The Case for C.J. Spiller
by John Morgan on Jan 13, 2010 6:17 PM PST
344 comments
Fungible is an economics term. In common use it means: replaceable. A fry cook at Wendy's is fungible. However good she may become at anticipating the lunch rush, however inured she may be to splattering oil, and however evenly she might salt the fries, Janet the fry cook can never be irreplaceable. Joe can sub in and not burn down the building. For all her expertise, Janet's job just isn't that important.
Wendy's will never overpay Janet. She'd be lucky to squeeze out a ten cent raise without a corresponding cut to her hours. Janet may trace the delicate sinews of existence in her medium of bubbling oil and sizzling potato wedges, but she's never gonna get paid. Ever.
Fast food workers are a resource rather than a commodity. Alejandro might be a miracle worker with the sour cream gun, but Wendy's won't trade him to Taco Bell for a chalupa and an antacid to be named later. Excluding that technicality, the concept is the same: the harder something is to replace, the greater its value. Jill the sandwich artist might be as painstaking and expressive in her artistry as Pablo Picasso, but if Tuan can get it in the bag between bong rips, Fred the customer isn't likely to notice and Bill the boss isn't likely to care.
The most important part of a run game is success. A successful run game creates good down and distance, converts firsts, punches it in from the goal line and keeps the opposing defense honest. If a rusher could run for four yards on every attempt, he would be unstoppable. Four. Four. Four. All the way down the field. Like a machine built to destroy excitement.
Seahawks fans know something about the strategy of slow death. Coaches call it: bend but don't break. It's the strategy of forestalling loss at the expense of winning, and hoping, against all odds, that a turnover will occur before a score. I digress.
Our four-yard rusher doesn't exist. He can't create push or make his own holes. That's the job of an offensive line. The line wins the point and through a succession of small but decisive victories, allows the rusher to succeed. The rusher is fungible. A name attributed yards that are in fact earned by the entire offense. The sandwich artist of the grid iron. The underpaid Janet.
Or so is the prevailing wisdom.
Afraid it's more complicated than all that. Holes are transient. A slow enough rusher, like Shaun Alexander circa 2007, can lose yardage in a ravine. An agile and adaptive rusher, like Shaun Alexander circa 2003, can create holes by cutting back, getting skinny, breaking tackles and spotting lanes. No line can assure a back continuous success. The most successful running back of 2009, Correll Buckhalter, still only succeeded on 58% of his runs. And Buckhalter, for all his success, still wasn't very valuable. He ranked 18th in DVOA and 27th in DYAR. He could get you there, but that's about it.
C.J. Spiller stands head and shoulders above every other back in his class. He has great quickness to the hole, and so has better holes to hit. He has elite speed exiting the hole, and so maximizes the holes he gets. He's a special receiver and returner and the combined value of those skills can be as a much or more than that of his rushing.
Much is made about Spiller not being a feature back and therefore not being worth a top ten selection. Maurice Jones-Drew wasn't a feature back his rookie season, but he had more combined rushing and receiving DYAR than Terrell Owens, Larry Fitzgerald and T.J. Houshmandzadeh. And he didn't need Carson Palmer, Kurt Warner or Tony Romo passing to him to achieve that. Even Matt Hasselbeck can throw a swing pass.
The very concept of "feature back" is foolish. It's the same thinking that argues Ichiro cannot be a great baseball player because he doesn't hit home runs. Production is production and Spiller produces. The pound it out, four. four. four. rusher of yore is dying out. But the great running back is not. It's adapting. And smart teams are adapting their definition accordingly.
Not a feature back.
Not big enough to carry the load.
Just a running back anyway.
But the best skill position player in the draft.
And not even close to fungible.
0 recs |
344 comments
|
Email
Print
Comments
I think that when he smokes the 40 at the combine
He will start showing up top 10 in a lot of mocks.
I won't lie
The new breed of skill positions in the NFL (Harvin, Stephens-Howling, Spiller) makes me a little sad, because as a kid I loved John Riggins, Jim Brown, and those Big-Fucking-Dozers. And I modeled my game after them, because I was white and not as agile. Not to say these cats aren’t way more fun to watch, and I don’t mind the change, there is just a part fo me that’s a little bummed to see the bruiser back die out.
You might like Toby Gerhart then
The bruiser isn’t entirely dead. Brandon Jacobs is still playing fairly well.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 13, 2010 7:32 PM PST up reply actions
The bigger and faster the backers get.... the bigger the back needs to be
to be considered a bruiser. Seems like the play now is to go with the faster guys that can get around them, or take hits that are less “square”.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
The form of skills a good RB needs to have
Don’t really translate well into being a dozer anymore. That much weight is good for seeking out contact against LBs, but in todays league, that will just end your career. So, it is not like I am advocating the revival of The Diesel, I am more lamenting that form of football becoming obsolete.
At the same time, watching Jim Brown slug away for 4 yards at a time got reeeeally fucking boring, so I appreciate the change more than I regret the extinction of the back.
Sure
The big backs today flame hard then die out quick…. although, come to think of it, I don’t see a ton of RB’s having longevity of career the way they used to.
Suffice it to say that Emmitt’s record is safe. Maybe forever.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
I don't see it coming back
unless Marty Schottenheimer gets a job again. I don’t think the idea is to pound the ball but to help pull defensive players out of the box.
Spring cleaning has started early this year!
by Generzal Zod on Jan 13, 2010 7:43 PM PST up reply actions
Hopefully so by the time we play them next year.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 13, 2010 7:33 PM PST up reply actions
Jacobs needs a resurrection otherwise he's another Ron Dayne.
Matt Hasselbeck's satellite TV signals would get intercepted.
Yes, I do like watching Gerhart play.
How well he’ll transcribe those skills into the NFL I don’t know.
I am not afraid to admit that I have a man crush on CJ Spiller
And although I would love to see him in Seahawk blue. I cannot help but think we will not take him with either of our first round picks. Off the top of my head, I do not remember any team associated with Alex Gibbs taking a high profile back in the draft. Terell Davis was drafted in the sixth round and Clinton Portis was taken in the second round.
So I am going to not to get too attached until I hear his name called by the Seahawks in April.
Wow, nice finds
That was a looong time ago though. Didn’t Gibbs really come into prominence during his 2nd Denver stint? Its possible he has a lot more lean on decision now than he had in ’85 or ’94, especially since his job title is “running backs consultant” (Ruel is the OL coach).
But even if that’s the case, he’s famous for believing in finding OL later in the draft, and two of his last 3 teams drafted a 1st round left tackle. Plus, if our GM loves Spiller as much as you (or Rob Stanton) does, he probably would draft Spiller even over objections.
He reminds me of Reggie Bush
so I wouldn’t rule out the possibility. PC did okay with Reggie (if you leave out the part about the NCAA scandal that wouldn’t die).
Reggie Bush did magic on the field, this guy doesn't impresse me all that much.
I watched LeMichael James all year and that guy is crazy magic with speed, power and he never gives up on a play.
I think we should just snag LaGarret Blount in whatever round he’s projected and be happy with a speedy bruiser with moves to die for and forget about his checked season.
by Emperor_Doom on Jan 13, 2010 11:44 PM PST up reply actions
That would be immediately regretted
when Blount has some sort of meltdown\altercation on or off the field. Also, Blount did his best to ruin the Rose Bowl for Oregon fumbling in the red zone.
