|
Post by Bevo on Feb 8, 2017 1:39:04 GMT
Lamar Jackson is just a Sophomore. Who knows how good he might end up being? By all reports, he's a good kid. Why do you always feel the need to diss him? I never said or implied that Jackson isn't a good kid. He might yet develop into a Heisman worthy player. I didn't diss him -- I simply told the truth. He simply isn't near the top of my list of the best opposing players Marshall has faced. YOU brought up Jackson, unsolicited, for no apparent reason. Nobody gives a crap where YOU rank him. You just have a need to say something bad about him at every opportunity. I don't know why. It's not like this is the first time. He won the Heisman this year because his stats were LIGHT YEARS ahead of anyone else's... and because, the idiot Heisman voters just can't wait until the end of the season to vote. That is not Jackson's fault.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 8, 2017 1:52:38 GMT
I note that you are speaking for the entire universe again.
Why are you accusing me of saying bad things about Jackson? I didn't say a single thing about him that was bad.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 8, 2017 3:14:11 GMT
Why are you accusing me of saying bad things about Jackson? I didn't say a single thing about him that was bad.b Right.... Did you learn this in troll school? Why don't we just try to 'keep it real"?
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 8, 2017 3:32:17 GMT
Why are you accusing me of saying bad things about Jackson? I didn't say a single thing about him that was bad.b Right.... Did you learn this in troll school? Why don't we just try to 'keep it real"? Instead of launching yet another childish personal attack, why didn't you simply cite an example of something I said that was bad about Jackson? You can't because I didn't. You accused me, and now you are faulting me for responding to your accusation. That is rich! It has become a habit of yours of accusing me of saying things that I didn't say, and doing things that I didn't do. Such as alleging that I said bad things about Jackson, when I didn't, and accusing me of adding words to what Trump said, when I had quoted him word for word. When challenged, each time you responded with a personal attack.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 8, 2017 14:19:33 GMT
why didn't you simply cite an example of something I said that was bad about Jackson? You can't because I didn't. I didn't cite it because it's RIGHT THERE, for all to see. You know you brought his name up... out of nowhere. You doubled down by implying he's not a worthy Heisman winner. Why? How was that germane to the topic at hand? It was not. It was just another gratuitous attack on Lamar Jackson. Who, apparently, you think is unworthy.
|
|
|
Post by doc on Feb 8, 2017 15:16:40 GMT
Listened to an interesting interview with Peter King yesterday. He's been on the selection committee for the HOF for 25 years (therein lies one of the problems with the selection process - you need new blood every once in a while). Anyway, he pretty much confirmed that TO was not elected due to his personality (I'm dummying this down a bit but I think you all know what I mean.) He is in the top 10 of just about every receiving category, he was all pro 5 times in his 16 year career but his coaches basically ran him off on 3 separate occasions - he was not a good team mate in the locker room. King did say he voted for TO.
They then talked about another Terrell - Terrell Davis - who was voted in despite only having 4 truly great years. King said the difference maker for him was he averaged almost 150 yards rushing in 7 post season games. So TO is all pro for 5 times over 16 seasons and isn't elected. Davis gets King's vote on the basis of 7 playoff games.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 8, 2017 15:40:04 GMT
I think that you are 100% on target, Doc.
Ty Cobb probably wouldn't stand a chance today of being elected to the MLB HOF.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 8, 2017 15:53:10 GMT
why didn't you simply cite an example of something I said that was bad about Jackson? You can't because I didn't. I didn't cite it because it's RIGHT THERE, for all to see. You know you brought his name up... out of nowhere. You doubled down by implying he's not a worthy Heisman winner. Why? How was that germane to the topic at hand? It was not. It was just another gratuitous attack on Lamar Jackson. Who, apparently, you think is unworthy. I never said one bad thing about Jackson, and yet you flew off the rails. I am sorry that he wasn't the best opposing player that Marshall ever faced, but it is what it is. If the Heisman voting took place following the CFP championship game, do you really, really believe that Jackson would have won? Of course not, because he isn't Heisman-worthy. I agreed that he might improve and become Heisman-worthy in the future. It is also possible that he has reached his peak, and that opposing defenses will adjust and diminish his effectiveness. My advice: don't get your bowels in an uproar over things that are trivial.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 8, 2017 16:17:30 GMT
Of course not, because he isn't Heisman-worthy. Lamar Jackson was ABSOLUTELY worthy of the Heisman. His season this year was, by far, statistically the best. It ranks right up there with the TOP Heisman winners ever. He had as many TD's as any Heisman winner ever other than Mariota and Bradford. He had more total yards than any Heisman winner EVERY other than Ty Detmer. He had, simply, a phenomenal year. Would he have won the award AFTER the post-season? Maybe not. But, the same could be said about a lot of other Heisman winners. Was this year a "flash in the pan"? Maybe. The same has happened to many previous Heisman winners. You may not like Jackson. You may think other players are better players. But, to say he is not "Heisman worthy" is just biased, intentionally controversial opinion.
|
|
|
Post by bluehen on Feb 8, 2017 16:40:04 GMT
I think the Pro FB and MLB Halls OF Fame have become steadily 'watered down' over the years with too many inductees....especially the football hall. If We could start over I would suggest only two criteria for induction :
Definition A HOFer - Arguably the best of all time ( GOAT wing )
Definition B HOFer - Arguably the best of his era.
