According to reports coming out of practice, it looks like Scott has been taking the most snaps with the 1st team & may be a starter. I thought this was a good time to bring this discussion of RB by committee (not the definition) back up. Here's how I see our RBs strengths & weaknesses. Keiland strengths - fast, great at bouncing outside and finding holes. Weaknesses - breaking tackles, blocking, picking up blitzes. Scott strengths - powerful, can break tackles, better at picking up blitzes than Keiland or Murphy. Weaknesses - not great speed for going to the corner or into the secondary, struggled with finding the hole last year and reading defenses. Murphy strenghts - shifty/great in the open field, very fast feet for hitting the hole. Weaknesses - picking up blitzes, powering through defenders (speculation at this point). Hester strengths - dependable, picking up blitzes, blocking, hits the hole fast & hard, great out of the backfield. Weaknesses - not the fastest, shiftiest, or most powerful. Both Keiland and Scott have been quoted as saying that our offense will use many of the backs, and it will be based on what each one is best at. If Scott has improved on his ability to find & hit the hole, I like having a powerful RB as a starter to wear down defenses. And according a quote from Scott himself in a recent Rivals article, this has been the main thing he has improved on. Keiland's speed can be deadly, but requires a strong OLine performance (unless he improves on breaking tackles), I think that makes him a prime candidate for taking advantage of tired legs late in the game. Add in Murphy on the sweep for some big play potential, and Hester on 3rd & long.
great post. how did it kill us? we went 11-2 and finished up #3. can you elaborate? seriously, i don't get it. another great post.
None of these backs has yet shown the soft hands or the ability to get open for passes. This gives Hester more PT because he can run, catch, or block equally well. But Hester will be gone next year and the young backs must get into the spread offense passing game. The one who does it first may find himself getting 20 carries a game.
losses were early in the season when jv and ab were basically getting kw's rushes. sure looked like kw was a much better back last year than jv and ab, so perhaps with kw all year 14-0. my 2c is that it should be exclusively jh and kw at rb and possibly exclusively jh at fb and kw at rb (assuming the drop off in LB blocking between jh and jordan/johnson isnt much). cannot overestimate the value of jh. picking up blitzes is invaluable and i assume he is by far the best on the team given his experience. he is definately a strong and fast enough runner not to hurt you, so rely on him until the difference between jh and the other rbs blocking is less than the difference in their playmaking abilities. until lsu gets a feel for how good the O will be this season (specifically, the OL and lafell) you cant afford many turnovers. especially with jh's superior catching skills available for the diverse crowton O, i expect heavy jh to be on the field for 80-90% of the plays while the outcome is still to be determined. at the very least, the will use him as a safety blanket if they try out kw early and he screws up too much. of course the other philosophy would be to play the young guys if you are confident theyll hit some home runs---those make up for most mistakes. and this is especially more feasible with a smothering D. i cant wait to find out.
Coach's don't run plays with the mindset that they are going to fail. If AB or JV break one open for a score then the play calling is brilliant. The Florida game had nothing to do with us running the ball with AB and JV. The whole team was just flat.
RBBC is far less problematic in college than in the pros. Do you really think USC isn't going to use a RBBC, what with 8 or so studs on the roster? Who, exactly, do you not want touching the ball for LSU out of the backfield (assuming you don't like the RBBC concept, which seems to be a fair assumption)? KW? Charles Scott, whose been running w/ the ones in recent practices? What, no carries for white boy supa star at the FB position? I, for one, want all 3 of those guys getting theirs each and every Saturday this fall. We'd be a worse team if we didn't see a RBBC.
While I agree that in the "new age" (if you will) method for using running backs where you either split time (i.e. DD and Toefield...Addai and Vincent...Addai and Alley and/or even at the pro level with Marion Barber and Julius Jones, etc.) or have roles defined for them, I wouldn't think Scott to be best suited for 3rd downs. If view a 3rd down back to have above average ability in the passing game as a receiver, and by that definition, Murphy better fits that mold. Scott is more of a north/south runner like Alley was (when Alley was healthy), Murphy is more of a Kevin Faulk "break-defender's-ankles" type and Keiland might be a good combination of both. I would like to see Murphy's role to be the 3rd down specialist. Scott to be the short-yardage guy and Keiland to be the 1st and 2nd down back. Then, depending on the opponent, any of the 3 could be the focal point in the offensive scheme for that particular week. So, I'm not exactly against RB by committee if you gameplan to one of the back's strengths for a particular week and stick with him as the primary runner until it's just not effective...I'm just against watching a game where KW might be having a good game, but for no lodgical explanation (i.e. he's not hurt or he's not tired) , Scott or Murphy enter the game for extended periods/drives. But I'm ok with subbing either of the 2 remaining backs that are on the sideline when whomever is in the game needs a breather.
Did you watch those two games? It wasn"t our running game that cost us. AU was a screwjob by the refs that we still had a chance to win if JR would have thrown it into the endzone instead of the ten yard line to CD and hope he could make a play. And the UF game was the whole team looking like they were scared. I mean JR looked like brady quinn when he played us with a fumble inside the 1 yrd line and three interceptions. I would say thats what killed us in those two games not our run game. Dont get me wrong i like JR but to be honest if he would of played better in those two games then we might have won.
Absolutely wrong. If he had thrown it in the endzone, it would've been intercepted, why cant people get that?? Auburn lined up all their secondary in the endzone, so that was the only chance (that Buster breaks the tackle and get into the endzone). Not to mention the O-line was horrible in that game, no running game at all and no pass protection. The Florida game, you must be kidding me. Most of the INTs came in desperation, just flinging it in the 4th quarter to make something happen against a very good defense. Like the Auburn game, there was no running game and no pass protection. And about the fumbles snap, it really bothers me when people keep blaming Russell for it although the Center ADMITTED it was HIS fault. Got that? And I dont think the QB can do anything when he's on the bench most of the time (fumbled punt, fumbled KO). Sorry but it really bothers me when you blame 2 crappy games solely on the QB.
