Our running back room is about to be very very good. I know it was said last year but goodness it's going to be good if all 3 are used.

Depends on who's blocking. But, yeah, they good.

parch said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

I never thought Richard Reese suddenly lost all his skills that he displayed his freshman year. Grimes scheme did not have the modularity to get the ball in his playmakers hands. Pendergrass is also very capable

---

The bizarre thing about Reese is that they rarely even tried, and when they did he had good games. He was just flat ignored, and it remains the most puzzling thing to me about our offense in 2023.

---

Yep then he starting returning kicks just to get in the field

I think we could have a pretty good zone read game with Dequan.

parch said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

I never thought Richard Reese suddenly lost all his skills that he displayed his freshman year. Grimes scheme did not have the modularity to get the ball in his playmakers hands. Pendergrass is also very capable

---

The bizarre thing about Reese is that they rarely even tried, and when they did he had good games. He was just flat ignored, and it remains the most puzzling thing to me about our offense in 2023.

---

Missed Sunday School one time too many?

Agree. This was mostly the result of us getting down so far so quickly that we had to throw too much. The blocking just wasn't there.

parch said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

I never thought Richard Reese suddenly lost all his skills that he displayed his freshman year. Grimes scheme did not have the modularity to get the ball in his playmakers hands. Pendergrass is also very capable

---

The bizarre thing about Reese is that they rarely even tried, and when they did he had good games. He was just flat ignored, and it remains the most puzzling thing to me about our offense in 2023.

---

Reese's problem is he can't catch the ball, and that's the way Grimes' offense gets its backs balls in space. Last year was a perfect storm for Reese because without holes to run through, he didn't offer very much to our offense. That's more an O-line problem than a Richard Reese problem, but you can't pass the ball to someone who drops half of his targets on screen and swing passes. The catch is the easy part on those plays, and without it there is no play.

In Briles spread offense he used numerous running backs, especially in the later years. Shock, Chaffin, Williams and seems like there were several more. If we're truly trying to replicate that offense then my guess is we'll see many backs throughout a game. And no I don't see a Seastrunk, Linwood or Chaffin in the current running back group but there remains potential if Spavital and our new running backs coach can retool them for the up tempo spread style we hope to see.

Truth. But I expect this O to be varied enough to do just that.

I'm not seeing that we have lost all semblance of reality with these guys...at this point, anyway!

parch said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

I never thought Richard Reese suddenly lost all his skills that he displayed his freshman year. Grimes scheme did not have the modularity to get the ball in his playmakers hands. Pendergrass is also very capable

---

The bizarre thing about Reese is that they rarely even tried, and when they did he had good games. He was just flat ignored, and it remains the most puzzling thing to me about our offense in 2023.

---

CDA was just a bad head coach and had no idea how to get Reese fit into Grimes schedule. Grimes had major issues developing a good offense and using the talent we had.

Piss poor evaluation of current and future talent across the board with our offensive staff last year.

No way in hell Reese just automatically started sucking. Glad we made the changes we made and I'm expecting a big year from Reese.

ImABearToo said:

---

In Briles spread offense he used numerous running backs, especially in the later years. Shock, Chaffin, Williams and seems like there were several more. If we're truly trying to replicate that offense then my guess is we'll see many backs throughout a game. And no I don't see a Seastrunk, Linwood or Chaffin in the current running back group but there remains potential if Spavital and our new running backs coach can retool them for the up tempo spread style we hope to see.

