CFB51 College Football Fan Community
The Power Five => Big Ten => Topic started by: OrangeAfroMan on December 07, 2018, 10:24:03 PM
-
I'd vote for Murray.
That being said, I don't agree with the odds-on-favorite being Tua all season and then suddenly Murray. Did Tua's bad half/injury suddenly not make him the best player this year?
If your vote was Tua a week ago, it should be the same today, imo. His SECCG performance shouldn't undo 12 games of greatness.
-
I’d vote Haskins. Almost 4,600 passing yards on 70% completion and his 47 TD passes leads the nation and is the most from a P5 QB since Sam Bradford’s 2008 season when he won the Heisman.
Haskins literally carried that team. He threw for 400 yards 5 times and really 6 if you count Michigan as he was only 4 yards short with 396 and absolutely shredded the then #1 D in America. Really could’ve thrown for 600 had he had the completions. Kid only completed the ball 20 times. Still wound up with 396 and 6 TUBS. Insane.
And yes, the bad final game by Tua matters. Have to take into account the entire season. Even CCG games. The CCG games are when you want the player playing his absolute best.
Bama has more talent around Tua than Haskins has around him at OSU and Bama also has a way better defense backing him up. There were games where if Haskins wasn’t throwing for 400 yards and 4 TDs- Ohio State was going to lose. That’s a lot of pressure on a QB and the kid still delivered them to 12-1. I just feel like his degree of difficulty was so much higher. Plus- he’s just better. Period. There are throws that Haskins can make that Tua just can’t. Some of the throws Haskins made this year left me with my jaw on the floor. This kids arm is up there with the Drew Henson’s or Mallett’s or Stafford’s. His arm is a fricken rocket launcher.
-
Well Murray knew that if he didn't score almost every drive, OU was going to lose. That's how bad their defense has been this year. And he's going to set a new all-time passer rating record this year. Oh, and 40 TDs, on 150 fewer attempts than Haskins. Oh, and 900 yards rushing with 11 TDs.
To put it in perspective:
the difference in QB rating between Murray and Haskins is the same as between Haskins this year and Wisconsin's Hornibrook last year. That's the gap. It's sick.
-
I find it weird that despite all three having historic seasons, Haskins is being looked at has an afterthought. Some articles don't even mention him. Murray is very good, though the case against him is very easy - he plays in the Big 12 for Oklahoma and I would throw for 3000 yards if I were their QB and I struggle to throw a spiral.
-
A little drama is good for ratings.
If they choose this guy or that, fine with me.
-
Kinda weird that the Doak Walker Award kid didn't even get an invite.
-
Is there a limit on number to get invites?
-
I find it weird that despite all three having historic seasons, Haskins is being looked at has an afterthought. Some articles don't even mention him. Murray is very good, though the case against him is very easy - he plays in the Big 12 for Oklahoma and I would throw for 3000 yards if I were their QB and I struggle to throw a spiral.
Setting aside Big 12 silliness, I think the answer has to do with the way narratives can harden.
The Heisman is a storybook award, for bad or for good. It goes to someone with a story. Ohio State's is complicated.
OSU spent most of the year as a disappointment. It's biggest failure was on a big stage against a so-so team, and the enduring image of Haskins was throwing again and again. He became the gunslinger doing what he could with a bad defense and not much running support, but it remained in the context of disappointment. The big non-conference win evaporated. And there were stats, but they always had that looming over them. Sadly, that doesn't get a guy a Heisman.
And in that, we probably underrated what OSU and him were doing. I had a friend who is an ardent OSU fan, one who is often levelheaded, and when the Michigan game came around, he said something like "If Michigan can't beat, THIS Ohio State team ..."
Of course THIS Ohio State team was 10-1, No. 8 in S&P. But they couldn't shake that feeling, even on here. As such, what should've been a big win in The Game became more of a referendum on Michigan. The BTTG didn't help, with a team destined to get loss No. 5.
Basically everyone, including many of us, treated OSU like a disappointment right up to the end, and by the time that could shift, there wasn't enough runway to fully throw things back into a positive gear. If something like the Michigan game happens 2-3 weeks earlier, I'd bet there's a better chance Haskins is contending and maybe there's a more real discussion about a playoff spot.
(It also brings into relief the situation in 2014, where OSU got the defining win at the start of November and benefitted from the Big 12's split/lack of a title game)
-
Is there a limit on number to get invites?
It's based on a vote threshold. If the votes are concentrated, it's usually three, if they're spread out, I know we've seen five, maybe six?
-
Kinda weird that the Doak Walker Award kid didn't even get an invite.
For better or worse, 7-5 teams don't get their guys votes.
-
My vote is for Chris Carter hyping Harbaugh back to the NFL.
-
For better or worse, 7-5 non-helmet teams don't get their guys votes.
Fixed.
