Posted on 12/07/2005 8:58:47 AM PST by rockthecasbah
Luigi from the "Super Mario Brothers" video games. Richard "Boner" Stabone from the '80s sitcom Growing Pains. Rob Schneider in pretty much any Adam Sandler comedy. USC quarterback Matt Leinart. What do these four men have in common? No, not terrific mustaches. Not wonderful foreign accents either. And certainly not perfect nicknames. No, each one of the above men has proven their capabilities as the ideal friend a guy would want by their side during a moment of need. Team players with utilitarian attitudes and an understanding that one's cronies should always be first on the priority list — Luigi, "Boner", Schneider, and Leinart have one major shaded area on the Venn diagram of life.
Matt Leinart serves as the perfect wingman to teammate Reggie Bush. That's right; they are all perfect wingmen. Wait a second. Matt Leinart, the Heisman Trophy winning, two-time NCAA All-American, New York Post "Page Six" spotting fixture is a wingman?
(Excerpt) Read more at msn.foxsports.com ...
He would get my Heisman vote.
He takes every snap on a prolifically offensive, undefeated, super-targeted Dynasty.
Bush will win and that's ok too.
I hear Texas is talking smack...I think that means they're toast.
ROFLMFAO
That Mediocre Oklahoma game you dismiss so nonchalantly happened to be for THE NATIONAL CHAMPIONSHIP.
The main reason they looked mediocre was because USC KICKED THEIR ASS!!
Sure, hype has a lot to do with winning the Heisman, so does success. I don't know what you have against Leinhart, but you are doing a piss poor job of backing up your facts.
I have said most of the season that Young would win the Heisman, because of the high probability of Bush/Leinhart splitting the vote.
But after the Fresno game and after the UCLA game, the edge has to go to Bush, he was simply awesome. Even the Bruin (I was in the UCLA section) fans in front of me admitted that he was possibly the best college running back he has ever seen (he was from Texas).
Agreed. I read here last year that Oklahoma had 9 NFL first round picks on that defense.
Oops.
Maybe they all went to SF, Houston and Green Bay.
Four teams gave USC competitive games in 2004 - Virginia Tech, California, Oregon State, and UCLA. Oklahoma did not. The Oklahoma score was 38-10 at halftime.
In 2004 Oklahoma would have been a mid-level team in the Pac-10. While mediocre might be a little harsh, they were certainly no better than average.
Folks, nowhere on this thread have I bashed USC. They have had a great team the last three years. What I don't like is sportswriter hype that takes two forms:
1) Giving teams a pass during down years and boosting them in the ratings because they have a "history". Some teams that benefit from sportswriter hype are Ohio State, Oklahoma, Miami, USC (in their down years) and, the greatest of all hype jobs - Notre Dame.
2) Promoting average players on great teams above great players on average teams for individual awards like the Heisman.
I've backed my statements up with facts. Leinart in 2004 had only average to good stats in the Pac-10. The Heisman voting was long before the Oklahoma game took place, so it wasn't a factor in the outcome.
I haven't watched every game Leinart has played, but every time I have the hype has not been matched by his performance. He was the reason USC lost to Cal in 2003. He had several inopportune interceptions, and couldn't hook-up with open receivers in the 4th quarter and OT. Cal's back-up quarterback, Reggie Robertson, out played him in OT.
The 2005 USC-UCLA game was another example. Color commentator Dan Fouts kept singing Leinerts praises through the first quarter, as pass after pass went over the head of his 6-5 tall receivers. Dan said it was the "wind", and it would be better in the 2nd quater when they were going the other way. But it didn't get better.
In college sports, good player plus great team plus media hype often equals Heisman.
You need to check your facts. Oklahoma had no defensive players in the first round of the 2005 NFL draft. :-)
Re-read it...their fans were CLAIMING they would have 9 first round picks.
They OVER RATED their talent.
Deja You.
My vote goes to the glove-wearing Danny Wuerffel.
"Ron Dayne has got to be the most disappointing winner of the Heisman."
My vote goes to the glove-wearing Danny Wuerffel.
You are both wrong. Remember Gino Torretta?
Both Desmond Howard and Ron Dayne were first-round draft picks who were considered blue-chip NFL prospects -- Howard #4 overall in 1992 and Dayne #11 overall in 2000. Torretta, on the other hand, wasn't drafted until the seventh round in 1993 . . . which tells me that despite his successful college career, pro football scouts knew he wasn't likely to be a very good NFL quarterback.