---

Last years and this years group of running backs would have destroyed people in Brile's offense. I loved Linwood, Glasgow Martin, Chafin, Terrence Williams, and Seastrunk…..but did any of those guys do anything in the pros? They were good college backs, but it was the scheme that allowed them to shine


I'm pretty down on most aspects of the football program right now, but I don't think our level of talent at running back is an issue. Real issue is that Dave is a glorified defensive coordinator that has given over 100% control of the offense to his coordinators, and that can either be really good if the stars align or really bad if they don't i.e. last two seasons

I expected Dominic Richardson to have shown that Briles RB style coming from kB's offense at Arky. Lache, Chaffin and others they "fell forward" for extra yards, something that can't be taught. Maybe Dominic shows that more in the spread as holes should open up for him and not grabbed at the line.

bear2be2 said:

---

parch said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

I never thought Richard Reese suddenly lost all his skills that he displayed his freshman year. Grimes scheme did not have the modularity to get the ball in his playmakers hands. Pendergrass is also very capable

---

The bizarre thing about Reese is that they rarely even tried, and when they did he had good games. He was just flat ignored, and it remains the most puzzling thing to me about our offense in 2023.

---

Reese's problem is he can't catch the ball, and that's the way Grimes' offense gets its backs balls in space. Last year was a perfect storm for Reese because without holes to run through, he didn't offer very much to our offense. That's more an O-line problem than a Richard Reese problem, but you can't pass the ball to someone who drops half of his targets on screen and swing passes. The catch is the easy part on those plays, and without it there is no play.

---

His inadequate pass catching didn't stop him from getting 4x the carries in 2022 and becoming one of the most productive freshmen in the country though.

Reese was only given a passing chance to influence a game twice in the Big 12. He averaged almost 7ypc in those games for nearly 200 yards. He had 3 carries against Houston, in a wire-to-wire close game when TOP was precious, and gained 7 yards on all of them. Certainly three carries isn't enough to determine whether a RB is effective or not.

You can at least kind of justify his usage against KSU, Texas and Tech because we got down big, but it's clear the coaching staff didn't even give him a chance to get into a flow, like, at all. And the one time they did (down big mind you), Reese gashed UCF every time he touched the ball.

We were 91st in rushing attempts in a horizontal obfuscation system that requires the defense to at least think you're capable of handing the ball off. Even with as crap as our o-line was, it's unconscionably bad coaching that makes zero sense unless he was hobbled with something we don't know about.

parch said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

parch said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

I never thought Richard Reese suddenly lost all his skills that he displayed his freshman year. Grimes scheme did not have the modularity to get the ball in his playmakers hands. Pendergrass is also very capable

---

The bizarre thing about Reese is that they rarely even tried, and when they did he had good games. He was just flat ignored, and it remains the most puzzling thing to me about our offense in 2023.

---

Reese's problem is he can't catch the ball, and that's the way Grimes' offense gets its backs balls in space. Last year was a perfect storm for Reese because without holes to run through, he didn't offer very much to our offense. That's more an O-line problem than a Richard Reese problem, but you can't pass the ball to someone who drops half of his targets on screen and swing passes. The catch is the easy part on those plays, and without it there is no play.

---

His inadequate pass catching didn't stop him from getting 4x the carries in 2022 and becoming one of the most productive freshmen in the country though.

Reese was only given a passing chance to influence a game twice in the Big 12. He averaged almost 7ypc in those games for nearly 200 yards. He had 3 carries against Houston, in a wire-to-wire close game when TOP was precious, and gained 7 yards on all of them. Certainly three carries isn't enough to determine whether a RB is effective or not.

You can at least kind of justify his usage against KSU, Texas and Tech because we got down big, but it's clear the coaching staff didn't even give him a chance to get into a flow, like, at all. And the one time they did (down big mind you), Reese gashed UCF every time he touched the ball.

We were 91st in rushing attempts in a horizontal obfuscation system that requires the defense to at least think you're capable of handing the ball off. Even with as crap as our o-line was, it's unconscionably bad coaching that makes zero sense unless he was hobbled with something we don't know about.

---

We could block for him 2022. We couldn't last season. Like most backs, he's a guy that needs a hole to be successful, and we couldn't provide it for him.

Giving him more carries wouldn't have helped anything. He had some success against the worst run defenses on our schedule -- the games you cite -- but against everyone else, he averaged less than 3.3 yards per carry.

