A look at the 2006 Panther RBs (1 Viewer)

wannabee · Feb 6, 2007

For the last few years, I have heard many times how the Carolina Panthers are a good rushing team and how it is good to have the Panther RBs on your fantasy team. But, after looking at the numbers of the five years John Fox has been the Panther Head Coach, the statistics disagree with this notion. Here are some observations from these five years:

 The high TD rusher per year had: 7, 8, 6, 12, 3 (or an average of 7 per season)

 The team averaged 10.2 rushing TDs per year

 The RB with the most carries had: 210, 318, 217, 205, 223 (avg. 235 carries/yr)

 The RB with the 2nd most rushes had: 101, 113, 68, 180, 121 (avg. 117 carries/yr)

 The Panthers have ranked in the bottom half of the NFL all 5 years in YPC

 In 4 of the 5 years, the Panthers have been in the bottom half of the NFL in: Rush yards and Rush TDs

 Only one year did the Panthers, as a team, eclipse the 4.00 YPC mark, but still 17th in NFL

The five years Fox has been head coach, the Panthers’ record has been:

2002 7-9

2003 11-5

2004 7-9

2005 11-5

2006 8-8

The only two years the Panthers had a winning record were the only two years that the Panthers: were in the top half of the NFL in rush attempts (and top 10 both years) and were 28th pass attempts both years. Also, in those two years, the Panthers were in the top 10 in the NFL in passing YPA. These were the only two years Stephen Davis was a Panther and was healthy. Is it a coincidence that the only two years the Panthers ran the ball a lot were the two years the Panthers had a winning record?

The Panthers fired offensive coordinator Dan Henning and offensive line coach Mike Maser. Henning was replaced with Jeff Davidson from the Cleveland Browns. Davidson’s specialty is the offensive line and the running game. Many think this change indicates that the Panthers will be more of a run-first team once again. Davidson took over as interim offensive coordinator for the last ten games of the season for the Browns after Maurice Carthon resigned. Before that, he was an assistant coach and the offensive line coach. Davidson was with the Patriots from 1997-2004 as the tight ends coach and assistant offensive line coach. One odd sidenote: the Browns averaged 14.7 points per game under Carthon and 15 points per game under Davidson. The Browns had a total of 1335 total rushing yards with Droughns, and his 758 rushing yards, leading the way.But, Droughns’ yards per attempt rose from 3.2 with Carthon at the helm to 3.58 with Davidson. I know the offensive line gelled some and there are other factors at work as well.

What does this mean for DeAngelo Williams and DeShaun Foster? Will either get enough carries to be a viable RB going forward? I do not know. But, I do know that the carries have to increase to make Williams worth what his fantasy owners paid for him. Also, will the Panthers look for a pounding RB similar to what they had in Stephen Davis?

Many questions left to answer, but I see the Panther RBs as a risky proposition going forward.

For reference purposes, all data came from pro-football-reference.com

jeter23 · Feb 6, 2007

Uh oh! Pasquino will not like this. :angry:

Bankerguy · Feb 6, 2007

Paging BNB..please pick up the white courtesy phone.

David Yudkin · Feb 6, 2007

I have been raising the red flag on the Pathers' running game for as long as I can remember. Here's the key team stats that illustrate how things have been . . .

Team rankings in rushing attempts, yards, ypc, and TD.

2002: 13, 25, 31, 22

2003: 3, 7, 17, 25

2004: 22, 28, 28, 22

2005: 10, 19, 29, 8

2006: 24, 24, 19, 29

Overall, that's not very good . . . and when you consider that the proudction has been split several ways it spells disappointment for fantasy purposes.

wannabee · Feb 6, 2007

David Yudkin said:
I have been raising the red flag on the Pathers' running game for as long as I can remember. Here's the key team stats that illustrate how things have been . . .Team rankings in rushing attempts, yards, ypc, and TD.2002: 13, 25, 31, 222003: 3, 7, 17, 252004: 22, 28, 28, 222005: 10, 19, 29, 82006: 24, 24, 19, 29Overall, that's not very good . . . and when you consider that the proudction has been split several ways it spells disappointment for fantasy purposes.

