I think Young didn't do as well in the Heisman voting because the last game of the regular season was his worst outing of the year against their in state rival in a game that they had to win to go to the National Championship. They still won, but VY ruined his Heisman voting by playing terrible against a horrible A&M passing defense.
That's a common exaggeration that needs to be modified. 13-24, 162 yards, 1 TD, 1 INT, 11 rushes for 57 yards (not counting sacks) isn't great, but it's also not terrible. Sometimes people make it sound like he threw three or four interceptions. Also, his last game of the regular season was a 70-3 showing against Colorado in which he played stellar. Young didn't do as well in the Heisman voting because the media decided about this time last year that Reggie Bush was the Michael Jordan of football and they would not take no for an answer. They're still not going to. Young could've thrown for 500 yards and five touchdowns against A&M and it wouldn't have made much of a difference. That's the way it goes with the media and their glamour teams from LA and New York.
still clam, i promise. tell you what - when i start getting upset, i'll let you know so you can officially stop requesting that i calm down in the interim. why? yards are yards and touchdowns count 6 points no matter how you score 'em, right? so why should rushing yards by a qb be given special recognition? if he was throwing for as many yards as david carr and then rushing for a 1,000 more, you'd have a point. but his passing and rushing yards actually add up to less than carr's passing yards. and why do you keep throwing 267/200 at me? i get it - the guy had a tremendous night... so he's the greatest college qb ever? are those the only "numbers" you're planning to use? because he's the only qb to ever play well in a national championship game? do you think, maybe, matt leinart might disagree, since he's played great in two national championships (winning one and having his team in position to win another)? the heisman debate (young v bush) ended... well, when bush was handed the trophy last december; but in terms of this discussion, as soon as you proclaimed VYg "arguably the best college qb ever" according to the numbers. the discussion then splintered into a debate about whether or not that claim had any merit. yeah i know... you know who else didn't...? well... again, i do. and you should, too, because you said VYg was "arguably the best college qb ever" according to the numbers. are you prepared to discuss that, or not? are you going to keep throwing 267/200, 1 national title at me as your only means of defense to the claim you made? if you want to discuss who deserved the heisman trophy last year; fine - the rose bowl doesn't factor into the discussion. if you want to argue VYg is the greatest college qb ever according to the numbers, and use his defining performance in the rose bowl as the foundation for your arguement, fine. let's have it. but don't confuse the two and use his rose bowl performance as a justification for him winning the heisman.
see...? here it goes again... yeah, let's completely ignore that on the very same day, bush rushed for 260 yards and scored twice against a then-ranked opponent. not the least bit relevant; not when the evil media cabal had already decided to hand the award to that undeserving scrub!
I'm not going to to confuse the numbers, he's the only qb to run and throw for as many yards in the same season. that's some of the best numbers ever when you are the only one to do something. his numbers stand on their own before the rose bowl. now carr may have had more total yards, but we can argue the effect of his rush yards, controlling the game. you don't want to talk competition, but the fact is vy had big games against big comp, okla, ohio st, before the rose bowl to even strengthen his argument. car had good games agains good comp to, so there is no need to disqualify competition for either one. I brought up numbers, you're right, but the simple fact is carr is only in this discussion because of numbers. that's why I don't give a crap, but holding numbers as a parameter since all you can argue is semantics, carr has better pass number, vince young has better pass/rush, and wins, before the rose bowl.
UCLA had the 115th ranked rush defense in Division I-A. Let's keep things in perspective. Also, you're putting words in my mouth. I don't think Bush is undeserving or a scrub. He was an unbelievable player last season. He was fantastic. But so was Vince, and to act as if there wasn't any comparison to their impacts on the football field is incredibly biased reporting. They're both excellent talents and they were both excellent last season. It wasn't an open-and-shut case for either player.
The Rose Bowl was relevant to determining who in reality was the best college football player last year. I agree this is independent of the Heisman Trophy contest, but I would not say this is a positive reflection about that trophy's validity in recognizing the best college football player. This isn't to say it is worthless, it beings money and exposure to the winner and his team. In general the Heisman is a weird thing. Had Jarrett and Leinart not saved the day versus ND, VY wins it. Had tOSU made one more play the whole season would have been about who is better between ML and Bush. Clearly one play in a team game doesn't show who the better player was, but the team performance and media momentum are huge. My personal opinion was VY was the best player in college football last year, so he should have won it. What was funny is on the West Coast they were building Leinart as the winner through midseason. They couldn't make up their minds who the best player on Bush's football team was. In the end the player on the undefeated team who passed as well as the other candidate and produced a lot of big plays with his feet--who every game against a winning opponent he brought it and was by far the best player on the field, should have been the winner. At minimum it should have been close. But I think the same phenom for why Bush has the #1 jersey sales without doing anything in the pros is the same phenom for why the Heisman was a landslide. Bush was a great college player, but there were greater ones last year. Bush may be the best prospect in the draft, but clearly at least one team who studied him a lot didn't think so. By the way Bush the other day said SC would have beat UT 9 out of 10 times (as if UT mistakes and some blown calls didn't keep UT from having a big 1st half lead). To that he should have been followed up with a question that if 9 times out of 10 VY would have won his Heisman if all games of a year are considered? Bush was a great college player, and is a great pro prospect, but it looks like his ego and the media hype are even greater than his immense talent.
right, and how did VYg handle the 117th-ranked pass defense in division 1-a? oh, that's right - by heroically redefining "not terrible." not that it mattered - the votes had been cast for months; since early september, i heard.
Wow. Like a butterfly flapping its wings, I started an argument that led to another Vince Young-Reggie Bush slugfest. Now to figure out how to get all of you to shut the hell up and talk about the Texans, instead.
The last two arguments between UT homers and the "objective" people didn't go so well for the "objective" people - Vince vs. Leinart draft stock and UT vs. USC. The "objective" people were oh-so-sure that Leinart was the better draft prospect and that USC was the better team. Hmm.
Hey Rhino boy how many times does one player totally turn around a franchise? Usually one star at each position or at least each category. Example: Without the Steelers stalwart defense, Big Ben, Duncan Hines and We-Willie never would have been noticed in the game. So, if Nawlins has no defense well compared to Carolina, The Bay and ATL, how will NO surmount to become a playoff team? Its not a lock in that division. Now, using the Shanahan/Kubiak method: Terrell Davis assisted an aging John Elway along with a vastly improved defense, to win 2 super bowls! Gayle Sayers, Bo Jackson, Eric Dickerson, Barry Sanders, Earl Campbell- all great talents, great runners contributed huge to their teams ... never won a Super Bowl, never went to a Super Bowl Mario's combine numbers are similar or better than Peppers'. But (I know) you're the expert and Mario sucks! Whatever. How about see how it plays out and see if you're a guru of the football gods?
I disagree. That is a BAD outing if you want to win the Heisman. 5-10 years ago against a tough A&M defense, that would be OK. But last year, the A&M defense, especially the passing defense...was horrible. He should have shredded them. Heck, I went to A&M and think VY should have shredded them.
