forums

Ajay Allen RB from Nebraska hits the portal

Status
Not open for further replies.
bshaw28 said:
That's pretty much equal. If you go back in Chaney's last 9 games - their ypc is pretty much equal in all 9 games. Chaney = 4.9 & Cam = 4.8 in the last 9.

I thought Chaney had more potential and would overtake Cam - but it never actually happened on the field. The reality is they were at the same level.

Given the injuries - it's an uphill battle for Chaney to get back to that Cam level. I'd be happy if gets back to a Cam level & ecstatic if he gets to a DeeJay Dallas level.
Click to expand...
True, but that’s true freshman Chaney in 2020 vs third year junior Harris. It might have been marginal, but as a second year player Chaney seemed to have a bit more pep when inserted into the lineup.
 
Advertisement
bshaw28 said:
Because the more successful college football programs have the most/best NFL talent.

The further a player is from the typical NFL athlete, the lower his chances of success. The more of these lower % type of players you have on your team, the lower the chances for the teams success.

When you gave a list of the successful smaller RB's in this thread, there's a reason why they were from G5 & lower tier P5 schools.

Schools like Georgia, Alabama, OSU rarely even recruit these types. The successful schools recruit the prototypes.
Click to expand...
I agree with u 100% and to quote the great Bill Parcells on this issue.....You win with performance. too many exceptions, because then you wind up as a franchise with a team full of exceptions, which is not what you want
 
bshaw28 said:
I think what's misunderstood is just how small these RB's are. We're not recruiting 1 Big / 1 Small - it's more like 1 Big / 1 Tiny

Here's the average weight of RB's at each level:

NFL - 214
FBS - 202
FCS - 196
D2/D3 - 190

So if 50% of our RB group (or any position group) is that small - Parrish (190), Allen, (185-190), CJ (Let's give him 185) - it's cause for concern.

At 190 - that's 25 lbs under the average NFL RB weight. Same thing if it went the other way - if we had 3 240+ lb RB's - it would also be bad roster building.

Now this may be a "this where we're at and this is the best we can get" situation. But here's the last 15 years of Georgia & Alabama RB's at the NFL combine. Other top RB producing schools like OSU, LSU, Wisconsin, etc. look the same.

Top colleges rarely even mess with RB's these body types ever - let alone have 50% of their roster looking like the average D2/D3 player.

View attachment 237693
Click to expand...
Facts u need size (pause) and speed at RB if u want a legit NFL type. I like CJ but if u can't break arm tackles u cooked. Butch used to get big n fast guys. Our last monster backs pro bowl types were from that era.
 
bshaw28 said:
I think what's misunderstood is just how small these RB's are. We're not recruiting 1 Big / 1 Small - it's more like 1 Big / 1 Tiny

Here's the average weight of RB's at each level:

NFL - 214
FBS - 202
FCS - 196
D2/D3 - 190

So if 50% of our RB group (or any position group) is that small - Parrish (190), Allen, (185-190), CJ (Let's give him 185) - it's cause for concern.

At 190 - that's 25 lbs under the average NFL RB weight. Same thing if it went the other way - if we had 3 240+ lb RB's - it would also be bad roster building.

Now this may be a "this where we're at and this is the best we can get" situation. But here's the last 15 years of Georgia & Alabama RB's at the NFL combine. Other top RB producing schools like OSU, LSU, Wisconsin, etc. look the same.

Top colleges rarely even mess with RB's these body types ever - let alone have 50% of their roster looking like the average D2/D3 player.

View attachment 237693
Click to expand...

For clarity, are the UGA and Bama numbers listed in the QP their weight coming in from HS, or leaving college to the pros? Assuming the latter, but I don't think it takes away from your point either way, I'm more curious what that might indicate from an evaluation perspective.
 
Advertisement
bshaw28 said:
I think what's misunderstood is just how small these RB's are. We're not recruiting 1 Big / 1 Small - it's more like 1 Big / 1 Tiny

Here's the average weight of RB's at each level:

NFL - 214
FBS - 202
FCS - 196
D2/D3 - 190

So if 50% of our RB group (or any position group) is that small - Parrish (190), Allen, (185-190), CJ (Let's give him 185) - it's cause for concern.

