CJ...

[ QUOTE ]
I don't agree with characterizing Larry Fitzgerald as a token candidate. He came in 2nd in a close vote, and was the only serious contender besides Jason White. He was only a sophomore, and he could have easily won it had he played for a better team.

[/ QUOTE ]

OK, I wasn't going to get into this but if you check the link that I posted from heisman.com you can see the top finishers every year and I saw that in the last 30 years there was only one WR in the top 3 outside Brown and Howard (it was the rocket back in 90 when Ty Detmenr won it) so history is against not only true wideouts but even 2-way ones and return specialists. I thought this was common knowledge for all fans out there.

Heisman link again
 
Re: GeeTee

[ QUOTE ]

It's almost like a curse or something, having such a threat like him on the field, but having our hands tied to use him.

[/ QUOTE ]

Maybe this is a curse on wide receivers, all that talent and no way to get the ball caused by the receivers that played here when Tommy Luginbill was QB. Excellent QB, but crappy receivers who would drop passes on purpose because they didn't like TL.
 
precisley! The start of this thread asked asked whether CJ ever regrets coming to GT from an NFL perspective because he doesn't have the supporting cast, nor will he, while at GT. You put him on the feild with a top 10 caliber team that has a good line and qb and he'd be the best player in all of the NCAA to watch. GT's team has hindered him to make him appear above average at best. Gailey calls plays that do not play to his strenghts and Ball isn't capable to get the ball to him. CJ came to GT for an engineering degree which now he is not getting. I'm just wondering what is going on his mind..which we'll never know. One pretty good bet is that this will be CJ's last year on the flats as the NFL will be waiving big bucks in front him.
 
[ QUOTE ]
precisley! The start of this thread asked asked whether CJ ever regrets coming to GT from an NFL perspective because he doesn't have the supporting cast, nor will he, while at GT. You put him on the feild with a top 10 caliber team that has a good line and qb and he'd be the best player in all of the NCAA to watch. GT's team has hindered him to make him appear above average at best. Gailey calls plays that do not play to his strenghts and Ball isn't capable to get the ball to him. CJ came to GT for an engineering degree which now he is not getting. I'm just wondering what is going on his mind..which we'll never know. One pretty good bet is that this will be CJ's last year on the flats as the NFL will be waiving big bucks in front him.

[/ QUOTE ]

I agree.
 
So on one hand you suggest that playing at GT will hurt CJ's chances to showcase himself to the league, then you tell us that he's got one more year because of the $$ the NFL will be waiving in his face. MAKE UP YOUR MIND.
 
Well geetee he's got to stay one more after that most with his talent take off, so be it.
 
[ QUOTE ]
... in the last 30 years there was only one WR in the top 3 outside Brown and Howard (it was the rocket back in 90 when Ty Detmenr won it) ...

[/ QUOTE ]

That is incorrect. Larry Fitzgerald finished #2 in 2003. If you are going to adopt a smug lecturing tone, at least get your facts correct.

[ QUOTE ]
... history is against not only true wideouts but even 2-way ones and return specialists.

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course history is against them, that is obvious. However, history was against Charles Woodson as a cornerback, and he won the award, and history was against Larry Fitzgerald winning the Walter Camp Award (first pure WR to ever win it) and contending for the Heisman trophy.

History is against Calvin Johnson winning the Heisman Trophy, of course, but if he were to put up numbers like Larry Fitzgerald did in 2003 when he won the Walter Camp Award and finished a very close #2 for the Heisman, and especially if he were to do it on a 10-win team, then I think his chances of winning the Heisman would be pretty good.

Right now he is not getting good enough numbers to even be a contender for the Biletnikoff Award, so the fact the he is not a Heisman contender right now cannot be attributed to his position.
 
CJ could definitely compete for the Heisman IF he decides to stay for his senior year. They usually award it to a Senior. Ya'll need to realize that this kid is only a couple years out of high school and still has things to learn. His ability is incredible, but he isn't perfect(yet).
 
