Jahvid Best's 2008 season compared to Mark Ingram's 2009 season
by Rocky63215 on Dec 13, 2009 12:19 AM PST
Email
Print
So, the Heisman Award has been handed out to Mark Ingram of the Alabama Crimson Tide who just narrowly beat out Stanford Cardinal running back Toby Gerhart. The problem is that Gerhart had the far superior season and should have won the award.
After looking at the stats of Ingram I began to wonder how Jahvid Best's 2008 season compared to Ingram's 2009 season. Well the answer to that is Best's season was better than Ingram's if you're applying the logic of Heisman voters.
Let's take a look at Ingram's stats this season. Ingram carried the ball 249 times for 1542 yards, 15 touchdowns, a 6.2 yards per carry average, contributed 118.6 yards on the ground average, and a long of 70. He also contributed with 30 catches for 322 yards and three touchdowns.
Meaning that on 279 touches he had 1864 yards and 18 touchdowns. There's nothing wrong with that season at all for Ingram.
What about Best? How did his season look? Best carried the ball 194 times for 1580 yards, 15 touchdowns, an 8.1 yard per carry average, and a long of 86.
Out of the backfield he caught 27 passes for 246 yards and a touchdown. Meaning that Best touched the ball 221 times for 1826 yards and 16 touchdowns.
The numbers include the bowl game Cal played in and the 13 games that Alabama has played in. Best missed a game last year after dislocating his elbow, so his numbers are out of 12 games compared to when Alabama finishes the season 14 games.
Going further into the comparison Ingram had five games under 100 yards and three games held without a touchdown either rushing or receiving. His best effort was a 24 carry 246 yard effort with a touchdown. That was the only 200 yards plus game for Ingram.
Best was held under 100 yards four times, four times he didn't reach the end zone in a game, and his best game was a 19 carry effort for 311 yards and four touchdowns. Best on the other hand had two other games over 200 yards rushing.
So, when comparing the stats you will see that Ingram had more yards and total touchdowns. While Best beat Ingram in yards per carry, 200 plus yard games, longest rush, and higher touchdown game.
If you're excluding the stats of the bowl game from Best he carried the ball 174 times for 1394 yards, as well as 126.7 yards on the ground per game, he had 12 touchdowns, and a long of 86.
It means that Ingram had more yards and more touchdowns, but Best still would hold the edge in longest run, more 200 plus yard games, more yards per game, better yards per carry average, and less games held out of the endzone.
Best held the edge in categories but Ingram had more yards and more touchdowns. In the end Best arguably had the better stats, but because Ingram held the advantage in yards and touchdowns he'd be considered better.
The opinions expressed in a FanPost are, in every way, reflective of the opinions of every California Golden Blogs Marshawnthusiast. Moreover, they are reflective of every employee of SBNation, including Tyler "Blez" Bleszinski.
67 comments
|
0 recs |
Do you like this story?
Comments
Wait, what?
I could sort of see giving it to McCoy. But Ingram?
Gerhart is just better than Ingram. They play the same position. Gerhart is better at it.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
Yeah, I didn’t see the Ingram win coming. At all.
That said, I might have been violently ill if Gerhart had won the H… i can’t even type it. Let’s just say that although he had a way better season than Ingram and probably deserved it more, I’m still very glad he didn’t win.
I think I would have been most satisfied with a Suh win. He was clearly the most deserving, we would have avoided this RB controversy, and my faith in the system would have been restored.
CGB: Wasting Your Potential, Your Time, & Your Life Since 2006.
What settled me on Suh (other than my distaste for the quarterback/running back club approach to Heisman balloting) is that his skills are universal. I could be wrong but it certainly seems like he could be inserted onto any team or used in any scheme and still end up doing what he did for Nebraska: completely wrecking opposing protections and blocking schemes.
(Hence why he’s the projected #1 draft pick next year, though of course the #1 pick isn’t always the most talented player in college in a given year. Matt Stafford had more potential than talent when he was drafted, for instance, but it just so happens that Suh’s potential is already largely manifest.)
Gerhart likely would have been a goal line/short yardage back on most teams, and he would be next to useless on a shotgun passing team, lacking the foot speed to be useful in the screen/draw/trap game that a team like Texas Tech uses. Ingram’s skill set was a bit more versatile, but again, how useful would he be on a shotgun running team like Oregon?
(In terms of running backs who could play in the greatest variety of offensive systems, I’d probably recommend Quizz Rodgers or LaMichael James. Both are hard enough runners to work in under center/power running teams, quick enough for the shotgun/zone game, and agile enough for the constraint game ala Texas Tech. Arguably Best could do the same.)
