The CardBoard
I have no words for McCaffrey - Printable Version

+- The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board)
+-- Forum: C-House! (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-4.html)
+--- Forum: The CardBoard (https://thecardboard.org/board/forum-5.html)
+--- Thread: I have no words for McCaffrey (/thread-10946.html)

Pages: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 12-07-2015

(12-07-2015, 05:29 PM)dabigv link Wrote:Haha pretty great.

But yeah, I think an ominous sign to only have three finalists, but who knows. Should win, probably won't...

Using the completely scientific methodology of reading threads/comment strings, it seems that McCaffrey is the popular choice among people who post in threads/comment strings about Voldemort voting.

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - Treebound - 12-07-2015

I've said since mid-last year: McCaffrey will be our next Voldemort trophy runner-up.  That being said, it's a year earlier than I thought.  Yvonne correctly pointed out the massive inconsistency in the voters view of Toby/Ingram vs Luck/RG3.  The east coast bias is real and I also feel that there is some anti-Stanford bias as well.  Christian deserves the award, as did Toby and as did Luck. 

I hope my prognostication proves to be false and he actually wins the award.  I'm ever the optimist, but this one looks like the others.    PS - the damn marketing department needs to take it up 10 notches not 1 or 2 next year!  Gary C did it for Plunket if I'm not mistaken!  End of rant...

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - French Rage - 12-07-2015

(12-07-2015, 05:42 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=dabigv link=topic=13922.msg146656#msg146656 date=1449534582]
Haha pretty great.

But yeah, I think an ominous sign to only have three finalists, but who knows. Should win, probably won't...

Using the completely scientific methodology of reading threads/comment strings, it seems that McCaffrey is the popular choice among people who post in threads/comment strings about Voldemort voting.
[/quote]

Yeah, I'm cautiously optimistic given CMac is getting most of the press this week.  Don't get me wrong, ESPN tried their hardest to give Henry more press on Saturday night (and they listed him first in their article, which I'm sure is just a coincidence), but McCaffrey is definitely getting the most buzz.  And while I know a nice little chunk of voters submitted their votes a couple weeks back, if there is a week to be gaining momentum, this isn't the worst one (next week would be worst!).

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - terry - 12-07-2015

Toby had the numbers, but they said he didn't play for a top-level team.

Luck had the numbers and played for a top-level team, but they said he didn't finish with a signature moment.

McCaffrey has the numbers, plays for a top-level team, and finished with a signature moment . . .

I guess they'll have to come up with a new reason to deny a Stanford guy.

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - yvonne - 12-07-2015

(12-07-2015, 05:43 PM)Treebound link Wrote:Gary C did it for Plunket if I'm not mistaken!  End of rant...

I'm pretty sure that was Bob Murphy.
http://www.mercurynews.com/peninsula/ci_13760555

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 12-07-2015

(12-07-2015, 05:48 PM)terry link Wrote:Toby had the numbers, but they said he didn't play for a top-level team.

Luck had the numbers and played for a top-level team, but they said he didn't finish with a signature moment.

McCaffrey has the numbers, plays for a top-level team, and finished with a signature moment . . .

I guess they'll have to come up with a new reason to deny a Stanford guy.

McCaffrey doesn't have the TDs.

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - terry - 12-07-2015

(12-07-2015, 05:52 PM)ThePassionOfTheChryst link Wrote:[quote author=terry link=topic=13922.msg146661#msg146661 date=1449535694]
Toby had the numbers, but they said he didn't play for a top-level team.

Luck had the numbers and played for a top-level team, but they said he didn't finish with a signature moment.

McCaffrey has the numbers, plays for a top-level team, and finished with a signature moment . . .

I guess they'll have to come up with a new reason to deny a Stanford guy.

McCaffrey doesn't have the TDs.
[/quote]


If it was really about TDs, Toby would have won.

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - stupac2 - 12-07-2015

(12-07-2015, 05:47 PM)French Rage link Wrote:(and they listed him first in their article, which I'm sure is just a coincidence)

The list is in alphabetical order: Henry, McCaffrey, Watson.

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - Rally - 12-07-2015

(12-07-2015, 05:59 PM)stupac2 link Wrote:[quote author=French Rage link=topic=13922.msg146660#msg146660 date=1449535671](and they listed him first in their article, which I'm sure is just a coincidence)

The list is in alphabetical order: Henry, McCaffrey, Watson.
[/quote]

Yes, but they only asked Williams for thoughts on Henry.

