The Paul Hornung Trophy. Given to the nations most versatile player. I guess that means offense but the press release didn't specifically say it. Paul has always been one of the more controversial Heisman winners for several reasons one of course being that his team was 2-8 and of course he and Jim Brown were in the same Heisman class with Brown finishing 6th and Johnny Majors just a hair behind Hornung. But make no mistake Paul was a great player, in 1955 he lead the nation in total offense, and had a national best of 354yd rushing/passing against USC that year. He also played defense and was outstanding as a DB not to mention his prowess kicking FG's. Paul was taken #1 overall in the draft and went on to a HOF career in Pro Football and only recently his season scoring record of 176 points in 12 games was broken by LT who played 16 games. He is one of the few Heisman winners who is in both the College Football and Pro Football HOF's. So while you might differ on whether or not he deserved his Heisman Paul was truly one of the great College Football players of his time. Paul also was a letterman in Basketball at Notre Dame. I found this on his wiki page that gives you an idea of what kind of athlete Paul was in his prime.
I really don't get why a Heisman winner has to play on a team with a great record. Because of that stupid thinking we've been left with winners like Gino Toretta, Charley Ward and others. Then we have the guys with the great "stats." Andre Ware immediately comes to mind. He had one pass, LONG. I saw him try to play pro ball. He couldn't throw an accurate 5 yd. swing pass. He was a joke. Hornung wasn't the only "controversial" ND Heisman. I recall we heard the same thing about Tim Brown. Brown of course was only a 9 time pro bowler, and owns the Raider records for games played, receptions, and punt returns. He too more than likely will end up in the Pro Hall.
Gipper, I agree with you on the winning record part, but the NFL part has no bearing. I don't know whether Tebow will ever play a down in the pros but he was obviously a deserving Heisman winner.
In 1997......Heisman winner Charles Woodson's team went 12-0.....vanquishing everyone on the schedule. Peyton still couldn't get past his nemesis Fla. and yet PM is a much more decorated pro than CW ( even though CW is an NFL stud ). The bottom line is that the Heisman was about college performance.....not NFL achievements. If the '97 voters had to do it over again PM would probably win hands down but that would be based more on the NFL results than anything else.
Granted College is all that is considered when voting for the Heisman, but Heisman winners who also go on to have HOF pro careers are validated much more (IMHO) than those who flop as pro's.
I disagree. It's about team's performance and inflated stats. BTW Manning came in second. Brady wasn't even in the hunt. Who has more Super Bowls?
It is now days, I do not think a player from a bad team could ever do it again. It does matter if your team wins a lot of games, they don't have to go undefeated but if they do it might seal the deal for you. Just like when was the last time you saw an NFL MVP from a non-playoff team?
Hornung was a deserving winner and went on to a great pro career. Sometimes I wish things were more like the old days where it wasn't if you don't win it all we've had a bad season. If a player is great on a team that isn't great he can't win the Heisman. I don't know if things were as political back in 55 or not but they sure are now. Maybe political isn't the right word, but the internet and immediate communication has changed a lot of things. Much for the good but not all for the good. I would be proud that if one day a Gator won this award.
I didn't mean to infer that Brady was up the same year as PM. Just talking about NFL achievements and Heisman recognition.
Gip knows that. He was not talking about the same year. He simply was stating that Brady was not in the discussion for the Heisman when he was eligible. By the way, I tire of the comparison which asks, How many Super Bowls has he won? QBs don't win SBs. Teams do. Granted, you need a great or, at least, outstanding QB to win, but the fact that Dan Marino did not win a SB does not remove him from consideration as one of the greatest of all time. Conversely, because Terry Bradshaw won 4 SBs does not necessarily make him one of the greatest. It certainly is open to question.
I think we all know that it is really hard to say player X is clearly the best player in College Football. When it comes to the Heisman it can be about stats a lot of QB's like Detmer, Ware, Torretta had such huge numbers that was what captured the votes. Same thing for RB's, Ricky Williams beat Tony Dorsetts record that was pretty important in his Heisman campaign. He didn't play for a team that won all their games but they did win 9 games. Were those guys truly the best players? No way of actually determining that it's more who captures the imagination of the voters. This year when the Irish record was good and things were looking possible for a 10 win season Jimmy Clausen was rising in the polls, his last minute comebacks to win games with spectacular plays to Golden Tate was driving it, once the Irish started to lose Jimmy didn't start playing worse, just couldn't overcome an abysmal defense. So he's out. He may have been one of the best offensive players in college football along with Golden Tate but the losing over shadowed it.
Nothing wrong with Shuler other than finding out that a great college QB does not always turn into a great NFL QB... especially at the Redskins.
Uh, I hate to mention this Doc but Paul's season scoring record has yet to be broken. In fact he would have had the record for all pro athletes if Wilt Chamberlain hadn't been so successful with the ladies.