Guys like Gerhart and Ingram just aren’t plug-and-play to the same extent Suh is, so in my opinion they extent to which they are outstanding players is limited by the extent to which they were both kind of in the right place at the right time. Suh would have been a beast for any team in the country. Dude transcends.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
by AERose on Dec 13, 2009 11:55 PM PST up reply actions 2 recs
Man, you just said in seven words what I tried to say in five paragraphs.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
KFC
Am I right?
The Ultimate Opportunist
by Rated-R Superstar on Dec 13, 2009 7:08 PM PST up reply actions
One Quick Point
The Pac-10 was BAD last year, and Best did accumulate a vast majority of those stats against the likes of 0-12 Washington, 2-11 Wazzou, and 4-8 Stanford, while displaying a blank in losses against USC, & Maryland, and with exception to one or two plays against Oregon St and Arizona, was mostly contained.
Yes
Some teams in the Pac-10 were bad last year, but still Washington and Washington State last year were better than the three cupcake teams Alabama played this year as in North Texas, FIU, and Chattanooga.
Prior to the post season:
2009 Alabama = SEC team playing in national championship.
2008 Cal = West Coast nipping at the fringes of the rankings (in a bad year for the Pac-10 to boot).
As others have said, Best had a good year but his stats are hyper-inflated by piling it on against bad teams (particularly the WA teams, who were possibly 1 and 2 the worst programs in FBS last year). And bringing the bowl game into consideration has absolutely no bearing on the Heisman (although perhaps it should).
If any Cal runningback in recent history has an argument for being jobbed, it’s Arrington.
I’ve never bought into Best “piled” it on against the WA teams argument. It is not as if every other Pac10 team missed those 2 teams or something. Jaquizz Rodgers played against them, too.
And it’s not as if Alabama had its fair share of shitty team it faced this year.
Moreover, it’s not really piling on if you take Best out after half. He barely played into the 3rd quarter of both games. If they had played him the FULL games, I would agree that it was piling on. But he only played like 55% of the quarters.
Best was merely redick good in those games and somehow people try to delegitimize his overall success, because he was SO successful. An odd argument to me.
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
You could look at it as he wasn’t so successful against better defenses than a knock on him tearing up bad defenses….
by Missing Barry on Dec 13, 2009 12:26 PM PST up reply actions
The Heisman voters apply logic(k)?
President Emperor Warlord Of The Sun!
www.CaliforniaGoldenBlogs.com
Doubt this is news to anyone here but if you want to be rely frustrated compare 2004 Adrian Peterson (heisman finalist) to JJ Arrington. More yards (2018), substantially better yards per carry (7.0 v. 5.7), and same number of touchdowns (15)
Definitely agree with you there
The Heisman system is flawed. It also shows just how badly the media can play a role in the voting as well.
I don’t think a defensive player should be even mentioned for the Heisman let alone be invited to go to New York, but because the media was trying to get Suh the award, it took away votes from the most deserving player, Gerhart.
Regardless of how much Stanford is hated, it’s a slap in the face for Pac-10 teams, when a player with the numbers that Gerhart produced gets robbed of the award.
Also, look at the defesnive rankings of team’s and players. The Pac-10 had better percentages of teams and players in the top 50 and top 100 of rankings then the SEC did.
The Pac-10 also played a tougher out of conference schedule then the SEC.
(1) There is no Heisman system, and that is why it is flawed. The Heisman committee gives no criteria by which the voters are to cast their ballots. Supposedly it’s supposed to go to the “best” player. But how do you define best? Statistically? Sheer talent regardless of statistical performance? Regardless of how you define “best,” “best” has taken on the connotation that it is an offensive skill player. If Heisman voters got more guidance on what criteria they should use to cast their ballots, then perhaps we wouldn’t be wondering if the Heisman is supposed to go to the most talented player or the best performer.
The Heisman system is also flawed because past winners can vote, and often vote for their own teammates or players from their own school. In other words, there is favoritism. The same can be said of regional media voters, however, this type of homerism and favoritism is on a whole ’nother level. I believe Leinart actually admitted a few years ago that he just voted for all U$C players on his ballot one year.
(2) Defensive players SHOULD be considered for the Heisman. College football fans need to end this narrow ignorant train of thought that the best player in the nation is only an offensive player, and only a “skill” player.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
If Heisman voters got more guidance on what criteria they should use to cast their ballots, then perhaps we wouldn’t be wondering if the Heisman is supposed to go to the most talented player or the best performer.
