As many of you know, Alabama RB Mark Ingram won the Heisman Trophy on Saturday night in the closest vote in award history. This irked me for a number of reasons. I'm going to organize them for you to make my opinion look more professional because, you know, it makes me more believable. Right?
1.) Toby Gerhart had a better season - Let's just get to the main reason the decision irritated me. If you're going to go with a running back, why not go with the guy who led the nation in rushing and rushing touchdowns? It's not like Gerhart was playing in some chump conference; he played in the freakin' Pac-10. Gerhart's lowest yardage output of the year was 82 yards (on only 17 carries), and he reached 100 yards in every game except for two. The consistency was there, the production was there, the big games were there (223 yards, 3 TD vs. Oregon; 178 yards, 3 TD vs. USC; 136 yards, 4 TD vs. Cal), and the workhorse factor was there. Gerhart was clearly the best player on his team, was THE reason for their resurgence. Yes, Andrew Luck played well as a freshman QB and coach Jim Harbaugh has done wonders in Palo Alto, but everything started and ended with Gerhart. There were only THREE games this year in which Gerhart didn't have at least 2 touchdowns. That's just ridiculous.
2.) Mark Ingram wasn't the best player on his team - Despite rushing for nearly 200 yards less than Gerhart and scoring 11 fewer touchdowns (in 13 games to Gerhart's 12, no less), there's something else working against Ingram here: he wasn't the best Alabama player this year. Hook them up to a lie detector test, and 'Bama coaches and players will tell you that DT Terrence Cody and LB Rolando McClain were better for them this season than Ingram; and they'd probably make an argument for WR Julio Jones. I know, I know, those guys, due to their positions and class, wouldn't have won in a million years. But when you can honestly say that a guy wasn't the best player on his team, he should have no business winning the most prestigious award in the sport.
3.) Trent Richardson did much of the same things as Ingram when given the chance - The freshman sensation certainly didn't disappoint this year, rushing for over 600 yards and 6 touchdowns this year. When Ingram came out, there was absolutely no drop-off in the rushing attack because of Richardson's brilliance. This isn't a knock on Ingram, so much as it's a testament to Richardson and the offensive line at Alabama; basically, if given the chance, Richardson would have put up Ingram's numbers this year. Gerhart was the only person on that Stanford team (and probably in that conference) that could've done what the did for the Cardinal this year.
4.) People said that losing 4 games this year hurt Gerhart's chances - Really? That's your justification? A guy's team loses a few games despite his tremendous performances and you dock him because of that? Sorry, I was actually watching the games, so I knew it wasn't Gerhart's fault that Stanford was losing. Those who simply look at results and not individual performances probably assumed that Gerhart had a bad game every time Stanford lost. Here are Gerhart's numbers in those four losses: 17 rush, 82 yards, 0 TD; 20 rush, 96 yards, 2 TD; 28 rush, 123 yards, 2 TD; 20 rush, 136 yards, 4 TD. Outside of the unimpressive performance against Wake Forest (the 82-yard game), what exactly did Gerhart need to do better?
At the end of the day, the Heisman vote was, once again, reduced to voting for the most recognizable player on the best team. Think Eric Crouch. Or Gino Toretta. Or Jason White. I hate to lump Mark Ingram in with those guys because it sells his season short, but I don't get the feeling that I'm going to be telling my kids about Mark Ingram's historic 2009 season.
Mainly because there was nothing historic about it.
~~ Lank
No comments:
Post a Comment