[ QUOTE ]
That is incorrect. Larry Fitzgerald finished #2 in 2003. If you are going to adopt a smug lecturing tone, at least get your facts correct.

[/ QUOTE ]

First of all if I’m responding to a post in which you said Fitzgerald finished #2 to Jason White in 2003 so it was implied that I already knew he was a top 3 choice, but you’re right, technically my statement was wrong (by the slightest of margins) so point it out if it gives you more satisfaction. And secondly, I did not take a “smug and lecturing tone”, that was your interpretation of what I wrote, that tone has never been my style, unlike others in here I try to be as non-confrontational/non-patronizing as possible while still voicing my viewpoint.

But getting back to the issue of whether CJ can be a “serious” Heisman contender, I can give you other comparable seasons for wideouts (like Randy Moss’ 1997 when he had 90 catches, 1647 yards, 25 TD’s , or Rashaun Woods’2002 season when he had 107 catches, 1695 yards, 17 TD’s. I can dust off the single season records for catches, receiving yds and TD’s to show how comparable wideouts never got serious consideration despite putting up incredible numbers but those arguments will be subjected to the usual relativity factors of most college football debates:

- what offense did the team run
- what QB was throwing to the wideout
- the teams’ strength of schedule
- the teams’ conference defense
- the team’s record
- the receiver’s number of games played
-the number of “meaningful” games played
- the team’s number of games played (for other eras when teams played less games)
- and many others

So you can argue me until you are blue in the face and this thread runs longer than a Ugag ncaa infractions list and it won’t change the fact I believe voters would only give partial consideration to a true wideout, the Walter Camp award is fine and all but it is no Heisman. For voters to be able to put a talented record holder wideout ahead of a QB or a back it would take them seeing that receiver’s talents in multiple aspects of the game, and the only opportunity that a receiver has to showcase that is on punts and kick returns or on defense and special teams, and that’s why in my opinion and that of a lot of the Heisman voters (reflected over the years on the final balot) at the end of the day in a year of comparable candidate talent (not a down year for backs or QB’s) the Heisman can only be won by a receiver that successfully shines in other aspects outside of offense.

PS: I do however see a true wideout winning it in a Ron Dayne-exclamation-mark-to-a-career type year when his records and seniority sway the voters, anything is theoretically possible.
 
Like you said GTY, this thread has wandered all over the place and it's more like an argument that you forget what you are arguing about.

My /ubbthreads/images/graemlins/twocents.gif however, CJ imo has the athletic skills to win the Heisman Trophy. All positions other than qb require all around world class athletic talent. QBs win on media promotion, stats and team quality.

If that's true, I just don't see CJ winning the award. The Heisman has always been a QB/RB award primarily, and CJ just doesn't see the ball enough at Tech for whatever reason.
This is not to say he won't win the receiver awards and be the possible number 1 NFL pick.
 
[ QUOTE ]
But getting back to the issue of whether CJ can be a “serious” Heisman contender, I can give you other comparable seasons for wideouts (like Randy Moss’ 1997 when he had 90 catches, 1647 yards, 25 TD’s , or Rashaun Woods’2002 season when he had 107 catches, 1695 yards, 17 TD’s.

[/ QUOTE ]

The most important prerequisite for the Heisman is team performance, followed by hype, killer stats, and team.

Randy Moss 1997 played for Marshall. No one from the MAC is going to win the Heisman. In spite of that, he still finished #4 in the voting as a sophomore. Give him those stats playing for Michigan and going to the Rose Bowl and he probably wins the Heisman going away like Desmond Howard did.

Woods played for an 8-5 Oklahoma State team. He had the same problem as Joe Hamilton and Larry Fitzgerald - too many losses.

Team record is critical unless you play for Notre Dame. Bo Jackson, one of the greatest players in college football history, nearly lost the Heisman vote to Chuck Long because his team lost 3 games in the regular season.