I agree and only 2004 was affected by injuries. Most remember that year, but it was the only one.

David Yudkin · Feb 6, 2007

wannabee said:
David Yudkin said:

I have been raising the red flag on the Pathers' running game for as long as I can remember. Here's the key team stats that illustrate how things have been . . .Team rankings in rushing attempts, yards, ypc, and TD.2002: 13, 25, 31, 222003: 3, 7, 17, 252004: 22, 28, 28, 222005: 10, 19, 29, 82006: 24, 24, 19, 29Overall, that's not very good . . . and when you consider that the proudction has been split several ways it spells disappointment for fantasy purposes.

Click to expand...

I agree and only 2004 was affected by injuries. Most remember that year, but it was the only one.

To be fair, even teams with poor totals in team categories can still produce decent fantasy RBs if they have one featured back that gets almost all the RB touches. For example, Deuce McAllister put up some good numbers even though the Saints team totals were far from earth shattering.

wannabee · Feb 6, 2007

David Yudkin said:
wannabee said:

David Yudkin said:

I have been raising the red flag on the Pathers' running game for as long as I can remember. Here's the key team stats that illustrate how things have been . . .Team rankings in rushing attempts, yards, ypc, and TD.2002: 13, 25, 31, 222003: 3, 7, 17, 252004: 22, 28, 28, 222005: 10, 19, 29, 82006: 24, 24, 19, 29Overall, that's not very good . . . and when you consider that the proudction has been split several ways it spells disappointment for fantasy purposes.

Click to expand...

I agree and only 2004 was affected by injuries. Most remember that year, but it was the only one.

Click to expand...

To be fair, even teams with poor totals in team categories can still produce decent fantasy RBs if they have one featured back that gets almost all the RB touches. For example, Deuce McAllister put up some good numbers even though the Saints team totals were far from earth shattering.

That is why I listed the high carry totals above and noted that only one of those years were affected by injuries. The carry totals and the TD totals are what concerns me the most

Jeff Pasquino · Feb 7, 2007

jeter23 said:
Uh oh! Pasquino will not like this.

Nothing wrong with a debate.Granted I am a fan of DeW, but let's just look at the facts of 2006: The Panthers went 8-8.In 8 losses, they ran the ball just over 17 times a game by the RBs.In 8 victories, they were over 31 carries per contest. That's a big difference.Now go ahead and point out the Atlanta game with 50 runs, so let's go ahead and remove it if you like.Carolina had 7 winning games and ran 199 times with their RBs. That's still over 28 times a game, a big % increase over the losses.Carolina ran the ball as team 423 times last season, with 389 going to RBs. So roughly 8% goes to WR runs or QB scrambles. That's fine.Let's say that HC Fox has noticed the patterns for the victories, and wants to run the ball with his RBs at least 28 times a game. That's not a big bump to the RBs from last year, at 448 runs for RBs. In fact, the statement of saying running between 25-30 times a game is a big difference on a seasonal scale, as 25 = 400 a year (below average for a team) to 480 a year at 30 per game (a very high average). So I'm bailing on that "carries per game" argument.The difference that DeW brings to the table is his speed and playmaking ability. He can break a big run (or reception, or KR, or PR) every time he touches the ball. He just has that sense about him. Westbrook is a good basis for comparison, as they went to smaller schools and they both set records for all-purpose yards and returned kicks their rookie years.DeW has great hands, catching 33 of 37 targets, where Foster caught just 32 of 46 targets. More importantly, Foster averaged just 5 ypr, whereas DeW had over 9 ypr. Do the Panthers like RBBC? Maybe. Will they go to that in 2007? Likely. The question lies in who is the primary back - is it DeW or Foster - as we know that the primary back will have 60% of the work and the second man has about half of that. That's a big difference. RB1 will have 250+ touches, whereas the next man will barely reach 10 touches a game.If the coaches and staff move towards more of a run offense and also the primary back role goes to DeW, he should be able to showcase his talents and push Fox towards a one-back system. At the worst if DeW is #1, look for 250 touches and a big average.

