Yearby?

[dukebeeasy305]

It's one thing to think that you know more than fellow posters on a message board...

But to think that you know more about a kid's ability than 32 NFL GM's and a college head coach who's had multiple stud RB's? LOL



I think you guys are onto something. It must be a huge anti-Yearby conspiracy.

Who is stating Yearby is a stud? Nobody is saying Yearby is an NFL back. Plenty of guys are productive in college and don't end up on NFL rosters.

Thomas Brown coached a guy at Wisconsin that was putting up numbers before Brown was even there, just like every other Wisconsin RB has done. He coached Chubb and Sony, big deal. Them dudes were studs in HS and it wasn't like he made them the backs they are toting the rock. You can teach pass pro but you aren't teaching instinct. A RB either has it or he doesn't. You don't coach subpar guys into being elite. They can put up big numbers, but they are who they are.

The issue isn't whether Thomas Brown developed those guys or not. The issue is the fact that he's coached/seen stud RB's, as has Richt.

You got guys in here saying that Yearby is better than Walton when Richt/Brown (and likely the NFL) say otherwise. It's asinine.

The NFL scouts use measurables to project FUTURE production by players. Again Walton and Gus has better measurables than yearby which makes them better prospects at the next level.. but yearbys instincts and feel for the game allows him to be a productive player at the college level. Obviously Richt and Brown preferred the measurables and chance for walton to make big plays over the steadiness and natural feel of yearby i think most people arguing about walton prefers what yearby has to offer. One guy above said it best if you could combine the two you would have a **** of a back. Btw those 32 nfl scout teams have been wrong waaayyyy more times than they've been correct when making projections of these players.

 

[kryptonite]

It's one thing to think that you know more than fellow posters on a message board...

But to think that you know more about a kid's ability than 32 NFL GM's and a college head coach who's had multiple stud RB's? LOL



I think you guys are onto something. It must be a huge anti-Yearby conspiracy.

Who is stating Yearby is a stud? Nobody is saying Yearby is an NFL back. Plenty of guys are productive in college and don't end up on NFL rosters.

Thomas Brown coached a guy at Wisconsin that was putting up numbers before Brown was even there, just like every other Wisconsin RB has done. He coached Chubb and Sony, big deal. Them dudes were studs in HS and it wasn't like he made them the backs they are toting the rock. You can teach pass pro but you aren't teaching instinct. A RB either has it or he doesn't. You don't coach subpar guys into being elite. They can put up big numbers, but they are who they are.

The issue isn't whether Thomas Brown developed those guys or not. The issue is the fact that he's coached/seen stud RB's, as has Richt.

You got guys in here saying that Yearby is better than Walton when Richt/Brown (and likely the NFL) say otherwise. It's asinine.

The NFL scouts use measurables to project FUTURE production by players. Again Walton and Gus has better measurables than yearby which makes them better prospects at the next level.. but yearbys instincts and feel for the game allows him to be a productive player at the college level. Obviously Richt and Brown preferred the measurables and chance for walton to make big plays over the steadiness and natural feel of yearby i think most people arguing about walton prefers what yearby has to offer. One guy above said it best if you could combine the two you would have a **** of a back. Btw those 32 nfl scout teams have been wrong waaayyyy more times than they've been correct when making projections of these players.

No.

And even if they were (and they really aren't), they're still the best in the world at evaluating what a guy will do in the NFL.

 

[simplycanes]

It's one thing to think that you know more than fellow posters on a message board...

But to think that you know more about a kid's ability than 32 NFL GM's and a college head coach who's had multiple stud RB's? LOL



I think you guys are onto something. It must be a huge anti-Yearby conspiracy.

Who is stating Yearby is a stud? Nobody is saying Yearby is an NFL back. Plenty of guys are productive in college and don't end up on NFL rosters.

Thomas Brown coached a guy at Wisconsin that was putting up numbers before Brown was even there, just like every other Wisconsin RB has done. He coached Chubb and Sony, big deal. Them dudes were studs in HS and it wasn't like he made them the backs they are toting the rock. You can teach pass pro but you aren't teaching instinct. A RB either has it or he doesn't. You don't coach subpar guys into being elite. They can put up big numbers, but they are who they are.

The issue isn't whether Thomas Brown developed those guys or not. The issue is the fact that he's coached/seen stud RB's, as has Richt.

You got guys in here saying that Yearby is better than Walton when Richt/Brown (and likely the NFL) say otherwise. It's asinine.

