Thoughts of the 2007 after the Spring Game

[Guest JulmisteForPrez]

In regard to our backs...

It is nice to have depth.  However, what I'm hoping for is one guy to be THE guy.  There is an awful lot to be said for allowing one RB to get into the flow of a game.

Sure, there should be enough carries for a couple of other guys to get a few touches every game, but remember how Andre Hall seemed to get better and better as the game went on??

That's what I'm talking about.  And if Mike Ford doesn't become that guy at some point this year (hopefully at the beginning), I think that will hurt us.

My opinion.

There is no or very little statistical correlation between having one rusher gain a lot of yards and wins in college football.  What matters is that the aggregate ypc is at least decent, and the backs don't fumble.

Since you mentioned it, there may be very little correlation in that regard.

However, when a team is trying to fill the RB position by committee (for example, USF last season), adverse affects can often result.

For USF last year, those adverse affects included having our QB be our ONLY rushing threat.

All in all, our running game simply stunk last year because we were having open tryouts for the RB position all season long.

[Mama_Bull]

The Spring game was fun to watch.  However, I can't wait for September.

[Guest]

In regard to our backs...

It is nice to have depth.  However, what I'm hoping for is one guy to be THE guy.  There is an awful lot to be said for allowing one RB to get into the flow of a game.

Sure, there should be enough carries for a couple of other guys to get a few touches every game, but remember how Andre Hall seemed to get better and better as the game went on??

That's what I'm talking about.  And if Mike Ford doesn't become that guy at some point this year (hopefully at the beginning), I think that will hurt us.

My opinion.

There is no or very little statistical correlation between having one rusher gain a lot of yards and wins in college football.  What matters is that the aggregate ypc is at least decent, and the backs don't fumble.

Since you mentioned it, there may be very little correlation in that regard.

However, when a team is trying to fill the RB position by committee (for example, USF last season), adverse affects can often result.

For USF last year, those adverse affects included having our QB be our ONLY rushing threat.

All in all, our running game simply stunk last year because we were having open tryouts for the RB position all season long.

A few examples...

Rutgers 2006: Leonard & Rice

USC 2005: White & Bush

Auburn 2004: Williams & Brown

Running back by committee isn't that bad per se.  Bear in mind that Leavitt likes to platoon players at a lot of positions -- to keep them rested.  Ponton would spell Hall in 2005, for example.  Last year was different because of the injury to Plancher and Ponton's suspension.

[Bull Dozer]

In regard to our backs...

It is nice to have depth.  However, what I'm hoping for is one guy to be THE guy.  There is an awful lot to be said for allowing one RB to get into the flow of a game.

Sure, there should be enough carries for a couple of other guys to get a few touches every game, but remember how Andre Hall seemed to get better and better as the game went on??

That's what I'm talking about.  And if Mike Ford doesn't become that guy at some point this year (hopefully at the beginning), I think that will hurt us.

My opinion.

There is no or very little statistical correlation between having one rusher gain a lot of yards and wins in college football.  What matters is that the aggregate ypc is at least decent, and the backs don't fumble.

Since you mentioned it, there may be very little correlation in that regard.

However, when a team is trying to fill the RB position by committee (for example, USF last season), adverse affects can often result.

For USF last year, those adverse affects included having our QB be our ONLY rushing threat.

All in all, our running game simply stunk last year because we were having open tryouts for the RB position all season long.

A few examples...

Rutgers 2006: Leonard & Rice

USC 2005: White & Bush

Auburn 2004: Williams & Brown

Running back by committee isn't that bad per se.  Bear in mind that Leavitt likes to platoon players at a lot of positions -- to keep them rested.  Ponton would spell Hall in 2005, for example.  Last year was different because of the injury to Plancher and Ponton's suspension.

bad comparison of couse its great when you have two all americans or first round draft picks.

[E.T.]

In regard to our backs...

It is nice to have depth.  However, what I'm hoping for is one guy to be THE guy.  There is an awful lot to be said for allowing one RB to get into the flow of a game.

Sure, there should be enough carries for a couple of other guys to get a few touches every game, but remember how Andre Hall seemed to get better and better as the game went on??

That's what I'm talking about.  And if Mike Ford doesn't become that guy at some point this year (hopefully at the beginning), I think that will hurt us.

My opinion.

There is no or very little statistical correlation between having one rusher gain a lot of yards and wins in college football.  What matters is that the aggregate ypc is at least decent, and the backs don't fumble.

Since you mentioned it, there may be very little correlation in that regard.

However, when a team is trying to fill the RB position by committee ([highlight]for example, USF last season[/highlight]), adverse affects can often result.