-
Haskins is sort of a third wheel because he lags in QB rating by 30 points. That’s a lot. How much is it?
The gap between the careers of Cousins and Lewerke.
Chuck Long and James Landenberg?
JT Barrett and Steve Bellisari
A big gap.
-
Haskins is sort of a third wheel because he lags in QB rating by 30 points. That’s a lot. How much is it?
The gap between the careers of Cousins and Lewerke.
Chuck Long and James Landenberg?
JT Barrett and Steve Bellisari
A big gap.
I don't recall QB rating ever being much of a factor in Heisman races
-
Fixed.
Oddly, this is mostly untrue in recent years.
You have to go back to 2012 to find a guy on a worst than 9-win team in the top five. Going to the top 7, you get Tevin coleman on 4-8 IU and Andre Williams on 7-5 BC.
The 2012 guy was Marquise Lee, whose numbers were pretty insane, I don’t remember if he actually got invited to New York. Then you have to go back to 2010 when Denard was sixth, I think, owing to that September Heisman the team couldn’t finish.
Ticking back
Gerhart on a 8-4 team 2nd
Shon Green on 8-4 6th
Pat White on 8-4 WVU 7th
McFadden was on a 8-4 team and was 2nd
Dennis Dixon was on a 8-4 team, but obviously had extenuation circumstances
If anything, guys who overcome low wins tend to be on non-helmet teams.
-
I don't recall QB rating ever being much of a factor in Heisman races
Is there a statistical number that you feel has historically weighed more heavily?
-
Setting aside Big 12 silliness, I think the answer has to do with the way narratives can harden.
The Heisman is a storybook award, for bad or for good. It goes to someone with a story. Ohio State's is complicated.
OSU spent most of the year as a disappointment. It's biggest failure was on a big stage against a so-so team, and the enduring image of Haskins was throwing again and again. He became the gunslinger doing what he could with a bad defense and not much running support, but it remained in the context of disappointment. The big non-conference win evaporated. And there were stats, but they always had that looming over them. Sadly, that doesn't get a guy a Heisman.
And in that, we probably underrated what OSU and him were doing. I had a friend who is an ardent OSU fan, one who is often levelheaded, and when the Michigan game came around, he said something like "If Michigan can't beat, THIS Ohio State team ..."
Of course THIS Ohio State team was 10-1, No. 8 in S&P. But they couldn't shake that feeling, even on here. As such, what should've been a big win in The Game became more of a referendum on Michigan. The BTTG didn't help, with a team destined to get loss No. 5.
Basically everyone, including many of us, treated OSU like a disappointment right up to the end, and by the time that could shift, there wasn't enough runway to fully throw things back into a positive gear. If something like the Michigan game happens 2-3 weeks earlier, I'd bet there's a better chance Haskins is contending and maybe there's a more real discussion about a playoff spot.
(It also brings into relief the situation in 2014, where OSU got the defining win at the start of November and benefitted from the Big 12's split/lack of a title game)
Well said, and correct IMHO. Haskins season would be a runaway Heisman most years.
-
Oddly, this is mostly untrue in recent years.
You have to go back to 2012 to find a guy on a worst than 9-win team in the top five. Going to the top 7, you get Tevin coleman on 4-8 IU and Andre Williams on 7-5 BC.
The 2012 guy was Marquise Lee, whose numbers were pretty insane, I don’t remember if he actually got invited to New York. Then you have to go back to 2010 when Denard was sixth, I think, owing to that September Heisman the team couldn’t finish.
Ticking back
Gerhart on a 8-4 team 2nd
Shon Green on 8-4 6th
Pat White on 8-4 WVU 7th
McFadden was on a 8-4 team and was 2nd
Dennis Dixon was on a 8-4 team, but obviously had extenuation circumstances
If anything, guys who overcome low wins tend to be on non-helmet teams.
You did a lot of work to counter my dig at Notre Dame...
-
I don't recall QB rating ever being much of a factor in Heisman races
It's not necessarily QB rating being a deciding factor, but that QB rating is the measure of the aggregate statistical "reasons" a voter would cast his ballot for Murray or Tua over Haskins.
Haskins has the volume. Great. More yds, TDs,...but on a lot more attempts.
Haskins had the most yards on the 2nd-most attempts. Murray was 3rd in yards and not even in the top 20 in completions. Haskins first in TDs? Murray was 2nd, on 150 fewer attempts. Murray was more efficient, nearly matching Haskins' volume stats in far fewer opportunities.
And all of it ignores the vast advantage Murray had running the ball, both in yards and TDs. He was even 7th in the country in yards per carry.
Haskins' season would have won him a Heisman in the 90s and even the 2000s. But in the past 5 years, a season like his has become more and more common. He wouldn't have beaten Mayfield last year. Bu Rudolph had a similar season. Goff did. Mahomes did. Watson did. Passing stats have gone astronomical lately.
