Mayfield wins heisman [Archive]

msstate7

12-09-2017, 09:24 PM

Seems like Oklahoma produces a disproportionate amount of Heisman winners given their over stature as a program. Perhaps that conference just allows guys to put up ridiculous numbers.

7 national championships and 46 conference championships

ShotgunDawg

12-09-2017, 09:26 PM

7 national championships and 46 conference championships

Yeah, other schools have more championships and recruit better but don’t have anywhere near that many Hiesmans. Idk, perhaps they do have the correct amount. Just seems like it’s disproportionate

Perhaps it’s just that they are clearly, by far the best program in a bad conference that doesn’t play defense. Those factors alone mean that they will likely win at least 10 games a year and have an offensive player with humongous stats.

What stinks is that they don’t even have Auburn’s talent level but in that conference it doesn’t matter.

According to 247, Oklahoma has the 16th best talent level in the country behind such teams as A&M & UCLA. That conference is straight doodoo

msstate7

12-09-2017, 09:32 PM

Yeah, other schools have more championships and recruit better but don’t have anywhere near that many Hiesmans. Idk, perhaps they do have the correct amount. Just seems like it’s disproportionate

Perhaps it’s just that they are clearly, by far the best program in a bad conference that doesn’t play defense. Those factors alone mean that they will likely win at least 10 games a year and have an offensive player with humongous stats.

What stinks is that they don’t even have Auburn’s talent level but in that conference it doesn’t matter.

According to 247, Oklahoma has the 16th best talent level in the country behind such teams as A&M & UCLA. That conference is straight doodoo

Dude, they beat the hell out of auburn last year

ShotgunDawg

12-09-2017, 09:34 PM

Dude, they beat the hell out of auburn last year

Auburn was injured all over and falling apart when they played. Auburn has better players.

https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

msstate7

12-09-2017, 09:36 PM

Might wanna go back and read about Oklahoma vs auburn

http://www.espn.com/college-football/matchup?gameId=400876112

msstate7

12-09-2017, 09:37 PM

Auburn was injured all over and falling apart when they played. Auburn has better players.

https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

Oklahoma put 2 starting RBs in nfl this year in perine (sp?) and mixon.

Dawg61

12-09-2017, 09:38 PM

Hope the Bills draft Mayfield and bring back the red helmets. He wins and he will lead the Bills back to the playoffs.

msstate7

12-09-2017, 09:41 PM

Shotgun, since mayfield does not deserve the heisman bc of his conference, who does deserve it?

ShotgunDawg

12-09-2017, 09:41 PM

Oklahoma put 2 starting RBs in nfl this year in perine (sp?) and mixon.

Dude. Baker is good and Oklahoma is good.

My point is that I believe they have a disproportionate amount of Hiesman winners.

I could care less how many RBs they put in the NFL. What does that have to do with this conversation?

Telling me about Perrine and Mixon is completely irrelevant.

ShotgunDawg

12-09-2017, 09:42 PM

Shotgun, since mayfield does not deserve the heisman bc of his conference, who does deserve it?

Where did a I say Mayfield didn’t deserve the Hiesman?

Did you read that somewhere or make it up?

msstate7

12-09-2017, 09:42 PM

Auburn was injured all over and falling apart when they played. Auburn has better players.

https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite
Your own link has Florida #16 and OM #18. Get that shite out of here.

ShotgunDawg

12-09-2017, 09:45 PM

Your own link has Florida #16 and OM #18. Get that shite out of here.

Actually Florida is 17.

Did you forget you glasses tonight? Reading appears to be a struggle

These rankings are based off of 247’s formula. I’m guess your is better

msstate7

12-09-2017, 09:46 PM

Dude. Baker is good and Oklahoma is good.

My point is that I believe they have a disproportionate amount of Hiesman winners.

I could care less how many RBs they put in the NFL. What does that have to do with this conversation?

Telling me about Perrine and Mixon is completely irrelevant.

Which ones do you dispute?

msstate7

12-09-2017, 09:49 PM

Actually Florida is 17.

Did you forget you glasses tonight? Reading appears to be a struggle

These rankings are based off of 247?s formula. I?m guess your is better

Lets see... Texas, tennesse!!!!!, aTm, and Stanford have better talent than Oklahoma? Yeah, I disagree. Clemson and Oklahoma are so screwed with such a huge difference in talent in the playoffs... yet, both will win

Dawg61

12-09-2017, 09:55 PM

msstate7

12-09-2017, 09:57 PM

Auburn was injured all over and falling apart when they played. Auburn has better players.

https://247sports.com/Season/2017-Football/CollegeTeamTalentComposite

Looks like Oklahoma overall avg rating per player being drug down by this low 3* qb, mayfield

https://247sports.com/Player/Baker-Mayfield-20771/high-school-33131

ShotgunDawg

12-09-2017, 09:59 PM

Maybe it's cause Oklahoma carries all the Big 12 voters just like Texas does when they have a candidate up. ACC/SEC/B1G areas don't lump together and vote for just one finalist. Seems like the West coast and central USA lock onto one guy each year and all vote for them. Maybe I am full of shit and this sounded good.

