Ah, the magical nostrum of players you don't know over players you do. If we don't get player X, we'll never make another 3rd and 1 again after Tebow leaves! I think they'll figure out 3rd and 1. We have a kid named Pridemore whose going to be a heckuva fullback. As lead blocker, he can clear the way. And incidentally, Rainey looked pretty good in his 2nd and 3rd and short carries when he got some blocking. I just don't see this as a real problem. Wanting an every down back to be in place for 2011 is distinct from what you'll do on 3rd and short after Tebow. Mack Brown certainly isn't that "big back." Heck, we aren't really even recruiting them. If we really wanted that big back (which admittedly Malcome is) then why aren't there more offers out there for his "type?" Think about that for a moment. Almost without exception the rest of the backs we are pursuing are not the classic big back. If Mack Brown comes in at 185, it's going to take him going on 2 years to get to the 210-215 minimum of a "big back" in good weight. It's not useful to conflate "big back" with "every down back," as they aren't the same thing. Malcome had some qualities the coaches liked, perhaps, apart from simply being a big back. 3rd and 1 is more about finding angles than it is being big and knocking people over. What makes Tebow successful in short yardage has more to do with his vision, picking his spots, and ability to use angles than it is his sheer size, which doesn't hurt, of course. He's a very crafty runner, not just a dumb battering ram. I'm surprised more don't see this.

I find dismaying the opinion that Demps and Rainey aren't "real" running backs. We constantly read "oh, they're only scatbacks" with the emphasis on ONLY. We'll, if they're only scatbacks, then give me 2-3 of them in every single class. Perhaps if their YPC were lower they'd be better thought of. Struggling to get a yard or two is the way that "real" backs do it. That running for 40 yard touchdowns stuff is totally overrated. I guess those aren't "real" yards they're making between the tackles, but imaginary yards. What more could one want than a back who, given a tiny bit of daylight, can take it to the house every time he touches the ball -and we have TWO of them? Demps has turned out every bit and more of his 4 stars. By next year, Rainey's going to be in the 185 range, and that is getting thick enough to take some pounding. Demps is going to be in the same area. These kids are YOUNG too. We're fine there. No emergency. Just normal recruiting procedure.

As for bigs, Moody did well with the carries he was given, and showed some inside toughness. He's fumble-prone, which is why he's not getting more carries -and is why no one thinks he's the answer to the "every down back" problem. If he stops fumbling, he plays, and if he plays, this question goes away. He's got two more years. He's 6' 210. He's your big back. I happen to think that underneath it all, this is more about the recruiting PR and pride of getting that "elite" RB prospect to silence the critics. It couldn't possibly be for production on the field. What, 230 yards per game on the ground of which Tebow got only averaged 30-40 isn't good enough? Minus Tebow's stats, it's still better than UGA with all their elite backs. I've got news, though, if you silence the critics on the RB issue, it will just be some other thing. When they're getting their a$$es handed to them both in recruiting and on the field, they have to find an angle, and now it's the "system" angle. Some kids are going to naturally listen to a coach they trust tell them UF doesn't prepare it's RBs for the league. We do. It's the nature of the game, despite the fact that the league is changing and more and more teams are running out of the shotgun (at least part of the time).

After the very mediocre performance of Reggie Bush in the League, I'm not so sold on the promise of the elite back projecting directly to the league either. It's very difficult to predict who is going to make it in the league and become a household name, which is what everyone craves. Household names? Max Starks has made himself into one of the highest paid tackles in all the NFL. He's a genuine star. Household name? Nope. He's a tackle and not a skill player. Who knows who's going to be a media darling in the league? What I want is to win college football games. Everything else after that is gravy. College ball is so much more about the coaching and player development than the league, in which it's really he who has the best athletes wins. You'll hear college coaches deny that, but it's either false modesty or its an attempt to take pressure off of themselves. Sure you need the Jessies and the Joes, but, believe me, UGA has had them in spades, but they're playing second fiddle to UF in the East, a team they have arguably been more talented than quite a few times, top to bottom.

IMO UGA does not develop its players as well, and that's a huge difference. It's now known that UGA has slacked off in the S&C area. A pro scout came out and said their players often looked under-developed. That's part of player development. So now we hear about Richt's big push to get serious in the weight room. Well, he should have been serious about training to begin with, not after losing 4 of 5 to Meyer. That's one of the reasons why I'm not so worried about getting that super elite prospect. We had one of those guys and while he had flashes, he was never what we thought we'd get from him. Rainey was an elite recruit. He's just not the bruiser many of you think we need. I'd argue we're not really going hard after that type. None of the names at the top of our board are that type. They're all 180-190-ish and those numbers are probably high. Johnson is the only other name that's in Malcome's weight range.

We need a running back and probably two for depth and development. Chances are, whomever we get is not going to see much of the field until 2010, and possibly 2011. I think we'll get a feller or two in here that can run the football, considering that our run stats have gone up every single year under Meyer. I hope it's Grant or Brown. Whichever back we get, they will not necessarily be the solution to 3rd and 1, only a potential answer.

But it's just my opinion. My contention is that we're recruiting a back for no earlier than 2011, unless he turns out to be a once-a decade kind of player, and I simply don't see any of those out there, Mack Brown included. Give me Grant or Brown and call it a day. Big back? I dunno how hard we're really going after one, and that tells me a lot.