oGriz
Well-known member
A friend who coaches in high school had the impression that our running backs are generally about 6 feet tall. Not so I said.
Our Running Backs for 3 Select Years
2008: 6-0.5, 205 (4 RBs includes Reynolds)
2009: 5-10.4, 199 (5 RBs includes Reynolds, SO Moore, and FR Nguyen)
2013: 5-9, 191 (6 RBs includes a SR, 2 JRs, a SO, and 2 FR)
So, our current running backs are about as tall as I was many decades ago when I played at Sentinel, and obviously far faster. I did score a varsity TD as a shrimpy fullback.
Curious. We now use a pro-style offense. "Smaller, faster running backs should consider teams that run a spread offense. Pro-style offenses look for bigger running backs and those with a better balance of speed and power." --AthleticScholarships.com.
Are we loaded with short and fast RBs that are better suited to a spread offense? Or does it even matter? AZGriz suggested a "heavy set backfield" for short yardage. Maybe mix in our fullbacks more?
Our Running Backs for 3 Select Years
2008: 6-0.5, 205 (4 RBs includes Reynolds)
2009: 5-10.4, 199 (5 RBs includes Reynolds, SO Moore, and FR Nguyen)
2013: 5-9, 191 (6 RBs includes a SR, 2 JRs, a SO, and 2 FR)
So, our current running backs are about as tall as I was many decades ago when I played at Sentinel, and obviously far faster. I did score a varsity TD as a shrimpy fullback.
Curious. We now use a pro-style offense. "Smaller, faster running backs should consider teams that run a spread offense. Pro-style offenses look for bigger running backs and those with a better balance of speed and power." --AthleticScholarships.com.
Are we loaded with short and fast RBs that are better suited to a spread offense? Or does it even matter? AZGriz suggested a "heavy set backfield" for short yardage. Maybe mix in our fullbacks more?