FB: Ohio Athletic Conference

[HScoach]

Sigh.   I go away for a short time and people are forgetting about the backfield that had a Gagliardi winner playing fullback for another Gagliardi winner at tailback?   

Dan Pugh and Chuck Moore.

End of discussion.

[BashDad]

Again - 1 game - but I would put a backfield of Scott, Mitchell, Johnson and Nehmeth against any of the previous. No one is going to give you Kmic or Moore numbers but top to bottom it is a better group.

Yeah, but what about #2-#5 -- let's call Emma. EMMA! Come do your thing.

[BashDad]

Again - 1 game - but I would put a backfield of Scott, Mitchell, Johnson and Nehmeth against any of the previous. No one is going to give you Kmic or Moore numbers but top to bottom it is a better group.

I think you are in the vast minority of folks who would elect to play a game with even four all-conference-ish running backs instead of one All-American. Hell, I'd take 2003 Wooster's backfield over your current one.

[Desertraider]

Sigh.   I go away for a short time and people are forgetting about the backfield that had a Gagliardi winner playing fullback for another Gagliardi winner at tailback?   

Dan Pugh and Chuck Moore.

End of discussion.

No one forgot - I even have them in my post. But given that Mount has 4 (I would say 5) solid go to backs - top to bottom I would take that. For the sake of argument - sure I would prefer a backfield of Moore, Pugh, Kmic, Micheli (or Burke) and Russ Kring (the way back machine for that one) - but to have 5 legit options....most schools don't have that.

[Desertraider]

Again - 1 game - but I would put a backfield of Scott, Mitchell, Johnson and Nehmeth against any of the previous. No one is going to give you Kmic or Moore numbers but top to bottom it is a better group.

I think you are in the vast minority of folks who would elect to play a game with even four all-conference-ish running backs instead of one All-American. Hell, I'd take 2003 Wooster's backfield over your current one.

You can have 'em...literally. That group got you to 4-3 in conference.

Scratch that - that "group" was Tony Sutton. He had 71% of the teams rushing yards and 77% of rushing TDs. Sutton was great - no question - but to quote your other post:
"What about #2-#5?" Other teams have had "a great one" - but balance wins championships. I would take Mounts current backs ahead of 2003 Wooster - period.

[wally_wabash]

or guys that have great potential (germany woods) but for some reason it doesn't pan out.

I'm not sure this is quite right.  Germany Woods was an All-American player before he went to Mount Union so his potential wasn't really potential anymore- he was a known quantity.  Ricardo Johnson has potential.  We'll see how that pans out, to use the parlance.  Germany Woods was a stud who couldn't have vanished more entirely if he went into witness protection.  That's probably the single weirdest thing that I've seen happen in D3 in 20 years. 

Other teams have had "a great one" - but balance wins championships. I would take Mounts current backs ahead of 2003 Wooster - period.

Probably worth mentioning that since the last really "great one" from Mount Union (Nate Kmic), the Raiders have won one championship.  That's one more than pretty much all of the rest of us, but that Nat'l championship win percentage pre and post Kmic don't really help your case here. 

[Desertraider]

or guys that have great potential (germany woods) but for some reason it doesn't pan out.

I'm not sure this is quite right.  Germany Woods was an All-American player before he went to Mount Union so his potential wasn't really potential anymore- he was a known quantity.  Ricardo Johnson has potential.  We'll see how that pans out, to use the parlance.  Germany Woods was a stud who couldn't have vanished more entirely if he went into witness protection.  That's probably the single weirdest thing that I've seen happen in D3 in 20 years.

See your point but I view it as he arrived at Mount with great potential. Not sound "Mount-ier that thou" but what he did somewhere else didn't matter the moment he donned the Purple. Others stated at the time 'if he can do at Mount what he did at Berg..." He didn't live up to his potential - for whatever reason. I think it was acombination of sitting out so long and then coming into a new system where he had earn reps. Whatever it was, I agree it was perhaps the weirdest thing I have ever seen.