phthalatemagic · Feb 7, 2007

Didn't the Panthers lose Hartwig and one of their tackles for a large portion of the season? That's got to count for alot of the Panthers' woes last year. They couldn't get anything together last year on offense

Jeff Pasquino · Feb 7, 2007

The Panthers need some changes for certain, and a good start would be a better incorporation of the TE.

Jeff King is a talented player they drafted late last year, and if they actually start utilizing the TE in the offense he can contribute more. No DC gameplans to stop the TE vs. Carolina - it's just an extra lineman almost on every down.

Bri · Feb 7, 2007

wannabee said:
The only two years the Panthers had a winning record were the only two years that the Panthers: were in the top half of the NFL in rush attempts (and top 10 both years) and were 28th pass attempts both years. Also, in those two years, the Panthers were in the top 10 in the NFL in passing YPA. These were the only two years Stephen Davis was a Panther and was healthy. Is it a coincidence that the only two years the Panthers ran the ball a lot were the two years the Panthers had a winning record?

No. Out of 256 games, the winning team had more attempts than the losing team 80% of the season last year.

http://www.footballhangout.com/Stats/nfl20...atsRUSHATT.html

H.K. · Feb 7, 2007

phthalatemagic said:
Didn't the Panthers lose Hartwig and one of their tackles for a large portion of the season? That's got to count for alot of the Panthers' woes last year. They couldn't get anything together last year on offense

These notes came from an article re: Henning being ousted as OC:The offense played without (wide receiver) Steve Smith the first two weeks, without (running back) DeAngelo Williams for four and without Jake Delhomme for three at the end. They were without (offensive line starters) Travelle Wharton and Justin Hartwig most of the season. IIRC Wahle was banged up some, too.Several other factors contributed to the offensive woes in 2006. Carolina was last in the league in kickoff and punt returns, and also forced 22 turnovers, down from 42 the previous season. That combination proved disastrous for the Panthers' field position - in 2006 they started 80 drives from inside their 20, compared with 50 the season before.

Kilgore Trout · Feb 7, 2007

The criticism of the Panther's running game is valid. Some of it has been injuries, some of it playcalling, some of it situational within games. Honestly, other than Stephen Davis's big year the Panthers have been pretty bad at running the ball. I certainly don't think they have the most talented o-line in the league, as they rarely control the line of scrimmage. Both RB's could do a good job with the right offense, but a lot of the times they see 2 or 3 defensive lineman there to greet them at the line of scrimmage. I'm hoping the O-Line looks at changing its blocking schemes this year.

And that leads us to this question. Will Davidson put in the right offense? Part of the reason Carolina suffered this year is that other teams rarely had to put 8 men in the box to stop the run. That just made it more difficult to mix things up and establish any kind of rythym on offense. I'm really hoping that changes this year. Davidson worked for years under Charlie Weis, which is a good pedigree. But he also didn't do so well as the Brown's OC, but he should probably be given a pass since he wasn't running his offense.

For those interested, here is an interview in which he describes using the TE and incorporating more screens, both of which I think will improve this offense.

And for fantasy purposes, unless the Panthers get rid of DeShaun, this is RBBC next year. Hopefully DeAngelo will be able to take over the job, but Foster is still going to be a big part of the running game.

Sopranos · Feb 7, 2007

Seems like to me they were a good team when Davis was getting 20 carries,foster had 10 or so and Foster would have 6-8 catches. Foster was putting up some good rec. numbers in one of those years. When he is the main carrier he does not get the ball on passing downs. I would look to go back to this if it were me. IMO they have the RB's and talent. It could be the O line and the offensive game plan.

