T1B

RACK Vince Young! Wish I had the video clip of him pump-faking that Okie St defender out of his jock only to blow by him for the sco...

267 yards passing
239 yards rushing

Props!!!

Uhhh, it was OK State. Settle down.

Props to Texas for needing a huge effort from Vince to come from behind and beat a piss poor team...I guess.

I am settled down...what gave you the impression otherwise? Or are you just prone to care about what are others might be feeling?

Nonetheless, this performance, along with the rest of the season, I think at least put Young at the top of the list with Bush, if not ahead.

Oh, btw, Bush has also played against "piss-poor" teams on his way to leading the Heisman race. What's your point?

All in all, it was an amazing performance and since when is carrying your team not considered Heisman-like?

DrDetroit wrote:I am settled down...what gave you the impression otherwise? Or are you just prone to care about what are others might be feeling?

Settle down. Don't take everything so literally.

Oh, btw, Bush has also played against "piss-poor" teams on his way to leading the Heisman race. What's your point?

I didn't even bring Bush into the picture. My only point was that a huge effort against a piss poor team shouldn't flip-flop anything.

I referred to Bush in that he is/was the leading Heisman candidate. And while Okie State might be a piss-poor team, the leading candidates have all similarly played against piss-poor teams. However, Young's candidacy certainly took on a new shine racking up over 500 yards by himself.

I would agree with this...VY is the most complete college football player. RB is good, maybe even great but not ahead of VY.

The sad thing is that players like Reggie Bush are fighting an up hill battle when it comes to the Heisman. The voters have had such a hard on for quarterbacks the past few years, it's hard for other positions to make a serious run.

This award was a lot more fun when players on 8-3 teams were seriously considered because the voters actually did some research as to who the best player was. Now all it is is a stat game with players from the unbeaten teams.

I still think its Leinart. Bush didnt score and they still hung 55. Leinart put the game away in the 1st quarter. W/ ou Leinart, that team loses 2 games this year.

I assume you are referencing ND as one of those losses--if so, Bush was the only reason they won that game. ML may have scored the winning touchdown but it was Bush who performed all game.

They both indeed have played piss poor teams. It's just that, I got the impression from you that that was the defining performance that should put Young ahead of Bush. To me, that doesn't make sense.

Sky wrote:I assume you are referencing ND as one of those losses--if so, Bush was the only reason they won that game. ML may have scored the winning touchdown but it was Bush who performed all game.

True, but not to many quarterbacks would of/could of changed the route at the line on a 4th and 9, with the crowd going nuts, and then make an absolutely perfect throw.

That said, this race should be between Bush and Young.

My thought is this, MGO (and then I will leave it at that), Young's performance last night, for me, put him over the top on the Heisman poll as the best player in the country.

He was already among the top three contenders going into the game.

His team was struggling mightily until the third quarter when he simply took over the game.

His performance was simply outstanding, even if it was against a piss-poor team.

The way he played simply moved me, it was like watching Barry Sanders play.

Over 500 yards credited to him, too.

For me, that put him over the top. I think it makes sense. This was not simply a great game against a piis-poor team, but an extraordinary performance.

DrDetroit wrote: The way he played simply moved me

'cause you're a fag.

Sirfindafold wrote:

DrDetroit wrote: The way he played simply moved me

'cause you're a fag.

Takes one to know one....there!

From a stat geek's perspective (not calling anyone here that), Young will be a much more delicious pick than Bush, by the end of the season I'm sure. Bush's numbers are there for sure, but Young has a much greater opportunity to put up gaudier numbers considering Texas relies on him to be not only their QB, but their leading rusher.

DrDetroit wrote:

Sirfindafold wrote:

DrDetroit wrote: The way he played simply moved me

'cause you're a fag.

Takes one to know one....there!

I know you are but what am I?

Sirfindafold wrote:

DrDetroit wrote:

Sirfindafold wrote:
'cause you're a fag.

Takes one to know one....there!

I know you are but what am I?

Rubber? Glue? What?

