Auditing the Seahawks Roster: Running Back

by John Morgan on Oct 26, 2009 5:09 PM PDT Comment 101 comments

More photos » Elaine Thompson - AP

Jones exhibiting his 4.51 speed.

I have audited Seattle at left tackle, left guard and center. I have spoken extensively on Ray Willis and Max Unger, though less on Unger since he has become a pro. Today I want to talk about Seattle's running back situation.

Seattle has been without a superstar rusher since Shaun Alexander broke down. Teams that experience great success with a superstar rusher often think they need a superstar rusher to be successful. Seattle does not have a hallowed history, but running back is one position it has done well. The great Seahawks rushers have names any football fan knows: Shaun Alexander, Curt Warner and Chris Warren were all great rushers. Ricky Watters was a great back that spent a few late career years here. John L. Williams was a great running fullback.

Mike Holmgren had Alexander, Chuck Knox, Warner, and Tom Flores and Dennis Erickson shared Warren, though neither did spit with him. Jim Mora has Julius Jones, Justin Forsett and Edgerrin James. Jones, Force and James will never be spoken of with Alexander or even Warren, but does it matter?

The running game lost its grasp over the NFL before I was born. The modern NFL is a quarterback's league. The leading rushers of recent Super Bowl winners have been mostly late round picks like Willie Parker, Brandon Jacobs and Terrell Davis; and talented retreads like Michael Pittman, Corey Dillon and Antowain Smith. Davis was a superstar in his short time, so the point is not about effectiveness. Most Super Bowl winning teams have had an effective run game.

The point is that Super Bowl winning teams have not typically invested heavily into their running back position itself. Seattle is on that track. Jones is 28. The Seahawks signed him to a cheap contract after he was run out of Dallas. Jones is Seattle's primary running back. He is a good pass blocker and can receive. It's been a long time since he looked like a good rusher, but it's been a long time since he could look like a good rusher. The 2008 Seahawks collapsed. The 2009 Seahawks await their starting line to take the field together.

Stats are a red herring and even tape can be difficult to decipher. How do we separate the line from the back? Here is an attempt.

Julius Jones was draft 43^rd overall in the 2004 draft. He was the fifth running back selected. Jones ran a slow 4.51 at the Combine despite being a speed back at Notre Dame. There he set records returning kicks and punts. Jones does seem field fast, but his raw speed argues he can not lose significant speed before he is no longer a viable NFL running back.

If Jones is slowing down, you would expect it to show in his stats, but Jones' rushing and receiving longs are comparable to his career rushing and receiving longs. He doesn't look slow in the open field, he just isn't reaching the open field very often anymore.

Another thing that could slow Jones or make him less agile or easier to tackle is performance decline related to injuries. Jones has been very healthy for a back. His most significant injury was a broken scapula his rookie season. His next most significant injury was a high ankle sprain suffered in 2005. Since then, Jones has been healthy, avoiding major injuries and mostly avoiding nagging injuries.

Jones doesn't seem slower and he doesn't seem hobbled by injuries. He has developed a reputation as an unremarkable back and maybe he is. But Jones blocks well, receives well and is one the cheapest starting running backs in the NFL. His brother Thomas fits the same profile and was passed around the league before he landed on a contender. Thomas Jones has never been a remarkable rusher, but he stayed healthy, kept his speed and does the little things well. No one would argue if Thomas could be the lead rusher on a Super Bowl winning team - he was a Rex Grossman away from being just that in 2006.

So C.J. Spiller is awesome, Jahvid Best is hype, Jonathan Dwyer is big, and some of the kids are likely to crash the party, but are any of them the piece that pushes Seattle closer to a championship? I don't think so. I think Seattle could do it with Jones. And if it can do it with Jones and Jones is cheap, why spend precious resources to replace him?

0 recs | Comment 101 comments | Share

Story-email Email Printer Print

Comments

Just one T in "auditing"

by lemonverbena on Oct 26, 2009 6:45 PM PDT via mobile reply actions 0 recs

That's what I thought, too.

"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."

by Fearless Frog on Oct 26, 2009 6:58 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Thanks.

by John Morgan on Oct 26, 2009 11:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I get that running isn't as impactful as passing

and that running continues to be emphasized by coaches, ESPN and many fans.

But the case can be overstated. An unbalanced offense can make you vulnerable. Musashi emphasized not relying on one weapon in battle too much, no matter how greatly you mastered it someone would figure out your game and get you in another way.

Also, the running game may not be as impactful as the passing game, but that doesn’t mean RB isn’t a premier impact position. I still contend it makes more of a difference than all but QB.

I believe we need an upgrade at the position. I believe a guy that stands out from his class, at this position, is worth our top pick in the draft. Not a necessity, but it can make a substantial difference.

All that said, this post has great perspective. Knowing where you don’t have to spend resources is a key aspect of GM success.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 12:00 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

RB take all the credir, and money from the line

The line is what we need to sink those resources in. A good line gets you 3 yards a carry with me running behind it. RBs like T. Davis and S. Alexander got all the credit, but they were running behind HOF lines. Denver replaced Davis with every joe bag of donuts RB and they looked HOF behind that line. We moved our line around and look what happened to Alexander’s production. Fix the line and it will all fall into place.

by stufr on Oct 27, 2009 4:00 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That's a common sentiment, but I disagree

I think there was a stark difference between Portis and Davis and the other guys in Denver. The ZBS does limit negative rushing plays, and enables 1 and 2 yarders to be 3 and 4 yarders, which is good. Theoretically we’ll get to that point, even if we don’t get the next Adrian Peterson.

But the reaction to the casual fan giving all the credit to the RB has resulted in the semi-informed fan giving more credit to the line than is due. You’re probably being facetious to make a point, but if you think you could get 3YPC in the NFL because the bulk of running proficency lies in the line and negligibly lies in the abilities of the back — this is exactly what you’re saying if you make this claim — well, I mean I just disagree.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 8:02 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think you're right

A successful passing game sets up the run, and a successful running game sets up the pass.

I think JMs point about less investment these days in running backs is really about the RBs, not the run game overall. I think the investment in the entire O line, including TE, takes away from investing in the RBs. Its a better formula for winning, instead of investing too much in one star RB.