David Yudkin · Feb 7, 2007

Sopranos said:
Seems like to me they were a good team when Davis was getting 20 carries,foster had 10 or so and Foster would have 6-8 catches. Foster was putting up some good rec. numbers in one of those years. When he is the main carrier he does not get the ball on passing downs. I would look to go back to this if it were me. IMO they have the RB's and talent. It could be the O line and the offensive game plan.

I'm not sure which games you were watching, but Foster had 6 receptions once in his career and never had another game with even 5 receptions.

Family Matters · Feb 7, 2007

This is shapping up tp be a classic RBBC. I can't believe they are ready to bail on Foster yet. He's talented but frail. In fact, D. Williams did not better running that ball than Foster so it's not like he's outplayed Foster. Does he have big play ability? I think so. But in today's NFL you can't just bail on starters that have big contracts due to the cap implications. I don't know what Foster's cap aituation is but I doubt they will bail on him. Alos, with a total of only 7 rushing TD's it's pretty clear there are serious issues with the "team" running game that is outside of the RB's.

I can envision a scenario where Foster gets the bulk of carries (2-1) while DW gets more receptions. Similar to what NO has done with their 2 backs. In any case, I would not want to rely on either as a feature back on my fantasy team until the dust is settled.

Jeff Pasquino · Feb 7, 2007

Family Matters said:
This is shapping up tp be a classic RBBC. I can't believe they are ready to bail on Foster yet. He's talented but frail. In fact, D. Williams did not better running that ball than Foster so it's not like he's outplayed Foster. Does he have big play ability? I think so. But in today's NFL you can't just bail on starters that have big contracts due to the cap implications. I don't know what Foster's cap aituation is but I doubt they will bail on him. Alos, with a total of only 7 rushing TD's it's pretty clear there are serious issues with the "team" running game that is outside of the RB's.

I can envision a scenario where Foster gets the bulk of carries (2-1) while DW gets more receptions. Similar to what NO has done with their 2 backs. In any case, I would not want to rely on either as a feature back on my fantasy team until the dust is settled.

Regarding Foster's contract, here is info from our faceoff last year on Carolina RBs:

When Davis went down with an injury, the job was given to Foster, who had troubles staying healthy enough to hold down the starter role. Many were surprised that the Panthers gave Foster a nice contract in the offseason, but his salary is still not prohibitive. While he agreed to $14.5M for three years, his cap number if he gets cut is only $5.5M for 2006 as $9M is back loaded to 2008 and 2009. All that math translates to a “one and done” scenario for Foster.

wannabee · Feb 7, 2007

Bri said:
wannabee said:

The only two years the Panthers had a winning record were the only two years that the Panthers: were in the top half of the NFL in rush attempts (and top 10 both years) and were 28th pass attempts both years. Also, in those two years, the Panthers were in the top 10 in the NFL in passing YPA. These were the only two years Stephen Davis was a Panther and was healthy. Is it a coincidence that the only two years the Panthers ran the ball a lot were the two years the Panthers had a winning record?

Click to expand...

No. Out of 256 games, the winning team had more attempts than the losing team 80% of the season last year.

http://www.footballhangout.com/Stats/nfl20...atsRUSHATT.html

Thanks for setting me (this) straight. Then, I do not have an answer for it

wannabee · Feb 7, 2007

When I read above that injuries is one ogf the causes, I have to disagree to an extent. I wrote this looking at the play-calling. Only one year (of the 5) did the top RB get injured (2004-> Stephen Davis).

I think this revolves around play-calling and a low amount of rush attempts. And, because of the low rush attempts (as a team and for leading rusher), this affected the whole offense. I would ask everyone to notice how the Pass YPA went up when the rush attempts went up. Coincidence?

radballs · Feb 7, 2007

Jeff Pasquino said:
In 8 losses, they ran the ball just over 17 times a game by the RBs.

In 8 victories, they were over 31 carries per contest. That's a big difference.