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:From a stat geek's perspective (not calling anyone here that), Young will be a much more delicious pick than Bush, by the end of the season I'm sure. Bush's numbers are there for sure, but Young has a much greater opportunity to put up gaudier numbers considering Texas relies on him to be not only their QB, but their leading rusher.

That's not why I am making a pure stats argument. Nonetheless, statistically, Saturday night was extraordinary by any measure whatsoever.

The fact that his team needed him step it up to win the game and that he did as he did is extraordinary. That's what I'm talking about.

Bush is an amazing athlete with sick plays here and there, and you're right, relatively speaking, Bush is not being used similarly to Young...but perhaps that's because Young is simply a better player?

DrDetroit wrote:What?

Sky wrote:I assume you are referencing ND as one of those losses--if so, Bush was the only reason they won that game. ML may have scored the winning touchdown but it was Bush who performed all game.

dude, I just read your location. you're in Beavercreek?

Bush won't have too many opportunites this year to rival that miraculous type of comeback because USC probably won't be getting trounced at the half by a team as bad as Ok State. I love how teams/players end up getting rewarded for making marvelous comebacks against teams they should've blown out by 35 points.

DrDetroit wrote:...but perhaps that's because Young is simply a better player?

bullshit!

sin,

The No. 1 pick in the 2006 NFL draft.


p.s. you're gay.

DrDetroit wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:From a stat geek's perspective (not calling anyone here that), Young will be a much more delicious pick than Bush, by the end of the season I'm sure. Bush's numbers are there for sure, but Young has a much greater opportunity to put up gaudier numbers considering Texas relies on him to be not only their QB, but their leading rusher.

That's not why I am making a pure stats argument. Nonetheless, statistically, Saturday night was extraordinary by any measure whatsoever.

The fact that his team needed him step it up to win the game and that he did as he did is extraordinary. That's what I'm talking about.

Bush is an amazing athlete with sick plays here and there, and you're right, relatively speaking, Bush is not being used similarly to Young...but perhaps that's because Young is simply a better player?

Bush is a better all around football player. Almost anyone who has played the game on any level can recognize that. USC has so many more weapons than Texas...their backup running back alone could start anywhere in the country. The fact is, USC doesn't need to operate with Bush as a slave with a ball in his hands because they have other guys that can take the game over.

Bush (and Leinart) both still have the Cal game and the nationally televised game against UCLA (two undefeateds ~potentially~ for all the marbles) to go...

If Bush explodes again against UCLA it's over.

As for Young, I know the Heisman is for excellence as a college player (obviously) but I'm just sick of the Heisman so often being awarded to guys who'll never even make it in the NFL...

Young is not going to be an NFL QB. Wide receiver or a safety, maybe. QB? Not gonna happen.

It'll be interesting to see where (or even if) Young gets drafted...

Sincerely,
Eric Crouch

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Bush won't have too many opportunites this year to rival that miraculous type of comeback because USC probably won't be getting trounced at the half by a team as bad as Ok State. I love how teams/players end up getting rewarded for making marvelous comebacks against teams they should've blown out by 35 points.

That's not the point and I think you know this. USC has struggled early against teams this season that USC should have beaten easily and it wasn't Bush that played the major factor in USC ultimately winning those games.

I don't think that Bush is the best player on that team, Leinart is. USC goes nowhere without that QB. Nonetheless, Bush is a great player, but I think he's gotten too much attention for being a top NFL pick. We're talking about best college football player, period.

Really, I kinda thought VY was a M Vick who could throw the ball.

He has size and speed (not as much as M Vick, but still pretty quck), I think he might do well.

No way, you are all wrong. Brian Calhoun is the leading Hesiman candidate!

Well is he at least a candidate to go to New York as a finalist?

Van wrote:Bush (and Leinart) both still have the Cal game and the nationally televised game against UCLA (two undefeateds ~potentially~ for all the marbles) to go...

If Bush explodes again against UCLA it's over.

As for Young, I know the Heisman is for excellence as a college player (obviously) but I'm just sick of the Heisman so often being awarded to guys who'll never even make it in the NFL...

Young is not going to be an NFL QB. Wide receiver or a safety, maybe. QB? Not gonna happen.

