You can't go wrong with Rivers, Brees, or Manning. Ranking them is tough. If Manning would just win a big game or two in the playoffs, he'd be the best by far. He prolly is anyway.
Micheal Vick is just too inconsistent. He repeats this cycle of doom: has a good game or two throwing the ball, then the bad decisions catch up to him and he throws 4 ints, then he loses confidence and runs when a defender says "boo"...repeat all season. He is a pleasure to watch at times, but I'd rather see him at WR or RB.
It is absolutely best to have a QB who can complete 3rd and 13 with his brain and his arm. The really good ones have the ability to make plays with their feet when necessary (scrambling, etc.). Those kind of players are tough to come by, though. If you made me choose between a runner and a passer, I'd want the passer hands down. He better have a brain, though. Good play calling, as you put it, will only take the horse to the water. He's got to drink it. I've always said that players must make plays on championship teams, and great coaches prepare them all week and then put them into position to win Saturday. I'll stand by that premise forever.
Stoops has done a magnificent job this season, considering all the problems that have come about. If he loses to OSU handily, then he's not worthy of Big 12 Coach of the Year. What if it's close? What if they get jobbed as in Oregon? What if a WR drops the game winner on the last play? PLAYERS MAKE THE DIFFERENCE IN THE END, when the coaches are good enough to get them ready. Stoops and Co. certainly are, so who wins coach of the year is really not a big deal to me. Another meaningless award...
If OU finishes 9-3, then it's a good year with all the crap that has taken place. 10-2 is really good, considering it should have been 11-1. Texas is a very good football team with loads of talent. OSU has good talent, but just hasn't made plays when it needed them most. I won't like losing to either one of them, much less both, but the season is made of much more than just those two games. You must remember that OSU will play well in Stillwater when the Sooners come calling. It will be a close one, bank on it. I'd take the Cowboys and the points.
Championship teams are usually good on both sides of the ball. The Baltimore Ravens were outstanding on defense, but mediocre on offense when they won it all. If a team is just freaking awesome on one side of the ball, it can be mediocre on the other and still win the title. I always liked great defense, because it can give you great field position, cause turnovers, and even score. I want a good offense too, but a great defense can keep you afloat when the offense sputters on occasion (see OU's last two wins with 9 turnovers). And any defense that shuts out the Tech offense in the 2nd half, while only surrendering 17 points is the game (and 7 of those came on a 19 yard drive), is a mighty good defense. Good enough to stop the Cowboys in Stillwater? We shall see.
Bad calls are apart of every sport. But replay was implemented in football to correct some of the correctable calls. The rules allow the replay guy to see if the ball was touched illegally. He chose not to see the obvious due to pressure put on him by the field ref. The field refs never found the football, but gave it to Oregon anyway. They were repremanded, and rightfully so. It shoulda been stiffer.
And one more thing. If you agree that throughout history, players have taken $$$ to point shave, etc, then why in the he!! is it hard to imagine that referees could not do the same? They are human. Most have high levels of integrity. Those that don't are susceptible to loud home crowds and conference allegiance clouding their judgement in the heat of battle. It happens. Trust me.