I do not agree with the word immediate
Last year when Blount ran for 1000 yards as the 2nd back you could see that this guy could very well be in the running for the Heismon his senior year. Course he went to Boise, got stopped by a coaches first game badness and a really good coaches great defensive skeem and there might have been some sort of punching/attacking the fans incident that ruined all hope of much of anything but let me tell you, this guy can run around and through people. Did he learn enough life lessons to be a legit, non cancerous pro? I hope so. would be worth the risk if he falls down the draft.
That fumble may have been as much the QB’s fault as his.
by Emperor_Doom on Jan 14, 2010 12:46 PM PST up reply actions
My use of the word immediate was rhetoric.
And I’ll fully admit as a Husky fan I’ll always be more critical of Ducks players (though I do like Reed and Unger) I just don’t think Blount has the mental toughness to make it in the NFL. He’s already one bad day away from Maurice Clarett and I don’t think that’s worth a 4th or 5th round pick.
Well said sir
You might very well be right but we’ll have to agree to disagree on this one. I say he is D-E-F-I-N-I-T-E-L-Y worth the stretch at five. And though I’m not the GM (Though I’m secretly hoping that I’m the other unnamed candidate for the job) I would probably take him higher. Well I’ll have to have a sit down with him and see how he does at the combine. If he hits any of the other players at that combine he drops down to the sixth round for sure.
by Emperor_Doom on Jan 14, 2010 10:37 PM PST up reply actions
John Madden.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Jan 13, 2010 9:08 PM PST up reply actions
Two things
What’s his success in one on one tackling situations at the line of scrimmage?
What do his moves look like are they quick and with purpose?
That’s all I need to know for running skills.
I don't think we'll get Spiller
But if we do I won’t complain. He’s a special teams standout, which is what we need (NOT RANKIN!), and can be our speedy RB that can bust a big play while Forsett gets his 25 yard bursts before gassing. Spiller is a fantastic RB that has the vision and speed to succeed in the NFL.
For now I’m on the draft Spiller bandwagon.
Matt Hasselbeck's satellite TV signals would get intercepted.
would they use him for kick offs though?
would they want to use him that much if he were receiving a majority of hand offs?
by Generzal Zod on Jan 13, 2010 6:45 PM PST up reply actions
I am more sold on Spiller than I am any QB
I think with a decent line by adding a tackle and a Spiller – Forsett run game we can get another good year out of Matt and take advantage of the defensive talent in this draft.
then we could wait
for mallett from alabama
A Seattle Fan from Upsate NY living in the South.... Figure that one out!!!! Go Hawks!!!
The symbiosis between the OL and a RB is soooo difficult to gauge.
This is a really tough one John.
My fear (albeit only a fear), is that Spiller is a wasted 1st round pick should the OL not be able to provide him the types of opportunities that work well with his skill set. Reggie Bush comes to mind when I think of a dynamic athlete, with world class speed, not being able to transition as well as his draft position would have suggested.
Are my fears justified at all? and if so… are they justified enough to NOT go the Spiller route at #14?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Spiller has huge legs
unlike Bush who probably should make a switch to receiver.
by Generzal Zod on Jan 13, 2010 6:53 PM PST up reply actions
Of course I recognize that Spiller isn't Bush...
I was making a comparison between two guys with seemingly similar skill sets at the college level (explosive, dynamic speed, good receiver, very productive). They appear similar.
What I was driving at, was that by some standards, Bush was a disappointment. I think many expected him to do what Chris Johnson is now doing. I personally can’t help but think it’s that Johnson is in a better fit for his skills than Bush was in NO.
I also recognize Bush has value. My question was that say Spiller was as effective as Bush in the NFL, would he be worth a #14 pick in your opinion. I am not trying to lead anybody down a path here. I am honestly torn over Spiller at #14.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
if his return skills are like that in the pros
and he serves as a catching and redzone back the way Bush does than yes. I think you have to consider personalities here too, Bush was out partying before the draft, and is kind of a pretty boy, whereas Spiller seems more blue collar (only going on media appearances here).
by Generzal Zod on Jan 13, 2010 7:00 PM PST up reply actions
My point was that Bush and Spiller are not similar types and so shouldn't be compared.
They are both fast and good receivers and returners, but that doesn’t mean they will have the same career in the NFL.
Now, is a good receiver, returner and part time rusher worth the 14th pick? I think so.
Interesting...
In which ways do you see that Bush and Spiller are different types of backs?
I see small’ish speed backs with great burst, great speed, and good hands. I haven’t looked at the types of plays they ran at all. Simply a biomechanical comparison.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
different kinds of small
Bush is 5’10 and 195 lbs or so Spiller has a thicker frame – more of a Ray Rice type of back.
by Generzal Zod on Jan 13, 2010 7:10 PM PST up reply actions
why??
he is the best back in the post season right now… he runs hard when he is in… i would rather have a back that runs hard and gets big yards and go to free agency and get a bruiser that gets 3-4 yards and thats it when we can bring in a guy that can get the big yards…. aka willis mcgahee and ray rice!!
A Seattle Fan from Upsate NY living in the South.... Figure that one out!!!! Go Hawks!!!
I'm pretty sure that was sarcasm
Karma police, arrest this man.
by wyte_lightning on Jan 13, 2010 9:30 PM PST up reply actions
We could cut out the sarcasm
Oh wait, that was supposed to be in the sarcasm font. I enjoy sarcasm too much.
by seattle_since_81 on Jan 13, 2010 9:36 PM PST up reply actions
They are...
Reggie Bush: 5-10 7/8 (basically 5-11), 200lbs. (both combine measured)
CJ Spiller: 5-11, 195 (press guide)
They “look” almost identical to me. I just can’t describe Bush as thin or tall or rangy. They both look thick as hell. By the way… not suggesting this means Spiller career prospects will mirror Bush’s. Just that they appear to me to have the same exact skill sets. Almost identical height, weight, speed, catching, explosiveness, ballistic return men. I wouldn’t mind having one in a Hawks uni (Reggie OR Spiller)
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
NFL Draft Scout agrees
but I can’t find an actual news clipping. What’s more important than height, in my opinion, is that Bush was a East-West juking back and Spiller looks more North-South and slashing. I like Spiller’s profile better. Guy’s like Bush make better highlight reels, but they can be unforgiving for an offensive line. They look for a home run on every run.
You know what though John...
The more I think about it… what an excellent value at #14. It’s basically Reggie Bush’s potential at 14 instead of (what did Bush go?) #2?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Not quite
Bush is a crazy athlete and, at 24, his potential is still ludicrous. Spiller doesn’t have Bush’s potential, but I do think he’s much more likely to reach it.
Your point stands though. If we’re worried Spiller might become Bush, that says a lot.
Funny, though, and it doesn't mean anything, but might when the Combine comes
but Spiller really does look more compact than Bush.
I wouldn't mind looking like either guy.
Spiller is beefy looking though isnt he? His trunk (waist) looks a bit leaner than Reggie’s which might play tricks with the proportion.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Yeah, Bush's height is a combine measure so IT"S correct
Spiller must be in the 5’9" range?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
The question is what flavor?
I’m an outcast… I love the cinnamon ones
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Brittfar hovers over the ground.
