because you'd hire a guy who hasn't been doing that? casserly became a piece of toast roughly .01 seconds after mcnair clandestinely hired dan reeves to help right the franchise's falling ship. why he was allowed to be anywhere near the texans' draft preparations is a mystery robert stack couldn't tackle. it's borderline asinine.
please don't bring that back up, I'll never understand that. I liked the williams pick, but I'll never understand why casserly was still around.
I know I'd rather be the next Marshall Faulk than the next guy who had four good seasons for bad teams and was retired by age 28. In fairness there's a lot of NFL films stuff on Gale Sayers from which his legend grew and, juding only by that film, the comparison is not unreasonable.
I didn't realize that potential GM candidates who weren't actually GMs for their teams would have done all that research and have access to take it with them. Maybe I'm wrong, though, as I know very little about how this works.
Comparing Bush to Faulk completely minimizes Faulk's excellence between the tackles as well as understanding and committment to the game (former coaches say he is the smartest and hardest working player they ever met). Bush has Faulk's natural ability, maybe even a tad more explosiveness, but he has miles to go in other attributes that allowed Faulk to be a great pro football player. Let's put it this way, is the likelihood 1) Williams is close to the next Strahan/Bruce Smith; 2) Bush close to the next Faulk/Sanders, or 3) Vince close to the next S. Young/McNabb the most likely. I'd say probably #1 is most likely. Personally I'd rolled the dice for #3 because no one player impacts a team like a special franchise QB. But I can respect what the Texas were thinking and commend them for bucking the same hype machine that produced a league leading jersey sales despite te guy making 1 good play in 4 preseason games and that lead to a runaway Heisman winner who clearly wasn't the best college football player when all the chief candidates were on the same field.
you were under the impression GMs were one-man bands who had no assistants, coaches, scouts, contacts or other staff and/or personnel? really? or that newly-hired GMs are forced to turn in their intellectual property along with their parking pass before they leave and then start from scratch rescouting every college and pro player they've spent the last several years scouting? that sounds logical? when you switch jobs, do you immediately unlearn, leave behind or just plain forget everything you learned at your former place of employment? if that were the case, why would any team ever hire outside their own organization? further, why would that brand of strong-arming not extend to coaches? kubiak has essentially installed shanahan's plan of attack, but the bronco's assistant GM was forced to arrive with nothing more than a brand new spiral notebook and the clothes on his back?
no way! really?!???!???!!!!! i did not see that one coming at all.... [ric's brain explodes] i shouldn't... i know better; i really do, but... (deep breath) (ignoring completely that just dismissed one of the singularly greatest individual seasons by a running back in ncaa history as a product of hype...)what did the rose bowl, or whatever bowl it was, have to do with the heisman trophy voting, an award given to the best regular season player in college football? careful, because any answer that doesn't include both "absolutely" and "nothing" is wrong.
Of course they have assistants, but I thought the scope of the assistants was limited to the players they personally scout; I didn't realize they had access to the entire playbook, so to speak. I know they don't unlearn what they've learned before, but I didn't realize that an assistant would have knowledge of the entire scope of prospects. It's common knowledge that the offensive coordinator and head coach work together to form the entire playbook, and the offensive coordinator, by definition, has to know and understand every play in the playbook. I don't know how the division of responsibility goes in the front office. I wasn't sure an assistant general manager would have the overall range that the GM has in terms of prospects. That sounds very logical to me, but again, I may be misinformed about the duties of each individual front office position.
I don't think he means bush shouldn't have won the heisman, but for him to win with the greatest margin of victory ever, when arguably the best collge qb ever to play (with his own numbers to back his case up) was the second runner up was a product of the hype machine.
