Most athletic player to NOT win the Heisman?

• NNN

  

  icskins wrote:

  NNN wrote: For all-around performance, Champ Bailey by a mile from the two-platoon days.
  
  He was miles better in 98 than Charles Woodson was in 97, but no one seems to remember that (mostly because ESPN had screwed up the Heisman the previous year).

  How did they screw it up?

  Consider who won it compared to who the best player in the country actually was (with the performances to back it up).
  
  Of course, I remember the defense for it being that "it's not a career achievement award", yet just two years later with Ron Dayne, that was shown to be demonstrably false.
• icskins

  NNN wrote:

  icskins wrote:

  NNN wrote: For all-around performance, Champ Bailey by a mile from the two-platoon days.
  
  He was miles better in 98 than Charles Woodson was in 97, but no one seems to remember that (mostly because ESPN had screwed up the Heisman the previous year).

  How did they screw it up?

  Consider who won it compared to who the best player in the country actually was (with the performances to back it up).
  
  Of course, I remember the defense for it being that "it's not a career achievement award", yet just two years later with Ron Dayne, that was shown to be demonstrably false.

  That's what I'm asking though. In what way was it messed up? I don't remember. Who do you think should have won it?
• Lovejoy1984

  

  ^^^^
  
  Peyton Manning would've been a good canidate.
  
  287/477 (60.37%) 3819yards 37 TD 11 INT.
• september63

  

  Al Bundy
• NNN

  

  icskins wrote: That's what I'm asking though. In what way was it messed up? I don't remember. Who do you think should have won it?

  Peyton Manning in 1997 without question. Woodson wasn't talked about as any type of a candidate until he played a little bit of offense.
  
  It was a great case study in media snobbery. A few ESPN-dwelling pinheads decided that they were going to bang the drum of Woodson, then keep it going by basically emphasizing the idea that "The average mouth-breathing fan may be steamrolled by having watched one of the greatest QBs in college history over the last 3 1/2 years dominate, but those of us who really know football know that Woodson is the real top player".
  
  Basically, to speak out in favor of Woodson came to be regarded as someone who really knew the game and understood the details; someone who spoke out in favor of Manning was just someone who knew nothing.
  
  There were two near-contemporaries who I would have taken over Woodson anyway. Jamar Fletcher was a freshman when Woodson was a senior, and Champ Bailey was a junior (who did more on defense, more on offense, and more on special teams by a sizable margin).
• Ironman92

  

  Champ Bailey
  
  Rod Woodson
• mallymal614

  How about Deion Sanders and Randy Moss?
• k_boogy

  NNN wrote:

  icskins wrote:

  NNN wrote: For all-around performance, Champ Bailey by a mile from the two-platoon days.
  
  He was miles better in 98 than Charles Woodson was in 97, but no one seems to remember that (mostly because ESPN had screwed up the Heisman the previous year).

  How did they screw it up?

  Consider who won it compared to who the best player in the country actually was (with the performances to back it up).
  
  Of course, I remember the defense for it being that "it's not a career achievement award", yet just two years later with Ron Dayne, that was shown to be demonstrably false.

  Dayne rushed for 1834 yds that season and 19 tds not to shabby of numbers
• NNN

  

  k_boogy wrote: Dayne rushed for 1834 yds that season and 19 tds not to shabby of numbers

  The top players in '99 would probably be as follows (actual Heisman candidates...everyone blew their load with a defensive player in 1997).
  
  Joe Hamilton
  Drew Brees
  Michael Vick
  Chad Pennington
  
  Hamilton was 203/305 passing for 3,060 yards, 29 TDs to 11 INTs, and then another 734 rushing yards and 6 more TDs. Georgia Tech finished 8-3, scoring 448 points in 11 games.
  
  Brees was 337/554 for 3,909 yards, 25 TDs to 12 INTs, plus 177 rushing yards and 4 more TDs. Purdue was 7-4 and scored 359 points in those 11 gmaes.
  
  Vick was 90/152 for 1,840 yards, 12 TDs to 5 INTs, plus 585 rushing yards and 5 more TDs. Virginia tech was 11-0 and scored 424 points.
  