Thoughtchou knew.
by jacobstevens on Jan 14, 2010 10:40 AM PST up reply actions
Noted and agreed.
Wouldn’t mind having “Reggie Bush” on the roster.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
The fact that Reggie hasn't lived up to the hype shouldn't matter to us...
you win some and you lose some…. but… the point is that if you can get a talent at #2 that is virutally equal (skill set) to a guy that went #2, could we possibly go wrong with that?
Hell no. I like it.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
I don't understand why you look at Spiller and see Bush and not CJ or Westbrook or Faulk or whoever
This isn’t just directed at you, but people are afraid of drafting a bust so they use lazy comparisons to players that didn’t work out in lieu of actual concerns. That’s not to say that someone couldn’t make an intelligent argument against Spiller, or Spiller at 14, or whatever. Thats a conversation that could be had and would be interesting. But saying “I’m not sure about Spiller because of Bush” is nothing more than an attempt at validating fear of the unknown.
no no no Nate...
I wasn’t at all saying I see Reggie Bush in Spiller, in an attempt to draw an analogous career from that.
I am saying that without the right O-line creating the types of holes which compliment a backs skills, it’s a mute point anyway (did I spell mute right?). My comment was a question not a fact:
Are my fears justified at all? and if so… are they justified enough to NOT go the Spiller route at #14?
I recognize that Chris Johnson is also a similar back and would love for him to be a Seahawk. I posed the question in an attempt to learn why people here think he may be more a chris johnson, than a reggie bush.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
It's moot, and it doesn't mean that.
Moot is an archaic word for “open to discussion” and typically is used to mean the exact opposite.
THAT was the spelling I was search for...
but as for the meaning…
Moot point: An irrelevant argument.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Not according to Dictionary.com
Where do you derive the meaning from?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
That is really really bizarre...
I’m getting this: moot point. A debatable question, an issue open to argument; also, an irrelevant question, a matter of no importance.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
You're searching the entire phrase, I assume
The latter is the modern usage. It’s not accurate. It’s accepted by pure will of bludgeoning ignorance. Ahem.
Hehe
It does mention on several of the sources that it is derived from the former. Interesting exercise nonetheless. I would never have known the former examples had I not looked.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
By the way...
I am using the modern usage as, I am in fact, a modern man. You, Sir John Morgan, are a renaissance man.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
I just like to keep the language clean
I love the way language evolves and very much embrace slang and neologisms and such, but when a perfectly good word with a perfectly sensible and relevant meaning is battered and abused into meaning the exact opposite of what it was intended, that bothers me.
But if the vast majority of people accept its meaning as "irrelevant"
Doesn’t that make it more true? IE: gay. Probably a discussion for an OT thread, but it’s a fun one to have.
Sure
and I’ve used the phrase more than a few times myself. But I do like to at least point out, should it come up, that is not in fact what it means.
I'm in the same boat
I didn’t know that before, and it’s a fun piece of knowledge to have. People morphing words annoys me to no end, but generally only when they are scientific terms being clouded by laymen reasoning. Like when people equate a Theory and a Hypothesis as the same thing. “Evolution is just a theory, it’s just a guess!”. Well then so is gravity and cells…
Yeah, that's a great example of the power of language
“Theory” has been bastardized and so people confuse the “theory of gravity” with the “guess of gravity” the “maybe this is true about gravity” and the “you know, maybe gravity works like this of gravity”.
This is getting really heavy.
Ok ok…. I know, but it was a freebie.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Hah...
I had to watch a video explaining that same thing about Evolution in my anthropology class.
That was a poor attempt on my part...
but I just drank 3 red bulls and am on a roll.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Debatable and irrelevant
are not necessarily mutually exclusive. For example, I could argue that tater tots are superior to french fries. The point is certainly debatable, but it also really doesn’t matter.
I'd Dispute That
The use of the word to mean “irrelevant” or something akin to that has been around for a very long time. Dictionary.com places the origin of this usage and the one you point out to be around the year 1531. Both arise roughly 400 years after the term is used to describe a meeting (bonus points to the Lord of the Ring fans who remember that from The Two Towers).
Law schools teach the doctrine of mootness as one that predates the establishment of our own Constitution and legal system, a system approaching 250 years in age.
And, as others pointed out, “open to debate” and “irrelevant” aren’t necessarily opposite concepts.
Dictionary.com says the modern use came into prominence in the early 1700s
And it was wrong then.
It’s a turn of phrase. If I stated: C.J. Spiller is certain to go in the top five and therefore Clausen will be available at six; You might retort: That’s a moot point.
What you are saying is: that’s debatable, and by extension: if you are building an argument off this point, it’s questionable and therefore so too may be your argument.
See, that conveys a lot of meaning. It’s unique to my knowledge. It doesn’t mean something is irrelevant. It means it might be false. It means: beware building an argument off a debatable assertion.
by John Morgan on Jan 14, 2010 12:23 AM PST up reply actions
I love Field Gulls. This started as a thread about an RB prospect, and now we're onto this.
Yes, you’re right,, there is no other word (that I can think of anyway) that has the same meaning.
ClassicS
Just to be clear I was responding to this comment you made: “The latter is the modern usage. It’s not accurate. It’s accepted by pure will of bludgeoning ignorance.”
I assumed you meant “modern” in the colloquial sense, not the historical sense. I thought you were critiquing the modern usage of “moot” like you might the modern usage of “awesome.” You’re clearly operating on a grander cosmic scale.
That, and I misread the dictionary.com entry. Though my current reading of it suggests that both uses of it as an adjective are derivative from the ORIGINAL meaning of a “meeting or gathering.” Wild.
I've learned more about words from you in the past year than from every other source the prior 4.
Like inured, used twice now the past week. Never heard of it before, always in want for a word to describe that. And now I have one. I just have to tip the fuckin’ cap to ya, mate.
by jacobstevens on Jan 14, 2010 10:44 AM PST up reply actions
Another tricky and often mis-used one is "begs the question"
E.g. If our line can’t open holes, that begs the question whether Spiller would help versus drafting a left tackle and going with Force
From Wikipedia:
More recently, “to beg the question” has been used as a synonym for to raise the question. For example, “This year’s budget deficit is half a trillion dollars. This begs the question: how are we ever going to balance the budget?”
Using the term in this way, although common, is considered incorrect by prescriptive grammarians.9 This usage is the result of confusion over the translation of petitio principii, which literally translates as “assuming the starting point”.10 (Arguments over whether this current usage should be considered incorrect are an example of debate over linguistic prescription and description and the historical evolution of language.)
Agreed
On what other football site can you find comment threads nearly derailed by a passionate discussion of etymology? I submit that there are no others. Thank you, John Morgan. You rule over an awesomely weird kingdom.
by Camarostache '77 on Jan 13, 2010 10:11 PM PST up reply actions 1 recs
It should be stated, too
Bush has a terrific opportunity to succeed in New Orleans. Almost any rusher could succeed on that offense.
Moot
To me improving the line and improving the running backs should be separate issues. Put CJ behind our line and it looks a lot better. Put JJ behind the Jets offensive line and he looks like his brother. You get your talent where you can and Spiller is elite talent. Passing on Spiller because of concerns about your line would’ve been like passing on Andre Johnson because you only have David Carr.