Let's say that HC Fox has noticed the patterns for the victories, and wants to run the ball with his RBs at least 28 times a game. That's not a big bump to the RBs from last year, at 448 runs for RBs. In fact, the statement of saying running between 25-30 times a game is a big difference on a seasonal scale, as 25 = 400 a year (below average for a team) to 480 a year at 30 per game (a very high average). So I'm bailing on that "carries per game" argument.

I think you might be confusing correlation with causation. Sure, the Panthers (as well as most NFL teams) win more times when they run at least 28 times. The only reason they can stick with the run is that they either have a lead and can therefore run the ball or because they are playing a team on that particular day that isn't doing a good job of stopping the run. Going into the game saying, our game plan is to run at least X number of times, won't work unless the running game is effective.Or, was that the argument you were making? Maybe I misunderstood your italicized statement at the end. Did you mean carries per game isn't important or that it isn't important in determining whether your running game is effective or not and whether you win or lose?

Jeff Pasquino · Feb 7, 2007

radballs said:
Jeff Pasquino said:

In 8 losses, they ran the ball just over 17 times a game by the RBs.

In 8 victories, they were over 31 carries per contest. That's a big difference.

Let's say that HC Fox has noticed the patterns for the victories, and wants to run the ball with his RBs at least 28 times a game. That's not a big bump to the RBs from last year, at 448 runs for RBs. In fact, the statement of saying running between 25-30 times a game is a big difference on a seasonal scale, as 25 = 400 a year (below average for a team) to 480 a year at 30 per game (a very high average). So I'm bailing on that "carries per game" argument.

Click to expand...

I think you might be confusing correlation with causation. Sure, the Panthers (as well as most NFL teams) win more times when they run at least 28 times. The only reason they can stick with the run is that they either have a lead and can therefore run the ball or because they are playing a team on that particular day that isn't doing a good job of stopping the run. Going into the game saying, our game plan is to run at least X number of times, won't work unless the running game is effective.Or, was that the argument you were making? Maybe I misunderstood your italicized statement at the end. Did you mean carries per game isn't important or that it isn't important in determining whether your running game is effective or not and whether you win or lose?

It was a change of direction and thought. Trying to predict a carries per game number and extrapolating that for 16 games is a losing concept. 25 per game = 400, 28 = almost 450. Can you predict a 3 carry variation? Probably not.It's far better to try and determine what RB(s) will get 10+ TOUCHES per game, not just carries.

Over the last 11 seasons, only 30-39 backs have had that many touches. Never more, never less than 30-39 for 11 years.

So, will Foster AND DeW get 160+? Maybe. If they both they'll be unique in being on the same team and doing just that (like MJD/FTaylor). Either way, backs with that many touches should be value in FF, the only question is how productive each RB will be.

Bri · Feb 8, 2007

radballs said:
Jeff Pasquino said:

In 8 losses, they ran the ball just over 17 times a game by the RBs.

In 8 victories, they were over 31 carries per contest. That's a big difference.

Let's say that HC Fox has noticed the patterns for the victories, and wants to run the ball with his RBs at least 28 times a game. That's not a big bump to the RBs from last year, at 448 runs for RBs. In fact, the statement of saying running between 25-30 times a game is a big difference on a seasonal scale, as 25 = 400 a year (below average for a team) to 480 a year at 30 per game (a very high average). So I'm bailing on that "carries per game" argument.

Click to expand...

I think you might be confusing correlation with causation. Sure, the Panthers (as well as most NFL teams) win more times when they run at least 28 times. The only reason they can stick with the run is that they either have a lead and can therefore run the ball or because they are playing a team on that particular day that isn't doing a good job of stopping the run. Going into the game saying, our game plan is to run at least X number of times, won't work unless the running game is effective.

