Which type I-back do you prefer?

[suh_fan93]

I'd have to say I'd take the agile rb versus the bulldozer but at the same time both are delightful to watch when they do it well.

 

 

[ColoradoHusk]

9 minutes ago, Apsu said:

Watching Lawrence Phillips against Florida, he was to prototypical I-back.

LP (and the O-line) was dominant for NU in the first quarter and early 2nd quarter.  His 42-yard TD run early in the 2nd quarter (start at 9:20 in the video below) was IMO his best run ever.  He showed lateral quickness early in the run, then juking a defender and setting up a downfield block, then breaks a tackle/stiff-arms a Florida CB/Safety, then shows his breakaway speed to out run the rest of the Florida defense to the end zone.  That run had it all!

 

 

 

[Gage County]

Sure, bulldozing the pile, crazy juke moves, break away speed, and good hands are the makings of a great running back. If he can kick feild goals and punt, well, now he's a complete player! Too bad there isn't the historic record for Bobby Reynolds like there is for today's athletes.

 

 

I put Phillips at the top of my list with Rozier a close second. @I am I, no love for Terrible Tony?

 

[I am I]

27 minutes ago, Gage County said:

Sure, bulldozing the pile, crazy juke moves, break away speed, and good hands are the makings of a great running back. If he can kick feild goals and punt, well, now he's a complete player! Too bad there isn't the historic record for Bobby Reynolds like there is for today's athletes.

 

 

I put Phillips at the top of my list with Rozier a close second. @I am I, no love for Terrible Tony?

 

My dad was best friends with Tough Tony when they played lol. 

So I loves me some Tony. But he’s not as fast as ahman. Love his style tho. I mean, if we’re talking bruisers give me Makovicha or Rathman. But for my I-Backs I’ll take Ahman 

[brophog]

2 hours ago, WyoHusker56 said:

We struggled to pick up short yardage last year in part because our line couldn't move anything, but also because even Ozigbo wasn't a true put your head down move the pile power back.

 

I posted this earlier this offseason, but we actually really did a good job in these scenarios. On 3rd and short rushes, we converted on 27 of 35 for an average of 5.94 yards.

 

Wisconsin converted on 20 of 34 for 3.21 as a comparison.

[Husker in WI]

8 minutes ago, brophog said:

 

I posted this earlier this offseason, but we actually really did a good job in these scenarios. On 3rd and short rushes, we converted on 27 of 35 for an average of 5.94 yards.

 

Wisconsin converted on 20 of 34 for 3.21 as a comparison.

 

I think getting stuffed twice against Colorado really cemented the idea we struggled with short yardage before we even knew what the team was. I definitely thought we were bad in that area until people started actually showing the numbers.

[WyoHusker56]

12 minutes ago, brophog said:

 

I posted this earlier this offseason, but we actually really did a good job in these scenarios. On 3rd and short rushes, we converted on 27 of 35 for an average of 5.94 yards.

 

Wisconsin converted on 20 of 34 for 3.21 as a comparison.

 

Now that you mention it I think I remember your earlier post. Maybe it was just our scoring issues in general or a few specific situations stuck in my head. Just felt like we struggled here, but numbers don't lie!

[ColoradoHusk]

1 minute ago, WyoHusker56 said:

 

Now that you mention it I think I remember your earlier post. Maybe it was just our scoring issues in general or a few specific situations stuck in my head. Just felt like we struggled here, but numbers don't lie!

Spreading the defense out definitely helps in short-yardage situations.  Bell struggled early in the season because he was too hesitant at the LOS.  Ozigbo getting in shape helped his initial burst for short-yardage situations.  I also think Martinez kept the ball on some zone reads which he wasn't doing early on.

[ColoradoHusk]

As a side note, I was watching those 1996 Fiesta Bowl highlights, and there was a play where NU's offense went with an empty backfield set, where LP was lined up as a wingback.  There were also sets with 11 personnel (1 back, 1 tight end, 2 receivers) where the offense could go power or speed with ease.  So much of Osborne's offense late in his career was a pre-cursor to the modern spread offenses, and going with the different personnel groups way back then was cool to see.

[Apsu]

Mike Rozier highlights

 

[TGHusker]

20 hours ago, Ulty said:

The ideal I-back would have the physical toughness of Lawrence Phillips, the heart of Rex Burkhead, and a name as cool as I.M. Hipp.

Great post.  

 

Best back - one who makes yards with every carry.

[ColoradoHusk]

8 minutes ago, Apsu said:

Mike Rozier highlights

 

Thanks for this link.  Rozier gets bonus points for wearing a neck roll!

 

It was also cool to see how Osborne used Rozier in the passing game!

[BigRedBuster]

I would prefer to watch a speedy, shifty back.  LP was all the above.  He was amazingly fast, could cut and leave defenders hanging....and big enough and absolutely mean enough to run over just about anyone.

[JJ Husker]

5 hours ago, ColoradoHusk said:

The first year I remember NU football was 1982, which was Craig's senior year.  I remember that he was a very good back at NU.  I watched him have a great career with the 49ers in the NFL, and he and Tom Rathman wore "HUSKERS" on their nose bumper in Super Bowl XXIV.

 

He didn't make my list of RB's that I remember watching, just because I don't remember watching him.  Craig had a unique blend of speed, power, and great pass catching ability. 

 

I would say the only reason Craig (arguably the best pro career of any Husker RB) doesn’t make the top 4 or 5 on this list is because he had the disadvantage of most of his career coinciding with that of Rozier.  If Roger would’ve been the feature back for 3 or 4 years he’d likely be widely considered just as high as Rozier.

 

And of course I prefer a combination of speed and toughness at the RB position. But I chose toughness/physicality over speed on the assumption that it had to be one or the other. Also it’s really dependent on the quality of the O line. With our better O lines, I would lean towards speed/quick backs. But with average to poor O lines, definitely the physical type back.

[30-50 Feral Hogs]

If anyone happens to know which type scores the most touchdowns, that would be the one i would vote for.