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?
Sports Illustrated's writers are morons (again)
I mean, Rosenberg writes for them, so why shouldn't we question their integrity anymore?
"What have you done for me lately?"--MSM
Someone still reads SI? You sir, are rare indeed.
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.
Don't let it upset you too much. I can think if a lot worse things out there. Denard will perform just fine.
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.
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.
208 more rushing yards is all he needs.
People dont even know if Denard is going to be able to throw the ball. This is fine with me with him being left off the list. I'd be willing to put Gardner ahead of him in terms of excitement level. Denard is am unknown at this point. people still read SI?
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.
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 :-(
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.
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.
daisey. Thanks for correcting that.
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.
I know there are cougars that hunt game cock all the time.
SI or no SI D. Robinson is going to finish strong!
The magazine is good for lining the cage or litter box of a pet. It's thick, and the paper quality is pretty good.
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.
The paper is too glossy and isn't nearly absorbent enough. And frankly I prefer my paper a little softer.
...or they know Al Borges too well?
Arguing about lists on the internet is #1 on my internet list of time-wasters.
#1 Arguing about lists
#2 Tim Tebow
I feel like this is an overly aggressive post.
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.
And decided that track record was not worthy of including in the list.
This year. No one outside of this fanbase has really cared about his season. Hurts to say, but it's true.
Surely you're not impugning the publication that for some reason employs Mike Rosenberg?!?
...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.
Don't worry. Braxton Miller isn't on this list, either.
Fuck you man.
That hurts my feelings and cuts deep. I'll be stewing about this all day now.
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.
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.
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.
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.
to hearing some "Florida" being spoken after the game by Denard as the game's MVP back in his home state.
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.
Denard doesn't need SI's recognition in order to qualify as an exciting player.