I think back to Barry Sanders in Detroit. IMHO, Barry was the greatest RB ever to touch a football, but his offensive line held that team back year after year.

Then I think back to the 2006 Seahawks, and I always wonder what would have happened if we had kept Steve Hutchinson INSTEAD of keeping Shaun Alexander. I have a feeling that any solid all around running back in the mold of Julius Jones could have had great success behind that line. That line didn’t need Shaun; Shaun needed that line.

"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank

by Stevo's on Oct 27, 2009 9:36 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You make a very good distinction

between investing in the running game but not necessarily in the running back. and definitely not most all in the running back. About Barry….

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 9:53 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The idea that Barry Sanders' line held him back

is fallacious, however.

Kevin Glover, 3-time Pro Bowl Center. 7-time Pro Bowl and All-pro left tackle Lomas Brown. 4-time All Pro receiver Herman Moore. Scott Mitchell set franchise records for scoring and yardage in multiple years during Barry’s stint, and they went to the playoffs 4 times in the 90’s.

The arguably two most important positions on the line, were stellar. But in the rush to excuse Barry for being a boom and bust RB, his line, offense, and occasionally entire team are disparaged. it’s unjust.

The truth is it was simply hard to win with Barry. He put the team in difficult situations with more regularity than he did with his still astounding breakout runs. Brett Perriman had 1,400 yards as a WR with Moore pulling in 1,600 on the other side! That show how much the Lions had to go to the air despite having Barry Sanders in the backfield. Despite racking up 2,700 yards and 27 TDs in his first two years, he failed to convert a single first down until his third year.

When he had 91, his best year, but Emmitt Smith had a year of 91, a couple years over 100, and converted a first down on 21% of his carries. Barry converted 18% of the time. Seems a small difference, but in a large sample size, it’s modestly damning. Compare to recent greats: Tomlinson, 21%. Shaun Alexander, almost 23%. Edge, almost 22%. Marshall Faulk, 23.5%.

All on the ground. Barry had production through the air, too, but nothing remarkable. Barry wasn’t Shaun Alexander bad as a blocker, but he wasn’t James or Smith either. Bobby Ross might have been a bad coach, but the 90s Lions weren’t that bad a team. Barry was simply a boom and bust RB who was an electric runner, and that’s about it. As Football Outsiders says, he really was the greatest B&B RB, with more booms, bigger booms and fewer busts, but he hurt the team with regularity, and he was not the greatest ever, who was unfortunately held back by a poor team. He was exactly what he produced.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 10:33 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Wait, what?

Despite racking up 2,700 yards and 27 TDs in his first two years, he failed to convert a single first down until his third year.

That can’t be right… He didn’t have a single run over 10 yards in his first two years?

by LantermanC on Oct 27, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Hmm, good catch

Looks likethey must have all been TDs, which I concede ought to count as a first down.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 11:54 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You should double check that

I assume that just means the NFL wasn’t keeping track of that stat.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 12:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yep.

Emmitt Smith has no first downs in 1990 either.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 12:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I noticed that as well, but the lack of the stat being kept makes sense.

Either way I figured that into their averages.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 12:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Two zeros make a bigger difference than one

you should just exclude those years. Also, first down is a great example of where the line really is more important than the back.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 12:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

See, for instance, Shaun Alexander.

It also has a lot to do with the play calling. Holmgren ran short routes to set up runs for Alexander. Sanders played mostly in a run and bomb system, down-field passing system.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 12:53 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

John, we're talking rushing attempts in the thousands

some of the most tenured careers during the featured back era. in 16-game seasons, there’s not a lot of data types that are going to be corroborated by much volume at all. I recognize that a lot of variables aren’t adequately isolated in advanced stats, much less conventional stats, but as you’ve argued with me in the past, by volume and over time the numbers bear some things out, or there are substantial reasons to indicate why they may not. Among greats, Sanders stood apart as a boom and bust back, and both film and numbers bear that out.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 1:07 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Honestly, I wouldn't use statistics to evaluate anyone but a quarterback

and I think even that is pretty difficult, especially in light of Kyle Orton looking competent in Denver. But I understand your argument and am not trying to excuse it. I just was pointing out that your numbers might be incorrect because you counted two seasons of zero first downs against Sanders.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 1:20 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

And thanks for that.

I do feel sheepish about those numbers.

I prefer to recognize the limitations of statistics, like science, logic and knowledge, and then prudently do our best to see what they might indicate.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, those years shouldn't count

On what account is the line more important than the back? That’s unfounded. I don’t know of any athlete ever more excused by other player’s lack of performance than Sanders. He was still a great back and not just a great runner. Backs are more than a pair of legs protected by blockers.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 1:23 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You know

that’s just a hunch. But short yardage is usually attributed to the line and it does seem intuitively that a back does not do much more than run behind his line and fall where the push ends.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 1:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That makes sense.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 1:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Barry Sanders line was given credit because of Barry Sanders

And though two members were good, that doesn’t make a line. Detroit regularly played poor to replacement level linemen, and that was pretty obvious from watching them. Pick any random year from the Lions and you’ll see guys like 35 year-old Dave Lutz, one-year stop gaps like Bill Fralic and David Richards, sixth round-picks like Larry Tharpe and retreads like Shawn Bouwens.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 12:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you mean the accolades were due to them blocking for Sanders

I find that a little disrespectful and exemplary of the consensus I find myself challenging — a consensus that makes me also disagree if you mean the Lions’ line was given much credit at all outside of Pro Bowl voting. The legacy of the Lions’ 1990s decade seems to be that Sanders was the greatest athlete ever, and he’d have proven it if it weren’t for this crap team in his way.

I am challenging the idea that his team was horrible. I am challenging the idea that it’s everyone else’s fault but Barry’s that he wasn’t dramatically better than all other backs in history. Steve-Os didn’t assert that kind of claim, with that kind of hyperbole, but I’ve found that claim to be quite prevalent and am challenging it. So Brown and Glover alone made for a great line.

I recognize that two guys don’t make a good line. And the Lions did have more turnover at the other positions than normal for the era. Could have been better. Barry was still one of the most productive backs around, and definitely electrifying as a runner. he just wasn’t the greatest at running north-south. He wasn’t the greatest at breaking tackles. He forsook attainable yards for chances at home runs. Probably well worth it, given the returns, I wouldn’t crucify him for it.