Bush WAS a disappointment as a running back
but is a great receiver lined up in the backfield and an unpredictable weapon that COULD score anytime.
When healthy.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling, RB Jonathan Dwyer
Dont get me wrong... I love Spiller.
I was a sprinter myself in college. I really…. really….. dig speed.
My question/fear is whether our OL can create the opportunities that match his skill set.
Let me rephrase my question: If we were to draft Spiller, what contingencies do think the Hawks would need to address in order to assist in his success?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Well not sure...
I’m not pretending to know anything here. More asking what others thoughts were on whether Spiller could succeed on Seattles team as is….. or if there would need to be an adjustment made somewhere to aid in his success?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
with our current tackles no one could move the ball
I think we should take the best tackle at 6 and Spiller at 14, take the rest on defense.
by Generzal Zod on Jan 13, 2010 7:08 PM PST up reply actions
Maybe this is overly optimistic
but I think the addition of Alex Gibbs (along with the inevitable addition of at least one lineman) will probably have a significant and positive impact on our O-line. The lineman can be through the later rounds of the draft or through free agency, but a first-round, first-pick talent is not necessary in my book. If Spiller’s there at 14 I’d love to take him, and I think he’d have success.
If there was some way to get Clausen at 6 and Spiller at 14...
I would crap my pants.
Also a die-hard Hawks fan.
if we go the Spiller route then we need to go O-line next.
by Generzal Zod on Jan 13, 2010 6:54 PM PST up reply actions
I gave up a testicle for this pairing on the Clausen thread
but your pantload sweetens the pot indeed.
what you do now, round eye?
I think Spiller's people will tell him this is a defensive heavy draft
and that he can shoot up into the first round with monster numbers at the combine
Obviously he's fucking quick
but the one thing that I never really saw him do was attempt to break through a tackle. He seemed to always run out of bounds whenever contact was imminent instead of going for extra yards. I don’t know how much of a concern this is but it definitely stood out to me. I know he was hurt for some of the season so that might be why?
by killacamkilla2 on Jan 13, 2010 7:03 PM PST reply actions 1 recs
I wouldn't make too much of that
He can break arm tackles. He’s not a bruiser, but that doesn’t concern me. And, frankly, a back that goes out of bounds instead of machoing himself into another half yard, fumble and shortened career appeals to me.
Yeah
The only other thing I noticed is that both times that he took hard hits he did fumble the ball.
But if we could get a Bradford/Clausen @ 6 and Spiller @ 14, and then somehow a good young OT, it would be the greatest day ever.
by killacamkilla2 on Jan 13, 2010 7:10 PM PST up reply actions
Ray Rice doesn't break a lot of tackles
I’d say he was one of the better backs this year.
by Generzal Zod on Jan 13, 2010 7:11 PM PST up reply actions
Yep.
He has good power, runs compact, good balance, moves, vision, receiving ability. Total package pretty much. MJD with a bit less power.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling, RB Jonathan Dwyer
Am I the only one
Who is bothered by awful comparisons of two players? Saying “MJD with less power” is like saying “like Yao Ming with less height.” MJD’s tremendous combination of power and speed is what makes him him. You could also say that CJ Spiller is like Brandon Jacobs, but smaller, faster, and not as strong. I just wish people would take a little more time finding players to compare if they’re going to make a comparison at all.
Nothing against you, this was just the most recent comment I read with a poor comparison, and definitely not the first.
Saw that.
But seemed to be a major arm tackle.
by killacamkilla2 on Jan 14, 2010 5:15 PM PST up reply actions
I'm very happy to read this.
I watched him several times this year and was more impressed each time than the one before. I’m surprised for some reason, that John likes him for the Seahawks. There’s nothing not to like, for me, but I presumed his crazy ability would be devalued here. I’m so happy to be wrong.
The very concept of “feature back” is foolish. It’s the same thinking that argues Ichiro cannot be a great baseball player because he doesn’t hit home runs. Production is production and Spiller produces. The pound it out, four. four. four. rusher of yore is dying out. But the great running back is not. It’s adapting. And smart teams are adapting their definition accordingly.
Yep.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
John has been fiending for Spiller for about the entire season.
He has replaced John’s heroine addiction.
Yeah, I've been mainlining Spiller since last year.
If anything, I’ve protected you all from getting the spins from my habit.
Like most things, went right by me.
Love the contact high, though.
I'm gonna go calm submissive on your ass.
"I chose somethin' else. And the reasons? There are no reasons. Who needs reasons when you've got heroin?"
And by heroin Ewan McGregor actually means CJ Spiller
so he's going to make us sick?
as long as it is from whipping our heads around watching him streak down the field I can handle that.
Spring cleaning has started early this year!
by Generzal Zod on Jan 13, 2010 7:21 PM PST up reply actions
John has an addiction
to heroic women? Please John, for your own good…..
by Fightfightfight on Jan 13, 2010 7:51 PM PST up reply actions
Hah!
I just noticed I through the e on there. God damn you Morgan! Stop looking at that Joan of Arc portrait!
The first step
is to admit that you have a problem. How many Angelina jolie movies have you watched today?
by Fightfightfight on Jan 13, 2010 11:07 PM PST up reply actions
I could absolutely get behind...
6. Clausen
14 CJ Spiller
40 Selvish Capers
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
I think it all depends on how Free Agency
and the combine shake out. Spiller probably puts up more impressive numbers than Chris Johnson.
I'd say Spiller can run a 4.24
He’ll for sure be under 4.3
That is alot to bank on a very very rare number.
Possible yes, but to run a time sub-4.3 everything has to be right that day.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
That is true.
He may not even run at the combine.
Yeah, the .4 seconds is not going to matter much on the field I would not think.
Chris Johnson’s excellent run ability comes from his lateral quickness and acceleration in conjunction with his top speed. someone with the same abilities that runs a 4.28 is probably indistinguishable.
He could run 4.4 or higher at the new combine location.
If you believe the surface was slower since they moved it.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling, RB Jonathan Dwyer
Johnson also has..
very good vision. He will hesitate at the handoff and pick his route. His quickness allows him to make up for this and still hit the hole, and having chosen the right hole pays off..
There is talk of a Usain Bolt – Chris Johnson race (for chairty). Bolt competes at distances that are 2.5-5x as long as the 40 yard dash that Johnson is famous for. Johnson’s 10 yard and shorter times have probably even more to do with his success. The winner of such a race would have a lot to do with the distance. At 6-5, Bolt needs time to get going, and for that matter, blocks to start from. Obviously once you choose the terms, there will be better people out there at those terms since they will be neither athletes’ optimal setting. The point is getting the two big names together and having fun though, so whatever..
However, the bigger issue is that ultimately, Johnson’s vision and lateral ability (can you say jump-cuts?) are as important as his straightline speed..
Spiller might be as good as Johnson.. He probably won’t be as fast, but is probably a bit stronger (I think 198 lbs. is generous for CJ). Its hard to separate OL and RB play but most acknowledge the Titans OL is excellent.
I like spiller with Denver’s pick if he is around.
by michaelfox99 on Jan 14, 2010 8:46 AM PST up reply actions
Bolt's agent asked for a retraction of ESPN's story.
Its an unsubstantiated rumor. Bolt doesn’t really follow the NFL, as he’s a cricket and soccer fan, according to his agent.
