It's actually a Blackjack mentality
You've got 17, and the dealer is showing 5
You want to hit, using the logic "I can win if I hit". My logic is "yes you can, but your odds are better if you don't". And we're both correct.
forums
Ajay Allen RB from Nebraska hits the portal
- Thread starter lindend
- Start date
- Status
It's actually a Blackjack mentality
You've got 17, and the dealer is showing 5
You want to hit, using the logic "I can win if I hit". My logic is "yes you can, but your odds are better if you don't". And we're both correct.
Advertisement
- Joined
- Dec 22, 2011
- Messages
- 43,264
Technically, you are both correct. Cam started slow that year and Chaney had been outworking him in practice too. We'll never really know the "if-he-was-never-injured" outcome, but at that precise time (for 2 games) I was under the belief that Chaney had the edge, based on everything I heard.
canecrazy23
CIS GIF Champion 2021
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 6,829
Hahah he actually looked the best of all the RB's throughout the spring and at the spring game. But conditioning is off. GTFOH SMH
Chaney's frosh tape at UM is on YouTube...It's excellent. He's very good if healthy.
canecrazy23
CIS GIF Champion 2021
- Joined
- Jan 16, 2012
- Messages
- 6,829
Don't worry they'll see when he is the starter this year. Everyone in the building is excited by what they saw from him in spring.
Advertisement
BoxingRobes
Junior
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 10,818
The key problem is that some people do not understand the concept you are even presenting. That isn't your fault...no one here has even bothered to run a simple google search that would show them that your take is not some bird brained concept.
The idea of BMI being an important indicator for running backs has been around for a long time...and they don't understand that the concepts/metrics presented for fantasy or professional purposes just simply scaffolds down and there will be more examples of outliers since, ya know, there is a larger sample size...but still, the concepts hold.
I'm sure you've done your fair share of reading on it...but for others...a sample of reading material.
Does Size Matter For Running Backs? - Sports Central
Original sports fan commentary since 1998 featuring intelligent sports columns on the NFL, NBA, MLB, NHL, college, and more.
www.sports-central.org
Confidence1000
Confidence1000
- Joined
- Mar 4, 2017
- Messages
- 7,445
U betta say it! The Don
Nobody is disputing this. But what’s does this have to do with UM and college success?
- Joined
- Oct 13, 2011
- Messages
- 18,963
Haven't kept track of this debate, but pretty sure everyone wants a big and fast running back. Mario took Citizen his first year and Fletcher last year. He will try to add another one this year.
He is complementing those guys with dynamic playmakers like Chris Johnson and CWH. Parrish and Allen are players with good college film who can help our immediate issues.
He is complementing those guys with dynamic playmakers like Chris Johnson and CWH. Parrish and Allen are players with good college film who can help our immediate issues.
Advertisement
Because the more successful college football programs have the most/best NFL talent.
The further a player is from the typical NFL athlete, the lower his chances of success. The more of these lower % type of players you have on your team, the lower the chances for the teams success.
When you gave a list of the successful smaller RB's in this thread, there's a reason why they were from G5 & lower tier P5 schools.
Schools like Georgia, Alabama, OSU rarely even recruit these types. The successful schools recruit the prototypes.
I don’t know why this is so hard to understand.
OrangeBowlMagic
CEO
- Joined
- Jul 13, 2014
- Messages
- 14,306
Have you ever spoken to anyone on this board?
Fortunately not in real life
Advertisement
- Joined
- Nov 3, 2011
- Messages
- 41,046
I really like what Mario is doing at RB
One of these national elite kids will eventually pop
I think what's misunderstood is just how small these RB's are. We're not recruiting 1 Big / 1 Small - it's more like 1 Big / 1 Tiny
Here's the average weight of RB's at each level:
NFL - 214
FBS - 202
FCS - 196
D2/D3 - 190
So if 50% of our RB group (or any position group) is that small - Parrish (190), Allen, (185-190), CJ (Let's give him 185) - it's cause for concern.
At 190 - that's 25 lbs under the average NFL RB weight. Same thing if it went the other way - if we had 3 240+ lb RB's - it would also be bad roster building.
