Sports Illustrated's writers are morons (again)
So SI has released a gallery of who they feel will be the 35 most exciting players to watch this bowl season (LINK) and while there are some predictable names (such as Johnny Football at #1) they make one enormous glaring omission. Denard is nowhere on the list. It is going to be his final college football game and he'll have had a month to heal from his elbow injury. I have no idea what criterion they used for their list, but if Alabama's center can make it, how the hell did Denard not make the cut? Seriously, a center is more exciting than Denard's final game. What morons SI has on their staff, huh?
December 20th, 2012 at 1:27 PM ^
I mean, Rosenberg writes for them, so why shouldn't we question their integrity anymore?
December 20th, 2012 at 11:03 AM ^
"What have you done for me lately?"--MSM
December 20th, 2012 at 11:02 AM ^
Someone still reads SI? You sir, are rare indeed.
December 20th, 2012 at 11:05 AM ^
At least you can navigate their website, I bought Insider for 3 years just for TomVH, and anytime I navigate off WolverineNation I end up clicking on 4 seperate pages just for 1 effing article Home page>NFL>ESPN Chicago>Article.
December 20th, 2012 at 11:04 AM ^
December 20th, 2012 at 11:06 AM ^
The reality is, outside the view of maize and blue tainted glasses, Denard has not been a huge offensive force this year in terms of producing at the level he is hyped to. We can clearly debate the issues surrounding that (scheme, interior line issues, injury, etc). Fact is we've had a number of low scoring games this year, some TO issues, and more recently Gardner seems to be supplanting Denard. Denard's injury may also not be fully healed in that it may require surgery and he is pushing it off until after the bowl.
It's not exactly a grevious oversight.
December 20th, 2012 at 11:07 AM ^
he hasn't been the offensive beast we've come to love from the past two seasons, but the gallery is for exciting players. He's still exciting to watch, even with his lower production, because you never know when something special will happen. He broke a beauty against OSU and had that ankle-breaker vs Iowa, so he's still exciting to watch. I hope he gives us a few final highlights to close out his career for us.
December 20th, 2012 at 11:10 AM ^
208 more rushing yards is all he needs.
December 20th, 2012 at 11:12 AM ^
December 20th, 2012 at 11:06 AM ^
My guess is he was left off the list due to the uncertainty of where--and for how long--he'll be on the field. Not saying I agree with SI but I don't think it's completely egregious either.
2¢
December 20th, 2012 at 11:06 AM ^
I ain't mad at 'em. They know not what they do.
In all seriousness, i don't care what they think is exciting... I'll be really sad to see him go :-(
December 20th, 2012 at 11:07 AM ^
at the list, I was thinking they are most likely looking at the players who will be looked at highly from NFL teams. After looking at the list, I agree, SI writers are morons. How can you not put Denard on the list?!
Even if he doesnt play QB, you have to put him on here. Sucks for them, now he is going to torch some game cocks and make the nation remember his stuff.
December 20th, 2012 at 11:36 AM ^
We should probably clear this up as we prepare for the Outback Bowl.
A "gamecock" is a fighting rooster, and the source of the team name for the University of South Carolina (Gamecocks).
A "game cock" is a cock (of whatever type) that is, uhm, a bit noisome (i.e., that stinks).
Those are different things.
#boomstinkydickjoked!
≠
December 20th, 2012 at 11:48 AM ^
daisey. Thanks for correcting that.
December 20th, 2012 at 1:04 PM ^
however, game can also be a synonym for lame, so a "game cock" could be one that has some trouble rising to the situation, so to speak.
December 20th, 2012 at 2:28 PM ^
I know there are cougars that hunt game cock all the time.
December 20th, 2012 at 7:03 PM ^
game
adjective
eager and willing to do something new or challenging
So I suppose a game cock is a little bit like an eager beaver.
December 20th, 2012 at 11:07 AM ^
SI or no SI D. Robinson is going to finish strong!
December 20th, 2012 at 11:09 AM ^
The magazine is good for lining the cage or litter box of a pet. It's thick, and the paper quality is pretty good.
December 20th, 2012 at 11:26 AM ^
Sports Illustrated does have some of the key features that make it useful in restrooms too - it is soft, strong and thoroughly absorbent.
Looking at their list, of course, it's interesting - seven QBs, seven RBs, six WRs, and 6 LBs essentially dominate the list. The remainder is a smattering of defensive line and secondary players, and of course, one center.
