So we'll know who has won the 2009 Heisman Trophy today. Tim Tebow, Colt McCoy, Ndamukong Suh, Toby Gerhart and Mark Ingram are in the running. Who will win? I expect Ingram to get it, with Gerhart and Suh fighting it out for second place. Who should win it? I'd say Suh or Gerhart. Too much influence is placed on the teams record and whilst Ingram has certainly helped Alabama to an undefeated campaign so far, is he truly the best player in college football this year? I'd say no - Suh is clearly that man and could easily be the first overall pick in 2010. Gerhart would also be a worthy winner due to his stats this year, which are off the charts. McCoy and Tebow surely move out of serious consideration after poor display's last week. If either do win the award, it'll become nothing more than a 'lifetime achievement' for senior prospects who have enjoyed stellar careers.So who should win it? Let me know in the comments section.
11 comments:
I think the Heisman will come down to McCoy and Ingram. I think McCoy probably has the edge based on all the awards he took home on Thursday, although Ingram performed more effectively down the stretch.
I'd be surprised if McCoy wins - it'd be a token gesture based on the fact he didn't win last year and the fact he's a senior. That's not what the Heisman should be about. Texas have been average this year in a very vanilla schedule.
I think Suh should win the Heisman because he has been the most dominate player this year. Suh leads his team with 82 tackles, which is very unusual for a DT. Suh has 12 sacks, 19.5 tackles for loss, and an ridiculous 10 passes broken up. He makes players around him better and opposing teams have to game plan for him. I know the Heisman almost always goes to QB’s or RB’s, but I would love to see this award go to the player that has been the most dominate regardless of position. I’m a big college football fan and I think it would be refreshing to see someone other than a QB, RB, or even WR win the award.
All that being said, I think Mark Ingram will win the Heisman this year. It seems kind of odd that Ingram could win the Heisman, but he did not win the Doak Walker Award (best RB in the college football).
I believe either Suh or Gerhart should win it but I have an ugly feeling that it is going to be McCoy in the end. Rob, you might need to brace yourself...
In all honesty, the award should have been between Suh, Gerhart, Ingram, and Spiller. McCoy and Tebow have no business in the conversation. I truly believe Ingram should be in the mix because he really did carry Alabama offensively through a majority of their season. Gerhart, Spiller and Suh did the same.
I would go with Suh because like many have already said, he is simply dominate and can take over games by himself (as a DT nonetheless). I am glad that he had a huge day against Texas because too many people never got to watch him every saturday. I got to see him a lot and I was simply blown away with every facet of his game. His physical gifts are through the roof, but they pale in comparison to the high level of effort he plays with every down. Truly a unique special talent that I would gladly trade up to get if I was the Hawks GM.
Sadly, I think McCoy is going to win it (which is a crime). I'm just hoping someone has the testicular fortitude to stand up and say something about that publically. The only 2 decent teams he played this year, he absolutely sucked. That's not a Heisman winner.
Tebow, just laughable that he is in the mix. Somebody needs to call the SEC out for pathetic scheduling because that conference is not the most dominant in college football. They are living off the brand name at this point.
It's very sad that this award is slowly turning into a joke with no credibility because it awards stat padders, not high level performers.
Go Suh!
Agree with anonymous (the other one, above). Should be Suh or Gerhart. Ingram and Spiller have a case. Tebow and McCoy have no business getting votes. If McCoy wins, the Heisman has become a joke. Frankly, Suh already won defensive player of the year and numerous other awards. The fact that there are numerous options for offensive player means nobody separated from the other candidates like Suh did on defense. Should be Suh.
4. Gerhart
3. McCoy
2. Suh
1. Ingram
Am I the only one who at first dismissed Gerhart because he's a white RB?
"I'd be surprised if McCoy wins - it'd be a token gesture based on the fact he didn't win last year and the fact he's a senior. That's not what the Heisman should be about. Texas have been average this year in a very vanilla schedule."
Woah, woah. Texas may be a bit overrated but calling them "average" is absolutely absurd.
They went 13-0, they're ranked #2 in the nation, third most points in the FBS,4th in Football Outsiders' S&P+, and 12th in FO's Offensive S&P+. I don't think McCoy deserves the award either but Texas' offense has been just fantastic this year.
And.... Ingram wins it. I'm fine with that, I'd have preferred Suh or Gerhart, but at least Ingram was a good candidate.
Every time I saw Texas this year - they were average. Their schedule was very vanilla - the tough teams they faced (eg, Oklahoma) were decimated through injury. When they took on a Nebraska team with a legitimate defense, they struggled badly. If the Corn Huskers could even move the ball remotely at all on offense, they would've won that game comfortably. The fact they could barely muster a first down cost them in the end.
We can talk about stats all night, but they faced Louisiana-Monroe, Wyoming, UTEP, Colorado, UCF, Baylor. The 'tough' end of the schedule involves games at hardly scary Missouri and Oklahoma State and that game with Oklahoma minus Bradford/Gresham.
McCoy was flat out awful against Oklahoma and Nebraska. He was awful against Texas Tech. He did little against OSU or Baylor. He didn't deserve to win the Heisman.
"Every time I saw Texas this year - they were average."
Well then you either didn't see Texas very much, or your eyes are lying to you.
"We can talk about stats all night, but they faced Louisiana-Monroe, Wyoming, UTEP, Colorado, UCF, Baylor. The 'tough' end of the schedule involves games at hardly scary Missouri and Oklahoma State and that game with Oklahoma minus Bradford/Gresham."
The FO stats are adjusted for schedule. Even with the adjustments for the easy schedule Texas still comes out as a top 5 team. They only played one game they won by less than 10 points all season (against Oklahoma) before the Big-12 Championship, and only had 3 games they won by less than 20. They beat 7 teams by more than 30 points, average teams might not even win 7 games.
"If the Corn Huskers could even move the ball remotely at all on offense, they would've won that game comfortably. The fact they could barely muster a first down cost them in the end."
A big part of the reason they couldn't move the ball is because Texas is so good on defense (7th in the nation in S&P+). The Texas defense is even better than the offense.
"McCoy was flat out awful against Oklahoma and Nebraska. He was awful against Texas Tech. He did little against OSU or Baylor. He didn't deserve to win the Heisman."
I already said I don't think McCoy should win the Heisman. From reading your blog all year I know you don't like McCoy at all as a pro prospect at all, and I agree with you. But you said Texas has been average, which is just wrong. They were a dominant team this year, even considering the schedule they played.
I think you pay the Nebraska offense a massive compliment by suggesting the texas defense was mainly responsible for their issues in that game. The Corn Huskers have been truly awful on offense all year, which is why despite their good record and positive reviews, they spent a large chunk of the season debating a change at quarterback. They could do nothing in that game, and resorted to basically 1-2 yard plodding runs up the middle praying something worked. If they had even an average offense, they win.
Look - I was never impressed with Texas this year. It's semantics really, obviously compared to Washington State or any other team of that ilk... Texas are not 'average'. By their own lofty standards and by the fact they're unbeaten, I don't think they're all that. I don't follow a college team and I have no grudge against any either - I call everything how I see it. Texas did not impress me this year and their schedule basically made this a pretty easy ride to the national championship. They still had to go out and do it - sure. But there wasn't one game on that schedule I thought would be a big challenge and they still had to scrape through a couple of close ones. They're barely better than Nebraska and were one wretched decision away from a loss in that one and a disaster. That warrants a reality check on their behalf.
Post a Comment