You can have killer stats and not even show up in the Heisman Top 10 if your team has a less than sterling record or if you play on a second-rate program, it doesn't matter whether you are a WR, QB, or RB.

Larry Fitzgerald and Randy Moss were both only sophomores and they suffered from team record (Fitzgerald) or minor league team (Moss), and Fitzgerald still came damned close to winning (#2 by narrow margin) and Moss finished #4 playing in the MAC. Had they played for better teams or stuck around longer anything would be possible.

If this were 1997 you'd be telling me it was impossible for Charles Woodson to win the Heisman, or if it was 1984 you'd be saying it was impossible for Doug Flutie to win it since a RB won it the previous 14 years.

Clearly I'm not going to convince you of anything, if you don't consider a guy who finishes #2 by a narrow margin a "serious contender" or if you call him a "token candidate". Just remember that those ridiculous labels of yours apply to Joe Hamilton too.
 
[ QUOTE ]
... CJ just doesn't see the ball enough at Tech for whatever reason.
This is not to say he won't win the receiver awards and be the possible number 1 NFL pick.

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't even see CJ competing for the Biletnikoff unless he gets the ball more next year, much less the Heisman Trophy.

OTOH, if he were to catch 3 TDs on national TV in our opener against Notre Dame, he would be a serious award candidate. That's how Ty Detmer won the Heisman, by beating #1 Miami on national TV in the season opener. Unfortunately I don't see that happening, but I hope I'm wrong.
 
The beginning of you post about Randy Moss and Rashaun Woods is disputed on the basis of team winning record and conference strength, the same reasons I said would make comparisons very subjective.

And then you wrote:

[ QUOTE ]
If this were 1997 you'd be telling me it was impossible for Charles Woodson to win the Heisman, or if it was 1984 you'd be saying it was impossible for Doug Flutie to win it since a RB won it the previous 14 years.

[/ QUOTE ]

Good thing you mentioned Woodson, because his case study proves my theory right, that year Woodson played on offense as well as on special teams thus showing his versatility in other aspects of the game outside his natural role. But don’t take it from me, here’s what Heisman.com had to say about Charles’ Heisman season:

“Charles finished the season with eight interceptions. Woodson the versatile player also saw time as a receiver on offense and as a dangerous punt returner on special teams.”

Woodson's Heisman link

And Flutie is a QB, my argument wasn’t that “A WR can’t win it because other WRs have not won the award for a while” which is the same as saying “it was impossible for Doug Flutie to win it since a RB [non-QB] won it the previous 14 years“, my argument was that “a WR that doesn’t show or get a chance to show talent on other aspects of the game outside offense can’t get serious consideration”, so the Flutie comparison is dead wrong, I was using Heisman voting history as evidence to back my point not as the point itself.

[ QUOTE ]
Clearly I'm not going to convince you of anything, if you don't consider a guy who finishes #2 by a narrow margin a "serious contender" or if you call him a "token candidate". Just remember that those ridiculous labels of yours apply to Joe Hamilton too.

[/ QUOTE ]

No your evidence hasn’t been convincing enough to change my mind, if anything there’s more evidence to solidify my side of the argument (30 years of Heisman voting history to be exact), Fitgerald’s season was perhaps the best by a WR playing entirely in a WR role ( 87 catches, 1,595 yards, 22 Tds) and he still did not win it, even with a streak of 18 games catching at least one TD pass which carried over from the previous season. So what makes you think other receivers can win it if Fitgerald did not pull it off?

And as far as the token candidate comment which I made and you can see below,

[ QUOTE ]
wideouts can have all the stats in the world but if they don't show versatility as return guys or maybe even 2 way guys they're only token candidates

[/ QUOTE ]

I was clearly referring to wideout candidacies in general and how exactly does the token label apply to Joe Hamilton? The QB position is too complex for anyone to expect QB’s to excel in any other aspects of the game so the token label doesn’t apply here, if other people labeled Joe Hamilton a token candidate, it wasn’t exactly in the context that I was referring to when describing WR candidacies.

