad performances.

Young is having a bad game, so yes he is to blame for his bad game.  Just like Bush is to blame for his bad game(s)

5. And oh yeah, did I mention Vince YOung is nowhere near the talent of Reggie Bush.

True.

Does that cover it?
Funny, I think your the one who may need work on your comprehension skills in this thread Colin. Yet again you have put words in my mouth and confused my posts with others.It is blatently hilarious that you guys are trying to blame the coaches for costing Young the Heisman in comparison to Bush though. Bush has had less than 20 touches in 8 of his 11 games this year. If anyone should be crying about lack of ops from his coaching staff it should be Bush, not Young.

So to paraphrase for you yet again since you seem to be missing this over and over:

Yes, Bush and young are great players. I believe Bush to be the better of the 2 and best player in the country. Yes, both texas and USC have great supporting talent. Yes, both teams would still be great w/o the players in question, but neither would be at the same level as they are with such great players. Yes, Bush is a rare playmaker that can not simply be thrown in with the masses of "other" guys IMO. The fact that you even compare the game planning it takes to cover Bush (who isn't even on the field all the time) with that of a starting QB who touches the ball every play and is one of if not the most dynamic QB in the country right now is a tribute to his amazing abilities. Both players are good enough and surounded by enough talent too be held accountable for any mistakes or poor play they may encounter throughout the year.
I'm not crying. Bush had a big game, Young needed to respond, and he is not doing so. Much of that is to blame on Young, some of it on the coaches. The thing that chaps me - and otehrwise I could care less - is that I watched every snap of UT/OkSt and every snap of USC/FSU and I felt without question that Young's performance was more impressive. He essentially had to do all the work himself, he didn't get caught (twice) from behind, he played flawless, and his coach wasn't jumping up and down on the sideline like a 9 year old rejoicing that he wasn't going to lose to an inferior team.I am also intelligent enough to realize that some people may see Bush's performance last week as more impressive. Fair enough.

The part that bothers me are the people - and there are many -acting like Bush's FSU game was the end all be all of performances this season without acknowledging Young's big game. The worst part is anyone with a brain knows if Bush's big game had been in OCtober and Young's had been last week, this thread would be completely reversed.

Colin

 
a point has been raised repeatedly that is absurd that young & bush could/should have been close before, only to have bush surge into the lead on the basis of one game... to think this, one must be hangin on bush's jock, or think he was jesus in adidas.as a point of logic, just because some weren't vocal advocates of bush before, doesn't mean & isn't same as saying many of those same people didn't think he was worthy before...this might have to do with the fact that the heisman question is often asked in two completely different ways... who WILL win the award, & who SHOULD win the award. i was of the opinion that bush should, but that young would... until recently.use a 100 m sprint as an anolgy... what if young dominated beginning of the sprint... say the first 60 yards... bush catches him there, runs even for 10 yards, than explodes past him the last thirty yards, beating him by 10 yards.is it "fair" bush should win the race, when young led for the majority of it?maybe this isn't the way the heisman voting should go down... but that doesn't make it ridiculous or insane for some to think there is a possibility that these kinds of considerations might enter into the voters collective weighting of myriad factors that go into the decision process.who is this mythical, apocraphyl set of people that are saying white is as good as bush... if there were a lot of them, & they were not a fringe, outlier opinion, than white would be getting more mention for the heisman... no? not speaking of who will be better pro (white will be good, bush great)... strictly about heisman here.if white really were as good as bush, wouldn't there be a much greater national consensus to include white among heisman candidates... but clearly that isn't the case.it would be like if you prepared an elaborate argument to refute that large contingent of folks that believe kennedy was killed by UFOs from outer space... no matter what you could possibly say, i probably wouldn't be thinking... how clever this critique & refutation is... i would be thinking... who believes UFOs killed kennedy, anyway? what is the point? why bother? :)i have asked several times to no avail to agree to make at least some effort to clarify our terms. if we went to some country & witnessed a board game, somewhat like chess & go, but with many differences we don't comprehend... this would present a challenge in interpreting the state of the game by the current configuration & various layout of pieces of the game... who is "winning".it would help, for those able, to state comp players for some of the principals...bush (i have cited that jock hanger & jesus in addidas thinkin mayock's three comps of westbrook, faulk & vick :) ), white (eddie george... talented, & good enough to win with, but probably won't be mistaken for a game breaker?), leinert (brady... who knows if he wins super bowls, but there are similarities where his phenomenal intangibles mitigate questions about lack of a big arm), jarret (plaxico?) & young (not as quick as vick, probably more accomplished passer at similar arc of his career... could become as good or even better passer than mcnair, but that requires factoring in that he will develope & evolve in that direction... some take the step up... not everybody does).it starts out that we are talking about two players... than 100 posts later, now we are talking about what somebody said about them... than what somebody said about what somebody said... sometimes there is usefulness in pointing out flaws in others arguments... but seemingly we could attack this issue a little more directly in stating how we see these players, both as collegiates & in terms of pro prospects.many of these issues become very muddy & blurred when we start saying things like... it is easier for bush to be elite with his supporting cast than young. that may be the case... but it is not LOGICALLY mutually exclusive to state that... & still say bush is the best player in the country.if michael jordan played in a high school game, & he was on the side with better surrounding talent... it would be easier for him to be elite or dominant. would it make sense to extend that line of thinking into... maybe jordan isn't really dominant? :)the question of whether jordan is the best player on that court... is an entirely separate one from... did he have more help. they can easily be disentangled & examined separately. if someone persisted that jordan's superiority was called into question by better supporting cast... it would seem like a smokescreen.

