NextBuck
All-American
This decade it has become more and more obvious that the Heisman is just the "Best QB on a Top 10 team in the Nation" award. Guys like Adrian Peterson and Darren McFadden have gotten close in recent years, but never close enough to actually being a true threat for the award. Now while we could also bring up WR's like Larry Fitzgerald and Mike Williams of USC, the closest position to actually beating a QB for the Heisman is RB.
I've taken the past 4 Heisman Winners at RB and have listed their stats:
Eddie George:
1,927 Yards
24 TD's
152.2 Yards Per Game
Ricky Williams:
2,397 Yards
29 TD's
5.9 YPC
Ron Dayne:
1,834 Yards
6.0 YPC
19 TD
Reggie Bush:
1,740 Yards
8.7 YPC
16 TD
37 Receptions
478 Yards
2 TD's
-Three out of four of them are plain old badass RB's and Bush is a great APB.
-Between the 3 RB's they have all rushed for over 1,800 yards and 19 TD's.
-3 out of 4 of them are on all-time top 10 teams (minus Dayne).
-3 out of 4 of them were on teams where they were much more important than their QB (minus Bush)
Everyone nowadays is saying that for a RB to win the Heisman they need to be just as versital as Bush. Is that really necessary though? If a RB on a Top 10 team was to rush for lets say 1,900 yards and 20 TD's could he beat a QB with 3,500 yards passing, 30 TD's, and less than 10 INT's on a Top 10 team? I'd like to think so.
I personally think the only RB who has gotten robbed this decade was Adrian Peterson. Personally I think Matt Leinart should have won the award the year Jason White did. Tebow and Smith both deserved their Heismans over McFadden.
Besides that maybe only Larry Johnson and Willis McGahee are in the discussion for RB's deserving the Heisman this decade.
What do you think a RB needs to do to win the Heisman? Or do you think the media overplays the whole idea that the Heisman is now only for QB's?
My Thoughts:
1,800+ Yards
19+ TD's
Top 10 Team
This should be good enough to have you in the running legitimately
I've taken the past 4 Heisman Winners at RB and have listed their stats:
Eddie George:
1,927 Yards
24 TD's
152.2 Yards Per Game
Ricky Williams:
2,397 Yards
29 TD's
5.9 YPC
Ron Dayne:
1,834 Yards
6.0 YPC
19 TD
Reggie Bush:
1,740 Yards
8.7 YPC
16 TD
37 Receptions
478 Yards
2 TD's
-Three out of four of them are plain old badass RB's and Bush is a great APB.
-Between the 3 RB's they have all rushed for over 1,800 yards and 19 TD's.
-3 out of 4 of them are on all-time top 10 teams (minus Dayne).
-3 out of 4 of them were on teams where they were much more important than their QB (minus Bush)
Everyone nowadays is saying that for a RB to win the Heisman they need to be just as versital as Bush. Is that really necessary though? If a RB on a Top 10 team was to rush for lets say 1,900 yards and 20 TD's could he beat a QB with 3,500 yards passing, 30 TD's, and less than 10 INT's on a Top 10 team? I'd like to think so.
I personally think the only RB who has gotten robbed this decade was Adrian Peterson. Personally I think Matt Leinart should have won the award the year Jason White did. Tebow and Smith both deserved their Heismans over McFadden.
Besides that maybe only Larry Johnson and Willis McGahee are in the discussion for RB's deserving the Heisman this decade.
What do you think a RB needs to do to win the Heisman? Or do you think the media overplays the whole idea that the Heisman is now only for QB's?
My Thoughts:
1,800+ Yards
19+ TD's
Top 10 Team
This should be good enough to have you in the running legitimately
Last edited: