|
Post by hoyamac22 on Dec 14, 2009 15:08:32 GMT -5
Hifi -
You might want to change up your argument that the Pac 10 did not have any defense this year. Not only did the Pac 10 have 6, that is 6 of 10, in the top 40 run defenses this year, but the Pac 10 also had 5 of the best backs in the nation topping over 1,000 yards each (not including Best who had 867 yards before being knocked out of the last 3 games. The SEC only ranks 4 of 12 teams in the top 40 rushing defenses and had only 4 RBs who topped 1,000 yards. Toby faced all 6 of those defenses and he averaged 145 yards. Ingram only faced 2 of those defenses ranked in the top 40 and he averaged 119.
So for a recap, Gerhart faced 6 defenses ranked in the top 40 in conference while Ingram only faced 2 in conference. Gerhart ran for more yards, more touchdowns, and performed his best in the biggest games for Stanford. Ingram had less yards, less touchdowns, and only occasionally showed up in big games (30+ yards against Auburn).
So, can you explain to me again why Ingram won? Because according to facts, you are dead wrong.
|
|
|
Post by redskins12820 on Dec 14, 2009 17:54:06 GMT -5
fewfac ... should be "fewfacts" ... parodied these words: I don't want to beat a dead horse here. With respect to Ingram, I think his numbers, impressive though they are, were put up largely by inferior offenses that rarely scored or moved the ball. That's all I'm saying. In a sense, it's like the argument against the quarterback from Florida. For the most part, the teams in the SEC are second tier teams with suspect offenses. Additionally, their system is designed to get shut down and designed to put a lot of points via field goals at the expense of offensive efficiency. There's nothing wrong with that inherantly. That's not what I'm saying. What I am saying is that numbers put up in such a system aren't directly comparable to those put up against an PAC-10 or Big East schedule. Think Alabama last year or LSU two years ago, but not as extreme. That's all I'm saying. Now as for your parallel, I think you could make a case for the argument that Ingram was surrounded by as much talent as some other teams, for WHATEVER reason. Whether it's because of academic standards or not doesn't really matter. Unfortunately, being surrounded by talented players is generally treated as a negative in Heisman voting not a positive when you put up inferior numbers. The reason is that players on the more elite teams have an advantage, not a disadvantage. It's not surprising that Colt McCoy and Tim Tebow were frontrunners all year. As long as their teams remained undefeated that wasn't going to change, though they didn't, or didn't impress.
While I appreciate your humor and attention to detail, I hope you aren't being serious. First off, the suggestion that Ingram's numbers were put up by inferior offenses, just doesn't make any sense. Now I know you mean to say that SEC offenses in general weren't great, but that's irrelevant to the issue at hand -- how worthy was Ingram? Secondly, the fact that the defenses were better in the SEC than in the Pac 10 directly relates to Ingram and Gerhart's numbers. Even if the offenses in the SEC were awful, that wouldn't relate to Ingrams stats, and in actuality, would make them that much more impressive, as teams would more easily be geared to stopping that one back since the offenses aren't good. The rest of what you said, actually makes sense. Of course it should -- I said it first! redskins wrote: Not so fast my friend. These same amazing SEC defenses were the ones (Tennessee) that lost to the 8th place Pac-10 team (UCLA) at home while going against a freshman QB and (LSU) one that gave up 478 yards to the 7th place Pac-10 team. Oh and Georgia beat the 9th place Pac-10 team by a total of 3 points at home.