It'll be interesting to see where (or even if) Young gets drafted...

Sincerely,
Eric Crouch

Yeah, well I am sick of the bullshit thinking that says the presumptive NFL pick should get the Heisman nod. It's college football's very best player and that doesn't include probably #1 pick or eventual NFL superstar.

But I agree with you, should Bush go off against Kal and UCLA...well, it's over. But until that point and if Young doesn't have superb performances to finish out the season...

DrDetroit wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:From a stat geek's perspective (not calling anyone here that), Young will be a much more delicious pick than Bush, by the end of the season I'm sure. Bush's numbers are there for sure, but Young has a much greater opportunity to put up gaudier numbers considering Texas relies on him to be not only their QB, but their leading rusher.

That's not why I am making a pure stats argument. Nonetheless, statistically, Saturday night was extraordinary by any measure whatsoever.

The fact that his team needed him step it up to win the game and that he did as he did is extraordinary. That's what I'm talking about.

Bush is an amazing athlete with sick plays here and there, and you're right, relatively speaking, Bush is not being used similarly to Young...but perhaps that's because Young is simply a better player?

That was truly a stupid post. The fact that he needed to step it up had more than a little to do with the fact that it was his poor play in the first half that placed Texas in jeopardy in the first place.

Bush is already thought of by more than a few long time national CF pundits as maybe the greatest CF talent to ever play the game.

He's already being compared to LaDanian Tomlinson as a bonafide NFL star.

Perhaps Young just happens to play QB in the Big XII against horrible competition, and perhaps the system and the position in which he plays has him handling the ball on every play, up to and including most rushing plays, and maybe that might account for his numbers?

Bush lines up as a tailback, a split back, a wide reciever, a punt returner and a kick returner...and he's very possibly the best in the nation at each of these positions. Perhaps Reggie Bush is just a bit more talented and better player than Vince Young, a guy who'll most likely be playing in the CFL within three years...

:roll:

Christ...

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Bush is a better all around football player. Almost anyone who has played the game on any level can recognize that. USC has so many more weapons than Texas...their backup running back alone could start anywhere in the country. The fact is, USC doesn't need to operate with Bush as a slave with a ball in his hands because they have other guys that can take the game over.

However, again, we are discussing the best college football player.

How many times have you guys had this Heisman discussion?

So, your argument, essentially, is that, despite the fact that Young might have better performances (statistically and winning games), Rush would be a better Heisman candidate because you simply think he's a better player? Where's the logic in that?

Certainly, the balanced USC team takes away opportunities from Bush, but Michigan was similarly balanced on defense when Woodson won the Heisman. It was that his performances changed the way the games were played. Is Bush like that?

DrDetroit wrote:

Van wrote:Bush (and Leinart) both still have the Cal game and the nationally televised game against UCLA (two undefeateds ~potentially~ for all the marbles) to go...

If Bush explodes again against UCLA it's over.

As for Young, I know the Heisman is for excellence as a college player (obviously) but I'm just sick of the Heisman so often being awarded to guys who'll never even make it in the NFL...

Young is not going to be an NFL QB. Wide receiver or a safety, maybe. QB? Not gonna happen.

It'll be interesting to see where (or even if) Young gets drafted...

Sincerely,
Eric Crouch

Yeah, well I am sick of the bullshit thinking that says the presumptive NFL pick should get the Heisman nod. It's college football's very best player and that doesn't include probably #1 pick or eventual NFL superstar.

But I agree with you, should Bush go off against Kal and UCLA...well, it's over. But until that point and if Young doesn't have superb performances to finish out the season...

I do agree there. How players might or might not fare in the NFL should have zero basis on who wins the Heisman.

Van you moron why don't you do a little research on what NFL scouts think of VY before opening your dick hole and spouting this stupid crap.

Right now Vince is considered the 3rd best player in the game and if he were to come out this year he would be a top 5 pick.

Just because he is not a traditional drop back QB does not mean he will not be a QB.

You might recognize this if your lips weren't firmly wrapped around Leinarts piss tube.

