The Running Back Room

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
Click to expand...
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. 

 
Warrior10 said:
Off-season at its finest. 
Click to expand...
“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 forgot Washington was the Under Armour All American game MVP even despite being the lowest ranked recruit on either roster going into that game I believe?  I think so.  

 
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. 
Click to expand...
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. 

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

 
Last edited by a moderator:
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. 
Click to expand...
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.

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


 
Hard to run the ball when you're getting your a$$ beat. 47 rushes vs Rutgers was the high, and one of the least creative rushing attacks this side of pop warner. 

 
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. 
Click to expand...


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. 

 
A couple of people I know who saw practice this weekend said Bryant looked 'very good' in the scrimmage, for whatever that's worth.

 
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.....
Click to expand...








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. 

 
he also abandoned the run before giving it a chance to work. which kinda led to being behind and not very close in score.

 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top