At least I recognize all are unknowns, all could fail, and my pick could be wrong. But how could anyone pass up the next Gale or Barry, right? The real problem with the Heisman contest is that the people that vote should have had a better sampling of all the players’ plays. If they had they would have questioned whether Bush was the best and most key player on his team, and questioned if the best running back in college football over the last 2 decades would share as many carries as he did it tight games and in goalline situations (in fact as SC's opponent's defenses got better, Bush's % of carries went down over the last 2 years-- the Rose Bowl was not an anomie but a microcosm of what SC did over their winning streak). Also, I am pretty sure VY statistically had a season like no other (passing and running), on a terrific passing rating. An equal rating the previous Heisman winner who probably was his team's best and most important player. For every argument you make for Bush--statistically, his singular impact on the game, spectacular plays, one can make at least equal arguments for VY last year-- before the Rose Bowl. I think to answer your question you are correct the Rose Bowl (since you seem to have troubling remember it, or at least want to forget it) has no bearing on the actual voting for that media contest award Bush was selected to win, but it was obvious to all with open eyes after they played on the same field about the real deal about who was the best college football player, that is why I brought it up that little bowl performance.
really? you don't? so when he said bush "clearly wasn't the best college football player when all the chief candidates were on the same field." you're going to argue that what he meant was that bush still should have won the heisman, but by a smaller margin? Desert Scar, is that what you meant? that bush deserved it, just not so overwhemingly? oh, jesus... ever? and then you're going to throw "numbers" at me? were you not alive when andre ware was throwing 12 TDs a game in the late 80s? you know what, screw it, i'm going to make it hard on myself... do you realize, statisically, david carr had a better final season of college football than vince young? no, really - it's true. carr generated 5,099 yards of total offense (364.2/g), threw or ran for 51 TDs (3.64/g) and threw 9 INTs in 533 attempts. VYg generated 4,222 yards of total offense (324.7/g), threw or ran for 38 TDs (2.92/g) and threw 10 INTs in 325 attempts. oh, i know... competition, blah, blah, blah. no, david carr didn't have to play traditional powerhouses like louisiana-lafayette, rice, missouri, baylor or kansas... then again, five of carr's teammates weren't drafted by nfl teams nor did he routinely play with several years of the top recruiting classes in the nation. besides, you threw "numbers" on the table as the defining measure, not me.
this has always been my biggest problem with the bush/young debate - the young camp's seemingly oblivious need not to trump their own player at the expense of the other player. why can't they both be great, considering... you know, they were both great. no one would dare argue VYg wasn't a tremendous college QB and that his 2005 season was off-the-charts incredible. nor would anyone be asinine enough to try and dismiss it as "hype." get it? i love this; you're pissed vince didn't win an award that's nothing more than a "media contest." if that's the case, why, 8 months and a national championship later, are still crying about it? and again, just to be clear since you did answer my question... only to then promptly run back to the "best player on the rose bowl field" argument as a means to dismiss - the rose bowl has no bearing on who did or should have won the heisman and never will because, well, they kind of actually gave out the award prior to it. yeah...
first of all dude calm down, I think your head is exploding, second of all, how many wins did carr generate compared to vince young. its not just that he put up some of the best numbers, combined running and throwin, he is also one of the winningest qbs in college history. and comparing his numbers to carr, who gives a crap, vy won a national title, went undefeated, so his numbers worked for him and texas. its like these guy who knock texas for running a simple offenses with vy, who cares if the offense is simple when you win a national title.
nope; cool as cucumber at a salad sister show. 11 to VYg's 13, which would make VYg's season better... assuming they played 1-on-22. except, except... they aren't "some of the best numbers" - this guy, david carr, he had better numbers "running and throwin." a lot of guys have put up better numbers "running and throwin." as for throwing wins into the mix (even though you set the parameters by mentioning "numbers"), wouldn't that then put leinart ahead of VYg, thereby negating your claim that VYg was "the best collge qb ever to play"? well, i do, and you obviously did, too, 'cause you said, "arguably the best collge qb ever to play." the "arguably" part opened the "best collge qb ever to play" part to debate. you then set "numbers" as the parameter. i was merely responding to the challenge. it's kind of uncool to challenge someone to a debate and then, when said challenge is answered, weaseling out of by suddenly pretending you don't give a crap.
so did you really, maybe mean to post that he had arguably the greatest game by a qb ever....? and that brings us back to the point: how was the rose bowl relevant to the heisman voting?
again dude, calm down, I never weaseld out. 267/200 1 national title, the most throw/run yards combined. its actually not that hard to make an argument that his number are some of the best ever, without the wins and the title, considering running for a qb is a larger factor in college.
wait a minute ric, are we talking about heisman or david carr/vince young, you're the one who brought up david carr when I was talking heisman so all the numbers count, because carr didn't win a heisman last time i checked. so I guess it goes back to who gives a crap about carr's numbers?