Now this may be a "this where we're at and this is the best we can get" situation. But here's the last 15 years of Georgia & Alabama RB's at the NFL combine. Other top RB producing schools like OSU, LSU, Wisconsin, etc. look the same.
Top colleges rarely even mess with RB's these body types ever - let alone have 50% of their roster looking like the average D2/D3 player.
BoxingRobes
Junior
- Joined
- Aug 24, 2013
- Messages
- 10,818
That is not completely true, but there has been misunderstanding of the ultimate point bshaw was presenting throughout.
What does it have to do with UM? - this comes down to your opinion on the way to construct your roster. You would have no problem with this topic if we were on the topic of say...sub-6'0" linebackers...loading up on "scheme fit" sub-6'0" linebackers, as we have seen, is a poor choice of roster building. If you had the same discussion about small corners, you'd say the same thing. Why? Because those players come with limitations. That isn't to say you don't take any of these guys...but having a roster with a majority of them becomes problematic...as we have seen with linebacker for example.
How does this pertain to college success? As I said in my post...even though the concepts are typically done in areas with high gambling/fantasy influence, that doesn't mean the concepts pertain only to those levels, the questions and conclusions the data presents don't end because one group plays in the NFL and the other plays in college (or high school)...they are still playing the same sport. Which is why its easy to retort with something like "well, look at all these small running backs that are successful in college!"...well, yeah, the sample size is much larger, you're still dealing with outliers. If you had a group on the other end, running backs that were tall and heavy, you'd be able to draw a conclusion that the limitations they have are that they are more likely to fumble, etc. That isn't to say don't take the big boys, but you should be careful to not load up your roster with them or you're more likely to have a team that coughs up the football. If you've got backs that are too "small" you'll struggle on or around the goaline or short yardage situations.
The data shows that the sweet spot for a RB is in the 29 to 31 BMI range. Pretty narrrow. Which is why when I see someone like Deuce Vaughn mentioned in this thread...posters just don't get the concept. He is 5'5" 179 at the combine...very light...but he's got a BMI of 29.8...which falls in line of the sweet spot for a successful running back...these are not the guys - surely - bshaw is talking about.
Also, its not a discussion for what roster construction looks like NOW, but in the future. Chris Johnson is at 5'11" 174 per 247 (he might be bigger, but yall don't really know)...that is a BMI of 24.8, that is just way low. Chris Wheatley has a BMI - per 247 - of 23.7. These are way low...again, no one is saying don't recruit these guys, they are individually, good players...but if you end up with a room with a majority of them...you will have a room with more limitations than you anticipate. Ajay Allen at 25.8. For reference, a 5'11" running back would have to get to 208 to fall in the sweet spot.
My opinion on this...I have zero issues with any of the players in isolation. I like them...especially CWH and Chris Johnson...but I agree with bshaw that we should be careful not to load up on these types of RBs. If you bring them in as complements to add to your offense...all good. But if we end up with a stable of say - 4 of 6 backs in the room - of low BMI (aka small) running backs...I think you'll end up agreeing with bshaw's point retroactively.
Last edited:
Advertisement
That's pretty much equal. If you go back in Chaney's last 9 games - their ypc is pretty much equal in all 9 games. Chaney = 4.9 & Cam = 4.8 in the last 9.
I thought Chaney had more potential and would overtake Cam - but it never actually happened on the field. The reality is they were at the same level.
Given the injuries - it's an uphill battle for Chaney to get back to that Cam level. I'd be happy if gets back to a Cam level & ecstatic if he gets to a DeeJay Dallas level.
Warrior808
Recruit
- Joined
- Nov 5, 2011
- Messages
- 1,608
You pretty much made your point 15 different ways. I appreciate a well presented debate and enjoy your posts but at a certain point you also have to let people have their own opinion as well. We get it, you like bigger backs and wish we had more. All things being equal I take the bigger guy as well (pause) but I still believe this could be a pretty good RB room. Thats fair as well.
100% this. Thank you.
At any position group - there is an optimum size. The further you get away from thaat size, either smaller or bigger, the lower your odds for success.
- Status
Advertisement