What do you mean what is my opinion of him? He was a good back for us, but not a great back. He also was our best option. We have other options here now with Perk that would compliment him better in a lightning and thunder kind of way. I have never said Perk was a bad back. I've said we don't utilize him correctly. I like Perk, but don't believe he is a between the tackles kind of guy.
2014 Football Team Hype
- Thread starter GOOD_DAWG2.0
- Start date
So like I am saying....Perkins would be a great back in a spread option attack with a mobile QB, but he is not an every down back when you have an immobile QB.
Ole Miss has a mobile QB, so you are proving my point. Not sure about skb's point, but mine is that Perkins is not an every down back in OUR system. He would be next year though with Dak in there.
And you're wrong if you think Adrian Peterson wouldn't make a difference, that's silly. Perkins can be tackled by one arm of a D Lineman, Peterson takes 2-3 pro lineman to take down, and sometimes more than that. That is exactly what I'm talking about too. Against SEC teams we need a guy running between the tackles that can break some tackles, move a pile, and force defenses to put extra guys in the box. Perkins is not that guy. Does it make him a bad player, no. In fact I think he could be even better if Mullen would keep him doing what he does best, which is not running up the middle on a read option, with a statue QB that no defense EVER thinks is going to keep it himself. So Perkins small frame is a sitting duck back there in the spread option game, and he's done great considering.
I still think Perkins has a great year because he will get the bulk of the carries, but I wish we would use one of the bigger guys as a feature back and get Perkins back into that 3rd down, screen game, role that he played so well during Ballard's senior season.
Last edited:
You don't think those numbers are really similar? I don't remember anyone ever questioning whether or not Ballard was an every down, between the tackles back, but Perkins puts up pretty similar numbers. Ballard's two huge games separate him a bit, but if you take out the outliers, it's damn close.
You want extra guys in the box against our offense? Are we going to allow teams to play 13 guys? Everybody is already in the box because none of our receivers pose a threat. When you can man up against the receivers, you get to put 8 in the box which teams did against us all year. Not to mention that our offensive line isn't good enough to block the defensive lines of LSU and Alabama when they only rush 4. So regardless of who we play at RB, we aren't going to be successful running against these teams. The guy had three bad games last season. In 2011, Ballard had five, nobody was clamoring for him to be replaced.
Well for one, because Relf had all those yards you mentioned in a previous post, AND we had no threat of a passing game so defenses had...yep....you guessed it...More Men in the Box. He also had Perkins coming in on a lot of 3rd down and passing situations which was a great role.
You are really making this too easy, and if you can't just use your eyes to see the different styles of backs they are, then like I said...you just want to argue.
I still love Perkins and I think he will have a big year. And my complaint is more about how Dan uses him than anything to do with Perkins. Perkins does everything he is asked, and does it well. But we would be a better offense if JRob or Griffin could be the feature back this year with Perkins getting back into the 3rd down, passing game, screen game, role that he was in when Ballard was here. It was a perfect thunder and lightning combo and it added an element to our offense that made us really tough to defend.
But I know you are as stubborn as I am, so let's not run this topic into the ground.
My point has nothing to do with what kind of back Perkins is. Big back or small back, plenty of different kinds of backs have success. The fact that they are different styles of backs and had similar numbers makes my point, that Perkins isn't the problem. It's our offense that is the problem.
Depends on their team's offensive style, their OLines, and how they run. Ballard wasn't huge either but he ran downhill. Perkins doesn't run downhill. Plus, the SEC is different than the Pac 12....I honestly can't believe you made that comparison.
Besides, there are always more factors than size. You know this, and you're trying hard, but you're failing.
If our fifth-year OL coach don't do any better than he did last year, there is not a back in the country that can carry this team. I just don't get how so many can blame every part of our team except Mullen and his boy, Heversy, for that crappy offense. If any coach should be on the hot seat, it's Heversy. He's a poor recruiter and our OL has been pitiful. Oh...Tyler is to slow, holds the ball too long and Perkins is to small.
