GT 2017= what I have been waiting for on offense (Navy 2.0)

[ilovetheoption]

LOL. I didn't answer for the same reason I didn't answer the question of
Because it's not relevant. Nobody in the NFL actively chose Eckel over any of our BBacks because Eckel was out of the NFL before any but Dwyer were in there, and that was a spot for barely over a week. Whatever reason Belichik had for picking Eckel has absolutely nothing to do with any of our BBacks, and it certainly isn't any sort of indicator of his opinion on which player would be a better BBack for Georgia Tech.

Then again, I'm still waiting on you to show me where any of the coaches you mentioned actually said that they'd take Eckel over our BBacks. Actually I'm not, because I know you aren't going to. Just like I'm not actually expecting you to say anything about the comparison of the players when they were actually playing in the offense. However I do highly anticipate your next meme filled post.

...I have been loath to get involved in this discussion, because it was not my intent when starting the thread BUT...

It seems that the crux of your argument is that because they were in their playing prime 5 years apart, it is impossible to make comparisons based upon their NFL careers. That is, because their careers do not overlap, there was never an opportunity for a coach to choose one or the other, and so one cannot say that Eckel was a better NFL prospect than Days or Laskey or whatever. Accordingly, you reason that no comparison can be drawn between their ability within Georgia Tech's offense.

I find that to be a little bit silly.

1) It's not as if the NFL game was fundamentally different when Eckel was a player and when Days was eligible to be a player. The game was roughly the same, with roughly the same players and roughly the same coaches. We're not talking a generational difference. Thus, it seems to me that it does indeed say something that multiple NFL teams/coaches/GMs gave Eckel a roster spot, and that was not the case for GT B-Backs. I am willing to say that there is a demonstrated NFL talent difference between them, and because their playing careers were pretty close to one another, that Eckel was pretty clearly the more attractive/effective NFL player, and that is most likely because he was a superior physical talent.

2) They played the same position. Now, you can say that perhaps the NFL valued different things than Paul Johnson does in a B-Back, and there might be some truth to that, but if you figure "two guys, with the same training, for the same coach, playing the same position, only one of them is the superior physical talent", who would you suspect would be more successful? No, we cannot say for sure, because perhaps playing B-Back at Georgia Tech is somehow fundamentally different from being a short yardage back in the NFL. That said, I don't buy it. Running the ball up inside is running the ball up inside and blocking is blocking. I think the skills largely transfer, and for that reason, I think it's reasonable to infer that Eckel would have been as successful or moreso at GT than any B-Back outside Dwyer.

 

[Milwaukee]

...I have been loath to get involved in this discussion, because it was not my intent when starting the thread BUT...

It seems that the crux of your argument is that because they were in their playing prime 5 years apart, it is impossible to make comparisons based upon their NFL careers. That is, because their careers do not overlap, there was never an opportunity for a coach to choose one or the other, and so one cannot say that Eckel was a better NFL prospect than Days or Laskey or whatever. Accordingly, you reason that no comparison can be drawn between their ability within Georgia Tech's offense.

I find that to be a little bit silly.

1) It's not as if the NFL game was fundamentally different when Eckel was a player and when Days was eligible to be a player. The game was roughly the same, with roughly the same players and roughly the same coaches. We're not talking a generational difference. Thus, it seems to me that it does indeed say something that multiple NFL teams/coaches/GMs gave Eckel a roster spot, and that was not the case for GT B-Backs. I am willing to say that there is a demonstrated NFL talent difference between them, and because their playing careers were pretty close to one another, that Eckel was pretty clearly the more attractive/effective NFL player, and that is most likely because he was a superior physical talent.

2) They played the same position. Now, you can say that perhaps the NFL valued different things than Paul Johnson does in a B-Back, and there might be some truth to that, but if you figure "two guys, with the same training, for the same coach, playing the same position, only one of them is the superior physical talent", who would you suspect would be more successful? No, we cannot say for sure, because perhaps playing B-Back at Georgia Tech is somehow fundamentally different from being a short yardage back in the NFL. That said, I don't buy it. Running the ball up inside is running the ball up inside and blocking is blocking. I think the skills largely transfer, and for that reason, I think it's reasonable to infer that Eckel would have been as successful or moreso at GT than any B-Back outside Dwyer.

I think his stance is: the fact that a player made it to an NFL team has zero, and I mean ZERO, to do with how much better they would hypothetically be at a certain position in college. I completely agree.

There are other ways to win the argument on the table, but the NFL analogy is not even close.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

...I have been loath to get involved in this discussion, because it was not my intent when starting the thread BUT...