But the point is the impact he made for the team’s chances at winning was not directly proportional to the production he gave them overall. FO’s offensive line stats show Barry in true form, to me. Top of the league each year in big runs, bottom of the league in stuffs. A great back, and got the team a lot more yards than the line alone gave them. And, I concede, the impact of the back and the line can’t be separated completely so that all the ALY listed was solely provided by the line, there is a Sanders affect on those numbers — but they weren’t giving him so little to work with as so many suggest.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think we can agree to disagree

Let’s face it: I was very young when Sanders was great. I was in single digits for most of his career. I can’t assign specific blame for each botched run or credit for each great run. I remember seeing Sanders attacked behind the line quite a bit, and though he did seem to have a couple good offensive linemen, he also played with many very bad offensive linemen. I defer to the Steve Vallos rule on that: one terrible offensive lineman really does make that must difference. But who knows. I do not know even if the guys that filled out the Lions line were that awful.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 1:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I remember the same thing

I may have been a bit older but I didn’t really follow the sport beyond the standings until this decade.

I think the argument has largely surfaced from comparisons of Sanders to Smith. Partly what led me to Smith’s numbers, and then felt the need to broaden it out a bit. One doesn’t necessarily need to be definitively better than the other, but the argument that Smith was inferior but benefitted from a better line while Sanders was superior but suffered from a poor line is weighted too heavily as a factor in the discussion. Yes the Cowboys line was better. The team was better. So again with the inapplicability of stats, but Sanders had a great career, had great athleticism, and used it to produce great production. Not greatly beneficial production, but beneficial and very desirable production. I just feel there’s no need to excuse Barry. He was great and doesn’t need to be regarded as any better.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Scott Mitchell was horribly inconsistent, with one amazing year.

To call him “talent around Sanders” is unfair. I checked his numbers, one year he had 32 td’s, 12 int’s, 4338 yards. A MONSTER year.

He followed that with an average of 3300 yards, 18TD’s and 15.5 int’s, the next 2 years when Detroit was thinking they really had something put together…

The defense was weak, the line ordinary. Herman Moore was one of the best receivers of his decade, and among the most underrated despite great numbers. Perriman was solid with one amazing year (the same year as Mitchell’s. (Back then, there were a lot of 2nd WR’s that put up monster numbers on the backs of the number 1. Alvin Harper in Dallas comes to mind.)

I just think they were what everyone seems to think they were. A very average roster with a couple extraordinary talents, but mainly Barry.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 27, 2009 2:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yeah, Scott Mitchell wasn't great

He had that one fluke year and then got figured out. I’m not trying to make the roster out to be extraordinary. Although Moore was one of the best of his time. I am simply contending that the talent on that squad wasn’t a significant impediment to Sanders’ success. For one, he had success. For two, the nature of his own abilities and limitations spelled out his success and limitations far and away more than any other teammate did.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 3:26 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Fair enough.

Didn’t think we were miles apart. Here’s an interesting aside— if you polled coaches in, say, 1995 and GM’s, and asked who would you rather build your team around, Emmit or Barry, who would they have said. (Not that it even matters.) I for one would chose Barry, but I have to be honest, in those days the Hawks were so miserable it wasn’t much fun watching so I didn’t pay that close of attention to the NFL like I do now.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 27, 2009 3:52 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

While I know this argument is ultimately fruitless

I think Sanders is on another tier than Smith. Sanders is up there with Brown, Payton and maybe Faulk. Smith was a great running back on a greater team. What does it say when Larry Allen joins the 49ers at 35 and turns Frank Gore into the best running back in football? That Cowboys line was probably the best five offensive linemen ever assembled. Smith would run through Gilbert Brown sized holes.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 4:01 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Agreed.

The one thing he did have going for him in comparison to Barry is longevity, though that was ultimately Barry’s choice. Seems like Emmit is the “safer” of the two, but I always thought Barry the better.

Barry’s height/cutting and MJD in recent times has made me wonder— how good a RB could Muggsy Bogues have been. Dude was incredibly strong, explosive, fast, quicksilver laterally. Just think how hard it would have been to spot him in the backfield behind 6’6" 340 lb linemen. I saw him listed at 5’3" 140, and I bet he could have bulked up a bit and gotten thicker. I just think it would be an interesting thing to see…

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 27, 2009 4:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I always considered Smith and James to be similar

greatly skilled backs who weren’t otherworldly talented. I always saw Sanders on a tier unto his own, but not with Brown and Payton because he wasn’t a complete package without flaw.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 4:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I'm old enough

that I remember watching those lions teams. I was even a Scott Mitchell fan back before he ended up in Detroit. I’m old enough that my memory may be failing (I’ll use that convenient excuse) but I remember Lions teams with questionable coaching, predictable play calling, desperation bomb passing offense, interceptions and incompletions, and then the whole defense would stack up to stop Barry and they would hand the ball off to him anyway. I can’t remember ever thinking his offensive line was that great, but maybe that’s because some of the offenses he played on seemed like a grab bag of plays with Barry expected to save every game with his breakout runs. Just the opposite of a ball control offense like Holmgren ran or like Knapp, I think, wants to run.

Anyway, maybe a bad example by me. I just loved watching Barry run.

But I think JMs original point that a lot of teams are investing less in an individual RB and more in the whole run game is supportable when I look around the league.

"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank

by Stevo's on Oct 27, 2009 4:04 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Barry Sanders was heroic and don't you dare try to convince me otherwise!

::Shakes fist::

"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."

by Fearless Frog on Oct 28, 2009 9:38 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He was a quitta! A quitta!

by jacobstevens on Oct 28, 2009 10:39 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Spiller would be fun

But the ZBS system, if it ever eventually works here as it did in Denver or Atlanta or other places, is famous for making mega-stars out of anonymous RB’s. Remember when Denver traded Portis for Bailey? Their running game barely dropped off at all.

by kearly on Oct 27, 2009 12:09 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well, they went from 8th to 13th in DVOA

Not a big drop, but essentially reached mediocrity. But DVOA favors ZBS. The arbitrary criteria matches up with the benefits of ZBS.

