Look back at Suh and the erroneous Hypesman

beorach said:
No conversation on Frazier versus George is complete without a mention of a gimpy Biakabutuka having outrushed him.  Who outplayed Touchdown Tommie on the field in that regular season?  
Click to expand...




I don't think any of that has anything to do with... anything related to the Heisman. 

Runningbacks and quarterbacks don't throw/run against each other. They play against the other team's defense. 

 
Landlord said:
I don't think any of that has anything to do with... anything related to the Heisman. 

Runningbacks and quarterbacks don't throw/run against each other. They play against the other team's defense. 
Click to expand...


With reasoning like that, I think you could be a Heisman voter.

 
beorach said:
With reasoning like that, I think you could be a Heisman voter.
Click to expand...
What are you talking about? His reasoning is good there, but I'm assuming you're saying it's bad? In fact it not only applies to the opposing defense but also to the offense too.

Example 1: a running back running for 2,000 yards with Wisconsin's OL may not be as good as a running back running for 1,800 yards with Indiana's offensive line. Because Wisconsin has a better offensive line.
Example 2: a running back running for 2,000 yards in the Big 12 may not be as good as a running back running for 1,800 yards in the Big Ten. Because the Big Ten has better run defense.

The difference between 2,000 and 1,800 is 200 but there are other factors involved besides just the difference in # of yards.


Now that said both players played in the Big Ten...

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
I think Frazier deserved the Heisman.

But take a step back and think of it if you think Husker fans are crazy to suggest otherwise.

It seems like every single year, a QB or RB from Alabama is in the top 2 or 3, and every single year without knowing much about him, most of us (including myself) assume that he's not really the MVP. He's just the best player on the best team.

Well, that's a similar situation to the one with Frazier. Honestly, the reason Tua didn't win might have been because he was injured in the CCG and Hurts did fine. So it's a very similar scenario. OTOH we never won a national championship until Frazier showed up, so it definitely seems like he was what got us there.
Click to expand...
If leadership, toughness, and just being an ultimate competitor mean anything, then Tommy Frazier is the best player in CFB history not to have won the Heisman, and possibly just the best in history period. 33-3 as a starter.  2.99 National Championships.  

 
Cdog923 said:
I'll be That Guy: the offensive line is more responsible for the 1994 National Title than Tommie or Brook were. 
Click to expand...
...and Lawrence Phillips

Quick history lesson the Heisman Trophy in 1995 was Lawrence Phillips' trophy to lose.  The way he finished 1994 with all of the QB injuries and how he started 1995 he would have had to have done something stupid and crazy to not win it...and there is the real reason people didn't vote for Frazier.

We were getting killed in the media for being a "win at all costs" football factory as all of these stories were coming to light in national media publications after Phillips was suspended.  Voters won't going to vote a player from that team or that program the Heisman trophy winner.

 
In the Deed the Glory said:
...and Lawrence Phillips

Quick history lesson the Heisman Trophy in 1995 was Lawrence Phillips' trophy to lose.  The way he finished 1994 with all of the QB injuries and how he started 1995 he would have had to have done something stupid and crazy to not win it...and there is the real reason people didn't vote for Frazier.

We were getting killed in the media for being a "win at all costs" football factory as all of these stories were coming to light in national media publications after Phillips was suspended.  Voters won't going to vote a player from that team or that program the Heisman trophy winner.
Click to expand...
 Good points.

I just looked up LP's stats from the first two games of 1995, before he f**ked up: he had 34 carries for 359 yards and 7 touchdowns, and I assume he didn't touch the ball in the 4th quarter of those games. That was against Okie State and Michigan State, not 1AA directional schools. Ridiculous.

 
Moiraine said:
What are you talking about? His reasoning is good there, but I'm assuming you're saying it's bad? In fact it not only applies to the opposing defense but also to the offense too.

Example 1: a running back running for 2,000 yards with Wisconsin's OL may not be as good as a running back running for 1,800 yards with Indiana's offensive line. Because Wisconsin has a better offensive line.
Example 2: a running back running for 2,000 yards in the Big 12 may not be as good as a running back running for 1,800 yards in the Big Ten. Because the Big Ten has better run defense.

The difference between 2,000 and 1,800 is 200 but there are other factors involved besides just the difference in # of yards.


Now that said both players played in the Big Ten...
Click to expand...


I think we all understand the obvious things you and Landlord shared with me.  His denial of the obvious was what I felt warranted very little in way of response, though.

Eddie George having an off game against his team's rival mattered to some Heisman voters in 1995 (just like Lawrence Phillips did).  We don't have some kind of Heisman formula that considers what kind of defenses and offenses the nation's best players have had to face, tracking injuries and home field advantage, etc.  Players on the watch list are compared every week, despite playing against different defenses and offenses, sometimes even conferences.  The bigger the stage is, the more you have to gain or lose as a candidate.  Remember how Beano Cook used to say a player had to be from or beat Notre Dame?  TV tells me Michigan-Ohio State is some kind of big deal.

The Heisman winner is supposed to be the greatest college football player in the nation within a given (regular) season.  If the team you play for has comparable talent to the ones on your schedule, you should never get shown up if that's who you are...let alone by a counterpart who's playing hurt for a lesser team.  Michigan's 1995 squad had four losses.  Ohio State was undefeated going into their showdown with them in Ann Arbor.

I thought we were all Husker fans here, such that I wouldn't be getting patronized for alluding to the fact Tommie was never outclassed.  I know someone will come along and bring up Marv Seiler now but, even if you're one of those, I doubt you'd argue anyone else despite Touchdown Tommie having faced two Heisman winners in national championship bowl games.

 
beorach said:
The Heisman winner is supposed to be the greatest college football player in the nation within a given (regular) season.  If the team you play for has comparable talent to the ones on your schedule, you should never get shown up if that's who you are...let alone by a counterpart who's playing hurt for a lesser team.  Michigan's 1995 squad had four losses.  Ohio State was undefeated going into their showdown with them in Ann Arbor.
Click to expand...




That's all well and good, but I don't understand how one player playing against one team's defense is valid as a direct comparison to a different player playing against a different team's defense. Additionally in this specific example when Biakabutuka said he'd never seen holes to run through that big in his 6 years of playing football and that anybody playing football could have run for all those yards.

Regardless, Tommie was a much better player/asset to his team than George was. He just wasn't nearly as tangibly productive.

 
I've moved several more posts out of here to the Shed, even if they were only partly off topic.

Please, do not take this thread off topic again. If you have complaints about another poster, this is NOT the place to share them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Phillips was absolutely unstoppable. It's scary to think how an already dominant team would have been better.

Obviously no reason to dwell on everything that happened; we've all talked about that ad naseum.

 
Back
Top