Parso doesn't need you to speak for him. His silence is enough for me to know that he knows he's wrong on this point. Semantics aside, if you still disagree with my rock solid points, ask Les on his radio show. Every coach dreams of a versatile group of RBs that can be substituted frequently to maintain T.O.P. and keep the other team's offense off the field. It makes you "Les" predictable, pun intended, and "Les" susceptible to injuries. An amazing evidence of this is the Bowden article on statistics this past April 12th. Did you know that LSU was # 1 overall. Did you know what categories LSU is near the top in? Again, it's all about Turnovers when we're talking :crystal: Look at the statistics and get back with me. Again, for me, seeing Keiland Williams (gonna play Sundays) sitting his butt on the bench for a fumble, was all I needed to see.
I think you are getting confused with your own semantics. No one said Les Miles would not want anything other than a stable of RBs for obvious reasons. Parso and others have said Miles and staff will look to find the one main leader of the group to rely on the most next year from that stable with the other backs playing key roles that you speak of. For instance, last year many thought a stable with equal carries would be the center of our running game. However, Hester emerged as the guy in the front with a majority of the touches. So are you saying that if one guy emerges as a key weapon who can not be denied the touches we need to win, that Miles would just keep the touches relatively equal even though we have a guy who will give us the best chance to win?:huh: If one emerges from the pack, that does not mean we will not use the rest of the backs to keep the unpredictibility and present different wrinkles. Most think the top 3 or 4 RBs will play key roles and get their fair share of touches as I do. So you are basically saying the same thing but lacking the depth to explain it. BTW, I am not speaking for Parso, I am speaking to you.