 
The part that bothers me are the people - and there are many -acting like Bush's FSU game was the end all be all of performances this season without acknowledging Young's big game. The worst part is anyone with a brain knows if Bush's big game had been in OCtober and Young's had been last week, this thread would be completely reversed.
Couldn't agree more with this part right here. I had thought way back when that Bush locked up the Heisman when he ran over, around and bye ND. Then Young came back and exploded while Bush seemed to tail off. Bush answered the bell in a big way this past week and that's really what Heisman's come down to IMO. The timing of your performances. Bush's was spot on in the voters minds. Young hurt his chances today, but he still has a very good shot at winning the thing IMO due to a likely split vote from the west. I know I haven't said much about Young throughout this thread, mostly because I felt the need to exchange blows with you Young guys :boxing: . I will however say that I will not be surprised if Young wins it still. I just wouldn't vote for him is all. :D
 
a point has been raised repeatedly that is absurd that young & bush could/should have been close before, only to have bush surge into the lead on the basis of one game... to think this, one must be hangin on bush's jock, or think he was jesus in adidas.

as a point of logic, just because some weren't vocal advocates of bush before, doesn't mean & isn't same as saying many of those same people didn't think he was worthy before...

this might have to do with the fact that the heisman question is often asked in two completely different ways... who WILL win the award, & who SHOULD win the award. i was of the opinion that bush should, but that young would... until recently.

use a 100 m sprint as an anolgy... what if young dominated beginning of the sprint... say the first 60 yards... bush catches him there, runs even for 10 yards, than explodes past him the last thirty yards, beating him by 10 yards.

is it "fair" bush should win the race, when young led for the majority of it?

maybe this isn't the way the heisman voting should go down... but that doesn't make it ridiculous or insane for some to think there is a possibility that these kinds of considerations might enter into the voters collective weighting of myriad factors that go into the decision process.

who is this mythical, apocraphyl set of people that are saying white is as good as bush... if there were a lot of them, & they were not a fringe, outlier opinion, than white would be getting more mention for the heisman... no? not speaking of who will be better pro (white will be good, bush great)... strictly about heisman here.

if white really were as good as bush, wouldn't there be a much greater national consensus to include white among heisman candidates... but clearly that isn't the case.

it would be like if you prepared an elaborate argument to refute that large contingent of folks that believe kennedy was killed by UFOs from outer space... no matter what you could possibly say, i probably wouldn't be thinking... how clever this critique & refutation is... i would be thinking... who believes UFOs killed kennedy, anyway? what is the point? why bother? :)

i have asked several times to no avail to agree to make at least some effort to clarify our terms. if we went to some country & witnessed a board game, somewhat like chess & go, but with many differences we don't comprehend... this would present a challenge in interpreting the state of the game by the current configuration & various layout of pieces of the game... who is "winning".

it would help, for those able, to state comp players for some of the principals...

bush (i have cited that jock hanger & jesus in addidas thinkin mayock's three comps of westbrook, faulk & vick :) ), white (eddie george... talented, & good enough to win with, but probably won't be mistaken for a game breaker?), leinert (brady... who knows if he wins super bowls, but there are similarities where his phenomenal intangibles mitigate questions about lack of a big arm), jarret (plaxico?) & young (not as quick as vick, probably more accomplished passer at similar arc of his career... could become as good or even better passer than mcnair, but that requires factoring in that he will develope & evolve in that direction... some take the step up... not everybody does).

it starts out that we are talking about two players... than 100 posts later, now we are talking about what somebody said about them... than what somebody said about what somebody said... sometimes there is usefulness in pointing out flaws in others arguments... but seemingly we could attack this issue a little more directly in stating how we see these players, both as collegiates & in terms of pro prospects.

many of these issues become very muddy & blurred when we start saying things like... it is easier for bush to be elite with his supporting cast than young. that may be the case... but it is not LOGICALLY mutually exclusive to state that... & still say bush is the best player in the country.

