Started By
Message
re: Where do you rank Chubb in UGA RB history?
Posted on 10/3/17 at 11:09 am to HTDawg
Posted on 10/3/17 at 11:09 am to HTDawg
quote:
Not a freak? He's 230 pounds and stronger than Gurley ever was. As for speed, Gurley was no freak either and still weaker than Chubb. In the weight room, Chubb would smoke Gurley. Ran better as a freshman to boot. You folks haven't forgotten just how dominate Chubb was.
I put Chubb as my #2.
By freak...I mean Herschel was as big as some fo the linemen back then and faster than pretty much everybody. There are other running backs that are as big and as fast as Chubb. He does it with the combination of size, speed, vision, balance and heart.
2
Posted on 10/3/17 at 11:17 am to DawgsLife
quote:
you have to put someone's greatness in context with when they played.
quote:
It is safe to say that Chubb would have done very well and maybe as well as Herschel had he played in 1980. but he did not.
Fair point, but remember...that has to go both ways. Herschel may have had better stats due to lesser competition. On the same token, guys today may have less impressive stats because the competition is much better (and we tend to rotate two or three backs on offense these days which is just a change in the way the game has come to be played overall). What's interesting here is that Gurley and Chubb actually have BETTER stats in several key areas than Herschel did and they are playing against BETTER competition.
quote:
Chubb is not considered a freak compared to his contemporaries.
Are we sure? How is he not a "freak"? I've seen Herschel pull away effortlessly from defensive guys, but again, those guys weren't on par with what you see now. I don't think it's that the backs are slower; rather, the defensive players are much faster. Was LF7 a "freak"? I heard it a lot, but yet he was nowhere to be found when playing real teams like Bama. Chubb only put up 146 yards against that same team that freakshow couldn't cross the 100-yard mark in in three tries. In fact, he put up 79, 31, and 35 respectively, his best effort being a whopping 3.8 yards per carry. That's not a "freak". Freaks don't fizzle in the face of a challenge or great adversity. LF7, when it mattered, was very pedestrian. Forget all the stat-padding cupcakes. He couldn't hold Chubb or Gurley's jock strap if we're being honest with ourselves.
And then there's things like this:
Chubb and his 40-inch vertical.
Chubb the shot put champ. And notice those times in the 100-meter and 200-meter, too.
quote:
He plays today when training and diet is worlds better than it was then.
Gonna go on a limb and say there are very few training programs or diets out there that would be better than what Herschel did. Again, superhuman in nature. Modern strength and conditioning programs have nothing on what he did, even 37 years ago.
This post was edited on 10/3/17 at 11:27 am
Posted on 10/3/17 at 11:20 am to DawgsLife
Here is a breakdown of the stats for Chubb and Gurley
Gurley
Games:30 Att:510 YDS:3285 YPG:109.5 TD:36 REC:65 YDS Receiving:615 TD REC:6
Chubb
Games:32 Att:535 YDS:3424 YPG:107 TD:29 REC:27 YDS
Reeivning yds:331 TD REC:4
They are eerily similar. We have been very fortunate to have both here.
Gurley
Games:30 Att:510 YDS:3285 YPG:109.5 TD:36 REC:65 YDS Receiving:615 TD REC:6
Chubb
Games:32 Att:535 YDS:3424 YPG:107 TD:29 REC:27 YDS
Reeivning yds:331 TD REC:4
They are eerily similar. We have been very fortunate to have both here.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 11:25 am to DawgsLife
quote:
I mean Herschel was as big as some fo the linemen back then and faster than pretty much everybody. There are other running backs that are as big and as fast as Chubb.
You're sinking your own defense here. You're saying Herschel was better than his defensive counterparts (which he was), while going on to say that Chubb is only on par with some of the other better running backs today. If we drop Herschel into Chubb's world, he'd be just another great running back today. Likewise, if you do the reverse and put some great backs of today into 1980's offenses, they'd be legends.