Agreed
Spiller won’t be gone that high. RBs don’t have very high positional value. The Top 5 is all about QB, LT and DL. But Mr. Clausen, however, will be gone by 2, I’d stake my life on it. New regimes mean new QBs, period. I’d even bet that he has a deal done a few days before the draft a la Stafford and the Lions.
Will someone trade up?
Spring cleaning has started early this year!
by Generzal Zod on Jan 13, 2010 7:22 PM PST up reply actions
There is a real fear of being the team that passes on "the next Chris Johnson,"
and someone will trade up to take him.
Maybe not a trade up but he'll go top ten
Most yards from scrimmage in history is one of those stats that if you get it, people don’t blame you for your team not making the playoffs. Is Ray Rice a better back than he would have been had Baltimore not back-doored in? There are 30 teams that would start either back. Of course, Ravens and Titans have superb run-game o-lines.
The best thing we can do for our defense is to give Jeremy Bates a new toy. If Clausen isn’t there at six, I say we take Spiller, cuz he won’t be there at 14.
what you do now, round eye?
My point wasn't so much about the quality of Johnson, and let's not forget he was taken in the late first
and more that coaches are known to follow whatever the current winning trend is. Other than the Vikings, the trend is passing.
Since all three are excellent receivers
the trend to passing attacks only makes them more dangerous. Rice electrified all season in Baltimore even without a consistently credible threat through the air.
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
But, again, Rice was not selected in the top ten
further fueling the thinking that players like Rice and Johnson can be had outside the early part of the draft.
See your point but can't agree
The calculus changes after every season; the play of guys like Johnson and Rice is why. QBs can be had outside the top ten also but the elite passers go top 5 even though they have, what, at best a 60% chance of working out? A guy like Spiller has a floor of very good and a ceiling of Chris Johnson good.
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Agreed, but not every team needs a QB
32 teams would start Chris Johnson if they could. As much as Vince Young helped Chris Johnson, Chris Johnson helped Vince Young. I could easily think of a dozen teams whose OC would sleep a lot better at night if they had a guy like that for their QB to lean on.
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
How good was CJ before they got a decent QB in there after the Bye?
You NEED a good QB. Has the 2009 season taught you nothing!?
Before Vince got in there
CJ was still lighting it up. They were still giving Lendale White touches at that point though, and that held him down a bit. When Vince came in, Collins got benched and so did Lendale. Then CJ just turned it on.
by Fightfightfight on Jan 13, 2010 11:10 PM PST up reply actions
Its about value though.
Take Berry for example. He is clearly worthy of being one of the first players taken…. but upon further review, would have to play at an All-pro level out of the gate to earn the contract. HIs contract at #3 for example, would likely be higher than Ed Reeds.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Spiller could be better than Johnson, and I'm pretty balls about Johnson
but both Rice and Johnson were had in the same running back rich draft. A draft that included Darren McFadden. Few good quarterbacks are had outside of the first. Good rushers are available throughout the draft in nearly every draft. Why spend double to draft McFadden?
Same draft
And I’m not saying this thinking is correct, but it seems like the coach-think conclusion to a player like Rice and Johnson is not to draft a running back earlier, but to make sure and draft a second tier back, because they might not be second tier at all.
It's not funny
…when you leave your house without an umbrella. Then it rains! You’re an unhappy fella.
I agree that your argument is rational
But I still think one of the first ten teams picking will be crushing too hard on Spiller to make a rational choice come draft day.
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
Dwyer and Best are nowhere close.
They are talented runners. Spiller is game-changing good.
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
People will argue
that the Titans missed the playoffs because the didn’t start VY soon enough (they DID go on a tear after starting him, after all).
Trades ups this year
are probably reserved for orcs.
Next year is the first in the new rookie scale (yes?). I don’t see people going out of their way to spend more on a trade up.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Most likely yes.
I am trying to think..was Ricky Williams the last running back that a team traded up to attain?
Yes they did
first pick in the 3rd last year.
What John is saying
is no one wants to pay 1op 10 money for a back anymore. The league has changed so much in terms of offense that it is almost not worth it.
I think trade ups in the later rounds have a distinctly
different impact than those in the top 10 of the draft though. Yes?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Well, the Jets
did trade up for Sanchez. Fourth overall.
True.
I was just pointing out that it happened.
Yeah... trade ups do happen.
and as long as Al “the Orc” is out there, it could happen again (even for a Spiller).
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Davis trades up
for Taylor Mays when Mays puts up 20 reps and runs a 4.3 forty at 240 pounds.
He won't have to
Taylor will be there by his 2nd round pick.
Darrius Heyward-Bey
would also have been there by his 2nd round pick.
Davis loves 40 times
Can’t wait to see who has the fastest 40 time at the combine. I would put money on the fact that Davis drafts ’em.
by seattle_since_81 on Jan 13, 2010 8:00 PM PST up reply actions
It would all depend who's on the board at the time I would guess.
If Clausen was the only QB gone at 14, and Bradford has a good showing at the Combine….mayhaps.
Hypothetically John....
What would be the asking price for a RunDMC?
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Really?
We drop from 6 to 8 and give up our 2nd for McFadden.
That’s like drafting McFadden at #40 + 2 spots at the top of round 1.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
I think Al Davis
will go to the grave convinced Russell can play QB
lol
you’re right… he may be a sea monster
yeah Lovecraft called him Cthulu
and the Raiders organization has gone nuts cannibalising each other when he woke back up.
Spring cleaning has started early this year!
by Generzal Zod on Jan 13, 2010 8:59 PM PST up reply actions
You're both wrong...
http://totallylookslike.files.wordpress.com/2009/11/129018335492601579.jpg
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Size
I just can’t see him getting 250 touches a year and holding up.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
250 touches no problem
include the passing game and return. If you get a guy like that 15-20 touches+ a game that’s a lot of your offense
I still want to know
How the Saints never clued in he was into the chronic. Or that he had sociophobia.
No one knows for sure about a rookie scale.
Trade-ups happen almost every year.
I'm totally chanting that
the first time he goes for it on 4th.
This appears to be a much deeper draft than last year, by any indication.
I think we’ll have a great chance at a good solid player at #14. If that’s Spiller, count me in.
"Hey, guess what? Nobody cares who would win in a crazy fantasy fist-fight between Anne Frank and Lizzie Borden." The Monarch
by crushedoptimist on Jan 13, 2010 7:34 PM PST reply actions
I say we take the best player available
Not because we have few needs, but because we have so many. If Spiller is there at 14 it’s probably going to be hard to say no.
Vision and speed
At 1:55 on the second video – anyone who runs like that I can get behind.
Honestly
I kind of want Spiller to be taken before the 6th pick. Means its more likely we can take a shot at Berry/Haden/McCoy/Suh (please god YES)/Clausen.
I hope to the Lord Baby Jesus
That we don’t even look at Colt McCoy. He has bust written all over him.
A really nice scouting report on Colt McCoy:
Spiller is one of the 3 I want most in the draft. Berry is the other. And then there's Clausen.
Their secondary is getting raped with Carlos Rogers, DeAngelo Hall, and Laron Landry
Sucking.
I think we’ll hire Walker since it’s not official.
Matt Hasselbeck's satellite TV signals would get intercepted.
Spiller Observations.
After having watched the video I was struck by several things.
