The Blue Board

No, serious question.

I'm leaning towards the side of calling BS on the idea that the SEC better
prepares running backs for the NFL.

If you are great, you are great doesn't matter what conference you play in, it will show at any level

Agree with this

Stupid assumption IMO. For instance, although I would like to get A. Kamara this year as would Bama. The kid should go to Oregon. He will be #2 guy there, in an offense that he will get a lot more looks. At bama he will be coming in with 2 five stars and a 4 star who is better than the others, and they will be behind on of the best backs in the country TJ Yeldon. (I know, he may play slot---- he is a RB who can catch, not a slot reciever). At georgia he will be behind 2 guys that just finished their true freshman year, so unless someone got injured he would not see many meaningful snaps for another couple of year minimum.

In summary, the experience and amount of carries can balance or outweigh the quality of competition in some cases. It's all case by case, situation by situation.

This is one of those things that is impossible to determine. How is anyone supposed to know if playing in the SEC is what helped develop certain players? If they had the same coaching staff in another conference, would they still have developed the same?

Look at the Manning brothers. Is anyone seriously going to tell me that Peyton Manning wouldn't be a top QB in the NFL if he had played in a different conference?

You can say the same for about 90% of the players at the elitel level in the NFL honestly. Peyton would have probably left college with an MNC and definitely the Heisman (which he still should have won) if he hadn't of had to play those Florida teams every year.

Ya, I actually took some time right now to look at some NFL numbers in regards to running backs.

The guy on the radio was definately just blowing SEC smoke. If anything, if just asked the question, does
the SEC or PAC 12 better prepare RB's for the NFL, the answer would be the Pac12.

Either that, or the running backs currently in the NFL that played in the Pac12
just have more talent than RB's from the SEC.

I think it's probably more about talent, than what conference they played in.

It's moronic. There's no other position in football that's more intuitive, or plug and play than RB. Doesn't matter who you played against or what system you came out of, you either have it or you don't. Why you see true freshmen step on the field and dominate way more often than any other position. You don't see it as much in the NFL simply because most teams run 3 deep with veterans. Intuitive-wise the closest thing on D would be LB.

I tend to agree with psubills. Conference affiliation does nothing to prepare you for the NFL. Being an elite player in any of the 5 power conferences is going to get a player plenty of exposure to become a top draft pick.

In every conference you also end up with a guy or two that wan't even though of much in college (or at least not elite) that shows out in the NFL once players are on a little more of a level playing field.

Arian Foster, Matt Schaub, Alfred Morris, and Stevan Ridley are all examples of that currently. Another great example of that in the past in Priest Holmes.

Also, playing with elite talent in college can also somewhat ill-prepare you for the next level. Look at Leinart. Great QB, put also had possibly one of the best collection of skill players on one team we've seen in a while. Think about how crazy those USC teams would have been if Carson Palmer was 4 or 5 years younger. That would have been insane.

I'm not concluding that from those stats listed. I'm concluding that from the numbers I looked at.

Let me ask a question to the board.

2 running backs gain 15,000 yards.
But 1 running back averaged 4.5 yards per carry and
the other running back averaged 4.0 yards per carry.

Is half a yard average per carry more than the other running back a gigantic difference, a medium difference, or not that big of a difference in talent and performance?

Only thing I would say about DE is that there may be a league-specific adjustment factor... A DE in the SEC is used to going against mondo O-linemen. A DE in a smaller league wouldn't have to necessary develop a full compliment of moves requisite to getting to the QB. If he has superior size, the bull rush is really all he needs. Easier for a rush LB or rush DE. Relying on stunts, missed assignments, and being able to just run over a HB.

Over the last 2 NFL seasons.
Taking the 12 SEC running backs with the most carries/yards.

12 SEC RB's
===========
3,557 carries
14,505 yards
4.1 yards per carry

PAC 12 RB's
==========
3,366 carries
15,011 yards
4.5 Yards per carry

Over the last 2 NFL seasons there are only 4 SEC and 4 Pac12 running backs that
each have over 300 carries and over 1300 yards. (The best 4 from each)
SEC 4
=======
1,794 carries
7,434 yards
4.1 yards per carry

PAC 4
======
1,989 carries
9,073 yards
4.6 yards per carry

This year, of running backs who gained at least 250 yards,
only 3 SEC backs averaged as much as 4.0 yards per carry.
Ridley 4.4
Tate 4.3
Foster 4.1

The rest all under 4.0 ypc
Green-Ellis 3.9, Ballard 3.9, Ingram 3.9, Moreno 3.8,
F. Jones 3.6, Richardson 3.6, Hillis 3.6, McFadden 3.3.

Of RB's who gained more than 250 yards,
the PAC had 7 of 9 average 4.0 yards or more per carry
A few examples are;
Forsett 5.9, Lynch 5.0, Jones-Drew 4.8, Bush 4.3, S.Jackson 4.1.

Almost half of a yard per carry better over the last 2 NFL seasons. That is a gigantic difference.
So we can put the "SEC better prepares RB's for the NFL" Hogwash to bed.

Blue chip high school running backs in the south should take notice of this.
The numbers show that former Pac12 RB's are averaging a half yard per carry more than their SEC counterparts in the NFL, which means in the coming years, NFL teams will continue to draft what has been successful,
and more and more will draft Pac12 running backs.

So, elite RB's, come on out to the west coast and increase your chances of big time NFL success.