The unofficial online home for fans of the UAB Blazers. Part of Collegiate Sports Nation (CSN).

(02-16-2013 11:32 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(02-16-2013 07:49 AM)LairDweller Wrote:  

(02-15-2013 12:57 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  From the exasperation with my concerns about our uniformly small/light weight RBs, it sounds like many are satisfied with a 4-8 record as long as their pet players get their 1339 yards of offense. Maybe you are right and we will improve to bowl eligibility and a 8-4 or 9-3 record on what we have - it just hasn't happened yet.

this might be the dumbest post ive read since somebody suggested ASW should start for the basketball team.
i get that you want a giant RB, and youve pointed it out without being really, really dumb...until this one.

nobody said we would be 9-3 on what we have...but we definitely could be 9-3 with the RBs we have. its the other side of the ball that has kept us down

The "other side of the ball" proponents might say, "If the offense didn't have so many '3 & outs', our defense would not have gotten so tired during the game." Do I want UAB to have an Eric Dickerson size player? YES, and I don't apologize for my opinion. We have had the same general physical profile RBs for the last 6 or 7 years and our records have been fairly consistently poor. Doing things the same way every year and expecting different results is said to be a sign of what? YES, UAB has problems in more areas (facilities for one) than RB, but that is what I discussed.

Eric Dickerson WAS NOT A POWER BACK. He was 6'3" 220 and ran by players not through them. He used his quickness and speed. With each post you come off and more ignorant that the last. I starting to think you are doing this on purpose. Christian Okoye, Bronko Nagurski, Jerome Bettis, Larry Csonka, Earl Campbell, John Riggins and Jim Brown were power backs. Jim Brown was only 6'2 230 but when he played players were not the size of players today

(02-16-2013 01:48 PM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(02-16-2013 11:32 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(02-16-2013 07:49 AM)LairDweller Wrote:  

(02-15-2013 12:57 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  From the exasperation with my concerns about our uniformly small/light weight RBs, it sounds like many are satisfied with a 4-8 record as long as their pet players get their 1339 yards of offense. Maybe you are right and we will improve to bowl eligibility and a 8-4 or 9-3 record on what we have - it just hasn't happened yet.

this might be the dumbest post ive read since somebody suggested ASW should start for the basketball team.
i get that you want a giant RB, and youve pointed it out without being really, really dumb...until this one.

nobody said we would be 9-3 on what we have...but we definitely could be 9-3 with the RBs we have. its the other side of the ball that has kept us down

The "other side of the ball" proponents might say, "If the offense didn't have so many '3 & outs', our defense would not have gotten so tired during the game." Do I want UAB to have an Eric Dickerson size player? YES, and I don't apologize for my opinion. We have had the same general physical profile RBs for the last 6 or 7 years and our records have been fairly consistently poor. Doing things the same way every year and expecting different results is said to be a sign of what? YES, UAB has problems in more areas (facilities for one) than RB, but that is what I discussed.

Eric Dickerson WAS NOT A POWER BACK. He was 6'3" 220 and ran by players not through them. He used his quickness and speed. With each post you come off and more ignorant that the last. I starting to think you are doing this on purpose. Christian Okoye, Bronko Nagurski, Jerome Bettis, Larry Csonka, Earl Campbell, John Riggins and Jim Brown were power backs. Jim Brown was only 6'2 230 but when he played players were not the size of players today

You are not the only one to inject something NOT SAID into the conversation and then being critical of that (never made) statement. I said I wanted "an Eric Dickerson SIZE player" - i did not mention his role - YOU DID. The main purpose of all players on a team is team victory, not individual statistics. UAB had at least one 1,000 yard rusher and one nationally ranked defensive back in number of tackles. I'm as proud of those individuals as anyone else, but I still want more "Ws" and fewer "Ls" for the TEAM, and I suggested one way that might happen. And YES, i would like to have a "power back" in line with those you suggested while we are about it.

You want to win. I get it. I want to win.

You keep harping on what was a position of strength for a bad team last year, thinking it's going to be some kind of magic bullet, rather than addressing a bad team's weaknesses.

(02-17-2013 02:09 PM)Smaug Wrote:  You want to win. I get it. I want to win.

You keep harping on what was a position of strength for a bad team last year, thinking it's going to be some kind of magic bullet, rather than addressing a bad team's weaknesses.

But if we had a running back who was 6'4", 240, we would be really good at executing 3rd and shorts. Never mind that it doesn't fit our offensive philosophy, or that UAB has so many other holes that 6'4", 240 could help fill. We would be masters of 3rd and 1, and that would be the key to a 6 game improvement.

