T1B

Manziel is an exciting young player and he'll be fun to watch the next few years. Props to Johnny Football.

So he only can go down from here?

Plenty of voters have said they will make sure we never have a repeat winner. Props to Johnny Football and best of luck with the Aggie expectations.

Left Seater wrote: Plenty of voters have said they will make sure we never have a repeat winner.

The same one who said they'll make sure it's never a freshman?

Mace wrote:Manziel is an exciting young player and he'll be fun to watch the next few years.

While he probably deserved the award this year, it will be interesting to see how long he lasts before sustaining a career ending injury.

That's a legitimate point, Mikey, and all the more reason to vote for a deserving freshman.

As an Orangeblood, I wanted to be bitter that an Aggie won this award, but common sense dictated that he was very deserving of winning. Kid came to play and was a treat tio watch on Saturdays. For being a youngin' I really thought he made a great acceptance speech. Mad props to the Aggies for for having a bright future. OTOH I want to punch the Texas coaching staff in the nuts. The past two winners were offered by Texas to play Safety and CB. Two of the best players in the game were passed on and now we have an epic one two punch of David Ash and Case McCoy. Damn, being a Texas fan sucks lately.

Klein stood head and shoulders above Manziel. Johnny Football, what a catchy name, but he'll turn out like Chase Daniels with a slightly better resume.

We'll see who has a better NFL career.

War Wagon wrote:Klein stood head and shoulders above Manziel. Johnny Football, what a catchy name, but he'll turn out like Chase Daniels with a slightly better resume.

We'll see who has a better NFL career.

T'eo.

Well, Klein is taller than Manziel, so maybe that's what Wags was talking about, Sam.

First off, Manziel had more interceptions. But Sam, quit relying solely on stats. Take a look at the games and see how often Klein racked up yardage in useless blowouts like Manziel did. Against Miami (39 point win), Klein had 11 pass attempts and 22 rushing attempts. Against SMU (45 point win), Manziel had 36 pass attempts and 13 rushes. Against Kansas (40 point win), Klein had 14 pass attempts and 10 rushes. Against Arkansas (48 point win), Manziel had 38 passes and 14 rushes.

There are more examples, but Manziel was in an offense designed to have the QB’s put up large numbers. Klien was not. Manziel played 3 teams with a pulse, and looked like shit in two of them and was one of the main reasons they lost. Klein had one bad game where he threw three interceptions and his team lost, but you can’t really say his play cost his team the game when his defense gave up 52 points.

Johnny Football had some great numbers against some really shit teams. If they are just going to give it to an offensive player, Klein was a more consistent performer.

Sudden Sam wrote:Manziel had 8 INTs, Klein had 15.

Nope, he had 7. Klein had 15 touchdown passes.

Did you read my first post? Do you want me to break down further the “stats” that Manziel had against dog shit competition when the game was already decided?

If you want to play the stats game, we can do that. If Klein had as many pass attempts as Manziel, he would have had more yards, two less touchdowns and two more interceptions based on how they performed over the course of the season.

Kevin Sumlin offenses have always had QB’s put up video game like numbers. They are a throw first team where KSU is not. Of course Manziel’s stats are going to be better than Klein’s.

And he was not a "much better all around QB". The stats don't support that statement.

They also agreed that Gino Torreta and Matt Leinart should have won the award. And as far as the other player of the year awards go, almost everyone agreed that it was Manti Te’o. The Heisman voters are a strange bunch.

I think Faulk should have won it over Torretta, and Peterson should have won in place of Leinart. It had nothing to do with their pro careers, but Faulk and Leinart looked to me like the best players that year.

This is why the Heisman should be an offensive award only. It takes a perfect storm of events for a defensive player to even be considered, let alone win the award. Yes, if ND had dropped a game or two then Te’o likely wouldn’t have been considered for the award. As it was, he was the centerpiece of one of the best defenses in the country and had a very good year, plus the personal back story that put him on the Heisman radar. That’s what drives me nuts about the award. It’s not for the player who played the best all year, or who put up the best stats, it varies every year. This year, Manziel was put on the “Heisman radar” because of one game. If McCarron didn’t throw a pick on the goal line, Manziel wouldn’t have even been invited to New York.

Killian wrote:Did you read my first post? Do you want me to break down further the “stats” that Manziel had against dog shit competition when the game was already decided?

you listed stats in games that turned out to be blowouts, wholly disregarding the fact those stats helped lead to the blowout in the first place.

M Club wrote:

Killian wrote:Did you read my first post? Do you want me to break down further the “stats” that Manziel had against dog shit competition when the game was already decided?

you listed stats in games that turned out to be blowouts, wholly disregarding the fact those stats helped lead to the blowout in the first place.

Of course, he had a huge hand in leading them to the blow out wins. I didn’t break it down drive by drive in each game, but when Manziel accounts for two scores against SMU to make it 34-3 and then 41-3, and then one in the 4th quarter of the Arkansas game to make it 51-10, I’m a little less impressed by his overall stat line. Granted, some of that was keeping him in to allow a first year starter to develop. But weigh that in. I don’t think the Heisman voters did and were mostly taken by the “Ooooh, shiny things!” mentality of the general media.

And Sam, Hornung winning it in 1956 was a joke. That should have been Jim Brown, or at worst Johnny Majors.

Obviously way before my time, but from what I’ve read it sure appears that way. Add in the race angle and not wanting Jim Brown to win it and you have a Heisman winner on a losing team with awful stats. That trophy is the biggest injustice of the history of the Heisman, at least from what I can tell.

Sudden Sam wrote:

Killian wrote: And Sam, Hornung winning it in 1956 was a joke. That should have been Jim Brown, or at worst Johnny Majors.

So do you think it was the "Notre Dame" aspect that won it for him?

Everybody thought LAX was a game for fags and a fag could never win the HT.