Herschel was simply ahead of his time, genetically. The rest of the sport is finally catching up with what he was doing in his era.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 11:31 am to DawgsLife
quote:
They are eerily similar. We have been very fortunate to have both here
Chubb hasn't had the OL that Gurley did on 3 of his seasons.
And Chubb's "rehab season" (for lack of a better word) is included in the UGA results.
Both Damm good backs.
If I need 1 play, I go with Gurley.
If I need 15 carries, I go gurley.
If I need a back to carry the team for a game? I go Chubb.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 11:32 am to S1C EM
quote:
Are we sure? How is he not a "freak"? I've seen Herschel pull away effortlessly from defensive guys, but again, those guys weren't on par with what you see now.
What makes somebody a freak athletically is that they are head and shoulders above their competition......NOT because they are head and shoulders above somebody 40 years ago. It is all about context. Using your argument, you could say Dan Marino was an average QB because he can't throw the ball as far as Brett Favre, Or that Fran Tarkenton was not a good QB because he is not as big, or fast or has an arm of today's QB's.
I mean....this argument could go on for days talking abut how training and coaching has improved, therefore today's athletes, if placed in 1980 with the technology, training and knowledge they had then would be very ordinary athletes...or at least nothing special. It is always best to leave comparisons in the time frame they were made. They didn't throw nearly as much 40 years ago as they do today, but does that mean a QB from back then was not as good as they are today? Who knows, honestly. Given the opportunity, they might have been, but nobody can say for sure.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 11:34 am to meansonny
quote:
Chubb hasn't had the OL that Gurley did on 3 of his seasons.
I am with you, Meansonny. I am in the Chubb camp, and your point is just one of the reasons.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 11:36 am to DawgsLife
quote:
What makes somebody a freak athletically is that they are head and shoulders above their competition
Then who would you consider a "freak" today? Because by that logic, there isn't one. There's no massive gap in physical attributes between any running back and his peers on offense or defense today the way there was with Herschel. And that's not so much an accomplishment on Herschel's part as it is a deficiency on everyone else's back then.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 11:39 am to S1C EM
quote:
Chubb is only on par with some of the other better running backs today.
Only in measurables. Size, speed, etc. But there is more to that in running backs. Vision, balance, the ability to make something out of nothing, leadership and it could go on and on. And Chubb excells at all of those.
quote:
If we drop Herschel into Chubb's world, he'd be just another great running back today. Likewise, if you do the reverse and put some great backs of today into 1980's offenses, they'd be legends.
But you can't do that. And we can only guess what the outcome would be if we could do that. I mean, we can make educated guesses, but nobody can measure heart, determination, toughness. A lot of people say today's players are not as tough as players were back then.
It's all speculation. it's fun, but nobody is going to convince anybody of anything. We all have our own preferences prejudices.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 11:45 am to S1C EM
quote:
Then who would you consider a "freak" today? Because by that logic, there isn't one.
I don't believe there is any today. With the technology, nutrition, training, etc. the day of the freak is all but over....probably. But for me, that makes Herschel Walker and Bo Jackson even more fascinating.
quote:
And that's not so much an accomplishment on Herschel's part as it is a deficiency on everyone else's back then.
If you have a freak it could be argued that anybody who is not a freak has deficiencies. The things the players have at their disposal today is so far beyond what they had available to them back then.
But when someone is head and shoulders above everybody else, then the argument could be made that the player with the advantages are advanced and his peers have deficiencies. I mean, once it has been proven that an attribute is attainable, then the players that do not have that attribute has a deficiency, do they not?
Posted on 10/3/17 at 11:51 am to S1C EM
quote:
Gonna go on a limb and say there are very few training programs or diets out there that would be better than what Herschel did. Again, superhuman in nature. Modern strength and conditioning programs have nothing on what he did, even 37 years ago.
So, you don't think science and training has improved in 40 years?