The NFL scouts use measurables to project FUTURE production by players. Again Walton and Gus has better measurables than yearby which makes them better prospects at the next level.. but yearbys instincts and feel for the game allows him to be a productive player at the college level. Obviously Richt and Brown preferred the measurables and chance for walton to make big plays over the steadiness and natural feel of yearby i think most people arguing about walton prefers what yearby has to offer. One guy above said it best if you could combine the two you would have a **** of a back. Btw those 32 nfl scout teams have been wrong waaayyyy more times than they've been correct when making projections of these players.

I understand your sentiment, but no, that's a stretch.

 

[umhurricane2511]

If Yearby put in the work his game would be similar to Devonte Freeman

 

[simplycanes]

Edwards was taking the 2nd string snaps by the end of the year. Go look at their number of carries after the Notre Dame game, smart fella.

Gus finished the year with 44 carries.
Yearby finished the year with 23 carries.

Ain't nobody making **** up. Get your head out of your a$$.

LOL...And what dafuq did Edwards do in the ND game to take carries from Joe?...3 carries, -1 yards rushing...-1!...what dafuq did He do???...LOL. I mean Joe ain't do $h!t either, but Gus definitely didn't do $h!t in that game to warrant taking carries from Joe...c'mon dawg.

And if Brown/Richt know a stud when they see one, as you've suggested, then why dafuq didn't they give Gus the 2nd RB job from jump?...do you see how much sense you're not making???

Say bruh, just admit it, Richt/Brown colossally mismanaged the RB rotatation, now they're both gone...LOL.

And here's what I think happened...they got word Gus wanted to transfer, & Joe wanted to bounce early, so they tried to appease Gus by givin' em' rinky dink carries in games we were gonna win anyway. Just admit it dawg, they fuqed up.

And now Richt wants to put a wanted ad for a grad transfer RB...LOL...me thinks we should've gave that Epstein kid an offer, hope we don't regret it.

How did they mismanage it? If the goal was to minimize attrition and prevent transfers, then sure, they mismanaged it, I suppose.

In reality, I think it's the opposite and they did what they were supposed to do-- Put the best player on the field regardless of other factors.

It doesn't matter what any of you think of Walton, Yeraby or Edwards. They felt Walton was the clear #1 back and deserved the bulk of the work, all other factors be damned.

We don't have to agree with their approach or how they set the depth chart, but that's clearly what they did. That's not mismanaging the position.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

In reality, I think it's the opposite and they did what they were supposed to do-- Put the best player on the field regardless of other factors.

LOL...no they didn't.

If the demarcation line is the ND game, then Yearby clearly played well enough not to warrant Gus takin' carries from em'...Joe outplayed Gus.

Up through ND game...Yearby - 79 rushes, 494 Yds, 6 TDs, over 6 YPC.
Up through ND game...Gus - 16 rushes, 126 Yds, 1 TD, almost 8 YPC.

But here's the thing with Gus, 106 of His yards came against FAMU, 2 of the games He's listed as DNP, and another 2 He didn't get any carries.

So again, what dafuq did Gus do to allegedly supplant Joe on the depth chart.

 

[simplycanes]

In reality, I think it's the opposite and they did what they were supposed to do-- Put the best player on the field regardless of other factors.

LOL...no they didn't.

If the demarcation line is the ND game, then Yearby clearly played well enough not to warrant Gus takin' carries from em'...Joe outplayed Gus.

Up through ND game...Yearby - 79 rushes, 494 Yds, 6 TDs, over 6 YPC.
Up through ND game...Gus - 16 rushes, 126 Yds, 1 TD, almost 8 YPC.

But here's the thing with Gus, 106 of His yards came against FAMU, 2 of the games He's listed as DNP, and another 2 He didn't get any carries.

So again, what dafuq did Gus do to allegedly supplant Joe on the depth chart.

Who cares about Gus vs. Yearby as the #2 or #3 . That's splitting hairs about who the real backup was! It doesn't matter. Yearby and Edwards didn't leave because of their position relative to each other, they left because of they weren't the #1 . That was Mark. That is what the coaches did. They played Mark. That's not mismanaging the positioning is my point.

 

[tcgrad1014]

Yearby vs. FSU:

2016: 10 for 39
2015: 15 for 33
2014: 10 for 34

Dude was flat out mediocre here. Hope he blows up in the league, but I'd be flabbergasted if it happened.

 

[Canesfan1899]

There has been more talk about Joe Yearby in this 1 thread than his entire 3 years combined. Dude was an ok college running back, not ****, not elite, ok. Dude might be best suited to move up north and play in the CFL.