It's not his fault. He 5-9 and 180 pounds. He needs some space to operate, and we couldn't create any for him. But he didn't help himself by dropping more than half his targets in the passing game. That was his opportunity to influence games and he couldn't contribute in that way.

bear2be2 said:

---

parch said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

parch said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

I never thought Richard Reese suddenly lost all his skills that he displayed his freshman year. Grimes scheme did not have the modularity to get the ball in his playmakers hands. Pendergrass is also very capable

---

The bizarre thing about Reese is that they rarely even tried, and when they did he had good games. He was just flat ignored, and it remains the most puzzling thing to me about our offense in 2023.

---

Reese's problem is he can't catch the ball, and that's the way Grimes' offense gets its backs balls in space. Last year was a perfect storm for Reese because without holes to run through, he didn't offer very much to our offense. That's more an O-line problem than a Richard Reese problem, but you can't pass the ball to someone who drops half of his targets on screen and swing passes. The catch is the easy part on those plays, and without it there is no play.

---

His inadequate pass catching didn't stop him from getting 4x the carries in 2022 and becoming one of the most productive freshmen in the country though.

Reese was only given a passing chance to influence a game twice in the Big 12. He averaged almost 7ypc in those games for nearly 200 yards. He had 3 carries against Houston, in a wire-to-wire close game when TOP was precious, and gained 7 yards on all of them. Certainly three carries isn't enough to determine whether a RB is effective or not.

You can at least kind of justify his usage against KSU, Texas and Tech because we got down big, but it's clear the coaching staff didn't even give him a chance to get into a flow, like, at all. And the one time they did (down big mind you), Reese gashed UCF every time he touched the ball.

We were 91st in rushing attempts in a horizontal obfuscation system that requires the defense to at least think you're capable of handing the ball off. Even with as crap as our o-line was, it's unconscionably bad coaching that makes zero sense unless he was hobbled with something we don't know about.

---

Giving him more carries wouldn't have helped anything.

---

This is just impossible to assert when he had fewer than 5 carries in half our games. You can't make any definitive conclusions on his impact on 66 carries, especially when he was 0.3ypc off the average that netted him honors as one of the best freshmen in America. He was simply not given a chance when he'd already proven himself, which is asinine coaching.

He's gashing Houston and WVU in tight games we're not playing from behind and they still don't give it to him. He's got 12 on 3 carries, which is fine, in a tight game we need to salt away against Cincy and they still don't give it to him.

Run the offense you want to run, but make it make sense first. They chose to ignore one of their most consistent players last year and it was a contributing factor in our offense cratering. It is what it is.

parch said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

parch said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

parch said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

I never thought Richard Reese suddenly lost all his skills that he displayed his freshman year. Grimes scheme did not have the modularity to get the ball in his playmakers hands. Pendergrass is also very capable

---

The bizarre thing about Reese is that they rarely even tried, and when they did he had good games. He was just flat ignored, and it remains the most puzzling thing to me about our offense in 2023.

---

Reese's problem is he can't catch the ball, and that's the way Grimes' offense gets its backs balls in space. Last year was a perfect storm for Reese because without holes to run through, he didn't offer very much to our offense. That's more an O-line problem than a Richard Reese problem, but you can't pass the ball to someone who drops half of his targets on screen and swing passes. The catch is the easy part on those plays, and without it there is no play.

---

His inadequate pass catching didn't stop him from getting 4x the carries in 2022 and becoming one of the most productive freshmen in the country though.

Reese was only given a passing chance to influence a game twice in the Big 12. He averaged almost 7ypc in those games for nearly 200 yards. He had 3 carries against Houston, in a wire-to-wire close game when TOP was precious, and gained 7 yards on all of them. Certainly three carries isn't enough to determine whether a RB is effective or not.

You can at least kind of justify his usage against KSU, Texas and Tech because we got down big, but it's clear the coaching staff didn't even give him a chance to get into a flow, like, at all. And the one time they did (down big mind you), Reese gashed UCF every time he touched the ball.

We were 91st in rushing attempts in a horizontal obfuscation system that requires the defense to at least think you're capable of handing the ball off. Even with as crap as our o-line was, it's unconscionably bad coaching that makes zero sense unless he was hobbled with something we don't know about.

