Tre Bryant

[LaunchCode]

34 minutes ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

I have been an Ozigbo fan and would have liked to see all three of the ''co-number ones" get some decent carries.   I know there are a bunch who like Tre and I don't disagree although I would like to see him run a little lower/foward and not take some many hits to the legs, etc.  He looks good and if he has a short coming, it is his straight away speed.  He did well.  I just feel we have three good runners and when we didn't believe we could run the ball for 2 yards on a 4th and 2 at their 4 in the first series, I was quite dismayed.  That is one of those cases where you need to be the agressor and make a statement to your O line and team and to the opponent that you intend to bury them and will shove it in there and if by chance you fail, you know your Blackshirts will do the job.   You put the big boys in there and you push them back.  

My take on MR's leanings when it comes to RB's is he favors a primary back.  He's made mention in the past of the importance of the RB getting into a game rhythym.  Leads me to believe he doesn't like to shuffle guys in and out at RB if he doesn't have to.  His other two key factors for RB's appear to be pass blocking and ball protection.  

 

Agree on Tre needing to learn how to slip full contact.  Some backs never seem to get hit hard, they almost always find a way to avoid the full impact of tacklers and it goes a long ways towards staying healthy throughout a season.

[Warrior]

I don't care about number of carries, but what happened to with the other RB's.  Did they just have terrible camps, fumbling issues, discipline.. etc.. 

[In the Deed the Glory]

On 9/4/2017 at 7:11 PM, Huskers44 said:

Actually, Lambeau is heated with lights that move on wheels. Kind of like our pivots around here, but with light not water. 

You are both wrong.  Lambeau is not heated with lights, those are growing lights.  It is heated underneath and it not entirely natural, it has synthetic built in...

 

Quote

Green Bay - The playing surface at Lambeau Field is like your backyard except that it has a hydronic heating system underneath it, a sand base, synthetic fibers woven into the grass and growing lights above it 24 hours a day during the growing season.

 

https://www.google.com/url?sa=t&rct=j&q=&esrc=s&source=web&cd=3&ved=0ahUKEwjm4-O0yJDWAhUb0IMKHVs0DvoQFggxMAI&url=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.jsonline.com%2Fsports%2Fpackers%2Flambeau-surface-kept-safe-and-soft-through-technology-763p13j-137327223.html%2F&usg=AFQjCNFK6ERuRYNgFVNHHhy24BhoDqdgDQ

[Enhance]

55 minutes ago, Warrior said:

I don't care about number of carries, but what happened to with the other RB's.  Did they just have terrible camps, fumbling issues, discipline.. etc.. 

Based on some things I've seen in print and listened to on the local shows, particularly since game one, it seems like the coaches thought and felt Tre Bryant was 'the' guy most of the off season. Or, at the very least, he had the best potential of the bunch.

 

Now, it's anybody's guess the exact reason why he wasn't named the clear starter. Damon Benning speculates it's because Bryant had to miss some of fall camp with injury issues and the coaches didn't want to demoralize the other backs who had good camps by naming a starter. It could perhaps have even been a minor ploy to keep ASU guessing as to why type of back they'd have to prepare for. Or, some combination therein. Regardless, I'm glad someone established themselves.

[Enhance]

13 hours ago, 84HuskerLaw said:

[Bryant] looks good and if he has a short coming, it is his straight away speed.

Damon Benning did his breakdown on USC yesterday and he said Bryant "hadn't been feeling well," but I'm unsure of the context of that statement. Maybe it was just some of the knee issues that sat him out of practice Monday or perhaps it was something else. Either way, DB speculated Bryant wasn't able to play at full go and that there were some ~10 yard gain type plays that could've been 40-50 yarders had Bryant been 100%.

[Hunter94]

13 hours ago, LaunchCode said:

My take on MR's leanings when it comes to RB's is he favors a primary back.  He's made mention in the past of the importance of the RB getting into a game rhythym.  Leads me to believe he doesn't like to shuffle guys in and out at RB if he doesn't have to.  His other two key factors for RB's appear to be pass blocking and ball protection.  

