Look back at Suh and the erroneous Hypesman

BigRedBuster said:
The problem with the award is that the winners all get a vote....for which....the are all QBs, RBs and with a few WRs mixed in.

So......who do you think they are going to vote for?
Click to expand...




That's not much of a problem unless there's a vote where a defensive player was really close to winning it. Heisman winners make up 6% of the vote. It might be a problem 300 years from now when they make up 29% of the vote.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Jason Sitoke said:
Wow.  I'm on a Husker site and hearing that Nebraska is essentially the same team without Tommie Frazier in 1995.  If that's really the sentiment, I don't think I'm up for the challenge of convincing anyone otherwise.
Click to expand...
Brook was not much of a drop off. He is as responsible as TF for the MNC in 94.

 
I think Frazier deserved the Heisman.

But take a step back and think of it if you think Husker fans are crazy to suggest otherwise.

It seems like every single year, a QB or RB from Alabama is in the top 2 or 3, and every single year without knowing much about him, most of us (including myself) assume that he's not really the MVP. He's just the best player on the best team.

Well, that's a similar situation to the one with Frazier. Honestly, the reason Tua didn't win might have been because he was injured in the CCG and Hurts did fine. So it's a very similar scenario. OTOH we never won a national championship until Frazier showed up, so it definitely seems like he was what got us there.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
That's not much of a problem unless there's a vote where a defensive player was really close to winning it. Heisman winners make up 6% of the vote. It might be a problem 300 years from now when they make up 29% of the vote.
Click to expand...
You mean the other 94% is made up of the same voters that have only voted in QBs, RBs and a few WRs?

 
Last edited by a moderator:
BigRedBuster said:
You mean the other 94% is made up of the same voters that have only voted in QBs, RBs and a few WRs 
Click to expand...




It's not the same as what you were talking about, which is people voting for other people like themselves. That isn't a problem with the media. Also, the media members voting now are not all the same media members voting 20 years ago. It's different people doing the same thing.

I think people naturally notice the QB and RB more, and their numbers are easier to compare. Also, although they should, I doubt all of them watch a lot of games, so they're going to notice the players who are talked about the most, which are usually the QBs and Rbs. I'm betting I watch more games than some of them. I remember with Suh, he got a higher % of the votes from the midwest than the coasts, and that was obviously because they hadn't watched him as much or at all.

It shouldn't matter how many wins a team has either, but again, those teams naturally get more coverage, and the media members probably aren't all watching enough football.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
MichiganDad3 said:
Brook was not much of a drop off. He is as responsible as TF for the MNC in 94.
Click to expand...
He was a different kind of player.  Yes, he's as responsible for that season as Frazier was.  The offense was built around someone with Frazier's skill set.  Brook did a hell of a job, but let's not forget that the offense wasn't exactly setting the world on fire without Tommie to end the year.  Would have loved to seen Berringer as a pro quarterback....sigh

 
MichiganDad3 said:
I agree, and I have always preferred the best OL to the best RB or QB. In the mid 90's we had all three with depth.
Click to expand...
Yes, if I have to choose.  However, you win NCs with the bolded.

Iowa is a prime example of having really good O lines with not much talent to go with it.  They are a solid but not great team.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Cdog923 said:
I'll be That Guy: the offensive line is more responsible for the 1994 National Title than Tommie or Brook were. 
Click to expand...


I don't disagree, but if we're splitting up the credit of course the o-line as a whole will have more than any single offensive position. A great QB is going to be more valuable than any single o-line position, bar none. Probably more value than any 2-3 lineman combined. But once we're talking about 5 players on the o-line, I would hope they have more value combined than any single skill position player. I don't care how good a player is or what position he plays, if one of your players on offense is more valuable than any other 5 starters, you're not a great team.

 
No conversation on Frazier versus George is complete without a mention of a gimpy Biakabutuka having outrushed him.  Who outplayed Touchdown Tommie on the field in that regular season?  Getting back to EG, there's also the matter of his having had a poor game against Tennessee in the Citrus Bowl (but that was after the voting, of course).

 
Back
Top