Big Back Era?

[Husker_x]

Sorry if this is in another thread buried somewhere. I didn't see it highlighted, but please merge as needed.

 

In the wake of the unfortunate departure of Aaron Green, media outlets have been buzzing about a not-quite shift in our offensive identity: the big back. This raises a few questions. Is our recruiting actually trending towards bigger, sturdier backs? If so, is it because that's the way our offense is heading? I'm not exactly sure what Beck's ideal offense is (this being his first recruiting cycle), but it seems to me he favors balance. Speedy receivers, slightly leaning run with a fair amount of option. What would the supposed 'big back' era do to this philosophy?

 

Discuss!

[Hunter94]

Sorry if this is in another thread buried somewhere. I didn't see it highlighted, but please merge as needed.

 

In the wake of the unfortunate departure of Aaron Green, media outlets have been buzzing about a not-quite shift in our offensive identity: the big back. This raises a few questions. Is our recruiting actually trending towards bigger, sturdier backs? If so, is it because that's the way our offense is heading? I'm not exactly sure what Beck's ideal offense is (this being his first recruiting cycle), but it seems to me he favors balance. Speedy receivers, slightly leaning run with a fair amount of option. What would the supposed 'big back' era do to this philosophy?

 

Discuss!

 

it would probably make us a better B1G team, but would get our ass kicked in any BCS game we might qualify for........speed kills.

[kchusker_chris]

we aren't recruiting a single back over 200. so I'm not sure where all the talk is coming from. last year Cross just kind of popped up late. Marrow was more a matter of convenience than our "philosophy" to go after big backs.

[zoogs]

I think we have always recruited a mixture. We've had a "big back" for many years - Cody Glenn, Castille, and so on. More recently we've been actually just lacking in that area with Castille's departure.

[ADS]

I guess it would depend more on if we knew what kind offense we knew we would be running. Spread? Power? Option? West Coast ( )?

[Hunter94]

we aren't recruiting a single back over 200. so I'm not sure where all the talk is coming from. last year Cross just kind of popped up late. Marrow was more a matter of convenience than our "philosophy" to go after big backs.

 

 

it would be a big departure from the past, we have had some big fullbacks, who seldom blocked or even got into the game, let alone carried the ball. it seems Beck wants to hand the ball to a back who has potential to take it to the house every play, we don't have that guy either on our team either. i hope we don't model the offense to play a game like we did against Iowa last season.........i almost fell asleep during that one........

[bshirt]

Sorry if this is in another thread buried somewhere. I didn't see it highlighted, but please merge as needed.

 

In the wake of the unfortunate departure of Aaron Green, media outlets have been buzzing about a not-quite shift in our offensive identity: the big back. This raises a few questions. Is our recruiting actually trending towards bigger, sturdier backs? If so, is it because that's the way our offense is heading? I'm not exactly sure what Beck's ideal offense is (this being his first recruiting cycle), but it seems to me he favors balance. Speedy receivers, slightly leaning run with a fair amount of option. What would the supposed 'big back' era do to this philosophy?

 

Discuss!

 

it would probably make us a better B1G team, but would get our ass kicked in any BCS game we might qualify for........speed kills.

 

 

Great point. Alabama uses big backs so that must be why they can never win any BCS games. For some silly reason they think "power & size" are also very, very important.

 

TO was a moron too using guys like LP, Rozier & others that were wayyyyyy bigger than Green. Devaney also with Orduna, Kinney, etc. That's probably why they couldn't win any big games either.

[bshirt]

I guess it would depend more on if we knew what kind offense we knew we would be running. Spread? Power? Option? West Coast ( )?

 

Yep! That would help a lot for answering the OP's question.

 

I don't have a clue what he's going to do but I really, really hope he picks and stands with something soon.

[Hunter94]

Sorry if this is in another thread buried somewhere. I didn't see it highlighted, but please merge as needed.

 

In the wake of the unfortunate departure of Aaron Green, media outlets have been buzzing about a not-quite shift in our offensive identity: the big back. This raises a few questions. Is our recruiting actually trending towards bigger, sturdier backs? If so, is it because that's the way our offense is heading? I'm not exactly sure what Beck's ideal offense is (this being his first recruiting cycle), but it seems to me he favors balance. Speedy receivers, slightly leaning run with a fair amount of option. What would the supposed 'big back' era do to this philosophy?

 

Discuss!

 

it would probably make us a better B1G team, but would get our ass kicked in any BCS game we might qualify for........speed kills.

 

 

Great point. Alabama uses big backs so that must be why they can never win any BCS games. For some silly reason they think "power & size" are also very, very important.

 

TO was a moron too using guys like LP, Rozier & others that were wayyyyyy bigger than Green. Devaney also with Orduna, Kinney, etc. That's probably why they couldn't win any big games either.

 

in case you missed the TCU vs. Wisconsin BCS game, TCU was out sized by Wisconsin almost across the board at every position........TCU used their speed and beat Wisky in that game..........and that was TCU, not a team of high caliber players.

