Category: 
I’m reading with interest some of the comments in the the comments section below. A lot of you SEC fans seem to think that Stanford going 8-4 should automatically disqualify Toby Gerhart from Heisman contention.
Need I remind you that the last SEC player to win the Heisman–Tim Tebow–was on a team that ultimately finished 9-4? And the last SEC running back to win the Heisman–Bo Jackson–was on a team that ultimately finished 8-4?
Comments
This entry was posted on Tuesday, December 8th, 2009 at 6:14 pm and is filed under Uncategorized. You can follow any responses to this entry through the RSS 2.0 feed. You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.
Yeah but getting 4 losses in the SEC is more of an accomplishment than going undefeated in the Pac-10
…..I can hear the SEC homers saying it now.
Toby would absolutely truck some SEC fools if he had the chance. Prob would’ve gone for 2000 if he had an extra game to do it in, against say Vandy or Ole Miss. Wonder if Ingram would have 1200 yards if he had to play some of the tough run D’s in the Pac.
Well, I should point out that each of those SEC teams had 3 regular season losses, not 4.
And, quite frankly, leaving aside how good each conference was–and the SEC was pretty strong in both 1985 and 2007–Jackson’s and Tebow’s teams played tougher schedules than Stanford did this season. Auburn lost to the 4th and 5th ranked teams in the nation, and Florida lost to the 1st and 2nd ranked teams in the nation, and neither had a loss to an unranked team; Stanford lost to two games to unranked teams.
Listen, Gerhart would kick ass in the SEC, and Ingram would kick ass in the Pac 10. And anyone who thinks otherwise is a bit of a fool who’d be silly to knock anyone else about bias.
True, but it’s not much of a difference between 3 and 4 losses. In neither situation is a team gunning for a national title or top 10 ranking.
Second, Stanford has the 19th-ranked schedule in the country according to Sagarin, while Alabama’s is ranked 20th, for instance. So it’s not like Stanford hasn’t played good competition.
Anyway, my point is that the RECORD shouldn’t disqualify the guy, especially when other players have won Heismans in similar situations.
You have to remember when Tebow won in 2007 his team had 3 losses before the ceremony AND the NATIONAL CHAMPION that year had 2 losses. HE DIDN’T HAVE 4 LOSSES IN A YEAR WHERE THERE ARE 5 TEAMS THAT ARE UNDEFEATED.
Keep writing articles about how Colt McCoy should win the Heisman.
Correction: Tebow and the 2007 Florida team lost to an unranked (at the time) Michigan team in the Capital One bowl. Michigan even spotted Florida 4 turnovers. Tebow had 157 passing yards and 57 rushing yards against a Michigan team that lost to FCS Appalachian State. Tebow had 4 straight incompletions at the end of the game and eliminate any chance of a Florida victory.
This is not meant to dis Gearhart, who is a fine player and of course would be a star in any college league, but he’s not comparable to Bo Jackson, or to Tim Tebow the year he won the trophy.
A guy who is not on one of the top teams can win the trophy, but he has to kick butt and take names and prove its his. Bo Jackson and Tim Tebow did that, along with guys like Barry Sanders and Andre Ware.
Otherwise the award traditionally goes to the top offensive player on a top team. If you toil in obscurity, you need to toil a lot better than anybody else.
Toby Gearheart has not. His stats are basically the same as Ingram’s. He has a few more TDs – he has a couple hundred more yards rushing, a couple hundred less receiving – he averages about a yard a carry less. A wash, or about as close as it gets.
What ever edge Gearhart has statistically, if any, does not make up for Ingram getting 189 yards total offense and 3 TDs in the biggest game of the year, while averaging 150 yards a game rushing against the six toughest defenses his team faced (which are, by the way, six very tough defenses: Virginia Tech, Ole Miss, South Carolina, Tennessee, LSU, and Florida).
BTW, Alabama’s schedule is ranked 4th according to the NCAA.
HP–agreed.
Gerhart also didn’t fatten up on the shit teams on the schedule, either, as so often happens (although, also to his credit, neither did Ingram).
In fact, after playing the three worst teams on the schedule, he only had 316 yards and 4 TDs. Further, Gerhart’s best game (production-wise) was in Stanford’s biggest game, against Oregon, and his next best game was in their highest-profile game, against ND.
We can all have our favorites, but anyone who doesn’t think Gerhart would be a deserving winner–especially on account of his team going 8-4–is flat-out wrong.
“Anyway, my point is that the RECORD shouldn’t disqualify the guy, especially when other players have won Heismans in similar situations.”
————–
Yet if Mark Ingram had lost one game up to this point he wouldn’t even be close to being in the Heisman discussion right? So why should this turkeyhead fake running back get the luxury? Screw Gerhart, kids a joke.
Wow. I get why people hate Tebow. He gets a lot of attention and people are jealous. But why on earth is this guy hating on Gerhart? All he does is run as hard as he possibly can when they give him the ball. And he has been damn good at it. And it’s not like people have been praising Gerhart for years. Jeez. I’m a Gator/Tebow fan and I hope Gerhart wins it. He has been everything you could want from a Heisman winner.
