T1B

It seems that we're now down to these five guys...

Andrew Luck
Trent Richardson
RGIII
Matt Barkley
Montee Ball

Purely on stats, it's gotta be RGII or Ball. Despite having another Heisman candidate sharing the ball, Ball's rushing stats tromple Richardson's. Then again, if we were to go purely on stats then Case Keenum also has to be there, and of course he's not.

What about 'importance to their team'?

Take Trent Richardson off Bama's roster and I daresay they have the exact same record. Lacy sure doesn't suck, and Bama still wins those same eleven games in comfortable fashion.

No RGIII? What does Baylor do? 6-6, tops?

No Barkley? Hell, does USC even field a real team these past two seasons? Even as a true sophomore he took on a highly visible position of leadership in attempting to keep this program afloat. His numbers are also astounding this season, especially in the big games.

Montee Ball? Well, sure, but what about Russell Wilson? For much of the season he was the guy being given most of the credit for Wisky's success.

That leaves us with Andrew Luck. Remember, folks, this is Stanford we're talking about here. Stanford, a 40-point dog in the Coliseum only a few seasons ago. Before Luck took the reins on The Farm, this team was fortunate to get a sniff at .500 during conference play. Now they're coming off consecutive eleven-win seasons and two BCS bowl games. Yes, they have a nice set of TEs (when healthy, anyway), and their defense is reasonably stout. Still, take away Luck and what is Stanford? Are they even a .500 team? I'd say that'd be about their ceiling.

In terms of importance to their team, it's Luck by a mile. Oh, and it never hurts the prestige of the award when its recipient is the #1 overall pick in the draft rather than some guy who may never get a sniff at continuing his college success in the NFL. I know that one doesn't matter to a lot of people, but I always hated to see a guy who clearly wasn't even the most talented player on his own team bag the Heisman simply because he was the QB on a loaded squad.

Okay, but what about that nebulous "most outstanding player" tag, the one which is easily the most difficult to define?

Hmmm. Think I'd have to go with RGIII there. He seems to be more of a one-man-band highlight reel every week. Combined with the crazy efficiency of his numbers, I'd say he's been the most outstanding overall player.

I'm guessing Luck is still going to win it.

I'd vote for Robert Griffin III but I agree that Luck will likely get it. Luck was the leader going in to the season, had the most hype, and would have it wrapped up, imo, if Stanford had won the PAC. I think Griffin is the most exciting player, and biggest impact player, in college football, and I only wish I could have seen more of his games.

No, he doesn't. Your blatant homering has to know some bounds.

If one goes for the "take this player off his team, and what's left," then we should be retroactively giving Grant Hill his 7 straight NBA MVP Awards (OK, apples and oranges).

I though Luck looked rather average against every decent team Furd faced (which were few and far between).

RG3 was explosive.

Trent was consistent.

Ball just plain got it done. The closer the the endzone, the angrier he got.


Tough call, really, but I think I like Ball, with the absolutely gaudy stats.

Dins, what about RGIII's absolutely gaudy stats?

Also, had LaMichael not gotten hurt, he'd be right there too.

Mace wrote:I think Griffin is the most exciting player, and biggest impact player, in college football, and I only wish I could have seen more of his games.

I could say the same about Ball but I did see enough of RGIII that he gets my vote.

Robert Griffin Junior III. He's the whole package. Most dynamic, crazy stats, and most valuable to his team. He's got Baylor ranked in the top 25, folks. Baylor.

Dinsdale wrote:I though Luck looked rather average against every decent team Furd faced (which were few and far between).

I agree. He may have had a lot of injuries to his receivers, but he made a lot of poor throws and bad decisions against the better defenses. He has been the frontrunner throughout the off season and the award was his to lose which, imo, he has.

Jsc, I also expect that you haven't watched very much besides LSU all season, so you're seemingly unaware that there are other outstanding teams and players out there, and Honey Badger has no shot. Also, let's not forget that the clown got himself suspended mid-season.

Not gonna happen.

If we're going to go all homer and talk non-QBs/RBs, Matt Kalil should definitely be there. He's been as dominant as any player in the country, and of course he won't receive an invitation to New York.

Van wrote:What criteria would YOU use in picking your Heisman winner?

He should be wearing one of these:

Luck has been hurt this year by his lack of WRs. Barkleys numbers are better but Barkley has the best targets in College Football to throw the ball to with Woods, Lee, Grimble, Ellison and a stack of 5 stars in Prater, Carswell, Butler, Telfer and Farmer and to think how scary they would be if kids like Alshon Jeffrey and Joe Adams were capable of keeping their word

Luck had one WR coming in to this year and the guy has a head softer than cotton candy, after that he has a few TEs and thats it

Lucks numbers
261/373 for 3170 yards comp 70.0% 35TDs 9INTs QB rating 167.5
Barkleys numbers
308/446 for 3528 yards comp 69.1% 39TDs 7INTs QB rating 161.2

Luck is a better QB, bigger, throws a better ball, hes the #1 draft pick and Luck deserves the Heisman because he has made a team with less quality pieces around him a top 5 team in the nation. If the Heisman is supposed to go to the best player in the nation, who is a better player than the unanimous first overall pick in the draft? Give Luck half of Barkleys weapons and the Heisman isnt even up for debate. Barkley can win it next year

Jsc, Barkley will be the heavy frontrunner going in if he returns for his senior season, not Honey Badger.