You are wrong. Cadaver and engie have this nailed. With Dixon or Ballard in the backfield last year, the results are different. Use your logic and you'll get it. Cadaver's right about Griffin down at LSU. We lacked that threat.
Perkins is a good to great back, no doubt. And I think he'd be even better in that Percy Harvin role. Not sure if we can do that with Russell at QB though. But he's not going to pound anyone between the tackles.
Perkins is a good to great back, no doubt. And I think he'd be even better in that Percy Harvin role. Not sure if we can do that with Russell at QB though. But he's not going to pound anyone between the tackles.
I have got to come back to this. I tried to let this discussion die by saying "ok", but you wouldn't let it go.
So suddenly your point "has nothing to do with what kind of back Perkins is", yet you started this argument because we said Perkins was not an every down back in the SEC? That is some Oxford quality, grade A spin right there.
I would tweak the offense to fit the personnel we have. We can't continue to show an option when there is no option. We need to use more two back sets. We need a lead blocker. The rumors coming out of the spring of more under center, pro style offense are encouraging, especially with such an experienced line. If we can't get a better push with this years line, who the back is is insignificant.
Did you forget about your post listing the hundreds of yards Relf ran for in 11? What about the fact that we had no passing game? What about that Ballard split carries with Relf, AND had Perkins coming in on 3rd downs and passing situations at times to get carries/catches? What about the extra men in the box because we had no passing game?
Come on, Man.
I think that size doesn't make a difference for being an every down back. There are lots of 210 pound backs and smaller having success in college football. Mike Gillislee, one of the first team all SEC backs, isn't that much bigger than Perkins. So when I see people saying we'd be more successful running the ball if Perkins wasn't the featured back, yes, I disagree with that.
So Ballard had the advantage of a running threat QB, and only averaged 6 more yards per game than Perkins did without that advantage? You would have thought it would be more. Meanwhile, we just slam Perkins into the line play after play, and it's his fault he isn't breaking free.
Is this a joke? Are you reading anything I'm writing?
If Ballard has a dual threat QB, that means he is splitting carries with Relf. It also means that the defense is making it harder for them both to get yards bc we had no passing threat with Relf, so defenses crammed the box. I also mentioned that Perkins came in on a lot of 3rd downs and passing situations and stole carries/catches. Are you this blind?
Now, we have Perkins, a smaller less physical back, and he is running the ball a majority of the running plays...not splitting many carries. He has no dual threat QB stealing carries, AND we have a passing game now....so his numbers could be better yes. However, Mullen and Co aren't using him correctly most times, so like I said (if you would read), it's not all Perkins fault, he is doing the best he can in the situations he's put in.
Where are you getting that nobody likes Perkins or that we are blaming him for offensive problems? Is this something you're trying to spin away from the original discussion? Because several of your last posts are completely venturing away from the original discussion. Yard totals don't mean **** with a different scheme, different competition, different OLine, and different RB...so that argument holds no weight.
Well, this started with you disagreeing that Robinson for Perkins was a downgrade. That's where I get this idea from.
You would think with a more potent passing game, running the football would be easier because teams wouldn't load the box as much. But they did load the box against us, because nobody respected our receivers ability to beat them deep. And Perkins still put up good numbers, despite not having any help on the option.
You would think with a more potent passing game, running the football would be easier because teams wouldn't load the box as much. But they did load the box against us, because nobody respected our receivers ability to beat them deep. And Perkins still put up good numbers, despite not having any help on the option.
I don't think you understand how Dak's mobility will be...going forward. Not sure he will have the quickness he had pre-injury.
So you think teams stacked the box against us in 2012 the same way they did against us in 11? You have got to be kidding me.
So according to you and your yardage means everything math...Robinson SHOULD be an upgrade because he averaged 6.1 yds per carry last year. And Griffin averaged 7.0 yds per carry so he should be better too. And Milton averaged 4.9 so he should be just as good too. Right?
