Jump to content

Bowl Season


JohnnyFootball
 Share

Recommended Posts

I do find it hilarious that people are still saying McCaffrey didn't win the Heisman because all the voters were sleeping when he played. I mean, how do you explain every other Pac 12 player to ever win the Heisman, lol.

 

Marcus Mariota

Reggie Bush

Matt Leinart

Carson Palmer

Ty Detmer (not Pac12, but do you honestly believe more people watch BYU than Stanford?!)

etc etc etc

 

Maybe timezone's were different when these guys played, lol.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do find it hilarious that people are still saying McCaffrey didn't win the Heisman because all the voters were sleeping when he played. I mean, how do you explain every other Pac 12 player to ever win the Heisman, lol.

 

Marcus Mariota

Reggie Bush

Matt Leinart

Carson Palmer

Ty Detmer (not Pac12, but do you honestly believe more people watch BYU than Stanford?!)

etc etc etc

 

Maybe timezone's were different when these guys played, lol.

Agreed. The kid had an outstanding year, but Derrick Henry carried his team to the playoffs. McCaffrey didn't. Henry ran the ball and made yards when the defense knew he was going to get the ball. These things can't be overlooked.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. The kid had an outstanding year, but Derrick Henry carried his team to the playoffs. McCaffrey didn't. Henry ran the ball and made yards when the defense knew he was going to get the ball. These things can't be overlooked.

Don't get me wrong, I think McCaffrey should have won the Heisman, I just don't think voters not seeing him play had anything to do with it.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. The kid had an outstanding year, but Derrick Henry carried his team to the playoffs. McCaffrey didn't. Henry ran the ball and made yards when the defense knew he was going to get the ball. These things can't be overlooked.

So you don't believe defenses knew McCaffrey was getting the ball?

 

It's best player, not best player on a team that makes playoffs,although I disagree that Henry was more valuable to Alabama than McCaffrey was to Stanford. Bama's defense got them to the playoffs.

 

McCaffrey should have won! He was best player in college football period!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

They weren't good. Only decent team they beat this season was a hobbled TCU. Lost to the decent teams they played. got smoked by OU, lost to baylor with their 3rd string qb in most of the game, and then killed by ole miss. Okie state record was a result of their cake schedule. Hell, if UTs Punter could catch the ball, even the horns would've beat them this year.

If TCU and/or Baylor don't get decimated by injuries then they wind up playing in probably the Russell Athletic Bowl or the Valero Alamo Bowl which is probably the level they belonged. Definitely didn't think they were New Years six quality this year but so goes the case when two of your top teams are down lots of starters.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So you don't believe defenses knew McCaffrey was getting the ball?

 

It's best player, not best player on a team that makes playoffs,although I disagree that Henry was more valuable to Alabama than McCaffrey was to Stanford. Bama's defense got them to the playoffs.

 

McCaffrey should have won! He was best player in college football period!

The kid had 1200 more total yards compared to any other player in the nation. That's 2-3 games worth of offensive output for the vast majority of teams in the nation. Just like the Northwestern loss kept Stanford out of the playoff, I think that loss kept McCafferey out of the Heisman Trophy.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

The kid had 1200 more total yards compared to any other player in the nation. That's 2-3 games worth of offensive output for the vast majority of teams in the nation. Just like the Northwestern loss kept Stanford out of the playoff, I think that loss kept McCafferey out of the Heisman Trophy.

^^^This. I've been saying all along your teams success or lack there of figures into these voters votes.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not like how people think losses must figure into the Heisman vote. It is a team sport however the award is for an individual player; the best player in college football.

You hear the Heisman voters that are analysts talk about it all the time. They call it a chance to make a "Heisman statement" in games. Not once do you hear them talk about a "Heisman statement" in a loss, it's alway after their team wins. Just look at Fournette. Dude had pretty much identical stats as Henry (in 1 less game) and he fell off the map when LSU lost a couple in a row.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You hear the Heisman voters that are analysts talk about it all the time. They call it a chance to make a "Heisman statement" in games. Not once do you hear them talk about a "Heisman statement" in a loss, it's alway after their team wins. Just look at Fournette. Dude had pretty much identical stats as Henry (in 1 less game) and he fell off the map when LSU lost a couple in a row.

ESPN has entirely too much influence over the heisman. Henry had it won 6-7 weeks ago.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Agreed. The kid had an outstanding year, but Derrick Henry carried his team to the playoffs. McCaffrey didn't. Henry ran the ball and made yards when the defense knew he was going to get the ball. These things can't be overlooked.

