forums

Are Lingard and Etienne comparable?

UMprodigy

UMprodigy

Duke County Brah
Joined
Nov 5, 2011
Messages
1,813
When I look at Lingard's tape more and reports from camp, there is VERY little "wiggle" and explosive speed and power. Got me thinking if he fits the Etienne mold, I would take Etienne any day, that boy burned us. Just interested in hearing thoughts.

 
Last edited:
Advertisement
UMprodigy said:
When I look at Lingard's tape more and reports from camp, there is VERY little "wiggle" and explosive speed and power. Got me thinking if he fits the Etienne mode, I would take Etienne any day, that boy burned us. Just interested in hearing thoughts.

Click to expand...



It reads that Lingard, who you compare to Etienne, has very little wiggle and explosive speed/power. Which when watching the film contradicts the statement. If you meant that he’s fast and powerful with one cut moves then yes my friend. I do agree.
 
He's stronger than I thought.
More of a run-through arm tackle guy than elusive. 4:29 is the one run where he made a guy miss.
He gets to full speed in a heartbeat. Another thread addressed the fact that there aren't many true 4.4 guys out there. This is a 4.4 guy.

Let's see what Lingard can do.
He's had his first carries vs a college defense last month.
Needless to say, I'd be very pleased if he's drawing comparisons to Etienne in the fall.

FWIW, Etienne did not enroll early and did not participate in Clemson's spring game last year.
 
Last edited:
UMprodigy said:
When I look at Lingard's tape more and reports from camp, there is VERY little "wiggle" and explosive speed and power. Got me thinking if he fits the Etienne mode, I would take Etienne any day, that boy burned us. Just interested in hearing thoughts.

Click to expand...


He was 6/24 1 TD rushing with 2 receptions for 8 yards.
He didn't have that big of an impact on the game, IMO.
 
Advertisement
Here we go again.

We can always count on the CIS brain trust, brah...

Not a single college game snap, and we already have people pigeonholed as having zero wiggle, being one cut wonders, blah blah etc etc

He’ll probably be called a bust after the first two or three games. Wait for it.

Remember, this is the same gene pool of geniuses that told us Scarlett would practically be a Heisman candidate and Walton was sure to be a bust.

I’m not sold on the analytical acumen of this motley crew, especially when it comes to running backs.

I think I’m going to hold off on passing final judgment on our best recruit of the 2018 class until he’s put in at least a couple of years in the program.
 
Imo Lingard's best comparison (based off highlights at least) is that Arkansas RB who we recruited out of TX. Devwah Whaley i think his name was.
 
Advertisement
I think lingard has a higher ceiling, imo better wiggle/jump cuts and stronger running in high school

This is without my orange and green shades on
 
Canesfan1899 said:
If our offensive line can open up some holes lingard, homer, and Dallas are going to eat. We have 3 really good running backs that just need some holes up front.
Click to expand...

I'd say at least four, if not maybe even five. Burns getting plenty of respect this offseason from the staff (yes, if he can stay healthy) and it seems like most of us are sleeping on Cam Davis, who was a stud recruit in his own right. Might RS but he's gonna be a beast.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Here we go again.

We can always count on the CIS brain trust, brah...

Not a single college game snap, and we already have people pigeonholed as having zero wiggle, being one cut wonders, blah blah etc etc
Click to expand...

I don’t think he has zero wiggle and didn’t say that so I know that wasn’t addressed towards me but I’m confused by the logic here?

We have to wait until a kid plays in a real game in college before we determine what he can/cannot do? Or that only applies to what may seem “negative”? A lot of great backs have had/have little wiggle. Todd Gurley is one for example. No, I’m not comparing him to Gurley but all the OP said was very little wiggle, not “zero wiggle” and that’s okay. Doesn’t mean anyone think he sucks or will label him a bust. You are acting like he called him Gus Edwards or something.
 
Advertisement
CashMoneyCane said:
I'd say at least four, if not maybe even five. Burns getting plenty of respect this offseason from the staff (yes, if he can stay healthy) and it seems like most of us are sleeping on Cam Davis, who was a stud recruit in his own right. Might RS but he's gonna be a beast.
Click to expand...


I’m just not sure more than 3 are going to get a lot of carries.
 
In 5 years one of them will be getting a lot of yards on Sunday and one might be in the league. My money is on Lo.
 
htownkidd said:
I don’t think he has zero wiggle and didn’t say that so I know that wasn’t addressed towards me but I’m confused by the logic here?

We have to wait until a kid plays in a real game in college before we determine what he can/cannot do? Or that only applies to what may seem “negative”? A lot of great backs have had/have little wiggle. Todd Gurley is one for example. No, I’m not comparing him to Gurley but all the OP said was very little wiggle, not “zero wiggle” and that’s okay. Doesn’t mean anyone think he sucks or will label him a bust. You are acting like he called him Gus Edwards or something.
Click to expand...

“Wiggle” is just an overused cliche that means very little. I’m not even sure you could get one consistent definition of what it is here. It’s just a lazy way to try and pigeonhole players without actually taking a look at how they perform in real world competitions.
 
Advertisement
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
“Wiggle” is just an overused cliche that means very little. I’m not even sure you could get one consistent definition of what it is here. It’s just a lazy way to try and pigeonhole players without actually taking a look at how they perform in real world competitions.
Click to expand...

Hm, ok.
That doesn’t address the first question that I had but alright, your opinion.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
“Wiggle” is just an overused cliche that means very little. I’m not even sure you could get one consistent definition of what it is here. It’s just a lazy way to try and pigeonhole players without actually taking a look at how they perform in real world competitions.
Click to expand...

Nah, wiggle is very legit. There’s plenty of straight line runners without “wiggle” or shake “. Like Homer, he’s a one cut , straight line runner without much wiggle. Dallas has great wiggle but doesn’t get straight line like homer.

It’s more than a cliche. Just like a guy playing “stiff”.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top