knapplc Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Hardrick - 320 Rodriguez - 325 Caputo - 275 Long - 305 Jones - 315 Wagner - 320 Zeitler - 315 Frederick - 330 Groy - 320 Oglesby - 330 NEB - 308 WIS - 323 Wisky's line is 15lbs bigger than NU's on average. Quote Link to comment
Excel Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Hardrick - 320 Rodriguez - 325 Caputo - 275 Long - 305 Jones - 315 Wagner - 320 Zeitler - 315 Frederick - 330 Groy - 320 Oglesby - 330 NEB - 308 WIS - 323 Wisky's line is 15lbs bigger than NU's on average. Well I guess I'm 0-2 tonight on my facts...I've been lazy and haven't been checking like I should. At any rate that's a big line and Rex should be able to work behind it and in front of it. Anyhow I don't understand the outrage at someone claiming Ball is better than Burkhead. It's not as if its a baseless claim or anything. Rankings Yards per game... Rex #23 Ball #2 Touchdowns... Rex #T-13 (w/4 others) Ball #1 Yards.... Rex #17 Ball #1 Yards per carry Rex #>10 Ball #2 Ball has had one of the best years in CFB history. It's expectable that people are going to hype him. Quote Link to comment
NoKoolAidForME Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Mike'l Severe on Unsportsmanlike Conduct just said that he thought that Montee Ball was WAAAAYYY better then Burkhead (This was after Sipple suggested he wasn't). Montee Ball had that 30+ TDs, but a lot of those were from the goal-line. Like McKweon tweeted a week or so ago. Ball did nothing (Goal-line TDs), that 20 other backs in the country couldn't do. You give me a choice between Ball, and Burkhead. Give me Burkhead everytime. Its his job to rile people up and be a contrarian. Just like its knapplc's job to administrate this forum and wash my car every other tuesday. Don't have time to wash your car. I'm off riding the waves in your motorboat. You motor boating sun of a gun. You ole sailor you. Quote Link to comment
Blackshirt39 Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Ball has a better supporting cast then Burkhead who has one of the worst o-line in college football. Burkhead is better than Ball The numbers say different...and pound for pound NU's line is almost as big if not as big as UW's, there's no reason Burkhead can't put up Ball type numbers other than the fact that he's just not as good as Ball. Size doesn't always win the battle in the trenches. Technique goes a long ways and Wisconsin's O-Line is second to none. Quote Link to comment
junior4949 Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Wisconsin OL significantly greater than Nebraska's OL. Heck while we're at it, Wisconsin's OL coach heads and shoulders above Nebraska's OL coach! Quote Link to comment
Ratt Mhule Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Hardrick - 320 Rodriguez - 325 Caputo - 275 Long - 305 Jones - 315 Wagner - 320 Zeitler - 315 Frederick - 330 Groy - 320 Oglesby - 330 NEB - 308 WIS - 323 Wisky's line is 15lbs bigger than NU's on average. Well I guess I'm 0-2 tonight on my facts...I've been lazy and haven't been checking like I should. At any rate that's a big line and Rex should be able to work behind it and in front of it. Anyhow I don't understand the outrage at someone claiming Ball is better than Burkhead. It's not as if its a baseless claim or anything. Rankings Yards per game... Rex #23 Ball #2 Touchdowns... Rex #T-13 (w/4 others) Ball #1 Yards.... Rex #17 Ball #1 Yards per carry Rex #>10 Ball #2 Ball has had one of the best years in CFB history. It's expectable that people are going to hype him. The debate is not if Burkhead is better than Ball. It is if Ball was head and shoulders better than Burkhead like this Severe guy claims, which is not the case. They are both great backs. I'd love to have either, but Ball is not that much better than Rex. I agree with the O-lines and how much better UW is than ours. Rex would be a Heisman canidate if we had UW line. Hell, he might be a Heisman canidate next year with out current O-line. That is how good he is. Badgerfan, nobody is claiming Ball sucks, because he doesn't. He is an EXCELLENT rb, but of course Husker fans are going to be biased when it comes to Rex. He is our best player and we all love him as our rb. If we didn't have Rex, I'd take Ball in a heartbeat. Quote Link to comment
tschu Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 He might not be head and shoulders above Burkhead, but he's probably a head above Burkhead Quote Link to comment
Excel Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Hardrick - 320 Rodriguez - 325 Caputo - 275 Long - 305 Jones - 315 Wagner - 320 Zeitler - 315 Frederick - 330 Groy - 320 Oglesby - 330 NEB - 308 WIS - 323 Wisky's line is 15lbs bigger than NU's on average. Well I guess I'm 0-2 tonight on my facts...I've been lazy and haven't been checking like I should. At any rate that's a big line and Rex should be able to work behind it and in front of it. Anyhow I don't understand the outrage at someone claiming Ball is better than Burkhead. It's not as if its a baseless claim or anything. Rankings Yards per game... Rex #23 Ball #2 Touchdowns... Rex #T-13 (w/4 others) Ball #1 Yards.... Rex #17 Ball #1 Yards per carry Rex #>10 Ball #2 Ball has had one of the best years in CFB history. It's expectable that people are going to hype him. The debate is not if Burkhead is better than Ball. It is if Ball was head and shoulders better than Burkhead like this Severe guy claims, which is not the case. They are both great backs. I'd love to have either, but Ball is not that much better than Rex. I agree with the O-lines and how much better UW is than ours. Rex would be a Heisman canidate if we had UW line. Hell, he might be a Heisman canidate next year with out current O-line. That is how good he is. Badgerfan, nobody is claiming Ball sucks, because he doesn't. He is an