Do you pay attention to media voting for other awards throughout sports? This might help the problem a little, but the voting would still not make sense. It would make as much sense as Chase Utley ending up 8th on the MVP ballot this year, and never finishing higher than 7th while two of his teammates that aren’t even close to as good as he is have actually won the MVP…
by Missing Barry on Dec 13, 2009 12:28 PM PST up reply actions
The basic problem here
is that in order to get a thought organ to rationally sit down and apply a set of consistent principles to a data sample, that “organ” has to be… well, a computer.
O'Hara: Detective Lassiter is literally on fire.
Spencer: What kind of fire are we talking about-- "Michael Jackson in the Pepsi commercial" fire, or "misusing the word literally" fire?
(2) Defensive players SHOULD be considered for the Heisman. College football fans need to end this narrow ignorant train of thought that the best player in the nation is only an offensive player, and only a "skill" player.
One of these days there has to be a left tackle in contention (I mean, other than Orlando Pace back in the day). That would really blow peoples’ minds.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
I don’t think a defensive player should be even mentioned for the Heisman let alone be invited to go to New York, but because the media was trying to get Suh the award, it took away votes from the most deserving player, Gerhart.
So you don’t think it’s possible for a defensive player to be the best player in college football? That’s what the Heisman is supposed to be for.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
I don't think it is
Even if you look at when Charles Woodson won the Heisman, he wasn’t even the best cornerback on Michigan. In fact Michigan had to put Woodson on offense just to try to get him more touches.
I think that an offensive player regardless of a quarterback and a running back have more to do with controlling the game then a defense does.
For a great running back it might take just one play to get the team on the scoreboard. In reality a defense can knock a team backwards and force the team in a three an out or a turnover or on occasion a touchdown.
Also, Syd’Quan Thompson was the best cornerback in the Pac-10 and one of the top ones in the country. Yet, Thompson didn’t have many interceptions this year he is an excellent tackler from the corner position, but because teams stayed away from him he didn’t have many opportunities for an interception.
Basically a team can go away from that defensive player, but when it’s an offensive player they have to be ready for him nearly every play or at least for a majority of the plays.
So what would you say about a defensive player that forces teams to devote 3 players to blocking him and still affects a majority of offensive plays and several special teams plays?
I agree that generally speaking it’s very hard for a defensive player to impact a game on the level of a running back/QB. But your analysis leaves out the fact that both offensive positions are very much dependent on good blocking by the offensive line, and in the QB’s case, good WRs who can get open and catch the ball. You’re emphasizing the disadvantages a defender faces and ignoring the help an offensive player requires.
I will admit this: I only watched Suh in a couple of games, same as all of the other players. I don’t feel comfortable saying which one dominated games over the course of the season the most. I would guess that you saw about as many games as I did and have about the same level of insight. Which is the same level of insight most Heisman voters have. Which is why the award is dumb.
Having said that, Suh dominated the Big 12 championship, against the best team Nebraska played all season long, more than I’ve ever seen any one defensive player dominate a game. Texas had been held to under 30 points once before in the season, and Nebraska’s offense provided ZERO support – Suh was on the field all day and still destroyed a great offense and another Heisman trophy candidate (McCoy). If Suh isn’t considered a serious contender then the award has no meaning. And if Nebraska’s kicker hadn’t kicked the ball out of bounds or if Texas’s kicker missed a 40something yard FG, Suh might’ve won the damned thing.
But probably not. Because the Heisman excludes half of the players in the country for no particular reason.
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
True
The Heisman system is flawed. I’d like to see maybe a Defensive Heisman or something to that effect. Remember Terrell Suggs at Arizona State he was a one man wrecking crew.
Another reason why its hard is that a defensive player could barely see action in a game if his team has a good offense that can control the ball. The defense maybe on the field for 10 plays while the offense has about 20-25 plays.
I’d like to see maybe a Defensive Heisman or something to that effect.
That award is called the Chuck Bednarik award or the Bronco Nagurski award (both won by Suh, of course). Frankly, if defensive players are eliminated from consideration, I wouldn’t view that award as legitimate. So, needless to say, I don’t view the Heisman as legitimate.
Another reason why its hard is that a defensive player could barely see action in a game if his team has a good offense that can control the ball. The defense maybe on the field for 10 plays while the offense has about 20-25 plays.
