Great. I’m trying to understand your point then. It seemed to me that your point was that QB is a much more important position than RB, so Mariota should get the nod for Heisman. My point was that Gordon was as important to his team’s success as Mariota, and that the QB in Oregon’s offense isn’t as difficult as you seem to make it out to be.
Well, I think most people agree that QB is the most important position. But that’s not why Mariota should get the Heisman. All I’m saying is the Heisman should go to the best player of the year, which is not determined by comparing him against players from 20 years ago (i.e., breaking a 20-year old NCAA record, especially for one game). Nor is it determined by his importance to his particular team.
It’s determined by comparing this year’s players against each other, period. IMO Mariota’s excellence in several areas of football skill trumps Gordon’s excellence in one area.
That’s my opinion, and much of it is based on gut feeling, rather than facts I can cite. And I freely admit that I’m an Oregon homer, and that I’ve watched every Oregon game, and only a few Wisconsin games, so I’m probably not objective.
So if anyone wants to make a case for Gordon based on him being a better football player than Mariota, great, I have no problem with that. There’s just no way to know. I’m as big an Oregon fan as there is, but even I know that Oregon wouldn’t beat FSU by 40 points every time they played — they just had a great day, and FSU had a lousy day. If I can admit that, then a Gordon fan should be able to admit that maybe Nebraska’s run defense just had a lousy day when Gordon set his record.
Or maybe all the stuff about 8 in the box is true, and Gordon is the greatest RB since Jim Brown. No way to know.
But if you say he’s a better player BECAUSE he broke more records, or BECAUSE he’s crucial to his team, then I’ll argue with you, because IMO those criteria don’t necessarily determine the better player, especially when they play different positions.
Gordon’s statistical dominance is the evidence (facts) to support the conclusion (Gordon is better). That’s how these things work. You offer an opinion (and who is a “better” football players is certainly an opinion), and support it with evidence. And you have to consider that evidence in context, especially so when you are comparing players who play different positions. So Gordon’s statistics, within the context of comparing it to other running backs, is certainly relevant and an important piece of evidence to support the conclusion. I don’t get how you can just wave it away.
I agree completely! Ben Roethlisberger has no business whatsoever playing in the NFL. I have no idea why advertisers haven’t risen up in arms over this known two-time rapist’s continued play in the NFL.
Or Kobe Bryant. Fucking rapist that he is.
Or was there somebody else you were talking about?
I guess I’m not making myself clear. I’m not waving away his stats. Of course they’re relevant evidence to support the opinion that he should have won the Heisman.
But the post I was responding to implied that they should be determinative; that the Heisman should go to the guy with the most records, and I dispute that. Records are great, but I (and evidently, most other people) think you have to look at other stuff, too.
And no matter how objective you try to be, you can never really know. Would Gordon have even more yards if he played in the Pac-12? Oregon is now the consensus #1 team in the country, but they give up hella yards every game — they only get tough in the Red Zone. Would Gordon have a lot less yards if he played in the SEC? Who knows?
You say he’s absolutely crucial to Wisconsin’s success, but would anyone have denied that Braxton Miller was crucial to OSU’s success last spring? Yet OSU lost not only Miller, but Barrett, and now they’re playing for the national championship. You just never know.
Nobody is saying Gordon’s not great, or even deserving of the Heisman. It’s just that I, and many others, thought Mariota was even better.
UCLA making it look easy against K State.
The PAC-12 is killing it in the post-season. Maybe they’re the best conference.
A little jumpy at the moment after the fumble recovery. False starts.
Where is OAK? The number one SEC Fanboy? All Points Bulletin for** OAKMINSTER**
Probably say something like a Blind Hog finds a acorn and the Fat Hog goes hungry every once awhile.
I saw that hit on the Baylor kicker and IIRC, there was no replay of it. But man it did get a wakeup call into 2015. I am glad he is OK, the way he just toppled over was scary looking.
I guess I got to root for the DUCKS…although the PACxx fanboys are getting a little tiresome. I can’t stand tOSU. Pretentious!
Good games from Oregon and OSU.
You say this so much, as if it’s some kind of talisman.
As I’ve already said, who is the better player is an opinion. Saying “who knows” does nothing to change that. We’re all just offering our opinion on that conclusion. And the statistics that Gordon put up this year, and the context of those statistics, is evidence that he is the best player in the nation. You can agree, or disagree, with it. But simply repeating “who knows” or not adding any evidence to support your conclusion that Mariota is better doesn’t really add to the discussion.
