|
Post by Vtech on Nov 24, 2008 17:12:29 GMT -6
William Moore-63 tackles 6 for a loss 6 ints 3 forced fumbles 1 fumble recovery 2 defensive tds
James lauranitis-67 tackles 7 for a loss 1 sack 4 ints 2 forced fumbles
Anthony Scirrotto-53 tackles 5 for a loss 2 sacks 10 ints 4 tds
|
|
|
Post by spn1012 on Nov 24, 2008 19:03:38 GMT -6
Not that it matters, but Laurenitis only has 8 games of stats. I voted for Scirrotto.
|
|
|
Post by Vtech on Nov 24, 2008 21:44:55 GMT -6
i'm not voting for scirrotto just to break the monotany
|
|
|
Post by Rolle on Nov 24, 2008 22:01:41 GMT -6
i think if people would have known that was 8 games of stats it may have been different....i almost voted for little animal anyway
|
|
|
Post by Thurman Murman on Nov 24, 2008 22:02:47 GMT -6
67 tackles in 8 games? impressive. but voted for scirrotto anyways, he had nice numbers as well and he isnt a 99 overall like laurinatis is
|
|
|
Post by D-Will on Nov 24, 2008 22:04:20 GMT -6
i only had 10 games... didnt get to play USC and someone didnt enter a game of stats
|
|
|
Post by spn1012 on Nov 24, 2008 22:28:40 GMT -6
67 tackles in 8 games? impressive. but voted for scirrotto anyways, he had nice numbers as well and he isnt a 99 overall like laurinatis is Yes. Because he is a 99 and a great player he probably shouldn't win awards. I gave up giving any thought to these awards a while ago because the voting is a joke. Idiotic reasoning like that makes these awards a complete joke. Side note: I don't think Laurenitis should win the award. I just get a kick out of the reasoning people won't vote for certain players. When I rushed for 1400 yards and had 22 (or more) TDs with Beanie Wells Thurman wouldn't vote for him because I helped Jim out with some money to get Ohio State. The bottom line is the stats and how a player played during the season don't mean much when it comes to how people vote for these awards.
|
|
|
Post by Thurman Murman on Nov 24, 2008 22:40:52 GMT -6
well if a player has the same stats as another player, yet one player is rated a lot more than the other, than that shows that the lesser rated player has some more stick skills because he had to make up for not being that good of a player. i didnt vote for beanie that time cuz i felt that paying for a football team is not what the COFL stands for or what it should be.
|
|
|
Post by spn1012 on Nov 24, 2008 22:44:55 GMT -6
So the voting is based on "stick skills" and the "moral values" of a 14 year old...interesting. Here I was voting for the players that had the best season. But again, like I said, that isn't how the voting works and that's what makes these awards have no value to me and they don't have any credibility.
I can just see the Heisman voting in real life saying "he's a little too skilled as a player so I voted for the worse player because he had to work harder to have a good season". LOL
|
|
|
Post by Rolle on Nov 24, 2008 22:45:49 GMT -6
i kind of agree with spn, i think alot of it is a popularity contest, i think people should vote based on stats and if two players had similar stats and one player abused your team more than the other then u vote for them
|
|
|
Post by Thurman Murman on Nov 24, 2008 22:49:50 GMT -6
well the cofl will never be like real life and we all have the same amount of say and the same amount of power when it comes to this. voting is not determind on what i say as a 15 YEAR OLD....but what most of the league thinks. why shouldnt stick skills be put into the voting? or maybe i vote for kent against vtech and hokie cuz they have had so many awards before that itd be cool just to see someone that doesnt win awards like those guys to actually win one. if the awards dont have any value to you then why are you talking about them and arguing with me about them?
|
|
|
Post by spn1012 on Nov 24, 2008 22:54:36 GMT -6
Who is arguing? I am telling you why they have no credibility to me.
It just sucks because having awards would be one thing that separates a league from just playing lobby games to determine playoff seedings then playing for a championship.
|
|
|
Post by Thurman Murman on Nov 24, 2008 22:55:20 GMT -6
i kind of agree with spn, i think alot of it is a popularity contest, i think people should vote based on stats and if two players had similar stats and one player abused your team more than the other then u vote for them i can agree with you that i also look at who hurt me the most when i played them because that is the biggest insight that you hae on how they played and everything. spiller was big against me and murray wasnt, so i voted for spiller.
|
|
|
Post by Vtech on Nov 25, 2008 6:35:46 GMT -6
thurman so what your saying is David Carr should have won the heisman a few years ago not Carson Palmer because Palmer was the better player? Voting for these awards is a joke..If a 99 rated player puts up the best numbers then he should win. if you wanna think like that than Harvin, Maclin, or Holiday should NEVER win because they are faster than everyone on the field.
|
|
|
Post by djcali1914 on Nov 25, 2008 8:36:13 GMT -6
10 picks in one season is a great feat.
|
|
|
Post by hokie on Nov 25, 2008 9:34:43 GMT -6
or maybe i vote for kent against vtech and hokie cuz they have had so many awards before that itd be cool just to see someone that doesnt win awards like those guys to actually win one. When was the last time I won an award? I think the last time I was even up for one was my first or second season on last year's game. I could give two shits. It's ALL about the rings.
|
|
|
Post by Vtech on Nov 25, 2008 11:04:06 GMT -6
you got plenty of those
|
|