Started By
Message
re: Ingram & Gerhart YPC Comparison
Posted on 12/7/09 at 11:04 pm to Alahunter
Posted on 12/7/09 at 11:04 pm to Alahunter
I must say having the opinion is ok too, but it just appeared like you mightve been among the other biased arse hats in this thread, it happens i suppose tigerinstaugustine
This post was edited on 12/7/09 at 11:06 pm
1
Posted on 12/7/09 at 11:06 pm to alu
well I was trying to actually look at it in somewhat of an objective sense and actually discuss it but I guess thats not really kosher on the sec rant...which is usually why I dont come on here...not much for pissing contests
Posted on 12/7/09 at 11:08 pm to St Augustine
You can get pretty good discussions here. Just got to learn where and with who. It's been flameriffic today though. Just bad timing.
Posted on 12/7/09 at 11:08 pm to Lieutenant Dan
quote:
SPILLER>>>>>>>Gerhart
I actually have no problem with this argument either although I would say that CJ wasnt as consistent as the other 2.
This post was edited on 12/7/09 at 11:24 pm
Posted on 12/7/09 at 11:26 pm to St Augustine
quote:
are you a 14 year old girl because you type like one...
coffee had 233 carries for 1383 yards and 10 tds
ingram had 249 carries for 1542 yards and 15 tds
you give coffee 16 more carries and he should be within 100 yards...not a huge difference...
richardson carried 126 times for 642 yards...double that up and you're at 252 carries for 1284 yards...not as impressive as ingram but definitely in the ballpark
also nowhere did I say either could have done it with "no problem" but nice try you miserable little shite....relax frances and let the grownups actually discuss and compare instead of being a whiny little bitch about the entire thing.
Hey internet Bad arse, excuse me, Mr. CORRECT Typer, what a Douche
Uh, can I join grown up conversation?
You stated either one could have done it, fact remains, neither did. Oh and great stats on Coffee, however, you just proved my point,dumbass, He had a full year and guess what, DING DING DING, you guessed it, He did not have the same numbers. Oh and double or triple the hypothetical numbers for Richardson all you want but fact is, he did not get the same amount of carries and if he did, who knows, maybe, Juuuuuust maybe Mr. Hypothetical he is not as fresh later in the year and it happens to take a toll on his production, but great argument DUMBASS, I must be a potty mouth little girl, Dumbass. frick you and your big boy conversation. How is my typing now Douche?
For what its worth, I am quite sure you know what a 14 year old little girl on the internet types like. Did I see you on "To Catch a Predator" the other day? Thought so, you DORK!
This post was edited on 12/7/09 at 11:46 pm
Posted on 12/7/09 at 11:42 pm to Alahunter
Why is it so hard for you gumps to get it thru your thick elephant skulls that TG is better than Ingram? Did Ingram have a better line? Yep. What Gerhart did was phenomenal. Gumps will play in the NCG, Stanford with its piddly two and three stars will play in the KY lube warm and fuzzy bowl. You have your reward, now scram.
Gerhart had a better season than Ingram, by far. I get west coast football on the tellie, because I am on the west coast and actually get to watch the dude. He is the best collegiate RB playing this year, bar none.
Stop being whiny little beyotches and accept reality
Gerhart had a better season than Ingram, by far. I get west coast football on the tellie, because I am on the west coast and actually get to watch the dude. He is the best collegiate RB playing this year, bar none.
Stop being whiny little beyotches and accept reality
Posted on 12/7/09 at 11:48 pm to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Why is it so hard for you gumps to get it thru your thick elephant skulls that TG is better than Ingram?
Answer, Because we have thick elephant skulls
Posted on 12/7/09 at 11:57 pm to TiMe4bAmA8
quote:
Answer, Because we have thick elephant skulls
Red elephant skulls at that. I see we are making headway, however.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 12:08 am to RogerTheShrubber
Yep, Keep it up, you may break through at anytime 
Posted on 12/8/09 at 12:34 am to RogerTheShrubber
quote:
Gerhart had a better season than Ingram, by far.
21 yards isn't by far better.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 12:41 am to RedElephants
If Gerhart played for Florida Bama would be headed to the Sugar Bowl.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 12:41 am to Alahunter
quote:
21 yards isn't by far better.
Considering his offensive line? Hell yeah it is. He didn't have the luxury of running behind Bamas line, he made his yardage. Did more with less.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 12:42 am to RogerTheShrubber
the consensus on here was our line was gonna be pretty crappy this year. love the double talk.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 12:48 am to Alahunter
quote:
the consensus on here was our line was gonna be pretty crappy this year. love the double talk
It was 3X that of Stanford, no matter how good it was. I am not "double talking" nothing, chief. Just telling it as it is. Gerhart is the better RB of the two, had the better season and meant more to his team. Ingram will get more votes simply because his team is in the NCG and he is in the SEC.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 12:53 am to RogerTheShrubber
How many games did he win for them. You realize both total offenses are pretty comparable in yards, right? less than 200 yard on the year rushing and passing. Backup RB's on both squads had about the same amount of rushing yards. They are mirrors of each other just about, other than the fact that Gerhart didn't go against the number one defense and equal the total number of rushing TD's that they had all year.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 1:11 am to CrimsonCrush
You have Crimson colored glasses on my man...
Ingram is GOOD, WAY GOOD... but if I had to choose someone to be my back... It's Gerhart hand's down... That is me choosing him over Keiland, Scott, and Ridley... Well maybe not Ridley, cause that mofricka is gonna be a stud.
And Gerhart won probably over half of Stanford's games for them, I wouldn't go there if I were you...
Ingram is GOOD, WAY GOOD... but if I had to choose someone to be my back... It's Gerhart hand's down... That is me choosing him over Keiland, Scott, and Ridley... Well maybe not Ridley, cause that mofricka is gonna be a stud.
And Gerhart won probably over half of Stanford's games for them, I wouldn't go there if I were you...
This post was edited on 12/8/09 at 1:13 am
Posted on 12/8/09 at 1:15 am to RileyTime
He kicked arse in the Wake game.
He had no more impressive stats than Ingram did. His backups made the same amount of yards as our backups. His QB tossed for about the same yards as our QB. He played some decent teams with decent defenses. Ingram played some decent teams and some better defenses.
He had no more impressive stats than Ingram did. His backups made the same amount of yards as our backups. His QB tossed for about the same yards as our QB. He played some decent teams with decent defenses. Ingram played some decent teams and some better defenses.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 1:20 am to CrimsonCrush
quote:
Gerhart is good. But he plays Pac-10 defenses. Ingram has comparable numbers but has played against much tougher defenses. He put up big numbers against the number 1 defense.
I think you need to take a look at the level of competition that play against as well
Not true according to the defensive rankings. Gerhart has faced stiffer competition.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 1:20 am to Alahunter
How many games of Stanfords did you watch? Not enough, obviously. Gumps will be gumps. The only fans in the nation that think Ingram had a better season are the red elephants. Few others do. You can't be unbiased.
Posted on 12/8/09 at 1:25 am to RogerTheShrubber
No, you can't get past the Bama hatred. As evidenced by gump this gump that. They are at best equal in their numbers. To argue that Gerhart is greater or by far greater is stupid. Just like it'd be stupid to say Ingram is way better.
Page 5 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News