While that seems true I'm not sure. Henning was running something of a "descendant" of Parcells 80s Giants offense or Gibbs' old Os. TOP is the heart of it all. The problem with that type of offense is that the team has to be perfect. You can't have an 8 minute drive and not score. You have to run when the D knows you're running....etc Since this O began in Carolina, the Panthers have an uncanny number of close games. IIRC If you gave them 10-12 total points more for the year, they'd be 12-4. It's very odd and happens almost every year for them.When those rushing #s are down, there's a player injured or a questionable QB. It involves some faith by the OC to run that O and maybe he just didn't feel it those days. One game, IIRC, the WRs caught 2 or 3 bombs and..well drive over.

IMO (if they were to continue Henning's O)They need to figure out when to unleash Steve Smith. IF the timing was perfect, they could lull a team to sleep and then he could "break their back." That guy could get 4 catches for 200 yards "every" week if the timing was perfect. That's just 4 times the CB cheats inside to stop the run and instead he takes off. It's ridiculously hard to find the perfect time and achieve that but at least they should at least try. I've felt almost like they announce to the D "here's our rushing O, here's our passing O" and it's just very weird in a predictable sort of way.

I expect their new OC to have a different O. I'm surprised no one has pointed out Faulk+Dillon, Pass+Dillon or any other two back set he previously worked with. It seems to me, in Cleveland, he took from that NE offense. If so, there's still plenty of runs by the O but thepoint is to be unpredictable. They could pass or run on any down, could snap it quick and throw a screen or could go deep. Sounds vanilla but in action, it can be a pest to defend. I don't think Brady+Co reminds anyone of Warner+Faulk+Holt in Martz's O but the NE O has been successful.

Carolina needs a good TE to run this style O and I'll be watching for an FF sleeper there.

BassNBrew · Feb 8, 2007

I'm not ready to speculate until I'm dealt a few more cards. The Carolina offense has historically been a passing driven attack. The pass opens up the run. The o-line is far superior at pass blocking than run blocking. I enjoyed all the stat breakdown, but the rush attempts are often driven by the inconsistant defense. Some weeks this defense totally snuffs the run, other weeks it looks like the regular season Colts. When the opposition is dominating TOP, your rush attempts will be down.

Wouldn't be surprised to see Foster cut and Duckett brought in.

pretender · Feb 8, 2007

No where in this discussion has Eric Shelton been brought up. He still is rostered by the Panthers. Coming off injury his first year - didn't get much of chance this last season. With Foster and DW - why haven't they cut Shelton or is that coming? He was drafted in the second round - must have had some talent to be drafted so high. Any thoughts on how his injury in his rookie year - could have still affected his play in the second year and perhaps given a chance - prove to be a more valuable RB?

Jeff Pasquino · Feb 8, 2007

pretender said:
No where in this discussion has Eric Shelton been brought up. He still is rostered by the Panthers. Coming off injury his first year - didn't get much of chance this last season. With Foster and DW - why haven't they cut Shelton or is that coming? He was drafted in the second round - must have had some talent to be drafted so high. Any thoughts on how his injury in his rookie year - could have still affected his play in the second year and perhaps given a chance - prove to be a more valuable RB?

I'll leave it to BNB to tear Shelton to shreds, but it was a well-circulated rumor that Shelton was terrible in his rookie preseason and his "injury" was a convenient one to put him on the shelf for his red shirt year.

Bri · Feb 8, 2007

pretender said:
No where in this discussion has Eric Shelton been brought up. He still is rostered by the Panthers. Coming off injury his first year - didn't get much of chance this last season. With Foster and DW - why haven't they cut Shelton or is that coming? He was drafted in the second round - must have had some talent to be drafted so high. Any thoughts on how his injury in his rookie year - could have still affected his play in the second year and perhaps given a chance - prove to be a more valuable RB?

IIRC He stunk in preseason or camp before he got hurt. Seemed like the type of guy whose game doesn't "translate" to the NFL level

pretender · Feb 8, 2007

Bri said:
pretender said:

No where in this discussion has Eric Shelton been brought up. He still is rostered by the Panthers. Coming off injury his first year - didn't get much of chance this last season. With Foster and DW - why haven't they cut Shelton or is that coming? He was drafted in the second round - must have had some talent to be drafted so high. Any thoughts on how his injury in his rookie year - could have still affected his play in the second year and perhaps given a chance - prove to be a more valuable RB?

