Dajesus
Active Roster
thanks for the help. I did aleady post the just about the same ting though.
Originally posted by Expo88
First off, the dillusional comment was perhaps a bit strong, sorry about that DJ, but otherwise, you're all completely underestimating, and downplaying the significance of Palmer's season. Yes, there are some prolific passers in the Pac-10, as there are in virtually every every conference except the Big 10 which seems to think the option is still en vouge. The numbers themselves are impressive but do not make Palmer the exceptional candidate that he is, it's who he played those games against that makes the numbers impressive!
DJ, you posted that Palmer garnered most of his yards against the "cupcake" portion of USC's schedule, my question to you would be, when was that? Every single one of the teams you mentioned in that "cupcake" portion, were or are ranked teams with the exception of Arizona and Stanford. Oregon, UCLA, Washington, and UCLA are all tough teams. That doesn't include the non-conference games that were all against tough opponents.
Again, in case you didn't catch this the first time:
USC HAD THE #1 TOUGHEST SCHEDULE OF ANY DIVISION IA SCHOOL IN THE ENTIRE NATION.
Miami's schedule doesn't even come close as they had the 48th toughest schedule in the nation (I don't have the stats on the other teams.)
In other words, Palmers numbers becom exponentially more impressive when you compare them to what he had to face in order to achieve them. Larry Johnson on the other hand simply did not have a schedule that was anywhere near as tough and Penn State's three losses came against the only three ranked teams on their schedule- this kind of stat does not a Heisman winner make.
Every player up for the Heisman is a product of the people around him. The running backs are in it 'cause they have good blockers and the QB's are in it 'cause they have decent lineman who give them time to decide where to throw the ball or run with it or whatever. You can't single out one guy and say he's only in the running because he's on a good team. Ken Dorsey was turning heads when he was still a freshman backup to Kenny Kelly. He started his sophomore year and has had an amazing college career. I love how EVERYBODY deserves the Heisman but Dorsey.Originally posted by Angneli
Dorsey is a product of the people around him.
Originally posted by fin-atic
Can people not read??
Read my entire initial post again and it states, undeniably, why it should be Dorsey. He is the best player at his position in the country. There is more to playing QB than stats i.e.' Joe Montana.
Like winning
Geez.
Originally posted by Dajesus
Fin-atic if this were a lifetime award Dorsey would take it, but it is only for 2002. Honestly I am Canes fan, and he wouldn't even be on my ballot.
We will find out in a few hours, and this thread will get new life. If I had a vote here is my ballot.
Larry Johnson
Brad Banks
Kliff Kingsburry
Carson Palmer
Willis McGahee
Originally posted by fin-atic
Just for the record:
Everyone says that Dorsey is a product of the great team around him. He just lost the Heisman so I hope you all are happy.
What I can't figure out if the "team" is so great, and its not Kenny, then how come NO ONE on Miami received awards, excuse me Romberg got the obscure award for best center. Gee at 38-1 and if the "team" is so strong they, or someone would be raking it in. No Outland, No Butkus, No Doak Walker, No Walter Camp, nothing. Nothing for the most dominant team in the history of college ball. And to top it off the two UM players finished at the bottom of the HEisman vote!! If this doesn't stink of prejudice, I don't know what does. It sBullsh*t.
Its a sham. Its a crock. Its a media darling game. The media went through it all year, Grossman, then Leftwich, then Seneca Wallace, then Larry Johnson or Carson Palmer. ANYONE but a UM player.
They and all of you can kiss Kenny's narrow, narrow behind. He is the man and he knows it, his team knows it, and deep in the hearts of many they know it. Kenny got screwed.
F ___the Hiesman.:fire: