Richard "Fig" Newton, 3* 2018 RB, Palmdale, CA (COMMITTED)
Comments
-
Bingo. Get good players. That is literally it.RoadDawg55 said:
The OL plays a much bigger part in wearing a defense down than a RB.BallzDeep said:
I would consider a big back a RB that's 215+, a medium back is 200-215, and a small back less than 200. The purpose is having a big motherfucker that can break tackles, get yards after contact, and wear down defenses so that your team can finish strong in the fourth quarter against a defense that's tired of tackling a big motherfucker. But no I'm sure your right and every NFL coach is wrong and every college coach winning national championships is wrong. You guys are right. Big backs don't matter. What was I thinking.Tequilla said:The big back argument is vastly overrated to me as what is a big back and what's the purpose of one?
As with most things, all things being equal you take the size ... but I'd take talent ahead of size
Nobody has anything against power backs, but the real point is to get good RB's. It's not a hard concept to grasp.
Should we pass on Salvon, Myles, McGrew, Sankey type players because they aren't big backs (whatever the fuck that means)?
Good big backs are good because they are good at football, if big back was really crucial we should just start having Greg Gaines run straight ahead and tire out the defense. -
CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:RoadDawg55 said:
The OL plays a much bigger part in wearing a defense down than a RB.BallzDeep said:
I would consider a big back a RB that's 215+, a medium back is 200-215, and a small back less than 200. The purpose is having a big motherfucker that can break tackles, get yards after contact, and wear down defenses so that your team can finish strong in the fourth quarter against a defense that's tired of tackling a big motherfucker. But no I'm sure your right and every NFL coach is wrong and every college coach winning national championships is wrong. You guys are right. Big backs don't matter. What was I thinking.Tequilla said:The big back argument is vastly overrated to me as what is a big back and what's the purpose of one?
As with most things, all things being equal you take the size ... but I'd take talent ahead of size
Nobody has anything against power backs, but the real point is to get good RB's. It's not a hard concept to grasp.Bingo. Get good players. That is literally it.we should just start having Greg Gaines run straight ahead and tire out the defense.
Should we pass on Salvon, Myles, McGrew, Sankey type players because they aren't big backs (whatever the fuck that means)?
Good big backs are good because they are good at football, if big back was really crucial -
I was just going to say, the more I think about it, the more I like this idea...GrundleStiltzkin said:CokeGreaterThanPepsi said:RoadDawg55 said:
The OL plays a much bigger part in wearing a defense down than a RB.BallzDeep said:
I would consider a big back a RB that's 215+, a medium back is 200-215, and a small back less than 200. The purpose is having a big motherfucker that can break tackles, get yards after contact, and wear down defenses so that your team can finish strong in the fourth quarter against a defense that's tired of tackling a big motherfucker. But no I'm sure your right and every NFL coach is wrong and every college coach winning national championships is wrong. You guys are right. Big backs don't matter. What was I thinking.Tequilla said:The big back argument is vastly overrated to me as what is a big back and what's the purpose of one?
As with most things, all things being equal you take the size ... but I'd take talent ahead of size
Nobody has anything against power backs, but the real point is to get good RB's. It's not a hard concept to grasp.Bingo. Get good players. That is literally it.we should just start having Greg Gaines run straight ahead and tire out the defense.
Should we pass on Salvon, Myles, McGrew, Sankey type players because they aren't big backs (whatever the fuck that means)?
Good big backs are good because they are good at football, if big back was really crucial -
I was going to argue then realized Bama lost the finalAIRWOLF said:
Last January.BallzDeep said:
When was the last time you saw a team win the national championship without using a power back?Dennis_DeYoung said:
My god, not "power back" bullshit. Eeeesh.BallzDeep said:
Brown is 220 lbs. He's a power back. He'll never be a speed guy but when you need a RB to get you five yards a carry against a tough defense Brown could be that guy. You're right about Newton. He's 180 lbs soaking wet. I'm tired of these tiny ass RB's. They're good for the most part in the Pac-12 but we need big backs to beat the big boys.priapism said:Newton and Brown look like future DBs to me. They lack a step or 2 in speed to be serious contenders at RB in the Pac. They have the right frames for DBs tho. Brown looks like he has a step on Newton. Lowe would make for a better RB than them in this class.
Also in 2013, when Florida State won it all.
Florida 2008 and 2006. Texas 2005.
Terrible argument. -
Thread/GrundleStiltzkin said:We? already have a big, powerful back. His name is @PostGameOrangeSlices
-
My point is that he's 220 and by your definition a big backBallzDeep said:
Big back in terms of size, yes. Power back in terms of physicality, no. He's more of a finesse back which is why he's a 3rd string back up and the starter is 250 lb Feast Mode.Tequilla said:
Do you consider CJ Prosise a big back?BallzDeep said:
I would consider a big back a RB that's 215+, a medium back is 200-215, and a small back less than 200. The purpose is having a big motherfucker that can break tackles, get yards after contact, and wear down defenses so that your team can finish strong in the fourth quarter against a defense that's tired of tackling a big motherfucker. But no I'm sure your right and every NFL coach is wrong and every college coach winning national championships is wrong. You guys are right. Big backs don't matter. What was I thinking.Tequilla said:The big back argument is vastly overrated to me as what is a big back and what's the purpose of one?
As with most things, all things being equal you take the size ... but I'd take talent ahead of size
Scarborough at 235+ is a big back
15 lbs for a RB is a big deal -
How many elite power backs are there though? The few out there are all going to USC or SEC schools, they're not coming to fucking Washington. I think its just a lot easier to find smaller backs, and its not worth sacrificing the talent difference to go with the bigger back. Bo Scarbroughs don't grow on trees, especially not on the west coast.BallzDeep said:
No shit Sherlock. I want big backs that are also good.RoadDawg55 said:
The OL plays a much bigger part in wearing a defense down than a RB.BallzDeep said:
I would consider a big back a RB that's 215+, a medium back is 200-215, and a small back less than 200. The purpose is having a big motherfucker that can break tackles, get yards after contact, and wear down defenses so that your team can finish strong in the fourth quarter against a defense that's tired of tackling a big motherfucker. But no I'm sure your right and every NFL coach is wrong and every college coach winning national championships is wrong. You guys are right. Big backs don't matter. What was I thinking.Tequilla said:The big back argument is vastly overrated to me as what is a big back and what's the purpose of one?
As with most things, all things being equal you take the size ... but I'd take talent ahead of size
Nobody has anything against power backs, but the real point is to get good RB's. It's not a hard concept to grasp. -
Somehow I'm not the dumbest fuck in this thread.
-
In the 2015 class UW went after both Chris Warren and Myles Gaskin. Warren was the higher rated recruit and undeniably a "power back" at 6'3 240. His highlights were more him just running over people while Gaskin's showcased his vision and elusiveness a bit more. I think everyone on this bored would rather have Gaskin than Warren and wouldn't think twice about it.
-
You'd rather have Chris Warren than Myles Gaskin. Your a fucking moron.BallzDeep said:
FUCK NO! Warren is a fucking beast! I would trade him for Gaskin in a heart beat. Congratulations, you just won Doog of the year with that one.NEsnake12 said:In the 2015 class UW went after both Chris Warren and Myles Gaskin. Warren was the higher rated recruit and undeniably a "power back" at 6'3 240. His highlights were more him just running over people while Gaskin's showcased his vision and elusiveness a bit more. I think everyone on this bored would rather have Gaskin than Warren and wouldn't think twice about it.
Your opinions will no longer be needed.
TYFYS, but WDWYA.