if michael jordan played in a high school game, & he was on the side with better surrounding talent... it would be easier for him to be elite or dominant. would it make sense to extend that line of thinking into... maybe jordan isn't really dominant? :)

the question of whether jordan is the best player on that court... is an entirely separate one from... did he have more help. they can easily be disentangled & examined separately. if someone persisted that jordan's superiority was called into question by better supporting cast... it would seem like a smokescreen.
I didn't understand most everything you typed. However, much of what I did understand, I completely disagree with. LOTS of people have been saying White was/is as good as Bush until last Saturday. Countless Heisman polls spent the first 8 weeks of the season wondering why White, who had better stats, was not getting more Heisman attention. There is plenty of national consensus to include White, as he is routinely 5th (Brady Quinn) in most polls. Its not like he's shark chum for the conversation.Colin

 
The part that bothers me are the people - and there are many -acting like Bush's FSU game was the end all be all of performances this season without acknowledging Young's big game. The worst part is anyone with a brain knows if Bush's big game had been in OCtober and Young's had been last week, this thread would be completely reversed.
Couldn't agree more with this part right here. I had thought way back when that Bush locked up the Heisman when he ran over, around and bye ND. Then Young came back and exploded while Bush seemed to tail off. Bush answered the bell in a big way this past week and that's really what Heisman's come down to IMO. The timing of your performances. Bush's was spot on in the voters minds. Young hurt his chances today, but he still has a very good shot at winning the thing IMO due to a likely split vote from the west. I know I haven't said much about Young throughout this thread, mostly because I felt the need to exchange blows with you Young guys :boxing: . I will however say that I will not be surprised if Young wins it still. I just wouldn't vote for him is all. :D
:thumbup: Good enough, and if Bush plays well against UCLA and Young doesn't totally dominate Colorado, I wouldn't either.

When the debate started, they were very close and I gave the edge to Vince.

 
The part that bothers me are the people - and there are many -acting like Bush's FSU game was the end all be all of performances this season without acknowledging Young's big game.  The worst part is anyone with a brain knows if Bush's big game had been in OCtober and Young's had been last week, this thread would be completely reversed.
Couldn't agree more with this part right here. I had thought way back when that Bush locked up the Heisman when he ran over, around and bye ND. Then Young came back and exploded while Bush seemed to tail off. Bush answered the bell in a big way this past week and that's really what Heisman's come down to IMO. The timing of your performances. Bush's was spot on in the voters minds. Young hurt his chances today, but he still has a very good shot at winning the thing IMO due to a likely split vote from the west. I know I haven't said much about Young throughout this thread, mostly because I felt the need to exchange blows with you Young guys :boxing: . I will however say that I will not be surprised if Young wins it still. I just wouldn't vote for him is all. :D
As I said earlier in the thread, the biggest play Bush had all year was pushing Leinart in to the endzone against Notre Dame. Without question, even after today, an undefeated Vince Young wins the award over a 1 loss Bush.Colin

 
Without question, even after today, an undefeated Vince Young wins the award over a 1 loss Bush.

Colin
I'm not so sure. Maybe, but I would not go so far as to say "without question". How many voters look at wins when it comes to RBs? They'd probably blame Leinart and give Weiss credit, which is probably the right call. Brady Quinn may have moved up, snagging votes from those inclined to vote for the best QB, while this wouldn't change the voters who look at the last few weeks as the most important.

 
Without question, even after today, an undefeated Vince Young wins the award over a 1 loss Bush.

Colin
I'm not so sure. Maybe, but I would not go so far as to say "without question". How many voters look at wins when it comes to RBs? They'd probably blame Leinart and give Weiss credit, which is probably the right call. Brady Quinn may have moved up, snagging votes from those inclined to vote for the best QB, while this wouldn't change the voters who look at the last few weeks as the most important.
Jason White over Larry Fitzgerald?
 
Without question, even after today, an undefeated Vince Young wins the award over a 1 loss Bush.