I personally hate all this Vince for Heisman talk cause if he wins the damn thing he is more likely to leave early for the NFL and I want him to stick around for one more year.

Yes Reggie Bush is a great back and Leinart is a great QB but Vince is both combined thats why he is better. And if he were a WR he probably would be the best at that as well.

I have never seen a freak him him in my life. And this is why I'm now pimping Bush for the Heisman, cause I'm hoping he sticks around for one more year.

DrDetroit wrote:

MgoBlue-LightSpecial wrote:Bush is a better all around football player. Almost anyone who has played the game on any level can recognize that. USC has so many more weapons than Texas...their backup running back alone could start anywhere in the country. The fact is, USC doesn't need to operate with Bush as a slave with a ball in his hands because they have other guys that can take the game over.

However, again, we are discussing the best college football player.

How many times have you guys had this Heisman discussion?

So, your argument, essentially, is that, despite the fact that Young might have better performances (statistically and winning games), Rush would be a better Heisman candidate because you simply think he's a better player? Where's the logic in that?

Certainly, the balanced USC team takes away opportunities from Bush, but Michigan was similarly balanced on defense when Woodson won the Heisman. It was that his performances changed the way the games were played. Is Bush like that?

I think if the numbers are there for both players, I would have to take Bush based on him being a better all around football player. I mean, look at how many positions he plays? He affects the way other coaches coach, not just from a running back's stand point, but as a wide receiver, special teams player, etc. I don't think Young is more deserving of it simply because he is asked to do more, which will inevitably result in better stats. There isn't any sort of evidence that can backup who's the "best player", you have to go with what you've seen, with your eyes, on the field. From what I've seen, Bush appears to be the more talented player. I agree that Young is probably more valuable to his team as Texas does not have as many weapons as SC, but this isn't an MVP award. It's an award to the most talented player in the country. I believe that is Bush.

Van wrote: That was truly a stupid post. The fact that he needed to step it up had more than a little to do with the fact that it was his poor play in the first half that placed Texas in jeopardy in the first place.

Fair point.

Bush is already thought of by more than a few long time national CF pundits as maybe the greatest CF talent to ever play the game.

Lets put that shit to rest. Every year, whether football or basketball we hear the same about x being the best talent ever. Irrelevant. His performances will demonstrate that and to date, while awesome, it's hard to place him above two-time winner Griffith let alone Barry Sanders.

He's already being compared to LaDanian Tomlinson as a bonafide NFL star.

Lets also put this to bed...NFL star potential should have nothing to do with being the best college football player.

How about we just drop the conjecture and punditry, eh?

Perhaps Young just happens to play QB in the Big XII against horrible competition, and perhaps the system and the position in which he plays has him handling the ball on every play, up to and including most rushing plays, and maybe that might account for his numbers?

Wait a second...did you simply miss or ignore my statement that this is not just a stats question? As well, since when do stats not count?

Bush lines up as a tailback, a split back, a wide reciever, a punt returner and a kick returner...and he's very possibly the best in the nation at each of these positions. Perhaps Reggie Bush is just a bit more talented and better player than Vince Young, a guy who'll most likely be playing in the CFL within three years.

More conjecture??

With being this talented, why even bother spreading the offense around in the first place? So teams would spy him or scheme against him...well, all that talent should show through then, just as it did with all the QB's that have won it, just as it did with Barry Sanders, etc.

:roll:

So conjecture and speculation have replaced actual performances in determining the Heisman?

Dr D wrote:Yeah, well I am sick of the bullshit thinking that says the presumptive NFL pick should get the Heisman nod.

That almost NEVER fucking happens, so why are you sick of it?

The exact opposite is true. The fact that the Heisman winner will likely never even get a sniff in the NFL because he was merely the poster boy for a glamour team is usually the main criteria for winning the Heisman...

The Heisman is strictly an award given to the most successful QB or RB (and very occasionally an all around offensive threat player like a Desmond Howard) who plays for a national title contending glamour team.

If it was at all about NFL prospects we would've seen a lot more serious Heisman consideration given to dominant college players players like Anthony Munoz, Jonathan Ogden, Warren Sapp, LaVarr Arrington, etc...

