re: So who is the best football player on the 2018 Tide football team?

quote:

---

I'm not really sure what you are getting at. Anyone who knows football will tell you that the single most important factor regarding winning football games is winning the Line of Scrimmage. The game is won in the trenches, period. Always has been.

---

In your post I quoted, you said people focus too much on skill
positions, and while line play is hugely important, folks are right to focus on skill positions when if you hope to be a championship winning team...

2008 - UF: Tebow
2009 - Bama: Ingram
2010 - Auburn: Cam
2011 - Bama: Hightower(?)
2012 - Bama: Mccarron/Lacey/Cooper
2013 - FSU: Winston
2014 - OSU: Jones/Elliot
2015 - Bama: Henry
2016 - Clemson: Watson
2017 - Bama: could make an argument for several guys

All the above teams had great players all over the field, but when it came time to win a championship they all had to rely on their best player, and more often than not it's a skill position that made the difference.

I also think your list focuses way, WAY too much on offense.

So Tebow was the difference maker in 2008? Ok, what stopped him from winning it all in 2009? The Alabama defense, that's what.

(no message)

My only point is that when discussing elite football players and their influence on a game or a championship, I agree that it is certainly possible for the "difference maker", to use your term, to be an offensive skill player. Cam Newton, Tebow, and Deshaun Watson are excellent examples.

But just as frequently, the "difference maker/makers" are line players or defensive players, but the average fan is not nearly as privy to it without being spoon-fed that information by the commentator. Most fans just watch the ball, and you fall into this category.

I do not view the sport in as myopic a way as you do, and it's ok that we disagree. But to use 2009 as an example, I could easily argue that the biggest difference maker for that championship was Rolando McClain, and that he was the best player on the field for every single snap.

Additionally, it's very important to note that a line player or defensive player can absolutely dominate and significantly alter a game and many fans never know it, because their job was to prevent something - not cause something to happen. A lockdown corner can be the single most important player on the field, and his stat line will be almost non-existent - because he made a team's best weapon disappear. And he could have been the ultimate "difference maker" and you would never know - unless he failed, of course. But because he succeeded, he prevented you from seeing the thing that would have altered the game. And you would have viewed the same game and said "So-and-so receiver had a bad game," and I would say, "No, so-and-so corner shut him down."

Football is a lot more complicated than you are making it. And there are hundreds of ways players all over the field significantly alter a game that you don't know about and are willing to stay ignorant about. But you are just wrong.

Again, we can agree to disagree. But I will never, ever concede that offensive "skill position" players are more important or have a greater influence on the game than non-skill players. It's just complete nonsense, and if you had played that game, you'd know that. And that's not an insult - just a very important part of this discussion.

I understand your position and I disagree completely. It's cool to let it be that way. I've enjoyed the discussion.

quote:

---

Football is a lot more complicated than you are making it. And there are hundreds of ways players all over the field significantly alter a game that you don't know about and are willing to stay ignorant about. But you are just wrong

---

You've yet to demonstrate how I'm wrong. I've given examples from the last 10 years to prove my point. You've offered conjecture, and now tried to make it personal.

Enjoy your day man. I'll save my conversations for those more inclined.

Mack Wilson

Dude, grow up. I had already terminated the discussion as it was obvious you and I were simply going to disagree. And it's completely laughable that you think you put forth some objective thesis that I needed to disprove. You gave your 100% opinion about what you thought were difference makers over 10 years - and it was just that - your opinion. And I gave plenty of contradictory points, including examples that directly opposed people and teams on your list as well as detailing scenarios where the real difference maker could be someone you'd never realize

Additionally, I did not make it personal. The word "ignorant" as I used it is the correct word, indicating a lack of knowledge, to which I had previously explained. It was not meant to be an insult. If you took it personally, it's on you.

You can try to take the high road on this one, but it's imaginary. You have tunnel vision regarding seeing the sport of football, and you also have tunnel vision regarding this discussion. It totally fits, and is not a surprise.

Roll Tide

EDIT: I want it to be clear why used words like "myopic" and "ignorant". Neither of those was to insult you. They were simply the best way I could describe your point of view regarding this topic. I used myopic as a way to indicate that you are not seeing the whole picture, i.e. the impact players have on any given play who are not touching the football. In reality, the better nomenclature would have been "tunnel vision".

I used ignorant, at the end of the discussion, to highlight the fact that you were seemingly unwilling to admit/see the impact that players who don't touch the football have. I used it to also highlight the lack of knowledge you have as a result of not playing the game. Again, this is not an insult, but I would never, ever have to have this discussion with a person who played the game of football. A former player would totally understand how each and every player can impact the game in equally significant ways.

And so, from my point of view of this discussion, our entire disagreement hinges on the fact that I believe you are seeing and describing the game solely from a fans perspective (particularly a fan watching a television feed), resulting in my highlighting your myopia and ignorance from not having the sight and knowledge a former player would have.

I completely understand why you took offense, but it was not my intent. Take care.

Back to the topic at hand:

Your premise:

quote:

---

...when it came time to win a championship they all had to rely on their best player, and more often than not it's a skill position that made the difference.

---

My point through all of this is that I disagree with your premise. I do not agree with the idea that "they all had to rely on their best player." I believe this to be incorrect.