It seems that the crux of your argument is that because they were in their playing prime 5 years apart, it is impossible to make comparisons based upon their NFL careers. That is, because their careers do not overlap, there was never an opportunity for a coach to choose one or the other, and so one cannot say that Eckel was a better NFL prospect than Days or Laskey or whatever. Accordingly, you reason that no comparison can be drawn between their ability within Georgia Tech's offense.

I find that to be a little bit silly.

1) It's not as if the NFL game was fundamentally different when Eckel was a player and when Days was eligible to be a player. The game was roughly the same, with roughly the same players and roughly the same coaches. We're not talking a generational difference. Thus, it seems to me that it does indeed say something that multiple NFL teams/coaches/GMs gave Eckel a roster spot, and that was not the case for GT B-Backs. I am willing to say that there is a demonstrated NFL talent difference between them, and because their playing careers were pretty close to one another, that Eckel was pretty clearly the more attractive/effective NFL player, and that is most likely because he was a superior physical talent.

2) They played the same position. Now, you can say that perhaps the NFL valued different things than Paul Johnson does in a B-Back, and there might be some truth to that, but if you figure "two guys, with the same training, for the same coach, playing the same position, only one of them is the superior physical talent", who would you suspect would be more successful? No, we cannot say for sure, because perhaps playing B-Back at Georgia Tech is somehow fundamentally different from being a short yardage back in the NFL. That said, I don't buy it. Running the ball up inside is running the ball up inside and blocking is blocking. I think the skills largely transfer, and for that reason, I think it's reasonable to infer that Eckel would have been as successful or moreso at GT than any B-Back outside Dwyer.

Look what you have started!!

As to this debate. Ability to make NFL rosters has always and will always be used by most when comparing talent levels of players that did not face the same competition in college or didn't have the same level of talent surrounding them on their own teams.

Now if you don't like that so be it. Disregard it. But most will use NFL success for those comparisons.

 

[lv20gt]

It seems that the crux of your argument is that because they were in their playing prime 5 years apart, it is impossible to make comparisons based upon their NFL careers. That is, because their careers do not overlap, there was never an opportunity for a coach to choose one or the other, and so one cannot say that Eckel was a better NFL prospect than Days or Laskey or whatever. Accordingly, you reason that no comparison can be drawn between their ability within Georgia Tech's offense.

There are two things about the NFL at play.

The first is that Eckel's special teams achievements have no impact on the discussion of how he would be as a running back in our offense. Why would it? We're talking about him as a running back, not a special teams players. And as a ball carrier he got carries almost exclusively in blow outs when the game wasn't on the line. We're not talking about a guy who was even a primary back up for a couple years. We're talking about a special teams player who got to carry the ball in blow outs when nothing mattered. Sorry, but that isn't a significant enough impact as grounds for making the claims in face of the production differences at this level. Everyone in question has had significant carries in our offense at the position we're talking about. So why is nobody trying to use his actual time in the offense as support Eckel over the other guys?

And that argument is complete bunk for guys like Marshall and Mills who aren't eligible for the NFL anyways.

The second is a completely illogical argument that somehow because a coach decided that Eckel should be on the team in 2005 and didn't do the same for another player 8 years later that it somehow means that coach holds the opinion that Eckel would be better as a BBack than the other guy. There is absolutely no reason to believe Belichick has an opinion about this matter at all. It was a very poor appeal to authority.

"two guys, with the same training, for the same coach, playing the same position, only one of them is the superior physical talent", who would you suspect would be more successful?

How about the one given those circumstances actually out performed the other? Because with the same training, for the same coach, playing at the same position, in the actual offense every BBack except for Mills had a higher average ypc, most of them by a significant margin, than Eckel.

Hell, look at the other bbacks under Navy compared to Eckel's 5.08 (using the better number for him btw).

Eric Kettani - as a starter 5.44 ypc. (5.29 career)
Adam Ballard - 5.26 career ypc
Teich - 5.27 career ypc.
Copeland - 5.61 career ypc.
Swain - 5.24.

I'm starting to see why people want to focus on the NFL side of things with him.

 

[Whiskey_Clear]

Off-season Almost over thankfully.

No one is saying the NFL angle is the one and only factor to consider. And @lv20gt's point about special teams play is a good point also. All of our prior BBs would have had the ability to factor on special teams as well however. And I would think faster and quicker guys would be preferred typically in that role than a less agile and slower bruiser would be.

The ypc is also another good barometer. But with all of these comparisons there are apples and oranges factoring together. Which makes no single factor the deciding factor in the discussion. It all comes down to personal opinions. Probably the only person with a very valid insight into this would be the players' head coach or position coaches. And I bet they would be reluctant to say who was clearly best or would or would not be as good in either program.