When Bush wins it this year he'll be like Carson Palmer, Barry Sanders and Herschel Walker: The modern era exception, not the rule.

MGo:

I think if the numbers are there for both players, I would have to take Bush based on him being a better all around football player. I don't think Young is more deserving of it simply because he is asked to do more, which will inevitably result in better stats. There isn't any sort of evidence that can backup who's the "best player", you have to go with what you've seen, with your eyes, on the field. From what I've seen, Bush appears to be the more talented player. I agree that Young is probably more valuable to his team as Texas does not have as many weapons as SC, but this isn't an MVP award. It's an award to the most talented player in the country. I believe that is Bush.

It certainly is not an award for "most talented." It is for the best college football player. Determining who is most talented rests only on conjecture, that is why we do utilize stats in this while also maintaining a context (i.e., schedules).

But, damn it...If Bush is this damn good, why does USC choose to let other players take over the game? And it other players can and do take over the game for USC, doesn't that diminish, if only slightly, the idea that Bush is the best player on the team? I think so.

Young is asked to do more because he can and because his team him to do so. And he is.

Bush isn't asked to do more because his team doesn't need him to, yet, he's the best player on that team, let along the nation?

You kept making appeals to logic in another thread...but come on...

Dr D wrote:It was that his performances changed the way the games were played. Is Bush like that?

Okay, have you even watched Bush this year???

Seriously. Dude has completely changed games and he's occupying more defensive/special teams schemes than even Leinart...

DrDetroit wrote:MGo:

I think if the numbers are there for both players, I would have to take Bush based on him being a better all around football player. I don't think Young is more deserving of it simply because he is asked to do more, which will inevitably result in better stats. There isn't any sort of evidence that can backup who's the "best player", you have to go with what you've seen, with your eyes, on the field. From what I've seen, Bush appears to be the more talented player. I agree that Young is probably more valuable to his team as Texas does not have as many weapons as SC, but this isn't an MVP award. It's an award to the most talented player in the country. I believe that is Bush.

It certainly is not an award for "most talented." It is for the best college football player. Determining who is most talented rests only on conjecture, that is why we do utilize stats in this while also maintaining a context (i.e., schedules).

But, damn it...If Bush is this damn good, why does USC choose to let other players take over the game? And it other players can and do take over the game for USC, doesn't that diminish, if only slightly, the idea that Bush is the best player on the team? I think so.

Young is asked to do more because he can and because his team him to do so. And he is.

Bush isn't asked to do more because his team doesn't need him to, yet, he's the best player on that team, let along the nation?

You kept making appeals to logic in another thread...but come on...

Sounds like you're splitting hairs between "most talented" and "best player". When I say most talented, I really do mean best player.

Bush may not see the ball as much as Vince, but he impacts the game on more levels, as he plays MULTIPLE positions.

Van wrote:That almost NEVER fucking happens, so why are you sick of it?

The thinking that the Heisman should go to the college player who might do the best in the NFL never happens?

You just did it, Van. or are you confusing what I stated? I simply stated that I hated that thinking.

The exact opposite is true. The fact that the Heisman winner will likely never even get a sniff in the NFL because he was merely the poster boy for a glamour team is usually the main criteria for winning the Heisman...

Oh, I see, you're confused by what I posted.

I'll post it, again:
Yeah, well I am sick of the bullshit thinking that says the presumptive NFL pick should get the Heisman nod.

Hope that helps.

If it was at all about NFL prospects we would've seen a lot more serious Heisman consideration given to dominant college players players like Anthony Munoz, Jonathan Ogden, Warren Sapp, LaVarr Arrington, etc...

I'd agree, but that was never my argument.

Van wrote:

Dr D wrote:It was that his performances changed the way the games were played. Is Bush like that?

Okay, have you even watched Bush this year???

Seriously. Dude has completely changed games and he's occupying more defensive/special teams schemes than even Leinart...

Yeah, a few times on Fox...and he looked human.

That's why I would argue that Leinart is SC's best player.