It's easy to be blinded by his "arm talent" and potential NFL career, but alas, the Heisman is a collegiate award. So Mr. 5'9" baseball player Murray gets the trophy...because he earned it.
-
The voters can base their vote on anything, right? "Most outstanding player" is qualitative.
It means flashiest offensive back with 3-4 highlights and/or massive statistics on a team that excelled.
-
It's not necessarily QB rating being a deciding factor, but that QB rating is the measure of the aggregate statistical "reasons" a voter would cast his ballot for Murray or Tua over Haskins.
Haskins has the volume. Great. More yds, TDs,...but on a lot more attempts.
Haskins had the most yards on the 2nd-most attempts. Murray was 3rd in yards and not even in the top 20 in completions. Haskins first in TDs? Murray was 2nd, on 150 fewer attempts. Murray was more efficient, nearly matching Haskins' volume stats in far fewer opportunities.
And all of it ignores the vast advantage Murray had running the ball, both in yards and TDs. He was even 7th in the country in yards per carry.
Haskins' season would have won him a Heisman in the 90s and even the 2000s. But in the past 5 years, a season like his has become more and more common. He wouldn't have beaten Mayfield last year. Bu Rudolph had a similar season. Goff did. Mahomes did. Watson did. Passing stats have gone astronomical lately.
It's easy to be blinded by his "arm talent" and potential NFL career, but alas, the Heisman is a collegiate award. So Mr. 5'9" baseball player Murray gets the trophy...because he earned it.
Yeah, sure I don't mind him winning, he is very deserving. I just thought the coverage had looked weird, where articles and coverage didn't even mention that Haskins was present. Usually there is at least some lip service paid to all the candidates invited, especially when he might have had an even better season. Judging from Twitter a lot of non-Buckeye types noticed it too.
-
He was a distant third, and was probably only there because they haven't had only 2 players invited as long as I've been watching. Kinda lame for him, but maybe he enjoyed himself.
-
I wonder now how often a "classic" drop back QB will win the Heisman. He would if there is little competition and someone puts up huge numbers, but they tend not to be "dramatic" in highlights, just some dude standing back there threading needles with bolts.
-
I wonder now how often a "classic" drop back QB will win the Heisman. He would if there is little competition and someone puts up huge numbers, but they tend not to be "dramatic" in highlights, just some dude standing back there threading needles with bolts.
If he’s on a very good team, could still happen.
The bigger question is, how many of those are there, and how many are overshadowed by their running games?
-
I wonder if you could make a "legit" Heisman list (variety of positions, team successes, etc) by just looking at the top 10 of voting each year, and awarding it to the most obscure guy on it. Like giving it to the only DL in the top 10 or the only LB....and if there are two obscure position players (or none), then you award it to the guy on the more obscure team - the non-helmets.
That might make a more genuine, accurate annual list of the "most oustanding" player each year, no?
-
I wonder now how often a "classic" drop back QB will win the Heisman. He would if there is little competition and someone puts up huge numbers, but they tend not to be "dramatic" in highlights, just some dude standing back there threading needles with bolts.
if Andrew Luck and Dwayne Haskins didn't win it, then I don't see a drop back passer winning it any time soon.
Think you'll need to be a Tebow, Newton, Murray, or VY style QB to win it from now on. Most of the best teams these days don't run a purely pro-style type of offense and pass game. You can probably count on one hand the teams that run offenses like that.
-
Well it's a matter of 2 players with a ton of passing yards and TDs and a great passer rating....but one of them also ran for 800 yards and 10+ TDs.
It becomes an obvious choice, logically.
-
You can trace it back to Tebow or credit Meyer. Instead of treating the QB like a Faberge egg sitting on the mantle, not to be touched or breathed-on too harshly, you utilize him as a ball-carrier, using your ball-carrier as an extra blocker. Coaches have always wanted their QB to be big and strong as a defense mechanism from being hurt by traditional methods (getting sacked). Meyer said f- that, if he's big and strong, let's USE that proactively, as an offensive mechanism.
So Tebow did it and was okay (he was hurt that one time on a pass play), Newton did it and was okay (and was Tebow's backup initially), then even little Johnny Football did it and was okay. So as all good ideas do, it caught on.
There's nothing wrong with handing the ball off to a RB. But if a player (QB) takes on more of the workload, it should be taken into account, and he has, will, and should be credited for doing so.
These offenses that didn't have a FB, but recognized that in certain situations, you are best served to have a FB, you use the biggest guy in your backfield, which is now often the QB. There were Michael Vick and Pat White types, trying to take advantage of their speed, but those were mostly (if I recall correctly) the traditional draws and scrambles, with a few option plays thrown in.
