forums

Lol @ Lingard

Advertisement
bshaw28 said:
Yeah - it's just funny how things are remembered sometimes.

Even though Lingard was clearly ahead of Cam as Freshmen, Cam was clearly ahead of Lingard as Sophomores. But then again, Lingard was clearly behind walk-on Jimmy Murphy as a Sophomore - which kind of undermines it being a straight "talent" argument.

Narrative is higher on the depth chart than facts - that's for sure.
Click to expand...

Sorry, I don’t believe he was “clearly” ahead of him as a freshman.

The sample size was too small, and there was a natural inclination to try to get your highly touted 5-star ”ambassador” a few more touches, and to use his natural straight line speed on special teams.

It doesn’t mean he was ahead.

Cam was an un-touted recruit that didn’t have the Lingard buzz, but as time passed and practices continued, it surely become obvious to the staff that he was a much much better running back and football player.
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Sorry, I don’t believe he was “clearly” ahead of him as a freshman.

The sample size was too small, and there was a natural inclination to try to get your highly touted 5-star ”ambassador” a few more touches, and to use his natural straight line speed on special teams.

It doesn’t mean he was ahead.

Cam was an un-touted recruit that didn’t have the Lingard buzz, but as time passed and practices continued, it surely become obvious to the staff that he was a much much better running back and football player.
Click to expand...
Yes - the coaches wanted to give 5 Star Lingard more touches - and they did so by putting him ahead of Cam on the depth chart.

You can have your opinion. But the facts remain:

Lingard got more carries than Cam
Lingard got carries in games where Cam didn't
Lingard got carries on drives before Cam in games where they both got carries

What's the case for Lingard NOT being ahead of Cam? The sample size was small because Lingard got hurt - but 7 games is enough to establish a depth chart, right?

And Cam was not an un-touted recruit. He was a hyped up 4 Star. He was rated higher than Homer, DeeJay, Robert Burns, Cody Brown, Thad Franklin.
 
bshaw28 said:
Yes - the coaches wanted to give 5 Star Lingard more touches - and they did so by putting him ahead of Cam on the depth chart.

You can have your opinion. But the facts remain:

Lingard got more carries than Cam
Lingard got carries in games where Cam didn't
Lingard got carries on drives before Cam in games where they both got carries

What's the case for Lingard NOT being ahead of Cam? The sample size was small because Lingard got hurt - but 7 games is enough to establish a depth chart, right?

And Cam was not an un-touted recruit. He was a hyped up 4 Star. He was rated higher than Homer, DeeJay, Robert Burns, Cody Brown, Thad Franklin.
Click to expand...

I don't get your argument here.

Are you trying to say that Lingard is better than Cam Harris?

If he was, then he should've battled his way up ANY roster he's been on since Cam Harris is going to get a look to make an NFL roster.
 
bshaw28 said:
Yes - the coaches wanted to give 5 Star Lingard more touches - and they did so by putting him ahead of Cam on the depth chart.

You can have your opinion. But the facts remain:

Lingard got more carries than Cam
Lingard got carries in games where Cam didn't
Lingard got carries on drives before Cam in games where they both got carries

What's the case for Lingard NOT being ahead of Cam? The sample size was small because Lingard got hurt - but 7 games is enough to establish a depth chart, right?

And Cam was not an un-touted recruit. He was a hyped up 4 Star. He was rated higher than Homer, DeeJay, Robert Burns, Cody Brown, Thad Franklin.
Click to expand...
Cam Harris was the last recruit to report...mid July. Lingard was one of the first as an EE.

Cam Harris was a better RB in HS and early reports (check the quotes by Brown at the time) had Cam as an already established runner just figuring out how to practice, prepare, etc. Sure, Lingard got carries early...he had been here for 9 months. Cam was here for a month.

The depth chart point is silly since neither of them appear on one until Harris by the end of the year.

He was the better running back the moment he stepped foot on campus...thats not retcon'ing the narrative.
 
Advertisement
Ghandi said:
I don't get your argument here.

Are you trying to say that Lingard is better than Cam Harris?

If he was, then he should've battled his way up ANY roster he's been on since Cam Harris is going to get a look to make an NFL roster.
Click to expand...

My point is you can say - "Cam was always the more talented RB, despite the fact that Lingard was higher on the depth chart and was getting more playing time when they were Freshmen"

Both can be true without having to make up how things actually happened.
 
Last edited:
BoxingRobes said:
Cam Harris was the last recruit to report...mid July. Lingard was one of the first as an EE.

Cam Harris was a better RB in HS and early reports (check the quotes by Brown at the time) had Cam as an already established runner just figuring out how to practice, prepare, etc. Sure, Lingard got carries early...he had been here for 9 months. Cam was here for a month.

The depth chart point is silly since neither of them appear on one until Harris by the end of the year.

He was the better running back the moment he stepped foot on campus...thats not retcon'ing the narrative.
Click to expand...
You just gave reasons (all of which are legitimate) as to why Cam wasn't ahead of Lingard from day 1 and the depth chart is silly.

