NFL 2012

[Paelos]

The Heisman isn't about the best player. It's about the best player on the best team with the best exposure.

[Ingmar]

The Heisman isn't about the best player. It's about the best player on the best team with the best exposure.

Don't forget offensive skill positions only!

It is kind of a dumb award.

[ghost]

I've always thought of the Heisman as sort of an MVP-for-college type award.  That doesn't make it a bad award.  I think that whoever gets it usually deserves it.  It has nothing to do with who is going to eventually have the best pro career, nor should it. 

[Paelos]

I disagree. I think it's a bad award.

Not only does it totally miss the point of football, which is the ultimate TEAM sport, but it also actively weeds out anybody who isn't a quarterback or runningback at this point. Never mind the fact it's a political circle jerk run by a bunch of assholes.

[Ingmar]

I've always thought of the Heisman as sort of an MVP-for-college type award.  That doesn't make it a bad award.  I think that whoever gets it usually deserves it.  It has nothing to do with who is going to eventually have the best pro career, nor should it. 

If they're going to call it the award for the best college player, only ever giving it to QBs and RBs is a joke, is the main thing for me.

[ghost]

You've just described basically every award given, Paelos.  They are going to be subjective political circle jerks.  As for the concern with only QBs or RBs, who cares?  There are awards for the best lineman. 

[Chimpy]

 

Can you name these prestigious awards that lineman get without using google/Wikipedia ?

The Heisman is a joke. But it is one that is foisted off as being this symbol of greatness that it really isn't.

[ghost]

You guys are being entirely too righteous.  The award is fine.  There are plenty of other things that should be the focus of the f13 sports ire.  This really isn't one of them.

Edited to add-  one award is the Outland award, I believe give to the best O lineman. And no, I didn't Google it

[Merusk]

There's enough hate in our hearts for both.

Now ask 5 of your patients today what the Outland award in football is and then what the Heisman is.   For randomness, let's say the 9:30, 11:00, 2:30, 3:30 and 5:00 appointments.  That will illustrate the 'prestige' of one vs the other.

[ghost]

I think you are all being ridiculous.  I love the Heisman, as is. 

[Paelos]

I think you are all being ridiculous.  I love the Heisman, as is. 

I think you dodged the question, because you know that nobody knows any of the other awards in college football. The only one I know off the top of my head is the Ray Guy for punting because Georgia has won it so many times.

[shiznitz]

Awards don't mean shit if you cannot deliver in the pros.  What percent of Heisman winners went to the Hall of Fame?  Just a wild guess it is less than 20%.  One of them used to be a salesman at my firm 3 jobs ago.

[ghost]

No, I didn't dodge the question.  The Heisman is what the Heisman is.  It's not any different than the MVP in any other sport.  It's heavily biased towards offense and position, as are all the other MVPs.  Do you know when the last time an interior lineman won the NFL MVP?  Never!  You've had a defensive tackle, a placekicker and a linebacker.  The rest are quarterbacks (90%) and running backs (10%).  What about the MLB MVP?  It's heavily biased against pitchers, although I think everyone is aware that the best pitcher on the best team should routinely be considered for the award.  And (in a shocker, I know) the award is heavily biased toward the best offensive player, who usually is an OF, 1B or 3B player.  The NBA MVP is probably the most varied in who it is given to, but it is almost invariably given to one of the top scorers in the league on one of the better teams.  Steve Nash was an anomaly, a winner that got the award for his assists and scoring, but he certainly didn't get it because of his defense.  NHL MVP is focused clearly on offense.  Almost exclusively it's a center or an offensive player with a goalie peppered in every now and again.  

I'm sure there's general gnashing of teeth about how all these awards are so biased, but it's really just blathering about nothing.  Do you know why nobody knows who the winner of the John Mackey award or the Rimington Trophy is?  Because they don't care.  Offense steals the show and you'll just have to learn to sleep at night with that understanding.  

[sickrubik]

I think there's some overreacting going on here, but I don't think it's the people that think the Heisman sucks.

[ghost]

I think there's some overreacting going on here, but I don't think it's the people that think the Heisman sucks.

That is a highly intelligent retort.  It's full of information.   

Troll on. 

[sickrubik]

People say "Hey, Heisman is kind of a joke" and your reaction makes it seem like there will be RIOTS IN THE STREETS.

[ghost]

People say "Hey, Heisman is kind of a joke" and your reaction makes it seem like there will be RIOTS IN THE STREETS.

Providing real comparisons of other biased awards that people don't bitch about is making it "seem like there will be RIOTS IN THE STREETS"?  Interesting.  Also, I would reference Chimpy and Merusk, who have their own pitchforks and torches out. 

[sickrubik]

The problem is with that assumption. It's dangerously close to being a strawman argument. Most people that would complain about the Heisman issue would also complain about those other awards.

[ghost]

I don't hear it. 

But even if they do the point remains that it's a silly thing to bitch about.  Usually the MVP of these leagues and the Heisman winner is one of the very, very top players in their sport.  There's a media and fan bias towards offense.  Woopty shit.  That's life. 

[Sir T]

[Paelos]

Usually the MVP of these leagues and the Heisman winner is one of the very, very top players in their sport.