---

Giving him more carries wouldn't have helped anything.

---

This is just impossible to assert when he had fewer than 5 carries in half our games. You can't make any definitive conclusions on his impact on 66 carries, especially when he was 0.3ypc off the average that netted him honors as one of the best freshmen in America. He was simply not given a chance when he'd already proven himself, which is asinine coaching.

He's gashing Houston and WVU in tight games we're not playing from behind and they still don't give it to him. He's got 12 on 3 carries, which is fine, in a tight game we need to salt away against Cincy and they still don't give it to him.

Run the offense you want to run, but make it make sense first. They chose to ignore one of their most consistent players last year and it was a contributing factor in our offense cratering. It is what it is.

---

Citing aggregate stats when almost all of his yards and TDs came in two games against a bad FCS team and one of the worst run defenses in FBS is silly.

Richard Reese was, for most of the year, our least effective back, which was why he got the fewest carries. And none of our backs got a ton of carries because we couldn't effectively run the ball and were frequently playing from behind.

If Richard Reese could have made a significant difference in our fortunes last year, he would have. But he was the least equipped of our three to get yards behind a terrible line and hurt his chances as a third-down back because he couldn't catch a cold.

Last season was just a perfect suck storm and should be viewed as such. Our offensive staff had many failings last year, and they all started with a line incapable of blocking for the scheme we ran. Upping Richard Reese's usage wasn't going to change a thing.

cowboycwr said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

ImABearToo said:

---

In Briles spread offense he used numerous running backs, especially in the later years. Shock, Chaffin, Williams and seems like there were several more. If we're truly trying to replicate that offense then my guess is we'll see many backs throughout a game. And no I don't see a Seastrunk, Linwood or Chaffin in the current running back group but there remains potential if Spavital and our new running backs coach can retool them for the up tempo spread style we hope to see.

---

Last years and this years group of running backs would have destroyed people in Brile's offense. I loved Linwood, Glasgow Martin, Chafin, Terrence Williams, and Seastrunk…..but did any of those guys do anything in the pros? They were good college backs, but it was the scheme that allowed them to shine


I'm pretty down on most aspects of the football program right now, but I don't think our level of talent at running back is an issue. Real issue is that Dave is a glorified defensive coordinator that has given over 100% control of the offense to his coordinators, and that can either be really good if the stars align or really bad if they don't i.e. last two seasons

---

I have never really cared that much how our players do in the pros. Sure it looks good for the program and is good for them but most fans care more about how their college team does than if the players are ready for the next level, if they wash out, etc.

No one ever criticizes Saban for many of his stars not doing well in the NFL, being busts, his QBs not being "pro material" or any other criticism like that. Bama fans don't care if many of his QBs didn't make it in the NFL. They care that he was winning SEC titles and National Championships.

---

Ok. Point is, those running backs that Briles had were not Derrick Henry or Emmett Smith et al. They had talent, but it was the system that allowed them to rack up the stats that they did. The current group of running backs that we had this last year and this year would look very good circa 2011 through 2015. My comment was aimed at the poster that said they don't see a Linwood, Chafin, or Seastrunk in this group of running backs. I know that we put those guys on a pedestal because they played in our football golden years, and they had talent, but again, the system allowed them to look good

Whoops, my mistake. Thanks Brian.

No Quarterback said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

ImABearToo said:

---

In Briles spread offense he used numerous running backs, especially in the later years. Shock, Chaffin, Williams and seems like there were several more. If we're truly trying to replicate that offense then my guess is we'll see many backs throughout a game. And no I don't see a Seastrunk, Linwood or Chaffin in the current running back group but there remains potential if Spavital and our new running backs coach can retool them for the up tempo spread style we hope to see.

