Jump to content


The Running Back Room


ScottyIce

Recommended Posts

3 minutes ago, Mavric said:

 

:yeah

 

A couple guys might have to wait their turn a bit but at least three will be in the regular rotation and probably at least a couple more will see the field.

 

Options are good

NU was forced to start 4 different I-backs in the first 5 games in 1995.  Quality depth is important, are having different types of backs available. 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment

2 hours ago, Warrior10 said:

Off-season at its finest. 

“Potentially,” this could be the best set of backs since 1995. Not saying it will turn out that way — no guarantee. We have seen what TB can do when healthy. And we have heard great things about GB and MW, but we won’t know of course until we see them in games. Haven’t heard much about MJ. Not trying to drink Kool Aid. 

Link to comment
37 minutes ago, Pedro G said:

“Potentially,” this could be the best set of backs since 1995. Not saying it will turn out that way — no guarantee. We have seen what TB can do when healthy. And we have heard great things about GB and MW, but we won’t know of course until we see them in games. Haven’t heard much about MJ. Not trying to drink Kool Aid. 

I don't think they belong in the same sentence as 95 at this point, even saying potentially. Two the of the three have never played a D1 snap the other has serious knee problems that have limited him the last 18 months. But just my opinion, I hope you end to right. 

  • Plus1 6
Link to comment
11 hours ago, Warrior10 said:

I don't think they belong in the same sentence as 95 at this point, even saying potentially. Two the of the three have never played a D1 snap the other has serious knee problems that have limited him the last 18 months. But just my opinion, I hope you end to right. 

yes, wayyyyyyyyyyyy too early to make this statement... but this bunch looks pretty good so far.

Link to comment

11 hours ago, Warrior10 said:

I don't think they belong in the same sentence as 95 at this point, even saying potentially. Two the of the three have never played a D1 snap the other has serious knee problems that have limited him the last 18 months. But just my opinion, I hope you end to right. 

Agreed. I think the closest I'd be willing to go is potentially the best set of backs since the fall camp of the 2012 season when they had Abdullah and Burkhead returning, but I'd even be cautious about that.

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment
12 hours ago, Warrior10 said:

I don't think they belong in the same sentence as 95 at this point, even saying potentially. Two the of the three have never played a D1 snap the other has serious knee problems that have limited him the last 18 months. But just my opinion, I hope you end to right. 

 

Comparing a group to a past group like that is not productive and pretty much just causes arguments. There is reason to be excited, though. Bryant was easily and decisively the best back last year and he might not rank in the top two or three this year!

 

It's really my belief when watching Bryant last year that the offensive line was being brought down by the inept play of the other backs. 

 

 

Link to comment

2 hours ago, Mavric said:

/fondly remembering the arguments from the last couple years where people insisted that Langs would run the ball despite all evidence to the contrary.....

 

 

 

And keep in mind that the 1961 season was only 10 games.

 

  • Plus1 2
Link to comment
15 hours ago, Mavric said:

/fondly remembering the arguments from the last couple years where people insisted that Langs would run the ball despite all evidence to the contrary.....

 

 

 

 

 

 

Not defending Langs but it seems logical we would have run the ball a lot more had we been in the lead or close in score more frequently. 

  • Plus1 1
Link to comment

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...