The RB situtation next year

zeket10 · Post by **zeket10** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 11:19 am

It's going to be interesting who is going to win the RB job between AT, Geter, Ransom, and Bullock. Next years team will be very deep at the spot RB.

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 12:52 pm

See LSU 2007-2008

NY-BG-FAN · Post by **NY-BG-FAN** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:05 pm

This is a great problem to have. I think AT has shown he is the man as our starting tailback. He dosen't look like an RB, but he is just so hard to defend. You never know when he could throw it, or line up as a QB. His presence gives our offense an element of surprise you otherwise wouldn't get with anyone else taking the bulk of the carries....not that the others aren't good RBs. Bottom line is, you can't argue with the results he produced this season. As far as Geter goes, I still see him as our feature back in 2009, but for now I think he's perfect as a change of pace back when AT needs a breather. If the Kent game was any indication, Geter is more than capable of being a starting RB at this level. Bullock I think fits perfectly as a 3rd down back in short yardage situations, he's bigger than Geter, but smaller than AT to ground out those tough yards. AT is also valuable in those situations in QB draw type formation. As far as Ransom goes, it's hard to fit four backs in, but I've always pictured him more as a slot reciever. Maybe I just have that play on the first drive against Minnesota where he scored stuck in my head and am going off that, but he just seems like a reciever. With the RB depth we have, I would like to see him on the field at the same time as AT/Geter/Bullock to give us as many playmaking options as possible at once.

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 1:17 pm

This is an absolutely fabulous problem. Turner, Geter and Ransom can all play WR. Turner can play QB and Bullock can play FB. What this means is that we can come out in what seems like a 2 RB set and what can actually be an empty backfield. Try defending that. I cant even imagine the headaches. Turner, Geter and Ransom can all take turns as the #1 RB and Bullock can be used to wear down defenses and run down the clock when we have leads. Conceivably we could line up With Turner at QB and these 3 other guys flanking him in some variety. Imagine defending that. Is this a wishbone or is Turner going to throw it out to Partridge or Barnes? We have an embaressment of riches at the skill positions. The only issue we have IMO, now, is who is going to be the backup QB. Thats not a huge issue either because we have Nate Brown and are recruiting other guys.

Falconfreak90 · Post by **Falconfreak90** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 2:19 pm

I can't wait to see Ransom back on the field.

rc_ziggy84 · Post by **rc_ziggy84** » Sun Jan 20, 2008 5:25 pm

Globetrotter wrote:The only issue we have IMO, now, is who is going to be the backup QB.

That's an issue maybe, but we did ok this year with Sheehan/Glaud IMO. I think the biggest issue is finding guys to block for this strong stable of running back's.

A great line can make an average running back into a heisman candidate, and likewise a bad line can make a great running back average.

For an example of the first scenario, think OSU with Antonio Pittman, Eddie George, and soon Beanie Wells. Ever heard of what the first two did in the NFL? *cricket.. cricket..* but they had/have outstanding OL's that made/make them look like superstars at OSU. Heck, I could run though some of the holes they had to run though.

Anyways, that's a bit of a tangent, but the point remains, I think our biggest issue is w/o a doubt filling the holes on the OL. Our entire offense hinges on it.

edit: ok I hadn't seen that Glaud transferred when I made this post. that's definitely a bummer and we'll have to find a #2 QB now, but that being said I still think our biggest issue is OL w/o a doubt.

footballguy51 · Post by **footballguy51** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:14 am

Globetrotter wrote:Conceivably we could line up With Turner at QB and these 3 other guys flanking him in some variety. Imagine defending that. Is this a wishbone or is Turner going to throw it out to Partridge or Barnes? We have an embaressment of riches at the skill positions.

I see one problem...how often did teams even worry about the pass from Turner? If we put Turner in at QB on a more regular basis, we might as well come out with a big sign that says, "We're going to run the ball."

BGDrew · Post by **BGDrew** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 4:28 am

And then we fake the run and pass it over their head for an easy 6. Did it a couple times this year.

daspollak · Post by **daspollak** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 7:49 am

BGDrew wrote:And then we fake the run and pass it over their head for an easy 6. Did it a couple times this year.

Should of done it in the GMAC Bowl.

footballguy51 · Post by **footballguy51** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 8:15 am

Yeah, but a couple times won't cut it. Maybe I'm just taking what you were saying the wrong way. The way I took it, you essentially said to bench TS and play AT full-time, and my reaction is welcome to the 2006 season part 2.

1987alum · Post by **1987alum** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 9:50 am

We're looking good at RB and WR (despite Charles' departure). Back up QB and the OL are the question marks.

It appears that Bullock is at a crossroads. He all but disappeared from the rotation last season and I don't think that was all due to AT's emergence as a legitimate RB threat. This spring will be pivotal for him.

We found out how important RB depth is last season, and I suspect we'll need that kind of depth again in 2008. We'll have a lot of options with AT going from RB to slot to QB, Ransom and Geter lining up in the backfield and split out, FredEx and and Corey catching, running and, of course, passing on gadget plays. Should be a lot of fun to watch!

Globetrotter · Post by **Globetrotter** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 12:01 pm

footballguy51 wrote:Yeah, but a couple times won't cut it. Maybe I'm just taking what you were saying the wrong way. The way I took it, you essentially said to bench TS and play AT full-time, and my reaction is welcome to the 2006 season part 2.

I think that Sheehan should absolutely start and his running and athletic ability are both under rated on these boards. All I am saying is that we could come out with anyone of those 4 guys and run almost anything.

MarkL · Post by **MarkL** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 1:29 pm

I still think with some training, Bullock could take over Winovich's spot. Pete's impact on the team as FB was unbelievable the past two years, and continuing that position would be very helpful. Bullock could use getting a little bit bigger if he converts to FB, but I bet he could block very well, and he runs better than Winovich did.

zeket10 · Post by **zeket10** » Mon Jan 21, 2008 3:40 pm

Globetrotter wrote:
footballguy51 wrote:Yeah, but a couple times won't cut it. Maybe I'm just taking what you were saying the wrong way. The way I took it, you essentially said to bench TS and play AT full-time, and my reaction is welcome to the 2006 season part 2.
I think that Sheehan should absolutely start and his running and athletic ability are both under rated on these boards. All I am saying is that we could come out with anyone of those 4 guys and run almost anything.

You smokin somthing? Sheehan has no running ability. He is just benefits from having the defense spread out. He even gets sacked with the offense spread out. Put Sheehan out there with 3 recievers bunch formation, and he wouldn't be able to scrambe worth squat. Put any other QB or former QB on this team in the 5 WR spread formation and they would have a field day. Anyway this post has nothing to do with Sheehan it's about the RB's.