Colin
I'm not so sure. Maybe, but I would not go so far as to say "without question". How many voters look at wins when it comes to RBs? They'd probably blame Leinart and give Weiss credit, which is probably the right call. Brady Quinn may have moved up, snagging votes from those inclined to vote for the best QB, while this wouldn't change the voters who look at the last few weeks as the most important.
Very tough call right here. Hard to pin that L on Bush. I mean the guy had 185 yds and 3 TDs on only 19 touches in that game. Plus I agree that him being a RB is a huge plus in this context. QBs are the game managers and more associated with the W/L. Like I said earlier, the ball is in their hands the entire game... on O anyways. I think I agree with Colin though, it would still be a tight race, but I can't see a 1 L Bush winning it over a 0 L Young.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
a point has been raised repeatedly that is absurd that young & bush could/should have been close before, only to have bush surge into the lead on the basis of one game... to think this, one must be hangin on bush's jock, or think he was jesus in adidas.

as a point of logic, just because some weren't vocal advocates of bush before, doesn't mean & isn't same as saying many of those same people didn't think he was worthy before...

this might have to do with the fact that the heisman question is often asked in two completely different ways... who WILL win the award, & who SHOULD win the award. i was of the opinion that bush should, but that young would... until recently.

use a 100 m sprint as an anolgy... what if young dominated beginning of the sprint... say the first 60 yards... bush catches him there, runs even for 10 yards, than explodes past him the last thirty yards, beating him by 10 yards.

is it "fair" bush should win the race, when young led for the majority of it?

maybe this isn't the way the heisman voting should go down... but that doesn't make it ridiculous or insane for some to think there is a possibility that these kinds of considerations might enter into the voters collective weighting of myriad factors that go into the decision process.

who is this mythical, apocraphyl set of people that are saying white is as good as bush... if there were a lot of them, & they were not a fringe, outlier opinion, than white would be getting more mention for the heisman... no? not speaking of who will be better pro (white will be good, bush great)... strictly about heisman here.

if white really were as good as bush, wouldn't there be a much greater national consensus to include white among heisman candidates... but clearly that isn't the case.

it would be like if you prepared an elaborate argument to refute that large contingent of folks that believe kennedy was killed by UFOs from outer space... no matter what you could possibly say, i probably wouldn't be thinking... how clever this critique & refutation is... i would be thinking... who believes UFOs killed kennedy, anyway? what is the point? why bother? :)

i have asked several times to no avail to agree to make at least some effort to clarify our terms. if we went to some country & witnessed a board game, somewhat like chess & go, but with many differences we don't comprehend... this would present a challenge in interpreting the state of the game by the current configuration & various layout of pieces of the game... who is "winning".

it would help, for those able, to state comp players for some of the principals...

bush (i have cited that jock hanger & jesus in addidas thinkin mayock's three comps of westbrook, faulk & vick :) ), white (eddie george... talented, & good enough to win with, but probably won't be mistaken for a game breaker?), leinert (brady... who knows if he wins super bowls, but there are similarities where his phenomenal intangibles mitigate questions about lack of a big arm), jarret (plaxico?) & young (not as quick as vick, probably more accomplished passer at similar arc of his career... could become as good or even better passer than mcnair, but that requires factoring in that he will develope & evolve in that direction... some take the step up... not everybody does).

it starts out that we are talking about two players... than 100 posts later, now we are talking about what somebody said about them... than what somebody said about what somebody said... sometimes there is usefulness in pointing out flaws in others arguments... but seemingly we could attack this issue a little more directly in stating how we see these players, both as collegiates & in terms of pro prospects.

many of these issues become very muddy & blurred when we start saying things like... it is easier for bush to be elite with his supporting cast than young. that may be the case... but it is not LOGICALLY mutually exclusive to state that... & still say bush is the best player in the country.

if michael jordan played in a high school game, & he was on the side with better surrounding talent... it would be easier for him to be elite or dominant. would it make sense to extend that line of thinking into... maybe jordan isn't really dominant? :)

the question of whether jordan is the best player on that court... is an entirely separate one from... did he have more help. they can easily be disentangled & examined separately. if someone persisted that jordan's superiority was called into question by better supporting cast... it would seem like a smokescreen.
I didn't understand most everything you typed. However, much of what I did understand, I completely disagree with. LOTS of people have been saying White was/is as good as Bush until last Saturday. Countless Heisman polls spent the first 8 weeks of the season wondering why White, who had better stats, was not getting more Heisman attention. There is plenty of national consensus to include White, as he is routinely 5th (Brady Quinn) in most polls. Its not like he's shark chum for the conversation.Colin
i don't know about people on message boards... i think you would have trouble producing any headlines from reputable media sources, AT ANY POINT during the season, that were pimping white over bush or leinert for the heisman... like i said, refuting the UFO killed kennedy "contingent".5th may or not be impressive... if #1 got 99 out of a 100 first place votes & fifth got ZERO... than yes, he is shark chum for this discussion. you might find people that said UFO killed kennedy (check in some of the places that deliverance was filmed in, for starters)... that doesn't make citing them an authority, let alone a consensus... it is & was a fringe position.

you are the first to take others to task for errors... if one is pointed out on your side... you skip it... like 5'11 205 is NOWHERE CLOSE to 6'0" 200.

claiming to not understand question is another way to fail to acknowledge your own culpability at times in muddled thinking.

i'll try & boil it down.

michael jordan (in his prime) was really, really good. if he were to play your local high scool team, unless they are freakishly talented... jordan would easily be best player on court.

even if he played on the better local team, with superior talent at all four other positions... it would be absurd & ludicrous to try & insinuate that jordan's talent might than be called into question by this fact.

maybe it is EASIER to dominate given that... but that makes him no less dominant. was that really necessary to boil that down?