McCaffrey broke records everywhere. He is Stanford ... however, Derek Henry deserved the Heisman... but McCaffrey should have garnered more attention from the media. If he was at an ESPN school... like UCLA, USC etc... it would have been a totally different vote imho.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCaffrey broke records everywhere. He is Stanford ... however, Derek Henry deserved the Heisman... but McCaffrey should have garnered more attention from the media. If he was at an ESPN school... like UCLA, USC etc... it would have been a totally different vote imho.

Why? Why did he deserve it more than McCaffrey?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

^^^This. I've been saying all along your teams success or lack there of figures into these voters votes.

Oregon lost to Arizona. Mariota still won the Heisman.

A&M lost 2 games and played in the Cotton Bowl...before it was a News Years 6 bowl...Manziel still won the Heisman.

Baylor lost 3 games and played in the Alamo Bowl....RGIII still won the Heisman

 

Team success may make a difference if your team only wins 5 games, but clearly losing a game or two...or 3....has not prevented players from winning the Heisman. That argument makes about as much sense to me as saying he didn't win it because the voters were sleeping when he played.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Derick Henry won the Heisman because he broke a conference record while playing in the SEC. And while some can say that if McCaffrey played for a bigger name school (didn't realize Stanford was considered a no name), I can just as easily say that if Henry has the same year, but for a non SEC school, McCaffrey wins the Heisman.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

You hear the Heisman voters that are analysts talk about it all the time. They call it a chance to make a "Heisman statement" in games. Not once do you hear them talk about a "Heisman statement" in a loss, it's alway after their team wins. Just look at Fournette. Dude had pretty much identical stats as Henry (in 1 less game) and he fell off the map when LSU lost a couple in a row.

Fournette lost it because in the biggest of those losses, he was held to 31 yards.
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oregon lost to Arizona. Mariota still won the Heisman.

A&M lost 2 games and played in the Cotton Bowl...before it was a News Years 6 bowl...Manziel still won the Heisman.

Baylor lost 3 games and played in the Alamo Bowl....RGIII still won the Heisman

 

Team success may make a difference if your team only wins 5 games, but clearly losing a game or two...or 3....has not prevented players from winning the Heisman. That argument makes about as much sense to me as saying he didn't win it because the voters were sleeping when he played.

Oregon played for the national championship. So no thanks on that argument.

 

Johnny Manziel (while 100% deserving) won against one of the weakest fields ever. A LB was runner up. Let that sink in for a minute. Plus he beat Alabama which played as much a factor as anything in him winning it. He was a media favorite from then on.

 

RG3 lost 3 games yes. I don't deny it. But that year he had 2 chances to play for a national audience (TCU and Oklahoma) and was an absolute stud in both. Again the media fell in love with him, especially after the OU game. Plus only losing 3 games at Baylor at that time seemed like a huge year for them.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oregon lost to Arizona. Mariota still won the Heisman.

A&M lost 2 games and played in the Cotton Bowl...before it was a News Years 6 bowl...Manziel still won the Heisman.

Baylor lost 3 games and played in the Alamo Bowl....RGIII still won the Heisman

 

Team success may make a difference if your team only wins 5 games, but clearly losing a game or two...or 3....has not prevented players from winning the Heisman. That argument makes about as much sense to me as saying he didn't win it because the voters were sleeping when he played.

Do you agree that the Northwestern lost hurt him?

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Oregon played for the national championship. So no thanks on that argument.

 

Johnny Manziel (while 100% deserving) won against one of the weakest fields ever. A LB was runner up. Let that sink in for a minute. Plus he beat Alabama which played as much a factor as anything in him winning it. He was a media favorite from then on.

 

RG3 lost 3 games yes. I don't deny it. But that year he had 2 chances to play for a national audience (TCU and Oklahoma) and was an absolute stud in both. Again the media fell in love with him, especially after the OU game. Plus only losing 3 games at Baylor at that time seemed like a huge year for them.

^^^This is so true IMO although I agree with Lobo 99% of the time. Now if I was drafting in the NFL I would take McCaffery 10 rounds before Henry! Reminds me of a Welker.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

McCaffrey broke records everywhere. He is Stanford ... however, Derek Henry deserved the Heisman... but McCaffrey should have garnered more attention from the media. If he was at an ESPN school... like UCLA, USC etc... it would have been a totally different vote imho.

If u put McCaffrey on bama's team in place of Henry he is more dynamic than Henry was, but if you put Henry on stanfords team in place of McCaffrey no way he even replicates what McCaffrey did. Henry is a good back, but I'd pick 2-3 different RB before him in the draft.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...