In a just world, this is how the vote would look:
1. Gerhart/Suh
2. Suh/Gerhart
3. Ingram
4. McCoy
5. Tebow (loses tie-breaker to McCoy b/c loss)
Glen Turner, it’s funny you bring up Bo Jackson because he specifically did NOT tear it up in 1985. He was hurt for a couple games, shut down in one or two others and ended up beating Chuck Long in the closest Heisman race ever.
And his stats are basically not the same as Ingram’s. He has outrushed him by almost 200 yards and has 11 more rushing touchdowns. 11! Hardly a wash statistically and, as I’ve pointed out, Ingram would have the lowest rushing total by a Heisman winning back since 1975.
And almost no one uses the NCAA’s schedule rankings since they only take into account opponent records and not the actual strength of schedule of those opponents (for example, Alabama played a FCS team that went 6-5–UT-Chatt–and gets as much credit for beating that team as it does a 6-5 team in the SEC.)
Glen Turner,
It’s Gerhart.
And as an accomplished multi-sport athlete, at this point in his career he is not a bad comparison to Bo Jackson.
And while it may be irrelevant, he’s also a student.
How is averaging 200 rushing yards/game against ranked opponents and setting the Pac-10 single season rushing TD record (I can think of a decent USC back or two through the years) comparable to Ingram’s stats?
Of the 9 players in SEC history to win a Heisman, none of them had 4 losses at the time of the award… HP undermines his credibility by suggesting otherwise.
But the important thing is that 9-3 Tebow wasn’t competing against a player with comparable stats on a 13-0 team with 1/4 the turnovers. Nor was Bo Jackson way back in 1985. Jackson led the nation in every major rushing category until he was injured in the 9th game of the year. He ended up leading Auburn over Alabama with 142 yards and two TDs, despite playing the entire game with two cracked ribs. That’s the stuff legends are made of.
But this year Gerhart certainly is competing against a comparable player on a better team. And Ingram led his team to #1 by beating the #1 team in the country, he racked up an extraordinary 189 yards and 3 TDs against the #1 defense in the nation. HP not only ranked Gerhart #1, but he completely excluded Ingram from his ballot and that’s plain dishonest.
Anonymous at 7:17 PM…Here Anonymous…take a look…we all know you havent seen Gerhart…take a look….the nice thought I get from your comment is that you’re clearly one of those weenies who spouts off a lot and gets your ass kicked. What a pleasant thought you ebonic-illiterate piece of garbage. Love to see Gerhart crush u.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tVf_74OGjDE
Also, to Anonymous 7:17 you scum sucking street trash piece of sheeeeeit…..did ya know that Gerhart has the California (that’s a state on the western side of the USA) ….the California record for total yards rushing for all High School ball players in the history of the state….Imagine that….and California’s produced more world class NFL running backs that any other state. Fancy that…..come on Anonymous 7:17 everyone knows your a crap for brains fella…look in the mirror and accept it.
Here, 38 Seconds of Gerhart…this is for all the numb-nuts like the Anonymous 7:17 prick…
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bav6LrgaG_o&feature=channel
Also, Gerhart did this in the final 5 minutes of the game .
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Bav6LrgaG_o&feature=channel
As a current Stanford student, and someone who attended every home game the last two seasons, I have to say I find some of these comments pretty disturbing. Many of you people have absolutely no idea who Gerhart is and yet you continue to talk crap about him every chance you get. Sure, I understand that he isn’t supposed to be in the conversation since Stanford isn’t a top tier football team (although I don’t find a top 25 team too shabby), but you guys do not seem to have an idea as to how much this guys deserves it. Not only did he put up huge numbers this season, but last seasons campaign was pretty impressive (he rushed for over a 1000 yards and had a good number of TDs). The problem is our defense. Now you can look at all those videos of Toby tearing people up on the field, and you should since they are absolutely amazing, but look at an opposing teams drive against us. Toby had to sit there every single game and watch the lead he gave us slip away and then walked back on the field and take it back. How can you say that a guy who put up 4 touchdowns and over a hundred yards in a game AND STILL LOSE (C.J Spiller fans know the feeling) be blamed for his teams crappy record? Look at all of those games, our defense blew them. Not Toby. Even the game against Oregon State which should have been a blowout looked a lot better thanks to a pretty solid showing by Gerhart even though we were throwing the ball playing catch up.
I guess the reason for this whole spiel is…
if you don’t know the guy, you don’t know his team and you don’t know his conference shut the hell up :]
You guys saying Ingram’s and Gearhart’s stats aren’t similar are cherry-picking the stats in which Gearhart leads while ignoring Ingram’s 200-yard lead in receiving and noticeably better yards per carry.
So far as I can tell, the reason Gearhart has more yards and TDs mostly boils down to the fact that he isn’t giving up 30% of his carries to a pair of ace backups like Trent Richardson (642 yards rushing, 107 receiving, 6 TDs) and Roy Upchurch (290 yards rushing, 72 receiving, 3 TDs). Gearhart is backed up by Stepfan Taylor, (298 yards rushing, 43 receiving, 2 TDs).
Again, I’m not dissing Gearhart, he’s had a great year, but his stats are comparable to Ingram’s and that’s a fact. There’s really no reason to go against the traditional nod to the guy on a top team, especially since he also turned in a heroic performance in the game of the year. Gearhart: big stats against Notre Dame. Ingram: big stats against Florida.
