I am not a Advocate Messenger fan, and it is my local newspaper. However, I have to agree that Turner or Smith either one would've been a better choice that year. If I am not mistaken, Pulley played at Boyle County that season and was very unimpressive and dominated by BC.

 

Read post 40...

I really don't want to get into the debate about who should have been Mr. Football 4 years ago. However, Larry Vaught is very predicatable and a homer. Not a good combination, but apparently one that sells papers in Danville.

 

I've never seen a journalist not be a homer and at least somewhat predictable in their local paper.

Smith was 8 for 26 with four interceptions that day ... good observation.

 

I can't remember exactly, but either Smith or his #1 receiver was playing hurt in this game. I am fairly certain it was Smith.

I've never seen a journalist not be a homer and at least somewhat predictable in their local paper.

 

Maybe in small town newspapers they are, but I would contend that is why such writers have never gone beyond the small papers they work for.

Great post LN :thumb:

 

Like you I find it hard to base things on one game. That's often times a team result. Just like if you based Smith's performance on the title game vs. Highlands the year before when Smith threw for 201 yards and rushed for 160. In that one you would have to say he was the deserving award winner.

 

While I can disagree with Westsider I think it's not like Pulley didn't deserve the trophy. Even if I think Smith or Turner were better Pulley has to be in that conversation.

 

Thanks Hatz. No doubt Smith looked studly in 03 as you pointed out and I agree that based on that game's performance, he would have been the deserving award winner. As you and I know (as well as many others), football is a team game, maybe the quintessential team game. Thus it is very hard to pick a Mr. Football looking at head to head matchups. The whole body of work has to be examined and along with that, the strength of a candidate's teammates as well as the strength of the opponents. It's a very difficult task and extremely subjective. I'm sure Larry knows that, which is why I'm a little surprised with him bringing this up again. Oh well, its really no big deal and as I said in my earlier post, I still think Larry is an excellent sports writer. Perhaps a homer as some have accused him; but even if true, I'm okay with it.

Maybe in small town newspapers they are, but I would contend that is why such writers have never gone beyond the small papers they work for.

 

 

Probably because they are content where they are at. If there is an open spot at a larger newspaper their credentials will eventually get them that spot if their writing is good enough. Writing for a small town newspaper is a privilege if the writer enjoys their work. Nothing beats the small town feel of locals hanging on to your every word and appreciating your work. It is much easier to gain that appreciation at a small town newspaper if you can be their voice. If you don't want to be their voice, you will eventually move on. Larry Vaught is easily a voice for the Danville area and you would be hard pressed to find more than a handful of people in the Danville area that believe Pulley should have won Mr. Football over Brandon and Kelvin. Just like you'd be hard pressed to find more than a handful of people in Hoptown who believe Brandon or Kelvin should have won.

With the departure of Curtis Pulley from the University of Kentucky, regardless of whether Mr Vaught was right or wrong, it would appear that he (Pulley) has put a black eye on the title "Mr. Football".

Why? He didn't do any misdeeds while he was in high school. Mr. Football is a high school award. It's not a college award. Does that mean Elton Scott put a black eye on Mr. Basketball? While it looks bad when a Mr. Football gets in trouble, it does nothing to tarnish the award itself when something happens years after the award.

 

Did OJ's off the field exploits put a black eye on the Heisman Trophy? I don't think it did.

Why? He didn't do any misdeeds while he was in high school. Mr. Football is a high school award. It's not a college award. Does that mean Elton Scott put a black eye on Mr. Basketball? While it looks bad when a Mr. Football gets in trouble, it does nothing to tarnish the award itself when something happens years after the award.

 

Did OJ's off the field exploits put a black eye on the Heisman Trophy? I don't think it did.

 

I like the way you think. :thumb:

Why? He didn't do any misdeeds while he was in high school. Mr. Football is a high school award. It's not a college award. Does that mean Elton Scott put a black eye on Mr. Basketball? While it looks bad when a Mr. Football gets in trouble, it does nothing to tarnish the award itself when something happens years after the award.

 

Did OJ's off the field exploits put a black eye on the Heisman Trophy? I don't think it did.

 

OJ didnt do it!!!! LOL

 

But I also like the way you think....

I've known Larry Vaught for close to 30 years and he's about as straight up as you'd ever want a sports editor to be. Oh, I know that people from Boyle county have said that he only wrote in favorite of Danville and I suppose that some from Danville have said the same thing about him and Boyle County.

 

Larry is a well known and well liked sports editor. He is well respected by his peers and by the schools and coaches that he covers. I'm not here to defend Larry, he can do that himself but I will have to say one thing....he's right...Pulley shouldn't have been picked Mr. Football....in my opinion and we all have one of those.

 

I just think that the people in Danville and surrounding counties are very lucky to have someone who really does care about their kids as much as Larry does.