At press time, Harbaugh had sent Michigan’s athletic department an envelope containing a heavily annotated seating chart, a list of the 63,000 seat views he had found unsatisfactory, and a glowing 70-page report on section 25, row 12, seat 9, which he claimed is “exactly what the great sport of football is all about.”
Mark Schlabach Questions Charles Woodson's Heisman Season
I need to know what my appropriate level of annoyance should be. In your snark, we're you trying to belittle my post or my intelligence, Mr. SpicyWeiner? Because either way it's going to ruin my day completely, seeing how much your input means to me.
Maybe don't ask for "thoughts" if you're going to get all sensitive about things.
I'd say someone questioning whether or not your Heisman winning season was worthy is somewhat of an insult. As for my personal feelings, it neither puts money in, or takes it out of my pocket, so I have no sensitivity to it.
He asked for my thoughts. Haha. I've noticed that in Mgoblog, the person who gives the first snarky insult is defended, and the 2nd guy is almost always negged. Not a derogatory statement to anyone, because I find most people on here quite enjoyable, just an observation. As evidence, this will also get negged heavily.
because voldemort is evil duh
Don't say his name, Harry!
1.) You bit on someone's (in this case, Schlabach's) obvious flamebait
2.) You broadcasted to the MGoCommunity that you bit on someone's (in this case, Schlabach's) obvious flamebait and then asked for our thoughts.
3.) Someone on the internet shockingly posted some snark directed towards your handling of the subject.
4.) You took it personally.
5.) When someone pointed this out to you, you doubled down on your initial feelings instead of admitting that you took something way too personally.
6.) You proceeded to proclaim that it is a problem with the community and that you've done nothing wrong and then fire off a bunch of pouty comments.
Look, I don't know you personally and you've contributee some nice stuff before, but I will swear on my life that I have witnessed you go through the above process at least twice before on this board. Just stop taking stuff so personally and avoid the flamebait articles.
I did post a "fuck you" kitten to a person in my position, so I suppose I'm guilty as well. As to your overall message, I likely did respond defensively, but it's more because I was annoyed by the poster's response. I think my overall point is true, however, even if I am guilty. I do apologize to the community if I offended anyone, as it was not my intention.
Forgot to add: I honestly wasn'y trying to link anyone to an espn article. My problem was with his statement, not the voting. To me, the voting was irrelevant; point taken, though.
So many negs for a snark response to a snark response; Democracy is alive and well.
Hey be thankful you didn't assure us of a recruit's decision to attend our program which ended up not happening. As they say it could be worse.
May I use it and claim it as my own?
Meh, whatever. Michigan fans like to vote and skew online polls like this, so whatever. It'll be interesting to see how the Woodson/Michigan fan base v. V. Young/Texas fan base vote works out.
against Texas, MSU and OSU and probably others.
might side with us....although I don't know if Oklahoma has internet yet.
Schlabach is a Georgia grad, so he probably still needs some Preparation H for the imagined slight against the SEC.
This guy works for ESPN right? I think he needs the H for more than that.
The folks who have the votes already voted. Its a snapshot in history and this snapshot has Charles holding the trophy. Sounds like Mr Schlabach is just trolling on a large scale.
Translation: CLICK HERE IT WILL MAkE YOU ANGRY TELL YOUR FRIENDS CLICK HERE!!!
But it was the way he wrote it in which I found insulting.
These are the same people who had a staff poll- not an internet fan poll mind you, a sportswriter poll- that determined that UCLA was a better producer of NFL talent than Michigan was. UCLA...
the Michigan/UCLA connection...
I don't know who this guy is, nor do I care what he tweets. Anyways, Peyton lost the games that counted most that season.
Barry Sanders, Vince Young, Johnny Football, and Charles Woodson are going to fair better in these polls because most people that visit ESPN will actually remember their seasons.
Why even dignify it, totally for hits.
Woodson was a rare force on defense, offense, and special teams. Whatever the play was, he made it. Period, end of discussion.
If THIS guy likes you, it's actually more of an insult than it is a compliment:
that's old; now he's got 30 extra pounds and 30% less hair.
Gets the point across though, no? You'd be hard pressed to find a more objectively punchable face in sports. I mean... Skip Bayless and Colin Cowherd both approach that level of punchability, but if I'm staying objective, Schlabach blows them out of the water. He looks like a hemmorhoidal political talk show host.
mark schlabach gets in a "woodson over manning" potshot in virtually every article or chat he does. his entire career is based on criticizing woodson's heisman. he's an esssssssseeeeeeeesssseeeeee homer and basically intolerable. stop reading him.
woodson belongs way higher than manziel or newton.
however, i had a hard time voting for woodson over vince young. that season was incredible, from a stats and aesthetic standpoint.
agreed, the seeding seems off on several of those including chuck. woodson was incredible and no one can ever take away that season / career, nor the impact its had on the university and game in general. and i think he 100% deserved his heisman - id just have a hard time voting for his over some others. its always so tough to compare generations / eras when debating these types of exercises, but doesnt mean sports junkies do not try!.
in modern "internet" era, newtown and manziel both had pretty amazing single seasons - not many could top manziel who had like 5500 yds and 50 TDs while his team shocked many. but its tough to compare those type dudes across generations / eras to derrick thomas and barry sanders. thomas racked up 27 sacks in sec in 12 games and during different era, not many teams were spread out and throwing 30-50 times/game...thats crazy...clowney had writers blowing him with 15 sacks...sure clowney killed the combine but thomas was the real freak. and what needs to be said about barry other than best RB ever...the mute assassin had almost 3000 yds and 40 TDs, wow. id say those are 4 most impressive single seasons (newton easily #4)
Idiocy > michigan fans angery > more clicks > profit
It's posting this crap that is feeding the monster.
because no amount of whining will ever change it. When someone whines to you about it just say "No, Woodson won because he's awesome and Peyton sucked!" and watch them turn purple as you walk away laughing maniacally
Woodson's not giving the trophy back. Schlabach can go fuck himself with a rusty pitchfork. End.
Schlabach is ready to party!
If Peyton wanted a Heisman Trophy so badly he should've beaten Florida.
you cant spell "Citrus" without "UT"
What idiots like Schlabach fail to recognize is not just Woodson's statistics, but the fact that Woodson took the word CLUTCH and made it his own that year. He came up with huge play after huge play at just the right time in some very close games including Ohio and the Rose Bowl.
Every position on the field has a certain relative expected contribution rate. For example - the expected contribution of a punter toward a team's success is a far cry from that of the QB. An RB or blitzin LB who sees action to minimum 50% of run plays not to mention sack opportunities at 100% of pass plays, will also have a higher expected contribution than any CB, especially when offenses may choose not to throw in that CB's direction.
What Woodson did from the CB position that year (and punt returns/WR, but still predominantly from CB) was arguably the most disproportionate contribution relative to expected contribution toward a team's success from one position in the history of college football.
And that is why he won the Heisman over Manning.
So Schlabach can suck it.
I'm sure he's real upset about what some dweeb on twitter thinks.
Who is this guy, anyway?
I question Mark Schlabach's question.
I was always under the impression it went to college footballs MVP an with that said how can u he wasn't the MVP on the best team that year
Peyton Manning is a great quarterback who crumbles under pressure (2014 Super Bowl) while Charles Woodson is a great cornerback who shines under pressure (1997 OSU, 1998 Rose Bowl, and a Super Bowl champion). Charles Woodson has been a better player who makes better plays since he started playing for us in 1995. I can't think of a single achievement that Peyton has earned that Woodson can't top. This is not a debate, Woodson has always been a better football player.