* edit/add - i take it another part of post/thread which was incomprehensible was where i mentioned something these guys called scouts are developing... its called a COOOMMMPPP player (i also asked for some examples of the principals, by which we can make better sense of our respective positions) i think... it is admittedly a pretty inscrutable & high-falutin term.

it is where you COMPARE the traits of an incoming prospect to a well known player in college/pros who preceded him. i hear its quite the rage in some circles. :)

** edit/add II - you honestly can't wrap your mind around the POSSIBILITY that a player might have two attributes... being the best player in the nation... AND having a solid supporting cast? could someone who knows how to draw a venn diagram on the mssg board help a brother out. :) if you were able to grasp this fundamental point, it would mean abandoning the pet crutch used to shore up a badly listing pro-young position... that young is "better" because his teammates aren't as good, & bush isn't as good because his teammates are better.

*** the analogy about the 100 m sprint was not a complex one... you may not agree with it, but it is hard to believe you couldn't understand it.

on the white being in fifth place part... didn't ralph nader finish third in a recent presidential election... was he ALMOST as close to winning the election as those in first or second place?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
The Heisman is a joke.  I don't know why people get in arguments over it each year.
Boredom? :shrug:
Yeah, I guess I get in dicussions because of boredom many times too. The Heisman has gotten it right before. But if you give anything enough time they'll get it right atleast a few times.I just see the Heisman as a political election. You don't want to give that all powerful, awe-inspiring speech in early October because it might be forgotten by November. And that solid consistent performer many times gets overlooked. It's unfortunate, and many within the media don't help either with all their love and hype.

I don't know, maybe I'm wrong and full of crap. All I do know is that I won't be watching the Heisman show and really won't care who wins either because the ones I like best always seem to get snubbed by the media.

 
Nice interview Vince Young just had on ABC. Maybe I'm the fool for believing it all, but I do sense sincerity and I like the guy.

 
Without question, even after today, an undefeated Vince Young wins the award over a 1 loss Bush.

Colin
I'm not so sure. Maybe, but I would not go so far as to say "without question". How many voters look at wins when it comes to RBs? They'd probably blame Leinart and give Weiss credit, which is probably the right call. Brady Quinn may have moved up, snagging votes from those inclined to vote for the best QB, while this wouldn't change the voters who look at the last few weeks as the most important.
Jason White over Larry Fitzgerald?
:shrug: you may be right that Young would win it then, but it isn't "without question"
 
isn't there a double standard that some are surprised bush should be able to win heisman with one game (not to say that he didn't have other good games, too... but his timing was good in being able to put up a monster game near end of season that may have vaulted him into lead)...but also being able to speak in terms of young losing it in one game (by not answering bush's outburst)... presumably, if he had 1,000 combined passing/rushing yards, he may have surged back into the lead?another way to break down claim whether the white is just as worthy as bush for heisman school of thought is really that prevalent & widely held, though an inferential one...several scouts have compared bush to marshall faulk... we are talking about a players who is a HOF lock & may be one of top 10 all-around RBs in NFL history. who is comparing white to future HOFers?you may ask yourself... why is this?you may also ask yourself... how did i get in this thread.same as it ever was.lastly, by the rationale that seems to be put forward here... if vince young had an identical twin brother that was almost as good but not his equal in football terms (tiki better RB than ronde?)... than we should dock young in heisman voting, & this diminishes his importance... because he would than barely be the best QB on his own team?is that a fair extension of this position & thought process?* are bush & white really on the field at the same time that much? if not, not clear what it means to say opposing defenses have to concern themselves with more weapons at USC... in so far as RBs are concerned. if white is on the sidelines, its not like it is harder for defense to account for bush because of this... it is irrelevant.i may be mistaken, but in a lot of games i have seen, when white is doing his thing, bush is on sideline... & vice verce.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
isn't there a double standard that some are surprised bush should be able to win heisman with one game (not to say that he didn't have other good games, too... but his timing was good in being able to put up a monster game near end of season that may have vaulted him into lead)...

but also being able to speak in terms of young losing it in one game (by not answering bush's outburst)... presumably, if he had 1,000 combined passing/rushing yards, he may have surged back into the lead?

another way to break down claim whether the white is just as worthy as bush for heisman school of thought is really that prevalent & widely held, though an inferential one...

