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.
Right, because Peyton Manning never did anything like lead multiple comebacks, play great against a huge rival, win a Super Bowl or earn multiple MVPs. What a loser amiright??? /s
Broncos OL were pretty bad and Peyton made them look world beaters
Have quick releases allowing their lines to look good. Brady is more clutch and can do more with less though. Give him talent and it's not even close. Peyton is on the tv more and Brady is on the model this the public has difficulty being objective particularly when the commentators crawl over themselves to be the first to talk about Peyton's ability to be the coach on the field or bark an Omaha audible. He is great but Brady is better.
Peyton had the high powered offense. But the Colts' (and Broncos) defenses have been typicslly pretty bad backing him up.
Brady for those Super Bowls had a complete team.
ET phone hommmmaaaaaaahhhhhhh....
Probably Google Image's greatest gem.
Man, they set Howard Twilley up for failure in this bracket, didn't they? I remember the thread from yesterday and the ones that I thought might be close were indeed that - Dorsett / Rozier and Woodson / Thomas. I think the trouble for me was voting based on a snapshot and trying to exclude the body of work, but then actually used overall productivity (my opinion of it anyway) to make the determination.
As for Schlabach, as I believe he is a Georgia grad, I can only guess that he is at least pleased that Herschel Walker won comfortably over Tim Tebow, so there is at leas that.
His stats were impressive especially when he easily outdistanced the next best WRs
Next round winners will be:
First, I agree Vince Young was ONE HELL of a college QB. Fair or not, Woodson's pro career vs. Young's may impact some voters though (Packer fans, Raider fans, etc.).
I don't like to listen to Schlabach talk. He always sounds like he'd be rather talking about something else, like he has to work to get the words out.
The bigger the moment, the better Chuck played. Just the opposite for Peyton Manning. That was the difference in the Heisman race.
Did you realise that Mark Schlabach only exists because people are looking at articles and tweets written under the name "Mark Schlabach"?
Let's do our best to ensure that Mark Schlabach no longer exists, and stop linking to Mark Schlabach and other people (let's call them "Sharpians") who write/say outrageously stupid things just because that is the only way for mediocrities to become successful.
The age old song and dance. When in need of web clicks to drive ad revenue, publish ANYTHING controversial about the University of Michigan.
The only defensive player to ever win the Heisman says something about Woodson.
And about Manning, yeah he put up some great stats and had some great seasons at UT, but he seemed to always fall short of the "big one." To my recollection, he never beat Florida in his 4 years there. Woodson came alive and was at his best on the biggest stage. Without him, we don't win the national title.
Another example of the media saying anything to generate clicks and rile up fanbases. Whatever gets people talking about you, Schlabach.
The guy did have 27 sacks that year. That's damn impressive, but my maize and blue blood does not allow me to vote for any one but Woodson.
D linemen get to rush the QB every play. If you're dominant at that position, you're going to put up big numbers. Teams didn't even throw at Woodson by and large and he still found ways to show he was the best player on the field.
But hardly any heisman voters seemed to care. He wasn't even the top defensive vote-getter that season. That DB from Florida State who sang "must be the money" finished several spots ahead of DT.
/Begins typing snarky comment about how terrible his son is at baseball..
//Realizes it's Schlabach and not Schlereth...
///Wonders who the fuck Mark Schlabach is...
I voted for 3 of 4 matchups. I refuse to choose between Manziel and Newton. I loathe both of them despite each having terrific college careers. Being a Browns fan makes it even worse because Manziel isn't going away soon.
Even if you love in Indy!
that makes sense. .but...
get with the program! you can't hate (errr... dislike) Tom Brady. not even ok.
I've never been a big fan of his or any quarterback in the NFL for that matter. I think they are all just as bad as NBA players crying foul after every play. Every time a QB gets hit he throws his hands up wondering where the penalty is, it's sad and annoying, and Brady has probably been one of the worst at doing it.
Being that he is the Patriots poster bot, it isn't hard to figure out.
The only primarily defensive player to ever win the Heisman. Ever. Woodson was one of the greatest college football players of all time. That year he played defense, offense, and special teams with 8 picks on the year. Get a clue!
2 shits about Mark Whoeverthehell that is.
eff that guy..mark, whoever.
His last name's overuse of the combination of Cs and Hs
Heisman winners lead their teams to national championships.
Runners up watch their old team win the national championship the year after they leave.
Woodson was 1st in the Northeast, Mid-Atlantic, Southwest, Midwest and Far West regions and Manning was 1st in (surprise!) the South. And that says it all.
Why am I not surprised this somehow became a WAY bigger deal than it should be?
Peyton did totally earn it when he beat Florida and won the Orange Bowl. What's that? He did neither of those things? Oh, ok.
I think you are thinking of Mark Schlerreth (sp), the former Bronco.
He's right--both are "equally ridiculous." They are both equally not ridiculous at all.