I know we have Dixon, but I think it would be a nice one-two punch. It would keep them both fresher and I think that would translate to fewer fumbles, less injuries and more yards. We've got good guys at A and C back and Maples has shown a propensity to lower his shoulder. Thoughts?
Maples at B-back?
- Thread starter usmafootballfan
- Start date
I understand your logic, but it's not going to happen, nor should it.
The possibility (depending on Maples returning 100%) of Baggett, Maples and Dixon starting in the same backfield is a dream come true. Putting one on the sideline to come in for the other just to keep them fresh is a nightmarish thought, IMO.
The possibility (depending on Maples returning 100%) of Baggett, Maples and Dixon starting in the same backfield is a dream come true. Putting one on the sideline to come in for the other just to keep them fresh is a nightmarish thought, IMO.
I doubt that would ever happen. Like Special said it's a dream come true, the 3 Avengers. Giving they (All) are healthy. I wonder how's Dixon & Maples coming along in their recovery. Is Dixon still wearing his hand brace? However I'm seeing this season to be a great start for Monken's with those 3 strong players walking out on the field at the same time, I would be over excited as a New HC. That takes some of the pressure off him, he already know what it's hitting for. Im excited for the seniors that's going to have their final year with Monken, they will be able to take their last experience as a BlackKnight, to highest level of enjoyment. As it should have been the hold time... I can't wait to see it...
Go Army
This post was edited on 3/19 9:09 AM by Bulletproof09
Go Army
This post was edited on 3/19 9:09 AM by Bulletproof09
I don't see much possibility of that happening. The B-back takes a real beating on just about every play, which is why Hassin and Dixon were injured as often as they were. It's far more likely that they'll move Kemper back to B-back where he played at USMAPS. Not much future in converting Maples at this late date.
I do see the possibility of Maples as the 1-back in a pistol formation with the slot backs alligned a little wider in a long yardage situation. He could run the speed option or the sweep effectively.
I feel like we have a lot of depth at A and C, but not at B back.
I think Maples was in the 215-220lbs range when he left. With another year under his belt, that could be a 230lbs monster in the middle who also has the speed to be a consistent home run hitter in the middle. Nothing against Dixon; he will break away on occasion as well, but he doesn't have Maples' speed or quickness in my opinion.
I hear those talking about the pounding a B back takes, so that's why I would love to see a rotation of several folks in there. I think rotating backs translates to less injuries, but I offer no statistical analysis to back that thought. To my aforementioned point, maybe if we rotated Dixon more often, he would be a better a home run threat.
Ideally, I think Maples would be best in a single back formation. Maples has grown into more of a power/downhill type runner, when compared to his Fresh and Soph campaigns.
Perhaps there are some other more traditional "I" sets, or conventional formations that can utilize his skills.
I think Maples was in the 215-220lbs range when he left. With another year under his belt, that could be a 230lbs monster in the middle who also has the speed to be a consistent home run hitter in the middle. Nothing against Dixon; he will break away on occasion as well, but he doesn't have Maples' speed or quickness in my opinion.
I hear those talking about the pounding a B back takes, so that's why I would love to see a rotation of several folks in there. I think rotating backs translates to less injuries, but I offer no statistical analysis to back that thought. To my aforementioned point, maybe if we rotated Dixon more often, he would be a better a home run threat.
Ideally, I think Maples would be best in a single back formation. Maples has grown into more of a power/downhill type runner, when compared to his Fresh and Soph campaigns.
Perhaps there are some other more traditional "I" sets, or conventional formations that can utilize his skills.
You are right.Originally posted by armyfan:
I don't think Maples is a break away threat. I see that quality in Dixon more than Raymond, who is a wonderful asset. I just don't think he is a break away threat.
The only true breakaway threat on this team is Baggett and surely neither Dixon or Maples fit that category nor is that a bad thing -- it's just what they bring to the table or not.Originally posted by ducrot pepys:
You are right.Originally posted by armyfan:
I don't think Maples is a break away threat. I see that quality in Dixon more than Raymond, who is a wonderful asset. I just don't think he is a break away threat.