I guess you’re right. I wish I would have said that.
Said what? You have lost me completely.
And yet they very nearly let it get away.
That K-State kicker has a spot in Folies Bergere. Damn, that was fruity looking, but he nearly pulled it off!
Washington isn’t looking too spiffy so far. Let’s hope they don’t queer the conference. But then, Oregon will account for two wins, so there’s that.
Yeah, that kick was amazing, especially since he had to pull it off with the game on the line. Not his fault UCLA handled it so well.
Arizona has already blown the Pac-12’s chance for a sweep, so UW, with a less than .500 conference record, won’t hurt anything. But I do wish they had shown up.
For God’s sake, shut up before you bring dalej 42 into this thread!!:eek:
Er, no - otherwise, you would think there would be at least one Division II or III player that deserved it. (I remember a Sports Illustrated cover story decades ago that had some DIII player on it as somebody’s Heisman vote - there was one voter who made it a point not to vote for a I-A/FBS player.)
How well your team does has a lot to do with your Heisman chances. Try telling Napoleon McCallum, or maybe even John Elway (who never went to a bowl game as a player) otherwise.
Well, it’s voted on by humans, so there’s no telling which criteria a given person might use to determine the best player of the year, but I think it’s reasonable to say if you want to be the best, you have to compete against the best. It’s obvious that it’s easier to stand out against weak competition.
Any player aspiring to the Heisman should know he needs to play for an elite Division I school. If he isn’t good enough to get recruited by one out of high school, he’s still free to go the Cam Newton route, and prove himself in a smaller school, or a junior college, before transferring.
And to a lesser extent, that goes for the success of the program. A player can’t win games by himself, but if he’s aiming for the Heisman, he knows he has a lot better chance to do it with Alabama than with Washington State.
FWIW…Cam Newton started his college career for Urban Meyer and the University of Florida.
According to Rivals, he was 5 Star Bluechipper from an Atlanta area High School.
Apparently Urban Meyer is really good at recruiting QB’s.
If the Heisman Trophy is to go to the year’s best QB, then combine it with the Davie O’Brien award.
I tend to think it should be judged the way best in show at a dog show is judged. Heck, if the nicest dogs had to win every year, it would be a golden retriever winning all the time. In fact, a goldie has never once won the top prize at the top US dog show.
Best in show goes to the pooch the judge thinks best exemplifies its own breed. In other words great danes judged against the great dane standard and poodles against the poodle standard.
In 2011 RG3 passed for 4,200 yards and ran for 700. Better than Mariota.
Also in 2011 here are Russel Wilson’s stats compared to Mariota’s as of the end of November (IIRC, from Nov 24th:
Mariota vs Wilson
completion 210 vs 225
Att 309 vs 309
pct 68.0 vs 72.8
yds 3103 vs 3175
Y/A 10 vs 10.3
td 32 vs 33
int 2 vs 4
And Wilson had a higher QBR (191.8 vs 184.3). Wilson came in ninth in the voting that year.
Mariota’s 2014 is good, but nothing historically special.
Also from November 24:
How far ahead of other QBs is Mariota?
Mariota: 210 of 309 (68.0%) 3,103 yards (10.0 YPA), 282.1 YPG, 2 int, 32 TD Rating 185.2
He is 8th in completion percentage, 14th in total passing yards, tied for third in TDs, tied for first in yards per attempt and he is first in passing rating. (He is also way down on attempts at 59th. - probably a function of winning blow outs.) Russell Wilson’s passer rating in 2011 was 191.8.
Gordon is first in total yards, 5th in yards per attempt (but the four higher guys have under 200 attempts each), is first in TDs, and leads the nation in scoring.
Gordon’s season was once in a generation. Mariota’s is/was a fantastic season, but will likely be bettered next year or the year after and is about as good as a number of other guys were in 2011.
I didn’t bother to look up Manzel 2012 or Winston 2013. But they’re probably a just bit less fantastic than Mariota’s this year. And probably exceed Mariota’s in a couple of areas.
Compare Gordon to any running back of the 2000’s. Only one guy was close and he played for Central Florida. Before the bowl game he was fourth all time in total rushing yards for a season. Mariota is third for just this season, after playing 14 games.
ESPN Stats
Other links
Are we still talking about Melvin Gordon for Heisman?
59-0.
Not fair, but that’s really all that needs to be said.