 

Agree on Tre needing to learn how to slip full contact.  Some backs never seem to get hit hard, they almost always find a way to avoid the full impact of tacklers and it goes a long ways towards staying healthy throughout a season.

giving a guy 31 carries is bullsh#t..........this is where MR is weak in judgement and common sense.

[Enhance]

2 minutes ago, Hunter94 said:

giving a guy 31 carries is bullsh#t..........this is where MR is weak in judgement and common sense.

Why is giving a guy 31 carries BS?

[Cdog923]

4 minutes ago, Hunter94 said:

giving a guy 31 carries is bullsh#t..........this is where MR is weak in judgement and common sense.

LP had 31 carries against KSU in '94. 

[BigRedBuster]

So....just so I know what to think about this.

 

Before the game, I remember a couple different conversations:

 

a)  We NEED a featured back.  I specifically asked why running 200 yards with one back is better than running for more yards with multiple backs.....I was told I obviously have no clue what I'm talking about.  Clearly we need a featured back and one who can take over the job.

 

b)  Constantly, fans complain that we don't stick with what is working.  Well.......running Bryant was OBVIOUSLY working.

 

So.....I'm guessing those two thought processes are wrong?

[Crusader Husker]

28 minutes ago, BigRedBuster said:

So....just so I know what to think about this.

 

Before the game, I remember a couple different conversations:

 

a)  We NEED a featured back.  I specifically asked why running 200 yards with one back is better than running for more yards with multiple backs.....I was told I obviously have no clue what I'm talking about.  Clearly we need a featured back and one who can take over the job.

 

b)  Constantly, fans complain that we don't stick with what is working.  Well.......running Bryant was OBVIOUSLY working.

 

So.....I'm guessing those two thought processes are wrong?

You also forgot the "run the damn ball" guy.

[bugeater17]

2 hours ago, BigRedBuster said:

So....just so I know what to think about this.

 

Before the game, I remember a couple different conversations:

 

a)  We NEED a featured back.  I specifically asked why running 200 yards with one back is better than running for more yards with multiple backs.....I was told I obviously have no clue what I'm talking about.  Clearly we need a featured back and one who can take over the job.

 

b)  Constantly, fans complain that we don't stick with what is working.  Well.......running Bryant was OBVIOUSLY working.

 

So.....I'm guessing those two thought processes are wrong?

I think you make good points - BUT we can have a featured back while giving a couple carries to Zig and Wilbon in the 3rd and 4th quarter. Going back and re-watching the game Tre definitely  wore down in the 4th and wasn't shedding the arm tackles like we was in the 1st half. I think re-distributing 6-8 carries (from the 31 Tre got) to Zig and Wilbon would be ideal - especially with the durability concerns Tre had last year and the rest he needed during fall camp - is the point (I think) some are trying to make. 

 

Having one guy tout the ball around 25 times is still, in my opinion, a featured back. 

[BigRedBuster]

So....people are wringing their hands and criticizing over 4-6 carries......when the game is still in question.

 

People find way too many things to complain about.

[Pedro Guerrero]

3 hours ago, Hunter94 said:

giving a guy 31 carries is bullsh#t..........this is where MR is weak in judgement and common sense.

 

Dr. Tom, Got Frank and Bo all say hello. 

[The Dude]

Short answer: 6.2 yards per carry.

[ZRod]

5 hours ago, Enhance said:

Damon Benning did his breakdown on USC yesterday and he said Bryant "hadn't been feeling well," but I'm unsure of the context of that statement. Maybe it was just some of the knee issues that sat him out of practice Monday or perhaps it was something else. Either way, DB speculated Bryant wasn't able to play at full go and that there were some ~10 yard gain type plays that could've been 40-50 yarders had Bryant been 100%.

But you shouldn't critique the coaches decision.