Consider Football Outsiders’ offensive line stats that try to partially separate the impact of the line from the impact of the RB:

2003 (Portis) | 2004 (Quentin Griffin/Tatum Bell/Garrison Hearst)
Adj. Line yd: 4.37 | 4.48

RB yd: 4.76 | 4.49

Power success: 65% (17th) | 56% (27th)

+10yders: 25% (5th) | 17% (16th)

Stuffed : 21 (2nd) | 18% (9th)

As you can see, the backs didn’t get the team much more than the line already gave them. On the contrary, Portis’ production on the ground yielded more than one of the better lines in the league alone gave the team. The ZBS’ greatest benefit is that it limited negative runs, which is reflected in both years, but by and large, they just didn’t get the first downs and big plays on the ground from the replacements that they did from Portis.

As John said last night, Portis might have actually been the best back during his time. So it might be a singular example that happens to favor my argument. But check out the 2006 Vikings with the 2007 Vikings. Both had Hutchinson and a great, talented line, and Chester Taylor had 1,200 yards in 2006. Good production.

But in 2007, their DVOA vaulted from bottom 3rd to 3rd overall. The RB yards went from less than what ALY gave them to a huge chunk more per carry than what ALY gave them. Their power success and big plays were near the top of the league. Enormous difference.

This wasn’t a ZBS system, so while a cherry-picked stat, it was the first RB and recent applicable situation I could think of. If the value of an RB was a complete mirage, the league would have definitively figured that out years ago. Instead, it can easily be overblown, and the importance of the line forsaken. I’m glad we’re not in danger of that here, but the opposite can be nearly as much of a folly and I want to be careful that we don’t do that.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 8:43 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I totally agree

Jones seems fine, we need to fix the oline. I still think we need to get a back late in the draft to replace James.

by LostLeader on Oct 27, 2009 7:54 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Depending on what we do with our impending WR FAs and the QB situation (over the next two years),

I think we could go the way of building future offense around the running game and specifically a special RB. Maybe not this next draft with so many O-line worries, but certainly in the next two seasons. I tend to think sooner, but the coaches seem content w/ Jones. I’d rather not be content but be special. Jones cannot dominate a game, but nor does he have the line that allows that to happen, either.

Because of the deep class of upper-tier talent (at least perceived upper-tier talent). This class of RBs could yield a starter anywhere in the first 3 rounds, and likely have some finds later, too. The top few guys are studs and last year’s class wasn’t like the year before when it resulted in over a handful of above-average starters. I think this class is closer to that of 2008 that produced JStew, Mendenhall, Chris Johnson, Slaton, Forte, Ray Rice, etc.

This next class may include a laundry-list of guys such as: Spiller, Best, Dwyer, Matthews (Freson St.), Starks (injured, Buffalo), Dixon (Miss. St.), Murray, Brown (both OU), Kendall Hunter (OSU), Andre Anderson (Tulane).

As much as I want us to draft a premiere back , it may have to wait another year. We have a decent back now, so grabbing one with a 2nd day pick isn’t the answer. Either top-notch guy or bust.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer, Sam Bradford*.

by Misfit74 on Oct 27, 2009 8:58 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

While the line is absolutely important, it’s not everything. The man carrying the rock has to be able to find the hole, then get through it. One of Alexanders common criticisms is that he would fall down as soon as he was touched. You look at a guy like Peterson who is lowering his shoulder and plowing through linebackers and you see a great rusher. Fighting for that extra yard becomes critical. Being able to make open field moves, catch screen passes, and just plain hold onto the ball are key attributes. On top of that, a guy that can recognize a blitz and block are important traits. Look at Joseph Addai, he’s not a great back, but what makes him fit in that offense is he can block. When he’s asked to carry the ball, he does it well enough to effectively make the play-action passing game work, but nobody is going to confuse him with Barry Sanders. Edge was that same guy when he was in Indy.

I was actually kinda happy when we signed Jones. He seemed to be an effective back while he was in Dallas, he just wasn’t living up to their Emmit Smith expectations. I think he has all the tools to be an effective back. I don’t think we need to do anything with our backs at this point. Losing Leonard Weaver was more of an impact than anything else. Let’s spend our draft pics wisely, we need a big time Safety who will anchor our secondary. We need lineman who don’t break constantly.

by Kevin M Smith on Oct 27, 2009 9:56 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Subject line.

by LantermanC on Oct 27, 2009 11:49 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"The point is that Super Bowl winning teams..."

have not typically invested heavily into their running back position itself.

Some have, some haven’t. The Rams invested a second, a fifth, and a large contract on Marshall Faulk, the Ravens a first on Jamal Lewis, the Colts a first for Joseph Addai, the Bucs a second for Pittman’s running mate Mike Alstott, the Patriots a second and a contract extension for Dillon. The best team on the field of Super Bowl XL spent a first round pick on their running back.

The Seahawks signed [Julius Jones] to a cheap contract after he was run out of Dallas.

I’m afraid a lot of people make this mistake. Jones has been extremely expensive. He cost whatever his contract is PLUS $6.5 million for the privilege of cutting Shaun Alexander PLUS whatever Duckett cost to pick up the slack that they didn’t think Jones could handle PLUS whatever James cost for the same reason.

All that said, there is no magic formula. You can invest heavily in a running back or not and it may or may not work out for you. The problem with Ruskell is that he has invested like a drunken sailor in the position and at the end of the day has that merely adequate running back to show for it.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Oct 27, 2009 11:27 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Jones bears absolutely zero responsibility for Alexander's cap charge.

That argument exceeds specious. It’s outright desperate. Alexander was sunk cost. Seattle had to cut him. By that logic, any replacement, even Justin Forsett, would be responsible for Alexander’s insane contract. Seattle didn’t sign James or Duckett because Jones couldn’t handle a responsibility. Knapp runs a 2+ back backfield.

Ruskell re-signed Alexander under Holmgren’s guidance. He has since invested almost nothing into the position.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 11:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"Jones bears absolutely zero responsibility for Alexander's cap charge."

Of course, it’s Ruskell’s responsibility, as I stated.

Alexander was sunk cost. Seattle had to cut him.

Yes, because it was obvious to everybody that he was going to be cut once Jones was signed, just a matter of when and how.