 

[kryptonite]

There has been more talk about Joe Yearby in this 1 thread than his entire 3 years combined. Dude was an ok college running back, not ****, not elite, ok. Dude might be best suited to move up north and play in the CFL.

7 pages of crap, one sensible comment.

 

[SoldierForThisU]

Mark Walton is the better back overall but Joseph Yearby has better vision and his cutting ability and short area quickness are better than most rbs in the entire country.

Put them together and you almost have Duke Johnson. Almost.

 

[tcgrad1014]

Mark Walton is the better back overall but Joseph Yearby has better vision and his cutting ability and short area quickness are better than most rbs in the entire country.

Put them together and you almost have Duke Johnson. Almost.

Walton has a higher NFL ceiling than Duke.

 

[dukebeeasy305]

It's one thing to think that you know more than fellow posters on a message board...

But to think that you know more about a kid's ability than 32 NFL GM's and a college head coach who's had multiple stud RB's? LOL



I think you guys are onto something. It must be a huge anti-Yearby conspiracy.

Who is stating Yearby is a stud? Nobody is saying Yearby is an NFL back. Plenty of guys are productive in college and don't end up on NFL rosters.

Thomas Brown coached a guy at Wisconsin that was putting up numbers before Brown was even there, just like every other Wisconsin RB has done. He coached Chubb and Sony, big deal. Them dudes were studs in HS and it wasn't like he made them the backs they are toting the rock. You can teach pass pro but you aren't teaching instinct. A RB either has it or he doesn't. You don't coach subpar guys into being elite. They can put up big numbers, but they are who they are.

The issue isn't whether Thomas Brown developed those guys or not. The issue is the fact that he's coached/seen stud RB's, as has Richt.

You got guys in here saying that Yearby is better than Walton when Richt/Brown (and likely the NFL) say otherwise. It's asinine.

The NFL scouts use measurables to project FUTURE production by players. Again Walton and Gus has better measurables than yearby which makes them better prospects at the next level.. but yearbys instincts and feel for the game allows him to be a productive player at the college level. Obviously Richt and Brown preferred the measurables and chance for walton to make big plays over the steadiness and natural feel of yearby i think most people arguing about walton prefers what yearby has to offer. One guy above said it best if you could combine the two you would have a **** of a back. Btw those 32 nfl scout teams have been wrong waaayyyy more times than they've been correct when making projections of these players.

No.

And even if they were (and they really aren't), they're still the best in the world at evaluating what a guy will do in the NFL.

Again I agree with that but we aren't talking about what they will do in the NFL we're talking what they are doing/ Did in college..

 

[made_in_america]

Mark Walton is the better back overall but Joseph Yearby has better vision and his cutting ability and short area quickness are better than most rbs in the entire country.

Put them together and you almost have Duke Johnson. Almost.

Walton is a better complete back then Duke. Duke couldn't put on weight well and got significantly slower and lost explosiveness which made Duke great. These same guys who think is some elite complete back aren't saying much now that he's a backup in Cleveland.

 

[kryptonite]

Mark Walton is the better back overall but Joseph Yearby has better vision and his cutting ability and short area quickness are better than most rbs in the entire country.

Put them together and you almost have Duke Johnson. Almost.

Walton is a better complete back then Duke. Duke couldn't put on weight well and got significantly slower and lost explosiveness which made Duke great. These same guys who think is some elite complete back aren't saying much now that he's a backup in Cleveland.

Get the actual fck off my board with that nonsense you fcking spy.

 

[CaneSince4Ever]

Yearby vs. FSU:

2016: 10 for 39
2015: 15 for 33
2014: 10 for 34

Dude was flat out mediocre here. Hope he blows up in the league, but I'd be flabbergasted if it happened.

LOL...well if we're gonna be myopic:

Walton vs. FSU:

2016: 14 for 39
2015: 1 for 3

LOL

 

[tcgrad1014]

Yearby vs. FSU:

2016: 10 for 39
2015: 15 for 33
2014: 10 for 34

Dude was flat out mediocre here. Hope he blows up in the league, but I'd be flabbergasted if it happened.

LOL...well if we're gonna be myopic:

Walton vs. FSU:

2016: 14 for 39
2015: 1 for 3

LOL

If you want to dismiss his ridiculous run that got called back.

 

[Coach Macho]

It's one thing to think that you know more than fellow posters on a message board...

But to think that you know more about a kid's ability than 32 NFL GM's and a college head coach who's had multiple stud RB's? LOL



I think you guys are onto something. It must be a huge anti-Yearby conspiracy.

Who is stating Yearby is a stud? Nobody is saying Yearby is an NFL back. Plenty of guys are productive in college and don't end up on NFL rosters.

