First defensive player of the year! -- Finally

[hifigator]

Ndamakong Suh was named the player of the year by the Associated Press. It was the first such award for a defensive player ever. In fact, all previous winners were either quarterbacks or running backs. I think this is a good thing. How many times have we seen similar awards follow the Heisman's lead and go to a QB who put up tremendous numbers against largely questionable defenses or in a situation where the team around him was so vastly superior to the opponents that there was no alternative but for the QB to put up gaudy numbers?

Toretta, Ware and Wuerrfel would all be good examples. We still have a ways to go on the actual Heisman, but this has to be a step in the right direction. I would love for the Heisman contest to be full of drama and excitement and for different opinions to be more represented in the voting, rather than merely regional biases. Thoughts?

[Boz]

I think no one in the world gives a rip about the AP player of the year.

People barely give a rip about the Heisman anymore.

They're awards. There's no drama and excitement. They're awards.

Hey, congratulations to Suh and all, absolutely, but awards will always be biased and anti-climactic. I'll take my drama and excitement on the field.

[Elvado]

Dec 22, 2009 17:10:06 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Ndamakong Suh was named the player of the year by the Associated Press. It was the first such award for a defensive player ever. In fact, all previous winners were either quarterbacks or running backs. I think this is a good thing. How many times have we seen similar awards follow the Heisman's lead and go to a QB who put up tremendous numbers against largely questionable defenses or in a situation where the team around him was so vastly superior to the opponents that there was no alternative but for the QB to put up gaudy numbers?

Toretta, Ware and Wuerrfel would all be good examples. We still have a ways to go on the actual Heisman, but this has to be a step in the right direction. I would love for the Heisman contest to be full of drama and excitement and for different opinions to be more represented in the voting, rather than merely regional biases. Thoughts?

Or, in the case of this year's Heisman, someone who bitchslapped Scripture Face and the Gators in the SEC title game.

[Bando]

Dec 23, 2009 13:13:36 GMT -5 Elvado said:

Dec 22, 2009 17:10:06 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Ndamakong Suh was named the player of the year by the Associated Press. It was the first such award for a defensive player ever. In fact, all previous winners were either quarterbacks or running backs. I think this is a good thing. How many times have we seen similar awards follow the Heisman's lead and go to a QB who put up tremendous numbers against largely questionable defenses or in a situation where the team around him was so vastly superior to the opponents that there was no alternative but for the QB to put up gaudy numbers?

Toretta, Ware and Wuerrfel would all be good examples. We still have a ways to go on the actual Heisman, but this has to be a step in the right direction. I would love for the Heisman contest to be full of drama and excitement and for different opinions to be more represented in the voting, rather than merely regional biases. Thoughts?

Or, in the case of this year's Heisman, someone who bitchslapped Scripture Face and the Gators in the SEC title game.

BOOM goes the dynamite.

Roll Tide.

[hifigator]

Once again, some seem far more interested in shooting the messenger than in the message -- regardless of the nature of the message. Good thing I've learned to expect it.

As for Ingram winning the Heisman, I think I made my opinion quite clear before the presentation show. While I don't have a "problem" with him winning, I do think that he got a boost from the constant hype that "no Bama player had ever won before" that was paraded around by the talking heads incessantly. Do I think he was as deserving/more deserving than Gerhart? Yes, I honestly do. But do I think that either of them were the "most outstanding player" in college football? No. Like I said, if you watched the games with a totally unbiased eye and had no predispositions towards or against any of the players, then from my two eyes, the two guys who consistently -- game in and game out -- were most clearly the "best" player in the games they played would be Suh and then Spiller. Hell, I would even consider Eric Berry and I hate Tennessee, but in the handful of games that I saw him play, his name came up over and over.


On Edit: to finish the thought, my point was that Suh and Spiller consistently had the most significant impact on the game, such that if you were to take them out of the game, it would be obvious that the likelihood of their respective teams winning would be dramatically decreased. While all the players in consideration were great players, if you use my definition as the yardstick, then I don't think any player matched Suh or Spiller in that regard.

Lastly, as for Ingram, you could make the case that Trent Richardson both helped and hurt Mark's credentials. On one hand, he split carries and therefore didn't have as overwhelming numbers. On the other hand, the success that Richardson had could suggest that the production comes not from Ingram but rather the team around him. You certainly couldn't say that about either Suh or Spiller in my opinion.

[redskins12820]

Dec 23, 2009 15:10:49 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Once again, some seem far more interested in shooting the messenger than in the message -- regardless of the nature of the message. Good thing I've learned to expect it.

As for Ingram winning the Heisman, I think I made my opinion quite clear before the presentation show. While I don't have a "problem" with him winning, I do think that he got a boost from the constant hype that "no Bama player had ever won before" that was paraded around by the talking heads incessantly. Do I think he was as deserving/more deserving than Gerhart? Yes, I honestly do. But do I think that either of them were the "most outstanding player" in college football? No. Like I said, if you watched the games with a totally unbiased eye and had no predispositions towards or against any of the players, then from my two eyes, the two guys who consistently -- game in and game out -- were most clearly the "best" player in the games they played would be Suh and then Spiller. Hell, I would even consider Eric Berry and I hate Tennessee, but in the handful of games that I saw him play, his name came up over and over.


