No offense but....
- Thread starter Baseman
- Start date
devildawg
New Fish
I don't believe there is any question Mcgrew is a talent and a great weapon
The point was,its unlikely he ends up a feature tailback at this level...if he is thats great,outside of Gaskin there isn't another one on the roster.
You can minimize the 7-7 play all you want vs the highlight reel you watched on your phone...coaches from across the country get a ton of info off these passing leagues...you know UW actually holds one of their own so they can meet,greet and actually evaluate these kids for free!
I actually attended the last 2.......3 2 1....come on troll say it LOL
The point was,its unlikely he ends up a feature tailback at this level...if he is thats great,outside of Gaskin there isn't another one on the roster.
You can minimize the 7-7 play all you want vs the highlight reel you watched on your phone...coaches from across the country get a ton of info off these passing leagues...you know UW actually holds one of their own so they can meet,greet and actually evaluate these kids for free!
I actually attended the last 2.......3 2 1....come on troll say it LOL
Dennis_DeYoung
New Fish
Okay, I was going to post this earlier, but didn't get a chance to...
In general I agree with you, but you're not helping yourself with this one.
For the last two years (which shouldn't really be different than any other years) height of running backs is normally distributed around a mean of 5-10.22 and a SD of ± 1.72.
Assuming no correlation between quality and height (this is favorable to your argument), this means that about 68% of the best running backs should be between 5-8.5 and 6-0. And that only about 15% should be above 6-0 and below 5-8.5; Importantly it says that only .1% of the best backs should be below 5-7 and above 6-3.
Now, if you assume that the RBs that play correspond to the RBs recruited in height (again, favorable toward your argument), that means that the Pac-12s all time rushing leaders should be distributed evenly through those buckets.
It turns out that about 15% of the players on the top 50 list are below 5-9; and 4% (2 players) are below 5-7. This is all while there's only 1 player above 6-3 on the list.
All of this is to say that what you find is that there doesn't seem to be any particular relationship between height and top-end performance once kids get scholarships. So, McGrew's being 5-7 (or whatever he is) shouldn't concern you any more than getting a kid 6-3.5 should.
Now... this is just opinion, but... I'd like to go one step further. My guess is that many people are biased against short people for playing time, etc. and they don't get the opportunity to play unless they are particularly good.
In the end, here's the rub... there's no evidence that says that, given he was offered a scholarship by many power 5 schools, that he will be any worse than anyone else.
whatshouldicareabout
Active poster
If McGrew puts up numbers similar to Jacquizz Rodgers, I'll be happy
GrundleStiltzkin
New Fish
Okay, I was going to post this earlier, but didn't get a chance to...
In general I agree with you, but you're not helping yourself with this one.
For the last two years (which shouldn't really be different than any other years) height of running backs is normally distributed around a mean of 5-10.22 and a SD of ± 1.72.
Assuming no correlation between quality and height (this is favorable to your argument), this means that about 68% of the best running backs should be between 5-8.5 and 6-0. And that only about 15% should be above 6-0 and below 5-8.5; Importantly it says that only .1% of the best backs should be below 5-7 and above 6-3.
Now, if you assume that the RBs that play correspond to the RBs recruited in height (again, favorable toward your argument), that means that the Pac-12s all time rushing leaders should be distributed evenly through those buckets.
It turns out that about 15% of the players on the top 50 list are below 5-9; and 4% (2 players) are below 5-7. This is all while there's only 1 player above 6-3 on the list.
All of this is to say that what you find is that there doesn't seem to be any particular relationship between height and top-end performance once kids get scholarships. So, McGrew's being 5-7 (or whatever he is) shouldn't concern you any more than getting a kid 6-3.5 should.
Now... this is just opinion, but... I'd like to go one step further. My guess is that many people are biased against short people for playing time, etc. and they don't get the opportunity to play unless they are particularly good.
In the end, here's the rub... there's no evidence that says that, given he was offered a scholarship by many power 5 schools, that he will be any worse than anyone else.
PostGameOrangeSlices
Well-known poster
All you fucking fleenor types evaluating our offense seem to forget that Myles fucking Gaskin is returning next season
Yeah if McGrew gets 10 touches a game i'm good. Gaskin is too fucking good and proven to not ride all year. Sprinkle in some Pablo aka find a few ways to let him touch it in space and see what happens.
I have no faith in Smith to figure it out, but the lack of weapons excuse is not going to fly in year 3.
The OL will be better. The QB will be better. The receivers only lost Mickens and Hall (gain Ross, will be better). TE has Daniels who is on pace to earn the Marcel Reece Future Pro Bowler with Zero Collegiate Impact Award. And you have the best RB not named Freeman in the Pac.
To simplify, I see experienced beef in the trenches, a cerebral QB under center, and speed speed speed at the skill positions.
The OC in year 3 @ Washington needs to be better than average with what WE have, let alone LAST like it's been 2 years in a row.
Last edited:
NEsnake12
New Fish
I'm not worried about how tall a running back is as long as he's fucking good. McGrew is fucking good. That said, the one question with him is how does Smiff carve a role for him in an offense that already has Gaskin and Chico McClatcher.
McGrew won't be as good as Gaskin between the tackles, but he's faster and a better receiving option. But then he also won't be as good as a receiving option as Chico, and probably won't be the preferred option on the jet sweeps due to Chico having a lot more lateral quickness and elusiveness.
So it's really up to our autistic OC to figure out how to work him into the offense without sacrificing touches that would be better given to Gaskin/Chico. We'll see how that goes...
McGrew won't be as good as Gaskin between the tackles, but he's faster and a better receiving option. But then he also won't be as good as a receiving option as Chico, and probably won't be the preferred option on the jet sweeps due to Chico having a lot more lateral quickness and elusiveness.
So it's really up to our autistic OC to figure out how to work him into the offense without sacrificing touches that would be better given to Gaskin/Chico. We'll see how that goes...
Dennis_DeYoung
New Fish
You seem to be forgetting that our offensive f coordinator is coming back as well and that we had Gaskin this year.
Last edited:
PostGameOrangeSlices
Well-known poster
Everyone coming back should be getting better.
And you seem to forgot every fucking offensive play call Smith makes goes through Pete. So if you want to blame anyone, blame him. Our offense sucked mostly because we started a freshman qb with mediocre receivers.
There were some coaching staff failures (wild swede), but things got better as the year went on. I think our o-line, running game, and defense is going to be so dominant next year we could win 10 games with fucking Lundy or magna.