You seem to forget Toby’s big stats against Oregon. Which is a pretty good team. Now I’m not saying Ingram shouldn’t win, but Toby should definitely be considered. Besides compare the heisman to the NFL MVP. Sure voters look for the most outstanding player, but a reason Peyton Manning is always in the conversation is because of how important he is to his team. I find it very hard to find a player who is more important to their team than Toby and of course Suh. I’m talking about losing records without those players. Ingram…not so much.
Glen, Ingram also got his numbers in 13 games while Gerhart did his in 12.
200 more rushing yards and 11 more touchdowns–11!–in one less game.
How is that comparable?
sandymex, the problem is that Ingram’s stats are NOT comparable to Gerhart’s.
200 less rushing yards and 11 less rushing touchdowns in ONE FEWER games.
Add Gerhart’s per-game averages to his current total–in other words, extrapolate his season out to 13 games–and you’d have a 1,880 yards and almost 29 touchdowns.
How would that in any way be comparable to 1,542 yards and 15 touchdowns?
Praytell!
HP we understand you have a hardon for Gerhart we know. All they are saying is the fact that Ingram gave up lots of plays and yardage and touchdowns to other runners. you keep pointing out the 11 touchdowns…well if you take on the 9 that other people ran in for him if he was the lone rb (oh sorry the one guy that did under 300 yrds whole season doesnt count for me) would even that number up. they are pointing out the fact in the total yardage throughout the seasons played are almost the same not just keeping it one sided into rushing. its cool though
HP -
Now you claim Ingram’s stats aren’t even comparable to Gerhart’s?
Per season is very comparable:
Gerhart 322-1903, 5 fum, 27 TDs, 8 wins
Ingram 279-1864, 1 fum, 18 TDs, 13 wins
Per game is very comparable:
Gerhart 26-159, 0.42 fum, 2.2 TDs, 0.67 wins
Ingram 21-143, 0.08 fum, 1.4 TDs, 1.00 wins
Per 100 touches is very comparable:
Gerhart 591 yards, 1.6 fum, 8.1 TDs, 2.5 wins
Ingram 668 yards, 0.4 fum, 6.5 TDs, 4.7 wins
In close games (less than 10 points):
Gerhart is 3-4
Ingram is 4-0
I have Ingram ahead of Gerhart because I place more value on winning, yards/carry, not fumbling, and leading your team to victories and championships. You seem to value carries and TDs even at the expense of fumbles and losses. But it’s one thing to place Gerhart ahead of Ingram… it’s another to put Gerhart #1 and exclude Ingram altogether. That smacks of vote-rigging.
On StiffArmTrophy, Ingram is included on the most ballots of any candidate (71%). If my position is unreasonable, why is it the most common position among voters? Only 10% of ballots have Gerhart #1 and exclude Ingram. If your position is so obvious, why do 9 out of 10 voters disagree?
After reading the comments from Ingram supporters for the last couple of days, I’ve come to this conclusion:
They haven’t actually watched Gerhart play.
Statistics, rankings, blah blah blah. Gerhart was unstoppable and breathtaking at the same time. He left my jaw on the floor repeatedly this season. Ingram did not do that.
Ingram’s backup, Richardson, would have likely put up similar numbers. Shouldn’t a Heisman winner be irreplaceable?
When Sandymex was last heard here, he was making the case for why Tebow should win the Heisman and berating anyone who said otherwise. Now that this is a lost cause, he has moved on to other things.
Only in his world is an 80% touchdown advantage by Gerhart over Ingram considered ‘comparable.’
Steven–no, Richardson couldn’t have replaced Ingram.
Often, we see a backup outperform the starter in terms of yards per carry, which leads people to believe the backup is better (Ahman Green and Felix Jones are two notable examples just off the top of my head). The reasons for this are plenty, but the main ones are the following–(1) by the time the backup comes in, the defensive starters have been softened up a little, (2) the backup plays in garbage time after the outcome has been decided, and he tends to play more against the weaker opponents on the schedule, and (3) less carries means it’s more likely that a long run or two will skew the average upward.
All of these things hold true for Richardson, no doubt–certainly, if nothing else, he has a disproportionate number of carries (relative to Ingram) against the bad teams on ‘Bama’s schedule.
Given that, it’s all the more remarkable that his statistics aren’t comparable to Ingram’s–he has a much lower YPC (in BCS games, 5.9 to 4.1), and his TD% is much smaller. Plus, his receiving statistics–both in terms of number of catches (relative to playing time), yards per reception, and receiving TDs–aren’t close.
Keep in mind that if Richardson had started for ‘Bama this season, the tendency would actually be for that 4.1 to be revised downward–because he’d be playing fresh defensive starters, and he’d be more winded from having more carries.
Does anyone really think ‘Bama would be undefeated if their main offensive threat this season was an RB who averaged 4 ypc? Because there’d have been no chance of it happening.
Come on, HP, be fair. I know you want to politic for your guy, but Ingram had 18 TDs this season, not 15.
80% TD advantage? 27-18 = 80%? Que?
“Ingram’s backup, Richardson, would have likely put up similar numbers. Shouldn’t a Heisman winner be irreplaceable?”
I haven’t heard the “disqualified by having a good backup” excuse before. Such imaginative argumentation bespeaks a Stanford-worthy IQ.