The Seahawks could have retained Alexander one more year and paired him with Morris again, saved many millions of cap dollars, and have certainly been no worse off at the end of ‘08 than they ended up being. In the meantime he could have invested a draft pick of his choosing or picked up in free agency any of the dozens of running backs who are as good as Jones for a paltry sum, and they’d be as well off right now as they are, though with, as I mentioned, many additional millions of cap dollars at their disposal. Alternatively, Ruskell could have blown the whole thing up and gone whole hog on a first round running back, and who knows how that would have turned out.

But it simply makes no sense to eat the $6.5 million, spend the however many millions on Jones and Duckett and James, and at the end of the day all you’ve basically got is Jones.

By that logic, any replacement, even Justin Forsett, would be responsible for Alexander’s insane contract.

Uh, no. Forsett was not brought in to replace Alexander. Jones was, and you know it. By the way, that’s Ruskell’s responsibility, as I stated.

Seattle didn’t sign James or Duckett because Jones couldn’t handle a responsibility. Knapp runs a 2+ back backfield.

I’m not entirely sure why Ruskell signed Duckett, in my book that was the most bizarre move he’s yet made. But yes, in part at least it was to cover for the perceived inadequacies of Jones, since he also had Morris and Weaver under contract. James was brought in because he gave up on Duckett, thus paying a few million more for the privilege of not playing somebody and replacing him with somebody who is washed up and costs two or three times rookie minimum.

I’ve stated consistently (in other forums) right from early 2008 what I thought ought to be done, so this isn’t hindsight on my part. If you are determined to be mediocre at the position you might as well just keep the mediocre players you already have, it makes no sense to sign the poster child for mediocrity to a $12 million contract plus a player nobody else wants to a $14 million contract plus another player nobody else wants to a $2 million contract plus eat $6.5 million just to cut a player, all so you can end up mediocre at the position. That money isn’t in a Swiss bank somewhere, it’s gone. Bye-bye. Sure would have come in handy buying some depth for the offensive line, but que sera sera.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Oct 27, 2009 12:28 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alexander was not cut because Seattle signed Jones

Alexander was cut because he was awful.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 12:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jones had a worse statistical year in '07 than Alexander

in some measures, in others he was only a little better.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Oct 27, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alexander was run out of the league

because he was awful. By no meaningful measure was Alexander a tenth of the running back Jones was in 2008.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 12:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

He was the second worst running back by DYAR

the fifth worst by receiving DYAR. Maurice Morris completely outclassed him behind the same line.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 12:43 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Which year are we talking about now?

We were talking about the decision to sign Jones and then cut Alexander. That was offseason ’08. In ’07 Jones was barely any better than Alexander. In ’08 Jones ended up being ~~- guess what?~~- down in the bottom 10% of backs.

The smart thing, as I said at the time, would have been to stick with Alexander and Morris, say 200 carries for Morris and the balance for Alexander, then cut Alexander in ‘08 for less cost than doing it the year before and revisit Morris’s contract, either re-signing him or deciding on a new direction. Really, I think I’m being generous when I call Jones mediocre, since his production in recent years has ranged from mediocre to below average, and this was already known in ’08.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Oct 27, 2009 12:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

No smart decision could have been made that included retaining Shaun Alexander.

Nor would he have sat quietly while Morris received the bulk of the carries, nor has any coach trusted Morris with anything close to a full load.

You can retrospectively say it wouldn’t have mattered because Seattle was so bad, but at the time, Seattle was off a strong year where their weakest unit, by a long shot, was the rushing attack, and that was predominately Shaun Alexander tackling himself attempting to cut in the hole. There’s a reason that no one signed Alexander after Seattle cut him.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 12:59 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Cutting Alexander and eating his contract was the smartest thing Seattle could have done after doing something stupid.

He was sunk cost. Seattle accepted that and attempted to fix their running situation for cheap.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 1:00 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You have to have an alternative

Who in his right mind could look at Jones and Duckett over the previous couple of seasons and think they were any kind of solution?

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Oct 27, 2009 1:09 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Duckett was very productive in his short time

he was asked to convert short yardage and did. I personally think Jones is perfectly acceptable back.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 1:13 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes,

Duckett was used intelligently by Holmgren, but his contract was insane.

Jones is perfectly acceptable if you’re okay with a mediocre to below average running attack, and you consider that in isolation. But the larger context must be considered.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Oct 27, 2009 1:19 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

The contract that cost Seattle one-million dollars was insane?

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 1:27 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

What did it cost

for him to not play this year?

Oh, yeah, I forgot. “Sunk cost.” That conveniently takes care of every poor personnel decision, doesn’t it.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Oct 27, 2009 1:30 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think two million.

I am ignoring your second comment because it’s snide and adds nothing.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 1:33 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

To be clear,

not all that money is gone, those were maximum contract values, only a portion of which went bye-bye.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Oct 27, 2009 12:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

You are weaving together entirely separate moves into a made up history.

The Seahawks could have retained Alexander one more year and paired him with Morris again, saved many millions of cap dollars, and have certainly been no worse off at the end of ‘08 than they ended up being.

Which no one could have possibly known at the time of the decision.

I’m not entirely sure why Ruskell signed Duckett, in my book that was the most bizarre move he’s yet made. But yes, in part at least it was to cover for the perceived inadequacies of Jones, since he also had Morris and Weaver under contract.

Duckett was brought in because Ruskell thought Duckett could be used in a rotation with Jones, and Duckett just happened to become a free agent at a time when Seattle still had Morris and Weaver. Leading up to this season, the talk was that Duckett was going to be part of a running back committee and then something happened that caused Seattle to not want him anymore. He was not signed because of a perceived weakness of Jones.

Ruskell has invested in cheap free agents to fill the running back position. He has invested less in running back that most NFL teams.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 12:39 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alexander, Morris, Weaver, Jones, Duckett

All on the roster at the same time.

Ruskell has invested in cheap free agents to fill the running back position.

A vomit pizza is not “cheap” even if only costs $15. Nobody wants a vomit pizza, therefore any amount you pay for it is expensive. This describes the contracts given to Duckett and James.

“Cheap” might properly describe Jones’s contract. Cheap contract, cheap results. By NFL standards, anyway.

