JC Shurburtt: Five for '14: Big Ten running backs (4- David Cobb, Minnesota)

BleedGopher

Well-known member
Joined
Nov 11, 2008
Messages
61,972
Reaction score
18,166
Points
113
per Shurburtt:

4- David Cobb, Minnesota

If Abdullah is a reason to recruit Alabama, Cobb is a reason to recruit Texas. The Golden Gophers plucked the 5-foot-11, 230-pounder out of Ellison High in Killeen in the 2011 cycle and he rushed for 1,202 yards and seven touchdowns last season as Minnesota reached a bowl in Year 2 of the Jerry Kill era. Cobb is a power back no doubt, but in the later months of the year in Minneapolis a guy like this gives you a tremendous advantage. He’s an NFL-style plowhorse, too.

http://247sports.com/Article/Top-five-Big-Ten-running-backs-for-the-2014-season-29438539

Go Gophers!!
 

That's where I would put Cobbs. He has shown the ability to get positive yards consistently and is very durable. Definitely top five in the conference.
 

Cobb fits well at #4. We have #5 in Maroon and Gold too. Nebraska may be the West favorite, but the Gophers will win it. Leidner and the OL will stand out.
 

I thought last year was Kill's third year.

he rushed for 1,202 yards and seven touchdowns last season as Minnesota reached a bowl in Year 2 of the Jerry Kill era.
 




It's amazing how lazy they can be. He clearly had to look up Cobb's stats, why not just look up the Kill's year by year results? 2nd bowl in year 3 of the Kill era.

Or it's simply not really that big of a deal with pretty limited consequences if an innocent mistake is made and thus most rational people would give them a pass. Why don't you send me all your correspondence from your employer so we can see if you've ever made an error or potentially even a type-o (the three is next to the two on a keyboard). But you're probably right, it's just stupid, lazy journalists that when they're not being stupid and lazy conspire to denigrate our program.
 

Or it's simply not really that big of a deal with pretty limited consequences if an innocent mistake is made and thus most rational people would give them a pass. Why don't you send me all your correspondence from your employer so we can see if you've ever made an error or potentially even a type-o (the three is next to the two on a keyboard). But you're probably right, it's just stupid, lazy journalists that when they're not being stupid and lazy conspire to denigrate our program.

Being a good journalist means not making stupid mistakes.
 




Being a good journalist means not making stupid mistakes.
On top of that, every semi-competent journalist won't publish an article without running it by an editor, or at the very least, a proofreader.
 




Top Bottom