1) Spiller is a ‘single cut’ back and an ideal fit for a zone blocking scheme.
2) He is an excellent receiver – and not just on swing passes and screens.
3) He accelerates quickly and maintains his speed.
4) At the 2nd level he has modest moves and cutting ability but mostly relies on his speed.
That’s all for now
While we're at the subject of runningbacks, what about trading for one?
Oakland and Dallas are both loaded with talented running backs, and they both would like to have a great wideout. Our WR Burleson/Housh/Branch could potentially be traded for someone like Tashard Choice or Michael Bush. We wouldn’t have to use a draft pick that way.
I've considered that
As I stated above, I would target McFadden, who the Raiders might want to get rid of anyhow, but who knows who is even available much less how much it would take to get him.
I can't help but think the Raiders are facing a cap squeeze
after all the early first round picks they’ve selected, the dead money they’ve accepted and the money they threw at Asomugha.
And even if they aren't facing that squeeze...
they are doing so at the exchange of not fielding a competitive team. To get back into the game, they would have to make a deal to jettison a large cap figure.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
Some of that can be solved by getting rid of Jamarcus Russell
which I hope the Raiders FO do in this offseason. Not because I like the Raiders, but because Russell is a goddamn bum and shouldn’t even be in this league.
by aerozeppelin on Jan 13, 2010 8:49 PM PST up reply actions
I think Al Davis is principled enough to cut him
Al Davis had enough to let him sit especially with him weighing 300 lbs. remember he isn’t fast…
Spring cleaning has started early this year!
by Generzal Zod on Jan 13, 2010 9:04 PM PST up reply actions
yeah if anyone will destroy the Raiders
it will be him
Spring cleaning has started early this year!
by Generzal Zod on Jan 13, 2010 10:01 PM PST up reply actions
McFadden: are his talents poorly implemented in Oakland or is he simply not a good runningback?
He hasn’t shown to be anything like the home-run threat he was supposed to be. I haven’t seen a lot of him, but it seems that he simply cannot break tackles. He was like that in college, but he could get away with it with his speed. Plus, he’s injury prone and is carrying his hefty rookie contract.
by aerozeppelin on Jan 13, 2010 10:38 PM PST up reply actions
Branch has zero value
Spring cleaning has started early this year!
by Generzal Zod on Jan 13, 2010 10:03 PM PST up reply actions
Oh and by the way.... I read the whole post above.
I am sick of Chicken and Rice. I want to bite the shit out of a steak right now.
I just might be willing to make a deal for Janet as long as a “Double”, and a Chocolate Frosty is involved.
Bring Your Game, Leave Your Name.
This is OT, but it must be said
I just beat the shit out of JForce1014 in Madden. That’s right, Justin Forsett.
I'm in. I've been in.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling, RB Jonathan Dwyer
6. Bradford/Clausen
14. Spiller
or
6. Spiller
14. Braford/Clausen
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling, RB Jonathan Dwyer
No thanks on Bradford.
Hasselbeck is a tough dude and he got wrecked behind our OLine. Think about what’ll happen to Sam “Bird Bones” Bradford when Curry gets to close to him in training camps. Not to mention teaching him how to take a hand off from under center. No gracias.
I dunno if I'd go that far...
Bradford can hold a football in one hand, can’t he?
That shoulder has been hit twice in a season
what are you still doing up?
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
I was talking about Smith's famously small hands.
I just got off work. I work graveyard at Boeing.
Bradford has the following rep:
arm strength not good
system QB— not pro style offense
injured
Leadership in question
—
what more is there? He’s not worth where you’d have to grab him.
inside of a dog it's too dark to read.
His arm strength is good enough.
And passing accuracy is one of the few things that translates well from College to the NFL but I believe he’s a system QB who’s not sturdy enough to play in the NFL unless he has Payton Manning’s line and quick release.
Bradford does have a quick release though.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Jan 17, 2010 12:44 AM PST up reply actions
Bradford has as chance to become a franchise NFL QB.
That is worth a pick anywhere in the first round. Comparative to other positions, QB is worth the pick and the investment if the player becomes a starter moreso than any other positions. It’s the most valuable position in football. He’s worth a first round pick if his medical checks out. A bad shoulder didn’t stop Brees from becoming an all-pro. The Dolphins passed on him because of concerns about his shoulder. He signed w/ NO and the rest is history. Bradford’s accuracy can’t just be dismissed. It’s largely the best indicator of college skill transferring to the NFL game. Bradford’s ceiling, due to his accuracy, is much like that of a top QB such as Brees or Peyton Manning. His arm is better than Clausen’s and light years better than McCoy’s. It’s better than Sanchez’ of last year’s crop. Bradford can make all the throws and I think people are underrating his arm. He’s still my guy until enough information can convince me otherwise. Closer to the draft things could change, but after watching and studying Bradford, he is who I want in Seattle blue.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling, RB Jonathan Dwyer
Drew Brees
only hurt his shoulder once and I like to firmly attribute that to Schottenheimer playing him in a meaningless game. And that, also, was at the pro level where D-Linemen outweigh college D-linemen by a good 30+ lbs. Bradford had an incredible O-Line to work behind, any team drafting him early in the first round most likely won’t be able to protect him (as the Seahawks couldn’t protect Hasselbeck). Also, Bradford only spent one season in a pro-style offense (his freshman season) and 2 years and 2 games in a shotgun spread. His arm is adequate and I never said otherwise but, honestly, I think arm strength is one of the more overrated measurables of a QB. Especially in a west coast (short passing, timing based) offense.
Yeah
But, I have to agree with Misfit74. Of the QBs that will be available at 6, Bradford is easily the best. Clausen is head and shoulders above any other QB in this draft, but he’ll be selected by the Rams at #1. The major knock on Bradford for me is that he wasn’t in a pro-style offense. His arm is plenty strong, and he has amazing accuracy, which is what really matters in the NFL and the west coast offense. I don’t know if he’ll be very successful in the NFL, but I think he has a good chance. And I think that if the Redskins don’t take him at #5, the ‘Hawks would be hard pressed to pass him up. Remember that we’ll have a new head coach and GM by then, and that means a new franchise QB.
OT: Colt McCoy has a girl arm.
Bradford can take a snap from center.
Talents that I covet:
Ndamukong Suh, Gerald McCoy, Sam Bradford, Mike Iupati, Golden Tate, Earl Thomas, and Freddie Barnes
by Carl Shinyama on Jan 17, 2010 12:43 AM PST up reply actions
A good writeup John, and you convinced me to change my mind on some things
I think you raised an interesting point. If Spiller goes MJD on us and posts extremely good DYAR, then obviously it doesn’t matter if he’s doing it in 150 carries. Hell, it would make him MORE valuable that he’s contributing so much with so few reps- obviously doing more in less is quite valuable, and there is a lot of hidden value in low reps because it would likely lead to a longer, healthier career.
I do think that a MJD scenario involves putting on rose colored glasses: its going to take a best case scenario for that to happen, especially if defenses continue to disrespect Hasselbeck’s arm, play safeties up, and stack the box to stop the run and short passing game as they did in ’09.
