A Sankey Q
Comments
-
I was with you until the last line.He_Needs_More_Time said:He's gone and I think he was better than Polk. Polk was a stud but Sankey could bust off longer runs than Polk while still being able to grind out the tough yards.
Sankey is good out the backfield catching passes and is a good blocker. He is what you would call a "complete" back with no injury history.
He'll go in the top 2 rounds and he's as good as gone. He'll probably have a good NFL career something we haven't seen from our RB's other than Dillon.
I think he's the 2nd best back we've had other than Dillon in the last 30 years. Yes I would take him over Nip(or is it Nap?).
-
I know it's a controversial take. Kaufman was more exciting for sure but I think Sankey was a tougher runner.dnc said:
I was with you until the last line.He_Needs_More_Time said:He's gone and I think he was better than Polk. Polk was a stud but Sankey could bust off longer runs than Polk while still being able to grind out the tough yards.
Sankey is good out the backfield catching passes and is a good blocker. He is what you would call a "complete" back with no injury history.
He'll go in the top 2 rounds and he's as good as gone. He'll probably have a good NFL career something we haven't seen from our RB's other than Dillon.
I think he's the 2nd best back we've had other than Dillon in the last 30 years. Yes I would take him over Nip(or is it Nap?).
Sankey was better in the RZ than Kaufman too. I give Sankey the slight nod because his OL's were about 100 times worse than what Kaufman had.
-
I watched a couple Kaufman games earlier this year. I think I would take Sankey at #2. Sankey is more consistent and has done it behind worse OL's. Kaufman is obviously more explosive. It really depends on what you want. Both of them are/were great.He_Needs_More_Time said:
I know it's a controversial take. Kaufman was more exciting for sure but I think Sankey was a tougher runner.dnc said:
I was with you until the last line.He_Needs_More_Time said:He's gone and I think he was better than Polk. Polk was a stud but Sankey could bust off longer runs than Polk while still being able to grind out the tough yards.
Sankey is good out the backfield catching passes and is a good blocker. He is what you would call a "complete" back with no injury history.
He'll go in the top 2 rounds and he's as good as gone. He'll probably have a good NFL career something we haven't seen from our RB's other than Dillon.
I think he's the 2nd best back we've had other than Dillon in the last 30 years. Yes I would take him over Nip(or is it Nap?).
Sankey was better in the RZ than Kaufman too. I give Sankey the slight nod because his OL's were about 100 times worse than what Kaufman had.
-
Love the Polk/Sankey debate, but let's get to what really matters. Sark has been blessed with two exceptional talents (in the college football world) back to back, who will both play on Sundays, and has never produced shit with either one of them. Literally two of the 5 or 6 best backs in the history of the program, back to back, and has accomplished absofuckinglootly NOTHING with them.
That's a fucking shame. I really hate Sark. Really. -
And one of the 5 best QBs of the past 30+ years, at least.Swaye said:Love the Polk/Sankey debate, but let's get to what really matters. Sark has been blessed with two exceptional talents (in the college football world) back to back, who will both play on Sundays, and has never produced shit with either one of them. Literally two of the 5 or 6 best backs in the history of the program, back to back, and has accomplished absofuckinglootly NOTHING with them.
That's a fucking shame. I really hate Sark. Really.
OL, DL, ST, and coaching matter.
-
We can argue about Locker all we want but to have Locker-Price back to back at Qb with Polk-Sankey back to back at RB is as good of a QB-RB combo back to back that we've ever had.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
And one of the 5 best QBs of the past 30+ years, at least.Swaye said:Love the Polk/Sankey debate, but let's get to what really matters. Sark has been blessed with two exceptional talents (in the college football world) back to back, who will both play on Sundays, and has never produced shit with either one of them. Literally two of the 5 or 6 best backs in the history of the program, back to back, and has accomplished absofuckinglootly NOTHING with them.
That's a fucking shame. I really hate Sark. Really.
OL, DL, ST, and coaching matter.
Yet he couldn't do shit with it. So what's going to happen next year when he does have that all world RB? I think Miles someday at QB will be good but next year will have some growing pains as well which is what UCLA is experiencing right now with Brett Hundley. -
Ranked last in all of FBS in penalties and penalty yardage doesn't matter either.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
And one of the 5 best QBs of the past 30+ years, at least.Swaye said:Love the Polk/Sankey debate, but let's get to what really matters. Sark has been blessed with two exceptional talents (in the college football world) back to back, who will both play on Sundays, and has never produced shit with either one of them. Literally two of the 5 or 6 best backs in the history of the program, back to back, and has accomplished absofuckinglootly NOTHING with them.
That's a fucking shame. I really hate Sark. Really.
OL, DL, ST, and coaching matter.
-
that's an overrated statisticMisterEm said:
Ranked last in all of FBS in penalties and penalty yardage doesn't matter either.TierbsHsotBoobs said:
And one of the 5 best QBs of the past 30+ years, at least.Swaye said:Love the Polk/Sankey debate, but let's get to what really matters. Sark has been blessed with two exceptional talents (in the college football world) back to back, who will both play on Sundays, and has never produced shit with either one of them. Literally two of the 5 or 6 best backs in the history of the program, back to back, and has accomplished absofuckinglootly NOTHING with them.
That's a fucking shame. I really hate Sark. Really.
OL, DL, ST, and coaching matter.
![[Deleted User]](https://wb.vanillicon.com/b14605887e2b6b59902271a0095c9265_100.png)