Any honest calculus will include Alexander’s dead money, because the NFL takes it into account and won’t let the Seahawks have it back.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Oct 27, 2009 1:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alexander's dead money is immaterial

It’s sunk cost. Ruskell’s decision to sign Jones is only influenced by Alexander’s contract insomuch that Alexander’s contract was still counting against the cap. In light of which, Ruskell made a pretty good move after a very bad decision.

Duckett cost Seattle 1 million against the cap in 2008 and was the team’s most productive runner. Colorful metaphors are nice and all, but in this case, they are entirely inaccurate.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 1:18 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Alexander's dead money is quite material,

because there was an alternative to eating that money.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Oct 27, 2009 1:31 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Letting him take up a valuable roster spot despite the fact that it was clear he was the least productive back of the bunch?

by BrianL on Oct 27, 2009 1:34 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

His absence on the roster

cost more money than if they’d kept him.

And what was the alternative? Every functioning adult who follows the NFL knew that Jones was little or no better than a washed-up Alexander. Holmgren certainly recognized it.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Oct 27, 2009 1:41 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

This

Every functioning adult who follows the NFL knew that Jones was little or no better than a washed-up Alexander. Holmgren certainly recognized it.

is both a fallacy of popular sentiment and a call to authority. It’s also incorrect. No one thought almost anyone was worse than Shaun Alexander.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

While I side with you on this matter

I had at least 5 Cowboy fans I know tell me we were getting a net wash going Shaun to Juice. It was an overstatement. But not by too much. And I was a bit underwhelmed, I think it’s not too far-fetched to think that a lot of people thought we weren’t getting much before the fact.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 1:55 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Ok

my final comment was stupid. I am sure some people did think Alexander was better than Jones. Alexander was not better than Jones though. Alexander was literally cripplingly bad. As bad, accounting for receiving and pass blocking, as I’ve ever seen a running back.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 2:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Completely with you on that.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 2:05 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

LOOK. AT. THE. STATS

Fact: In 2008 it costs you more to cut Alexander than to keep him.

Fact: If you nevertheless decide to cut him you need an alternative, unless you think Maurice Morris can carry a full load (which nobody does).

Fact: There aren’t really many alternatives on the free agent market other than Julius Jones and TJ Duckett.

Fact: Julius Jones topped out in his NFL career with mediocre production. In 2007 he was awful and was being run off his team. As for Duckett, nobody but Ruskell wanted him then and not even Ruskell wants him now.

Fact: If you sign Jones you are running a poor back off your team, paying him anyway, and replacing him with a poor back who was run off his team.

Fact: The NFL allows you spend such cap dollars as you have on things like young, promising running backs, offensive line depth, safeties, and so forth.

I don’t know why you’re ignoring all these things and flinging around accusations of logical fallacies and such. Maybe it’s time to take a break.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Oct 27, 2009 2:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I think this just boils down to Jones versus Alexander

if you don’t think Alexander is much worse than Jones, than I can understand your argument. I don’t share that belief.

I guess this is getting kind of petty and stupid, so maybe it is right to just let it be.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 2:08 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"I think this just boils down to Jones versus Alexander"

No it boils down to Jones and Alexander and THE SALARY CAP.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Oct 27, 2009 2:16 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Seattle had to cut Alexander or play him

The hit against the cap suffered from cutting him only reflects on the enormity of the original contract. I think you are saying both Alexander and Jones are bad, so why pay both? But it’s a gross overgeneralization to say Jones and Alexander are both bad. Jones may be a bad running back, but Alexander was months from forced retirement. He had sunk to a sub-NFL level. And that’s why I think this boils down to Jones versus Alexander. If you see the two like I do, then it’s no debate. I guess you do not think that much separates Jones from Alexander.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 2:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jones could pick up the blitz and catch a checkdown pass.

Even if he was as terrible a rusher as Shaun (he wasn’t), that alone made him significantly better than Alexander.

Shaun Alexander had no on-field value and teams have a finite amount of players they can keep on the roster.

by BrianL on Oct 27, 2009 1:45 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So you are advocating playing a clearly broken player because he is due money?

By that logic, the Mariners should have Sexson at first and Carlos Silva starting.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 1:35 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

If you're going to resort to ridiculous strawmen

don’t bother arguing at all.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Oct 27, 2009 1:42 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

That is not a straw man

it’s taking your concept to its logical extreme to expose its ridiculousness.

The decision to re-sign Alexander, a bad decision, is not made better by keeping Alexander so as to not waste money. Alexander was done. Seattle had to replace him. Much as Seattle had to release Sexson and ‘injure’ Silva. You do not judge their replacements on the amount of money Seattle wasted on Sexson and Silva, nor do you judge the current GM by the players he inherited.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 1:48 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Yes, it is completely a straw man

to compare a completely different situation in a completely different sport with a completely different salary structure and pretend like you’re demolishing the argument at hand. Sorry.

by Santolina chamaecyparissus on Oct 27, 2009 2:11 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not a straw man but maybe not appropriate

I didn’t fabricate an argument for you and then knock it down, but perhaps I made an inappropriate analogy. My point was only that all professional teams deal with sunk costs. Cutting Alexander did not waste money, it only allowed Seattle to start another back. The money was already wasted.

by John Morgan on Oct 27, 2009 2:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Jones not good but not bad.

I’m sorry guys, and maybe it’s just me but Julius Jones is a Non-Feature back. Because he can catch out of the backfield and block well I think he’s better suited as a 3rd Down back. There is a reason he lost his job to Barber. He lacks vision and some quickness. His brother Thomas Jones, though slower and not even as quick as Julius, is a better RB. And he didn’t just find himself in NY, he was signed away to a lucrative contract as a Free Agent from the Bears after putting up very good numbers there. So he has proved he’s good in two different places. What were seeing from Julius is that he’s not so good in 2 different places. Barber beat him out behind the same offensive line, then Mo Morris beat him out last year behind the same offensive line and Forsett hasn’t been given the chance to beat him out yet, but his time will come this year to. I agree, that you don’t need a dynamic back to win but I think you need a consistent one that does threaten the defense on 1st and 2nd down. I’m one who does belive in trio’s. QB, RB, WR, and if you are fortunate to have Quads QB, RB, WR, TE/WR (whichever is better) you are an elite team. I look at Dallas: Aikman, Smith, Irvin, (you could easily throw in Novachek and Harper, SF: Montana, Craig, Rice, or SF: Young Waters, Rice, Rams: Warner, Faulk, Holt, Bruce, Denver: Elway, Davis, Smith, Sharpe, even non SB winners, Cards: Warner, Fitz, Boldin, Seahawks: Hass, Alexander, Jackson, Buffalo: Kelly, Thomas, Reed.

