C
I would highly doubt he has been cleared by ND. He has yet to complete the requirements to even get to the point of getting to that process.
I like him at RB/Slot/Returnman.
The same way Oregon used LaMichael James (5'9")
or
The same way Oregon St used Jacquizz Rodgers (5'6")
I like him at RB/Slot/Returnman.
The same way Oregon used LaMichael James (5'9")
or
The same way Oregon St used Jacquizz Rodgers (5'6")
I really like the comparison, one of the reasons Mckenzie got the offer was he showed to the staff he can play coming out of the backfield. However, from a profile standpoint both those guys were considerably heavier coming out of high school and playing in college. both came in at approx. 180 and left at 194 and 196 respectively. So thats about a 15lb weight gain for Mckenzie in the next year and roughly 30 before he leaves campus. Not impossible but quite a lot to do for a small frame.
... the 5'9" players, outperformed the other groups in virtually every category: rushing yards, rushing TDs (by a huge margin), first downs, and first down %. The advantage is so large that you can subtract Emmitt Smith from the group entirely, and it still leads in most categories, plus it passes Group 1 (the shortest players) for best rushing average (4.84).
The further over 5'9" the players went, the lower their TD totals got. The data suggest that the advantages gained by shorter players (low center of gravity, tough for defenders to see behind the line) outweigh the advantages of a taller player (arm length, extra inch or two if they fall forward). In a goal-line situation, you simply aren't going to fall forward very often. Here's the 5'9" group with Emmitt, without Emmitt, and combined with the shortest group into a 33-season sample of all the RBs under 5'10":
This isn't about sample size, and it isn't about Emmitt skewing the stats. Shorter RBs, when they are successful, gain more yards and more first downs, score more touchdowns, and have better averages than successful RBs who are tall. Height in excess of 69 inches is a disadvantage for running backs, including in short-yardage rushing situations.
What is wrong with Kelly?
Geez!
The optimum height for an RB is 5-9.
Now I understand why ND's Red Zone Offense scored so few TDs. It wasn't the play calling or the execution. The backfield was too tall.
RB 2012
20 Cierre Wood 6-0, 215, Sr.
6 Theo Riddick, 5-11, 199, Sr.
Somebody needs to tweet Kelly right away, GAIII isn't optimum!
RB 2013
***4 G. Atkinson III | 6-1, 220, JR
***3 Amir Carlisle | 5-10, 190, JR
***1 Greg Bryant | 5-10, 204, FR
*33 Cam McDaniel | 5-10, 207, JR
Are these stats based off of last year's NCAA season? If so, I believe the stats may be skewed by a couple of Chip Kelly's players up in the NW.
Are these stats based off of last year's NCAA season? If so, I believe the stats may be skewed by a couple of Chip Kelly's players up in the NW.
We could easily put 10 pounds on McKenzie by the time he gets on campus. I checked the average height/weight of NFL rb's and was pretty suprised at the findings...
5'9" and 6'1", 205-235 lbs
These are guys that have also gone through college and pro weight training. Here are some more notable lil' guys that have/are played(ing) in the NFL.
Barry Sanders: 5'8", 200 lbs, 30.4 BMI
Emmitt Smith: 5'9", 216 lbs, 31.9 BMI
Priest Holmes: 5'9", 213 lbs, 31.5 BMI
LaDainian Tomlinson: 5'10", 215 lbs, 30.8 BMI
Tiki Barber: 5'10", 205 lbs, 29.4 BMI
Thurman Thomas: 5'10", 206 lbs, 29.6 BMI
Jacquizz Rogers: 5' 6", 196 lbs
Warrick Dunn: 5'8", 180 lbs (almost identical size of McKenzie)
Darren Sproles: 5'6, 181 lbs
I could find more too. That's just a couple minutes of looking. Here's an interesting article on size in relation to success in the NFL. This is in the NFL too, it's easier to be undersized in college than the pros.
Sports Central / Sports Articles and Columns / NFL / Does Size Matter For Running Backs?
Not saying it can't be done but that is a lot of weight to add. The reason I made comparisons coming out of high school is become some frames carry weight differently and maybe his body is more in the mold of Austin vs. Rodgers or James, thats all. I don't think he plays at those weights in college. (190-200lbs.)
I like him at RB/Slot/Returnman.
The same way Oregon used LaMichael James (5'9")
or
The same way Oregon St used Jacquizz Rodgers (5'6")
Or West Virginia used Tavon Austin.
I compare him more to Deanthony Thomas. Maybe not quite as fast but neither can be the main rb, but play the slot out of the backfield as well as running routes well.
I'm not even saying that he needs to gain weight. As the list shows, he is already bigger than Sproles and the same size as Warrick Dunn as a high school senior.
That being said, Jacquizz was listed as 5'6"/180 as a senior in High School per Rivals:
Jacquizz Rodgers - Yahoo! Sports
Mckenzie is listed as 5'8"/165 at this time.
Isaiah McKenzie - Yahoo! Sports
From what I have been told, by people that have seen him in person, is that he is probably more 5'7"/180.
Measured at 5'7 168 at ND this weekend per Loy
tj on II says things are still fluid as far as admissions is concerned so it's still wait and see.
To be a little more specific he said that he hasn't cleared admissions and they are going to monitor his progress through this semester. Both sides have a clear understanding of this. If he'd been cleared already he'd be a part of the class. That poster on II sure sounds like a dummy now. His post was quite celebratory and he gets shut down by the TJ.
I think what TJ is saying is that there are a couple of classes he is taking this semester at school that he needs to meet the requirements (probably a decent grade too). We are in excellent shape for McKenzie