This is actually a very good answer.

I think the Oklahoma players I’ve seen win it have all deserved it, but haven’t turned out to be very good players in the NFL.

Now, I realize NFL success is irrelevant to the Hiesman, but there should be some coorelation.

If it happens once or twice, you say whatever, but when it happens consistently, it makes you wonder.

msstate7

12-09-2017, 09:59 PM

ShotgunDawg

12-09-2017, 10:00 PM

Looks like Oklahoma overall avg rating per player being drug down by this low 3* qb, mayfield

https://247sports.com/Player/Baker-Mayfield-20771/high-school-33131

I’m sure most teams have players that are highly productive that were low recruits. Ours is drug down by Fitz

msstate7

12-09-2017, 10:04 PM

I’m sure most teams have players that are highly productive that were low recruits. Ours is drug down by Fitz

Which is why I think looking at recruiting rankings to determine talent is flawed

ShotgunDawg

12-09-2017, 10:07 PM

Which is why I think looking at recruiting rankings to determine talent is flawed

To a certain degree, I agree, but it’s a fact that the higher recruiting team wins about 80% of the time in college football. So there has to be some base level coorelation between recruiting rankings, talent, and wins.

I personally look at recruiting rankings in terms of tiers.

I look at top 5, 6-14, and the about 15-25. Within those 3 tiers, I think the 40 players that play the most are about even.

dawgday166

12-09-2017, 10:09 PM

7 national championships and 46 conference championships

Yea really. I didn't understand that comment at all. Don't forget longest winning streak evah too - 47 straight.

msstate7

12-09-2017, 10:09 PM

To a certain degree, I agree, but it’s a fact that the higher recruiting team wins about 80% of the time in college football. So there has to be some base level coorelation between recruiting rankings, talent, and wins.

We should start a site that re-ranks players once they actually play. This would give a much more accurate representation of actual team talent

Jack Lambert

12-09-2017, 10:16 PM

Yeah, other schools have more championships and recruit better but don?t have anywhere near that many Hiesmans. Idk, perhaps they do have the correct amount. Just seems like it?s disproportionate

Perhaps it?s just that they are clearly, by far the best program in a bad conference that doesn?t play defense. Those factors alone mean that they will likely win at least 10 games a year and have an offensive player with humongous stats.

What stinks is that they don?t even have Auburn?s talent level but in that conference it doesn?t matter.

According to 247, Oklahoma has the 16th best talent level in the country behind such teams as A&M & UCLA. That conference is straight doodoo

Big 12 Defenses even makes Thrill the Hill look good.

DownwardDawg

12-09-2017, 10:16 PM

Great thread! Lol
Just kidding guys.

msstate7

12-09-2017, 10:20 PM

Great thread! Lol
Just kidding guys.
I do not play when it comes to Oklahoma and esp when it comes to my future New Orleans Saints qb, mayfield haha

Really I just think there is a whole lot of sec bias here, and it keeps some from seeing there is actually some really good football and football players outside the sec

Dawg61

12-09-2017, 10:33 PM

Sims, white (undefeated national champs), Bradford, and mayfield... which one did not deserve it?

Where did I say someone didn't deserve a Heisman? I was just giving reason to why Oklahoma has so many heisman winners.

msstate7

12-09-2017, 10:35 PM

Where did I say someone didn't deserve a Heisman? I was just giving reason to why Oklahoma has so many heisman winners.

Seems the basis of your hypothesis is that voters gained up to give it to a less deserving candidate from Oklahoma. Perhaps those Oklahoma guys won bc they deserved to win

Quaoarsking

12-09-2017, 10:57 PM

Counting up Heismans by schools is meaningless anyway, since there's a lot of luck involved as far as who else has a great season.

For example, Lamar Jackson's 2016 was comparable Dak's 2014, but there was no one else to give it to last year. A season like that wouldn't have won it very many years. Stanford's had 3 guys in the last decade (Toby Gerhart, Andrew Luck, Christian McCaffery) who had the resume to win it in a theoretical year but got unlucky with their draw.