several scouts have compared bush to marshall faulk... we are talking about a players who is a HOF lock & may be one of top 10 all-around RBs in NFL history.

who is comparing white to future HOFers?

you may ask yourself... why is this?

you may also ask yourself... how did i get in this thread.

same as it ever was.

lastly, by the rationale that seems to be put forward here... if vince young had an identical twin brother that was almost as good but not his equal in football terms (tiki better RB than ronde?)... than we should dock young in heisman voting, & this diminishes his importance... because he would than barely be the best QB on his own team?

is that a fair extension of this position & thought process?
Bush has always been tops on my list for the Heisman this year. Young made a nice push and made me think about it far more than I had thought he would, but Bush's game stamped it for me yet again. I say that the timing is important only because I think that this is how the voters percieve it. Bush was my guy all year long, but that doesn't mean he will be to eeryone else and I think a major deciding factor is who performes best and when that happens. Right or wrong, that's just the way I see it.
 
The part that bothers me are the people - and there are many -acting like Bush's FSU game was the end all be all of performances this season without acknowledging Young's big game. The worst part is anyone with a brain knows if Bush's big game had been in OCtober and Young's had been last week, this thread would be completely reversed.Colin
So, you were wanting to take what was Bush's arguably worst game, and compare it Vinces arguably best game, and give the award to Vince based on that. Patently unfair. It's a season award, and just like Bush has less than stellar games, so does Young. Nobody goes undefeated riding one player. Teams go undefeated. Texas showed today that when Young isn't great, they have a run game that can carry them.
 
It's somewhat discouraging that you seem to have taken the flag as Myopic Reggie Bush fan without acknowledging the INDISPUTABLE fact that Vince Young, Matt Leinart, and Lendale White are all very special players.
:lmao: Please tell me where I ever mentioned that the other guys you listed were not special. :loco:
Please point out where you gave any acknowledgement to Young.COlin
I haven't done it in this thread, but have in others. I have not once said a single bad thing about Young as a college football player in this thread or others. It doesn't make him a bad player that Bush is simply better. Both are elite, but Bush is the best and most deserving of the Heisman. Not once have I ever suggested that Young was not elite. You seem to have a hard time acknowleging that your opinion of Young is in the minorty.
Just as you seem to have a hardtime acknowledging that prioir to last Saturday, Bush was running in 2nd place of Heisman polls/voting/surveys everywhere and based on one game, which Young equalled earlier in the year, BUsh is being given a sick amount of man-love.Colin
chances of Bush winning the Heisman after today: 100%
You get the award for "Showing up late to declare the Obvious."COlin
:rolleyes:
 
The Heisman is a joke. I don't know why people get in arguments over it each year.
Because it is one of many aspects that make college football what it is. Love it or hate it, the Heisman is an award that the winner will and should be proud of.
 
The Heisman is a joke.  I don't know why people get in arguments over it each year.
Because it is one of many aspects that make college football what it is. Love it or hate it, the Heisman is an award that the winner will and should be proud of.
Never said any winner should not be proud. They have all been special players. I just question some of the voters and what they take into account.
 
The Heisman is a joke.  I don't know why people get in arguments over it each year.
Because it is one of many aspects that make college football what it is. Love it or hate it, the Heisman is an award that the winner will and should be proud of.
Never said any winner should not be proud. They have all been special players. I just question some of the voters and what they take into account.
All I did was answer your question.. " I don't know why people get in arguments over it each year."
 
1. Reggie Bush is the best player in college. Ever.  Period.

Wrong again, Barry Sanders was IMO.  No season comes close to his.  Should I change this pic in my av to aid you with this view of mine?

2. When Bush has a bad game, it's not his fault because hey, there are other great players on his team so he shouldn't be penalized for getting fewer touches.

Please sight any time when I have mentioned or given any excuses for Bush having bad games.  Looks as though your confusing poster... yet again.

3. However, without Bush, USC, despite having other great players, isn't as good a team as UT would be without YOung.

Again, never stated that either.  Both teams would be great w/o each player IMO, but neither would be the team they currently are.

4. Vince Young, conversly, is to blame for any statisticaly bad performances.

Young is having a bad game, so yes he is to blame for his bad game.  Just like Bush is to blame for his bad game(s)

5. And oh yeah, did I mention Vince YOung is nowhere near the talent of Reggie Bush.

True.

Does that cover it?
Funny, I think your the one who may need work on your comprehension skills in this thread Colin. Yet again you have put words in my mouth and confused my posts with others.It is blatently hilarious that you guys are trying to blame the coaches for costing Young the Heisman in comparison to Bush though. Bush has had less than 20 touches in 8 of his 11 games this year. If anyone should be crying about lack of ops from his coaching staff it should be Bush, not Young.