To be a top player in your sport you have to do it at the highest level. The Heisman is bullshit for that fact. They pick guys who aren't the best. They are the most popular.

The last Heisman winner to be an NFL hall of famer was Barry Sanders in 1988. Since 1935, only 8 Heisman winners are in the NFL Hall. Let me give you a list since 1990.

Ty Detmer, Desmond Howard, Gino Torretta, Charlie Ward, Rashaan Salam, Eddie George, Danny Wuerffel, Charles Woodson, Ricky Williams, Ron Dayne, Chris Weinke, Eric Crouch, Carson Palmer, Jason White, Matt Leinart, <VACATED>, Troy Smith, Tim Tebow, Sam Bradford, Mark Ingram, Cam Newton, RG3.

You know how many of those guys are probowlers? Six.

[shiznitz]

There is no doubt it is a good career move to win the Heisman.  I don;t think anyone disagrees with that.   It just has very little predictive value about professional success.

[Paelos]

My point is guys like Ndamukong Suh, Maurkice Pouncey, and Jason Pierre-Paul don't win the Heisman. They just go to pro-bowls and win playoff games in the NFL.

[ghost]

The Heisman is not an award designed to pick the best future NFL player.  It is for the most outstanding player in college football, not the best or the most talented or the best potential future, the most outstanding.  That is clearly centered around college football, not the NFL.  Interpret how that player should have impacted his team as you will, but there is no doubt that you shouldn't be considering their NFL potential.  

The NFL is also full of guys that were drafted after the third round that become stars.  Should these guys have been picked for the Heisman simply because they were in the Pro Bowl?  The possibility makes no sense.

Also, Paelos, look at the number of guys on your list that were very successful at the college level, often leading their team to the national title.  That's why it's a college award and not given at the end of their career when we can see how successful they were in the pros.

[Paelos]

The Heisman is not an award designed to pick the best future NFL player.  It is for the most outstanding player in college football

It doesn't even do that right. In most cases it just picks the best QB or RB on the national championship team. That didn't work this year when both National championship contenders were known for DEFENSE of course. Gino Torretta wins over Marshall Faulk? Eric Crouch was better than Rex Grossman? What about Jason White being better than Larry Fitzgerald? Reggie Bush over Vince Young? Matt Leinart was better than Adrian Peterson?

In every way, shape, and form, the award puts too much emphasis on your team winning a large bowl game rather than the most outstanding player. If you want to call it that, follow through on it.

[ghost]

Shouldn't the definition of most outstanding player probably include being successful at winning games, particularly the big games?

[Paelos]

Shouldn't the definition of most outstanding player probably include being successful at winning games, particularly the big games?

No. The most outstanding player should be the best statistical player of the year, regardless of position and the rest of your team's wins or loses.

[ghost]

That's your opinion, which is apparently not shared by anyone that chooses or was involved in founding the Heisman (or really any other major sporting award). 

[Paelos]

That's your opinion, which is apparently not shared by anyone that chooses or was involved in founding the Heisman (or really any other major sporting award). 

Bullshit. Cy Young, Silver Slugger, Triple Crown, Naismith, Vardon Trophy, Hart Trophy, etc.

Only football really fucks this up by going LOL QB THAT WINZ! and handing the trophy to him.

[ghost]

The only ones of those that are pure stats are the pure stat baseball ones.  The others are not and have a lot of subjective factors injected into the decision.

[Paelos]

The only ones of those that are pure stats are the pure stat baseball ones.  The others are not and have a lot of subjective factors injected into the decision.

I can see you're going to be obtuse. There are subjective factors, but they still judge those subjective factors better than HE'S ON TEH WINNING TEAM!

[ghost]

Robert Griffin III wasn't on the winning team.  

The Heisman Trust's Mission:  

The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity. Winners epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverance, and hard work.

It's also well known that winning is a part of their formula, even though they clearly don't always choose the "winner".  

[Bungee]

I do love watching Tebow play, he combines all the fiery leadership of Ray Lewis with the throwing ability of Ray Lewis

 

[caladein]

"Most outstanding" is not a vaguely nebulous term like "most valuable" is.  It's for the best player.  The Heisman does a pretty terrible job at fulfilling its mandate of honoring the best player that lacks severe integrity issues.

[Paelos]

Robert Griffin III wasn't on the winning team.  

Bad example. It's not about winning the championship, it's about the potential to win the championship. So very very often they pick the guy they think will win it all, and are dead wrong. It's laughable. The reason they went with Griffin last year was because they had no other choice. The two teams playing were both SEC teams that specialized in defense! The HORROR! At least they tossed Mathieu a bone by letting him come to NY.

Cam Newton - QB for the champion
Mark Ingram - RB for the champion
Sam Bradford - Runner up in the championship game (they couldn't vote for Timmy T twice)
Tebow - They got this one right, he was statistically so much better than anybody else it wasn't funny
Troy Smith - losing QB in the champ game (voters HATED Chris Leak)
Bush and Leinart - duh
Jason White - lost in the title game to an LSU team that had Dwayne Bowe and Joseph Addai.