You can't simply take a yards per game between two totally different teams, with totally different offensive styles, with different OLines, against different competition, and use 1 stat to show if a guy is an every down back.
Perkins is a lightning back, and there is a place for a lightning back in football. But it is NOT between the tackles. That is where we need Robinson and Griffin. Perkins needs to get back into the role he excelled at which is getting 85-100 carries and catching passes as a complement to JRob or Griffin getting the tough every down yards.
Perkins carried the ball 100 times in 2010 and 87 in 2011 while Ballard carried the load with 150+ carries. Why not use Perkins to help benefit the team instead of trying to make him an every down back when he clearly doesn't fit the mold? I just don't understand why you are arguing it really.
In 1995, sure. Against Auburn 21 out of our 32 first half plays were passes. Against Tennessee 33 out the 49 first half plays were passes. Against Arkansas it was 24 out of 34. 29 out of 46 versus Kentucky. So in our conference wins, we passed basically twice as much as we ran in the first half. Why do you think that was?
You mean the offense everybody is bitching about constantly??? Geez, dude. And I'm bipolar? Go take YOUR meds, pal.
But to be truthful, I don't think our offense sucked (I think they did the best they could with what we had), but it was never great. Our defense is what sucked, but that's for a different thread. Just because we had an offense capable of beating those team you listed, doesn't mean it was all that good. The numbers don't lie, those 3 teams combined for 9 wins last season (although I thought UT was better than their record).
You can flip it. In our four losses, Bama, LSU, and Ole Miss all threw more than they ran in the first half. I looked at A&M, but it's impossible to tell which were runs and which were scrambles out of passing plays.
These days, people pass to set up the run. That's modern football. Look at the NFL. Best offensive teams are the Patriots, Packers, and Saints. I only know the Saints starting running back because I'm a fan. They pass to set up the run.
If you do the best you can with what you have, and the results are mediocre, you suck.
These days, people pass to set up the run. That's modern football. Look at the NFL. Best offensive teams are the Patriots, Packers, and Saints. I only know the Saints starting running back because I'm a fan. They pass to set up the run.
If you do the best you can with what you have, and the results are mediocre, you suck.
Any back that can put up a thousand yards rushing and 20 receptions is enough of an every down back for me.
I see what you're saying because ideally, Perkins would be our 3rd down back. We just didn't have the depth last year. This year though we'll hopefully see a little more diversity at the rb spot.
**
Some people just like to argue stuff. At least it is interesting discussion.
1. Why try and turn Tyler Russell into a spread option QB?
2. Why do we suck at KO returns?
3. Why don't we have any O-Tackles remotely worth a **** (*Siddoway was injured)?
4. Why don't we have a receiver who can punish man coverage and provide a deep threat (see 3)?
I think Cadaver was assuming Mullen wouldn't change strategies from last season and will continue running Perkins up the gut in order to set up something *don't ask me what*, and if that assumption were true, he thinks one of the bigger backs would far better suited for that job.
I agree with that too.
HD6 argues that back doesn't matter so much and that Perk is similar to Ballard and others, but we should consider Relf running and keeping defenses at least somewhat honest to be fair. Perk is like Barry Sanders without the breakaway speed. Sanders would get a good number of negative plays but ever so often he would break a big one and it was worth taking the small loses. Some backs just plow forward, Mullen needs one of those to get him the 3-4 yrds instead of lots of 0-2 yrds. Perkins is not one of those backs. Perkins getting stuffed is putting our offense in a terrible position to go for a 3 and out, that doesn't help our cause at all. We would be much better off with 2nd and 6 or so. That is something we can manage.
Some people just like to argue stuff. At least it is interesting discussion.
1. Why try and turn Tyler Russell into a spread option QB?
2. Why do we suck at KO returns?
3. Why don't we have any O-Tackles remotely worth a **** (*Siddoway was injured)?
4. Why don't we have a receiver who can punish man coverage and provide a deep threat (see 3)?
I think Cadaver was assuming Mullen wouldn't change strategies from last season and will continue running Perkins up the gut in order to set up something *don't ask me what*, and if that assumption were true, he thinks one of the bigger backs would far better suited for that job.