Right now our big 3 are Hass, Jones, Housz….that doesnt’ strike fear in anyone I think. And there all over 30. Were getting old. I think a young RB would help the other parts of this trio be stronger.

by Mr. Blache III on Oct 27, 2009 11:34 AM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Mo did not "beat Jones out"

In my opinion, that was purely Holmgren’s dedication to his vets. Mo played pretty well but isn’t as versatile.

by djafrot on Oct 27, 2009 12:17 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Also, Thomas ran behind a strong Bears line and is currently behind an elite Jets line.

Switch the two players, you’ll see a switch in their stats.

J. Jones has been solid if unspectacular in two different places.
T. Jones was HORRIBLE in one place, above average in a 2nd, and elite in a 3rd.

Interesting that his offensive lines improved significantly in each of those new locales. But I’m sure that’s only coincidence…

With 3’s— why do the Cowboys get to throw in 5, but we don’t? When all things are clicking, Housh, Nate and Carlson are all pretty damn good. I recall hearing an announcer say going into (I think) the Jax game that we were the only team in the league with 3 receivers with 20+ receptions. I think 3’s are a superstition with some supporting evidence, but by no means tightly correlated.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 27, 2009 2:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

why did Barber beat Jones out then

Funny how you neglected to mentionthat Jones was beaten out of Dallas. Barber took his job. Also, the Cowboys line was pretty good to then. The point that I’m trying to make is that Julius Jones under Offensive Lines that factor the same (good or bad)with other RB’s, gets out performed by someone else on the roster. Barber took his job…and I’ll say that Mo Morris took his job to, With Holmgrens preferance asside, Mo out performed him last year and this year it’s obvious that Knapp is not sold on him based on Edges carries and Forsett’s carries. Barber isn’t faster then Jones but he hits the right hole with authority and has very good vision, Mo was quicker to the hole then Jones to and that’s why he lost out to him. I see the same thing this year with Forsett. Forsett has better vision then Jones and usually avoids the 1st tackler that hits him or takes him for a 1 yd or 2. Watching Jones is like watching Jason Campbell. He has talent but no vision. Campbell rarely looks down the field and passes up open WR’s for checkdowns all the time. It’s safe but not really productive. That’s Jones, you can’t find anything just bad to say about him but he doesn’t do enough good to be a starting RB on a good team. Unfortunately were not good right now and that’s why he fits.

Tough to compare our 3 or 5 to the Cowboys of the 90’s. Not a fair comparison. Other the Burly I think the others are past there prime. That being Hass and Housz. There still pretty good and I think good enough to get us to the playoffs to but there at a stage where they need a RB to help (or OL) or a true #1 WR. Housz and Burly are not true #1’s in my opinion.

by Mr. Blache III on Oct 27, 2009 3:02 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

It isn't that funny...

But let me elaborate. First, he was phased out with the hope (and they’re still hoping) that Barber is an elite 300+ carry back. They were also one of the first teams to go to a true split back system with JJones and Barber, now it is the norm.

Barber has shown moments that give the Cowboys that feeling that they have something special, but he runs with such ferocity that he seems to rarely have the capacity to stay healthy. Despite the lack of glamor to it, staying healthy is a factor in the quality of a back.

I would even say the drafting of Felix Jones proves that the Cowboys perhaps regret going to the single back and pushing JJones out, given that he wasn’t that expensive. However, when they redrafted a 2nd back, they went for one that was specifically drastically different to Barber with a pure speed guy— one of the fastest around, as opposed to similar but not quite as physical JJones and not explosively fast. But realistically, there are not that many “sick explosive-fast” guys in the league, and JJones was never among them. He’s always been a faster than average stronger than average but never incredible in any category type back. Plus, it is hard for a guy like JJones who was the starter to be okay in the same place as a backup type, kind of like the argument why BRuss couldn’t be a backup here but Lawyer could.

The “our 3 or 5” thing I was just pointing out the logical fallacy that things happen in 3’s, or teams are developed in 3’s. You even did so yourself while pointing out 3’s and using 5 for the Cowboys. Basketball fits more the 3’s thing, but mainly because that’s 60% of players actively competing. Football has so much more at stake, so many more intangibles.

I also see down below that you actually agree with me— I’m not a fan of taking a RB in the first round unless he is absolutely an elite can’t-miss type talent. And we’re disagreeing on fine points. We both agree he is in the scope of average. I happen to think he’s in the upper reaches of average, but I still don’t think he’s brilliant, just that he is good enough for now to be a stopgap while we fix larger issues.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 27, 2009 4:12 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

So... wheres Brandon Scolari?

And all the land was in ruin, and burnination had forsaken the countryside.

by Cheddar28 on Oct 27, 2009 12:21 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

You can always bring shaun A back

I’m pretty sure he can still do a perfect “Duck, Cover and Roll”, it was his patent move. I’m not sure if he invented it but he could roll up on any play without ever getting touched.

yea dude

by dirtyktm on Oct 27, 2009 1:27 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

I was hoping there would be some good discussion in this thread

about whether or not it was worth it to take a RB in the first round. And instead all I get is Jones, Alexander (and the salary cap).
Some discussion on Barry Sanders as well.

by LantermanC on Oct 27, 2009 2:36 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Well...1st RB's

I thought in our last draft taking back in the 1st Rd would’ve have been bad. Of course we would’ve had to trade back but I thought Moreno and Brown fit our system. I thought McCoy in the 2nd wouldn’t have been a bad thought either. But I’m usally of the mindset in taking RB’s in the 3rd Rd or later. Unless it’s like an AP or Shaun sitting out there. I think we are in the business of taking OL,S, and/or QB in the 1st Rd in this years draft. Even though none of the QB’s in this years draft excite me

by Mr. Blache III on Oct 27, 2009 3:06 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

A fine point. Let's bring it back around.

