Rex Grossman should’ve won the Heisman in 2001.

Was robbed. Go look at Eric Crouch’s garbage arse stats from that season.

The year mark ingram won it toby gerhardt dusted his arse in every stat, should gerhardt have that heisman?

I’m a closet Nebraska fan, but at least Alabama won a title on the back of Ingram. Miami knocked Crouch around in, ironically the same stadium.

No

Davis Carr

I was actually surprised Dorsey didn’t win it that year.

EC was given a career achievement award

quote:

---

The year mark ingram won it toby gerhardt dusted his arse in every stat, should gerhardt have that heisman?

---

exactly, this is the point most miss about the Heisman. It is most outstanding player, not best positional player. That is why Gerhardt won the Doak Walker award, as all focused on the stats.

The intangibles that go into Heisman voting need big moments in big games, competition is a factor, stats don't win the Heisman unless they are record breaking and/or vs quality opponents that kept your team in the national picture, and the accumulation of a highlight reel of important/explosive plays in meaningful moments. Regional bias and national exposure factor in as well.

To sum up and paraphrase this guy, , had Suh and McCoy not been in the picture, and it come down to two RBs. Gerhardt likely gets it and the Doak. But, Stanford only had one season above 5 wins in the decade prior to Gearhart's 2009 season. The PAC SoS and rush D has historically been poor overall. So, even if the west coast issue with nationally televised games was a non-issue due to time zones... Stanford is likely not getting on TV often enough to get the recognition he deserved as an individual who played very well on an 8-5 team.

Ingram won as the best player on the best team. A RB in the SEC when the SEC was still known for stout, smothering defenses. His big moments came in 3 nationally televised games vs Virginia Tech, LSU and Florida. Then, factor in the October offensive stall vs 4 x consecutive SEC opponents with winning records. In those games, Ingram put the team on his back and outpaced the passing offense by himself. The highlight of the highlight reel and feather in the cap of his heisman resume was the USCe game from that mentioned 4 game October stretch. He put the team on his back gaining 266 yards to the passing offense 92; and he was the leading receiver that day as well. He closed out with 99 yds in another otherwise offensive meltdown vs Tennessee. They lose both those games if not for Ingram. It was the Iron Bowl that kept him from running away with it, and all started comparing RBs head to head vs the most outstanding player. Fortunately for him, he got another week of football on a big game, on a big stage, as an underdog, and he showed up. I also lime that he went on to win the NC game MVP.

The Bush over Young Heisman was a real travesty. All of the arguments against Ingram winning based on comparative stats to other RBs existed with Bush. Bush trailed the national leader in rushing yards by 200 yds. He also did not even lead his conference in rushing that year. And, White had 8 more rushing TDs on his own team. Add in that he played on a machine at USC surrounded by a 3k+ yd passer, another 1000 yd rusher and 2 x WRs over a 1000 yds that year and you'd be hard pressed to argue he had to carry the team at very many points. Young was and remains the most outstanding player from 2005. He is who they should give the stripped award back to.

He was the best pure passing qb we ever had. Even better than Danny. IF he gets all the games his freshman year and IF Spurrier doesn’t leave for the NFL, he would of set passing records that could of never been broke.

quote:

---

yes, EC had like 7 tds

---

He had 25 TDs (18 rushing, 7 passing).