The analogy I’d use about the carries is like this. Spiller figures to be a superior player to Forsett. The more reps he can take away from Force, the better our offense will be for it. Its kind of like a relief pitcher in baseball who has starter upside. As a reliever, he’s unhittable, and as a starter he’s middling, but as a reliever he’s only worth 1 WAR and as a starter he’s worth 2 WAR simply because of the workload. The more carries we can get out of Spiller, the more valuable he will be. Now this is where you convinced me- reading your article, it occurred to me that if Spiller was indeed a 300 carry, 75 reception guy, he’d be a mortal lock as a top 5 pick. The fact that he’s only a 150-200 carry guy with 35 receptions drops his stock significantly, putting him in the 10-20 range. Seattle does not need a 300 carry back- because Forsett can manage 100-150 carries and 40 grabs and be valuable with those reps. When I realized that getting Spiller at #14 is actually buying low, and that his drawback is offset by Seattle’s system, I came around to your point of view. Spiller is a good value at #14 and a worthy draft pick.
And while he probably wouldn’t be my choice, I’d have a hard time getting upset about it. Spiller was my favorite college RB even before the 2009 season. He’s just so much fun to watch. He gives the Seahawks some big play potential every single time he touches the ball. He’s brings great receiving ability to the table and would be an incredible return man. Even if he failed to be amazingly valuable per play, he’d be a relatively safe pick and extremely fun to watch, and as a fan, that’s worth something.
I’d agree that in terms of total value, Spiller is by far the best back in this draft. However, if you are willing to find a return man with a later pick (like Javier Arenas, etc), there are some very nice options later in the draft for a split back ZBS RB. Jahvid Best is extremely similar to Spiller as a runner and figures to be there at #40. McKnight has a chance of being there in the 4th round and he’s a terrific fit for the offense- eye-popping burst, good receiving threat, outstanding top speed, and even some good agility too. Stafon Johnson is going to be a late round steal for somebody- he’s got solid size, deceptive yet outstanding speed, and very impressive moves and instincts. If Seattle decides to move address another area at #14, they have some good backup options later on.
I like Spiller, but this is my biggest argument.
I’d agree that in terms of total value, Spiller is by far the best back in this draft. However, if you are willing to find a return man with a later pick (like Javier Arenas, etc), there are some very nice options later in the draft for a split back ZBS RB. Jahvid Best is extremely similar to Spiller as a runner and figures to be there at #40. McKnight has a chance of being there in the 4th round and he’s a terrific fit for the offense- eye-popping burst, good receiving threat, outstanding top speed, and even some good agility too. Stafon Johnson is going to be a late round steal for somebody- he’s got solid size, deceptive yet outstanding speed, and very impressive moves and instincts. If Seattle decides to move address another area at #14, they have some good backup options later on.
Unfortunately, this year we don’t have a late 2nd early 3rd to draft a LeSean McCoy type, but at the same time, Lagarrett or Stafon would of good value, or as John mentioned, the Correll Buckhalters and Julius Jones of the world are always there for reasonable prices in FA.
My love affair?
I have no love for him in particular, I just meant I think the chances of a serviceable back in the 5th or 6th are higher than finding a serviceable DT or LT. Justin Forsett for example.
Defensive linemen often fall later in the draft
by John Morgan on Jan 14, 2010 12:01 PM PST up reply actions
Will Blount fall far
If Blount does fall I believe he would be a good pick up in the later rounds. Not playing that much this year will make him the diamond in the ruff of this years draft. He was one of the top RB’s in 2008 and there is no reason to believe he cannot be a good RB in 2010
The future is looking better
Blount is battling two fronts
If he’s stand up and flashes ability during the pre-draft process, he could easily move back into the second. Coaches don’t want a player that will be a problem in the locker room or get into trouble of the field, but popping a guy in the heat of battle isn’t the worst offense.
My problem with Blount is that he looks slow to me. He looks like someone that can break away, but doesn’t have good quickness.
by John Morgan on Jan 14, 2010 12:23 PM PST up reply actions
Take Spiller early and Blount late
With Jforce, Spiller and Blount you would have a three headed attack like Dallas uses. Any of the three can go the distance from anyware on the field. Blount may start slow but when he gets into the second layer he does not get stopped very often. Not all of his 16 TD’s in 2008 were from the one. He is a very deceptive big back.
The future is looking better
Well... without Spiller, we'd have
Blount-Forse…
How do we work Spiller’s name in there as a cool nickname…
Hm, while that's true, I just meant a starting capable RB can be had in the later rounds.
Pro bowl selection / elite running backs are another matter, and it should trend downward with any pick. That 5th RB selected is weird, but I guess it’s from a sample size of 30 or so.
Mendenhall and Stewart come immediately to mind as recent 1st rounders.
Beanie Wells has outrageous talent, too. All those guys are big but can fly . Spiller is very similar to Chris Johnson in several ways. I might still take Stewart over Spiller if that was a choice to make. Spiller is a far better prospect than Moreno, who went at what, 14? Spiller will be gone by our 2nd first round selection.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling, RB Jonathan Dwyer
Moreno went at 12.
Spiller lasting until 14 is not likely.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling, RB Jonathan Dwyer
And Chris Johnson went at 24
Which just goes to show how inconsistent the draft can be. Not many running backs this draft though, and that was an RB heavy draft, so it’s very possible if not likely that he’s gone by 14. No way he makes it into the second round.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 14, 2010 5:29 PM PST up reply actions
Yeah, but he was a combine warrior, where did he come from? East Carolina State?
The other guys were high profile, top backs from top schools. Well, the one year Illinois had a good year.
by jacobstevens on Jan 15, 2010 10:25 AM PST up reply actions
If I remember correctly
Most people thought Titans really reached for Johnson.
by aerozeppelin on Jan 15, 2010 11:53 AM PST up reply actions
Good points, guys.
Not crazy, but also not likely.
Might be better to look at where the first RB has been drafted in the past. If Spiller ends up the consensus #1 RB of the 2010 class, we can probably get an idea of where he will go based on draft history. However, as you said, the draft can be very fluid.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling, RB Jonathan Dwyer
Thats probably the best way to look at it
Looking at PFR the average spot for the first back taken is 10. Thats since 2000, here are the spots they were taken:
12
4
7
2
2
24
23
16
5
5
Looks like they’re either taken high, around the top 5, or they free fall a bit.
Nice work.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling, RB Jonathan Dwyer
2005, we took Tubbs, and Steven Jackson was on the board.
That was the year where there were 2 backs, and everyone else was a distant, distant, distant third. And then Jones and Jackson couldn’t separate from each other as being a great prospect, and they both surprisingly fell. Far.
I’m not using that to illustrate a point, just waxing a bit. It’s true, though, when a back separates himself from the pack, the pros love it. And take em high.
by jacobstevens on Jan 15, 2010 10:29 AM PST up reply actions
Its just my opinion
But after Suh, McCoy, and Price are all of the table, this DT class gets mediocre and over-rated in a hurry. Allen Bailey looks very average on tape, his stock comes from his reputation as an athlete and not because he’s talented. Jared Odrick is a white version of Bailey with no ability to wrap up his tackles. It was embarrassing to watch. AluAlu is probably going to be a 3-4 End in the pros, for a 4-3 3 tech he’s probably a 4th rounder.
DE on the other hand is much deeper and less dominant at the top. Hardy and Graham look like very nice 2nd round values. It really says a lot that Daniel Te’o Nesheim could potentially go undrafted in this DE class.