Dawg61

12-09-2017, 11:21 PM

Seems the basis of your hypothesis is that voters gained up to give it to a less deserving candidate from Oklahoma. Perhaps those Oklahoma guys won bc they deserved to win

If you're waiting for me to hype Oklahoma and Oklahoma players you're gonna be dead before you get it

FlytheW3

12-09-2017, 11:31 PM

I do not play when it comes to Oklahoma and esp when it comes to my future New Orleans Saints qb, mayfield haha

Really I just think there is a whole lot of sec bias here, and it keeps some from seeing there is actually some really good football and football players outside the sec

I'm really hoping the Saints draft Mayfield as well. I love watching him play

Cooterpoot

12-09-2017, 11:58 PM

Mayfield is a good college QB in a conference with no defense. He’ll be a backup in the NFL.

Dawg61

12-10-2017, 12:21 AM

I will hype Mayfield though 7 and I was serious when I said I hope the Bills draft him. He'll start right away and win.

bulldawg28

12-10-2017, 05:02 AM

Which is why I think looking at recruiting rankings to determine talent is flawed

This all day. The quicker people realize recruiting ranking is pushed by money the better. Heck, if a kid never goes to any camp he's a 2* at best. It's unreal

bulldawg28

12-10-2017, 05:05 AM

Some of you all are SEC biased. Mr Baker is the real deal. You'll see soon when he bakes these teams in the playoffs. The only team that may slow him down imo is Clemson.

dawgs

12-10-2017, 05:21 AM

This all day. The quicker people realize recruiting ranking is pushed by money the better. Heck, if a kid never goes to any camp he's a 2* at best. It's unreal

Then why do recruiting rankings correlate so closely with national championship and playoff teams. Not exactly, but a playoff team most likely has multiple top 10 classes on their roster, at which point the talent “disparity” is well within the margin of error.

dawgs

12-10-2017, 05:22 AM

Seems like Oklahoma produces a disproportionate amount of Heisman winners given their over stature as a program. Perhaps that conference just allows guys to put up ridiculous numbers.

Just a program that is undeniably a top 5 program all-time and arguably the #2 program in the modern CFB era.

msstate7

12-10-2017, 08:09 AM

Then why do recruiting rankings correlate so closely with national championship and playoff teams. Not exactly, but a playoff team most likely has multiple top 10 classes on their roster, at which point the talent ?disparity? is well within the margin of error.

I am not a recruiting ranking hater at all. I want us to get high rating players whenever possible. With that said, they are not the gospel...

Mayfield = .8384
Jackson = .8788
Love = .9112

And that 90% figure shotgun used that recruiting guys proclaim, do you think 13 of those teams ranked ahead of Oklahoma would beat them? That figure is deceiving bc the overwhelming majority of CFB games have a big difference in recruiting rankings.

Dawgface

12-10-2017, 08:15 AM

I didn't watch. Did he grab his crotch at the podium?

msstate7

12-10-2017, 08:18 AM

I didn't watch. Did he grab his crotch at the podium?

Yes, and did the choke sign at love and Jackson. On the podium, he said he thanked himself for the being the greatest ever.

Lol

Bdawg

12-10-2017, 08:26 AM

I didn't watch. Did he grab his crotch at the podium?

Didn’t watch either. Quit watching when they screwed Peyton Manning over. Think voters had SEC fatigue back then because I think the SEC had reeled off a few in a row. Lost credibility with me.

bulldawg28

12-10-2017, 09:58 AM

bulldawg28

12-10-2017, 10:08 AM

Didn’t watch either. Quit watching when they screwed Peyton Manning over. Think voters had SEC fatigue back then because I think the SEC had reeled off a few in a row. Lost credibility with me.

Dude that was 50 years ago. Plenty of SEC guys have won since then

Quaoarsking

12-10-2017, 01:16 PM

Dude that was 50 years ago. Plenty of SEC guys have won since then

Not to mention that there was no "SEC fatigue" in 1997. Sure, Wuerffel won in 1996, but you have to go back to 1985 and Bo Jackson to find another SEC winner.

bulldawg28

12-10-2017, 01:30 PM

Not to mention that there was no "SEC fatigue" in 1997. Sure, Wuerffel won in 1996, but you have to go back to 1985 and Bo Jackson to find another SEC winner.

Mark Ingram, Johnny Manziel, and Derrick Henry were all Heisman winners within the last 10 years

dawgs

12-10-2017, 02:02 PM

The coaching factor is a big part of that. If rankings were the key Florida, Tennessee, Georgia, Texas A&M, Texas, USC, UCLA, Miami, Notre Dame.....etc would be top 5-10 EVERY year. We also would not have been #1 at any time.

Big picture bro. USC is a top 10 team this year. Miami is a top 10 team. ND was a top 10 team most of the year until Miami beat them. Georgia is in the playoff. Florida and Tennessee fired coaches who have won the sec east and 9 games the previous 2 seasons because they weren’t maximizing their talent. If you look at the recruiting and the success on the whole, you see the correlation. If you look at individual teams or players, you can think it’s all bullshit. Give me the big picture and we’ll sort out the busts and surprises.

