I’m no spring chicken but too young to know much about Amundson. Can one of you old farts give me a comparable to what he was like?How about we add:
George Amundson
Troy Davis
Tracy Henderson
Is that "stacking the deck" a little too much?
Hypothetical - Pick one
- Thread starter CloneGuy8
- Start date
I think as some have alluded to, coaching and scheme definitely matters. Love Danny Mac all day, but Campbell and his staff with a guy as dynamic as Wallace? Yes please. Tough question for sure between these two options.
I find it kind of interesting that it seems like most of the comments have leaned towards A, but the votes lean towards B. I voted for B, especially because of the qualifier that the rest of the roster is the 2020 team. I think B fits better with the 2020 roster than A, with how the big play potential would complement the consistency of the 2020 TEs.
I also think some people might be underrating Butler because of his NFL disappointment compared to Lazard. Butler put up better numbers during his junior year than Lazard ever put up. Granted, there are some big caveats to that (Lazard having worse QB play generally and having to compete with Butler for catches during his senior year). Even with those caveats, I think you can definitely argue that Butler was a better college receiver than Lazard. I also personally would take Hall over Montgomery. I don't know about Wallace vs. Purdy, but I think it's pretty close.
I also think some people might be underrating Butler because of his NFL disappointment compared to Lazard. Butler put up better numbers during his junior year than Lazard ever put up. Granted, there are some big caveats to that (Lazard having worse QB play generally and having to compete with Butler for catches during his senior year). Even with those caveats, I think you can definitely argue that Butler was a better college receiver than Lazard. I also personally would take Hall over Montgomery. I don't know about Wallace vs. Purdy, but I think it's pretty close.
The right opportunity, I would say. Butler was a far more dynamic receiver than Lazard and more of a downfield threat. We used Lazard like a possession receiver. He had a ton of third down catches in the 6-10 yard range that went for first downs.
Do you know how many yards per rush he averaged? No contest.
Seneca had short slow receivers. They didn’t separate as well as out TEs now can and Seneca literally carried the team. Without him they were a 2 win team probably. So I gotta go with team B.
A. Brock is better than Seneca by more than Breece is better than Monty. AL and Butler are close to a push though I probably would give the slight advantage to AL (though Butler had more raw talent).
I voted B for one main reason - big play potential would be higher.
Seneca had a stronger arm than Purdy plus he was faster. Seneca running the read option of today's offense instead of the speed option of yesteryears would be a treat to watch and a nightmare for defenses.
Then you can fall back on Breece's perfect, workman-like approach to RB and the TEs in the short to midrange passing game for an amazing offense.
Seneca had a stronger arm than Purdy plus he was faster. Seneca running the read option of today's offense instead of the speed option of yesteryears would be a treat to watch and a nightmare for defenses.
Then you can fall back on Breece's perfect, workman-like approach to RB and the TEs in the short to midrange passing game for an amazing offense.
I voted for A initially, but have changed it to B now.
I was thinking if I were a defensive coordinator which offense would be harder to prepare for.... and that answer is definitely B.... not even that close. So much more explosive and dynamic. Seneca can do it all, and if he pulls it on the RPO and runs.... watch out.... he could take it to the house. Or he could give it to Breece..... which is crazy to even think about..... and if he fakes it to Breece and drops back to pass..... Butler can take the top off of any defense. Combine that with Kolar, Soehner, and Allen..... OMG!
I was thinking if I were a defensive coordinator which offense would be harder to prepare for.... and that answer is definitely B.... not even that close. So much more explosive and dynamic. Seneca can do it all, and if he pulls it on the RPO and runs.... watch out.... he could take it to the house. Or he could give it to Breece..... which is crazy to even think about..... and if he fakes it to Breece and drops back to pass..... Butler can take the top off of any defense. Combine that with Kolar, Soehner, and Allen..... OMG!
I had this exact same thought process. In general I think AL is better than Hakeem (more polished) but I think his skill set is kind of similar to the TEs on this years team. Hakeem brings that deep threat ability the team was missing this year so that would be a big advantage.
You do understand Seneca had almost nothing to work with, correct? His WR's couldn't get any separation at all hardly.
If you just look at stats, Purdy might look like the choice..... but if you've seen both play live and in person, like I have, you can tell which one is WAY more dangerous to opposing defenses.
Purdy has taken us to another level. I lived through the collapse of the 2002 season. There were several games where we absolutely were completely shut down. Completely. A lot of it was the team had definite weaknesses. But for example in the UConn game, Seneca was 19-41 with 0 TD’s and 4 INT’s. 17 point Cyclone loss to a bad UConn team. The 1-6 record in the last 7 games had some other bad performances.
