The Heisman Trophy: Why Lamar Jackson won (and Deshaun Watson lost)
Brad Penner-USA TODAY Sports
The 2016 Heisman Trophy winner goes to: Lamar Jackson!
And now the debate comes in. Did Jackson deserve it over Deshaun Watson? People in the northern part of South Carolina say "no way!" The rest of the nation? Sure.
So for me, do I think Lamar Jackson deserved the Heisman? Yes. Do I think Deshaun Watson deserved the Heisman? Yes. But which one deserved it more than the other? Honestly, as much as I hate Louisville and I like Clemson, I would give a slight edge to Jackson...........only because I am splitting hairs. And it wasn't OBVIOUS at all. I have my reasons and I really looked at it. And even then, it is still a "too close to call" thing.
Here are my reasons for the Heisman to Jackson.
Jackson's game against Florida State put him on the map and he never looked back.
Jamie Rhodes-USA TODAY Sports
1. Louisville would be a 3rd place team or worse in the ACC Atlantic Division with Jackson. I think that is evident. How he destroyed ACC power Florida State early on and was the catalyst on the offensive side (albeit some close wins against Virginia and Duke where he made sure they won those games late). And save for the Houston debacle, he never really wavered. But if you pulled him out and even with the offensive genius of Bobby Petrino, the Cardinals are 8-4 or 7-5 without Jackson. I'll be honest, if Watson was not in Clemson, there still is Wayne Gallman and others to lighten the load and are still a 10-2 squad.
Had Watson played a little bit better against Auburn (and Troy), we might have seen him win it.
John David Mercer-USA TODAY Sports
2. Jackson had better overall games than Watson. Yes, Clemson fans, I hate saying it. But he dominated thoroughly the entire season. And had Watson didn't scuffle out of the gate early against Auburn and Troy (and that might be the ENTIRE difference right there), then you probably have a different Heisman winner. But those games Watson struggled. We can try to figure out why, whether he was still in a hangover from 2015 or he was a bit too nonchalant in his way of playing, but this time the first images of the season stuck out to others. And despite throwing for 580 yards and 3 TD's vs. Pitt, Watson's late game issues probably costed the Tigers an undefeated season. Adding on, Watson played good in big games, but an argument of Jackson is that he played great.
Wayne Gallman was a major factor in Clemson's success, maybe as important than Watson.
Jeremy Brevard-USA TODAY Sports
3. The Heisman Trophy goes to the BEST player who performed all year and guided the team into a national contender, not just the overall numbers. To me, it is an MVP-like debate and heads back to the first argument. I think if you had Watson off Clemson, they're in the thick of it in the ACC. If Jackson was off Louisville, they're 7-5 and pretty much no different than the likes of NC State or Wake Forest. Watson? 10-2 and at the very least a New Year's Six game.
Jackson didn't hurt his argument, even in a loss against Clemson.
Joshua S. Kelly-USA TODAY Sports
4. Unlike the Head-to-Head matchups, you cannot decide who is better just because one player on one team won. If that's the case, are we saying Sam Bradford is better than Aaron Rodgers this year? Troy Aikman is better than Brett Favre in the 90's when Dallas beat Green Bay? Brian Hoyer over Matthew Stafford? Yes, I get Watson answered the bell against Louisville and Jackson but it wasn't like Louisville lost because of Jackson. And I will throw this out to Clemson fans who thought Watson deserved it over Derrick Henry last year: Watson played out of his mind and lost but no argument was made that "Henry won so he deserved the Heisman because his team beat Watson's."
NC State was one of many teams that Clemson and Louisville both played.
Jamie Rhodes-USA TODAY Sports
5. Their schedules are similar. One argument from Clemson fans have been that Jackson played a softer schedule than Watson. I'm not so sure if I can agree with that. Yes, Jackson got the tandem of Virginia/Duke from the Coastal as opposed to Clemson getting Georgia Tech/Pittsburgh so advantage to Watson on that category (though Watson lost against Pitt). But the out-of-conference schedule is similar, and Watson struggled early against Auburn and Troy as I alluded to. Was Louisville's schedule easier? Probably, but not by any wide margin. Had Jackson played a schedule that Baylor has, then an argument is valid.
So really, the vote could have been splitting hairs. I get if you're a Clemson fan that you felt "robbed" that Watson didn't get it. But it is just those early two struggles out of the gate that might have kept him from winning the Heisman and Jackson never let up until the Houston game. But relax Clemson fans, you have bigger fish to fry on New Year's Eve while Louisville is not in a major bowl game.
-Fan in the Obstructed Seat
