clock menu more-arrow no yes

Filed under:

Percy Harvin wins 2009 Offensive Rookie of the Year Award; Austin Collie given cold shoulder

New, comments

I understand why most of the voters selected Percy Harvin as the Offensive Rookie of the Year, and it's because most of these people don't watch a lot of football games. When it comes time to vote, they look at a stat sheet, check out a few highlight reel plays, and then mail in their opinion. And when awards like these are voted on by 50 apathetic, over-paid hacks in big media, it makes sense that Percy Harvin would get 41 votes. Ravens rookie Michael Oher received six. I'm sure same idiot gave Mark Sanchez a vote, but not 100% positive. 

Look, I may be a ranting madman who spends his sad, lonely days bashing people from behind my keyboard, but if you actually watched NFL games this year, you cannot tell me Percy Harvin was a better player than Austin Collie. I knew it was a pipe dream for Collie to beat out Harvin, and the reason was simple.

Touchdowns off kickoffs. Harvin has two. Collie doesn't handle kickoffs or punts.

But when you factor in that prior to the Colts sitting starters against the Jets that Collie lead all rookies with receptions and touchdowns, how could this kid drafted in Round Four from BYU not get, at least, 10-15 votes? I mean, Collie had to sit and do nothing for an entire game (Buffalo) before Harvin could match him in catches.

I know I should be smarter and not expect real analysis from voters. Most of these people could give a crap who wins this award, and the voting is purely surface level. Michael Oher getting any votes is hilarious. I bet people saw the friggin movie and voted for him based solely off that and not any game film.

I rant on this because expect better from six-figure sports writers and broadcasters when it comes to voting for these kinds of awards. Harvin is not a better receiver than Collie, and receiver is Harvin's primary position. Harvin's performance last weekend against a dreadful Giants defense likely locked up the award. Had Collie played against the Bills, he might have ended the season with 65-70 catches for well over 700 yards and 8 TDs. Unfortunate that voters did not see this and give the kid a few votes.

One final note (because I know some of you are thinking this and I will destroy this line of thinking right here and now): Austin Collie did not lose this award because "he is white." Please, spare me the "white man's burden" crap. Percy Harvin won this award because he made more big plays. Doesn't matter if he were white, black, green, yellow, or the dreadful neon color they had on those alternate Seahawks jerseys this year. Superficial voters often make their selections based on how many "OMG!" plays a rookie makes, not on consistency. It's the same reason some idiots feel Randy Moss is a better receiver than Marvin Harrison. Randy makes more "OMG!" plays, even though he has zero rings and often quits during games.

Collie is a better, more consistent receiver than Harvin. I've watched them both play, and it's obvious Collie is much more polished. However, even though Collie is more consistent, Harvin has three 40-or-more yards plays. Collie has zero.

Voters vote on that. Not skin color.

That said, I still think Collie is better. Then again, I'm biased as all hell.