Started By
Message
re: TTsTowel's Prediction for Auburn's 2011 Season
Posted on 6/3/11 at 12:02 pm to flomacanes
Posted on 6/3/11 at 12:02 pm to flomacanes
quote:
Good work
quote:
On a side note, don't bother ever applying for a job with the Auburn Rivals or Scout websites. This post proved you'd be way too level-headed and unbiased in your analysis of the Auburn football team to be able produce the kind of material they're looking for on their websites.
Preciate it. I try to be as un-biased as possible. I won't like putting homerish things out there, most of the time it bites you in the arse in the end
0
Posted on 6/3/11 at 12:04 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
I think peoples argument against Ingram that year were he was hardly the best RB in the nation. And based upon stats is more like the 10th best.
And some, including Sports Illustrated, didn't believe Bo Jackson was the best RB that year. SI came out with an issue that supported Joe Dudek on the cover.
Do I believe Dudek was better? No, but there where some who did.
quote:
Many believe he was just the best player on the best team, which is somewhat how the heisman has become
The questioning of the actual merit of winning the Heisman extends way farther than just last decade...
Posted on 6/3/11 at 12:09 pm to MagillaGuerilla
But would you say Jackson was the 10th best RB in 85'? not even close, especially on the stats. Jackson was a game changer. Ingram was a workhorse.
Dudek was also not even D-1, hardly a comparison
Dudek was also not even D-1, hardly a comparison
Posted on 6/3/11 at 12:15 pm to NYCAuburn
quote:
But would you say Jackson was the 10th best RB in 85'? not even close, especially on the stats.
I'm not using stats, stats tell 1 side of the story.
quote:
Jackson was a game changer. Ingram was a workhorse.
I disagree, Bama wouldn't have won a NC without the plays Ingram made...
quote:
Dudek was also not even D-1, hardly a comparison
That didn't stop the support. He was dominant in his level of football, which shouldn't be held against him...
Posted on 6/3/11 at 12:34 pm to MagillaGuerilla
quote:
I'm not using stats, stats tell 1 side of the story.
I agree
However in D-1 football, not using just the total yards, Jackson was the best RB that year
Ingram was not, he had several off games and clearly had 3 rb's that were better than him in every aspect that did not have off games like Ingram
quote:
Jackson was a game changer. Ingram was a workhorse.
I disagree, Bama wouldn't have won a NC without the plays Ingram made...
quote:
No doubt bama would not have won without him he carried the load, but you could very easily insert a great workhorse RB into that team and have done the same thing. Bama's NC team that year was not because of the offense
quote:
Dudek was also not even D-1, hardly a comparison
That didn't stop the support. He was dominant in his level of football, which shouldn't be held against him...
Well actually it should. If he is a D-1 type athlete competing against lesser competition, he will have skewed stats. Recruiting then hurt a lot of guys. it is unfourtunate that he did not make a D-1 team, but you cannot put him in the same conversation in comparison.
This post was edited on 6/3/11 at 12:35 pm
Page 6 of 6
Popular
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News