Buy or Sell, If AD would have played in JSU game...
- Thread starter hessdawg
- Start date
Dixon is currently 20th in yards per game at 80.1 NCAA stats.
The leader Rodgers/ Oregon St. 114.5 yds per game.
Lot of running backs ahead of him. & I don't think his receiving is worth looking up.
Heiseman running backs usually have blow away stats.... So no dice.
Excuse me, that is for career, active players. .... Dixon is 6th at 125.13, the leader is at 164.5. still no dice.
The leader Rodgers/ Oregon St. 114.5 yds per game.
Lot of running backs ahead of him. & I don't think his receiving is worth looking up.
Heiseman running backs usually have blow away stats.... So no dice.
Excuse me, that is for career, active players. .... Dixon is 6th at 125.13, the leader is at 164.5. still no dice.
Heisman will always in this day of age be a popularity contest..
so dont ever look for a >.500 or break-even team to have a contender
so dont ever look for a >.500 or break-even team to have a contender
you have spoke out on both and been proved wrong multiple times on both and you are bitter about it. I understand it but it is childish none the less. You are to much of an insecure baby to admit when you are wrong so you just validate your incorrect takes on Stans and Dixon by bashing them. It's pathetic really.
Is Dixon a Heisman candidate? Not by any stretch of the imagination, but I just thought I would take this opportunity to point out what an uniformed attention ***** you are. Have a nice day.
Is Dixon a Heisman candidate? Not by any stretch of the imagination, but I just thought I would take this opportunity to point out what an uniformed attention ***** you are. Have a nice day.
There's only been one Heisman winner who played for a team with a losing record. Paul Hornung played for Notre Dame in 1956; they went 2-8.
what have I been proven wrong about? Stansbury made a Sweet 16 and I didnt hear about it? Stansbury started beating top competition out of conference? When did that happen?bonedaddy401 said:
AD in no way is or should be a Heisman candidate. I'm not seeing how I am wrong about that. Nobody else has him as one either- so usually that means I'm correct.
Wrong and Wrong. You have been wrong about Stans ALOT that was just the most idiotic thing you said that I can think of. I am sure there are plenty of gems that you vomited out when I wasn't on here.
And Dixon is a better back than your beloved Charles Scott. Period. And no matter who gets drafted first Dixon will be better and many people, including myself, will remind you of it repeatedly.
I am just saying this type of incorrectness fuels your bitterness. It's sad.
</p>
And Dixon is a better back than your beloved Charles Scott. Period. And no matter who gets drafted first Dixon will be better and many people, including myself, will remind you of it repeatedly.
I am just saying this type of incorrectness fuels your bitterness. It's sad.
</p>
I said Gottfried was more successful than Stansbury. And he was. Especially when you add in his entire coaching record to Stansbury's- at this point. West titles don't mean ****- its SEC titles and NCAA Tourney success. Leading half of a conference before the conference tourney gets you a good seed- and thats it.
AD is having a great season. But there is a reason Scott was preseason All-SEC. Just because LSU uses him much less this year because of all the skill people they have and AD is all we have doesnt make him any better. Is he having a better season? Yes he is. I still think Scott is a better back. There is no bitterness. Scott had a much better season last year than Dixon did. Let's see how they both do against Bammer these next weeks. I'm real curious to see how they both play myself. I think that will be a good indicator of the type backs they are.</p>
As far as the better NFL back- we'll see. People gave me hell about saying Mario Williams was a much better pick than Reggie Bush- and we see how that has turned out.</p>
AD is having a great season. But there is a reason Scott was preseason All-SEC. Just because LSU uses him much less this year because of all the skill people they have and AD is all we have doesnt make him any better. Is he having a better season? Yes he is. I still think Scott is a better back. There is no bitterness. Scott had a much better season last year than Dixon did. Let's see how they both do against Bammer these next weeks. I'm real curious to see how they both play myself. I think that will be a good indicator of the type backs they are.</p>
As far as the better NFL back- we'll see. People gave me hell about saying Mario Williams was a much better pick than Reggie Bush- and we see how that has turned out.</p>
Of who is the better back? How about we play basically all the same teams, so it would make it more relevant to look at the whole season. Your argument about looking at the Alabama game to decide what kind of backs they are is as dumb as all these people thinking Dixon should be up for Heisman. He's been a pleasant surprise this year and the best player on a medicore team. That is not the recipe for a Heisman winner. But, if you think who has the better game against Bama decides who the better back is, is just a stupid argument.</p>
if he'd played in the jsu game, if we were 8-1, if he hadn't fumbled... maybe he'd get mentioned. he probably would have needed another 200+ yard game along the way
LSU has more weapons than we do, so therefore Scott won't get as much touches... I'll give you that. But some people could be under the impression that if Scott was as good as Dixon, he would be getting more carries. I just think the argument that looking at one game instead of the whole season when the two teams play basically the same teams is an injustice. I guess my only question is would you right now choose Scott over Dixon. And if your answer is yes, then I and really no one else can argue with you about it. You will just see it how you want to no matter what.
jlat13 said:
you want to keep recruiting NFL talent at WR...they spread it around to keep the talent happy...AD is all we have on offense for the most part..We spread teams out to try and create running lanes for our RB- they spread it out to get the ball to their WR's...</p>
Scott in our offense has as good if not better numbers in my opinion.
</p>
And I know that we spread teams out to open up running lanes not necessarily to throw the ball. I mean our Qb can only throw out routes because he can't see. I know you probably didn't mean this, but you can't honestly believe the only reason LSU spreads it out, is to keep WR's happy. I'm not saying Scott sucks, I'm just saying you act as if anyone could be in Dixon's position and be doing the exact same thing, and that is where i do not agree. As I said in my earlier post, LSU has more offensive weapons which is one reason why Scott doesn't get as many carries. But if Scott running the ball 25 times a game gave them a better chance to win, then thats what they would be doing. I mean their offensive hasn't exactly been setting the world on fire.
Scott's averaging 4.5 per carry, Dixon 5.5, and Scott's been woeful vs SEC competition, that's why he's not getting the ball more, so quit making **** up.
Scott isn't nearly as elusive, nimble, nor does he possess the vision or change of direction that AD does. Scott is more like a fullback, and may not be the best RB on his own team. Ridley's sitting the bench and I think he'll be better than Scott and Williams
Scott isn't nearly as elusive, nimble, nor does he possess the vision or change of direction that AD does. Scott is more like a fullback, and may not be the best RB on his own team. Ridley's sitting the bench and I think he'll be better than Scott and Williams