In years past, yes the SEC defenses were good. This year? They weren't. Don't let reputation blind you. The Pac-10 was probably the best conference top to bottom this year in the country and playing 9 conference games, which no other conference does, means there's one fewer lightweight to beat up on.I think you overlook quite a bit. You single out a Georgia team whose defense was the worst they've had in 30 years and an LSU win that was in the first week of the season, on the road ... and not just on the road, 3000 miles away, and against a team that was tremendously improved from last season. Oh, and their young quarterback isn't so young anymore, and by many accounts is one of the top 3 NFL prospects at QB (Locker). Also, while I agree that the Tennessee loss to UCLA was an ugly one, Tennesse -- as much as I hate to say it -- got quite a bit better as the season went on. Imagine that -- they weren't very good in their first real game against a real opponent with an entirely new coaching staff. That UCLA team wouldn't have beaten Tennessee in the last game of the season, for sure. As for the defenses in the SEC overall ... I think it's hard to say. Florida and Alabama certainly had great defenses. Tennessee also had a very good defense. LSU did as well. Even Arkansas had a surprisingly good defense, as well as Ole Miss -- which was a good thing since Jevon Snead regressed tremendously this season. South Carolina and Vanderbilt both had good defensese as well. Sure, the have-nots were your typical names -- Kentucky and Miss. St. didn't put up much of a fight and as mentioned before, Georgia had their worst defense in decades. All in all, I don't think any any team around the Country would want to play the defenses in the SEC. There's not another conference with better defenses top to bottom. Now as for offenses, I think you are correct. The Pac 10 had more firepower top to bottom for sure. Part of that is the schemes that the Pac 10 chooses on both sides of the ball. But part of it was simply the tremendous youth at QB in the SEC. Going into the season, there was a major question of who had the 3rd best QB in the conference. The consensus was that Tebow and Snead were 1-2, but there was a huge question mark behind them. Crompton at Tennessee, Cox at Georgia, Cobb/Hartline at Kentucky, Mallett at Arkansas, McElroy at Bama etc... all were uncertainties. As the season played out, some did very well -- Mallett and McElroy. Others didn't fare so well. The point is that offenses were expected to have some growing pains this season and they did. Top to bottom overall would be a tough one. The Pac 10 doesn't have a team as good as Bama or Florida. But after that I could see a lot of competitive games. Washington St. probably wouldn't beat an SEC team except Vandy, but most of the other teams would likely be competitive from both conferences. Lastly, if you really think that the SEC doesn't have the most talent on the defensive side of the ball, just wait until after the next few NFL drafts. I think you will be "pleasantly" surprised at the wealth of talent currently in the SEC. It's extremely convenient to dismiss Pac-10/SEC results and say, oh they were early in the season, but you're kidding yourself. The reason the defenses looked better in the 2nd half is that they were playing SEC teams!!!! That doesn't make them better. You look at the out of conference games and the head to head to see who is better, and in both of those categories, the Pac-10 was significantly better. Add to that the fact that the Pac-10 plays much harder teams out of conference (none of that I-AA stuff that the SEC loves) and they STILL had better defenses, means your argument just doesn't hold up. Additionally, the head to head SEC/Pac-10 games all had teams that ranked lower in the Pac-10 than their SEC counterparts and they still won. That means the bottom of the Pac-10 was better than the middle of the SEC. While yes, the Pac-10 didn't have an Alabama, the heisman stats aren't from one game, they're from the season. Alabama being good is counterbalanced by the other SEC teams being horrible. As for the "young QB" remark, I was not discussing Locker. I was discussing Prince, the freshman QB from UCLA. You also can say, oh Georgia had one of the worst defenses they've ever had, but that just goes to show you that since they finished 4-4 in the SEC, the SEC was weak this year. Tennesse couldn't move the ball at ALL against UCLA and it WASN'T their first game of the year. In their first game of the year they put up over 40 points and then were completely shut down by UCLA. Nice try
|
|
|
Post by hoyamac22 on Dec 14, 2009 18:30:31 GMT -5
I also would like to comment on the argument that SEC offenses were not that great this year because of young QBs. The Pac 10 has the most young starting QBs in all of college football, and still had high powered offenses. Lets go down the line - Matt Barkely, FR, USC; Andrew Luck, RS FR, Stanford' Kevin Prince, RS FR, UCLA; Jeff Tuel, FR, WSU; Nick Foles, So, Arizona; Samson Szachsky, FR, ASU.
That is 6 teams starting either a freshman or a sophmore at QB and it was there first year. Although youth came into play with a couple of these kids, they still more than stepped up to the plate and led some very good offenses. These young QBs stepped up not only in first time rolls for these teams, but also against better defenses than those of the SEC. I don't see why the supposedly "young" SEC QBs couldn't do the same thing...maybe the reason is that the QBs of the Pac 10 are just that much better. You can also throw in the RBs into that category, as well as defenses, and offenses. All in all, the Pac 10 was jsut the better league.
|
|