2016 Heisman Award

awbuzz

awbuzz

Helluva Manager
Staff member
Messages
11,504
Location
Marietta, GA
Lamar Jackson wins.

Congratulations to Lamar.

...the first player in major college history to rush for 20 touchdowns and pass for 30 in the regular season. (Tim Tebow and Cam Newton, both Heisman winners whose pictures Jackson stopped to look at this week, did the same thing, but needed postseason games to do it.)
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
How Louisville's sophomore QB could win the Heisman when a more talented sophomore, McCaffrey, was stiffed last season, and then Deshaun Watson this season is almost criminal. Apparently for the Heisman committee a little thing called "winning" is not in the equation.

Jackson is an excellent player and no quibble. But: in the only head to head matchup, Watson beat him late. And after he started getting noticed and people started paying attention, Louisville lost three games and went from claimed national contender to middle of the top 10 pack. Two of those games they never, ever, should have lost.

And there is the matter of Watson getting his Clemson team into the 4-team playoffs two times, and last season to the title gamel where he had a blowout offensive performance against Alabama. Watson's problem seemed to be of perception, when Clemson was winning close early and he was seen as in an "off" year. Except at the end, his 2016 stats were better than his 2015 stats.

Heisman voters need a literacy test.
 

TheSilasSonRising

Helluva Engineer
Messages
3,729
Well, technically, I do not think it was suppose to be entirely about winning.

The Heisman, as originally intended, was suppose to be given to the player that was the most valuable to his team in the entire country.

IDK where that stands in the criteria at this point.
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,636
Location
Georgia
espn sucks. they have been stating jackson for weeks and the monkeys and cows just followed. too much influence. I agree with you.
 

33jacket

Helluva Engineer
Messages
4,636
Location
Georgia
TheSilasSonRising said:
Well, technically, I do not think it was suppose to be entirely about winning.

The Heisman, as originally intended, was suppose to be given to the player that was the most valuable to his team in the entire country.

IDK where that stands in the criteria at this point.
Click to expand...

I agree with your second line. Which is why watson shoulda won. Jackson is valuable for sure, but more than watson hard to believe. Clemson lost 1 game in 2 years; take watson away they lose 6 in 2 years. maybe more.
 
GTNavyNuke

GTNavyNuke

Helluva Engineer
Featured Member
Messages
9,905
Location
Williamsburg Virginia
Respectfully disagree for the whole year. If Heisman were only for the last half of the season, I'd probably agree. The Heisman is an individual award.

Whole year stats, the QB Rating is the same 153.98 and 153.33. But Jackson has 6.57 yards per rush and Watson has 4.10. http://www.cfbstats.com/2016/player/367/1071227/index.html

I think Jackson with Clemson's defense is easily undefeated. The Louisville D is 33rd in scoring defense and Clemson's is 12th.

Clemson should have lost two games; NC State missed a gimme 22 yard FG to end the game. And Clemson won the Louisville game @ Clemson by a score. At a neutral site or Louisville, I think Louisville would have won at that point of the season.
 
PBR549

PBR549

Ramblin' Wreck
Messages
837
ESPN does suck. Anyone who watched the North Dakota State vs South Dakota State game or North Alabama vs Shepherd game yesterday knows how good a 16 team playoff is. Shepherd had knocked off the 1 seed last week but was knocked out by North Alabama in the semis. SDS had beaten NDS in the regular season but NDS beat them in yesterday's quarter final game. Both divisions will be settled on the field.

Just like the Heisman ESPN controls what goes on by influencing public opinion to what makes them more money.
 

MWBATL

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,152
PBR549 said:
ESPN does suck. Anyone who watched the North Dakota State vs South Dakota State game or North Alabama vs Shepherd game yesterday knows how good a 16 team playoff is. Shepherd had knocked off the 1 seed last week but was knocked out by North Alabama in the semis. SDS had beaten NDS in the regular season but NDS beat them in yesterday's quarter final game. Both divisions will be settled on the field.

Just like the Heisman ESPN controls what goes on by influencing public opinion to what makes them more money.
Click to expand...

Don't I remember sometime recently when the NCAA (or wa sit ESPN) that promoted the line "Every Game matters?" Having an 8 or 16 team playoff just means the regular season games often DON'T Matter. Ohio State-Michigan this year would not have mattered much with an 8 team (or larger) playoff, both would already have been "in". In the US, we somehow think playoffs are the only way to crown a champion. In Europe, they award two championship trophies each year..one for regular season champ, and one for the playoff champ, and the regular season trophy is (generally conceded to be) the most important of those two. Obviously harder to do that here in college football, but the idea remains the same. I am absolutely battled by anyone who pays goo money to go see a regular season NBA or NHL game. They are, after all, mostly exhibition matches with little real meaning.

<sigh> I guess I'm getting' old. These things seem so clear to me....
 

65Jacket

GT Athlete
Messages
1,168
I have never gotten over Billy Lothridge not winning the Heisman. He had a hand or foot in every point we scored until several games into the season, and most of the points the rest of the season. He was our QB, punter, KO man, FG kicker, and PAT kicker. And we beat Alabama who was 8-0, with a 28 game winning streak, and rated #1 in the Nation at the time.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
TheSilasSonRising said:
Well, technically, I do not think it was suppose to be entirely about winning.