Quaoarsking

12-10-2017, 02:14 PM

Mark Ingram, Johnny Manziel, and Derrick Henry were all Heisman winners within the last 10 years

Yep? Tebow too.

bulldawg28

12-10-2017, 02:53 PM

Big picture bro. USC is a top 10 team this year. Miami is a top 10 team. ND was a top 10 team most of the year until Miami beat them. Georgia is in the playoff. Florida and Tennessee fired coaches who have won the sec east and 9 games the previous 2 seasons because they weren’t maximizing their talent. If you look at the recruiting and the success on the whole, you see the correlation. If you look at individual teams or players, you can think it’s all bullshit. Give me the big picture and we’ll sort out the busts and surprises.

You missed the point, I said always. If rankings were so accurate these teams wouldn't be up and down. My point was coaching made the difference.

bulldawg28

12-10-2017, 02:54 PM

Yep? Tebow too.

How could I forget Tebow. He almost won 3 years In a row

dawgs

12-10-2017, 04:58 PM

You missed the point, I said always. If rankings were so accurate these teams wouldn't be up and down. My point was coaching made the difference.

Just because rankings aren’t 100% accurate doesn’t mean they aren’t generally accurate. And if you cite a team averaging ~8th in recruiting only going 10-3 and finishing 12th in the rankings an example of a failure on the part of recruiting rankings, then you’re wrong. Literally no one says that the actual rankings correlate exactly with the previous fees years recruiting rankings. Yes coaching matters, no one argues it doesn’t. But the farther down the talent is in the recruiting rankings, the more important coaching becomes and the less room for error you have.

ShotgunDawg

12-10-2017, 05:16 PM

Just because rankings aren?t 100% accurate doesn?t mean they aren?t generally accurate. And if you cite a team averaging ~8th in recruiting only going 10-3 and finishing 12th in the rankings an example of a failure on the part of recruiting rankings, then you?re wrong. Literally no one says that the actual rankings correlate exactly with the previous fees years recruiting rankings. Yes coaching matters, no one argues it doesn?t. But the farther down the talent is in the recruiting rankings, the more important coaching becomes and the less room for error you have.

Agree.

I think it?s about a 70%-30% argument in the SEC. Talent = about 70% of a team?s success and 30% is coaching. Being that MSU is a 20-25 recruiter, if MSU has quality coaching, MSU can consistently be a 12-17 caliber team.

In the PAC 12 or Big 12 I think the formula adjusts to about 60-40 talent vs coaching mostly because those conferences usually lack the elite, 5 star level of talent we see in the SEC. Thus coaching becomes more important. It’s why we out recruit TCU and Oklahoma State every year but the perception of their programs is better and they win more games

bulldawg28

12-10-2017, 07:23 PM

Just because rankings aren’t 100% accurate doesn’t mean they aren’t generally accurate. And if you cite a team averaging ~8th in recruiting only going 10-3 and finishing 12th in the rankings an example of a failure on the part of recruiting rankings, then you’re wrong. Literally no one says that the actual rankings correlate exactly with the previous fees years recruiting rankings. Yes coaching matters, no one argues it doesn’t. But the farther down the talent is in the recruiting rankings, the more important coaching becomes and the less room for error you have.

I agree with you. I'm saying I'd prefer a coach's evaluation over a metrics system.

Bdawg

12-10-2017, 09:11 PM

Dude that was 50 years ago. Plenty of SEC guys have won since then

Really don’t care how long ago it was. Peyton still got screwed. I was wrong about “sec reeling off a few” but that’s why I said “I think” before my statement. Anyway, that award is pretty much horse crap to me anyway because it doesn’t always give it to the most valuable player in the country. It’s more like the best player on one of the top teams country. That just doesn’t appeal to me.

bulldawg28

12-10-2017, 09:34 PM

Really don’t care how long ago it was. Peyton still got screwed. I was wrong about “sec reeling off a few” but that’s why I said “I think” before my statement. Anyway, that award is pretty much horse crap to me anyway because it doesn’t always give it to the most valuable player in the country. It’s more like the best player on one of the top teams country. That just doesn’t appeal to me.

Understandable, it's about the best player on the best team now

dawgs

12-10-2017, 11:30 PM

I agree with you. I'm saying I'd prefer a coach's evaluation over a metrics system.

If we are talking a 91 rated player and a 89 rated player, sure trust the coach. If we are talking a 98 rated player and a 85 rated player and a coach says he prefers the 85 rated player, the coach is full of shit. When you sign more players who are 95+ than 85 or below, then you are going to have more talent even accounting for busts and late bloomers/underrated guys.