-
if Andrew Luck and Dwayne Haskins didn't win it, then I don't see a drop back passer winning it any time soon.
Think you'll need to be a Tebow, Newton, Murray, or VY style QB to win it from now on. Most of the best teams these days don't run a purely pro-style type of offense and pass game. You can probably count on one hand the teams that run offenses like that.
I dunno. I feel comfortable saying Haskins and Tua would have been the top two if OSU had a better defense this year.
-
I think the "eye appeal" of the very mobile QB will always be better than that of a drop back passer with the same overall stats.
The former will have more "highlight plays" while the latter will simply have a bunch of nicely thrown passes and stats to match.
-
Yeah, but it's not a "shrug, what-can-you-do?" thing, either. The very mobile QB is doing something the dropback passer cannot do. The (elite) mobile QB can do what the dropback guy can, plus.
-
I think the "eye appeal" of the very mobile QB will always be better than that of a drop back passer with the same overall stats.
The former will have more "highlight plays" while the latter will simply have a bunch of nicely thrown passes and stats to match.
The thing is, they’re posting better passing stats. And adding in hundreds of rushing yards.
There’s also a weird gap in perception. Andrew Luck was a 400-yard and 500-yard rusher. Tua isn’t near that as a runner. What was Russell Wilson?
-
I'm talking about two "equal" QBs with differing styles.
One guy passes for 4,000 yards. The other runs for 1,000 and passed for 3000. The second guy will have more highlights.
Now if some dude passes for 4,000 and no mobile QB had a great year, he's in.
-
The thing is, they’re posting better passing stats. And adding in hundreds of rushing yards.
There’s also a weird gap in perception. Andrew Luck was a 400-yard and 500-yard rusher. Tua isn’t near that as a runner. What was Russell Wilson?
tua was on pace to be ~300 yd rusher this season before the knee injury (first 5 games). that was also considering he averaged barely playing past halftime in those games (just under 35 min/g, or 5 min into 3rd qtr). it's fair to assume he could have and would have put up 4-500 yds rushing if his team had needed him for more than half the game all season and he didn't have an injury bug.
having said that, it's something you must consider. and he's NOT the same kind of runner murray is. i have no issues with murray winning. kid is special.
wilson was 260, 420, 340 (rounded to nearest 10), from 09-11, in order.
-
tua was on pace to be ~300 yd rusher this season before the knee injury (first 5 games). that was also considering he averaged barely playing past halftime in those games (just under 35 min/g, or 5 min into 3rd qtr). it's fair to assume he could have and would have put up 4-500 yds rushing if his team had needed him for more than half the game all season and he didn't have an injury bug.
having said that, it's something you must consider. and he's NOT the same kind of runner murray is. i have no issues with murray winning. kid is special.
wilson was 260, 420, 340 (rounded to nearest 10), from 09-11, in order.
Fair, but does that mean Tua is a dual-threat while Luck was not.
With Wilson, was he a “dual-threat” in UW’s very pro-style attack? The categories get blurred.
-
Consider the "bottom" of QB rushing stats isn't zero, but some negative number, usually between 50-150. That's your baseline in reality.
-
I think the "eye appeal" of the very mobile QB will always be better than that of a drop back passer with the same overall stats.
The former will have more "highlight plays" while the latter will simply have a bunch of nicely thrown passes and stats to match.
depends on the drop back passer honestly. Not all passes or passers are created equal.
Murray had some great runs and nice throws. Not sure he had any throws that were as highlight or jaw dropping as some of the ones I saw Haskins make this year. Haskins has an ELITE arm. That thing is off the charts. Pocket passers with that kind of arm impress me more than guys like Murray or Tebow. The kinds of offensive systems those guys play in just naturally produce stat padding and inflated stats.
The only running QB's that ever really blew me away with their running abilities were Vick and VY. Vick was just like Barry Sanders playing QB and VY was just unstoppable in the open field once he started going. Maybe not the best 40 time ever, but once he got going- he was gone. I'd throw Denard in there as well, but honestly he was so bad at passing the football compared to all these other guys- I really just consider him a RB that happened to throw the ball a little bit here and there. Kinda like Tebow- who to me was just a battering ram Fullback/RB like a John Riggins that happened to throw the ball a little bit here and there in a gimmicky before it's time offense that was way ahead of defenses at the time and it took defenses a long time just to catch up.
-
Fair, but does that mean Tua is a dual-threat while Luck was not.