At 190 - that's 25 lbs under the average NFL RB weight. Same thing if it went the other way - if we had 3 240+ lb RB's - it would also be bad roster building.

Now this may be a "this where we're at and this is the best we can get" situation. But here's the last 15 years of Georgia & Alabama RB's at the NFL combine. Other top RB producing schools like OSU, LSU, Wisconsin, etc. look the same.

Top colleges rarely even mess with RB's these body types ever - let alone have 50% of their roster looking like the average D2/D3 player.

View attachment 237693
Click to expand...
So I guess Chaney, Citizen, and Fletcher are leaving the program is what you guys are telling me
 
I love guys using NFL weights at rb when they’ve been in college for years or are preparing for the draft. You do know Gibbs played in the 190’s last year lol. So so you think he showed up at that weight at GT? This isn’t the 1980’s three yards and a cloud of dust.
 
No_Fly_Zone said:
For clarity, are the UGA and Bama numbers listed in the QP their weight coming in from HS, or leaving college to the pros? Assuming the latter, but I don't think it takes away from your point either way, I'm more curious what that might indicate from an evaluation perspective.
Click to expand...

Those weights are from the NFL combine. They're the only "official" measurement - so it's the best to use IMO.

But even then, there can be wiggle room/fluctuation. Kenny McIntosh this year was 204 at the combine, 216 at his pro day, and 210 on the roster.
 
Advertisement
Cribby said:
I love guys using NFL weights at rb when they’ve been in college for years or are preparing for the draft. You do know Gibbs played in the 190’s last year lol. So so you think he showed up at that weight at GT? This isn’t the 1980’s three yards and a cloud of dust.
Click to expand...
I agree weights can fluctuate and can be inaccurate in places - but if you don't use the NFL Combine or Pro Day weights, what should you use?

Gibbs weights seem pretty accurate though - he was 191 in HS on 247, 199 at the combine, 200 on GT's roster & 200 on Bama's roster.
 
Cribby said:
I love guys using NFL weights at rb when they’ve been in college for years or are preparing for the draft. You do know Gibbs played in the 190’s last year lol. So you think he showed up at that weight ? This isn’t the 1980’s three yards and a cloud of dust.
Click to expand...

Bad example. But I get your point. Gibbs was listed at 200 at Bama, listed at 200 at Georgia Tech, weighed in at the combine at 199, and was at 191 per 247 in HS.

Yeah, he basically showed up at that weight.

Also, the average BMI in the NFL at RB has jumped from 29.1 in the 80s to 30.8 in the 2000s (as of 2009). I'd hypothesize its a little bigger now as it has grown in every decade.
 
bshaw28 said:
I agree weights can fluctuate and can be inaccurate in places - but if you don't use the NFL Combine or Pro Day weights, what should you use?

Gibbs weights seem pretty accurate though - he was 191 in HS on 247, 199 at the combine, 200 on GT's roster & 200 on Bama's roster.
Click to expand...
People are using weights of finished products, that’s silly. If a guy is coming out of HS 180 but is a speed back what does that matter? He’ll be 190 in no time in a college S&C. A backs weight in this era isn’t a big deal, most do it by committee using guys with different skill sets.

Yes it is nice to add a big , physical guy that runs like a deer and can catch but that’s very hard to find out of HS.
 
BoxingRobes said:
Bad example. But I get your point. Gibbs was listed at 200 at Bama, listed at 200 at Georgia Tech, weighed in at the combine at 199, and was at 191 per 247 in HS.

Yeah, he basically showed up at that weight.

Also, the average BMI in the NFL at RB has jumped from 29.1 in the 80s to 30.8 in the 2000s (as of 2009). I'd hypothesize its a little bigger now as it has grown in every decade.
Click to expand...
He weighed 199 at the combine. Do you rally think he played at that weight during the season ? His size was an issue and why he was projected by many as a late first rounder / early second , more of an out of the backfield type. So that example was dead on. I’m sure he added 5-7 pounds after the season to get around the two hundred mark like most of the guys do. Btw that’s with him being in college 3-4 years which is even more to my point.

