In coming up with a criteria for a superlative game, I tried to be fair. I don’t think anyone would argue that a QB who passes for more than 300 yds in a game has had less than a superlative game. Some might quibble and want to include turnover stats and say 300 yds passing doesn’t mean anything if you throw 3 INTs, but since I don’t think comparing turnover numbers between QBs and RBs is fair (as I noted before, one touches the ball 35-40 times a game, the other touches it every play), I disregarded turnovers.

Now, the problem with insisting only 300 yd passing efforts is superlative is that there are dual-threat QBs who can have phenomenal games while not breaking the 300 yds passing threshold. For example, I think everyone on here would agree that Vince Young’s performance in the 2005 Rose Bowl was a phenomenal peformance, but he had only 180 yds passing. He also had 192 yds rushing, though, which gave him 372 yds of total offense. I do think it is fair when talking about dual threat QBs to consider a superlative game for them to be one in which they have over 300 yds of total offense between running and passing the ball. This way, if a QB has 200 yds passing and 100 yds rushing in a game, which everyone will agree is a superlative peformance, they don’t fail to meet the criteria.

My choosing of 75 yds rushing is not an attempt to equate what a QB does rushing the ball to what a RB does running the ball, as you seem to be insinuating. I’m just trying to define a standard for a performance, nothing more.

I could drop my rushing requirement to 51, but reality is, it doesn’t matter if a QBs has 290 yds passing, 11 rushing, he has still surpassed 300 yds total offense, meeting the criteria.

The problem is, Vince Young, who some are saying is “the greatest player ever”, had games where he didn’t even hit 200 yds of total offense, passing and rushing.

Whether you do it by numbers or by made up disqualifiers like Heisman hype, you just can’t argue anything but the fact that VY deserves, at an extreme minimum, to be in the discussion with Sanders

I don’t think I’ve argued on here that Young doesn’t deserve to be in the conversation (in fact, I think I posted he belongs in the top 10), I’ve just said he isn’t the greatest of all time.

Under such a single axis, non-adjusted criteria, Colt Brennan, Paul Smith, Graham Harrell and Sonny Cumbie would be eligbile for the discussion, Cody Hodges would barely miss the list, but Matt Leinart, VY, Peyton Manning, Ken Dorsey and Tommy Frazier aren’t even close.

Who is Paul Smith?

I’m trying to set a criteria that can be used to judge players in the conversation for “greatest player ever”. I seriously doubt many people (non-homer fans, at least), would put Grham Harrell, Sonny Cumbie, or Cody Hodges in that group. As for Matt Leinart or Ken Dorsey, I’ve never heard anyone argue for either of them being considered for the greatest QB of all time, much less the greatest player of all time. Peyton Manning (losses to Florida) and Tommie Frazier (mediocre passer) have other issues which preclude them from the conversation.

Your dismissal of my criteria seems to be, “Well, under that criteria, a lot of people can’t be considered.” That’s exactly the point. We’re not trying to inclde a huge group of people here, we’re trying to differentiate between very few.

Your criteria for RB’s manages to eliminate guys like Ricky Williams, Eddie George, Adrian Peterson, Earl Cambell, Marcus Allen and all 9 Herschel Walkers from the conversation entirely. At that point it’s not a conversation worth having.

Again, we need some type of criteria to eliminate people from the discussion. Exactly what would you suggest? Your argument against my criteria seems to be that it eliminates too many people from the conversation. Well, I think that some people might argue that Earl Campbell or Marcus Allen belong in the conversation, there are other you listed who many would argue do not (Peterson, for example, was an absolute freak of a college back, but he was also injury prone, and spent parts of two seasons off the field b/c of injuries. For that reason alone I would eliminate him from the conversation.)

Barry didn’t do too well in that area, couldn’t overcome the grist mill that was Nebraska.

I’m not quite sure why it is Barry Sanders’ fault that the Okie State defense gave up 63 points to Nebraska. For most teams, scoring 42 points is enough to win the game.

But, others define greatness on multiple axes, things like winning, raising the play of teammates (leadership for a Sammy Baugh fan), total contribution to a team’s offense (yards and points taken as a percentage), average contribution to a team’s offense per game (again, yards and points), team offensive success (VY QB’d the highest scoring offense of all time, worth noting), years of contributions, contributions to bowl victories, big games against ranked opponents and I know you were waiting for it, championships.

The problem with using a criteria of percentage of offense responsible for is that it is inherently unfair when comparing RBs and QBs. RBs will only get credit for runs of receptions that they personally scored on, while QBs get credit for both rushing TDs they scored on and passing TDs, as well as passing yardage. If you eliminated any play which included the participation of another player (a WR on a reception for yards or reception for TD), and allowed only consideration of yards gained by that QB exclusively as a rusher and points scored him him as a rusher, it would be a more equal criteria. However, you could also make the argument that nothing on the football field is an independent event, that it is all 11 players working together, somoene has to hand the ball to the TB, etc, which would make such a stipulation irrelevant.

Leadership sounds like a great criteria to use, but how exactly are you going to quantify something like that?

If we only use championships, that eliminates a lot of people, and leaves us with a rather desultory conversation. Williams was never a starting TB on a championship team at texas, starting on two teams that went 4-7 and 9-3 in ‘97 & ‘98. I guess he’s out of the conversation. But, we’re left with including some rather inspiring people for the “great of all time” consideration like Ron Dayne or (God help me) Craig Krenzel. They both won multiple championships, under your criteria. I don’t think either belong in this conversation, though.

That long bit said, as someone who has watched a lot of Aggie games and heard a lot of Agro lore, I can’t blame you too much. It has been too long since A&M has gotten a glimpse of that kind of greatness in maroon and white. Evidently you’ve forgotten what it looks like.

Unfortunately, I never was able to see it in orange and white, either, b/c in my one chance with Vince Young, he shit the bed, as I’ve pointed out before.

Your last argument belies your point about one crappy game. Apparently Bush had a number of crappy games, but they were early in the season rather than late in the season, which was the difference in the voting. It wasn’t that Vince’s game was particularly bad, but that it was late in the season and fresh on the minds of the voters.

Besides, does anyone really think Bush would have still won the Heisman after the Rose Bowl? It would have been unanimous for Vince.

But one game would have netted Vince a Heisman? Reggie got the second most number of first place votes in the history of the Heisman trophy. The gap wasn’t even close. The media had already decided to go with the high profile USC player over the flyover state player from Texas. One game would not have changed that. If Vince hadn’t already proven to the media that he deserved it by that point in time, he was never going to prove it.