Tichardson, who is an unbelievable athlete and will probably be a many-time all-pro if he stays healthy, is likely the best backup running back in America. However, he averaged nearly a yard and a half less per carry than Ingram.
And I would leave that extrapolating from 12 games to 13 out unless you also want to extrapolate from the 70% of the game that Ingram typically played to the 90-95% of the game that Gearhart usually played.
Solon and Glen, sandymex posted that Gerhart’s per game advantage in TDs was 2.2 to 1.4. So, what I meant was that Gerhart scores a full .8 more touchdowns per game. That’s what I meant to say…sorry if the math wasn’t right.
I still think scoring 50% more touchdowns (27-18 in one less game) does not make a comparable stat.
As for the Richardson issue, there’s a couple points to bring up regarding his stats.
1. When a true freshman comes in, he knows less of the offense and the defense pretty much knows it is going to be a run, as most true frosh do not come in on passing downs, or if they do, they are not asked to do as much. Most have a limited playbook at their disposal. So this accounts for Richardson’s depressed YPC.
2. In the last two games, Richardson flat out-performed Ingram. In fact, I’m not certain that many less-familiar Heisman voters didn’t see Richardson running and think it was Ingram.
3. Beyond the stats, all you have to do is look at the two actually play. Richardson is the more talented back, without a doubt. He is bigger, stronger and faster than Ingram. He has better power and doesn’t go down as easily. He just isn’t as productive right now because of his lack of experience, but you can see the talent there. I think that is what people mean by him being ‘better’.
4. Solon, there are plenty of examples of backups being better than starters but not playing as much due to class distinction or coach preferences of experience over talent. Reggie Bush was clearly superior to Hershel Dennis as a freshman yet Dennis got the start. I’m sure if Knowshon Moreno has played as a true frosh, he would’ve proven to be more talented than Lumpkin. And Chris Wells was clearly better than Antonio Pittman. Lots of examples to choose from where the guy who didn’t play as much was actually better.
Again, we are using stats that can be twisted in any manner we want to support our views. For example, I could say Richardson is a freshman that, if given time, will produce similar numbers.
Richardson is a good back that I’ve watched play a lot this season (as well as Ingram, obviously) and he is a solid back that could easily go for well over 1000 yards. Maybe not 1500, but 1300? Likely.
I’m trying to make the point that we can use statistics any way we want. If we WATCH all of the players actually play these games then there is no question who was the best player.
Gerhart was hardly on television playing for a team that can’t even sellout it’s own small stadium. Yet, he’s getting as much attention as the “best player” on the best team in the best conference that was on TV every week. Think about that. If Gerhart was in Los Angeles he would win in a landslide.
For every Stanford fan, there could literally be 1000 Bama fans. Think about how that affects perception. ESPN showing Ingram over and over and over again and then they show a small clip of Gerhart at 1am ET.
If Gerhart was in the SEC, we’d be talking about whether or not he will win by the largest margin ever.
HP–don’t misunderstand what I am saying. I’m saying that the statistical norm is for the backup to outperform the starter. Often, this is followed with “Well, the backup was the starter, we’d be a better team,” which is usually said without accounting for the reasons the backup has better numbers.
What’s odd about all of the Ingram/Richardson talk is that it exists without the statistical advantages.
In other words, if Richardson had averaged 7.2 ypc and Ingram had averaged (as he did) 6.2 ypc, I could sort of understand all of the talk, even if I didn’t agree with it (for the reasons I’ve listed). But given that Richardson’s statistics are so inferior to Ingram’s, the argument that he could have somehow increased his production with more playing time seems a bit misguided, especially since he’s a true freshman.
(By the way, interesting point about the limited playbook for true freshmen. This offseason I am going to take a look and see what I get. I am inclined to think the other advantages (more playing time in blowouts against bad teams, for example) more than make up for not being in on passing downs, since I the tendency is for their ypc numbers to be better. But we’ll see.)
Off the main Ingram-vs-Gearhart point, but I just want to say that yes, Richardson IS faster and stronger . . . but Ingram is a better runner, at least right now, and it’s not very close.
First, Ingram is better at finding the hole. That may be because Ingram has a year of running-back coaching from Burton Burns under his belt. Burns coached James Davis and C.J. Spiller at Clemson before he came to Alabama and turned Glen Coffee from a 3rd-stringer into a 1300-yarder and a 2nd-round draft pick.
However, Ingram has another advantage that Richardson may not ever be able to make up: he has a fantastic change of direction. He uses a hop step to change up – Gary Danielson called it a “two-footed jump cut” – reminiscent of another guy who was about the same size, strength, and speed: Emmett Smith. Add that hop step to good strength, good speed, and a knack for finding daylight, and Richardson might not ever catch him.
Glen, you harp on the same statistical points over and over again and you make it painfully clear that you have not seen any of Stanford’s games this year. Hell, I’d be shocked if you had even bothered to watch a youtube highlight of Gerhart. Mark Ingram did not carry his team in the same way that Toby did. Stanford without Toby Gerhart could have been a no win team. Yes, you heard me right, they could have ZERO wins.
Stanford’s D is absolute garbage and their passing ARGUABLY exists but only because of Gerhart’s heroics on the ground. In fact without Gerhart keeping opposing offenses off the field by grinding out the tough yards, I don’t even want to imagine how ugly Stanford’s season might have been this year.
