Running backs

Donate To GopherHole


Sean Lumpkin said:
Go build a dam.
Click to expand...

I literally laughed at loud at this.


Our runningbacks are OK. I think they've both improved and they both run hard. Bennett is reliable as a 3rd down back and Eskridge is OK. I think Eskridge's numbers would be significantly better if we weren't always losing, and he does a good job at finding the endzone when we are near the goal.
 

Re: Are slow. No explosion or extra gear.

That's what she said.
 

Eskridge is a solid back. The only thing that keeps him from being special is a he lack of big-time speed, but he's fundamentally solid and reads his blocks well. Bennett catches the ball well and has a burst, but I've never thought that he reads his blocks well and that is what holds him back.

But they both work hard and contribute.
 


50PoundHead said:
Eskridge is a solid back. The only thing that keeps him from being special is a he lack of big-time speed, but he's fundamentally solid and reads his blocks well. Bennett catches the ball well and has a burst, but I've never thought that he reads his blocks well and that is what holds him back.

But they both work hard and contribute.
Click to expand...

I think you can throw lack of vision in for both of them. They both seem to have no sense of where the hole is or where the cutback lanes form.

I do agree that Eskridge has improved quite a bit, but it seems with RB's that vision is something you either have or do not. Unfortunately for the Gophers both Eskridge and Bennett seem to lack it.
 

They've both really improved.

Neither are taking up practice/prep time for our opponents.
 

Stan The Caddy said:
I think you can throw lack of vision in for both of them. They both seem to have no sense of where the hole is or where the cutback lanes form.

I do agree that Eskridge has improved quite a bit, but it seems with RB's that vision is something you either have or do not. Unfortunately for the Gophers both Eskridge and Bennett seem to lack it.
Click to expand...

I agree and have said this before. When Kirkwood was healthy we saw what a RB with vision can do.
 

I'd say Bennett and Eskridge are 'ok' backs and both have had their moments, but IMO we could definitely stand for an upgrade at the RB position. Their offensive line obviously plays a role in all that too, as we have not exactly been a powerful run blocking team this season.

One thing I've noticed is that Eskridge really needs to learn to not run backwards trying to extend a play, because that just doesn't work, even if you've got a superhuman burst of speed- which he doesn't. As a RB you've got to go forward, not in reverse. I appreciate the fact that he's trying to extend the play and make something out of nothing, but going backwards just allows the entire defense to collapse in on you, and it's just a bad idea. Sometimes discretion is the better part of valor, and you just have to take what the defense (and your offensive line) give you, even if that's just a 2 yard gain. That's certainly better than a 5 yard loss.
 




With a better O-line the past few years, this thread wouldn't exist.
 

Stan The Caddy said:
I think you can throw lack of vision in for both of them. They both seem to have no sense of where the hole is or where the cutback lanes form.

I do agree that Eskridge has improved quite a bit, but it seems with RB's that vision is something you either have or do not. Unfortunately for the Gophers both Eskridge and Bennett seem to lack it.
Click to expand...

I think Eskridge's field vision is okay, but you're right in that he lacks that innate sense that the good ones have regarding where the space for a cutback will be. Eskridge seems to read what's in front of him well enough, but his instincts don't appear to be that great.
 

I agree that they are both OK. Not as good as many of the backs here dating back to Darkins.

I dont think any of them are special, and are near the bottom of the Big Ten backs. There are not many teams any of our top three would play much on.

All that being said, I think that they are ok. Not horrible, but I dont see a ton of upside with any of them.
 



tikited said:
With a better O-line the past few years, this thread wouldn't exist.
Click to expand...

Disagree. Remember Terry Jackson III? He was not good and ran for 1300 yards in 2002 and that was credit to the o-line. I remember plenty of people questioning how good he was.

Turn the page to 2003 and Jackson ended up as the 3rd or 4th tailback (Depending on how they used Tepeh). Barber came back from injury and Maroney arrived as a freshman and TJIII was history.

So and long way of saying that Bennett and Eskridge are just like TJIII...average backs at best.
 

I couldn't disagree more. Eskridge has great vision but lacks physical skills. Bennett has more skill but limited vision. Combine them and you would have a very good back.
 

Kirkwood

What is the issue with Kirkwood? Academics? Attitude? At one point anyway, he was healthy and not playing?
 

I think they wanted to use his injury (he really was banged up) as a reason to redshirt him. It is probably a good move, he got some experience but will still have all 4 years of eligibility.

But I do agree with what a lot of posters on here have been saying, our running backs don't really seem to have very good vision. It is part of the reason why I questioned Hammock's ability as a coach in another thread. He either doesn't do a great job of teaching our backs to be patient and not run blindly or he doesn't have a great recruiting eye for the kind of kids that possess that ability. In his defense, it's really only been Eskridge and Whaley (I believe Bennett was a Mason recruit), and Eskridge has turned into an OK back. Kirkwood also seemed to have a decent vision.
 


I actually think Eskridge is too patient and I think his vision is alright. He makes the right decision, but than seems to forget that it isn't high school anymore and that the guys on defense are faster than he is.
 

Stan The Caddy said:
Disagree. Remember Terry Jackson III? He was not good and ran for 1300 yards in 2002 and that was credit to the o-line. I remember plenty of people questioning how good he was.

Turn the page to 2003 and Jackson ended up as the 3rd or 4th tailback (Depending on how they used Tepeh). Barber came back from injury and Maroney arrived as a freshman and TJIII was history.

So and long way of saying that Bennett and Eskridge are just like TJIII...average backs at best.
Click to expand...

This is what I meant in (not 100% sure if we agree or disagree). If Eskridge and Bennett had Terry Jackson's line, we wouldn't be talking about them in a negative light. I doubt anyone would be complaining that they aren't good enough with that line.

Oh, Jackson was just fine...just not good enough to beat out Barber and Maroney.
 

Tiki-

My only point was that even with an outstanding offensive line, it was obvious that Terry Jackson III was an average back at best and there were some fans voicing that opinion.
 

Stan The Caddy said:
Tiki-

My only point was that even with an outstanding offensive line, it was obvious that Terry Jackson III was an average back at best and there were some fans voicing that opinion.
Click to expand...

Cool. Sure would be nice to see Eskridge get those kind of stats though.
 


Bennett and Eskridge both have a role to play, as does Kirkwood, but we need a big back option (Gray has made that clear). This group has enough speed to get the job done. They just won't have many 70 yard runs.
 

You must log in or register to reply here.



Top Bottom