 

besides,Urban will recruit speed and turn the B1G into a much different looking conference, than it is now....we'll soon be back to running nickel and dime D's.

[bshirt]

Sorry if this is in another thread buried somewhere. I didn't see it highlighted, but please merge as needed.

 

In the wake of the unfortunate departure of Aaron Green, media outlets have been buzzing about a not-quite shift in our offensive identity: the big back. This raises a few questions. Is our recruiting actually trending towards bigger, sturdier backs? If so, is it because that's the way our offense is heading? I'm not exactly sure what Beck's ideal offense is (this being his first recruiting cycle), but it seems to me he favors balance. Speedy receivers, slightly leaning run with a fair amount of option. What would the supposed 'big back' era do to this philosophy?

 

Discuss!

 

it would probably make us a better B1G team, but would get our ass kicked in any BCS game we might qualify for........speed kills.

 

 

Great point. Alabama uses big backs so that must be why they can never win any BCS games. For some silly reason they think "power & size" are also very, very important.

 

TO was a moron too using guys like LP, Rozier & others that were wayyyyyy bigger than Green. Devaney also with Orduna, Kinney, etc. That's probably why they couldn't win any big games either.

 

in case you missed the TCU vs. Wisconsin BCS game, TCU was out sized by Wisconsin almost across the board at every position........TCU used their speed and beat Wisky in that game..........and that was TCU, not a team of high caliber players.

 

besides,Urban will recruit speed and turn the B1G into a much different looking conference, than it is now....we'll soon be back to running nickel and dime D's.

 

 

Oh, I get it. TCU beating Wisconsin proves big backs can't help winning big games. Riiiiiight.

 

Seems I've seen lots of Big10 teams get crushed by SEC teams the last several years. Seems they win lots of NCs too?SEC teams that use big backs like T. Richardson (who is twice as big as Green) who just last year ran for over 1,600 yds & 21 TDs?

 

SEC teams like Florida who won two NCs with a big, bruising qb (Tebow) who ran over people for a career 2,947 yds & 57 TDS? Scott Frost ring a bell?

 

Anyways.....who knows what Beck is going to do? We'll see.

[zoogs]

I would say Alabama has complete backs. Until we have one that proves otherwise our big backs our short yardage thumpers.

[Vince R.]

It's always going to be a mixture. The system comment was used to sugar coat the reality of Aaron not getting 30 carries a game. Done.

[ladyhawke]

Someone brought this issue up recently on 1620 the Zone and they said no, they didn't think it was a return to the big backs. They agreed that it appears that Beck wants balance. I guess we'll find out in the fall, eh?

[Mavric]

I would say Alabama has complete backs. Until we have one that proves otherwise our big backs our short yardage thumpers.

For as much as we all love Rex, the one thing he lacks is that last gear. We had some smaller, faster backs in one class then we needed another couple bigger backs so we can do what we want.

 

I get the impression that we'll be more of a power team - more power toss and off tackle stuff with less zone read, etc. However, we'll still look for backs with a combination of skills. If we get a Trent Richardson or Mark Ingram type to show up, we'll be in great shape. Until then, we have to do what we can with a mix of players.

[Count 'Bility]

Sorry if this is in another thread buried somewhere. I didn't see it highlighted, but please merge as needed.

 

In the wake of the unfortunate departure of Aaron Green, media outlets have been buzzing about a not-quite shift in our offensive identity: the big back. This raises a few questions. Is our recruiting actually trending towards bigger, sturdier backs? If so, is it because that's the way our offense is heading? I'm not exactly sure what Beck's ideal offense is (this being his first recruiting cycle), but it seems to me he favors balance. Speedy receivers, slightly leaning run with a fair amount of option. What would the supposed 'big back' era do to this philosophy?

 

Discuss!

 

it would probably make us a better B1G team, but would get our ass kicked in any BCS game we might qualify for........speed kills.

 

 

Great point. Alabama uses big backs so that must be why they can never win any BCS games. For some silly reason they think "power & size" are also very, very important.

 

TO was a moron too using guys like LP, Rozier & others that were wayyyyyy bigger than Green. Devaney also with Orduna, Kinney, etc. That's probably why they couldn't win any big games either.

 

in case you missed the TCU vs. Wisconsin BCS game, TCU was out sized by Wisconsin almost across the board at every position........TCU used their speed and beat Wisky in that game..........and that was TCU, not a team of high caliber players.

 

besides,Urban will recruit speed and turn the B1G into a much different looking conference, than it is now....we'll soon be back to running nickel and dime D's.

 

There are just as many examples historically of big strong teams beating small fast teams as there are vice versa. I cant imagine it would have just as much to do with how well you play, overall talent or even the actual score. Yes, Wisconsin was much bigger than both Oregon and TCU, but also much bigger than us, and look what they did to us.