Spiller plus Forsett and Schmidt in the backfield?
That’s something I can get behind
Hold on
Spiller + Forsett + Schmidt + you behind them? Four running backs?!? That’s a formation I want to see!!
NFL rules dictate you must have 5 guys on the line.
But we can load up with 6 in the backfield. No receivers. Screw this forward pass thing, defenses have been built light to defend it. We’ll run them the hell over. And over. And over.
by jacobstevens on Jan 14, 2010 12:08 PM PST up reply actions
Spiller: A view from South Carolina
We get most of the Clemson games in SC obviously, so I’ve seen a good deal of Spiller over the past couple years. I’ll try to hit a few points that I haven’t seen in this thread.
1. Tire tread/Health — It’s worth noting that the Bowdens were ahead of the curve in not overusing RBs. Spiller’s body hasn’t been punished the way you’d think a guy that productive might have been. Still, he took a lot of snaps fighting off nagging injuries (e.g., turf toe, hamstring problems) at Clemson. There are a couple legitimate ways to look at that. One way is “Wow! Just think of what he might have done without turf toe!” Or, another way is “If nagging injuries reduce his speed from ‘magical’ to just ‘very good’ he is a fundamentally different prospect.”
2. Clemson’s offensive line — Clemson o-lines are comparable to Seattle’s in overall crappyness coupled with inconsistency. If anything, Spiller made them look better than they were. At times though, Spiller displayed a Bush-like tendency to bounce it outside rather than trust his guys. That’s not necessarily a fatal flaw, and his vision is so good that when he hits a crease he does so to great effect.
3. Pass protection — If there is an on-field knock against Spiller it’s probably in pass pro. He’s adequate, probably nothing more.
None of these things would keep me from taking him in the first round, though I could definitely see him sliding to 14. If there is one warning it’s that he is truly a PART-TIME back. The ideal setup for him is probably similar to what Bush has in New Orleans or McFadden had under Knapp in Oakland. Some people will say that’s not cost efficient, and the point is certainly, well, moot—as in debatable :)
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
by dcrockett17 on Jan 14, 2010 11:46 AM PST reply actions 1 recs
My understanding is that he's neither very skilled nor very experienced pass blocking
And while I value that way more than most, I can’t see Spiller pass blocking more than a few times a game. It seems like strapping a trailer hitch to a Lamborghini.
by John Morgan on Jan 14, 2010 12:08 PM PST up reply actions
isn't this something
that can be taught/coached as well? Obvisously things like speed and health are more intangibles that cannot be taught.
You have to work kinda hard to find an on-field knock against Spiller
You could say worse things about a back than “he’s not very good at pass pro.” I mention it sense a good chunk of his value is tied up in the passing game. It’s gonna be something he needs to be able to do. He won’t make anyone forget Marshall Faulk as a blocker—man, that guy was a great blocker—but he strikes me as having enough athleticism to be passable. That is probably all he needs to be.
Right now, if he were in Seattle and the season started today I’d expect that he could throw a reasonable cut block and that’s about it.
"Those who fear disorder more than injustice inevitably produce more of both." -- Rev. William Coffin
Spiller is a far better prospect than Moreno.
Moreno went at 12.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling, RB Jonathan Dwyer
You made a fantastic case.
I feel modestly vindicated, from this post. I’ve long clung to the value of the RB, not in the face of their fungibility (or at least, less so) or the value of the run game compared to the pass game, but in the impact an RB makes on the running game itself. It has felt at times that people almost think of it as 99% blocking.
I didn’t know how to describe that a back’s abilities can make a big difference in the effectiveness of the blocking. You described it very well. To the extent that the impact may be greater than I thought.
I don't mind not having a feature back.
And it really does seem to be synonymous with a running back being a smaller guy. I doubt Barry Sanders would be considered a feature back if he was just now coming out of college.
I hate to advocate drugs, alcohol, violence, or insanity to anyone, but they've always worked for me.
"football guys" are just confused
They think weight = power, and power = strength. Or maybe switch strength and power. The point is, being short doesn’t necessarily make you small, but it might supply a low center of gravity, making you harder to knock down. And muscle = strength (not weight) and strength = speed. So a shorter back with less weight but equal muscle will have nearly the same amount of mass, is faster so has higher acelleration, and thus more force. Science is fun!
by DJ C-Raig on Jan 14, 2010 1:34 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
The shorter RBs, if they are stocky and compact, have really evolved the position.
Ray Rice, MJD, and Slaton (2008 version). In the past you had guys like Charlie Garner and Nip Kaufman (man I loved watching him run). Those shorter guys are harder to pick out behind the line and harder to get a clean hit on ie: harder to tackle, based on my perception.
Early prospect watch: RB C.J. Spiller, QB Sam Bradford, OT Ciron Black, DT Gerald McCoy, S Eric Berry, DT Ndamukong Suh, CB Ras-I Dowling, RB Jonathan Dwyer
John, any chance on us getting a quick and dirty analysis on Reese?
by DJ C-Raig on Jan 14, 2010 1:27 PM PST via mobile reply actions
I would say I will do it
but, if anything, I should cut into my blog time. That sucks, but it’s really going to be necessary, now or eventually.
Well, when I say q&d,
I mean more of a “quick, personal first impressions” sort of post, more than uninformed and wikipedia’d.
by DJ C-Raig on Jan 14, 2010 3:05 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
However, I can understand the time mgmt
Issue all too well, so no worries if you need the time to do your business. We are all grown individuals with developed genetalia; we can entertain ourselves.
by DJ C-Raig on Jan 14, 2010 3:07 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
I'm not sure if you're taking suggestions on that
but personally I’d rather see you take time away from the blog sooner than later so we can get your full awesomeness leading up to the draft. But do whatever you need to do.
It's probably the best use to time to wait and see who becomes GM anyway
Will probably be announced Monday.
by B.B.Finnegan on Jan 14, 2010 4:54 PM PST up reply actions
Here's the thing
After March 15, I’m cleared. That shall begin the bender. Whenever and wherever I recover, I shall then bust my ass catching up on the draft. With all the news about right now, I’m sacrificing book time for that. Once this has shaken out, things will get very sleepy around here.
Well, your time on the blog is greatly appreciated
I am looking forward to your book, given your superior and entertaining writing skills coupled with your depth of subject matter expertise. Plus, ya gotta pay the bills. :)
So basically the Seahawks decided to do everything right when my computer broke
I was suffering from Field Gulls withdrawals. I needed my daily fix of Seahawk news.
I want Spiller.
75% of people account for 3/4 of the worlds population.
by Pessimistic Optimist on Jan 14, 2010 3:07 PM PST reply actions
John,
You compose things and express ideas in exactly the way I dream that I could. You’re like an extremely talented Chuck Palahniuk, description-heavy author sans all the pussy and violence and stuff. Can’t wait for your book.
Sans pussy and violence...
Then what are we living for, I ask you?
by DJ C-Raig on Jan 14, 2010 3:12 PM PST via mobile up reply actions
Comments For This Post Are Closed
Secondary Sidebar
Related FanPosts on Field Gulls
Related FanShots on Field Gulls
FanPosts
Community blog posts and discussion.
Certain photos copyright © 2010 by Associated Press or Getty Images. Any commercial use or distribution without the express written consent of Associated Press and Getty Images is strictly prohibited.