Glen, 1st off, if you have absolutely no knowledge about the player, just keep your mouth shut and your eyes and ears open to learn about him. Secondly, at least spell his name right.
My apologies to Gerhart for the misspelling. Don’t know where I got that from.
However, I watched Stanford play several times this year. I live and work in the Bay Area and know plenty about the, uh, Tree – in fact, I used to live in Palo Alto.
Zero wins for Stanford is in your imagination only, but there is no doubt that Gerhart got them some wins. However, the converse of that is that there is no doubt that Ingram got two or three wins for Alabama.
Without Gerhart, Stanford probably doesn’t got to a bowl. Without Ingram, Alabama probably doesn’t go to the national championship game. The difference between those two scenarios should make the difference in the Heisman voting.
Further on Glen’s point, for the South Carolina game, at least, it’s unlikely Bama’d have won without Ingram.
On that night, Ingram ran for 246 yards (on only 24 carries) and caught two passes for 23 yards, on a night where McElroy threw for 92 yards and Richardson managed 13 yards on 5 carries.
Put another way, in the South Carolina game:
Ingram WAS involved in 26 plays that night, which resulted in 269 yards and 0 turnovers.
Ingram WASN’T involved in 32 plays that night, which resulted in 87 yards and 4 turnovers.
It was quite an exhibition, especially considering it came against a team that held CJ Spiller to 18 yards on 9 carries.
Now we’re going to pull out single game stats? Let’s take a closer look at that since it’s now on the table. I’ve made my point, but now I’m just having fun dissecting.
Let’s play the single game, uh, game. My turn.
Auburn
Bama had a few close calls this year and while this is just off the top of my head, I’m thinking Cody single handedly won the Tennessee game and McElroy bailed your guy out against Auburn in a game where Bama couldn’t run at all, against a defense that gave up 100 yds to multiple RB’s this season.
Next?
The more you crunch numbers, the farther you get away from the field. You’re getting close to Neptune. Do you have posters of Billy Beane on your wall? (You see what I did there? Do you see?)
Steven–I like Gerhart, and praised HP for putting him first on his ballot. The comment about Ingram was in response to the contention that ‘Bama would be undefeated whether or not Ingram was on the team.
That said, I’ve seen most of Gerhart’s games this season, but even his best performance didn’t hold a candle to the game Ingram had against South Carolina.
In any event, only someone with a very limited knowledge of CFB would argue that Richardson could have replaced Ingram and done anywhere near as well this season.
But since you think I’m “twisting the stats around,” why don’t you tell me how Richardson would somehow get a higher level of production with more carries? Richardson has 123 less carries than Ingram, and has 900 yards less–and 9 less TDs. He’d have to average 7.3 ypc to match Ingram’s production, and increase his TD rate to 1 every 13.7 carries. That wouldn’t happen. Even extrapolating his current numbers to match Ingram’s number of carries–and, keeping in mind, if this happened, his production numbers would probably tail off–he’d end up with nearly 300 yards and 3 TDs less (and, he’s not anywhere near the receiver Ingram is, either).
Perhaps more to the point, Richardson’s production this season is about comparable to Ingram at this point last season, when he was a backup to Glen Coffee with a roughly equivalent number of carries:
Richardson 2009: 126-642, 6 TDs
Ingram 2008: 135-702, 12 TDs
There’s simply no reason to believe that Richardson is a better back than Ingram at this point in time, other than getting a boner about his recruiting ranking. He looks to be about a year behind Ingram, and while that may change in the off-season, right now, he’s where Ingram was last season. There’d be a substantial dropoff at RB for Alabama if Ingram weren’t playing.
I must agree with your point about Gerhart putting up those numbers in the SEC, or in LA, is well made. I think he’s helped slightly by the fact that Stanford is Stanford (i.e., with the academics), though.
(By the way, if you actually think Cody, with his 2 assisted tackles, single-handedly won the Tennessee game, or had a greater role in it than Ingram, the only thing they had that day remotely resembling an offensive threat, you are embarrassing yourself. Did you actually see the game, or just the highlights?)
Solon, the only problem with your analysis is that it only looks at the raw numbers to extrapolate production. College football isn’t that simple. Do you really think that if, say, Ingram had gotten hurt in game one that Alabama was only going to rush for whatever yardage that was produced by Richardson and Upchurch in a backup role this year?
No. If Richardson was the full time back, he’d get up to speed quicker due to having more reps and his overall production would likely rise to his exposure to more playing time. That’s what happens in football all the time–backups who aren’t as productive due to being rep/rhythm guys suddenly produce once given a consistent shot.
To assume some sort of static production for Richardson based on backup numbers just isn’t realistic. It’s like saying Ingram should’ve had 700 yards rushing this year based on what he did last year when in reality his increased carries and reps in the offense was what allowed for greater production. And as I pointed out before, Richardson had a limited playbook which would’ve expanded as he grew with the offense, thus increasing his production even more. At that, it was pretty clear that he was a fine, mature back by season’s end with a ton of burgeoning talent and his production compared to Ingram reflected that.
