I’m playing my NCAA Football for Xbox on Dynasty mode, and thanks to a bit of a quirk with how the offensive line won’t pick up the LOLB, I get in for at least five sacks per game with the guy. The highest for him in one game has been 12. For such a ridiculously Herculean feat, he’s at the top of the Heisman list in the game, and it got me thinking.
Has a defensive player ever won the Heisman? It’s almost always QBs, backs, and the occasional receiver. But what about on the other side of the ball?
As far as I know, there haven’t been any defensive winners, although I think back until the 50s, the players may have played both ways.
As for nominees, there have been a couple of defensive nominees in recent history- I remember a linebacker a while ago that was one of the top nominees for his year (Cornelius Bennett maybe?)
So it’s not unheard of that defensive players get recognized. And, FWIW, although the Lombardi Trophy is supposedly for the best lineman, it’s almost always a defensive player, and usually a linebacker at that. So they have their award.
<hijack>
I think O linemen get screwed myself. It’s one of the most mentally and physically demanding set of positions on the field, and everybody assumes they’re big and stupid and skill-less, when in fact, most “skill” players would have a hard time remembering the blocking scheme and just lasting out the game under the conditions they play under.
He didn’t win solely because of his defensive skills. The Heisman voters were thinking of him as a kick returner even more than as a defensive back or receiver. If he had stuck to defense and not returned kicks, he wouldn’t have even come close to the Heisman. The voters simply don’t pay enough attention to defense.
The Outland Trophy is the D-I award given to the best interior lineman, which can be either O-Line or D-Line.
As an offensive lineman myself, I can vouch for the fact that it does take a lot of skill and brains to play the O-line positions. Basically, 5 guys (sometimes 6 or 7 if we have a tight end or two in the game) have to know the play, the defensive formation, and the blocking scheme, and act as a single unit, often being able to communicate more then 1 or two words to each other if we’re lucky. The techniques will generally be similar, yet subtly different for each man along the line. You hit somebody on every single play, whereas QBs and recievers may only get hit 2-5 times during a game (although I certainly wouldn’t want to be a QB when he gets hit from the blindside). I don’t generally feel a whole lot of pain during the game (too much emotion and adreneline, I suppose), but the next day or two can be pretty rough.
In my college days, the O-line group had the highest average GPA on the entire team. The running backs, IIRC, had the lowest.
Charles Woodson is an odd case. Yes, he was primarily a cornerback, and a very good one- but he probably wouldn’t have won the Heisman if he hadn’t been a receiver and kick returner, too.
That said, his stats as a receiver weren’t particularly impressive. He didn’t have that many catches or TDs as a receiver.
However, he DID have the good fortune to have his most productive offensive day against Ohio State on national TV, while Peyton Manning (the odds-on favorite that year) had the misfortune to play his worst game against Florida on national TV.
When the Heisman is at stake, the main thing frequently isn’t your stats. Rather, since most voters only get to see the top contenders on television twice or three times each season, the crucial thing is to put up big numbers in those few big, nationally televised games.
A Texas quarterback who puts up great numbers all season, but throws 4 picks against Oklahoma is pretty much finished as a Heisman candidate. On the other hand, a Florida State quarterback who puts up decent numbers in 10 games, but burns Miami for 6 touchdown passes will jump to the top of the list.
More specifically, the Heisman means best QB or RB on a team that’s within sniffing distance of a national title. See this past season, when the five finalists all played for USC, Oklahoma, or Utah, all undefeated in the regular season. See also the previous year, when some of ESPN’s talking haircuts said Philip Rivers shouldn’t have been considered because his team had four losses.
I’ve heard other people say equivalent statements regarding the required intelligence to play running back. Basically, that while you obviously do not have to be stupid to play running back, it is the position that requires the least intelligence. Although there is a lot of talk about it being a skill position, in the end it is really the position requiring the most “primitive” raw ability (basically relating to intrinsic “flight or fight” responses), and the least learned knowledge to play well.
I’ve heard that’s why a rookie running back can often simply be plugged into NFL teams, and why youth is so much more important than experience at that position. In the end, however glorified, it is basically “find the hole and run for your life.”
I’ve likewise heard that’s why you see offensive linemen playing into their late 30s (the opposite effect).
I just like to watch athletes perform, however, lord forbid I actually come close to some sort of athletic endeavor myself. What are your thoughts as a player?