---

Last years and this years group of running backs would have destroyed people in Brile's offense. I loved Linwood, Glasgow Martin, Chafin, Terrence Williams, and Seastrunk…..but did any of those guys do anything in the pros? They were good college backs, but it was the scheme that allowed them to shine


I'm pretty down on most aspects of the football program right now, but I don't think our level of talent at running back is an issue. Real issue is that Dave is a glorified defensive coordinator that has given over 100% control of the offense to his coordinators, and that can either be really good if the stars align or really bad if they don't i.e. last two seasons

---

I have never really cared that much how our players do in the pros. Sure it looks good for the program and is good for them but most fans care more about how their college team does than if the players are ready for the next level, if they wash out, etc.

No one ever criticizes Saban for many of his stars not doing well in the NFL, being busts, his QBs not being "pro material" or any other criticism like that. Bama fans don't care if many of his QBs didn't make it in the NFL. They care that he was winning SEC titles and National Championships.

---

Ok. Point is, those running backs that Briles had were not Derrick Henry or Emmett Smith et al. They had talent, but it was the system that allowed them to rack up the stats that they did. The current group of running backs that we had this last year and this year would look very good circa 2011 through 2015. My comment was aimed at the poster that said they don't see a Linwood, Chafin, or Seastrunk in this group of running backs. I know that we put those guys on a pedestal because they played in our football golden years, and they had talent, but again, the system allowed them to look good

---

Again which is what most fans care about.

Not how they do at the next level.

You could contrast that with guys that had average college careers and killed it at the next level. Heck or even a guy like Matt Cassel who was a college back up and then had a long NFL career (14 years).

Or with the career rushing or passing leaders in college- many had very brief or no NFL careers. So their system allowed them to rack up numbers but not prepare them for the NFL but several won awards, conference titles and even national titles. I bet most people could not even name the NCAA career rushing leader without looking it up. It is not Ron Dayne anymore.....

If we are winning I don't care if the "system" is allowing a guy to rack up numbers and then he does nothing at the NFL. I would rather win and him rack up college numbers than lose and he have an average college career and then blossom later in the NFL.

cowboycwr said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

ImABearToo said:

---

In Briles spread offense he used numerous running backs, especially in the later years. Shock, Chaffin, Williams and seems like there were several more. If we're truly trying to replicate that offense then my guess is we'll see many backs throughout a game. And no I don't see a Seastrunk, Linwood or Chaffin in the current running back group but there remains potential if Spavital and our new running backs coach can retool them for the up tempo spread style we hope to see.

---

Last years and this years group of running backs would have destroyed people in Brile's offense. I loved Linwood, Glasgow Martin, Chafin, Terrence Williams, and Seastrunk…..but did any of those guys do anything in the pros? They were good college backs, but it was the scheme that allowed them to shine


I'm pretty down on most aspects of the football program right now, but I don't think our level of talent at running back is an issue. Real issue is that Dave is a glorified defensive coordinator that has given over 100% control of the offense to his coordinators, and that can either be really good if the stars align or really bad if they don't i.e. last two seasons

---

I have never really cared that much how our players do in the pros. Sure it looks good for the program and is good for them but most fans care more about how their college team does than if the players are ready for the next level, if they wash out, etc.

No one ever criticizes Saban for many of his stars not doing well in the NFL, being busts, his QBs not being "pro material" or any other criticism like that. Bama fans don't care if many of his QBs didn't make it in the NFL. They care that he was winning SEC titles and National Championships.

---

Ok. Point is, those running backs that Briles had were not Derrick Henry or Emmett Smith et al. They had talent, but it was the system that allowed them to rack up the stats that they did. The current group of running backs that we had this last year and this year would look very good circa 2011 through 2015. My comment was aimed at the poster that said they don't see a Linwood, Chafin, or Seastrunk in this group of running backs. I know that we put those guys on a pedestal because they played in our football golden years, and they had talent, but again, the system allowed them to look good

---

Again which is what most fans care about.

Not how they do at the next level.

You could contrast that with guys that had average college careers and killed it at the next level. Heck or even a guy like Matt Cassel who was a college back up and then had a long NFL career (14 years).