Thomas Brown coached a guy at Wisconsin that was putting up numbers before Brown was even there, just like every other Wisconsin RB has done. He coached Chubb and Sony, big deal. Them dudes were studs in HS and it wasn't like he made them the backs they are toting the rock. You can teach pass pro but you aren't teaching instinct. A RB either has it or he doesn't. You don't coach subpar guys into being elite. They can put up big numbers, but they are who they are.

The issue isn't whether Thomas Brown developed those guys or not. The issue is the fact that he's coached/seen stud RB's, as has Richt.

You got guys in here saying that Yearby is better than Walton when Richt/Brown (and likely the NFL) say otherwise. It's asinine.

The NFL scouts use measurables to project FUTURE production by players. Again Walton and Gus has better measurables than yearby which makes them better prospects at the next level.. but yearbys instincts and feel for the game allows him to be a productive player at the college level. Obviously Richt and Brown preferred the measurables and chance for walton to make big plays over the steadiness and natural feel of yearby i think most people arguing about walton prefers what yearby has to offer. One guy above said it best if you could combine the two you would have a **** of a back. Btw those 32 nfl scout teams have been wrong waaayyyy more times than they've been correct when making projections of these players.

But Yearby's measureables make him less of a RB. lol

Measureables matter.

 

[Coach Macho]

Edwards was taking the 2nd string snaps by the end of the year. Go look at their number of carries after the Notre Dame game, smart fella.

Gus finished the year with 44 carries.
Yearby finished the year with 23 carries.

Ain't nobody making **** up. Get your head out of your a$$.

LOL...And what dafuq did Edwards do in the ND game to take carries from Joe?...3 carries, -1 yards rushing...-1!...what dafuq did He do???...LOL. I mean Joe ain't do $h!t either, but Gus definitely didn't do $h!t in that game to warrant taking carries from Joe...c'mon dawg.

And if Brown/Richt know a stud when they see one, as you've suggested, then why dafuq didn't they give Gus the 2nd RB job from jump?...do you see how much sense you're not making???

Say bruh, just admit it, Richt/Brown colossally mismanaged the RB rotatation, now they're both gone...LOL.

And here's what I think happened...they got word Gus wanted to transfer, & Joe wanted to bounce early, so they tried to appease Gus by givin' em' rinky dink carries in games we were gonna win anyway. Just admit it dawg, they fuqed up.

And now Richt wants to put a wanted ad for a grad transfer RB...LOL...me thinks we should've gave that Epstein kid an offer, hope we don't regret it.

Holy ****, bro. You're special.


IT DOESN'T MATTER WHAT GUS DID IN THE NOTRE DAME GAME. FROM THAT POINT ON HE TOOK OVER THE 2nd STRING SPOT, LIKE I TOLD YOUR SLOW A$$.
The proof is in the number of carries.

Stay on a ******* track, man. Pay attention. You tried to deflect my last post and now you're deflecting this one cause I keep proving you wrong.




Say bruh, just admit it, you have a man-crush on Yearby and you refuse to believe that Walton is better. (despite what people wayyyy more qualified than us think)

 

[Coach Macho]

Back-up RB's have higher YPC than the starter all the time. Less carries usually leads to higher YPC, especially considering the fact that the 2nd string guy plays later in the game with fresh legs.

Not the first time we've seen this.

You think Yearby is better than Walton?

You're kidding right? Joe played later in games with fresh legs?

Yearby yards vs GT came in the 1st 20 mins of the game. 6 car 63 yds 1st 20 mins of game. Doesn't touch the ball again until 5 mins left in the 3rd.

He and Walton swapped for the most part so it wasn't like Yearby came in during garbage time. We weren't beating the breaks off anyone. In fact we lost 3 of the 4 games. So how was Yearby looking better late in games after what, Walton wore them down with his 3.1 ypc?

Yearby out performed Walton before he was axed and out performed him the previous season as well.

Yearby has the instinct to play the position, sadly he doesn't have the speed needed to make a future out of it.

If you could combine the 2 backs you would have an awesome player carrying the rock.

I 100% agree with this.. Yearby has a natural feel for the game something you can't coach or measure with numbers.

Yet somehow the guys who have coached multiple NFL RB's had him sitting 3rd string behind Walton and a kid from New York City.

Maybe because they believed that their measurables superseded his natural feel for the game. Did you read this whole post? It jas been acknowledged that he isn't as fast or as strong as the other two backs.. but what's the logical explanation for him producing just as well or even better as the other backs?

He didn't produce better. Go check their stats with the same work load. Walton had a much better season.