I agree with that too.
HD6 argues that back doesn't matter so much and that Perk is similar to Ballard and others, but we should consider Relf running and keeping defenses at least somewhat honest to be fair. Perk is like Barry Sanders without the breakaway speed. Sanders would get a good number of negative plays but ever so often he would break a big one and it was worth taking the small loses. Some backs just plow forward, Mullen needs one of those to get him the 3-4 yrds instead of lots of 0-2 yrds. Perkins is not one of those backs. Perkins getting stuffed is putting our offense in a terrible position to go for a 3 and out, that doesn't help our cause at all. We would be much better off with 2nd and 6 or so. That is something we can manage.
Agree to disagree I guess. I suppose some offenses can do it, but I'm going with the tried and true majority. If somebody wants to take the time to do it, I'd like to see the rushing stats of those 3 NFL teams per game. No clue if I will be proven right, but interesting to see regardless.
I'd say you'd be mediocre rather than sucking. And we were definitely mediocre last season. Sure they may have made some personnel mistakes here or there but damn nobody's always going to get it right.
I'd say you'd be mediocre rather than sucking. And we were definitely mediocre last season. Sure they may have made some personnel mistakes here or there but damn nobody's always going to get it right.
Why is Ballard's name even coming up? I never thought that he fit our system great either as an every down back...but a lot of that was maskedy by Sherrod and that nasty OL in 2010.
Dixon was the last(only premiere) that really fit. That's why I want to go back to that running style -- and why my soul has been crushed with every injury to nick griffin.
Our rushing offense has gotten progressively worse in each of Dan's 4 years here. That's concerning to me. We were ranked in the 80s last year. That's unacceptable by MSU standards. Who am I supposed to blame for that? Meanwhile, miniLee and Dixon were in the top 10 against a much, muchhhh tougher schedule.
No one is saying it's Perkins' fault -- just our usage of him. Just watching a couple of plays with any of the other 3 made that obvious. Would love to find a tfl allowed metric for all starting backs....
And, yes, I'm saying the difficulty of tackling Griffin made LSU focus more effort on stopping our run game -- which opened up the pass game to an extent that we saw against NO other premiere team all year. Am I supposed to just believe that it was just coincidental that the one game our offense looked good against a team with a pulse was this one game -- where we only changed one thing from all the other weeks?
Dixon was the last(only premiere) that really fit. That's why I want to go back to that running style -- and why my soul has been crushed with every injury to nick griffin.
Our rushing offense has gotten progressively worse in each of Dan's 4 years here. That's concerning to me. We were ranked in the 80s last year. That's unacceptable by MSU standards. Who am I supposed to blame for that? Meanwhile, miniLee and Dixon were in the top 10 against a much, muchhhh tougher schedule.
No one is saying it's Perkins' fault -- just our usage of him. Just watching a couple of plays with any of the other 3 made that obvious. Would love to find a tfl allowed metric for all starting backs....
And, yes, I'm saying the difficulty of tackling Griffin made LSU focus more effort on stopping our run game -- which opened up the pass game to an extent that we saw against NO other premiere team all year. Am I supposed to just believe that it was just coincidental that the one game our offense looked good against a team with a pulse was this one game -- where we only changed one thing from all the other weeks?
So based on your
conclusion that he is not an every down back based upon three games, do you also think our other players who performed poorly in those games are not every down players?
conclusion that he is not an every down back based upon three games, do you also think our other players who performed poorly in those games are not every down players?
This^.
And like Engie....I'm convinced that Griffin is the guy we need back there, but with his health issues our next best option for an every down back is JRob. And by every down, I really mean 1st and 2nd down, because unless it's short yardage, I would probably have Perkins in there on most 3rd down situations because he is such a weapon in the passing game and teams have to respect that and account for him in coverage.