Or with the career rushing or passing leaders in college- many had very brief or no NFL careers. So their system allowed them to rack up numbers but not prepare them for the NFL but several won awards, conference titles and even national titles. I bet most people could not even name the NCAA career rushing leader without looking it up. It is not Ron Dayne anymore.....

If we are winning I don't care if the "system" is allowing a guy to rack up numbers and then he does nothing at the NFL. I would rather win and him rack up college numbers than lose and he have an average college career and then blossom later in the NFL.

---

Ok

bear2be2 said:

---

parch said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

parch said:

---

bear2be2 said:

---

parch said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

I never thought Richard Reese suddenly lost all his skills that he displayed his freshman year. Grimes scheme did not have the modularity to get the ball in his playmakers hands. Pendergrass is also very capable

---

The bizarre thing about Reese is that they rarely even tried, and when they did he had good games. He was just flat ignored, and it remains the most puzzling thing to me about our offense in 2023.

---

Reese's problem is he can't catch the ball, and that's the way Grimes' offense gets its backs balls in space. Last year was a perfect storm for Reese because without holes to run through, he didn't offer very much to our offense. That's more an O-line problem than a Richard Reese problem, but you can't pass the ball to someone who drops half of his targets on screen and swing passes. The catch is the easy part on those plays, and without it there is no play.

---

His inadequate pass catching didn't stop him from getting 4x the carries in 2022 and becoming one of the most productive freshmen in the country though.

Reese was only given a passing chance to influence a game twice in the Big 12. He averaged almost 7ypc in those games for nearly 200 yards. He had 3 carries against Houston, in a wire-to-wire close game when TOP was precious, and gained 7 yards on all of them. Certainly three carries isn't enough to determine whether a RB is effective or not.

You can at least kind of justify his usage against KSU, Texas and Tech because we got down big, but it's clear the coaching staff didn't even give him a chance to get into a flow, like, at all. And the one time they did (down big mind you), Reese gashed UCF every time he touched the ball.

We were 91st in rushing attempts in a horizontal obfuscation system that requires the defense to at least think you're capable of handing the ball off. Even with as crap as our o-line was, it's unconscionably bad coaching that makes zero sense unless he was hobbled with something we don't know about.

---

Giving him more carries wouldn't have helped anything.

---

This is just impossible to assert when he had fewer than 5 carries in half our games. You can't make any definitive conclusions on his impact on 66 carries, especially when he was 0.3ypc off the average that netted him honors as one of the best freshmen in America. He was simply not given a chance when he'd already proven himself, which is asinine coaching.

He's gashing Houston and WVU in tight games we're not playing from behind and they still don't give it to him. He's got 12 on 3 carries, which is fine, in a tight game we need to salt away against Cincy and they still don't give it to him.

Run the offense you want to run, but make it make sense first. They chose to ignore one of their most consistent players last year and it was a contributing factor in our offense cratering. It is what it is.

---

Upping Richard Reese's usage wasn't going to change a thing.

---

The entire point is that this is unknowable conjecture because he wasn't given a chance to change a thing. We have no idea how much impact the only Baylor player on any sort of preseason watch list would've had, which is an enormous problem. He was effective when he touched the ball in 5 of our games and was completely ignored in 3 of those. He was ignored entirely without even being given a chance to have any impact at all in 4 of our games.

Which means he had two objectively ineffective games in 2023, and even then his usage rate was extremely low. If you're shelving a sophomore back over his performance over the first 14 carries of the year, then that's bad coaching. One of Grimes' many mistakes in 2023 that led to his ouster.

No Quarterback said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

ImABearToo said:

---

In Briles spread offense he used numerous running backs, especially in the later years. Shock, Chaffin, Williams and seems like there were several more. If we're truly trying to replicate that offense then my guess is we'll see many backs throughout a game. And no I don't see a Seastrunk, Linwood or Chaffin in the current running back group but there remains potential if Spavital and our new running backs coach can retool them for the up tempo spread style we hope to see.