With Wilson, was he a “dual-threat” in UW’s very pro-style attack? The categories get blurred.
i don't consider either to be dual threats. but, they're both capable of making you pay if you don't at least try to contain them.
they aren't going to tear you up with their legs like murray or even hurts will. but to say they don't use their legs effectively is incorrect. tua and luck moved around with their legs a good bit, but more so looking to find passing lanes. while murray and hurts just take off and make you pay by eating up yards.
also, to whoever said a pocket qb isn't going to win vs a dual threat qb if all things are equal is just wrong. if tua doesn't have an injury driven flop of a game in seccg, he wins it. hell, even with that game, if his top wr and te had not dropped 2 td's (not to mention the 6-8 other drops in the game), he'd have about 260 yds, 3 tds and 2 ints. not great, but not the terrible mess it ended up being. and maybe still saves him the heisman.
as it was, murray deserved it. but it's not like tua didn't have a shot, and was in fact in control until the seccg when it fell apart for him.
-
So Tua has too much talent around him.
And Murray doesn't have the "arm talent".
Man, you guys are in love with the B10 guy, aren't you? He had a truly great season...and was a distant 3rd for the Heisman in every region of the country, including the Midwest. But boy, you guys are really enamored with him.
I guess some people have a hard time differentiating between college performance and NFL draft scouting. For whatever the reason.
-
Murray's arm is no slouch
-
So Tua has too much talent around him.
And Murray doesn't have the "arm talent".
Man, you guys are in love with the B10 guy, aren't you? He had a truly great season...and was a distant 3rd for the Heisman in every region of the country, including the Midwest. But boy, you guys are really enamored with him.
I guess some people have a hard time differentiating between college performance and NFL draft scouting. For whatever the reason.
NFL not looking for the best players?
-
Right, not the most productive ones.
-
Meyer breaks a streak of OSU coaches having a guy win the Heisman that dates back to the 1940s.
-
Haskins never had a chance at the Heisman as he didn't have ESPN hyping him the whole year. ESPN picks the Heisman winner in this day and age. Without ESPN telling the voters who is going to win, they would actually have to watch the games and decide for themselves. Now they just have to listen to ESPN's brain trust to tell them who the rightful winner is usually starting about mid October.
-
I guess ESPN constructed the QB rating algorithm, the rushing yardage descrepency, and kept Bama undefeated, too, right? I really expect more objectivity from some of you guys.
-
I don't think ESPN has anywhere near the influence some appear to think. Just because they have talk shows that claim this or that doesn't mean anybody of import is paying attention, or is swayed by such talk.
Even if they push the SEC 24/7, that doesn't mean anyone listens. I don't. Maybe others shouldn't either.
-
Haskins never had a chance at the Heisman as he didn't have ESPN hyping him the whole year. ESPN picks the Heisman winner in this day and age. Without ESPN telling the voters who is going to win, they would actually have to watch the games and decide for themselves. Now they just have to listen to ESPN's brain trust to tell them who the rightful winner is usually starting about mid October.
The person who would’ve been ESPN favorite in mid-October didn’t win.
Mid-October was when Haskins started the three-game stretch that helped keep him from winning it.
-
I guess ESPN constructed the QB rating algorithm, the rushing yardage descrepency, and kept Bama undefeated, too, right? I really expect more objectivity from some of you guys.
Well they didn't construct Big 12 defenses.
-
Right, not the most productive ones.
well is the award for the guy with the best stats or the best player?
Because to me, all things being equal, Haskins was better than Murray or Tua. That's not a knock on Tua or Murray. Haskins just does things they can't do. Some of the throws he made this year were just insane. It's one thing to have a rocket arm, but it's another thing entirely to have an ACCURATE rocket arm. Lotta guys with rockets have accuracy issues. Haskins has a gun and he's still about as accurate as it gets.
-
If the best player won the Heisman every year, the #1 draft pick would always be a Heisman winner.
-
Hell, with Meyer’s offensive system, you could argue both Tua and Murray were better suited to run it. Haskins’ limited running skills could have hampered OSU’s offense.
-
If the best player won the Heisman every year, the #1 draft pick would always be a Heisman winner.
not
some NFL teams always want to take a QB
-
Don't they all have accurate cannons?
-
some cannons have more range, some more accuracy
a very few have both - like Jeff George
-
Don't they all have accurate cannons?
Um, no.
Cam Newton and Josh Allen both come to mind immediately. Both of those guys are big dudes with huge arms. And both of them suck at throwing the football.
Not saying he’s Favre or Marino or Elway or Rodgers, but like those guys- Haskins has got a rocket and he’s very accurate. There’s really only a handful of those guys in the history of the NFL. Most guys with a howitzer just aren’t accurate for whatever reason.
Accuracy is the #1 most important thing for a QB. It’s why guys like Montana and Brady and Brees and Warner and Peyton are all-time greats.
Arm strength is only a plus when you’re an accurate passer. Doesn’t do you any good to have a rocket launcher and not be able to hit the broadside of a barn. See: Newton, Cam.
-
If the best player won the Heisman every year, the #1 draft pick would always be a Heisman winner.
"most outstanding player", in college football, of course.
-
"most outstanding player", in college football, of course.
