Recent Heisman Trophy Winners - Where are they now?

[Random Axe]

Very true about Sampson. I only got to see him in his decline. My dad said Ralph and Bill Walton were the best two college players he ever watched, so I was going by that rave review. He was supposed to be Mr. Universe but had to settle for Mr. Dwarf Planet. I guess there's a whole lot worse he could have done...

[megoat]

I'd also say Manning had a pretty good NBA career--like Sampson he dealt with injuries but still managed 12,000+ career points. I guess it depends on how one defines "impact"....

[madmarva]

BK, I respect your viewpoint and all of this is just opinion anyway. I,m not saying that some if not all the things mentioned in your last post don't get pinned on to the Heisman winner because often Or even always they do. Most of that is because of the incredible popularity of the NFL and the fans' zeal for the next big star, but it is only a byproduct of the award, not its intent. When I was voting, I never considered what type of NFL player the candidates I was considering would be, and I doubt very many other Heisman voters do either because that's not the point of the award.

Now, NFL GMs do take the popularity and noteriety of their draft picks into consideration. A Heisman winner is going to be one of the most notable if not the most notable player coming out of college each year, and theat noteriety can help sell tickets and merchandise in the short run even if the player underachieves the expectations the public or fans place on him.

But winning the Heisman doesn't force NFL GMs to draft a player in the first round or at all. If the GMs make a poor selection, it's their fault not the player or the award.

Again when you vote for the Heisman, you are not voting on who player is going to have the best or most productive pro career. On any given year that's probably going to be some offensive lineman from a directional school that none of us have ever heard of.

It's a vote for the most outstanding college player that year, and it's a very, very subjective choice made by each voter.

I mean Tom Brady wasn't even a Heisman afterthought. Heck, he even split time as a starter at Michigan. He was a sixth-round draft pick. He was a good college player, but he's arguably been the most successful player in the NFL for the past dozen years, depending on how you choose to quantify success.

Tim Tebow is a winner and a great college player from a system that was basically built around his specialized abilities. He was also surrounded by fantastic athletes, who were superior to most of their opponents. Even in a conference as strong and deep as the SEC normally is, the talent disparity between apex programs like Florida was with Myers as coach and when Tebow was there, and the middle of the pack programs is much greater than between the best and worst teams in an NFL division.

Florida's entire offense was built to create advantages that Tebow could exploit. He was the Gator short-yardage runner, that's why he scored allnthose touchdowns,mwhich was the prime reason he beat out Arkansas' Darren McFadden for the award. McFadden is another exceptional college player who has struggled in the NFL. NFL defenses would crush an offensive gameplan so singularly focused as florida's was under Myer, but college teams, which are limited to 20 hours of practice and playing time a week, not only get away with such tactics, but they can ride it to a national title, see Auburn and Cam Newton.

While the college and pro games are both football, the circumstances in which they are played make them very, very different, which is why the Heisman isn't a reliable predictor for NFL success in my mind.

And I think the argument translates to basketball, too.

You take a player like Michigan State's Mateen Cleeves from several years back. He had a journeyman at best career in the NBA, but there was no doubt he was the MVP of the Spartans national title run.

I witnessed Arkansas'' Corliss Williamson and Scotty Thurman abuse North Carolina's Jerry Stackhouse and Rasheed Wallace in the semifinals of th 1995 Final Four, but Thurman didn't get a cup of coffee in the NBA and while Stackhose and Wallace may have not lived up to their NBA expectations, their careers were better than Williamson's.

Admittedly, I view sports from a college vantage point. To me college sports is an end unto itself, not a stepping stone to the professional ranks.

But going back to Scott's original point, Heisman winners haven't been as productive in the NFL as one would likely expect. It could be viewed as a predictor of under achievement based on how inflated expectations can become.

[jacsfc]

it is a college award as are many other football performance college awards. To diminish their meaning because some one does not excel at the next level is ridiculous. Have you ever won an award or trophy for something you excelled at? It would be BS for someone else to come in and basically say it is worthless or meaningless beacuse your life or career went in a different direction. Awards and trophies are about how you performed at the time not based on everything you are going to do in the future.

But with all the Fame, Fortune, Draft Pick Placement, and Ultimately Cash that's Involved for Winning Such an Award .... I think it's Silly to Just call this a College Award. People get Rich, and are promised to be "Somebody" Because of this. They Need to be something in the NFL, If they Win this.... or forever be considered a Joke.

[toys2cool]

Plus you guys have to keep in mind..That some teams know those players may not be all that good but drafting them will bring fans in, cause the fans expect them to duplicate what they did in college in the NFL.....So it's a money thing too, Just look at how much money Denver and NY made from Tebow jerseys and memorabilia alone

[megomania]

But going back to Scott's original point, Heisman winners haven't been as productive in the NFL as one would likely expect. It could be viewed as a predictor of under achievement based on how inflated expectations can become.

Maybe if you only look at the list he posted which starts at 2001. But like I said before - go back to the mid-70s through the late 90s. Most of the winners were RBs who had very productive and in some cases HOF careers. The award became a joke when QBs who had no pro potential started winning because college offenses changed from ground games to the air raid offense or designing offenses to fit their QBs specific limited skills. NFL teams don't run gimmicky college offenses and the QBs just cannot keep up. Again, Tebow is the primary example. As you stated he played in a college system that was tailored to his skills - mostly running the veer/read option - and now he can't get on the field in the NFL.

-Chris

[madmarva]

Oh yeah, as far as underachievement or perceived underachievement, I was merely referring to Scott's list.

Three of my all-time favorite NFL runners were Tony Dorsett, Earl Campbell and Marcus Allen who all won the Heisman, but I also enjoyed watching Walter Payton, Erik Dickerson and John Riggins, who never sniffed the award, but were fine college players and arguably even better in the NFL.

I think the disconnect started to occur in the 1990s when the NCAA began limiting the amount of practice time for college teams. At one time coaches worked teams until they got it; no matter how long it took.

I was just a kid, but I was watching an Arkansas practice, when my brother was a graduate assistant there, and had the team had been out there about and hour, but I very distinctly remember Lou Holtz cussing and throwing a hissy fit, blowing his whistle and then starting practice all over again. He sent the team back to the locker room, made them come out and go through agility drills and calisthenics again and then start practice from the beginning. They had to turn the lights on in the stadium to finish the workout that started at 3:30.

With the limits placed on meeting and practice time, there is not as much time for coaching and repetitions and learning and polishing as their once was. That along with the changes made to blocking rules in the late 1970s has led to college offenses and defenses to be more limited.

Organizational skills are even more important for college coach now. The staff which can squeeze the most out of the time with the players is going to have a better prepared team.

The time limits are also a factor in why so many of the high-octane offensive teams in college are relatively weak on defense. The practices are structured more around the offenses' needs than the defenses'. And why more defensive-oriented teams tend to have more vanilla offenses.

Reporters here at Arkansas learned from defensive players this fall that Bobby Petrino wouldn't allow them to make plays on the football in the air during skeleton passing and full-team drills because it messed up the timing of his quarterback with his receivers. Before Petrino was fired, the players never would have said that to reporters, but with Petrino out after his ill-fated motorcycle ride into a ditch with his mistress, they felt free to talk. No wonder Petrino's defenses don't play the ball very well in the air.

[ScottA]

Looks like you have to be a QB or a RB.