FSU taking it to So. Cal

he may be, he may not be. Brian Brohm throws for almost 300 yards per game and has 17 TDs against only three picks. and he's third in the nation in passing efficiency. I'd say that makes Bush's status as team MVP not quite as definite as you think.

as for the heisman, we've heard this argument before: Best Player vs. most valuable player. The answer is always the same: the award is for the best player. I don't see any argument against Bush being considered one of the top two or three players in the game. You saying USC "isn't that good" even bolsters that point. Just think how good he'd be on a top team.

 

apples and oranges when you compare the two, but yeah, White deserves more publicity and praise than he gets.

 

In good offenses, don't QBs almost always account for more touchdowns than the top running back? The fact that Michael Bush is leading the entire nation in touchdowns despite playing in only nine games (as opposed to USC's 11) is really impressive, and pretty much rules out any argument as to who is the most valuable player for Louisville. Or at least the most valuable offensive player anyway, as Elvis Dumervil is having one hell of a season. But sure, Brohm is great in his own right, he's just clearly having less of an overall impact than Michael Bush (meanwhile you could argue that Matt Leinart is having a better year than Reggie Bush).

And like I said, Reggie Bush is neither. It's either the player having the best season or the most valuable player, but I can't recall the award ever going to a guy just because he was the most talented. Hell, isn't that why Heisman winners routinely fail at the NFL level? But sure, the Fresno State game at least got Bush close enough to the leaders in players having the best season for it not to be a crime that he wins it. He was undeserving before that game, and I'm still pissed that ESPN is basically deciding who gets the trophy, but at least he earned consideration last Saturday.

Not at all. They aren't "that good" because they suck on defense, which has very little to do with Bush. If anything it probably helps him by forcing the offense to stay on the accelerator much longer than they should need to.

 

I wouldn't compare the two, but White's powerful game has shown that Bush's season hasn't exactly been the huge feat. Undoubtedly, both are talented and Bush moreso, but as a Heisman I'm kinda looking to see someone go way above and beyond what other talented players could (or can) do in the same situations.

 

as I said. Reggie Bush is one of the best players in the country and is thus more than worthy of the Heisman hype and consideration. He's one of the top three and definitely better than Michael Bush. take off your stat-head helmet for a minute and you'd agree.

 

Please do not pimp a player on a Big East team for the Heisman.

That is all.

 

It's generally the QB Heisman winners that suck. RB's do pretty well as a whole.

 

We're quibbling over semantics, but you're continuing to phrase that incorrectly. What matters is whether or not Reggie Bush is having one of the best seasons in the country, and after the Fresno State game, he is. Prior to that, he wasn't. But being "one of the best players" doesn't mean anything regarding the Heisman if you're talking about talent and not production. And no, he isn't having a better season statistically or more important to his team than Michael Bush.

Ron Dayne and Rashaan Salaam thank you for the vote of confidence (although Ricky Williams and Eddie George were both productive). But sure, their record isn't as embarrassingly bad as that of Heisman-winning quarterbacks.

 

That's why I said as a whole there Einstein. And didn't Salaam tear acls in consecutive years?

 

Reggie Bush is having one of the best seasons in the country, and after the Fresno State game, he is. Prior to that, he wasn't

so one game changes him from not having one of the best seasons in country to having one of the best seasons in the country? hmm