(02-17-2013 01:52 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(02-16-2013 01:48 PM)bladhmadh Wrote:  

(02-16-2013 11:32 AM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  

(02-16-2013 07:49 AM)LairDweller Wrote:  

(02-15-2013 12:57 PM)BAMANBLAZERFAN Wrote:  From the exasperation with my concerns about our uniformly small/light weight RBs, it sounds like many are satisfied with a 4-8 record as long as their pet players get their 1339 yards of offense. Maybe you are right and we will improve to bowl eligibility and a 8-4 or 9-3 record on what we have - it just hasn't happened yet.

this might be the dumbest post ive read since somebody suggested ASW should start for the basketball team.
i get that you want a giant RB, and youve pointed it out without being really, really dumb...until this one.

nobody said we would be 9-3 on what we have...but we definitely could be 9-3 with the RBs we have. its the other side of the ball that has kept us down

The "other side of the ball" proponents might say, "If the offense didn't have so many '3 & outs', our defense would not have gotten so tired during the game." Do I want UAB to have an Eric Dickerson size player? YES, and I don't apologize for my opinion. We have had the same general physical profile RBs for the last 6 or 7 years and our records have been fairly consistently poor. Doing things the same way every year and expecting different results is said to be a sign of what? YES, UAB has problems in more areas (facilities for one) than RB, but that is what I discussed.

Eric Dickerson WAS NOT A POWER BACK. He was 6'3" 220 and ran by players not through them. He used his quickness and speed. With each post you come off and more ignorant that the last. I starting to think you are doing this on purpose. Christian Okoye, Bronko Nagurski, Jerome Bettis, Larry Csonka, Earl Campbell, John Riggins and Jim Brown were power backs. Jim Brown was only 6'2 230 but when he played players were not the size of players today

You are not the only one to inject something NOT SAID into the conversation and then being critical of that (never made) statement. I said I wanted "an Eric Dickerson SIZE player" - i did not mention his role - YOU DID. The main purpose of all players on a team is team victory, not individual statistics. UAB had at least one 1,000 yard rusher and one nationally ranked defensive back in number of tackles. I'm as proud of those individuals as anyone else, but I still want more "Ws" and fewer "Ls" for the TEAM, and I suggested one way that might happen. And YES, i would like to have a "power back" in line with those you suggested while we are about it.

A Dickerson sized player is not a typical power back. Too tall for the weight. Under 6 foot and 240 + is what you are talking about. We had a good one in Kendall Gibson but Zero waisted him

Quote:We would be masters of 3rd and 1

That would just encourage McGee to go for it on 4th-and-3 instead of 4th-and-2.

(02-18-2013 10:43 AM)58-56 Wrote:  

Quote:We would be masters of 3rd and 1

That would just encourage McGee to go for it on 4th-and-3 instead of 4th-and-2.

I guess I'm one of these new age guys, but statistically speaking, it is almost always more beneficial to go for it in these cases than not. Sometimes you are going to come out on top, and sometimes you aren't, but I am all for making the correct mathematical decision based on the current circumstances.(going for it on 4th and 2 from your 30 with a 2 point lead at 10 seconds left doesn't make sense, but in the first quarter it might) I hope more coaches start calling games this way, and the perception of when to go for it and when to punt changes.

There's one position on the field I think you go for it on 4th down pretty much regardless of other circumstances: The opponent's 30-35 yard line.

Too long for a field goal (unless you've got a great kicker) and too short to punt. Low risk. If you don't get it, you leave your opponent with decent field position, but not "Oh sweet Lord, you've cost us the game!" field position.

I don't think I'd ever fault a coach for going for it from that spot on the field.

(02-18-2013 11:20 AM)Smaug Wrote:  There's one position on the field I think you go for it on 4th down pretty much regardless of other circumstances: The opponent's 30-35 yard line.

Too long for a field goal (unless you've got a great kicker) and too short to punt. Low risk. If you don't get it, you leave your opponent with decent field position, but not "Oh sweet Lord, you've cost us the game!" field position.

I don't think I'd ever fault a coach for going for it from that spot on the field.

Right, and this has been the way the game has been played forever.

But if you read what the stat geeks are putting out, pretty much anywhere between the 25's should be fair game for a reasonable 4th down attempt.(kicking on 4th and 1 at the opponent's 25 yields a 42 yard field goal try. If you figure that is made 70% of the time, you then have to factor that against the odds of converting the 4th and 1, and the benefit of potentially getting at least an easier FG attempt, if not a touchdown) Again, numbers can not determine these decisions alone, because based on the score and the clock, these statistics will sometimes mean nothing. It is definitely a much bigger risk to play this way, especially with so many people being taught you don't do it, but statistics tend to be pretty accurate.(and if you are going to do this, you have to do it every time. It's like at the Black Jack table, if you hit on 16, you always do it; if you stay, you always stay. You mess the statistical advantage up if you try to do it half and half.) Eventually, we will get a coach/AD/GM/Owner/whoever is important in the organization to agree to doing this. I'll be interested to see how it goes. Chip Kelly does it from time to time, but even he hasn't really gone all out with this style yet.

I think it's a matter of time before we're there. Coaches are under so much pressure to win, they'll get around to turning over that stone sooner or later.

(02-17-2013 02:09 PM)Smaug Wrote:  You want to win. I get it. I want to win.

You keep harping on what was a position of strength for a bad team last year, thinking it's going to be some kind of magic bullet, rather than addressing a bad team's weaknesses.

dingdingding! We have a winner!

If I had to make a list of reasons why last season's record was as bad as it was, the running game/size and quality of the RB's would be waaaay at the bottom of the list.

Sure, we'd love to have Larry Csonka playing for us. There are very few such players, and when they come along they seldom drop as far as the bottom third of C-USA. That's just the real world.

This thread may reach hall of fame status soon.