The Running Back Room

Cdog923 said:
There's no way to actually figure it out, but if that group could have ran behind some of the lines in the 90s...
Click to expand...
I think part of the record breaking also had to do with more opportunities due to less overall talent to compete with on the team. Couple that with an offensive style that was more condusive to individuals racking up numbers compared to the 90s offenses 

 
Nebfanatic said:
I think part of the record breaking also had to do with more opportunities due to less overall talent to compete with on the team. Couple that with an offensive style that was more condusive to individuals racking up numbers compared to the 90s offenses 
Click to expand...


So your argument is that for during a three-year stretch there were always three of the all-time leading rushers sharing carries and for a year on either side of that there were two but that is "less overall talent".  And during the three-year stretch they were also sharing the field with two of the Top 10 receivers in career yardage and on the year on either side there was either one or two more.

Interesting theory.

 
Mavric said:
So your argument is that for during a three-year stretch there were always three of the all-time leading rushers sharing carries and for a year on either side of that there were two but that is "less overall talent".  And during the three-year stretch they were also sharing the field with two of the Top 10 receivers in career yardage and on the year on either side there was either one or two more.

Interesting theory.
Click to expand...
So your theory is we had more overall talent in the backfield than in the 90s when we were winning multiple national titles? Also an interesting theory. Fact of the matter is they racked up more stats but I wouldn't say any of those players were better than what we had during the 90s. So what attributed to more stats? Were we better on offense? Or were opportunities less spread out? I'm going with #2 combined with offenses generally being more explosive.

 
The fact we had three of the best RB's back to back to back plus a couple all time great receivers and we are still on a two decade plus long conference title drought makes me want to punch a kitten.

 
Nebfanatic said:
So your theory is we had more overall talent in the backfield than in the 90s when we were winning multiple national titles? Also an interesting theory. Fact of the matter is they racked up more stats but I wouldn't say any of those players were better than what we had during the 90s. So what attributed to more stats? Were we better on offense? Or were opportunities less spread out? I'm going with #2 combined with offenses generally being more explosive.
Click to expand...


How can the opportunities be less spread out when there was a three year stretch where there were usually five guys on the field who ended up at the Top 10 at their positions all fighting for touches?  How many record-breaking receivers did we have in the 90s?  In 2012, Bell and Enunwa had more catches that Frost had pass attempts in 1997.

 
Moiraine said:
You’ve provided no links or quotes that show “all of these things came out” or that Ozigbo is running with the 1s. You just keep saying it.

Frost mentioning Ozigbo does not mean he’s running with the 1s. Just like Fisher mentioning Ethan Cox does not mean he’s with the 1s.
Click to expand...
Oooooo I finally get to use it, strawman

 
Mavric said:
How can the opportunities be less spread out when there was a three year stretch where there were usually five guys on the field who ended up at the Top 10 at their positions all fighting for touches?  How many record-breaking receivers did we have in the 90s?  In 2012, Bell and Enunwa had more catches that Frost had pass attempts in 1997.
Click to expand...
Im talking running backs specifically. Obviously we had more talent at WR given the type of offense we ran in the 90s compared to then. I guess what I'm saying is in the Pelini era there was more of a feature back than in Osbornes offense. We were a better rushing offense with better backs in the 90s but because the carries went so many different ways you didn't have one single rusher rack up a ton of career yards. Roy, Rex and Ameer all would have been great if they played under Osborne, but I don't think any of those guys or Martinez would be as high on the all time yardage list if they played in that scheme at that time. 

 
If what i was told is true,  KingBlank is pretty spot on.  Oz was the first RB subbed in today with the first team. 

 
KingBlank said:
Oooooo I finally get to use it, strawman
Click to expand...




I don’t think you know what that means. 

You stated right in your post that Frost has mentioned Ozigbo. That was the only proof you provided. Even after you said “news came out” and none of that news backed up your position. Still all I recall you saying is Frost talked about him. It’s not a straw man when it’s actually what your argument was. 

Like I said earlier this isn’t even relevant. Ozigbo will likely be the 3rd or 4th string RB but will still get quite a few carries because that’s what Frost does.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Moiraine said:
I don’t think you know what that means. 

You stated right in your post that Frost has mentioned Ozigbo. That was the only proof you provided. Even after you said “news came out” and none of that news backed up your position. Still all I recall you saying is Frost talked about him. It’s not a straw man when it’s actually what your argument was. 

Like I said earlier this isn’t even relevant. Ozigbo will likely be the 3rd or 4th string RB but will still get quite a few carries because that’s what Frost does.
Click to expand...
Yes I know exactly what it means, and it's incorrectly used continuously on boards. 

Ya it's right, in the NEWSPAPER 


 
Nebfanatic said:
Im talking running backs specifically. Obviously we had more talent at WR given the type of offense we ran in the 90s compared to then. I guess what I'm saying is in the Pelini era there was more of a feature back than in Osbornes offense. We were a better rushing offense with better backs in the 90s but because the carries went so many different ways you didn't have one single rusher rack up a ton of career yards. Roy, Rex and Ameer all would have been great if they played under Osborne, but I don't think any of those guys or Martinez would be as high on the all time yardage list if they played in that scheme at that time. 
Click to expand...


I think you are making a lot of assumptions about a "feature back". 

In 1994, Lawrence Phillips led the team with 286 carries (41.6% of all carries)

In 1997, Ahman Green led the team with 278 carries (36.8%)

In 2010, Helu led with 188 carries (29.6%)

In 2012, Ameer led with 226 carries (34.4%)

There carries were more spread out in 1995 because the subs got a lot of playing time when we were up 40 at half time.  But my point is that in the 90s the carries got split between more backs.  In the 2010s, instead of the touches going to backup running backs they went to starting receivers because the offense was more balanced.  But the touches were still getting spread around in a similar manner.

I think there is a tendency for people to discredit our offense in recent years because the overall results we're what we wanted.  The game has changed and that plays a part in the statistics.  None of the recent backs were Mike Rozier or Lawrence Phillips.  And a step below Ahman Green.  But when you look at the other members of the all-time Top 10 rushing list - Calvin Jones, Ken Clark & I.M. Hipp - I don't know that I'd say Helu, Burkhead and Ameer were giving anything up to them.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
KingBlank said:
Yes I know exactly what it means, and it's incorrectly used continuously on boards. 

Ya it's right, in the NEWSPAPER 
Click to expand...






No you don’t, because it wasn’t what I was doing, and this article came out after your posts where you provided no proof. Also, I didn’t read the article word for word because I’m at work but I don’t see anything about first string or 1s there. For the record I think he probably has had reps with the 1s (but will be 3rd or 4th string). But it is obnoxious when you continually provide nothing for the people asking except that you say so or that Frost mentioned Ozigbo’s name. Neither or those things are anything close to proof.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top