Not Gonna Do It

It doesn’t look like the Heisman is in the immediate future for the following players:

Dion Lewis

Ryan Williams

Garrett Gilbert

John Brantley

Noel Devine

Jacory Harris

Christian Ponder

Ricky Dobbs

Some of these guys can still rebound and have great seasons and get some Heisman votes, maybe even get to New York, but to actually win, it would require that a lot of really unlikely things happen.

I’ll break it all down in my pending Heisman Watch for this week.

About Heismanpundit

Chris Huston, A.K.A. ‘The Heisman Pundit‘, is a Heisman voter and the creator and publisher of Heismanpundit.com, a site dedicated to analysis of the Heisman Trophy and college football. Dubbed “the foremost authority on the Heisman” by Sports Illustrated, HP is regularly quoted or cited during football season in newspapers across the country. He is also a regular contributor on sports talk radio and television.

20 Responses to Not Gonna Do It

  1. Anonymous September 13, 2010 at 4:56 am #

    Notice how HP hasn’t written off any Pac 10 losers?

  2. Floridan September 13, 2010 at 5:53 am #

    I think you might as well add Mark Ingram to that list.

  3. philnotfil September 13, 2010 at 6:54 am #

    “Notice how HP hasn’t written off any Pac 10 losers?”

    The only Pac 10 player on HP’s Heisman candidate list is Andrew Luck. Why would HP write him off, he’s been doing what he is supposed to be doing. (185 QBB rating, 6 TDs, no INTs)

  4. anymass September 13, 2010 at 9:10 am #

    Noel Devine, is not in the same category as the rest of these guys, mark ingram should take his place on this list

    • Heismanpundit September 13, 2010 at 10:36 am #

      Oh, I’ve already counted Ingram out before the season even began. As for Devine, his only chance of winning was to gain 2,000 yards probably and he ain’t gonna do that by barely breaking 100 against Marshall.

  5. Leland September 13, 2010 at 10:46 am #

    While I agree that Garrett Gilbert doesn’t have the Heisman in his immediate future, I’m trying to remember where Sam Bradford was after his first two starts of his Heisman year.

    Garrett has two “medium attention” games coming up to start to get noticed then he has two Top 10 teams to put him in contention (if he’s going to be in contention at all).

    Let’s see what the word is five weeks from now.

  6. Heismanpundit September 13, 2010 at 11:34 am #

    Well, BRadford was already coming off a season in which he led the nation in pass efficiency. THen, he started out his next year with a highly-efficient warm up against Chattanooga and then a 5 TD, 395 yard performance against a ranked Cincinnati team. So, Bradford was definitely starting to make waves. Gilbert hasn’t been bad, but for him to start an unlikely campaign, he needed a hot start.

  7. Anonymous September 13, 2010 at 1:34 pm #

    Phil -

    Several players listed as out of it weren’t among HP’s top 10:
    Dion Lewis
    Garrett Gilbert
    Ricky Dobbs

    Several Pac 10 players have been listed as potential winners:
    8. Jacquizz Rodgers
    10. Jake Locker
    13. LaMichael James
    14. Andrew Luck
    Matt Barkley (HP’s favorite dark-horse candidate)

    I just think it’s funny that HP has eliminated 2, 3, 4, 7 and 9, but somehow lower ranked Pac 10 candidates that have lost games or been arrested for beating the crap out of their girlfriends are still viable candidates.

    If you’re going to eliminate John Brantley and Noel Devine for lack of production, then why is Jacquizz Rodgers still in the mix?

    If you’re going to eliminate Christian Ponder for losing to #7 Oklahoma, then why is someone who lost to unranked BYU still being considered?

  8. HP September 13, 2010 at 2:34 pm #

    Who said Rodgers is still in the mix? Not me.

    And for you to say that Barkley is my dark horse is just you flat out making things up.

    Your whining is getting old.

  9. Anonymous September 13, 2010 at 8:11 pm #

    HP, you’re just contradicting yourself:

    1. If Rodgers is not in the mix after being one of your favorites then why didn’t you include him in your “Not Gonna Do It” article?