What those who can identify talent see when they see Richardson vs. Ingram is just a more physically gifted back overall. To assume that Richardson wouldn’t get, say, 1,500 yards if he were the full-time back in an offense that focuses on establishing the run is quite an assumption in its own right that completely ignores his abilities, which are readily available to those who just don’t look at the stat sheet. To quote someone we both know, it’s not just what you do that is important, but how you do it.
Um, and Solon, didn’t Cody block two potential game-winning field goals against Tennessee? I think that’s what he meant by Cody ‘winning’ the game. If you don’t remember that, I question if you actually watched it.
HP Said: “When Sandymex was last heard here, he was making the case for why Tebow should win the Heisman and berating anyone who said otherwise.”
Not true. I made the case that Tebow would be a front runner only if he won out. At the time, you were insisting that only Ingram and McCoy could possibly win. Now you have Gerhart #1 and didn’t even give Ingram a 3rd place vote after his remarkable effort in the biggest game of the year.
Regarding Ingram vs Gerhart you claim there’s “no comparison” because Gerhart has 9 more TDs. Fumbles, yards/carry, wins/losses, championships, rankings and conference strength are among the many things that strongly favor Ingram. The numbers speak for themselves even when you try to ignore them.
After you extensively praised Ingram for his great play and said only he or McCoy could possibly win, your attempts to be-little his season look feeble and point up your own hypocrisy. Maybe you should claim SEC favoritism (3 Heisman winners in the last 25 years) versus the Pac 10 (3 Heisman winners in the last 7 years).
HP–the problem with simply looking at two backs and alleging one has better tools and thus is necessarily a better back belies how complex a game football is. Richardson may well be stronger and harder to tackle than Ingram (he’s not faster, at least not in pads–if anything, it’s a wash between them), but there are obviously things that make Ingram more productive (change of direction, or the ability to make defensive players miss), as listed above.
Now, then, if Ingram had gotten hurt early in the season, would Richardson have been more productive than he was? Possibly. But it’s also possible that he would have gotten hurt, or that his productivity would have suffered due to a lack of conditioning.
The larger point is that there’s absolutely no referent in CFB history that by virtue of making a true freshman a feature back, it makes them a better back. The learning curve is less than it is with QB or OL, but true freshmen RBs almost always benefit from being able to play as backups as freshmen (or redshirting) to learn the ropes, with exceedingly rare exceptions (Herschel Walker and Adrian Peterson come to mind). Considerably more often, when a true freshman RB has a great season, it’s in a situation like that of Marcus DuPree, where he backs up another back for most of the season, and then breaks out at the end of the year.
I suspect this is what would have happened with Richardson, which is why his production numbers are as low as they are–he certainly looks better now than he did at the beginning of the year. Had he started from the jump, he’d probably have sussed out what it takes to be a productive back sooner than Game 12, but not early enough to manage 1500 yards this season.
(And, yeah, HP, I understood where he was going with Cody v. Tennessee. Come on, man. But the fact that Cody showed up for two plays doesn’t obviate the fact that he didn’t do anything else for the rest of the game.)
Saying a back is more talented is not necessarily a reflection on production, which has other factors in play, namely system, playing time and game situations.
There’s no doubt that Ingram is a really good back, but it should not be controversial to posit that his backup is indeed more physically talented, though not as productive due to circumstances.
There are tons of instances in CFB histroy where a young back, by virtue of being given more reps (usually due to injury or sudden need), improved well beyond what his earlier production hinted at.
Heck, look at this year’s Oregon team. I saw LaMichael James carry twice against Boise State and said the following:
“By the way, did anyone else notice that his backup, LaMichael James, looked way better than Blount last night?”
http://heismanpundit.com/2009/09/04/blount-gone/
Based on his 2 carries, would you have thought he’d be more productive than Blount? Probably not.
My point was that Oregon was going to be just fine without Blount since they had a guy who looked to be even better. Had Blount never gotten suspended, I’m sure he would’ve had 1,300 or so yards in that offense and James would’ve played the Richardson to Blount’s Ingram. Instead, James got the nod and got the reps and got a lot better each week and gained 1,400+ yards, a Pac-10 record.
You will say, oh, but James is a RS frosh, but my point isn’t about class here, but about talent level and what allows it to be productive. My point is that reps and game experience are key. Once James got the reps, he quickly got better and proved himself to be better–or at least as good as–Blount.
Clearly Richardson is not as productive as Ingram. No one is contending that. The contention is that he is more talented and hence is the kind of back who, with more reps, would emerge as a better player.
Now, if you want to say that he is not more physically talented than Ingram, that’s your right. But you’d be wrong.
But what you are doing is looking at talented back who is only getting playing time in fits and starts and assuming that his production would be the same if the playing time were more consistent. That’s just not a valid comparison, which is why you need to look at his ability on the field to figure out what he’d be able to do. He is a different back than Ingram and has a chance to be truly special. Ingram is a nice back, a workhorse, but not really special in the physical sense.
As for Cody, you and I both know that his position is not one to create stats, but is there to mostly take up space. So to say he only had two tackles and therefore wasn’t a factor in a game where Tennessee scored 10 points is a bit silly.
HP–I can’t really argue with much of that (although the RS frosh thing should not be understated, in terms of the ability to step in and produce out of nowhere).
The problem is that the claim regarding Ingram is “Ingram isn’t the best back in his backfield,” as opposed to “Ingram isn’t the most physically talented back in is backfield.” These are two different things, and while the second is arguably true the first is likely false.