December 20th, 2012 at 12:09 PM ^
The paper is too glossy and isn't nearly absorbent enough. And frankly I prefer my paper a little softer.
December 20th, 2012 at 6:21 PM ^
TP snob.
December 20th, 2012 at 11:14 AM ^
December 20th, 2012 at 11:28 AM ^
whatyoudidthereisawit.jpg
December 20th, 2012 at 11:14 AM ^
December 20th, 2012 at 11:32 AM ^
...or they know Al Borges too well?
December 20th, 2012 at 11:32 AM ^
Arguing about lists on the internet is #1 on my internet list of time-wasters.
#1 Arguing about lists
#2 Tim Tebow
#3 Facebook
December 20th, 2012 at 11:34 AM ^
December 20th, 2012 at 11:42 AM ^
I may have been a bit aggressive, I guess I was just ticked a Center made the list but our QB didn't. Plus I've been having a craptacular week and I vented a little bit through this. I'll endeavor to not be so angry with future posts.
December 20th, 2012 at 11:50 AM ^
And decided that track record was not worthy of including in the list.
December 20th, 2012 at 11:52 AM ^
December 20th, 2012 at 11:54 AM ^
December 20th, 2012 at 11:54 AM ^
...making list is not an exact science, but it seems like an OK list to me. If I was to put Denard on the list is would be towards the back. He certainly WAS exciting in previous years, but this year he has been fairly absent in this category (with a few exceptions). In fact, he probably has had more bone-headed plays than exciting plays. With that, I hope to see Denard very little at QB in the bowl game because, to be quite frank, he does not put us in the best position to win.
December 20th, 2012 at 11:55 AM ^
Don't worry. Braxton Miller isn't on this list, either.
December 20th, 2012 at 4:33 PM ^
December 20th, 2012 at 12:03 PM ^
That hurts my feelings and cuts deep. I'll be stewing about this all day now.
December 20th, 2012 at 12:11 PM ^
Posts like these truly leave me in amazement at the things that people get upset over. I mean who could possible give two shits over a list a dying publication produced for the sole purpose of generating content and hopefully page hits. Nothing more. It's not like they did exhuastive research on the topic over the past year and published their "top players to watch manifesto" - rather some editor turned to a writer and basically said "I need 1000 words on something to fill up this space over here. Look at the bowls and come up with something" Then, over the next 45 minutes or so the writer probably Google searched each team and found a player to profile. That's about it.
December 20th, 2012 at 12:12 PM ^
but I still prefer Sports Illustrated to ESPN. I think it's a generational thing; folks over 45 prefer print to TV or online material. Always loved Frank DeFord, Dan Jenkins and Paul Zimmerman, among many others.
To respond to your original comment, sadly, few people outside of our fan base pay attention to Denard unless we're seriously winning, and let's be frank, this year has been meh at best. Is it difficult to get excited about a center, or an offensive lineman in general? Sure. But Jones plays for one of the elite teams in the country. And before anyone gets their knickers in a twist, yes, we're still an elite program, but UM just hasn't had a particularly outstanding season this year. If we'd won those games against ND, Nebraska and Ohio, Denard would certainly be on the list.
December 20th, 2012 at 1:46 PM ^
I'm not of that generation, but I agree. I'm no great SI fan, but it's leagues better than ESPN. SI in general (at least in the past), had fairly good quality of writing (referring strictly to the composition, not content) and was never as self-aggrandizing and stupid as ESPN was. Still, both are rightfully falling by the wayside as the centralized-content model of information dissemination slowly dies.
December 20th, 2012 at 7:26 PM ^
...I offer:
http://sportsillustrated.cnn.com/vault/article/magazine/MAG1086154/inde…
Some of the older folks here may recognize that as Louie Jacobs.
I was a ballpark vendor for Sportservice in the 70s; when I went back and read this it was an eye-opener.
December 20th, 2012 at 1:25 PM ^
to hearing some "Florida" being spoken after the game by Denard as the game's MVP back in his home state.
December 20th, 2012 at 4:35 PM ^
Well if you have watched Denard this year and his past bowl performances, why would you put him on this list? Now Devin Gardner deserves to be on it.
December 20th, 2012 at 6:42 PM ^
Denard doesn't need SI's recognition in order to qualify as an exciting player.