We're over flooded now with definition C HOFers - Outstanding player of his era. By my estimate and judgement about 200 of the 300 coaches and players found in Canton fall into this category.
High standard, tough love approach
Also, I'm not crazy about these veterans committee appointments. If you're not HOF quality 5 years after your playing days are done how in heck do you get better and become a HOF quality player/coach 40- 50 years later ?
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 8, 2017 17:04:52 GMT
Of course not, because he isn't Heisman-worthy. Lamar Jackson was ABSOLUTELY worthy of the Heisman. His season this year was, by far, statistically the best. It ranks right up there with the TOP Heisman winners ever. He had as many TD's as any Heisman winner ever other than Mariota and Bradford. He had more total yards than any Heisman winner EVERY other than Ty Detmer. He had, simply, a phenomenal year. Would he have won the award AFTER the post-season? Maybe not. But, the same could be said about a lot of other Heisman winners. Was this year a "flash in the pan"? Maybe. The same has happened to many previous Heisman winners. You may not like Jackson. You may think other players are better players. But, to say he is not "Heisman worthy" is just biased, intentionally controversial opinion. When did I ever say that I didn't like Jackson? I simply don't believe that he is Heisman-worthy. I don't believe that he would have won the Heisman had the voting taken place after the last game has been played. He is far from having the best season statistically. He trails 24 others in QB efficiency. His completion percentage, 56%, was among the lowest. His team floundered after the Heisman voting. Do you seriously believe that Jackson would have prevailed over Deshaun Watson, for example, if the Heisman voting had taken place after the CFP championship game?
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 8, 2017 18:22:02 GMT
When did I ever say that I didn't like Jackson? Gee... I don't know where I could have gotten that idea.... my bad. I simply don't believe that he is Heisman-worthy. I don't believe that he would have won the Heisman had the voting taken place after the last game has been played. He is far from having the best season statistically. He trails 24 others in QB efficiency. His completion percentage, 56%, was among the lowest. His team floundered after the Heisman voting. QB efficiency is not the only standard used for judging. Jackson was a dual-threat QB. He is the ONLY Heisman winner EVER to have 3000 yards passing AND >1000 yards rushing. He had more than 1500 yards rushing and 21 rushing TD's.... that's just insane. Do you seriously believe that Jackson would have prevailed over Deshaun Watson, for example, if the Heisman voting had taken place after the CFP championship game? It's a moot question, since that's NOT when the voting happens. But, yea... I actually think Jackson would have won anyway. It's not like it was a close vote. In fact, ESPN said he had the 7th highest vote total in the past 50 years. Watson had 500 more passing yards 7 more passing TD's, but also 6 more INTs... Jackson gained a 1000 more rushing yards and 15 more rushing TD's. That's dominant, statistically. It's pretty hard to take anyone seriously if they say that kind of performance is "not Heisman worthy". The vast majority of Heisman winners didn't have years like that.
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 8, 2017 19:07:46 GMT
Jackson had some good stats, some not so good stats and some poor stats. All in all, not Heisman-worthy IMO.
So, you believe that Jackson still would have won the Heisman after his and Louisville's 0-3 end of season collapse? That doesn't pass the laugh test
I note that you are incapable of backing up your accusation that I don't like Jackson.
BTW -- can you imagine the dilemma in which tigercpa is entangled? Under normal circumstances, he would be in lockstep with you. However, he certainly must realize that Deshaun Watson was far more deserving of the Heisman than Jackson. His best option is to gnash his teeth and remain silent. Lol.
|
|
|
Post by Bevo on Feb 8, 2017 19:45:30 GMT
I note that you are incapable of backing up your accusation that I don't like Jackson. I'll leave that to others to make their own judgments. You sure seem to go out of your way to knock him, at odd and inappropriate times? I guess, these are signs of endearment.
BTW>> Who is this Harry Schwartz person that is so much better than Jackson?
|
|
|
Post by FLORIDA HERD FAN on Feb 8, 2017 19:59:18 GMT
Bevo: "BTW>> Who is this Harry Schwartz person that is so much better than Jackson?"
I told you, Blue Hen!! Lol.
|
|