And, quite frankly, the insignificance of the second (with regard to whether Ingram should win the Heisman) wouldn’t even be addressed by his supporters, if it had stated as such. In fact, oddly, it might actually be a point in his favor (think Applewhite starting in front of the more physically-talented Simms).
And, on Cody, he’s probably the most overrated player in the country–he’s notorious for taking plays off, and that game was no exception. I watched every play of it, and believe me, he wasn’t a factor on defense.
Too many idiot SEC fans (a bit redundent) think that “ultimately finished 9-4″ means something other than “the team ended up with 4 losses”.
Unless you think a final record of 9-4 means the team only had 3 losses, in which case you fools need to go back to first grade and learn how to count.
3 points:
(1) Let me address the statement “Now, if you want to say that he is not more physically talented than Ingram, that’s your right. But you’d be wrong.” Sorry, Richardson is stronger and faster, but I wouldn’t necessarily say more talented. Ingram’s change of direction is truly special, and his strength and speed are not much behind Richardson.
Please bear in mind that I watched every Alabama game this year at least three times and know running backs better than any other position, so I have a clue about this. I don’t have a dog in the fight, either – in fact, early in the season I was rooting for Richardson to take the job until I realized that would hurt the team.
(2) Your point about Richardson’s likely development if he got more carries is a good one, though. And no one can possibly say how much or how quickly he would blossom (or if at all). I would sure be interested in seeing that.
Of course that’s neither here nor there in terms of this discussion.
(3) Cody IS overrated, but I wouldn’t go with “most overrated.” He’s a significant part of the Bama defense, even if he does take plays off. His main purpose is really just to be there and not get shoved around. The very middle of the line is absolutely denied to opposing teams cause Cody ain’t goin’ nowhere, I don’t care what you try – heck, I’ve seen him fight through a triple-team and put the guy in front of him flat on his back. Other teams have to plan around him, simple as that, and it’s just as true even if he’s not hustling around.
@ Stephen on December 8, 2009 6:51 pm
You have to remember when Tebow won in 2007 his team had 3 losses before the ceremony AND the NATIONAL CHAMPION that year had 2 losses. HE DIDN’T HAVE 4 LOSSES IN A YEAR WHERE THERE ARE 5 TEAMS THAT ARE UNDEFEATED.
———–
Who cares how many losses the national champion had that year? Is that somehow excusing that Florida was just bad that year? 4 losses is 4 losses, it doesn’t matter how many undefeated teams there are.
Stephen, what he was saying is that Florida was only one loss behind the teams that got into the BCS at the time the Heisman was awarded. Florida was almost in the title hunt all season, and that puts their games in a different kind of light. Right or wrong, half of winning the Heisman is being in the spotlight.
One loss behind the teams that got into the BCS Championship game, that is. . . .
I interrupt another HP essay about Ingram’s unworthiness to remind you that HP had Ingram #1 toward the end of the season and the final HP Poll has Ingram #1. HP was so high on Ingram that he declared that ONLY McCoy and Ingram could possibly win.
Per 100 touches:
Gerhart 591 yards, 1.6 fum, 8.1 TDs, 2.5 wins
Ingram 668 yards, 0.4 fum, 6.5 TDs, 4.7 wins
The Heisman criteria which voters are expected to adhere to states:
“The Heisman Memorial Trophy annually recognizes the outstanding college football player whose performance best exhibits the pursuit of excellence with integrity. WINNERS epitomize great ability combined with diligence, perseverance, and hard work.”
WINNING is clearly very important. When was the last time a guy with 4 losses at the time of voting won the Heisman? I’m pretty sure it was Steve Owens in 1969.
Ingram led #1 Alabama to a 13-0 record by beating #1 Florida and outperforming the #1 defense on a huge national stage. Meanwhile, Gerhart was 3 for 7 in close games… that’s a great batting average but rightly affects his Heisman chances.
My favorite “posits” by HP on this thread are that Richardson was better than Ingram, and that less knowledgeable voters mistook one for the other.
It’s been great going back and forth with you guys. I don’t do the message board thing very often because it eventually becomes a bunch of sentences that end with “….you ignorant sh#thead!” You’ve opened my eyes to Ingram and I do think he is better than I was initially giving him credit for. If he wins, I’ll be less upset about it now that you’ve made some good points. Having said that…..
What should the Heisman Trophy represent? Without listing all the traits I think it should be, suffice to say that Gerhart IS the Heisman Trophy. He carried his whole team…Hearing people say Ingram is “the best player on the best team” and “Alabama has never won a Heisman Trophy” as valid reasons to vote for him makes me want to rip my ears off.
When I watched Ingram, I was very impressed, but I never thought to myself “DAMN! This guy could win the Heisman!” Every single time I watched Gerhart run the ball, I DID say that. There is nobody in college football like Gerhart. There are several RB’s throughout the country that could likely step in and duplicate what Ingram did. Nobody could duplicate Gerhart.