It rarely ever goes to the best player. Suh got robbed in 2009. 20.5 TFLs and 12 sacks for an interior DT in 12 college games is insane.
-
Um, no.
Cam Newton and Josh Allen both come to mind immediately. Both of those guys are big dudes with huge arms. And both of them suck at throwing the football.
Not saying he’s Favre or Marino or Elway or Rodgers, but like those guys- Haskins has got a rocket and he’s very accurate. There’s really only a handful of those guys in the history of the NFL. Most guys with a howitzer just aren’t accurate for whatever reason.
Accuracy is the #1 most important thing for a QB. It’s why guys like Montana and Brady and Brees and Warner and Peyton are all-time greats.
Arm strength is only a plus when you’re an accurate passer. Doesn’t do you any good to have a rocket launcher and not be able to hit the broadside of a barn. See: Newton, Cam.
Well shit, man, why aren't you an NFL GM?!?
-
Year - Heisman Winner (if a QB) - #1 Pick (if a QB) - Comments
1989/90 - Andre Ware - Jeff George - Heisman voters whiffed on this one, huh?
1992/93 - Gino Torretta - Drew Bledsoe - damn! whiffed again
2000/01 - Chris Weinke - Michael Vick - welp, they're 0 for 3 now...
2001/02 - Eric Crouch - David Carr - voters gave it to a damn safety under center!
2002/03 - Carson Palmer - Carson Palmer - DING DING DING - 1 for 5
2003/04 - Jason White - Eli Manning - boy, those Heisman boys hate the Manning clan
2004/05 - Matt Leinart - Alex Smith - 1 for 7
2006/07 - Troy Smith - JaMarcus Russell - them NFL types know what they're doing!
2008/09 - Sam Bradford - Matthew Stafford - N/A, Bradford stayed in school
2010/11 - Cam Newton - Cam Newton - we gotta winner! 2 out of 9!
2011/12 - Robert Griffin III - Andrew Luck - now which one was the dual threat?
2014/15 - Marcus Mariota - Jameis Winston - that silly guy who runs around a lot can't make it in the NFL, right?
2017/18 - Baker Mayfield - Baker Mayfield - whoo hoo, that's 3 in the past 29 years!
Well, I'm convinced.
-
Let's see - Jason White, Sam Bradford, Baker Mayfield, Kyler Murray - Gosh, guys, I'm noting a theme here. If only there was some reason these guys could keep throwing up huge numbers? Can't put put my finger on it.
-
I'm looking at the more recent trends, not going back 3 decades, hence my pondering about whether going forward we are more likely than not to see dual threat QBs winning the award than drop backs. The hypothesis is that they have more "highlight film" moves. I recall one play by Troy Smith, who I think meets my criteria, making a throw off balance while scrambling that was caught for a great play and a key game.
It was shown over and over and made Smith look fantastic, along with other plays where he was very elusive.
Matt Stafford would be the other type, almost a statue, great arm, more typical NFL QB with a pretty solid pro career, but not remotely in the Heisman discussion.
Number One pick as I recall.
Anyway, something to ponder if we have a competition between two dissimilar QBs in the future.
-
Let's see - Jason White, Sam Bradford, Baker Mayfield, Kyler Murray - Gosh, guys, I'm noting a theme here. If only there was some reason these guys could keep throwing up huge numbers? Can't put put my finger on it.
Mmmmmmm.
The performance of these Heisman winners in their high-profile post-Heisman bowl games has been a mixed bag at best too. Mayfield did well against UGA last year (despite a choke at the end) but Bradford and White (x2, adding his non-Heisman 2004 campaign) looked like frauds against peer programs like FL, LSU and USC in the BCS.
-
If the best player won the Heisman every year, the #1 draft pick would always be a Heisman winner.
really? An NFL team with the first pick would take a QB if they just drafted a QB the year before with a top 5 pick? Needs have nothing to do with it?
-
I'm looking at the more recent trends, not going back 3 decades, hence my pondering about whether going forward we are more likely than not to see dual threat QBs winning the award than drop backs. The hypothesis is that they have more "highlight film" moves. I recall one play by Troy Smith, who I think meets my criteria, making a throw off balance while scrambling that was caught for a great play and a key game.
It was shown over and over and made Smith look fantastic, along with other plays where he was very elusive.
Matt Stafford would be the other type, almost a statue, great arm, more typical NFL QB with a pretty solid pro career, but not remotely in the Heisman discussion.
Number One pick as I recall.
Anyway, something to ponder if we have a competition between two dissimilar QBs in the future.
I mean, Stafford also had a pretty so-so year for a preseason No. 1 team that went 9-3. So probably a good reason he wasn’t close to the Heisman, more than the style of player he was.
-
Let's see - Jason White, Sam Bradford, Baker Mayfield, Kyler Murray - Gosh, guys, I'm noting a theme here. If only there was some reason these guys could keep throwing up huge numbers? Can't put put my finger on it.
