RB by committee?
- Thread starter jburke
- Start date
Branch got in minor trouble and left with turner to csu. Both played well for them.
Branch could fly. One of the fastest Cyclones I have seen.
Right, and I think they will emerge. Keep in mind that this offense is going to attack down field, so the running game will need to be about a few yards in a cloud of dust and possession.
With this committee it may be more about who can pass block, keep the pads level, run north/south, and not put the ball on the ground. I've heard Mitchell Harger's name mentioned more than once this summer, and, as the committee elder, I could see him being the staple RB.
Translation: "I hope Sam is not the leading rusher. If he is the leading rusher, however, he will be banged up and play in no more than 80% of the games."
Glad I could help.
It's a good thing to have a serviceable backup. But if a team in any sport wants to be successful then you ideally want one man to be "the guy" at any given position.
I say no to "by committee."
I say no to "by committee."
I would actually like all 3 backs to emerge as threats. Minnesota Gophers had Barber III and Maroney several years back that was a fantastic tandem. Both gained over 1,000 yards. That would be awesome.
The nonsense that we should only have 1 main running back is just nonsense.
The nonsense that we should only have 1 main running back is just nonsense.
demoncore1031
Well-Known Member
Graston Norris. I remember him having a really long run (80+ yds I think) in one game.
I couldn't care less if we go with the committee or one back getting the carries as long as they are moving the football. The biggest factor isn't whether we go committee or single guy, it's can the offensive line open up the holes for whoever is in the backfield at the time.
I like Warren to eventually win the job. He has size, speed, agility, and from what coaches have said, he can see the hole opening. If he can get his game up to speed with Big12 talent defenses then he should be the guy...eventually.
I like Warren to eventually win the job. He has size, speed, agility, and from what coaches have said, he can see the hole opening. If he can get his game up to speed with Big12 talent defenses then he should be the guy...eventually.
Yes, I believe he has an academic scholarship for aerospace engineering so doesn't need one from football but yes he was a walk on.
I don't expect him to see the field but in cycophagus's defense Harger is at least on the depth chart, listed as third string pre-camp. So it isn't quite as ridiculous a comment as it appears at first glance.
Mike Warren has all the tools to be a great back. But do not overlook Tyler Brown. I thought Tyler Brown showed great flashes of potential as well. I like Josh Thomas potential as well. IMO, we really do have some decent talent at RB. If the line does their job then I think we are just fine. Actually better than last year IMO. Wimberly was pretty small but did run hard. Nealy was okay......but knowing what we know now, could explain some of the inconsistencies.
That sums it up for me; other than I don't want Sam leading the team in yards.
I would be okay with it if most of those yards ended up with Sam untouched in the endzone.
In 2000, Haywood was the clear #1 but we also gave several carries to Mike Wagner, which paid off because Wagner started a couple games when Haywood was injured and was very productive. We needed both guys to win 8 games that season.
I don't mind the back-by-committee approach, but you have to do it the right way. Seems like the past few years we would leave a guy in for a series or two, and just as he was getting a feel for the game, we made the switch to the other RB.
I really think that a back takes a few carries to get into the swing of things and if one guy is rolling, you let him stay in there until he's too tired or goes cold. If a guy is struggling, go ahead and make the switch and see if another guy can get it going.
It just seemed like the last few years, the coaches had no feel for how well guys were playing, and just made the decision to sub on a whim.
I really think that a back takes a few carries to get into the swing of things and if one guy is rolling, you let him stay in there until he's too tired or goes cold. If a guy is struggling, go ahead and make the switch and see if another guy can get it going.
It just seemed like the last few years, the coaches had no feel for how well guys were playing, and just made the decision to sub on a whim.