—Re: The South Carolina game, I won’t argue that his performance was amazing. It was. It was this board that brought to light how amazing it really was…..Notre Dame doesn’t have a defense like Carolina, not even close. But STANFORD SUCKS! Gerhart is doing all of this on his own. He’s not running behind blocks, he’s TRUCKING EVERYONE on his own. He put Stanford on his back ALL SEASON. I just don’t think you can say that about Ingram……
***If Ingram missed the Carolina game, Bama likely wins anyway (as Carolina had 6 points). If Gerhart missed the ND game, Stanford loses by 10-20+ points. No question.***
—Winning???? Stanford would have a LOSING record without Gerhart. I get the sense that we are all in agreement with that statement. Gerhart MADE STANFORD A WINNER. Bama is a winner with or without Ingram, and likely undefeated, in my opinion.
I would say that is the definition of a winner in terms of an individual. This is an INDIVIDUAL award. Bama will play in the BCS championship game and that’s when the team can get their trophy.
Note: I wasn’t suggesting Richardson was better than Ingram. That would be ignorant. I was merely stating that I think if he replaced Ingram, he could put up similar (but lesser) numbers and Bama would still be 12-0. I don’t think we would notice a huge difference in Bama’s offensive production.
I guess it’s possible we aren’t going to wind up joining hands and singing kumbayah, but I agree, this has been an informative discussion.
Regardless of our beliefs, though, SAT results are making it look like it’s Ingram in a tight one. His lead over Gerhart is currently approximately equal to the largest margin of error SAT has had in any season since 2002. In 2002 SAT only had 127 counted ballots – it’s 242 this year already, which is about as many as they’ve ever gotten (the record was 249 in both 2007 and 2008).
I hypothesize that the folks whose ballots are unknown to SAT – because they are not trumpeting them – are more likely than the group whose ballots are known to be relatively uninformed, which means that below-the-radar candidates like Gerhart and Suh will probably do less well than they do with the folks whose ballots ARE known.
In other words, I expect Ingram to do slightly better with that group than he is doing with the group whose results they are posting. McCoy will do much better with that group, but he is too far behind to catch up. Tebow will probably do well enough to crack the top 5 such that his 3rd trip to the Apple won’t just be a gift.
Let me add in one note, on the kumbayah front. If Gerhart or Suh won it, I would golf-clap, shrug, and carry on. If McCoy won it, I would be spitting mad. His season has been barely above mediocre.
Steven–hey man, classy post.
It’s funny, I started out being very pro-Ingram, but after HP voted for Gerhart, and I looked a little closer, I’ve really come around him, and now I’m pretty torn. At this point, I’d feel comfortable with either winning it.
I’d also love for Suh to win it, for a different reason. To be honest, I don’t think it’s really deserved…not in the sense that it’s not *deserved,* but that it’s almost entirely the product of one game. He had a good season, but it’s kind of crazy that people are so fired up about voting for a DT who averaged 1/2 sack/game and 1 TFL during the regular season. Still, I’d appreciate the precedent; defensive players deserve a lot more hype than they get–especially DTs.
I’m much more torn on McCoy…HP was right, it’s difficult to overstate how tough it was to lead his team to an undefeated season, given the expectation level and how little else they have offensively. But at the same, time, the Big 12 was way down this season, and his candidacy seems to speak to one of the weaknesses of the Heisman, i.e. that it is a career award, and largely based on preseason reputation.
But yes, good discussion, guys.
(I should say, on the Ingram v. S Car thing, the argument is more one of game theory than actual performance–in other words, if Ingram hadn’t been getting his yards, S Car would have had better field position, thus putting them in a position to get more points on offense–but the details aren’t really important.)
Just to be clear, Suh had (if I am not mistaken) 1 TFL/game during the regular season, not just 1 TFL for the whole season. Sorry for any confusion.
I agree with the Suh sentiment. He is a beast, but the Heisman talk is a bit much. I’m glad to see the recognition, but he crept in there because of one Saturday. Not only did he play well, but when Tebow and McCoy laid eggs, people started looking around for something else. It’s become a Hollywood award so the winner has to have a Hollywood ending. Ingram and Suh fit that billing. I wish my candidate had played that day. If the ND game was on championship Saturday…..
OK, I’ll stop now.
I don’t think I would be upset if McCoy won, but that’s mostly based on the fact that I felt he should have won last year.
Did you see Paul Hornung’s comment? He said he had Tebow on his ballot until he saw him crying. What the? I hope the rest of the voters are a little more open minded than that. That’s ridiculous.
Steven–I agree that if Gerhart had played on that last Saturday of the season he’d probably have won this thing.
I had not seen that comment by Hornung. Geez Louise…I mean, if he feels that way, fine–it’s sort of stupid, but it’s his vote, let him do what he wants with it–but to tell people that, as though he’s proud of it? What a nutter.
Ingram, Gerhart or Suh would all be good choices, but there’s a big drop-off after that.
As for Hornung, I’ve heard of worse reasons for excluding someone. In 1956 many voters left Jim Brown off their ballots because of his skin color. Any guesses as to what 2-8 quarterback was the beneficiary?
At first, I thought: “Hornung, what a douchebag;” but then I thought about it, and now my conclusion is just that Hornung is an ex-football player pushing 50.
Football players thought that way back in 1950 when his attitudes were forged. That’s all. Times have changed, and for the better.
Now, it’s true there are still some 20- and 25-year-olds who think like that. Now THOSE folks are douchebags.
Pushing 80, I meant to say. Hey, HP, us idiots need an edit button or a preview button at least.