The reverse of that can be true as well, (A QB has a bad defense that keeps him off the field) so I wouldn’t hold that against anybody. Circumstances that are out of the control of a player shouldn’t be a factor in the voting (but of course that’s not the case)
The #1 greatest threat to America: BEARS
Rocky
From now on, I think it’s probably best that these articles of yours get linked in the DBD (Daily Bear Dump) or get posted as a fan*shot*.
Here on the CGB, fan*post* space is pretty limited. Within a week, fanposts often get pushed down off the page by other fanposts. Because they get pushed off the page so quickly, in the past we’ve set standards for fanposts to meet. For example, fanposts have been required to somewhat extensive, contain some original thought or commentary, and not merely for the purpose of sharing a link nor a copy/paste of protected subscriber material. Like I said earlier, the purpose of these rules is so that we don’t have a million people making fanposts about every small thing leading to everyone drowning each other out and fanposts getting pushed down the sidebar quickly.
You present a different problem because you do provide original thought, your post is extensive, and you are not merely sharing a link or providing a copy/paste of protected subscriber material. So clearly, your posts do meet our previous standards. However, the content you post here is a direct copy/paste of material from bleacher report.
Despite your post being relevant, being original in thought, being extensive, and not merely to share a link or share protected subscriber material, there doesn’t seem to be a great need to re-post (as a copy/paste) the entire article here. You already have your own platform to host your content at Bleacher Report. Instead of copy/pasting your entire article onto one of our limited fanpost spaces, you can simply link to your post at Bleacher Report. Here at the CGB, we have two methods by which you may do that. First we have the DBD (Daily Bear Dump). The DBD is a big post that someone usually creates every weekday where Cal fans all congregate during the day to talk about sports, and to share links so that we may all discuss them. If you wish to share your articles from Bleacher Report, feel free to start sharing your articles as links in a comment in the DBD. The other alternative for sharing your article is to use a fanshot. Fanshots are used for when people have something to share and don’t have much commentary on the item they are sharing. The item may be a video, a picture, or a link. People can still comment and discuss the item shared within that fanshot thread.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
clarification
When I said that fanposts had to be somewhat extensive, but that I mean not merely a few sentences. We aren’t requiring people to write essays to qualify as fanposts, but we ask that if you merely have a few sentences of thought to provide then it can probably be accomplished as a comment and link in the DBD.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
correction
When I said that fanposts had to be somewhat extensive, by that I mean not merely a few sentences. We aren’t requiring people to write essays to qualify as fanposts, but we ask that if you merely have a few sentences of thought to provide then it can probably be accomplished as a comment and link in the DBD.
www.californiagoldenblogs.com
Or not at all, preferably.
All aboard the Jahvid Best rickshaw!
by rollonubears on Dec 13, 2009 11:51 AM PST up reply actions
This is argument #47,239 why the Heisman isn’t relevant to anything and isn’t worth paying attention to.
So, basically, you gotta Go Bears!
ESPN caters to the casual fan who isn’t that knowledgeable about sports. As far as they can tell, Ingram was deserving, because he’s the best player on the best team. That’s as far as most people care to think about it…
by Missing Barry on Dec 13, 2009 12:33 PM PST up reply actions
the great/sad thing is ingram is not even that. He is the best offensive skill player on the best team but he is not better than McClain (and maybe not better than Cody).
by First and Ten on Dec 13, 2009 12:45 PM PST up reply actions
He's not even the best running back in the country
LaMichael James and Dion Lewis out performed him. Actually there were 10 other running backs that performed better than Ingram.
Insomuch as other running backs have some combination of more carries/more yards/better average/more touchdowns, and insomuch as that makes prima facie makes them better running backs, which it doesn’t.
"Let me tell you a story. I was a political prisoner for two years. The instant I was released I ran to McDonald's. I had a Big Mac and a Coke.
It was fantastic."
-Toyama Koichi, US Presidential candidate from Japan
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=uGZqOkeYbB0
By all accounts I’ve seen Cody is overrated – he takes a lot of plays off (literally, he only plays something like 60% of their defensive snaps, I don’t remember the number exactly but whatever it is it’s a lot less than a good college NT is supposed to)…McClain, possibly true, but again – we’re back to the target audience. People that don’t know anything about football see Ingram with the ball. Picking up on a position that doesn’t touch the ball often is beyond their knowledge.
by Missing Barry on Dec 13, 2009 5:37 PM PST up reply actions
i would hope that the people who vote on a major football award understand something about football. I know…its asking too much
by First and Ten on Dec 13, 2009 6:19 PM PST up reply actions
Well if you want knowledgeable voters you know you’re not going to be able to let sportswriters vote. ;)
by Missing Barry on Dec 13, 2009 8:18 PM PST up reply actions
better than letting coaches vote for the best teams they never see
by First and Ten on Dec 13, 2009 8:49 PM PST up reply actions
I would like to see another statistic for running backs
Standard Deviation to go along with average yards per rush. What we saw in Jahvid this season was a boom/bust cycle. His standard deviation would be really big, a la Barry Sanders. While Sanders was spectacular, he was also deemed frustrating, as many times he’d just drop behind the line for a loss. Is it better to get a few 3 and outs (punt) and then an 80 yard touchdown, or grind out a long drive on a bunch of 4 yard gains?
