Crazy Patriot Guy

I read the other day that Vince Young was interviewed back in June on 60 minutes (it hasn't been shown yet) and he said that he still feels he should have won the Heisman Trophy. He didn't want to take anything away from Bush but he felt he as deserving of it.

As a UT fan, I agree. He had a fantastic season, as did Bush, but his performance in the Rose Bowl IMO would have made him a runaway winner had the award been given after the game.

We've been through this with Belichick back in 2001. Jauron and the Bears went 13-3 and he was the Coach of the Year. I'm not going to say he didn't deserve it. However, after we won the Super Bowl, some people are calling it one of the greatest coaching performances in NFL history.

There could be a problem though with people putting too much emphasis on the playoffs. Jason Taylor definately deserved the Defensive Player of the Year award in 2006, and while I can't think of a player right up there with him exploding in the playoffs, again, there could be a problem with deserving players getting overlooked because there season ended early.

So what is everyone's opinion?

OntarioPatsFan

I'm not huge on personal accolades, which is why I feel the current system is fine. The only hardware of any concern are those Super Bowl rings, and last I checked those were given out after the playoffs.

I guess that's why they designate a Super Bowl MVP, although perhaps another award like 'Best Playoff Performer' may help recognize those players that were exceptional throughout the playoffs (like Vinatieri in 2001). This could be similar to hockey and the Conn Smythe trophy.

TomBrady'sGoat

No. I already think the postseason and team success receive too much weight when it comes to personal accolades. The awards are specifically for the regular season, during which teams play an equal number of games.

I just don't trust the idiots who vote for such things to properly weight the regular season when they can just fall back on the playoffs. I also hate recency bias.

jbb9s

Obviously its not really fair to allow players on better teams to get more games/exposoure in the post season when the awards are supposed to be eligible to everyone.

However, I do notice the hypicritical aspect of this since college ball switched over a few years back to allow bowl stats to count towards season totals. By the way, does anyone know when they did this and if they went back retroactively to credit all the players previous to the change?