[BashDad]

Again - 1 game - but I would put a backfield of Scott, Mitchell, Johnson and Nehmeth against any of the previous. No one is going to give you Kmic or Moore numbers but top to bottom it is a better group.

I think you are in the vast minority of folks who would elect to play a game with even four all-conference-ish running backs instead of one All-American. Hell, I'd take 2003 Wooster's backfield over your current one.

You can have 'em...literally. That group got you to 4-3 in conference.

Scratch that - that "group" was Tony Sutton. He had 71% of the teams rushing yards and 77% of rushing TDs. Sutton was great - no question - but to quote your other post:
"What about #2-#5?" Other teams have had "a great one" - but balance wins championships. I would take Mounts current backs ahead of 2003 Wooster - period.

Just to be clear -- If I'm offering you Tony Sutton (or Pugh or Kmic or Blake Elliot or Coppage) in exchange for, say, three of your current dudes, you're all no deal?

[BashDad]

Has a team won a national championship in the D3.com era without either their QB or their RB being an All American?

[02 Warhawk]

Has a team won a national championship in the D3.com era without either their QB or their RB being an All American?

UWW 2013

(But Behrendt did go onto win 2nd team all american in 2014...but not 2013)

[Desertraider]

Has a team won a national championship in the D3.com era without either their QB or their RB being an All American?

Probably not. But have the all-american QBs or RBs all won national championships? On you other point - I would take this GROUP over Tony Sutton, Elliot, Coppage because I think that BJ will give numbers similar to all of them BECAUSE of the other 4. Kmic is Kmic. But every Mount fan (anyone who doesn't admit this is lying) worried about what would happen if Kmic went down with an injury. Maybe not as a Freshman, but when he got to Soph-Senior years and he was the running attack. I don't want to ever be that dependant on a single player. I would take Moore and Pugh over Kmic simply because if one went down, you have the other.

[02 Warhawk]

Since the Coppage and Beaver era, UWW hasn't had one great RB, but rather 2 or 3 really good backs each year since those two graduated.

It's hard to make the argument on having one great back or 2-3 really good backs by committee. Both have been successful for UWW.

[BashDad]

Has a team won a national championship in the D3.com era without either their QB or their RB being an All American?

Probably not. But have the all-american QBs or RBs all won national championships? On you other point - I would take this GROUP over Tony Sutton, Elliot, Coppage because I think that BJ will give numbers similar to all of them BECAUSE of the other 4. Kmic is Kmic. But every Mount fan (anyone who doesn't admit this is lying) worried about what would happen if Kmic went down with an injury. Maybe not as a Freshman, but when he got to Soph-Senior years and he was the running attack. I don't want to ever be that dependant on a single player. I would take Moore and Pugh over Kmic simply because if one went down, you have the other.

It's happened twice: 2005 and 2013.

And of course you would take Moore and Pugh over Kmic. I'm not asking that.

[BashDad]

Kmic is Kmic. But every Mount fan (anyone who doesn't admit this is lying) worried about what would happen if Kmic went down with an injury.

Well, sure -- anything to not be worried.

Eye roll.

[Desertraider]

Has a team won a national championship in the D3.com era without either their QB or their RB being an All American?

Probably not. But have the all-american QBs or RBs all won national championships? On you other point - I would take this GROUP over Tony Sutton, Elliot, Coppage because I think that BJ will give numbers similar to all of them BECAUSE of the other 4. Kmic is Kmic. But every Mount fan (anyone who doesn't admit this is lying) worried about what would happen if Kmic went down with an injury. Maybe not as a Freshman, but when he got to Soph-Senior years and he was the running attack. I don't want to ever be that dependant on a single player. I would take Moore and Pugh over Kmic simply because if one went down, you have the other.

It's happened twice: 2005 and 2013.

And of course you would take Moore and Pugh over Kmic. I'm not asking that.

I know you weren't. I thought I answered your question above that point. I was simply adding that even though Kmic was the greatest RB not only at Mount, but in college football - I would still take the tandem of Pugh/Moore over him alone. I was trying to re-emphasize the point that no matter how great that one back is, RB ain't QB - and 2 are better than 1.