Weist and multiple RBs.

[businesslawyer]

Guys, honestly......if we can't question or criticize the usage of McCombs exclusively, we should just ban any and all criticism of the staff on the Boneyard. We used a 168 lb RB ineffectively all year long. Williams' redshirt was wasted on 3 carries and special teams. Of course none of us know what JW would've brought to the table. But my God could he have been more ineffective than LM? Isn't it a fair question to ask whether LM would've more effective with less carries? They used a light scat back and pounded him into a line that couldn't block or create holes.

You can be a Pasqualista and still question the staff's handling of the running game.

You can criticize whatever you want Jimmy. But without question, McCombs had a good year in '10. And, with all the problems he had last year, that is one more good year than any other TB on our roster had.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

You can criticize whatever you want Jimmy. But without question, McCombs had a good year in '10. And, with all the problems he had last year, that is one more good year than any other TB on our roster had.

Nobody (or, at least me) is making the case that another RB on the roster last year was better than McCombs. It's more a question of whether the staff leveraged each players strengths effectively. In 2011 the staff could use the defense that McCombs had a good year and nobody else on the roster was worth giving carries to. Last year, completely ineffective. I almost got the sense that the staff stuck with the 2011 strategy because, well, it worked in 2011.

 

[Jimmy Serrano]

I agree. I don't think the positions are mutually exclusive. McCombs could be the best back by a wide margin, and I suspect he was at least last season, but the staff didn't use him most effectively. Aren't those two different questions really?

Yes, they are. And like I replied to BL......I don't see many folks making the argument that another back on the roster was better than LM last year.

The running game was a disaster last year. A complete and utter embarassment really. Why would you keep doing the same thing over and over again and expect a different result? Adjustments. Didn't seem like P & GDL were capable of making them last year.

 

[ZooCougar]

160 lbs pounds of running back between the tackles on a constant basis is a terrible idea. When your 160 lb running back struggles to break tackles then it's an even worse idea.

 

[Husky68]

You can criticize whatever you want Jimmy. But without question, McCombs had a good year in '10. And, with all the problems he had last year, that is one more good year than any other TB on our roster had.

If McCombs 2011 was so good where he averaged 4.2 ypc, 96 yards game and 14 yards receiving; how about Delorenzo's Temple game where he averaged 4.o ypc, 91 yards and 14 yards receiving - seems like you get that in his 1st "I'm the man" game and you have the potential for a "McCombs" 2011 type year. Can't have a good year at RB is after you show something you sit and watch the starter run into his blockers and fall down.

 

[Srqhusky]

Poor offensive line= poor running game.

 

[Jimdish255]

One game for any back is probably not a fair guage. Given their limited use (and the limitations of the offense), I still don't think we really know what they could have done. I'll take my chances with our new OC as the evaluator this time around. Didn't sound like he was coming here to fill a seat and watch when he spoke earlier this year.

 

[Husky25]

Poor offensive line= poor running game.

You forgot a variable in your equation. It should read:

Poor offensive line coaching = Poor offensive line = poor running game.

You can get a similar result by saying:
Average 1st Half Play-Calling - In-Game Adjustment = behind by end of 3rd quarter = Poor 2nd Half Performance = Poor Running Game.

Starting to see a common theme here. Luckily the person responsible for the play calling and in-game adjustments in 2012, no longer has that under his charge.

 

[Kgun7]

Guys, honestly......if we can't question or criticize the usage of McCombs exclusively, we should just ban any and all criticism of the staff on the Boneyard. We used a 168 lb RB ineffectively all year long. Williams' redshirt was wasted on 3 carries and special teams. Of course none of us know what JW would've brought to the table. But my God could he have been more ineffective than LM? Isn't it a fair question to ask whether LM would've more effective with less carries? They used a light scat back and pounded him into a line that couldn't block or create holes.

You can be a Pasqualista and still question the staff's handling of the running game.

In my opinion ... as light as McCombs is, he is built to run between the tackles. For all the pounding he took, he held up better than most backs 40 lbs heavier than him!

I wouldn't define him as quick or elusive. I think he is a slasher who can gain yardage by navigating his way through a pile. He was certainly UCONN's most effective back last year.

With that said ... I completely agree with the premise that he may have been more effective if he wasn't used so often.

I forget which game it was, but after a 45 yard run that took him from sideline to sideline by means of a hypotenuse, they kept him in the game as he gasped for air in the huddle ... and handed off to him on the very next play ... up the middle for no gain!

 

[CL82]

We used a 168 lb RB ineffectively all year long. They used a light scat back and pounded him into a line that couldn't block or create holes.

.

Yep. Mix it up a bit and LM see some daylight and does some damage.