KSUFans Archives

Sports => Snyder's Electronic Cyber Space World => Topic started by: fatty fat fat on March 31, 2007, 03:22:14 PM

Title: Johnson should be #2
Post by: fatty fat fat on March 31, 2007, 03:22:14 PM
(http://vmedia.rivals.com/uploads/889/F266963.jpg)

patton  :love:
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: ksuno1stunner on March 31, 2007, 03:34:22 PM
(http://vmedia.rivals.com/uploads/889/F266963.jpg)

patton  :love:

Look at his legs  :love:
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: catdude33 on March 31, 2007, 06:05:28 PM
Patton switched to #9?
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: FBWillie on March 31, 2007, 06:20:43 PM
As long as he doesn't remind me of Meier, I'm okay with him wearing #9...  :thumbsup:
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: BRULL on March 31, 2007, 07:23:47 PM
What's Brock looking at?
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: Bullfn33 on March 31, 2007, 07:26:25 PM
Johnson is better at navigating through poor blocking and making moves while Patton has more raw speed and is a little tougher to bring down because of his more compact size.  I still think they should committee it unless one really emerges.  Patton is going to be a beast by his JR year and will be the clear starter over anyone.
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: ksuno1stunner on March 31, 2007, 07:29:46 PM
Johnson is better at navigating through poor blocking and making moves while Patton has more raw speed and is a little tougher to bring down because of his more compact size.  I still think they should committee it unless one really emerges.  Patton is going to be a beast by his JR year and will be the clear starter over anyone.

Except Bryce Brown.
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: fatty fat fat on March 31, 2007, 07:58:49 PM
Patton will be the best RB in the north.
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: BBF$$Cat on March 31, 2007, 08:05:10 PM
Stunner, won't it be another year off before BB would be able to join us thus putting Patton in his senior year, not competiting in the junior year with BB:confused:
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: Pittcat on April 01, 2007, 12:39:57 AM
Patton looks like he's been in the weight room a little more, but still more compact.  But doesn't JJ have better field vision?
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: treysolid on April 01, 2007, 01:59:03 AM
patton = severe opposition ankle breakage

johnson = only use within the 10 yard line going for the TD, or when patton is tired from breaking loose for 50 yard runs.
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: Legore on April 01, 2007, 08:59:23 AM
Johson can play and he looks much bigger and stronger.  Last year the dude had no muscle tone at all looked like he had never lifted a weight in his life.  We need to keep rotating these guys not sure Patton has the size to carry it 25 times a game he'll be better when he's in a rotation and kept fresh.  Both have the speed to take it the distance if you doubt Johnson's speed watch the replay of the kick off return he had for a TD against ku.  But I agree Patton is more explosive he's one of the more explosive players in the league he can hit full speed in a couple of steps. 
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: McGrowlTowelZac on April 01, 2007, 12:01:12 PM
I like using them both, they compliment each other well.  Though I like Patton as the starter, and bring JJ in second.

Regardless of who plays more, they both should have huge years if the o-line can be a force.
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: Andy on April 01, 2007, 08:24:07 PM
pass catching ability is a big factor, wasn't patton better here?

blocking wise i think johnson got the nod. 

either way we dont lose much no matter whose out there.
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: Pittcat on April 01, 2007, 08:51:08 PM
It's six of one half-a-dozen of another.  Either way, they can both contribute in their own way.  But I still think Patton hit the weight room more.  Compare the muscle tone of their legs.
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: WildCatzPhreak on April 01, 2007, 09:11:59 PM
Johnson is a good receiver.  I say this of course thinking only of the Texas game.
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: Pittcat on April 02, 2007, 01:57:13 AM
Johnson is a good receiver.  I say this of course thinking only of the Texas game.

Did anyone have a bad game against Texas?
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: FBWillie on April 02, 2007, 07:44:09 AM
Johnson is a good receiver.  I say this of course thinking only of the Texas game.

Did anyone have a bad game against Texas?
Meier?
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: ksu_FAN on April 02, 2007, 08:44:00 AM
Use Patton/Johnson like Hickson/Lawrence*.  Early with Gallon and later with Scobey/Sproles was when Snyder used primarly 1 RB, in between he used the hot hand/RB by committee approach.  No reason it can't work with these two b/c I don't think one has a clear lead on the other.