So to paraphrase for you yet again since you seem to be missing this over and over:

Yes, Bush and young are great players. I believe Bush to be the better of the 2 and best player in the country. Yes, both texas and USC have great supporting talent. Yes, both teams would still be great w/o the players in question, but neither would be at the same level as they are with such great players. Yes, Bush is a rare playmaker that can not simply be thrown in with the masses of "other" guys IMO. The fact that you even compare the game planning it takes to cover Bush (who isn't even on the field all the time) with that of a starting QB who touches the ball every play and is one of if not the most dynamic QB in the country right now is a tribute to his amazing abilities. Both players are good enough and surounded by enough talent too be held accountable for any mistakes or poor play they may encounter throughout the year.
I'm not crying. Bush had a big game, Young needed to respond, and he is not doing so. Much of that is to blame on Young, some of it on the coaches. The thing that chaps me - and otehrwise I could care less - is that I watched every snap of UT/OkSt and every snap of USC/FSU and I felt without question that Young's performance was more impressive. He essentially had to do all the work himself, he didn't get caught (twice) from behind, he played flawless, and his coach wasn't jumping up and down on the sideline like a 9 year old rejoicing that he wasn't going to lose to an inferior team.I am also intelligent enough to realize that some people may see Bush's performance last week as more impressive. Fair enough.

The part that bothers me are the people - and there are many -acting like Bush's FSU game was the end all be all of performances this season without acknowledging Young's big game. The worst part is anyone with a brain knows if Bush's big game had been in OCtober and Young's had been last week, this thread would be completely reversed.

Colin
OK St = COMPLETE GARBAGEFresno St = top 20 team

I would hope Young has a great game against one of the worst teams in college football.

Man, you need to just move on.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
1. Reggie Bush is the best player in college. Ever.  Period.

Wrong again, Barry Sanders was IMO.  No season comes close to his.  Should I change this pic in my av to aid you with this view of mine?

2. When Bush has a bad game, it's not his fault because hey, there are other great players on his team so he shouldn't be penalized for getting fewer touches.

Please sight any time when I have mentioned or given any excuses for Bush having bad games.  Looks as though your confusing poster... yet again.

3. However, without Bush, USC, despite having other great players, isn't as good a team as UT would be without YOung.

Again, never stated that either.  Both teams would be great w/o each player IMO, but neither would be the team they currently are.

4. Vince Young, conversly, is to blame for any statisticaly bad performances.

Young is having a bad game, so yes he is to blame for his bad game.  Just like Bush is to blame for his bad game(s)

5. And oh yeah, did I mention Vince YOung is nowhere near the talent of Reggie Bush.

True.

Does that cover it?
Funny, I think your the one who may need work on your comprehension skills in this thread Colin. Yet again you have put words in my mouth and confused my posts with others.It is blatently hilarious that you guys are trying to blame the coaches for costing Young the Heisman in comparison to Bush though. Bush has had less than 20 touches in 8 of his 11 games this year. If anyone should be crying about lack of ops from his coaching staff it should be Bush, not Young.

So to paraphrase for you yet again since you seem to be missing this over and over:

Yes, Bush and young are great players. I believe Bush to be the better of the 2 and best player in the country. Yes, both texas and USC have great supporting talent. Yes, both teams would still be great w/o the players in question, but neither would be at the same level as they are with such great players. Yes, Bush is a rare playmaker that can not simply be thrown in with the masses of "other" guys IMO. The fact that you even compare the game planning it takes to cover Bush (who isn't even on the field all the time) with that of a starting QB who touches the ball every play and is one of if not the most dynamic QB in the country right now is a tribute to his amazing abilities. Both players are good enough and surounded by enough talent too be held accountable for any mistakes or poor play they may encounter throughout the year.
I'm not crying. Bush had a big game, Young needed to respond, and he is not doing so. Much of that is to blame on Young, some of it on the coaches. The thing that chaps me - and otehrwise I could care less - is that I watched every snap of UT/OkSt and every snap of USC/FSU and I felt without question that Young's performance was more impressive. He essentially had to do all the work himself, he didn't get caught (twice) from behind, he played flawless, and his coach wasn't jumping up and down on the sideline like a 9 year old rejoicing that he wasn't going to lose to an inferior team.I am also intelligent enough to realize that some people may see Bush's performance last week as more impressive. Fair enough.

The part that bothers me are the people - and there are many -acting like Bush's FSU game was the end all be all of performances this season without acknowledging Young's big game. The worst part is anyone with a brain knows if Bush's big game had been in OCtober and Young's had been last week, this thread would be completely reversed.

Colin
i guess i was way off all these years thinking barry sanders was a great RB... he was caught from behind many times... i stand corrected... everybody knows it isn't possible to be caught from behind & still be a great player.
 