    2. On July 29th you put Barkley at #1 on your list of 10 dark horse candidates to win. Now you say Barkley wasn’t #1 on this list.

  10. AUman76 September 13, 2010 at 10:51 pm #

    Hummm….seems SumJuan got sum splainin 2do.HP ring a bell? lol By the way, it’s too early to even seriously talk about individual awards. Yeah I know that’s the main reason this place is here but no real winner after week two.

  11. HP September 13, 2010 at 11:48 pm #

    Anonymous:

    1. Oregon STate didn’t play this week. All the guys I erased today played this week.

    2. Of course you are lying all over the place. That list with Barkley on top was a list of guys who specifically would NOT win because they would not have the year needed to compete for the Heisman. What part of that do you not understand?

    If you are going to keep this nonsense going, I will just start deleting your comments.

  12. Heismanpundit September 14, 2010 at 2:33 am #

    Oh, I almost forgot that three posts below this, I noted that Locker and Rodgers’ Heisman hopes had been busted by the Mountain West.

    Still wanna play?

  13. Anonymous September 14, 2010 at 6:29 am #

    So the reason you didn’t include any of the Pac 10 guys in your “Not Gonna Do It” list is because you forgot you had eliminated them 4 days earlier? That might make sense if you hadn’t remembered the only guy in your article about the MWC that wasn’t from the Pac 10.

    But let’s set aside the fact that you never said anyone in your MWC article couldn’t win and let’s set aside the implications of your selective 4 day memory. Let’s even forget your denials that Matt Barkley was your #1 dark horse candidate.

    Now you’re saying:
    Jake Locker can’t win.
    Jacquizz Rodgers can’t win.
    Matt Barkley can’t win.

    Correct? If not, I still wanna play.

  14. Anonymous September 14, 2010 at 7:19 am #

    HP -

    “2. Of course you are lying all over the place. That list with Barkley on top was a list of guys who specifically would NOT win because they would not have the year needed to compete for the Heisman. What part of that do you not understand?”

    Now you say your “dark horses” couldn’t possibly win. I don’t think that term means what you think it means. But if that’s what you thought, why did you move Barkley from dark horse to your top 10 after 1 game? Once again you’re contradicting yourself.

    Perhaps you ought to reread your dark horse article:
    You said these players needed “especially strong statistical years… but if any of them happen to do so–look out.”

    These are real contradictions and I think your inability to face these undermines your credibility.

  15. Anonymous September 14, 2010 at 8:21 am #

    Correction: Matt Barkley never made the jump from dark horse to front runner in your personal view (unless you voted for him in your Heisman Poll). It was your Heisman Poll where he made the top 10.

    But I maintain dark horses have a chance and that’s what you said in the article.

  16. HP September 14, 2010 at 9:09 am #

    I wrote that they could win the Heisman if they have big seasons, but they won’t.

    By saying that “they won’t”, how much more clear can I be that it was a list of players who WON’T win but who have natural advantages in the race anyway?

    Get a clue.

  17. HP September 14, 2010 at 9:13 am #

    Again, I never commented on Barkley because he was never on my Watch to begin with.

    With regards to Locker and Rodgers, I consider their races busted, though I didn’t reserve for them a special post since their issues happened in week one rather than week two.

    There are no contradictions. Period. You think there is some sort of Pac-10 bias even though I have exactly one Pac-10 player in my Watch.

  18. Anonymous September 14, 2010 at 9:49 am #

    HP said: “I wrote that they could win the Heisman if they have big seasons, but they won’t.”

    Here’s the title: “10 Players Who Could Become Serious Heisman Candidates If They Have Big Years (But they probably won’t)”

    Yes you did use the word won’t… but the word you now deliberately omit is PROBABLY. And that was all in parentheses after you say they could!

Trackbacks/Pingbacks

  1. horse riding? - September 16, 2010

    [...] Not Gonna Do It | Heismanpundit [...]