PS: And if I really wanted to be a dick I would point out that it was 13 years, not 14 since a QB had won the Heisman prior to Flutie, just like you pointed out the my Fitgerald miss in 03 maybe you should get your facts straight before adopting a “smug and lecturing tone”.
 
At what point during Woodson's time at Mich. did the promoting for Heisman start? I don't know the answer to this question.

Even though Chris Fowler made an interesting comment on this during last week's presentation, The Heisman award is very dependent on the efforts and success of the player's sid department.
Even though he did not win a few years ago, the multi story Manhattan ad for Joey Harrington did a lot to put the Oregon QB out there.

In case anyone missed it, Fowler said wtte of ...this year's lack of school promotion for the 3 finalists was refreshing.
Of course when the 3 came from #1 and #2, they already get enough national pub. Being from SC and Texas doesn't hurt either.

We need a few new topics! How about going back to the sec, or Bill Curry's move to alabama?
 
[ QUOTE ]
... [Woodson's] case study proves my theory right, that year Woodson played on offense as well as on special teams thus showing his versatility in other aspects of the game outside his natural role.

[/ QUOTE ]

Absolutely Woodson could not have won the Heisman without doing those extra things. That does nothing to prove categorically that a WR has to do those things. They will help any player, of course.

You entirely missed the point of Woodson - your entire point is to mimic history and extrapolate to all future Heisman trophy winners. Doing so in 1997 would have given you a theory of "Cornerbacks can't win the Heisman trophy", just like now it gives you a theory of "Wide receivers have to return kicks to be a serious Heisman candidate."

Somehow my pointing out the fact that a WR who didn't do that has already been a serious candidate doesn't influence your opinion.

[ QUOTE ]
... Fitzgerald’s season was perhaps the best by a WR playing entirely in a WR role ( 87 catches, 1,595 yards, 22 Tds) and he still did not win it ...

[/ QUOTE ]

You still don't get it - his team lost 5 games! QBs and RBs whose teams lose 5 games don't win the Heisman either, unless they play for Notre Dame.

[ QUOTE ]
...how exactly does the token label apply to Joe Hamilton?

[/ QUOTE ]

Hamilton finished #2 in the Heisman voting. He was a very distant #2, unlike Larry Fitzgerald. So, if Larry Fitzgerald was a "token candidate" and "not a serious contender" then the same applies to Joe Hamilton, even more so because the vote in Joe's case was not even close.

[ QUOTE ]
PS: And if I really wanted to be a dick I would point out that it was 13 years, not 14 ...

[/ QUOTE ]

I said that's what YOU would have been saying in 1984. I had to throw in a factual error to make it realistic.
 
Well this argument is getting more diluted with every thread, so before this evolves into personal attacks (which it partially has in my opinion) why don't we let anyone not named mm42 and GTJellowJacket12 decide who's got a stronger case given the evidence presented by both parties. All you neutrals out there, give your opinion if I am wrong then I will gladly concede the argument, after all mm42 posts have made me see more of his side and hopefully my posts have done the same for him as well.
 
I would but I don't understand what the argument is. I call it a draw.

Its a subjective award. CJ is a heisman caliber athlete which is enough for me. Trophy or not, we need to get him the damn ball!
 
In my opinion the argument was the following:

"Can a true wide receiver win the Heisman playing solely on offense, meaning no special teams no defense just the wideout running routes and catching balls"

-mm42 says a WR can and offered evidence supporting it
-I say that it can't be done, and I provided evidence supporting it.

I realize this is subjective but based on the evidence presented, who's closer to the truth?
 
[ QUOTE ]
I realize this is subjective but based on the evidence presented, who's closer to the truth?

[/ QUOTE ]

Honest answer: I think its just a good debate. History has sided with QB/RBs for sure, but if the media got behind an offense only WR star and fan favorite, it could easily happen.

Do I think it will? Yes, eventually but not Calvin. I believe the successful candidate will be from Los Angeles. New York, if they played Saturday football up there.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top