All have played for a blueblood power with forward thinking offensive minds every step of the way, good point.
-
It rarely ever goes to the best player. Suh got robbed in 2009. 20.5 TFLs and 12 sacks for an interior DT in 12 college games is insane.
Correct.
Is that accurate cannon really the best player? Isn’t it more likely that DT at Bama?
Anyway, the Heisman goes to the player who is most accomplished across a range of categories. Haskins has that cannon arm, but he swooned at the wrong time. It happens. Frankly, a three-game swoon sinks most folks, and it got him.
-
Anyway, the Heisman goes to the player who is most accomplished across a range of categories and plays QB or RB for a 11-1 or better team, preferably helmet.
FTFY.
-
FTFY.
Shoulda clarified, that’s included in the range of categories.
Your recent non-one loss winners: Jackson, Manziel, Griffin, Tebow, Palmer
Recent non-helmet winners: Jackson, Mariota, Griffin.
-
I'm looking at the more recent trends, not going back 3 decades, hence my pondering about whether going forward we are more likely than not to see dual threat QBs winning the award than drop backs. The hypothesis is that they have more "highlight film" moves. I recall one play by Troy Smith, who I think meets my criteria, making a throw off balance while scrambling that was caught for a great play and a key game.
It was shown over and over and made Smith look fantastic, along with other plays where he was very elusive.
Matt Stafford would be the other type, almost a statue, great arm, more typical NFL QB with a pretty solid pro career, but not remotely in the Heisman discussion.
Number One pick as I recall.
Anyway, something to ponder if we have a competition between two dissimilar QBs in the future.
I’m a Lions fan.
Stafford is the same thing in the NFL that he was in college- mediocre. There was a point in time when Calvin Johnson was in his prime and he made Stafford look above average- but now that’s Megatron is gone- Stafford is mediocre. He’s not elite not even close.
He went #1 overall because he has the proto-type size and gigantic arm. He was never an elite player in college and he never put up huge stats. To me he was just a better version of Chad Henne or something like that.
Haskins has the same kind of arm but he’s also an elite player that puts up monster numbers and makes the recievers around him better.
-
I wouldn't call Stafford in college "mediocre". He was not elite, but he was better than mediocre. He was thrown in as a freshman with a porous line and did OK considering. I thought he never improved as much as he might have over the next two years, but it was enough for scouts to draft him #1 and he has started in the NFL for a number of years. Mediocre QBs usually get sat down.
At any rate, he was just a QB I see as the extreme version of one type of QB.
It will be interesting going forward to see if that style of QB has a shot at the Heisman.
-
I wouldn't call Stafford in college "mediocre". He was not elite, but he was better than mediocre. He was thrown in as a freshman with a porous line and did OK considering. I thought he never improved as much as he might have over the next two years, but it was enough for scouts to draft him #1 and he has started in the NFL for a number of years. Mediocre QBs usually get sat down.
At any rate, he was just a QB I see as the extreme version of one type of QB.
It will be interesting going forward to see if that style of QB has a shot at the Heisman.
The issue was, he didn’t put up Heisman quality numbers and was on a team that disappointed in a big way his last year,
The only thing that had him so high was being that next-level type arm.
-
Oh, OK. I didn't think anyone here thought he had Heisman type numbers, at all. I don't even think he was first team SEC.
I was referring to his style of play, not how good he was. I still think he was better than mediocre.
-
Oh, OK. I didn't think anyone here thought he had Heisman type numbers, at all. I don't even think he was first team SEC.
I was referring to his style of play, not how good he was. I still think he was better than mediocre.
That’s fair.
I think the more interesting question is this, can a “traditional drop-back passer” produce top-flight numbers in a traditional offense? That I don’t know. And can they do it without the run game taking most of the hype.
So we look at UGA now, Fromm fits the mold. I think they do a lot of gun and RPO stuff to the point there’s some blur, but is there a scenario where he throws up a 185 rating, leads the country, has 3,800 yards and the run game doesn’t get most of the credit?
-
I don't think anyone can throw for 3800 in the UGA offensive scheme. For one thing, they are blowing out lesser teams and not passing late in those games, and the #1 QB has long since put on a baseball cap.
Aaron Murray did the near impossible by throwing for over 3,000 yards in all four years, but that was an exception. I see he threw for 3893 his junior year, so I should probably back off the above assertion a bit as the current offense is not too different from 2012. And of course he never got any serious Heisman consideration.
They had Todd Gurley on that team, should have done better.