1. Reggie Bush is the best player in college. Ever.  Period.

Wrong again, Barry Sanders was IMO.  No season comes close to his.  Should I change this pic in my av to aid you with this view of mine?

2. When Bush has a bad game, it's not his fault because hey, there are other great players on his team so he shouldn't be penalized for getting fewer touches.

Please sight any time when I have mentioned or given any excuses for Bush having bad games.  Looks as though your confusing poster... yet again.

3. However, without Bush, USC, despite having other great players, isn't as good a team as UT would be without YOung.

Again, never stated that either.  Both teams would be great w/o each player IMO, but neither would be the team they currently are.

4. Vince Young, conversly, is to blame for any statisticaly bad performances.

Young is having a bad game, so yes he is to blame for his bad game.  Just like Bush is to blame for his bad game(s)

5. And oh yeah, did I mention Vince YOung is nowhere near the talent of Reggie Bush.

True.

Does that cover it?
Funny, I think your the one who may need work on your comprehension skills in this thread Colin. Yet again you have put words in my mouth and confused my posts with others.It is blatently hilarious that you guys are trying to blame the coaches for costing Young the Heisman in comparison to Bush though. Bush has had less than 20 touches in 8 of his 11 games this year. If anyone should be crying about lack of ops from his coaching staff it should be Bush, not Young.

So to paraphrase for you yet again since you seem to be missing this over and over:

Yes, Bush and young are great players. I believe Bush to be the better of the 2 and best player in the country. Yes, both texas and USC have great supporting talent. Yes, both teams would still be great w/o the players in question, but neither would be at the same level as they are with such great players. Yes, Bush is a rare playmaker that can not simply be thrown in with the masses of "other" guys IMO. The fact that you even compare the game planning it takes to cover Bush (who isn't even on the field all the time) with that of a starting QB who touches the ball every play and is one of if not the most dynamic QB in the country right now is a tribute to his amazing abilities. Both players are good enough and surounded by enough talent too be held accountable for any mistakes or poor play they may encounter throughout the year.
I am also intelligent enough to realize that some people may see Bush's performance last week as more impressive. Fair enough.The worst part is anyone with a brain knows if Bush's big game had been in OCtober and Young's had been last week, this thread would be completely reversed.

Colin
Wow, that is just motarded.
 
The Heisman is a joke.  I don't know why people get in arguments over it each year.
Because it is one of many aspects that make college football what it is. Love it or hate it, the Heisman is an award that the winner will and should be proud of.
Never said any winner should not be proud. They have all been special players. I just question some of the voters and what they take into account.
All I did was answer your question.. " I don't know why people get in arguments over it each year."
Thanks, but I already knew that. The answers I'm looking for I won't find here. It was more a statement than a question, hence why I didn't use a "?".
 
The Heisman is a joke. I don't know why people get in arguments over it each year.
Because it is one of many aspects that make college football what it is. Love it or hate it, the Heisman is an award that the winner will and should be proud of.
Never said any winner should not be proud. They have all been special players. I just question some of the voters and what they take into account.
All I did was answer your question.. " I don't know why people get in arguments over it each year."
Thanks, but I already knew that. The answers I'm looking for I won't find here. It was more a statement than a question, hence why I didn't use a "?".
I understand the statement, but vehemently disagree with it. The Heisman is no more of a joke than any MVP award or any individual achievement award that isn't based purely on stats (like rushing titles or other stat leaders). Maybe a little more than the Lombardi or Butkis because it calls on a voter to compare the uncomparable - QB to WR to RB to CB to G, (BTW, is it possible for a OL to win it?) but so do all MVP awards. One thing the Heisman most emphatically does not do is predict future NFL success.

 
Anyone change their views of Vince Young after today? I thought he looked poor. Yes, the 'horns won. But, I see Young needing to improve to live up to his NFL billing. He could do so.But, I remember a couple of plays (throws) where a below average NFL QB (Carr, Harrington, Orton, etc) would have made. The post pattern to TE Thomas was overthrown with no defender anywhere in sight. Maybe another year of maturation and fundamentals will help. There is no possible way anyone can put him and Leinhart in the same tier.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Anyone change their views of Vince Young after today? I thought he looked poor. Yes, the 'horns won. But, I see Young needing to improve to live up to his NFL billing. He could do so.

But, I remember a couple of plays (throws) where a below average NFL QB (Carr, Harrington, Orton, etc) would have made. The post pattern to TE Thomas was overthrown with no defender anywhere in sight.

Maybe another year of maturation and fundamentals will help. There is no possible way anyone can put him and Leinhart in the same tier.
Yesterday may be the reason Young returns to UT next year instead of entering the draft. He obviously isn't ready for the NFL.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top