For those asking if "Superback" is still a thing...
- Thread starter DkeCat
- Start date
Scale of (lowest) 1-10 (highest), how believable are the weights shown here on this roster? I ask because, if they’re fairly accurate, there are some disappointing numbers in terms of players having gained the necessary good weight to be effective at their positions in the B1G.
NU is typically a little more forthcoming on rosters than most.
That said, the "heavy mass" part of lifting usually happens between spring ball and fall practice. End of season through spring ball is more recovery/explosiveness.
Why does it still say superbacks next to Bob Hefner’s name? Is he coaching an empty room?!?
Interesting list of early enrollees: 2 DT's (Butler, Edwards, total weight 630 lbs), DE Cameron, OL Priebe and Wrather, QB Richardson, TE Welcing. It seems both Butler and Edwards might have a chance at meaningful playing time on the interior DL. And the competition at QB will be pretty intense.
Get those big guys to the training table early and their 4 games might be more likely to turn into 8-10.
Only three Juniors and ZERO seniors on the OL. Doesn't bode well. Would be nice to pick up a grad transfer there.
Good to see that Mr Fitzgerald is moving forward from his previous actions of ill repute. Insisting on the dopey superback position left the offense undefined and playing 10 against 11. Not sure if Fitz insisted upon it or if McCall's High School mentality created the monster, but either way, GOOD RIDDANCE! Sheesh
Hopefully, we can have a QB that can actually be productive this year and win more than 1 game. I'm still thinking 6 games and a bowl but strictly due to the awful schedule. I mean, I know we can't take even the sisters of the poor for granted but we are fans so I'm circling wins against all of the teams that stink worse than us.
Yeah, that Drake Dunsmore guy was a loser. Same with Danny Vitale. And Cam Green. Zero production from those guys.
Another Turk gem.
Got Dickerson to the NFL as well... BAH! What a worthless position!
IMO the position itself was really exciting and many memorable plays resulted. The thing only a gifted offensive mind could discern is if the offense as a whole was more or less effective with a super back mixed into the play calling instead of consistently having a more traditional TE position.
There was one season when Vitale stayed in to block way more than I thought was usual. Gifted athlete that he is, he did a good job but as a TE he was a little undersized.
If you look at the passing numbers in the years when we had two QB's drafted, they were not that impressive relative to the QB talent. We complained mostly about the OL. Maybe the OL would have been more effective if the playbook was dedicated to a scheme with a pure TE. Road not traveled.
Turk is right. Once we went power running, pur SBs were simply not productive. Even Dickerson was less productive than he could have been used elsewhere. He is NFL but his progress was limited as a SB and crushed his draft position.
That argument is a two edged sword. Last year was crap and we had guys who studied a play book that was designed for and included plays for a "Superback", ie. a smaller, quicker tight end who had to block and know more passing routes and different blocking assignments than a typical TE. They may have been more prototypical TEs than the typical SB of the last 10 years at NU, yet Superback role playing all the same.
The thing of it is you can't say that schemes don't matter but do matter at the same time. I've said before I enjoyed the SB position but most conventional wisdom sticks with a prototypical TE.
Typical NU sports, they screwed up the OL. Slater is a SR, as are Vogel and Urban.
Considering Bajakian coached arguably THE “prototypical modern TE” in Travis Kelce, I think conventional wisdom would say he tailors the offense to his playmakers. The amount the TE stays in-line or moves will depend on who is getting the ball and how the offense is trying to best make that happen on a given play, drive, game, or season.
Sidebar: The name of the position means nothing; sorry Willy.
Last edited:
He’s still in HS. just finishing up basketball season and then playing baseball, I believe.
first time commenter here, but GD was as much of a TE as they come. If you look at the tape, he was an in-line blocker as much as he was a receiver. Probably more versatile than most, but he was used as much in run plays as he was in the passing game. He probably fits in more with Bajakian’s description.
Yea but my point was that he was less productive than he could have been and the position was less productive than maybe another wr or a true TE.
Dont know, maybe G wasnt capable but I felt he was a great talent that could have been productive at OSU, Alabama, etc but couldnt get 900 yards and 10 TDs over a career over here.
The broad picture though, with the power running offense, the SB was killing us and the offense was routinely ranked avg of #100.
Gone were the days of a SB (undersized TE) contributing in a more competitive offense.
Either put in a WR or a fully equipped TE....and thats exactly what our new OC did.
When I went to graduate school, Carnegie Mellon's business school gave a degree called a Master of Science in Industrial Administration. Now, the school was still considered amongst the top B schools, and the degree was an MBA's exact equal, but it always necessitated a parenthetical (MBA) when explaining to others. Important "others", such as recruiters. Finally, David Tepper donated a ton of money and forced them to call it an MBA. It's always been an MBA, with, as Turk put it, a "dopey" name. Likewise the superback. Just because we had numerous stars at the position that were, for all intents and purposes, a tight end, doesn't mean the name/position wasn't dumb. Tell me, Did Dickerson ever carry the ball from scrimmage? Was anyone ever more of a prototype tight end than him?
It was a dumb name, dumb idea, that had no advantages, and just because we had a few studs that overcame it, effectively playing as tight ends, doesn't change it's "dopeyness".
Haven't seen Wicker in a while, so someone has to say "Turk is right". good riddance.
It was a dumb name, dumb idea, that had no advantages, and just because we had a few studs that overcame it, effectively playing as tight ends, doesn't change it's "dopeyness".
Haven't seen Wicker in a while, so someone has to say "Turk is right". good riddance.
He was a “true TE.” Nomenclature made exactly zero difference.
no difference to him. maybe no difference to nearly everyone. But - put yourself back to being a 16 or 17 year old, highly sought. PF comes into your living room and says he wants you to play superback, and you think "wtf?" with a puzzled look on your face and PF starts to say something like "it's a hybrid FB/TE blah blah" and you still think "wtf, I don't want to play FB" and the two of you finally agree that it is essentially a tight end that occasionally is a blocking back or splits wide.
That is a lot of nonsense instead of just saying "tight end". It's a little thing, perhaps nothing. but since our - um - superbacks had zero production last year, there seems to be no benefit to this unnecessary moniker.
You really think Fitz and the staff are that dumb?
Fitz: "It essentially means we think you're a big athlete who we can move around the formation and get the ball in lots of ways. It's worked out pretty nicely and we've put a bunch of guys in the NFL."
Kid: "Sweet!"
That's literally the entire interaction.
I love the fact you are still trying to fight this - feels like when I talk to my 2-year-old and try to reason with her. Just has no effect.
Similar threads