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - Class_of_75 - 12-07-2015

Here's a vote for McCaffrey.

http://registerguard.com/rg/sports/33831895-81/story.csp

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - BostonCard - 12-07-2015

The twitterverse seems to like #wildcaff

https://twitter.com/cbssports/status/674008825293365248

BC

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - CTcard - 12-07-2015

(12-07-2015, 05:48 PM)terry link Wrote:Toby had the numbers, but they said he didn't play for a top-level team.

Luck had the numbers and played for a top-level team, but they said he didn't finish with a signature moment.

McCaffrey has the numbers, plays for a top-level team, and finished with a signature moment . . .

I guess they'll have to come up with a new reason to deny a Stanford guy.

Well, we're certainly all paranoid [and that doesn't mean they aren't out to get us].


--------------
Of our recent runners-up, Gerhart had the best case, but it wasn't as if there was no case at all for Ingram. And Luck was better than Griffin, but one can also see the case for Griffin (better numbers, flashy plays).


Gerhart had good numbers, but not quite exclusive claim to the best.
Gerhart 143.9 yds/gm (2nd), 5.45 yds/carry, 11 catches - 157 yds.  Stanford 8-4 (at vote)
Ingram  118.4 yds/gm (10th), 6.12 yds/carry, 32 catches - 334 yds.  Alabama 13-0

In 2010, Newton had better PER, more rush yards, more total offense per game, but fewer pass yds/game. Auburn 13-0

In 2011, Griffin had better PER, more pass yards per game, more rush yards per game. Baylor 9-3

I think that McCaffrey has the best case of the three - at least versus Henry.

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - BostonCard - 12-07-2015

I agree CTcard.  While I thought there was a strong case for both Gerhart and Luck (twice) reasonable people could pick ingram, Newton, and Griffin, respectively.

I think when all is said and done, it may be harder to ignore McCaffrey.  Maybe I'm imagining it, but I am starting to see some momentum towards him.  It's probably too late, but I bet this race is closer than people expect.

BC

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - ThePassionOfTheChryst - 12-07-2015

I said in another thread that Henry should be a lock for the Doak Walker, but the Voldemort should be between McCaffrey and Watson.  I wouldn't be upset at all if Watson wins, but I think Henry should be firmly in third.

I saw an interesting point be made earlier.  The fact that nobody on the East Coast cares about Stanford might actually work to McCaffrey's advantage.  While the East Coast vote is split between Henry and Watson, the voters out this way will undoubtedly be boosting McCaffrey.  The question is, what is the geographic distribution of Voldemort voters?

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - Rally - 12-07-2015

The numbers don't matter.  The logic doesn't matter.  Regional bias rules.  Even if we had been on TV at 12:30 PM Pacific they would have tailgate D instead of watching.  Being paranoid doesn't rule out being correct.  I hope I'm wrong, but I don't see it.  SEC votes went in before last Saturday.  The only way is to demolish the competition, which may happen in the next two years.  Meanwhile, fingers crossed!

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - BostonCard - 12-07-2015

You do realize that Marcus Mariotta won it last year, no?

BC

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - Rally - 12-07-2015

(12-07-2015, 06:54 PM)Boston Card link Wrote:You do realize that Marcus Mariotta won it last year, no?

BC

Yes.  As I said, needs clear domination.  Objections?

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - BostonCard - 12-07-2015

By the way, cool video of McCaffrey and the team finding out he was a finalist on TV:

https://twitter.com/GoStanford/status/674030953912664064

BC

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - Ronnietrader - 12-07-2015

Here's why I'm a tad optimistic for Saturday:

This race has a lot of similarities to 2009 but also some key differences that might give CMac the trophy:

1.  Three finalists instead of five:  McCoy and Suh siphoned off votes in the Southwest which should have been a solid region for Toby.  Mayfield will do this as well, but since he's (likely) fourth, he does not have nearly the same amount of votes.  Also, three finalists implies CMac should be on a higher number of ballots overall (Toby was left off on roughy 300 ballots - nearly all outside the West)

2.  Watson should win the MidAtlantic.  Ingram won 5 out of the 6 regions including MidAtlantic.  Toby had a brobdingnagian margin in the West.  No reason to think CMac will not have same advantage

3.  Pac 12 footprint is larger now than in 2009 with addition of Utah and especially Colorado (which is in Southwest).  CMac also being from Colorado will help.  If the vote is as close as some are projeting, every little bit counts.

Re: I have no words for McCaffrey - BostonCard - 12-07-2015

Some more incredible stats for McCaffrey:

https://twitter.com/LombardiESPN/status/674065639116578816

https://twitter.com/LombardiESPN/status/674066052775563264

His 461 all purpose yards on Saturday were the fifth most in NCAA history.  #HeismanMoment

BC