Bleu Star
Bye Felicia!
- Messages
- 33,925
- Reaction score
- 19,920
That was quoted yesterday by a prominent SEC head coach & I completely agree.
The Oline can have have pro bowlers at every position but without that runner they will see an average effort on the ground practically every time. This can wear in the psyche of even the most dominant of offensive lines.
The RB needs to know how to hit the hole, when to hit it, when to exhibit patience, and how to use good vision as a tool to keep the chains moving.
I was just struck by that comment because, in many ways, it parallels what we are seeing right now I'm that dynamic between our offensive line and the RBs we are tossing in there behind them. You best believe that an oline will more enthusiastically embrace a RB that is consistently moving the chains vs one that gains negative yards regularly while supplementing with the occasional long run. When those long runs are few & far between, it is detrimental to the psyche of the guys in the trenches doing work.
I strongly believe the perception of an average effort from our oline early on is directly tied to who we are lining up behind them. Those guys aren't stupid. They know a lead run with the fb manned by Clutz is destined for failure. They know that the current pool of RBs is not of the quality to sustain drives. They need a spark.
I'm hopeful that spark will finally come tomorrow with the combination of Christine Michael and Randle sharing the load. It really doesn't matter whether you go with Randle or McFadden to supplement Michael. They're both the same scatback type of player. Sadly, McFadden at his size, does indeed operate like a scatback. We already have three of those in Randle, McFadden, & Dunbar.
I thought that coach's comments were spot on. An oline does not make a rb. His perspective spits clearly in the faces of those that have crowed about how our oline made Demarco. I've always considered that a line of crap. Our "system" made Demarco and he flourished in it.
The Oline can have have pro bowlers at every position but without that runner they will see an average effort on the ground practically every time. This can wear in the psyche of even the most dominant of offensive lines.
The RB needs to know how to hit the hole, when to hit it, when to exhibit patience, and how to use good vision as a tool to keep the chains moving.
I was just struck by that comment because, in many ways, it parallels what we are seeing right now I'm that dynamic between our offensive line and the RBs we are tossing in there behind them. You best believe that an oline will more enthusiastically embrace a RB that is consistently moving the chains vs one that gains negative yards regularly while supplementing with the occasional long run. When those long runs are few & far between, it is detrimental to the psyche of the guys in the trenches doing work.
I strongly believe the perception of an average effort from our oline early on is directly tied to who we are lining up behind them. Those guys aren't stupid. They know a lead run with the fb manned by Clutz is destined for failure. They know that the current pool of RBs is not of the quality to sustain drives. They need a spark.
I'm hopeful that spark will finally come tomorrow with the combination of Christine Michael and Randle sharing the load. It really doesn't matter whether you go with Randle or McFadden to supplement Michael. They're both the same scatback type of player. Sadly, McFadden at his size, does indeed operate like a scatback. We already have three of those in Randle, McFadden, & Dunbar.
I thought that coach's comments were spot on. An oline does not make a rb. His perspective spits clearly in the faces of those that have crowed about how our oline made Demarco. I've always considered that a line of crap. Our "system" made Demarco and he flourished in it.