The Heisman, as originally intended, was suppose to be given to the player that was the most valuable to his team in the entire country.

IDK where that stands in the criteria at this point.
Click to expand...
Well, I don't know. It seems to me it is all about winning, else why keep score?
 
tech_wreck47

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
Skeptic said:
How Louisville's sophomore QB could win the Heisman when a more talented sophomore, McCaffrey, was stiffed last season, and then Deshaun Watson this season is almost criminal. Apparently for the Heisman committee a little thing called "winning" is not in the equation.

Jackson is an excellent player and no quibble. But: in the only head to head matchup, Watson beat him late. And after he started getting noticed and people started paying attention, Louisville lost three games and went from claimed national contender to middle of the top 10 pack. Two of those games they never, ever, should have lost.

And there is the matter of Watson getting his Clemson team into the 4-team playoffs two times, and last season to the title gamel where he had a blowout offensive performance against Alabama. Watson's problem seemed to be of perception, when Clemson was winning close early and he was seen as in an "off" year. Except at the end, his 2016 stats were better than his 2015 stats.

Heisman voters need a literacy test.
Click to expand...
Since the heisman is more than just record, what are on field things that Watson did better than Jackson?
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
tech_wreck47 said:
Since the heisman is more than just record, what are on field things that Watson did better than Jackson?
Click to expand...
Well, he won. And won in the clutch. Jackson did not, including one memorable choke performance when he was sacked more times than Idaho potatoes.Can't figure how winning suddenly becomes secondary in the vote.
 
tech_wreck47

tech_wreck47

Helluva Engineer
Messages
8,670
Skeptic said:
Well, he won. And won in the clutch. Jackson did not, including one memorable choke performance when he was sacked more times than Idaho potatoes.Can't figure how winning suddenly becomes secondary in the vote.
Click to expand...
when was Watson more clutch than Jackson? If he was it's because he had to be clutch while Jackson was putting games away early before it even got to the point of him having to be "clutch". Or we could say jackson putting games away early was clutch. How can we blame or complain about Jackson vs Houston? Isn't the award an individual award and not a team award? Jackson was being chased around and hit before he could even finish his drop back and plant his feet, im sorry but that's not his fault. Jackson played well enough to win every game but 1 same as Watson. I'm not blaming Watson for the loss against Pitt, because he did enough himself to help his team win. I mean let's be honest Clemson should have lost to nc state but nc state missed an easy field goal. I just don't see how we can say a guy doesn't deserve it based on a 9-3 record when he was putting up over 30 point on the losses minus the Houston game. His stats are better for the most part and that's what should matter, the award is for the best player and I don't see anything pointing to Watson as being the better player this year because if you put Jackson on clemsons team he would probably have the same record as Watson. Jackson just accomplished something no one has ever done by having over 50 TD's in the regular season. And you say winning becomes secondary? If that's your argument mcCaffery shouldn't have won last year like you said because he didn't have the better record. But besides that record has nothing to do with what the heisman was originally created for, it was for the most valuable players to his team, so honestly the record argument makes no sense for what the award actually is.
 

Skeptic

Helluva Engineer
Messages
6,372
tech_wreck47 said:
when was Watson more clutch than Jackson? If he was it's because he had to be clutch while Jackson was putting games away early before it even got to the point of him having to be "clutch". Or we could say jackson putting games away early was clutch. How can we blame or complain about Jackson vs Houston? Isn't the award an individual award and not a team award? Jackson was being chased around and hit before he could even finish his drop back and plant his feet, im sorry but that's not his fault. Jackson played well enough to win every game but 1 same as Watson. I'm not blaming Watson for the loss against Pitt, because he did enough himself to help his team win. I mean let's be honest Clemson should have lost to nc state but nc state missed an easy field goal. I just don't see how we can say a guy doesn't deserve it based on a 9-3 record when he was putting up over 30 point on the losses minus the Houston game. His stats are better for the most part and that's what should matter, the award is for the best player and I don't see anything pointing to Watson as being the better player this year because if you put Jackson on clemsons team he would probably have the same record as Watson. Jackson just accomplished something no one has ever done by having over 50 TD's in the regular season. And you say winning becomes secondary? If that's your argument mcCaffery shouldn't have won last year like you said because he didn't have the better record. But besides that record has nothing to do with what the heisman was originally created for, it was for the most valuable players to his team, so honestly the record argument makes no sense for what the award actually is.
Click to expand...
Well, we are going to disagree on this horse race but it makes no never mind because Saturday night you won, but if it is as you say, the MVP for the team ... my goodness. Can you even name another player on Clemson's team? And as far as that goes, well, two NC playoffs, once in the final when he had arguably the best offensive game against Alabama ever. That's is kind of MVP stuff to me. (And if it is for the best player, McCaffrey was in a walk last season.) But as I say, you won the argument Saturday night.)
 
Top