*When both were healthy. 
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: michigancat on April 02, 2007, 08:47:11 AM
Patton should have a clear lead, based on...performance.
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: chum1 on April 02, 2007, 08:53:38 AM
We'll be using two backs.  It's the latest furore in the NFL.
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: Pittcat on April 02, 2007, 08:53:55 AM
I'd like to see Patton double his production on the ground this coming season.  (If not more than double)  I think with his obvious work ethic, and drive this could happen.  But I'd also take 1800-2000 yds b/t JJ and Patton.  
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: ksu_FAN on April 02, 2007, 08:56:47 AM
I can see that.  I think Patton definately finished the season stronger than Johnson.  It will be interesting to see with both having the same offseason conditioning and Johnson not coming in late.  
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: Pittcat on April 02, 2007, 09:01:52 AM
I know I'm being redundant, but Patton just looks like he hit the training in the offseason harder than JJ.  Of course we all know that rippling biceps doesn't necesarilly(sp?) transfer into more talent  at RB.  *cough* Clayton! *cough*
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: Legore on April 02, 2007, 09:08:13 AM
I know I'm being redundant, but Patton just looks like he hit the training in the offseason harder than JJ.  Of course we all know that rippling biceps doesn't necesarilly(sp?) transfer into more talent  at RB.  *cough* Clayton! *cough*

Patton is just naturally more built and more muscular then Johnson.   Patton was well built when he got here and Johnson had the upper body of a 15 year old boy when he showed up.  I don't think it's a matter of one hitting the weights harder in the off season as much as it is genetics and one having much more of a base to start out with.  Both guys put on weight and strength in the off season.  Doesn't really matter which one starts you need two good backs and I think we have them.  Plenty of carries to go around for both of them and it sounds like we are using some two back sets with both on the field at the same time. 
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: cireksu on April 02, 2007, 09:13:42 AM
They are both solid, obviously Patton has more upside right now because he's younger.  I think JJ does a very good job of being patient and getting positive yds.
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: michigancat on April 02, 2007, 09:15:27 AM
Code: [Select]
RUSHING GP Att Gain Loss Net Avg TD Long Avg/G
Patton, Leon 12 108 640 31 609 5.6 6 44 50.8
Johnson, James 10 98 428 25 403 4.1 2 37 40.3

Based on this, I'd say Patton is about 37% more solid, but the coach only thinks he's 10% more solid.
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: Pittcat on April 02, 2007, 09:18:35 AM
Maybe a little offset "I" with JJ at FB.  I'd buy that.  I could see Prince put a FB/RB option in the playbook, just to see if defenses still know how to defend it.  Can you imagine JJ cutting up the field with Patton on his hip?   :love:
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: catzacker on April 02, 2007, 10:03:12 AM
I doesn't matter who's at TB as long as John McCardle is leading the way at FB. 
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: Pittcat on April 02, 2007, 10:13:37 AM
When's the last time a major college defense saw the wishbone?
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: JTKSU on April 02, 2007, 10:16:10 AM
When's the last time a major college defense saw the wishbone?
Hell, I think Navy ran it some last year.
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: Pittcat on April 02, 2007, 10:17:51 AM
When's the last time a major college defense saw the wishbone?
Hell, I think Navy ran it some last year.

True, I forgot about them.  But they're one of what, 114 or so D-1 football teams?
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: ksu_FAN on April 02, 2007, 10:22:16 AM
When's the last time a major college defense saw the wishbone?

Rice was an option team before a year or two ago when they made a coaching change.  Several teams (Air Force) run a version of the wishbone, at least its essentually a 3 back option offense.  But to say they faced a wishbone with legit top tier athletes, its been a long time.

I'm anxious to see what we do with the FB spot this year. Last year we went away from McCardle and used a TE as FB as the season went along.  This year, still no one listed as FB, so I'm assuming when we use I formation we'll put a TE in there.
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: catzacker on April 02, 2007, 10:47:14 AM

I'm anxious to see what we do with the FB spot this year. Last year we went away from McCardle and used a TE as FB as the season went along.  This year, still no one listed as FB, so I'm assuming when we use I formation we'll put a TE in there.

I hated seeing McCardle in the game at FB. He should only be allowed on special teams. 
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: JTKSU on April 02, 2007, 11:44:38 PM

I'm anxious to see what we do with the FB spot this year. Last year we went away from McCardle and used a TE as FB as the season went along.  This year, still no one listed as FB, so I'm assuming when we use I formation we'll put a TE in there.

I hated seeing McCardle in the game at FB. He should only be allowed on special teams. 
I like the guy, but mostly because one of the coaches called him a "rolling ball of butcher knives" or something to that effect.
Title: Re: Johnson should be #2
Post by: cireksu on April 03, 2007, 08:44:25 AM
Mccardle(?) was a liability at times, not strong enough to carry the ball much and not big enough to take on a linebacker in the big 12.  I think he was rewarded for working his butt off and the fact we had absolutely no one else that was ready to step in and take that position.  I though Pooshke(?) was ok in that role at times.