SoCalTrjn, agree on all points.

Van wrote:Jsc, Barkley will be the heavy frontrunner going in if he returns for his senior season, not Honey Badger.

SoCalTrjn, agree on all points.

3nd

RGIII's numbers are every bit as impressive as Ball's, and RGIII has much less help around him.

With the help of an insane O-Line and a Heisman candidate QB taking a lot of the pressure off of him. Big 10 DCs couldn't scheme strictly to stop Ball the way Big XII DCs tried and usually failed to with RGIII.

Yep, were it not for his dodgy elbows LaMichael not only earns a seat in New York, he's likely the co-frontrunner.

rg3, might of made a huge late move to take the spot

they say its very close between him and luck. coin flip they said.

Yep, and now we're hearing that New York may only invite RGIII, Luck and Richardson.

If that turns out to be the case, I'm liking RGIII to win it.

Adelpiero wrote:rg3, might of made a huge late move to take the spot

they say its very close between him and luck. coin flip they said.

Is RG3 going to be chosen before Luck in the draft? the Heisman is for the best player in college football, if they are both in the same draft, shouldn't the best player be chosen first, especially if they play the same position?

I use my eyes and don't think that Richardson should be in the discussion, just as Ingram shouldn't have won it in 2009. At least Richardson is avg 130 yards per game vs Ingram's 118. Neither are Heisman worthy stats.

My vote is RG3.

SoCalTrjn, "Best player in college football" has never really been used as the primary criteria. "Most outstanding player," however that may be defined, is how it's phrased.

SoCalTrjn wrote:

Adelpiero wrote:rg3, might of made a huge late move to take the spot

they say its very close between him and luck. coin flip they said.

Is RG3 going to be chosen before Luck in the draft? the Heisman is for the best player in college football, if they are both in the same draft, shouldn't the best player be chosen first, especially if they play the same position?

There's a difference between "the best player in college football" and "the college football player whose skills best translate to the NFL." RGIII is the former, Luck is the latter. Hell, Tommie Frazier is arguably the best college football player of all-fucking-time, and the guy never played a down in the NFL.

I'd love to see RGIII win it. I hate how the Heisman has basically become the "best player on a national title contender" award. Randle El should've won it in 2001, and Griffin should win it this year.

Love to see a lineman or LB win it one year. So many times, the best/most outstanding player was clearly not a skill position guy. Case in point: No way in hell Mark Ingram should've ever won it over Ndamukong Suh.

For that matter, I don't remember Brick Furgeson getting an invite, even though he was possibly the best player that year... an O-lineman from Virginia probably isn't going to win it... ever.

The more I think about it, the more I like RGIII. Has the most "wow" factor, for sure.

Monte Ball has the numbers, though.

Both those guys came up big when it counted. Seems like when it counted most, Luck grew a vagina.

Dinsdale wrote:The more I think about it, the more I like RGIII. Has the most "wow" factor, for sure.

Monte Ball has the numbers, though.

Both those guys came up big when it counted. Seems like when it counted most, Luck grew a vagina.

Only saw RGIII play once, the fourth quarter vs. Oklahoma, and he was ridiculous. Also in the post-game interview he seemed like a really decent guy.

Not sure what you're saying with the vagina comment, though. Sure, Luck didn't have his best game against Oregon, but it wasn't a bad game. That was pretty much a team loss.

By your criteria RGIII failed to "come up big" in three games.

That being said, it wouldn't bother me at all to see him take home the Heisman. Definitely him over Richardson.

Jsc810 wrote:Van, I don't expect that you have watched every play of LSU's season as I have, so I don't expect you to have the same opinion. But there are plenty who have that same opinion, and it wouldn't surprise me if he's in NY for the ceremony.

if he is the Heisman Committee will have blown off what remains of their credibility....
RGIII is about as good as I've seen, and I actually think he'll be a better NFL'er than Luck

I do agree with JSC that Mathieu deserves an invite to the ceremony.

MuchoBulls wrote:I do agree with JSC that Mathieu deserves an invite to the ceremony.

Wasn't he suspended for a failed drug test? No, he does not belong in New York.

Sudden Sam wrote:

Goober McTuber wrote: Wasn't he suspended for a failed drug test? No, he does not belong in New York.

Add that to his clubbing from behind of Dre (he shoulda been tossed immediately) and I don't think he's the kind of kid they want to bestow their trophy upon.

yeah I think that kind of goes against the mission statement of the Heisman Trust....

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. The Heisman Trophy Trust ensures the continuation and integrity of this award. The Trust, furthermore, has a charitable mission to support amateur athletics and to provide greater opportunities to the youth of our country.

he might have been able to get away with the clubbing incident exuberant play by employing some sort of Ndamukong Suh "I was just trying to catch my balance" excuse, but I don't think they're willing to overlook the whole drug thingy....somehow just doesn't jibe with their "with integrity" mantra.....

Goober McTuber wrote:

MuchoBulls wrote:I do agree with JSC that Mathieu deserves an invite to the ceremony.

Wasn't he suspended for a failed drug test? No, he does not belong in New York.

Maybe he belongs in NY, but just not at the Downtown Athletic Club.