🏈 USA Today All Bowl Team

[OriginalBamachris]

USA TODAY Sports' All-Bowl team

So DHENRY not there but runner ups are? Butt hurt much USA Today Sports?

 

[marty.wiggins]

Well, the other two running backs listed had better bowl games??
I don't see the issue.

 

[OldPlayer]

I think you have a case of butt hurt. Henry didn't play poorly, but his performance in the Cotton Bowl wasn't stellar and his NC numbers were aided by a long run. The all-bowl team is based on bowl performance only, not based on players who made it to a bowl.

 

[BamaFan334]

I agree he didn't play world beater like all year and shouldn't be on the list, but take away that 50 yard run and he still had over 100 in the championship game. No one else in the country played #3 and #1 in back to back weeks, so that 100 yards was a great feat.

 

[OriginalBamachris]

I think you have a case of butt hurt. Henry didn't play poorly, but his performance in the Cotton Bowl wasn't stellar and his NC numbers were aided by a long run. The all-bowl team is based on bowl performance only, not based on players who made it to a bowl.

I don't have a case of butt hurt. I don't disagree with Watson being there. Best QB in the game this season. If based on only performances in bowl games, then DHenry should be there. In the Cotton Bowl, his performance included that of a decoy which had a positive effect on the game. In the NC game, he had a very good game. In McCaffrey and Fournette's case, they were not decoys and were primarily featured. So I guess the All Bowl Team for USA Today is for the "featured" players who they themselves carried the ball for positive yards.

My kids play soccer at a high level. One of the comments that struck me by a recruiter was not about how good they play on the field, but what effect they have on the game when on or "off" the field. He said, "How does the game change when they are out there and when they are not". I would say DHenry had a pretty positive effect on the game in the Cotton Bowl which opened it up for others. In the NC, early with all of Clemon's players keying on him, he gashed them for 50+ and a TD on one play. DHenry read the blocks of the Oline, and took advantage of the Defense on that play. It caused Clemson to adjust their defensive strategy. If building a team, would you take Fournette or McCaffrey over Henry?

 

[We All Bleed Crimson]

The only argument that I would have is that Henry did score 5 touchdowns in the playoffs. That's pretty impressive no matter who you are...

 

[rick4bama]

I guess between Jones and Drake? Drake, just because what he has gone though. Howard it was his time to step up. It was big time too. Jackson with his INt in the NCG? OK!! guys who care about this list Bama is the NATIONAL CHAMP 2015.

 

[EasyTider]

The only argument that I would have is that Henry did score 5 touchdowns in the playoffs. That's pretty impressive no matter who you are...

All 'Bowl' team. Henry's stats/performance vs Clemson do not apply. Fournette & McCaffrey had better 'Bowl' games.

 

[Bamaholic#1]

All 'Bowl' team. Henry's stats/performance vs Clemson do not apply. Fournette & McCaffrey had better 'Bowl' games.

How dare you apply logic here.

 

[OldPlayer]

I don't have a case of butt hurt. I don't disagree with Watson being there. Best QB in the game this season. If based on only performances in bowl games, then DHenry should be there. In the Cotton Bowl, his performance included that of a decoy which had a positive effect on the game. In the NC game, he had a very good game. In McCaffrey and Fournette's case, they were not decoys and were primarily featured. So I guess the All Bowl Team for USA Today is for the "featured" players who they themselves carried the ball for positive yards.

My kids play soccer at a high level. One of the comments that struck me by a recruiter was not about how good they play on the field, but what effect they have on the game when on or "off" the field. He said, "How does the game change when they are out there and when they are not". I would say DHenry had a pretty positive effect on the game in the Cotton Bowl which opened it up for others. In the NC, early with all of Clemon's players keying on him, he gashed them for 50+ and a TD on one play. DHenry read the blocks of the Oline, and took advantage of the Defense on that play. It caused Clemson to adjust their defensive strategy. If building a team, would you take Fournette or McCaffrey over Henry?

The placement on the team is not about how their non-activity impacts the game. It's about the numbers they produced as individuals. Watson played lights out. He kept Clemson in the game all night. He racked up 478 yards of offense (the most over in a national championship game). Very few will say that Henry isn't a quality back. But to say that Henry should be on the list and Watson shouldn't is ridiculous.

 

[We All Bleed Crimson]

Watson absolutely deserves to be the QB on this list. I didn't realize that the championship game didn't count for the list.

 

[OldPlayer]

Watson absolutely deserves to be the QB on this list. I didn't realize that the championship game didn't count for the list.

I'm not sure why some think the NC game doesn't count. The article doesn't say that it doesn't.

 

[We All Bleed Crimson]

I'm going on et's response to me... I thought it did. That is why I said Henry's 5 TD's make him a serious candidate.

 

[AFF]

... all these lists are just consolation prizes. We got the one that mattered.

 

[252BAMA]

All 'Bowl' team. Henry's stats/performance vs Clemson do not apply. Fournette & McCaffrey had better 'Bowl' games.

If that was the case, then Howard and Drake would not be on the team. Obvious that it includes the CFPNCG.

 

[Che Boludo]

If that was the case, then Howard and Drake would not be on the team. Obvious that it includes the CFPNCG.

Or Jackson, it would be Cy Jones.

Surprised a Bama DL or LB didn't make the cut in any case

 

[EasyTider]

Good point on OJ, obviously championship game included.