It will improve a ton in the next 40 years. Things always improve. At one time a sub 4 minute mile was thought to be impossible. 2,000 rushing yards in a NFL season was impossible. (now 2,000 yards rushing in a single season has been done 7 times)
Posted on 10/3/17 at 11:55 am to S1C EM
quote:
You're sinking your own defense here
If anything I'd say you're doing the same thing...
Generally speaking, athletes today simply are faster, stronger, more *everything* than athletes of eras past... improvements in medicine, training regiments, nutrition, etc... it all has led to increased athletic capability. As a result, comparing Chubb or Gurley to Herschel isn't about comparing their raw athletic ability, otherwise, for all his greatness, Herschel likely isn't a top 10 back today... he simply wasn't competing against the same caliber of athlete on the other side of the ball. You could argue that of course his offensive line would have been stronger, but at some point it comes down to 1-1 athletic ability and that's what made Herschel so impressive... he simply was that much better than everyone else at the time.
The great backs of today, regardless of what order you put them in, are having to outperform significantly more talented athletes on average.
If Herschel grew up in the modern era, had all of the modern advantages, etc... it's highly likely that he's every bit as good if not better than a Chubb/Gurley, but that's beyond a hypothetical scenario...
It's best to stick with evaluating them based on when they played and how they performed relative to their competition.
If you watched the NBA playoffs last year, Steve Kerr had a great quote:
In response to several players stating that their teams would have destroyed the warriors if they hypothetically matched up in their primes.
quote:
“They’re all right. They would all kill us. The game gets worse as time goes on. Players are less talented than they used to be. The guys in the 50s would’ve destroyed everybody. It’s weird how human evolution goes in reverse in sports. Players get weaker, smaller, less skilled. I don’t know. I can’t explain it.”
Posted on 10/3/17 at 11:55 am to DawgsLife
quote:
Vision, balance, the ability to make something out of nothing, leadership and it could go on and on. And Chubb excells at all of those.
I think to say he simply excels at those is selling him short. And I also think those attributes make him just as much of a "freak" as any other physical quality might. His vision and balance have been uncanny from day one. You rarely see it from a back with his size (not so much tall as thick).
quote:
but nobody can measure heart, determination, toughness
I get what you're trying to say and I don't disagree. What I can be sure of is that Chubb possesses these qualities in spades. Not saying Gurley did not. I just think Chubb has exhibited these things on another level. When's the last time you saw a back with his ability come back for their senior season? You can argue that he wanted to better his drat stock because of the injury, but let's be honest here. He was no slouch in his junior year. Though not as flashy as he had been, he still put up 5 yards a carry on 224 touches. He could have left easily. The fact that he didn't speaks volumes.
I love me some Gurley. I'll always pull for him to do great things and continue to represent UGA well in the NFL. But as far as DGDs are concerned at the running back position, Chubb is #2 and it's a wider chasm than you might think.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 12:00 pm to DawgsLife
quote:
So, you don't think science and training has improved in 40 years?
Not what I'm saying at all. I know that it has. But how many of these athletes today do you think could stomach the 2,000 push-up/sit-up ritual, every day? And clearly, Herschel has been eating well long before eating well was a "thing".
Again, my argument isn't that Herschel isn't a freak (I mean, look at the guy today, at 55 years old
). I just think Chubb and Gurley both could probably fall into that category as well for different reasons. Posted on 10/3/17 at 12:06 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
If Herschel grew up in the modern era, had all of the modern advantages, etc... it's highly likely that he's every bit as good if not better than a Chubb/Gurley
I think that's very fair. I think you'd have also seen him used differently today than he was back then, too. 900+ carries would never have happened today, the stats would be much closer what you see out of Gurley and Chubb today.
quote:
“They’re all right. They would all kill us. The game gets worse as time goes on. Players are less talented than they used to be. The guys in the 50s would’ve destroyed everybody. It’s weird how human evolution goes in reverse in sports. Players get weaker, smaller, less skilled. I don’t know. I can’t explain it.”
