Article by College Football News
http://cfn.scout.com/2/597998.html Number 10 and 23 are amazing.
A few other interesting choices on there.
GO BLUE!
Mason NEEDS this, Pistons, after all you've put him through
Support MGoBlog: buy stuff at Amazon
Top 25 Heisman Winners.
December 9th, 2010 at 8:02 PM
#1
Top 25 Heisman Winners.
December 9th, 2010 at 8:18 PM
#2
Cam is 4th....really???
Cam is 4th....really???
Edit: I just looked again and wow someone with no college knowledge whatsoever could have done a better job given the list of winners based solely on their numbers. Besides number 1 it is as if he just grabbed random winners and threw in Cam to make this.
December 9th, 2010 at 8:11 PM
#3
he forgot #98.
he forgot #98.
December 9th, 2010 at 8:08 PM
#4
They must have
calculated how much each school paid each player as a plus or cam and woodson would be flipped.
December 9th, 2010 at 8:08 PM
#5
Fiutakin it to the MAX.
Fiutakin it to the MAX.
December 9th, 2010 at 8:08 PM
#6
Charles Woodson
# 23?! Call me biased, but being the only mainly defensive player to win it is pretty impressive. Shutting down and up Boston like he did was equally impressive.
December 9th, 2010 at 9:36 PM
#7
Your not biased, Pete used a
Your not biased, Pete used a random number generator to derive this list.
December 9th, 2010 at 8:09 PM
#8
you missed it right off the bat
By Pete Fiutak
December 9th, 2010 at 8:11 PM
#9
Cam Newton is overranked
Cam Newton is overranked here. His statistics do not dominate his contemporaries (e.g. Robinson and Martinez), yet alone other Heisman winners.
December 9th, 2010 at 8:37 PM
#10
I'm glad you brought that up.
I'm glad you brought that up. I'm honestly fucking tired of people saying that Cam Newton has had one of the best seasons ever. Am I going crazy? Seriously, what the fuck. I'm 18 years old and know better than the 40 year old 'experts'.
December 9th, 2010 at 10:54 PM
#11
While I agree that he is
While I agree that he is overranked, you still can't deny that he was the best player in football this year and that he did have an incredible year.
December 9th, 2010 at 8:13 PM
#12
Fiutakin it. That is a
Fiutakin it. That is a horribly inaccurate list, even with my maize and blue tinted glasses on.
December 9th, 2010 at 8:20 PM
#13
Take Manning away from
Take Manning away from Tennessee and there's no SEC title.
Thats right, they just needed to wait until Peyton left so they could get Tee Martin in there to actually get the job done.
December 9th, 2010 at 9:02 PM
#14
You can't spell Citrus
You can't spell Citrus without UT.
December 9th, 2010 at 10:17 PM
#15
Take Manning away from the
Take Manning away from the 1997 Heisman presentation and none of the finalists would have been caught crying on camera.
December 9th, 2010 at 8:33 PM
#16
Wow, this article is
Blasphemeous.
December 9th, 2010 at 8:40 PM
#17
This is insane.
This is insane.
December 9th, 2010 at 8:46 PM
#18
I'm so happy he didn't
I'm so happy he didn't include Ingram. Sure he had a good year but there was no way he was the best player last year, that would be Suh and he wasn't even the best RB at the ceremony (Gerhart).
December 9th, 2010 at 9:10 PM
#19
walker
was the most dominating runner i ever saw in college (#5), though #1 barry sanders piled up more stats.
this list is way too "modern" heavy. danny wuerfel really? i don't think he was any better than all those byu QBs who ran a wide open offense.
December 9th, 2010 at 9:13 PM
#20
this article should compete with what brian put on the frontpage
OMG Cam is one of the best ever cos he won it this year! ZOMG!
Cam is maybe the 4th best Heisman winner since 2000.
what a crock of shit.
Edit:
Bush, & Tebow were better for sure.
others are debatable.
December 9th, 2010 at 9:25 PM
#21
Heisman Winners...
won't work in the Big Ten
December 9th, 2010 at 9:45 PM
#22
Pete Fiutak is Stevie
Pete Fiutak is Stevie Janowski.
December 9th, 2010 at 11:50 PM
#23
What do you have to say about this Stevie?
That's pretty insulting comparing him Fiutak.
December 10th, 2010 at 12:08 AM
#24
on another note
December 9th, 2010 at 10:42 PM
#25
Sorry dude. Newton dominates.
He's number 1 in passing efficiency.
He's number 1 in passing+rushing tds, with 8 more than the next guy.
He's 7th in yards passing+yards rushing, which is the worst of these stats, though I tend to rank rushing yards as more important than passing yards.
He's 2nd in yards rushing among QBs.
He has only 6 interceptions. I believe that he has only 1 fumble this year. The NCAA doesn't have that stat on its site, but I think I remember that from the championship game. If I'm wrong let me know.
Knock him for the attempted payday. Dislike him just b/c he's in the SEC. I do. But, you can't let these biases affect the analysis or you're just not credible.
December 9th, 2010 at 11:06 PM
#26
I never understand these
I never understand these lists in relation to Woodson. He is the ONLY primarily defensive player to EVER with the Heisman and I never see him sniff the top 10 lists.
December 10th, 2010 at 12:33 AM
#27
How mch did Cam's daddy
pay to put him on that list?
December 10th, 2010 at 1:49 PM
#28
They have a section on who
They have a section on who the Heisman trophy winners would be if they were picked after the bowl.
http://cfn.scout.com/2/708453.html
In 1991, they have Howard still winning comfortably, though not as big after he had a quiet game against UW. They have UW's DT Emtman coming in 2nd. In 1997, they said that Woodson would have been a slam-dunk after the bowl game.
Can't argue with any of that.
December 10th, 2010 at 6:24 PM
#29
That's one of the dumbest set
That's one of the dumbest set of lists on that topic I have ever seen. Actually, no, that is the dumbest.
Worst Heisman winner by far was Paul Hornung from not just the only losing team to ever have a Heisman winner, but a 2-8 Notre Dame team with 3 TDs and 13 INTs. And winning over Jim Brown, arguably the greatest football player of all time.
How can you not include 1961 Ernie Davis in your top-winners list who was so great that he broke the Heisman color barrier (which robbed Jim Brown just five years earlier.
Just simply poorly done.