I have seen Dixon burst through the middle and on his way to touchdown land, but only to be caught from behind. Personally I have no problem with that coming from our fullback, because his game is ideal for a fullback in any system. Maples is a true north-south runner, who is as physical a running back that you can find anywhere and I will take that as well.
If I'm not mistaken Maples was the "B" at the prep. Bryce Flowers was the "A". Anyway you guys are bringing some good thoughts to the table. Just as long as we get to have Maples another year is going to be a threat no matter how you look at it...
That's interesting info.
For the past few years (the Ellerson era), the running backs were identified as A, B, and C, with the B back being the fullback that the slotbacks being labeled A and C. All the running backs were expected to be good runners and good blockers, and some guys who were good runners and receivers but mediocre blockers didn't get as much playing time. Baggett has always been an A back, and Maples has always been a C back, but Turrentine has been used at both slotback positions. Giovanelli got a lot of snaps at C back after we lost Maples as well.
I did notice that Monken and Davis used their slotbacks more often as receivers than we've seen at Army in recent years; so we may see some change in that area, and that could trigger a change in the naming. Brown and Baggett were the leading slotback receivers out of the A back position but Maples was a favorite target as a C back; so the distinction wasn't very apparent under Ellerson.
Monken doesn't seem to pass the ball any more often than Ellerson did, but when he does, he is more likely to use the slotbacks; so that may be a change we'll see this season, and it could impact on which guys we see in those slotback positions. Scott and Giovanelli have both been better receivers than some of the better running backs. From the little bit I saw of USMAPS team this last year, Trainor is a very good receiver who fits the description of a T back.
Initially I thought that this was a silly subject, but after giving it more thought, it could make perfect since.
Maples may actually be around 220-225, which is probably the same size of bigger than Matt Giachinta. Maples' style of running is north-south and we all know that he's a pretty physical runner.
That would give us 3-deep at fullback with Dixon, Maples and Giachinta.
Our slots would be set as well, with Baggett leading the charge. I could even see Maples splitting time at the fullback and slot back spots.
Its definently a legitimate idea, Even Ellerson put Patrick Mealy at fullback against Iowa State... But Monken even put a QB at running back last year because they needed the speed. So I wouldnt be surprised if we saw Maples at B back this year.
BTW, how is maples gonna learn the new offense if hes not at school right now?
BTW, how is maples gonna learn the new offense if hes not at school right now?
Just I quick thought on the topic, less they move Maples behind Dixon.... Other then Baggett who, do we have with Maples strength that could do what he does at this time? What if Baggett goes down on the field, for any reason. Whose going to step up in his spot? Im thinking at lease we got this year to fill in these holes, that's going to be needed when these guys leave. I believe Monkens is on top of it, and I believe we will see the necessary replacements, stepping up their game this season. Monkens not going to have it any other way.... this is football, our boys want a winning team! They are stepping up and making it happen. That's the energy they will be sending to (ALL) the future players coming threw those doors!!!! We not playing no more "WE HUNGRY & WE WANT TO EAT"
Go Army Beat Navy
This post was edited on 5/9 11:37 AM by Bulletproof09
Go Army Beat Navy
This post was edited on 5/9 11:37 AM by Bulletproof09
Originally posted by NJFAN:
Baggett, not Bagger !
Thanks for the correction Njfan... but I can't believe you gave into the change (Really) lol
Sooooooo after reading GBK, article on Mr. Maples, I think we can put it to rest about him playing FB... That would have been a waist of talent on the sidelines. .. And for the fact they want him lighter, his speed going to be even better.... TD
This post was edited on 5/8 7:44 PM by Bulletproof09
This post was edited on 5/8 7:44 PM by Bulletproof09
Similar threads
Latest posts
-
-
-
-
The Inside Stuff College Football Playoff rankings schedule, release dates- Latest: RabbleNumberOneFan