Who is more valuable – John Riggins or Barry Sanders? Toby Gerhart or Jahvid Best?
I shouldn’t pose the question that way, pitting a Furd against a Bear. But I wonder what Toby’s St Dev. was compared to Mark Ingram’s.
I believe
It depends on the team. If there defense struggles then absolutely staying on the field is more important. If the defense is solid, then it shouldn’t matter if a player runs for 80 yards and the defense is back on the field.
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
User Tools
GoldenBlogs' FAQ and Community Guidelines
Related FanPosts on California Golden Blogs
Related FanShots on California Golden Blogs
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Recommended FanPosts
Recent FanPosts
FanShots
Quick hits of video, photos, quotes, chats, links and lists that you find around the web.
Recommended FanShots
Recent FanShots
About Us
• About the Golden Bloggers
• Our previous site @ Blogsome
• Avinash @ Bears Necessity
• Best of the Golden Blogs
• Golden Blogs Interviews
• HydroTech's Cal Football Analyses
• Ron Fimrite's Anatomy Of A Miracle
• CGB Weekly Guides
• GoldenBlogs' Community Guidelines
• GoldenBlogs' FAQ
• CGB GIF Army
Learn More About The California Golden Blogs Clothing Store
Pac-12 On SBN
Pacific Takes (Pac-12) NORTH AddictedToQuack: (Oregon)
UW Dawg Pound: (Washington)
CougCenter: (Washington State)
BuildingTheDam: (Oregon State)
Rule Of Tree: (Stanford)
CaliforniaGoldenBlogs: (Cal)
SOUTH
BruinsNation: (UCLA)
ConquestChronicles: (USC)
HouseOfSparky: (ASU)
Arizona Desert Swarm: (Arizona)
TheRalphieReport: (Colorado)
Block U: (Utah)
Golden Bears Football Schedule
| Fresno St. | Sat 09/03 | W 36 - 21 |
@
Colorado
|
Sat 09/10 | W 36 - 33 |
| Presbyterian | Sat 09/17 | W 63 - 12 |
|
@
Washington
|
Sat 09/24 | L 23 - 31 |
|
@
Oregon
|
Thu 10/06 | L 15 - 43 |
|
USC
|
Thu 10/13 | L 9 - 30 |
|
Utah
|
Sat 10/22 | W 34 - 10 |
|
@
UCLA
|
Sat 10/29 | L 14 - 31 |
|
Washington St.
|
Sat 11/05 | W 30 - 7 |
|
Oregon St.
|
Sat 11/12 | W 23 - 6 |
|
@
Stanford
|
Sat 11/19 | L 28 - 31 |
|
@
Arizona St.
|
Fri 11/25 | W 47 - 38 |
|
@
Texas
|
Wed 12/28 | L 10 - 21 |
Pacific-12 Conference Standings
(updated 1.2.2012 at 11:12 PM PST)
| North | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
Oregon Ducks
|
8 | 1 | 12 | 2 |
|
Stanford Cardinal
|
8 | 1 | 11 | 2 |
|
Washington Huskies
|
5 | 4 | 7 | 6 |
|
California Golden Bears
|
4 | 5 | 7 | 6 |
|
Oregon St. Beavers
|
3 | 6 | 3 | 9 |
|
Washington St. Cougars
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
| South | Conf | Overall | ||
|---|---|---|---|---|
| W | L | W | L | |
|
USC Trojans
|
7 | 2 | 10 | 2 |
|
UCLA Bruins
|
5 | 4 | 6 | 8 |
|
Utah Utes
|
4 | 5 | 8 | 5 |
|
Arizona St. Sun Devils
|
4 | 5 | 6 | 7 |
|
Arizona Wildcats
|
2 | 7 | 4 | 8 |
|
Colorado Buffaloes
|
2 | 7 | 3 | 10 |
Certain photos copyright © 2012 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