EXCELLENT rb, but of course Husker fans are going to be biased when it comes to Rex. He is our best player and we all love him as our rb. If we didn't have Rex, I'd take Ball in a heartbeat. I get it but I don't think its crazy to even say "head and shoulders". You might disagree but I happen to think that Ball is significantly better than Rex as well. Hell I'd take White over Rex. Ball has 500 or so more yards and 17 more rushing touchdowns. He's scored more than twice as many times as Rex. That's "head and shoulders" if I've ever seen it. It's convenient to blame our offensive line but at some point you have to stop diming him out and give credit where credit is do. I mean the kid can also receive and he breaks far longer runs than Rex does...there's something in that. Oh well I guess its a good thing that you guys aren't happy to hear such a comparison because it just serves to show how awesome Ball is. I wonder if the fans of the 10-20 or so RB's that stand between Rex and Ball statistically are also worked up. I'd love it. Quote Link to comment
BIG ERN Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Hardrick - 320 Rodriguez - 325 Caputo - 275 Long - 305 Jones - 315 Wagner - 320 Zeitler - 315 Frederick - 330 Groy - 320 Oglesby - 330 NEB - 308 WIS - 323 Wisky's line is 15lbs bigger than NU's on average. Well I guess I'm 0-2 tonight on my facts...I've been lazy and haven't been checking like I should. At any rate that's a big line and Rex should be able to work behind it and in front of it. Anyhow I don't understand the outrage at someone claiming Ball is better than Burkhead. It's not as if its a baseless claim or anything. Rankings Yards per game... Rex #23 Ball #2 Touchdowns... Rex #T-13 (w/4 others) Ball #1 Yards.... Rex #17 Ball #1 Yards per carry Rex #>10 Ball #2 Ball has had one of the best years in CFB history. It's expectable that people are going to hype him. The debate is not if Burkhead is better than Ball. It is if Ball was head and shoulders better than Burkhead like this Severe guy claims, which is not the case. They are both great backs. I'd love to have either, but Ball is not that much better than Rex. I agree with the O-lines and how much better UW is than ours. Rex would be a Heisman canidate if we had UW line. Hell, he might be a Heisman canidate next year with out current O-line. That is how good he is. Badgerfan, nobody is claiming Ball sucks, because he doesn't. He is an EXCELLENT rb, but of course Husker fans are going to be biased when it comes to Rex. He is our best player and we all love him as our rb. If we didn't have Rex, I'd take Ball in a heartbeat. I get it but I don't think its crazy to even say "head and shoulders". You might disagree but I happen to think that Ball is significantly better than Rex as well. Hell I'd take White over Rex. Ball has 500 or so more yards and 17 more rushing touchdowns. He's scored more than twice as many times as Rex. That's "head and shoulders" if I've ever seen it. It's convenient to blame our offensive line but at some point you have to stop diming him out and give credit where credit is do. I mean the kid can also receive and he breaks far longer runs than Rex does...there's something in that. Oh well I guess its a good thing that you guys aren't happy to hear such a comparison because it just serves to show how awesome Ball is. I wonder if the fans of the 10-20 or so RB's that stand between Rex and Ball statistically are also worked up. I'd love it. Head and shoulders!?! Is he better? YES, but not head and shoulders. Wisconsin is like Iowa, they will get good backs and plug them into their system along with ridiculously good O-lines. Look at the draft Wisconsin and Iowa always have guys from their O-line. Each schools always have guys with GREAT numbers, but Ball got ALL the goal line carries. Again, TDs are OVERRATED Quote Link to comment
HuskerShark Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 I think Ball is an amazing back, but as far as consistency, I honestly think that Rex is second to nobody. Not Ball, not Lamichael James, and not Trent Richardson. I'm not gonna lie, I would take any of these guys in a heartbeat, but if given a choice.... I'd probably take Rex. Quote Link to comment
Guy Chamberlin Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 I think Rex Burkhead has everyone's attention now. He had admirable games on national tv and tons of praise from the commentators. He will be watched next season, and we will support any and all hype he gets. And should he score 38 touchdowns, we'll ink him in for the Heisman. Quote Link to comment
Excel Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Burkhead is a good back. His highlight reel is impressive and he certainly is no slouch when it comes to the "intangibles". I'll admit Ball's highlights aren't nearly as fun to watch...they seem to follow a pretty predictable pattern.... 1. Run for 20 2. Short reception 3. Another run for 15-20. 4. Short 4-5 yard run for a TD. He doesn't preform many amazing jukes or hurdles but because of the O-line he hasn't really had to. Quote Link to comment
It'sNotAFakeID Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 He might not be head and shoulders above Burkhead, but he's probably a head above Burkhead Well yeah, Burkhead's only about 5' 9". I mean, I'm a head above Burkhead Quote Link to comment
Karsaire Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Claiming the size of the line doeant matter is only what teams fans say when they have a small line . Ill agree with general consensus that rex is superman but ball is pretty damn fantastic. We'll get a pretty gods of rexs full potential next year Quote Link to comment
Karsaire Posted December 10, 2011 Share Posted December 10, 2011 Pretty good* stupid phone Quote Link to comment
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.