  Pennington was 275/405 for 3,799 yards, 37 TDs to 11 INTs, plus 103 rushing yards and 2 more TDs. Marshall was 12-0 and scored 442 points.
  
  Dayne had 586 first-place votes and, except for Hamilton (96), no one else had more than 25. Basically, this wasn't a case of a guy taking advantage of split ballots or anything, it was a landslide.
  
  Don't forget that although Dayne had 1,800 yards and 19 TDs, Michael Bennett the next year had 1,600 and 10 TDs even though he was injured, and Anthony Davis the next year did much the same.
• k_boogy

  NNN wrote:

  k_boogy wrote: Dayne rushed for 1834 yds that season and 19 tds not to shabby of numbers

  The top players in '99 would probably be as follows (actual Heisman candidates...everyone blew their load with a defensive player in 1997).
  
  Joe Hamilton
  Drew Brees
  Michael Vick
  Chad Pennington
  
  Hamilton was 203/305 passing for 3,060 yards, 29 TDs to 11 INTs, and then another 734 rushing yards and 6 more TDs. Georgia Tech finished 8-3, scoring 448 points in 11 games.
  
  Brees was 337/554 for 3,909 yards, 25 TDs to 12 INTs, plus 177 rushing yards and 4 more TDs. Purdue was 7-4 and scored 359 points in those 11 gmaes.
  
  Vick was 90/152 for 1,840 yards, 12 TDs to 5 INTs, plus 585 rushing yards and 5 more TDs. Virginia tech was 11-0 and scored 424 points.
  
  Pennington was 275/405 for 3,799 yards, 37 TDs to 11 INTs, plus 103 rushing yards and 2 more TDs. Marshall was 12-0 and scored 442 points.
  
  Dayne had 586 first-place votes and, except for Hamilton (96), no one else had more than 25. Basically, this wasn't a case of a guy taking advantage of split ballots or anything, it was a landslide.
  
  Don't forget that although Dayne had 1,800 yards and 19 TDs, Michael Bennett the next year had 1,600 and 10 TDs even though he was injured, and Anthony Davis the next year did much the same.

  Ok Im not quite sure what you are trying to get at here, somehow trying to tell me that dayne wasnt deserving of the heisman that year?? Should it have been a landslide like it was? prolly not but dayne definitely deserved the award. Noones stats really jump out at you other than Penningtons to me and well he played at Marshall so take it for what it is worth.
  
  Put Daynes stats in this year of football and he leads the nation in rushing :-/
  
  As far as the last part, are you trying to say its Dayne's fault he had a good line?? If so, thats like saying Emmitt Smith shouldnt have the career rushing yard record in football and we should give it to Barry Sanders instead.
• icskins

  Maybe it's me, and it was a while ago now, but I don't remember Manning being a great Heisman quality QB in college. I remember him having good numbers against the bad teams and not playing so great against the top competition. Wasn't the knock on him that could never win the big games in college?
• NNN

  

  icskins wrote: Maybe it's me, and it was a while ago now, but I don't remember Manning being a great Heisman quality QB in college. I remember him having good numbers against the bad teams and not playing so great against the top competition. Wasn't the knock on him that could never win the big games in college?

  That became the reason du jour for cutting him down in the latter stages of 1997. As a freshman, UT was 7-1 with Manning starting, including a bowl win. As a sophomore, UT was 11-1, the only loss being to Florida in a game that UT scored 37 points in (and the defense allowed 62); throw in the bowl win against Ohio State for good measure. UT was 10-2 when he was a junior, with another Florida loss thrown in (although there was another bowl win). And in 1997, they were 11-1 and had just won the SEC title when the Heisman was awarded.
  
  When the Heisman was handed out, Manning's career record as a starter was 39-5 with three bowl wins and a conference title that came during Florida's heyday. He was 6th in Heisman voting as a sophomore, 8th as a junior, and (somehow) 2nd as a senior.
  
