seems like we've been lacking that super quick/fast RBs for a while now. i personally like the smaller- shifty shot out of a cannon type. derek brown, terry rodger, and cory ross comes to mind. these guys didn't need alot of room to run and the fact that they can reach top speed in a hurry helps too. i, for one, think that when it comes to short yardage situation , size is somewhat overrated. it's more about hitting holes and finding the crease to run through.... which brings up quentin castille. seems to me that he is somewhat the designated short yardage guy...always thought that helu would have been a better choice ( nothing against Q). he has a knack for finding a hole and he's decisive..for a big guy, castille seems to run better in space.....that being said, i'm kinda excited to see what marcus mendoza can bring to the table...like to hear some of your opinion
small RBs vs big RBs
- Thread starter shagg
- Start date
HuskerKing130
Banned
NFM
Last edited by a moderator:
BIGREDIOWAN
Mods
I don't know it's hard to say really whether one is better over the other. I am excited for the future at running back and know we'll be fine there for the next couple of years. :thumbs
cmb23
All-Conference
Right...I'll take whatever gets the job done. If I had a preference to choose though, I'll take the big power back with speed (I know, that's kind of cheating putting all that together). But a 6'0"-6'2" at 215-230 with good speed will dominate games. For example: Marion Barber, Adrian Peterson, Stephen Jackson, etc.
Even though his head wasn't on straight, I know that L.P. fell into that category. And there aren't many that will argue that he was one of...if not THE...best back to come through.
True enough. LP was an awesome back. better than Ahman Green. Better than anyone we have had since that time (by a wide margin). And, I'd argue he could have been a great NFL back too --- if he did not implode. But... he did.
junior4949
All-American
LP maybe have been better than Ahman, but let's face it Ahman was a stud. If Evans could have ever gotten over that vaginal bleeding, he could have been a special RB right up there with LP and Ahman. The one that still confuses me is Buckhalter. He's been in the pro's for quite some time, and I never thought he was very good at all while at NU.
captain obvious
Starter
I want to see another Lawrence Phillips in this place.
Except with less of the hair dragging.
Except with less of the hair dragging.
Igetbored216
All-Conference
In my eyes, D. Evans is the last great back NU has had. Yes there have been good quality backs that have played since his time, but it has been thaaat long since NU has seen a truly game changing rb. Well one could argue E. Crouch. Plain and simple Evans was never the same player after his injury. Kind of like Z. Bowman. Ya Evans may have been a prima donna, but no doubt he had the talent to play at the next level for a long time. It's weird how life works sometimes, I still feel for the guy.
Wichita, Kansas has produced some top quality rbs each decade or so. B. Sanders from 1986-1989 (I still can't believe TO turned him down), D. Evans from 1996-1998, D. Sproles from 2000-2003, and now possibly B. Brown.
captain obvious
Starter
cmb23
All-Conference
Bobby Brown???
If abusing women and being a headcase indicates being a good running back...give him the rock!!! (The football...not crack.)
Last edited by a moderator:
Ya, your right. But still pretty close to Wichita.
Having said that, the state of Nebraska has been in an EXTREME drought over the past decade in producing skill position players. Since Crouch left. At least I can't think of any???????
AR Husker Fan
Team HuskerBoard
I really don't like the idea of a "small back" verses a "big back", with the implication that the former is quicker/faster but less durable while the latter is powerful but lacks "burst". If you have one of each, it seems to always end up tipping your hand offensively as the "small" back in the game indicates a passing down or a "wide" play, while the "big" back indicates strictly a run - and then usually be between the tackles.
One thing I've come to really hate over the years is how most offenses tend to tip their hand as to whether the play is a pass or a run based on the stance of the offensive lineman. Years ago, that didn't happen - the offensive linemen used the same stance. Of course, back then the offensive lineman were smaller - or at least weighed less - and were more athletic, so they could get up and out of their "run" stance and into the pass block stance without too much trouble.
Ah, well, times change...
One thing I've come to really hate over the years is how most offenses tend to tip their hand as to whether the play is a pass or a run based on the stance of the offensive lineman. Years ago, that didn't happen - the offensive linemen used the same stance. Of course, back then the offensive lineman were smaller - or at least weighed less - and were more athletic, so they could get up and out of their "run" stance and into the pass block stance without too much trouble.
Ah, well, times change...