For USF last year, those adverse affects included having our QB be our ONLY rushing threat.

All in all, our running game simply stunk last year because we were having open tryouts for the RB position all season long.

A few examples...

Rutgers 2006: Leonard & Rice

USC 2005: White & Bush

Auburn 2004: Williams & Brown

Running back by committee isn't that bad per se.  Bear in mind that Leavitt likes to platoon players at a lot of positions -- to keep them rested.  Ponton would spell Hall in 2005, for example.  Last year was different because of the injury to Plancher and Ponton's suspension.

[highlight]bad comparison[/highlight] of couse its great when you have two all americans or first round draft picks.

As this is ... it wasn't like we were sharing the load with 2 great players. We were surviving at RB in 2006.

[crambone]

Remind me - who was the third string QB that had that one rocket pass?

[SANJAY]

I think the problem with the platoon last year was it involved guys slated for #3-6 on the depth chart.

[Guest JulmisteForPrez]

In regard to our backs...

It is nice to have depth.  However, what I'm hoping for is one guy to be THE guy.  There is an awful lot to be said for allowing one RB to get into the flow of a game.

Sure, there should be enough carries for a couple of other guys to get a few touches every game, but remember how Andre Hall seemed to get better and better as the game went on??

That's what I'm talking about.  And if Mike Ford doesn't become that guy at some point this year (hopefully at the beginning), I think that will hurt us.

My opinion.

There is no or very little statistical correlation between having one rusher gain a lot of yards and wins in college football.  What matters is that the aggregate ypc is at least decent, and the backs don't fumble.

Since you mentioned it, there may be very little correlation in that regard.

However, when a team is trying to fill the RB position by committee ([highlight]for example, USF last season[/highlight]), adverse affects can often result.

For USF last year, those adverse affects included having our QB be our ONLY rushing threat.

All in all, our running game simply stunk last year because we were having open tryouts for the RB position all season long.

A few examples...

Rutgers 2006: Leonard & Rice

USC 2005: White & Bush

Auburn 2004: Williams & Brown

Running back by committee isn't that bad per se.  Bear in mind that Leavitt likes to platoon players at a lot of positions -- to keep them rested.  Ponton would spell Hall in 2005, for example.  Last year was different because of the injury to Plancher and Ponton's suspension.

[highlight]bad comparison[/highlight] of couse its great when you have two all americans or first round draft picks.

[highlight]As this is ... it wasn't like we were sharing the load with 2 great players. We were surviving at RB in 2006.[/highlight]

Nope.....BullDozer makes a very valid point.

Sure, two all-americans in one backfield is just grand.

On the 99.99998% of teams that do not have that luxury, however, adverse affects can and often ARE felt.

And whoever said we were playing with RB's who should have been #'s 3-6 on the depth chart is spot on.

[Triple B]

In regard to our backs...

It is nice to have depth.  However, what I'm hoping for is one guy to be THE guy.  There is an awful lot to be said for allowing one RB to get into the flow of a game.

Sure, there should be enough carries for a couple of other guys to get a few touches every game, but remember how Andre Hall seemed to get better and better as the game went on??

That's what I'm talking about.  And if Mike Ford doesn't become that guy at some point this year (hopefully at the beginning), I think that will hurt us.

My opinion.

There is no or very little statistical correlation between having one rusher gain a lot of yards and wins in college football.  What matters is that the aggregate ypc is at least decent, and the backs don't fumble.

Since you mentioned it, there may be very little correlation in that regard.

However, when a team is trying to fill the RB position by committee (for example, USF last season), adverse affects can often result.

For USF last year, those adverse affects included having our QB be our ONLY rushing threat.

All in all, our running game simply stunk last year because we were having open tryouts for the RB position all season long.

A few examples...

Rutgers 2006: Leonard & Rice

USC 2005: White & Bush

Auburn 2004: Williams & Brown

Running back by committee isn't that bad per se .  Bear in mind that Leavitt likes to platoon players at a lot of positions -- to keep them rested.  Ponton would spell Hall in 2005, for example.  Last year was different because of the injury to Plancher and Ponton's suspension.

bad comparison of couse its great when you have two all americans or first round draft picks.

He didn't say that running back by committee was great. He said it "isn't that bad PER SE" which I take to mean that you can't just categorically say that running back by committee is bad, or good for that matter, because it depends heavily on the personnel used and the offense it's used in.

[Triple B]

Remind me - who was the third string QB that had that one rocket pass?

Our third string qb is Severino but I don't think that's who you're thinking about. There was a walk-on qb that played a little but I can't find him on the roster...