  During the senior year, he had 3,819 passing yards and a 37:11 TD:INT ratio. Add in the fact that he won the Davey O'Brien Award, the Unitas Award, Quarterback of the Year (awarded by the Touchdown Club of Columbus), the Maxwell Award, the Sullivan Award, then was first-team All-SEC, SEC Player of the Year, and first-team All-American. PLUS the fact that he'd already graduated the year before and was in grad school during his fourth year on The Hill.
• NNN

  

  k_boogy wrote: Ok Im not quite sure what you are trying to get at here, somehow trying to tell me that dayne wasnt deserving of the heisman that year?? Should it have been a landslide like it was? prolly not but dayne definitely deserved the award. Noones stats really jump out at you other than Penningtons to me and well he played at Marshall so take it for what it is worth.
  
  Put Daynes stats in this year of football and he leads the nation in rushing :-/
  
  As far as the last part, are you trying to say its Dayne's fault he had a good line?? If so, thats like saying Emmitt Smith shouldnt have the career rushing yard record in football and we should give it to Barry Sanders instead.

  My point was that the justification for screwing Manning was that "it's not a career achievement award", yet the landslide that Ron Dayne won by doesn't seem to bear that out. It was obvious at the time and is more obvious now that ESPN decided that they were going to find someone, ANYONE, else to supplant Manning.
  
  Vick didn't have the numbers because VT ran the option out of the I-formation a pretty good amount, so even when the offense was humming he might be completely invisible on the stat sheet. Also, don't forget Crouch winning it two years later on a team that was substantially less dependent on him.
• jordo212000

  

  Devin Hester comes to mind when you talk about "athletic players"
• DaBrowns41

  Sonofanump wrote: WTF are all you thinking?
  
  Jim Brown, end debate.

  Thank you.
• dwccrew

  

  Vince Young. End of discussion.
• icskins

  NNN wrote:

  icskins wrote: Maybe it's me, and it was a while ago now, but I don't remember Manning being a great Heisman quality QB in college. I remember him having good numbers against the bad teams and not playing so great against the top competition. Wasn't the knock on him that could never win the big games in college?

  That became the reason du jour for cutting him down in the latter stages of 1997. As a freshman, UT was 7-1 with Manning starting, including a bowl win. As a sophomore, UT was 11-1, the only loss being to Florida in a game that UT scored 37 points in (and the defense allowed 62); throw in the bowl win against Ohio State for good measure. UT was 10-2 when he was a junior, with another Florida loss thrown in (although there was another bowl win). And in 1997, they were 11-1 and had just won the SEC title when the Heisman was awarded.
  
  When the Heisman was handed out, Manning's career record as a starter was 39-5 with three bowl wins and a conference title that came during Florida's heyday. He was 6th in Heisman voting as a sophomore, 8th as a junior, and (somehow) 2nd as a senior.
  
  During the senior year, he had 3,819 passing yards and a 37:11 TD:INT ratio. Add in the fact that he won the Davey O'Brien Award, the Unitas Award, Quarterback of the Year (awarded by the Touchdown Club of Columbus), the Maxwell Award, the Sullivan Award, then was first-team All-SEC, SEC Player of the Year, and first-team All-American. PLUS the fact that he'd already graduated the year before and was in grad school during his fourth year on The Hill.

  Ok, like I said, it has been a while and I honestly don't remember. I was thinking that he had worse numbers than that, win/loss wise. I knew his personal numbers were good. I very well could be confusing his wins and his brothers wins in saying that he couldn't win the big game.
• BuckeyeBlue

  

  Tommy Frasier was a BEAST at Nebraska. Had it not been for the blood clots he had to endure I think he would have won one.
  
  I was surprised how long it took for Michael Vick's name to be mentioned. Since the topic is most athletic player not to win, his name has to be mentioned. He was a man amongst boys his sophomore year at Virginia Tech. Vick's athleticism led to him being drafted in the Major League Baseball draft despite the fact that he hadn't played baseball since high school (maybe even junior high, don't remember for sure).
• Puddle Jumper

  

  Marshall Faulk at San Diego St should've won it but because he played for San Diego State he didn't.
  He and Barry Sanders at Oklahoma State were the 2 best college rb's that I've seen.
• merv

  

  Rocket
• cbus4life

  Brown.
• 4cards

  

  ...IMO, Jim Brown.
• jpake1

  

  Pepe Pearson. Not only 'end of thread', but END OF FREEHUDDLE.