So then why do you post things like "Lingard was immediately behind Cam Harris the moment he stepped foot on campus" and "It should be noted that Cam'Ron Harris was pretty much ahead of Lingard on the depth chart from Day 1 here"?
 
bshaw28 said:
My point is you can say - "Cam was always the more talented RB, even though Lingard was higher on the depth chart and was getting more playing time when they were Freshmen"

Both can be true without having to make up how things actually happened.
Click to expand...
I agree. Lingard was clearly ahead of Cam on the depth chart, regardless of the reason. He got in games before Cam and that literally is how a depth chart works. That’s not shade at Cam or saying Lingard was better. It’s just what happened.
 
Advertisement
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Cam was an un-touted recruit that didn’t have the Lingard buzz, but as time passed and practices continued, it surely become obvious to the staff that he was a much much better running back and football player.
Click to expand...

Cam wasn’t some sleeper coming out. Dude was a top 200 recruit and a top 10 back in their class. Plenty of ppl we’re excited to have him.

I’m not sure on the number of carries they were getting but did it “surely become obvious to the staff” that Cam was better before or after Lingard got hurt?
 
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
That’s your opinion.

A wide receiver, in my opinion, has a more complex role, not just physically, with hand eye coordination, but in using their bodies, their bodies’ momentum, in locating the ball, in how to properly turn your head, in tracking the ball in the air, in using your hands, arms, legs, and body strength to fight off a pressing DB, in fighting the DB for the ball, I can go on and on. Mentally, learning route trees, determining how to alter your route, knowing when to come back towards the QB, etc.
Click to expand...
100% agree. RB is more instinctual and physical while WR is more nuanced and technical. RB is a quicker adjustment IMO
 
bshaw28 said:
Yes - the coaches wanted to give 5 Star Lingard more touches - and they did so by putting him ahead of Cam on the depth chart.

You can have your opinion. But the facts remain:

Lingard got more carries than Cam
Lingard got carries in games where Cam didn't
Lingard got carries on drives before Cam in games where they both got carries

What's the case for Lingard NOT being ahead of Cam? The sample size was small because Lingard got hurt - but 7 games is enough to establish a depth chart, right?

And Cam was not an un-touted recruit. He was a hyped up 4 Star. He was rated higher than Homer, DeeJay, Robert Burns, Cody Brown, Thad Franklin.
Click to expand...

He was untouted in the minds of our fanbase. It was all Lingard Lingard Lingard. I didn’t say he was not a highly regarded recruit. He was highly regarded among the objective services. But he was almost a forgotten person, Lingard was getting all the buzz
 
Advertisement
OriginalCanesCanesCanes said:
Sorry, I don’t believe he was “clearly” ahead of him as a freshman.

The sample size was too small, and there was a natural inclination to try to get your highly touted 5-star ”ambassador” a few more touches, and to use his natural straight line speed on special teams.

It doesn’t mean he was ahead.

Cam was an un-touted recruit that didn’t have the Lingard buzz, but as time passed and practices continued, it surely become obvious to the staff that he was a much much better running back and football player.
Click to expand...
Wasn't Cam something like the 8th ranked RB recruit out of HS?
 
bshaw28 said:
You just gave reasons (all of which are legitimate) as to why Cam wasn't ahead of Lingard from day 1 and the depth chart is silly.

So then why do you post things like "Lingard was immediately behind Cam Harris the moment he stepped foot on campus" and "It should be noted that Cam'Ron Harris was pretty much ahead of Lingard on the depth chart from Day 1 here"?
Click to expand...

Youre playing semantics or getting caught up in wordplay.. There is a difference between their place and talent, especially when they are coming in at different times...Cam Harris was the better player as soon as he arrived on campus. Sound better? The point still stands.

Not an unfounded take...check the forums, plenty of people thought Harris was better as a prospect before they stepped foot on campus.
 
bshaw28 said:
I have no idea why this has been universally accepted as true, but it's absolutely false. Lingard was 100% ahead of Cam on the depth chart before his knee injury.

Lingard unfortunate knee injury, bad choice in transfer - but it's a fact Lingard was ahead of Cam before he got injured.
Click to expand...
:confused:
 
Advertisement
bshaw28 said:
The importance of pass blocking is an often repeated thing, but it's really such a very small % of importance for what a RB does.

What's important is the ability to run the ball. You don't have to be good in pass protection, you just have to not be absolutely terrible.
Click to expand...
Tell that to Don Soldinger
 
BoxingRobes said:
Cam Harris was the last recruit to report...mid July. Lingard was one of the first as an EE.

Cam Harris was a better RB in HS and early reports (check the quotes by Brown at the time) had Cam as an already established runner just figuring out how to practice, prepare, etc. Sure, Lingard got carries early...he had been here for 9 months. Cam was here for a month.

The depth chart point is silly since neither of them appear on one until Harris by the end of the year.

He was the better running back the moment he stepped foot on campus...thats not retcon'ing the narrative.
Click to expand...

Well said
 
This depth chart for Bama was the first I’ve seen in a long time that I didn’t think was complete horse****. Isn't to say I don’t have questions (particularly on D) but I wasn’t outright upset for the first time in awhile.
 
Advertisement
Back
Top