I'd put Danny Wuerffel in the same class as Torretta. He won the Heisman Trophy in 1996 but was so clearly not cut out to be an NFL quarterback that he wasn't even drafted at all.
It is also true.
There's something to be said for that. A classic case of this was Herschel Walker, who was generally regarded as the best college running back in history. He won the Heisman in 1982 -- which probably would have been his second Heisman were it not for Marcus Allen's 2000+ rushing yards in 1981 (Walker was also a Heisman finalist as a freshman in 1980) -- and left Georgia after his junior year as one of the leading rushers in NCAA history.
And yet something about his style of running made me speculate that he was going to be a disappointing NFL player. In fact, I predicted on that Heisman award night that finalist Eric Dickerson of SMU would be a better NFL running back than Walker. Walker had a stellar USFL career, but ran for over 1,000 yards only twice in 12 years in the NFL. And Dickerson was an instant All-Pro -- setting the NFL record with 2,105 rushing yards in his second season and finishing his Hall of Fame career with more than 13,000 yards in ten full seasons. 5,259 in his three years averaging 1,753 yards per season and had Walker had an average year, for him, in his senior season, he would've set the bar at over 7,000 yards. Walker won the Heisman Trophy in 1982 with 1,752 yards and 17 touchdowns, but his best season was 1981 running for 1,891 yards and 20 scores running for over 100 yards in every game and over 200 yards two of them. If Marcus Allen hadn't run for over 2,000 yards, Walker would've won the Heisman as a sophomore. By the time Walker left Georgia, he held 11 NCAA records, 16 SEC records and 41 Georgia records. Most impressive were his 5,749 all-purpose yards and his four, 200-yard rushing games as a freshman.
I think Walker was even more impressive as a freshman. Alas, the utterly forgettable George Rogers won it that year. (IIRC, 2nd place went to Hugh Green, the DE from Pitt).
Those were some amazing Georgia teams back then. Very few big names on either offense or defense . . . Kevin Butler, who was one of the best kickers in the NFL for 13 years, was the one guy from those teams who really stood out in the NFL -- along with guard Guy McIntyre . . . but probably one of the best college football teams of all time over a four-year stretch (1980-83).
Very hard to say that a team with only two losses, and rated in the top five is an "average team". I do not think they deserved to play USC that year for the championship (LSU did), but they were still a good team. Even good teams can have a bad game. Likewise some teams that are not as good can play over their head (Fresno St. vs. USC).
greatest of all hype jobs - Notre Dame. -- I fully concur with you on that.
2) Promoting average players on great teams above great players on average teams....
Although the point has some considerable validity to it, you also have to factor in other things:
a) National TV exposure, (thus familiarity) is reserved for the big boys, not the Portland States and Fresno States.
b) The best teams generally have the best players.
c) A good team can make a weak QB look better then he is more easily then a good QB can make a bad team look good. This helps Leinhart and hurts people like Aaron Rodgers, Drew Olson, etc.
d) Smaller schools play against other smaller schools, so the caliber of opponent is weak. Thus one or two good players on a weak team in a weak conference could excel, but how would they do at a major school? Would Aaron Rodgers have started ahead of Palmer or Leinhart?
The Heisman voting was long before the Oklahoma game took place, so it wasn't a factor in the outcome.
Point taken.
Leinart ... was the reason USC lost to Cal in 2003.-- Really hard to blame one person for a loss (or a victory) in Football, it is a team sport, after all. Many mistakes could have been made that were not the fault of the QB, a missed route by a receiver, a bad snap, a hurried pass because of the rush. I really think you need to judge someone on the strength of the season, not one game.
It may not seem like such a big deal, and he's not far off from those dimensions, but Reggie Bush almost "looks too tall" to be a workhorse in the NFL. He reminds me a lot of a guy named Brent Fullwood -- who succeeded Bo Jackson at Auburn and was a phenomenal college runner. Fullwood was a great athlete and could run like the wind, averaging something like 8.3 yards per carry in his senior year. He was one of the top picks in the draft the following year but never panned out -- and I think it was because the running style that worked so well for him in college wasn't conducive to the NFL game.
Bush is almost like a player without a position -- part running back, part wide receiver, part kick returner, etc.
Your thoughts and experience parallel my instincts. I also see him not as a regular player/full time running back. But a situational player on offense, and then of course, PR and KOR.
I think he has the potential to draw attention, each time he is in the backfield.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.