I still think there’s potential for big payoff in taking a back in the 1st. I think backs touch the ball more than anyone but the QB, and therefore make the second biggest impact on the team. The standout guys are difference makers in a big way. The guys in the pack, well they can provide you plenty, but so too can dozens of others and then “fungible” does become an applicable term.

It’s true, though, that the ZBS system both mitigates the issues of running with an inferior back and diminishes, relatively, the value of running with a premier back.

Where does that leave us? Don’t you dare reach for a back, but you better have good reason to pass on a premier one.

by jacobstevens on Oct 27, 2009 3:37 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I somewhat agree,

but LBs, RBs, and Cs are the the three positions (K and P don’t count) I wouldn’t take in the 1st.
There are too may Laurinaitisis’ in the second, or LeSean McCoys in the second. And not just once in a while, but every draft.
Also, excluding AP (whom I’m not sure is even that great since his line is awesome), the difference between Steven Jackson and say Julius Jones is not nearly as great as Phillip Rivers (4th best QB?) and Jason Campbell, or Joe Staley / Ryan Clady (couldn’t think of the 4th best LT, Joe Thomas, Jake Long are up there?) and the worst starting LT (whoever that is).

by LantermanC on Oct 27, 2009 9:22 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"and the worst starting LT (whoever that is)"

that would be Kyle Williams. You saw the game, right?

"Football players are temperamental. That's 90 percent temper and 10 percent mental." - Doug Plank

by Stevo's on Oct 27, 2009 10:38 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

NO, AP is really that good.

Yes, he has a great line but this guy runs like past, around and through people. This guy is a stud. I agree with everything else you said though.

by Mr. Blache III on Oct 27, 2009 10:44 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I can agree with your point in theory... actually, completely. Minus one thing.

AP is a BEAST.

First, teams are still stacking the line against him and taking their chances with everyone’s favorite fun loving hero…

Second, you didn’t see him DESTROY the guy trying to tackle him this week (and then run directly over the guy stepping on his face), or literally throw a Brown off of him in week one then out accelerate everyone left, did you? Because if you saw either of those, you saw the most ferocious thing I’ve seen by a rb carrying the football since Earl Cambell against the chiefs.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=lrhBXbVmrWc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=D65TCM3QhrQ

And Earl himself in HD, NFL films style. Orchestral music, not crazy rap.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UV4hQJelXBQ

Hmm…. best rap based vid I’ve seen. This is AP HD made by a fan. You’ll see some huge holes, but also some major hits he dishes out, and some great cuts, cutbacks and mid-run adjustments.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=e74j4BLCmqE

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 27, 2009 10:49 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

I dindn't click a single link but I agree.

Peterson is a Monster. Best RB since Barry Sanders and one of the funnest players to watch in football. Not saying he runs like Barry – he is (nearly) that exciting. He runs with violence that I can akin to film of Walter Payton or as whiskey said Earl Campbell. I’m tired or I’d have a few more. Regardless, saying he’s not even that great because of his line is sheer folly. Man amongst boys. If he stays healthy, I’ve already seen enough evidence to begin to fathom the idea of him having a real chance to become the best back of all-time. He is ridiculously good and immensely talented.

Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling 6'2, 200, RB Jonathan Dwyer, Sam Bradford*.

by Misfit74 on Oct 27, 2009 11:15 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Take a look when you get the chance...

They’re well worth the view. I often search youtube for good sport clips, and this was the rare occasion when I struck gold.

Particularly pleased watching the Earl Campbell one. I miss NFL Films dramatic flair and style on true film, with that oaken voiced narrator and classic dramatic march type music.

The first two were the Cleveland run this year and the blow up of that Pitt DB for the record.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 28, 2009 2:47 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Defining

the disparity between 1st and 2nd rounders, right? I think the disparity between the 1st rounders and 2nd rounders at QB is a bit more than between RBs. RBs a bit more than between tackles.

I can understand that the inherent value of a guy is relative to the glut or dearth of other capable, average guys available. I agree that starting-capable RBs, LBs & WRs are found with high frequency in later rounds.

But getting a standout one is not nearly as commonly found. If you want the gamebreaker, essentially you have to look to the first round. For RB, not the other two. Passing on one and going the Julius Jones route, intentionally, just doesn’t provide much benefit, it’s kind of a wash. Compromising your running abilities to bolster your capabilities elsewhere.

by jacobstevens on Oct 28, 2009 8:35 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

"There are too may Laurinaitisis’ in the second"

Hell, if someone’s determined to draft an OLB in the first round you can still come out with Brian Cushing or Clay Matthews, both who are probably in DRoTY contention too.

"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."

by Fearless Frog on Oct 28, 2009 9:40 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Other LBs in the 2nd:

Maualuga and Brown.

by LantermanC on Oct 28, 2009 10:06 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Stat Geeks

I just finished reading about 80% of all the posts on this subject and I have just one questions; Do some of you even watch football? Some of these arguements that are made with only stats to back them are hilarious. It’s like the morons that say Warren Moon wasn’t that good because he didn’t get a ring. If you watched him play, you’d know. To say Barry Sanders isn’t at least in the conversation as best back ever is just clueless. There is more to the game than stats. Ask Terry Bradshaw.

by btr1970 on Oct 28, 2009 12:42 PM PDT reply actions 0 recs

Terry Bradshaw sucked.

"Mayhap a hidden door lurks nigh. Let us search the environs."

by Fearless Frog on Oct 28, 2009 4:25 PM PDT up reply actions 0 recs

Not sure how many "Stat geek" posts there were...

but I only vaguely understand what DVOA is, and I had as many if not more posts in the thread than anyone.

If you think I don’t watch football or am a stat geek, I suggest you review your statement that you read 80% of the comments. This wasn’t even a stat-heavy thread. But if you don’t even acknowledge that there are multiple evaluation methods for players you should have left town with Bavasi and the concept of veteran grit as an ability.

That being said, if you didn’t click on my youtube links you missed watching some great football. Go ahead, it isn’t too late… the clips are still there to remind you that I, and the rest of the posters in this thread, are first and foremost football fans who love the game, and believe it or not watch the game.

Bird Law in this country isn't governed by reason.

by whiskey chainsaw on Oct 29, 2009 12:12 AM PDT up reply actions 0 recs