Sure, there have been championship teams that needed - and got - superhuman performances from skill position players, and that anyone, myself included, can see that without those superhuman performances, those teams would not have won championships. Examples would be Cam Newton for auburn, particularly in times like the 2nd half vs Bama. Tim Tebow played a 4th Quarter for the ages in the 2008 SEC Champioship game. Vince Young played out of his mind in the 2006 Rose Bowl.

Having said that, I believe that there are many, many instances where the team won the champioship because of the total team effort. I also believe that it is shortsighted to state that a team "[relied] on [it's] best player" to win a championship because of a handful of noteworthy offensive plays. For example:

You noted that the difference maker and best player for Alabama in 2009 was Mark Ingram. Helluva player, no doubt. But to make the assumption that we "relied" on him and that he "made the difference" presupposes that we didn't rely on others and that there was only 1 "difference." I contend that over the course of 2009 as well as at the end, Bama "relied" on multiple important players and that multiple players in multiple situations made numerous plays that could be called "the difference".

Continuing that line of reasoning, I will reference 2009 again, as I just rewatched the 2009 SEC Championship game. Sure Ingram had a very nice game and made some nice plays, but those yards he got in the second half were because Bama was dominating Florida's Dline. Sure, he made some nice runs and fought hard for yards, but there were holes every time he touched it. This supports my point about it being a team game. Additionally, Trent Richardson made very similar plays when he came in, which leads me to believe that any RB of their calibre would've done the same, making Ingram's play impressive, but not "the difference."

Similarly in that game, Greg McElroy had a near perfect performance, including multiple huge scrambles that galvanized the whole team. Marquis Maze had 5 catches for 96 yards and was killing the FL defense. Hell, the Punter PJ Fitzgerald even made an excellent tackle on a punt return, saving 7 points by himself.

Regarding the defensive performance in that game, it was a total team effort. Not one player can be singled out, but Mark Barron certainly had an impressive game. Florida honestly didn't get to run a ton of plays.

Continuing to the next game in 2009, The Natty Versus Texas, both Ingram and Richardson went over 100 yards each. Ingram had more total yards by a little, but Richardson had the higher YPC and the longest run of the night. Impressive performances, sure, but how much credit are you willing to give to the offensive line? I, as a former fullback, will be the first to say that the responsibility for the success of that rushing attack lies significantly on the shoulders of that offensive line. And remember that prior to the game, Texas had the #1 run defense statistically in the nation.

And if I had to pick 1 difference maker in that game, it would be Marcel Dareus, who had a 28 yard interception return for a TD and knocked Colt McCoy out of the game.

Speaking about other games in 2009, does Alabama win a championship in 2009 without Mount Cody blocking 2 FGs versus Tennessee? Nope.

Moreover, Alabama's average starting field position in 2009 was our own 44 yard line. This is an incredible thing to hear - just crazy. And it was due to having one of the best defenses in modern football and arguably the best punt returner who ever played the game. Arenas only needed 30-something yards of punt returns to break the all-time career record with several games to go in the season and didn't break the record, simply because teams were absolutely terrified to punt to him. Was he the difference maker? Was it the defense? Who knows, but it sure sheds doubt on Mark Ingram being the sole "difference maker" that we had to rely on to win a championship.

Sure, was what Mark Ingram did on that one drive vs SoCar impressive where he ran the wildcat the whole drive and iced the game? Hell, yeah. It was amazing. But throughout the year, a number of other players on both sides of the ball did equally impressive things to bring home the trophy.

Also regarding 2009, we had 6 All-Americans: Mark Ingram, Mike Johnson, Rolando McClain, Terrence Cody, Javier Arenas, and Leigh Tiffin. Can you demonstrably prove that any one of these players had a greater impact on that championship than another? If I had a time machine and went back and put a bullet in Rolandon McClain's or Terrence Cody's kneecaps in September, I think I'd have decreased Bama's chances of a title moreso than putting one in Ingram's knee. Backing up Ingram was Richardson and Upchurch. Who would've come in and orchestrated the defense as well as McCLain, who did it so well he was called a "coach on the field?" Who was our backup NT? Would he have saved our season similarly as Cody did?

And so, to bring this treatise to a close, I absolutely agree that some championship teams have had to rely on incredible performances by offensive skill position players to win a championship, and I mentioned some examples above. But, just as frequently or even more frequently, teams win a championship because of a total team effort in conjunction with amazing performances by players on both sides of the ball, and that attributing the championship to the performance of one or 2 offensive skill players is just blatant fan reductionism because of who touches the football, where fans eyes go during the play on TV, who commentators talk about the most during the game, as well as what's easy to remember when reminiscing.

Ergo, I disagree with this...

quote:

---

...when it came time to win a championship they all had to rely on their best player, and more often than not it's a skill position that made the difference.

---

...because

1) Not all teams had to rely on the performance of one player
2) Not all teams' best players are skill position players
3) There are multiple difference making plays and performances in a season, and those plays and performances are delivered by players on both sides of the ball.

You're just laughable, dude. You said you'd discuss anything if I was polite. I plainly and politely outlined my points, and you avoided the topic again and chose a personal attack rather than discuss anything. You also prefer to state what you did or didn't do, like a narrator, rather than have a discussion. Like telling a person they failed, rather than making points and letting the truth fall where it may. Does this make you feel better? It's been several posts since you argued anything about your point. You just harp and harp about what you think you accomplished and I didnt. It's very child-like - like a form of self-validation. You do you, buddy.