• Follow us on Twitter @buckeyeplanet and @bp_recruiting, like us on Facebook! Enjoy a post or article, recommend it to others! BP is only as strong as its community, and we only promote by word of mouth, so share away!
  • Consider registering! Fewer and higher quality ads, no emails you don't want, access to all the forums, download game torrents, private messages, polls, Sportsbook, etc. Even if you just want to lurk, there are a lot of good reasons to register!

2006 Running Backs Discussion

Jump to latest Follow Reply
Sort by date Sort by votes
jlb1705 said:
And of those seven games you mention in 2002, how many of those were games they were without #13 - in other words - without the threat of a consistently well-executed rushing attack? If I recall correctly, the only game out of those seven that our only decent RB played from start to finish was the scUM game. He missed the UC game to get his knee scoped, and then left the Wisky game with a stinger and didn't return until scUM.

I don't want to turn this into a Clarett thread, but what we're looking for is Clarett-esque production out of our upcoming stable of backs - right? Yes, those numbers from 2002 are inconsisent, but neither was the health of their RB that season. The rest of the time, the OSU attack was primarily a rushing attack, and when that attack was available, they scored consistently and often.
Click to expand...

Hey, you're preaching to the choir, man.
I am all in favor of a great running game, and its importance.
I was just saying that you can't use PPG as an overall comparison of two different offenses and seasons, that's all. We were a one trick pony in '02, and it showed up in the individual game scores. As you have already said yourself, when Mo C was not in there,we struggled. Not the case in '05, where we had more weapons and were more consistent game-to-game.
Next year, with an even more potent ground game, everything becomes easier for the offense in every phase. Some are bemoaning the loss of Mangold and Sims, and they will certainly be missed. But it also gets Boone on the field, and move Datish to a more natural position. Also I am excited to see Rehring get back in there as well.
 
Upvote 0
jlb1705 said:
Good call on the PPG average. I remember seeing that 2002 was a higher point total, but I forgot that this season was two games shorter than that one.

Still, the PPG is close enough to show that they can still be dynamic with a more "conservative" style.
Click to expand...

2002 also had a few more overtimes too, which probably raised our ppg by a couple

anyway back on topic

Pittman- Main back/between 20s
MoW- Sub for Pittman every 3rd/4th series
CWells inside the 20s/short yardage. A big back is nice to have when your pinned down inside the 10 (ala Joe vs scUM 04)
Haw- He has good hands and would be a great 3rd down back if he picks up the pass blocking schemes.
 
Upvote 0
I didn't read this whole thread, but I'm going to post my thoughts anyway. :p
Pittman/Wells will be interesting to watch this spring. Actually I can't wait to see how all 4 look in the spring game this year. I think Pittman has the #1 RB job locked up, but what if Wells come in and is noticeably better than Pittman? Do you let AP keep the job even if Wells is the better RB? The way I see it Haw is going to have a hell of a time seeing the field if C Wells is as good as I think he is. C Wells has more power than any of the other backs and should be used in power situations. M Well's should be limited to spread formations between the 20's. I never want to see him carry the ball in short yardage or GL situations again. Pittman is capable of doing anything, but should probably give way to C Wells in short yardage or inside the 10. It will be JT's challenge to get all 4 of these guys enough work to keep them happy. Is there any chance that Haw could take his power and great 40 time to play DB rather than RB? Haw and M Wells should probably get a look at KR and PR along side Ginn.
 
Upvote 0
You all have valid points and we can all pretty much agree Pit is the man. The question is how they stack up behind him and how many carries they get?

I would like to see the Buck's perfect the VY option play. I think CW would fit that play a little better. I would also like to see both AP and CW in the spread with a lot of movement. We did that vs ND and we kept them off gaurd. Anybody know how CW can catch the ball? I think working in all 4 backs is reallistic between the 20's. In the "red zone" I hope to see some power I, "T", or even wishbone with AP, CW and Stan White! Could be a quite a leathal combination.

Food for thought. Go back and look at Archie's numbers on TD's. He did not score an inordinate number of touchdowns. Why? He didn't get the call in the "red zone". The big guys carried the ball down there. Pete still owns rushing TD's in a season and career.:oh:
 
Upvote 0
I think that, as with any position, the returning starter (Pittman) needs to prove that it's his spot. If I were deciding, Pittman would get a small head-start on everyone, based on his previous years' results. But it would be a very small head-start that would be easily overtaken if he slacks off (even the smallest amount) during spring practice, or if someone else lights up the field.

That being said, I think that Pittman will remain the #1 back throughout his junior and senior years. The Wellses will split time throughout the 2006 season, but Chris will get 2 or 3 times as many carries as Maurice in the 2007 season. I can see Maurice being the next Maurice Hall - kick returner, but not much for results as a running back. I hope to see Haw more in the next few seasons, but that may be just wishful thinking. Maybe he and Chris Wells will split time pretty evenly when Wells is a Junior and Haw is a Senior.
 
Upvote 0
Yes the zone read. Thanks, I forgot what it was called. Yes we run it but with the addition of another horse I think it can become our bread and butter play like it was for Vince. What was our bread and butter this year?

I'm cornering myself a little. It doesn't matter. I don't want to see too much of any formation or play. Mix it all for balance. That's what killed ND. We showed the single wideout with Holmes tight and hit him for a TD. I loved it.

No doubt CW will play. I just don't see more for MW except as the slot guy etc.

What a nice problem to have!
 
Upvote 0
Man, I've read most of this thread, and I'm a bit confused.

Back on the original topic...

Well... my guess is this.

Tony Pittman is going to get 20 carries come hell or high water. Troy smith will Get 5-7 (maybe 10)

Some games we'll only need 25 to 35 carries... some games we'll need 40, (and those are likely the type of game where Troy only gets 5)

So, there are time when we'll want 15 more than we want to give Pittman.

(Not that he can't do it, Not that he doesn't want to do it... its just that there's not much reason to give him more than that.)

So... there's going to be opportunities... and I imagine the Wells twins will fight those out.

I'm guessing Beanie will get the majority of the 5-15 extra carries left. I would also guess that he would work his way into the short yardage back slot pretty quickly. (Not too much of a worry if he can't pick blitzes up if you have no intent to do anything but run the ball)

This is sort of my "first 5 game" outlook... anything can change. Also, we're changing some O-lineman around, so I'm goign to guess they'll feel more comfortable with Pittman's elusiveness and ball security early on.
 
Upvote 0
Bump for discussion.

EDIT - I decided not to merge - there was nothing meaningful in the other thread. I PM'ed him to let him know that I bumped this thread. The other thread has been moved off to never-never-land.
 
Last edited:
Upvote 0
gregorylee said:
THERE WILL BE A PLEATHER OF NEW THREADS!!!!
Click to expand...

Did somebody say Pleather?

FPH106.jpg
 
Upvote 0
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top