[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=14401.msg153231#msg153231 date=1453001176]You clearly minimize the skill.  Clearly.  Most great running backs can run, catch and block, not just run and block.

Hardly.  I simply don't see it as a slight that McCaffrey was honored as an all-purpose player, because that's precisely what he is.

He was the nation's #2 rusher.  He was #2 in receiving yards (among RBs).  He was the #3 kick returner.  And he had a pair of passing TDs to boot.  And he had more APY than any player in college football history.  If he's not an all-purpose player, who is?
[/quote]

Well, he's certainly more of an all purpose player than any of the RBs chosen for post-season honors.  My point, which you are clearly trying to avoid, is that the combination of rushing, blocking, receiving and -- heck, I'll just say it -- passing skills makes him the best RB in the land, and he has yet to be recognized as such.  He's been recognized as as the best overall player and the best all purpose player, and I think the latter is a backhanded compliment.  Had he won the Voldemort trophy, I would have been marginally more convinced that he was receiving his just due.  But to hear the explanations that Toby Gerhart, who led the NCAA in TDs similar to Derrick Henry couldn't receive the Voldemort because he didn't catch enough balls (only 11 in 2010) and Mark Ingram deserved it because he was more versatile because he caught 32 balls in 2009, though he had far fewer TDs (17) and fewer rushing yards (1,658 to 1.871)...well frankly, it ticks me off.

And McCaffrey, who rushes for 2,019 yards and catches 45 balls for 645 yards, well...people like you dump on the receptions.  I don't know if it's just for Stanford tailbacks, or Left Coast tailbacks or just non-SEC tailbacks, but the fact remains that McCaffrey rushed for 172 yards in 18 carries for a 9.6 average against the the #15 rushing defense in the NCAA and he made it look easy...and...oh yeah...105 yards receiving.  Pretty dang good running back.

[Mick]

[quote author=Mick link=topic=14401.msg153231#msg153231 date=1453001176]You clearly minimize the skill.  Clearly.  Most great running backs can run, catch and block, not just run and block.

Hardly.  I simply don't see it as a slight that McCaffrey was honored as an all-purpose player, because that's precisely what he is.

He was the nation's #2 rusher.  He was #2 in receiving yards (among RBs).  He was the #3 kick returner.  And he had a pair of passing TDs to boot.  And he had more APY than any player in college football history.  If he's not an all-purpose player, who is?
[/quote]

Well, he's certainly more of an all purpose player than any of the RBs chosen for post-season honors.  My point, which you are clearly trying to avoid, is that the combination of rushing, blocking, receiving and -- heck, I'll just say it -- passing skills makes him the best RB in the land, and he has yet to be recognized as such.  He's been recognized as as the best overall player and the best all purpose player, and I think the latter is a backhanded compliment.  Had he won the Voldemort trophy, I would have been marginally more convinced that he was receiving his just due.  But to hear the explanations that Toby Gerhart, who led the NCAA in TDs similar to Derrick Henry couldn't receive the Voldemort because he didn't catch enough balls (only 11 in 2010) and Mark Ingram deserved it because he was more versatile because he caught 32 balls in 2009, though he had far fewer TDs (17) and fewer rushing yards (1,658 to 1.871)...well frankly, it ticks me off.

And McCaffrey, who rushes for 2,019 yards and catches 45 balls for 645 yards, well...people like you dump on the receptions.  I don't know if it's just for Stanford tailbacks, or Left Coast tailbacks or just non-SEC tailbacks, but the fact remains that McCaffrey rushed for 172 yards in 18 carries for a 9.6 average against the the #15 rushing defense in the NCAA and he made it look easy...and...oh yeah...105 yards receiving.  Pretty dang good running back.