On Edit: to finish the thought, my point was that Suh and Spiller consistently had the most significant impact on the game, such that if you were to take them out of the game, it would be obvious that the likelihood of their respective teams winning would be dramatically decreased. While all the players in consideration were great players, if you use my definition as the yardstick, then I don't think any player matched Suh or Spiller in that regard.

Lastly, as for Ingram, you could make the case that Trent Richardson both helped and hurt Mark's credentials. On one hand, he split carries and therefore didn't have as overwhelming numbers. On the other hand, the success that Richardson had could suggest that the production comes not from Ingram but rather the team around him. You certainly couldn't say that about either Suh or Spiller in my opinion.

Right, and once again Gerhart was the entire Stanford team. Every other team knew what was coming and still couldn't stop him. For every other player, that was not the case.

[kchoya]

Dec 23, 2009 15:36:53 GMT -5 redskins12820 said:

Dec 23, 2009 15:10:49 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Once again, some seem far more interested in shooting the messenger than in the message -- regardless of the nature of the message. Good thing I've learned to expect it.

As for Ingram winning the Heisman, I think I made my opinion quite clear before the presentation show. While I don't have a "problem" with him winning, I do think that he got a boost from the constant hype that "no Bama player had ever won before" that was paraded around by the talking heads incessantly. Do I think he was as deserving/more deserving than Gerhart? Yes, I honestly do. But do I think that either of them were the "most outstanding player" in college football? No. Like I said, if you watched the games with a totally unbiased eye and had no predispositions towards or against any of the players, then from my two eyes, the two guys who consistently -- game in and game out -- were most clearly the "best" player in the games they played would be Suh and then Spiller. Hell, I would even consider Eric Berry and I hate Tennessee, but in the handful of games that I saw him play, his name came up over and over.


On Edit: to finish the thought, my point was that Suh and Spiller consistently had the most significant impact on the game, such that if you were to take them out of the game, it would be obvious that the likelihood of their respective teams winning would be dramatically decreased. While all the players in consideration were great players, if you use my definition as the yardstick, then I don't think any player matched Suh or Spiller in that regard.

Lastly, as for Ingram, you could make the case that Trent Richardson both helped and hurt Mark's credentials. On one hand, he split carries and therefore didn't have as overwhelming numbers. On the other hand, the success that Richardson had could suggest that the production comes not from Ingram but rather the team around him. You certainly couldn't say that about either Suh or Spiller in my opinion.

Right, and once again Gerhart was the entire Stanford team. Every other team knew what was coming and still couldn't stop him. For every other player, that was not the case.

I'm sorry, I don't recall Suh being stopped. Especially by the #2 team in the country.

[hoyarooter]

Dec 23, 2009 15:36:53 GMT -5 redskins12820 said:

Dec 23, 2009 15:10:49 GMT -5 hifigator said:

Once again, some seem far more interested in shooting the messenger than in the message -- regardless of the nature of the message. Good thing I've learned to expect it.

As for Ingram winning the Heisman, I think I made my opinion quite clear before the presentation show. While I don't have a "problem" with him winning, I do think that he got a boost from the constant hype that "no Bama player had ever won before" that was paraded around by the talking heads incessantly. Do I think he was as deserving/more deserving than Gerhart? Yes, I honestly do. But do I think that either of them were the "most outstanding player" in college football? No. Like I said, if you watched the games with a totally unbiased eye and had no predispositions towards or against any of the players, then from my two eyes, the two guys who consistently -- game in and game out -- were most clearly the "best" player in the games they played would be Suh and then Spiller. Hell, I would even consider Eric Berry and I hate Tennessee, but in the handful of games that I saw him play, his name came up over and over.


On Edit: to finish the thought, my point was that Suh and Spiller consistently had the most significant impact on the game, such that if you were to take them out of the game, it would be obvious that the likelihood of their respective teams winning would be dramatically decreased. While all the players in consideration were great players, if you use my definition as the yardstick, then I don't think any player matched Suh or Spiller in that regard.

Lastly, as for Ingram, you could make the case that Trent Richardson both helped and hurt Mark's credentials. On one hand, he split carries and therefore didn't have as overwhelming numbers. On the other hand, the success that Richardson had could suggest that the production comes not from Ingram but rather the team around him. You certainly couldn't say that about either Suh or Spiller in my opinion.

Right, and once again Gerhart was the entire Stanford team. Every other team knew what was coming and still couldn't stop him. For every other player, that was not the case.

I'd have to say that's not quite true. I supported Gerhart for the Heisman, so I have no ax to grind here, but that comment is giving short shrift to Andrew Luck.