Kerr definitely makes a great point.
So, back to the question at hand: Is Chubb your #2 in UGA history?
Posted on 10/3/17 at 12:48 pm to S1C EM
quote:
So, back to the question at hand: Is Chubb your #2 in UGA history?
See my comments earlier. Yes. I have Herschel at 1 if for no other reason than he must have like 30% horse DNA. I'm still not sure it was physically possible for someone to carry the load like he did... and that's with defenses more or less having our playbook.
But outside of that, I have Chubb at #2 overall for reasons described elsewhere in this thread. He has done more at UGA with less around him... the OL essentially crumbled during his time here, QB play declined pretty rapidly, musical chairs at head coach and OC, and despite the injury and the recovery season, he's been more productive here. I have to take away points for Gurley's off the field decisions that cost the team as well.
Do I still love Gurley? Absolutely. Am I reaping the benefits of having him on almost all of my fantasy teams? Yep.
But for their time at UGA, gotta give the edge to Chubb by a small margin.Posted on 10/3/17 at 1:18 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
he must have like 30% horse DNA
quote:
But outside of that, I have Chubb at #2 overall for reasons described elsewhere in this thread. He has done more at UGA with less around him... the OL essentially crumbled during his time here, QB play declined pretty rapidly, musical chairs at head coach and OC, and despite the injury and the recovery season, he's been more productive here. I have to take away points for Gurley's off the field decisions that cost the team as well.
Do I still love Gurley? Absolutely.
Ditto. Well stated.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:30 pm to fibonaccisquared
quote:
As a result, comparing Chubb or Gurley to Herschel isn't about comparing their raw athletic ability, otherwise, for all his greatness, Herschel likely isn't a top 10 back today... he simply wasn't competing against the same caliber of athlete on the other side of the ball.
There's a counterbalance to that, though. Assuming that the caliber of athletes has increased, the concentration of them has decreased. There are far more DI programs today than in years past, and the rosters aren't as big. So while a player today may face more talented athletes in terms of overall numbers, he's probably facing less really good ones at any one time. More teams simply means a more diluted talent base.
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:41 pm to meansonny
quote:
Check out Gurley's senior season. The loss against Clemson. 12 carries. He was spent after his big run. More carries would not have helped the cause because his tank was empty.
You mean his sophomore season when he pulled his quad running for a 75 yard TD at Clemson?
Posted on 10/3/17 at 4:43 pm to FaCubeItches
quote:
There's a counterbalance to that, though. Assuming that the caliber of athletes has increased, the concentration of them has decreased. There are far more DI programs today than in years past, and the rosters aren't as big. So while a player today may face more talented athletes in terms of overall numbers, he's probably facing less really good ones at any one time. More teams simply means a more diluted talent base.
That's just not accurate though... the floor of today's SEC caliber athletes is higher than the "average" athlete in Herschel's era.
Look at the teams that Herschel played on and against and tell me how many players from their rosters would make a roster *today* if we transported them through time.
Greyson Lambert is likely a better QB than John Lastinger... let alone Eason or Fromm. Lindsay Scott likely doesn't crack our two deep, and we're not even one of the stronger teams at WR.
If you give those guys the advantages of modern training, nutrition, medicine throughout their development, is it possible/likely that they perform similar to today's athletes? Sure... but that's an entirely different argument. Those guys were all great for their time and it's why I only evaluate them relative to what they did against athletes from the same era... I don't knock Herschel down a peg simply because he *was* that much better than the people he played against. It's about relative greatness, rather than greatness in a vacuum.
It's the same argument that likely puts MJ at the top of the world in basketball for the foreseeable future, no matter how good Lebron might be today... if you're asking me who is/was the better athlete, it's Lebron all day... if you're asking me who was the better basketball player, it's MJ, because he was *that much* better than everyone else.
Page 4 of 5
Latest Georgia News
Back to top
Follow SECRant for SEC Football News