-
I know we're just rehashing the same old with this, but there's also a big difference between college and pro success. There are players--Reggie Bush and Vince Young are good examples--who are spectacular in the college game in a way that Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers couldn't be. In the college game, coordinators look to exploit athletic imbalance. In the pro game, there isn't much athletic imbalance, so the focus is more on precision (against a very high level of athleticism). So in the college game, a quarterback who can run all over the place evading people who aren't as athletic as him is spectacular. In the pro game, a quarterback who can consistently put the ball in precisely the right place, while shifting in the pocket to gain 3/10s of a second of time to get that pass off is much more important.
One of my favorite examples will turn your stomachs, but I'll use it anyway. As much as no one here will like it, Jimmy Clausen was a phenomenal college quarterback. And thank goodness for Notre Dame because as bad as it was with him, without him those Weis years would have been much, much worse. He was a smart quarterback who could really take advantage of athletic imbalance (his receivers', not his) when picking apart secondaries (with Weis's help). But in the pros he just wasn't big enough, strong enough, or fast enough to keep up with the elite athletes that are on every team. His smarts couldn't make up for that.
And that's (at least one reason) why the pros draft on size and strength. While there are exceptions, few players are able to make it in the NFL without the base level of athletic prowess that permeates the league.
Now, to the Oklahoma QBs who are winning the Heisman these days? They are system quarterbacks. The system, though, is--in part--to recruit better athletes than the teams they play, and put the ball in their hands as much as possible.
-
The Heisman is about "flash". Mobile QBs have more of it than statues.
-
It's about one of the best players on one of the best teams.... who plays an skill position on offense. Usually the one Sports Media latches onto as a result of a big moment in a game and/or stats that outpace their competition. It has nothing to do with best at position... best on team... let alone best individual player period.
-
The Heisman is about "flash". Mobile QBs have more of it than statues.
The only Heisman race that I ever gave all that much attention to was Troy Smith vs Brady Quinn, as it was a guy that played for my College vs a guy that played for my HS.
It was pretty clear that Smith would win for this very reason.
-
I know we're just rehashing the same old with this, but there's also a big difference between college and pro success. There are players--Reggie Bush and Vince Young are good examples--who are spectacular in the college game in a way that Tom Brady and Aaron Rodgers couldn't be. In the college game, coordinators look to exploit athletic imbalance. In the pro game, there isn't much athletic imbalance, so the focus is more on precision (against a very high level of athleticism). So in the college game, a quarterback who can run all over the place evading people who aren't as athletic as him is spectacular. In the pro game, a quarterback who can consistently put the ball in precisely the right place, while shifting in the pocket to gain 3/10s of a second of time to get that pass off is much more important.
One of my favorite examples will turn your stomachs, but I'll use it anyway. As much as no one here will like it, Jimmy Clausen was a phenomenal college quarterback. And thank goodness for Notre Dame because as bad as it was with him, without him those Weis years would have been much, much worse. He was a smart quarterback who could really take advantage of athletic imbalance (his receivers', not his) when picking apart secondaries (with Weis's help). But in the pros he just wasn't big enough, strong enough, or fast enough to keep up with the elite athletes that are on every team. His smarts couldn't make up for that.
And that's (at least one reason) why the pros draft on size and strength. While there are exceptions, few players are able to make it in the NFL without the base level of athletic prowess that permeates the league.
Now, to the Oklahoma QBs who are winning the Heisman these days? They are system quarterbacks. The system, though, is--in part--to recruit better athletes than the teams they play, and put the ball in their hands as much as possible.
Oklahoma QBs?? Have you watch Mayfield with the Browns? Maybe his gaudy numbers in college were a product of the system they were running but he is not a product of a system. He is the real deal as a pro QB. I know it is still early to be absolutely sure, but it obvious to even the most casual of viewers, his greatness is not a product of the Oklahoma System, but his abilities as a QB.
-
Yeah, that's fair. He's an amazing player (Bradford and Murray, too).
-
Oklahoma QBs?? Have you watch Mayfield with the Browns? Maybe his gaudy numbers in college were a product of the system they were running but he is not a product of a system. He is the real deal as a pro QB. I know it is still early to be absolutely sure, but it obvious to even the most casual of viewers, his greatness is not a product of the Oklahoma System, but his abilities as a QB.
I think the question is more about how to determine the individual contribution vs the system contribution.
One of the knocks on Drew Brees in the Heisman campaign was that he was a "system" QB. The knocks on him as an NFL draft pick is that he was too short and didn't have elite arm strength*. He's become one of the best to play the game.
A similar thing exists with Wisconsin running backs. Wisconsin running backs look good every year. Probably because I could rush for 1000 a season behind that line. That's not to say that Wisconsin running backs are a "product of the system". There have been some REALLY phenomenally talented backs in that system. It just means that it's sometimes difficult to determine whether it's them OR the system until you see them outside the system in the NFL.
* BTW can I just complain about the term "arm talent"? It irks me every time I hear it, just as much as when commentators state an offense wants to "be multiple". Grr.