dukebeeasy305
Sophomore
- Joined
- Jan 21, 2017
- Messages
- 1,273
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.