Whats the big deal of 180 versus 190 when you show up to a campus ? Especially in todays football. This is silly talk. Gibbs likely played the season at the 193-195 range and had plenty of touches in the Sec.
 
Last edited:
Advertisement
Cane4life18 said:
Meh, a potential 1k rusher? We haven't had a 1k rusher in 3 years. Please, stop the foolishness.

Yearby was a good back who lacked long speed but had elite vision and quickness. If this kid is that, I want him on my team.
Click to expand...
Let’s also compare what we hope our current and future backs will have Toruń behind versus Yearby.
 
Cribby said:
He weighed 199 at the combine. Do you rally think he played at that weight during the season ? You’re smarter than that. His size was an issue and why he was projected by many as a late first rounder , more of an out of the backfield type. So that example was dead on. I’m sure he added 5-10 pounds after the seSon to get around the two hundred mark like most of the guys do. Btw that’s with him being in college 3-4 years which is even more ti my point.

Whats the big deal of 180 versus 190 when you show up to a campus ? Especially in todays football. This is silly talk. Its a Fr rb that hasn’t even shown up to campus lol.
Click to expand...
Like you said earlier, recruit both. Number 1 trait I want in a back is the ability to break tackles. Some guys do that with power others do it with elusiveness and then there are guys like CJ who will outrun the entire defense. Any of them can get it done. It’s best when you have a bunch of guys that can do different things
 
COCane4Life said:
Like you said earlier, recruit both. Number 1 trait I want in a back is the ability to break tackles. Some guys do that with power others do it with elusiveness and then there are guys like CJ who will outrun the entire defense. Any of them can get it done. It’s best when you have a bunch of guys that can do different things
Click to expand...
I’m shocked at this even being a discussion in 2023 lol. It’s very rare to find horses or guys carrying the entire load.
 
Advertisement
Cribby said:
People are using weights of finished products, that’s silly. If a guy is coming out of HS 180 but is a speed back what does that matter? He’ll be 190 in no time in a college S&C. A backs weight in this era isn’t a big deal, most do it by committee using guys with different skill sets.

Yes it is nice to add a big , physical guy that runs like a deer and can catch but that’s very hard to find out of HS.
Click to expand...

It matters because 190 is still really small for a college RB. 5-7 190, we're good. 5-10 190 - that's really skinny for a RB.

Sure we can't find a guy who's 215-220 every year - but we should easily be able to find guys that can play at 205-210.

I hear you that these guys will put on weight, but the trick is - what weight they really are in HS and projecting how much they can put on.

Knighton is still 180 and in his 4th year of college (and 3rd S&C coach). Yearby was 185. Parrish is listed at 190, but would anyone be surprised if he was below that? Allen is listed at 185. That's way below average.

Some guys just don't have a frame that can put on good weight - so it's far from a given. It's my main concern with CWH. His frame just looks like a WR.
 
bshaw28 said:
It matters because 190 is still really small for a college RB. 5-7 190, we're good. 5-10 190 - that's really skinny for a RB.

Sure we can't find a guy who's 215-220 every year - but we should easily be able to find guys that can play at 205-210.

I hear you that these guys will put on weight, but the trick is - what weight they really are in HS and projecting how much they can put on.

Knighton is still 180 and in his 4th year of college (and 3rd S&C coach). Yearby was 185. Parrish is listed at 190, but would anyone be surprised if he was below that? Allen is listed at 185. That's way below average.

Some guys just don't have a frame that can put on good weight - so it's far from a given. It's my main concern with CWH. His frame just looks like a WR.
Click to expand...
5’9 / 5’10 190 is not ” small“ for a college rb dude lol. Thats before even discussing the style of football we’re playing now. To think you need a bunch of bell cows in 2023 to play rb is comedy.
 
Last edited:
Status
Not open for further replies.
Advertisement
Back
Top