---

Last years and this years group of running backs would have destroyed people in Brile's offense. I loved Linwood, Glasgow Martin, Chafin, Terrence Williams, and Seastrunk…..but did any of those guys do anything in the pros? They were good college backs, but it was the scheme that allowed them to shine


I'm pretty down on most aspects of the football program right now, but I don't think our level of talent at running back is an issue. Real issue is that Dave is a glorified defensive coordinator that has given over 100% control of the offense to his coordinators, and that can either be really good if the stars align or really bad if they don't i.e. last two seasons

---

I have never really cared that much how our players do in the pros. Sure it looks good for the program and is good for them but most fans care more about how their college team does than if the players are ready for the next level, if they wash out, etc.

No one ever criticizes Saban for many of his stars not doing well in the NFL, being busts, his QBs not being "pro material" or any other criticism like that. Bama fans don't care if many of his QBs didn't make it in the NFL. They care that he was winning SEC titles and National Championships.

---

Ok. Point is, those running backs that Briles had were not Derrick Henry or Emmett Smith et al. They had talent, but it was the system that allowed them to rack up the stats that they did. The current group of running backs that we had this last year and this year would look very good circa 2011 through 2015. My comment was aimed at the poster that said they don't see a Linwood, Chafin, or Seastrunk in this group of running backs. I know that we put those guys on a pedestal because they played in our football golden years, and they had talent, but again, the system allowed them to look good

---

Again which is what most fans care about.

Not how they do at the next level.

You could contrast that with guys that had average college careers and killed it at the next level. Heck or even a guy like Matt Cassel who was a college back up and then had a long NFL career (14 years).

Or with the career rushing or passing leaders in college- many had very brief or no NFL careers. So their system allowed them to rack up numbers but not prepare them for the NFL but several won awards, conference titles and even national titles. I bet most people could not even name the NCAA career rushing leader without looking it up. It is not Ron Dayne anymore.....

If we are winning I don't care if the "system" is allowing a guy to rack up numbers and then he does nothing at the NFL. I would rather win and him rack up college numbers than lose and he have an average college career and then blossom later in the NFL.

---

Ok

---

So you would rather worry about a guys NFL talent and how he performs years after leaving the school than their ability to help the team win now?

No Quarterback said:

---

cowboycwr said:

---

No Quarterback said:

---

ImABearToo said:

---

In Briles spread offense he used numerous running backs, especially in the later years. Shock, Chaffin, Williams and seems like there were several more. If we're truly trying to replicate that offense then my guess is we'll see many backs throughout a game. And no I don't see a Seastrunk, Linwood or Chaffin in the current running back group but there remains potential if Spavital and our new running backs coach can retool them for the up tempo spread style we hope to see.

---

Last years and this years group of running backs would have destroyed people in Brile's offense. I loved Linwood, Glasgow Martin, Chafin, Terrence Williams, and Seastrunk…..but did any of those guys do anything in the pros? They were good college backs, but it was the scheme that allowed them to shine


I'm pretty down on most aspects of the football program right now, but I don't think our level of talent at running back is an issue. Real issue is that Dave is a glorified defensive coordinator that has given over 100% control of the offense to his coordinators, and that can either be really good if the stars align or really bad if they don't i.e. last two seasons

---

I have never really cared that much how our players do in the pros. Sure it looks good for the program and is good for them but most fans care more about how their college team does than if the players are ready for the next level, if they wash out, etc.

No one ever criticizes Saban for many of his stars not doing well in the NFL, being busts, his QBs not being "pro material" or any other criticism like that. Bama fans don't care if many of his QBs didn't make it in the NFL. They care that he was winning SEC titles and National Championships.

---

Ok. Point is, those running backs that Briles had were not Derrick Henry or Emmett Smith et al. They had talent, but it was the system that allowed them to rack up the stats that they did. The current group of running backs that we had this last year and this year would look very good circa 2011 through 2015. My comment was aimed at the poster that said they don't see a Linwood, Chafin, or Seastrunk in this group of running backs. I know that we put those guys on a pedestal because they played in our football golden years, and they had talent, but again, the system allowed them to look good

---

A system that sets players up for success? Brings back a lot of good memories.