Click to expand...

IIRC He stunk in preseason or camp before he got hurt. Seemed like the type of guy whose game doesn't "translate" to the NFL level

Total bust type. Funny they never cut him. Lack of depth I suppose.

H.K. · Feb 8, 2007

pretender said:
Bri said:

pretender said:

No where in this discussion has Eric Shelton been brought up. He still is rostered by the Panthers. Coming off injury his first year - didn't get much of chance this last season. With Foster and DW - why haven't they cut Shelton or is that coming? He was drafted in the second round - must have had some talent to be drafted so high. Any thoughts on how his injury in his rookie year - could have still affected his play in the second year and perhaps given a chance - prove to be a more valuable RB?

Click to expand...

IIRC He stunk in preseason or camp before he got hurt. Seemed like the type of guy whose game doesn't "translate" to the NFL level

Click to expand...

Total bust type. Funny they never cut him. Lack of depth I suppose.

2005 Panthers Draft1 14(14) Thomas Davis S GEORGIA - 28 tackles and 1 start as a rookie

2 22(54) Eric Shelton RB LOUISVILLE -bust

3 15(79) Evan Mathis OG ALABAMA - Developing into a decent player

3 25(89) Atiyyah Ellison DT MISSOURI - gone

4 20(121) Stefan LeFors QB LOUISVILLE - gone

5 13(149) Adam Seward ILB NEVADA LAS VEGAS - decent ST guy

5 33(169) Geoff Hangartner OC TEXAS A&M - back-up

5 35(171) Ben Emanuel II S UCLA - gone

6 15(189) Jovan Haye DE VANDERBILT - gone

6 33(207) Joe Berger OG MICHIGAN TECH - gone

Shelton making the team last year shocked me. One of the reasons I was given for him being retained was partially political at the time. The entire class in 2005 failed to make an impact as rookies, releasing their #2 pick would have been an admission of guilt. Releasing Shelton now after Mathis and Davis were good contributors won't look as bad.

Here's an article written in July: link

2005 draftees low on depth chart

The Panthers have been getting a lot of praise for their drafts in recent years. It’s well deserved, because players such as Jordan Gross, Julius Peppers and Chris Gamble played big roles in last year’s drive to the NFC Championship Game and they’re part of the reason the Panthers are a trendy pick to go to the Super Bowl this season.

That’s nice, but the Class of 2005 is going to need Thomas Davis and Evan Mathis to have long and productive careers or else it could be labeled a bust.

Early in their second training camp, Eric Shelton, Atiyyah Ellison and Stefan LeFors are not in a good spot. Respectively, they’re second- third- and fourth-round picks and each of them is very much in danger of not making the team.

Shelton had a disappointing camp last year before suffering a foot injury that put him out for the season. He’s behind DeShaun Foster and DeAngelo Williams on the depth chart, and is battling Jamal Robertson and Nick Goings for the third (and, perhaps, final) running back spot.

Maybe it’s too early to give up on Shelton, who could be the best bet to be the short-yardage and goal-line runner. But Goings and Robertson have versatility and value on special teams. If Shelton doesn’t show dramatic progress from last year, the Panthers will run out of patience.

They didn’t have much patience with Ellison last season. They cut him in training camp and brought him back to the practice squad. Ellison eventually was promoted to the regular roster, but that came after several injuries to other players. After an offseason overhaul of the defensive line, Ellison entered camp as the team’s sixth-best defensive tackle. At most, the Panthers will keep five.

Then there’s LeFors, who spent last season as the No. 3 quarterback. He has intangibles, but doesn’t have great size or a particularly strong arm. He’s going to be pushed by rookie Brett Basanez, who comes with similar intangibles, better size and a better arm.

Kit Fisto · Feb 8, 2007

Showing the Panthers rushing stats from the past few years doesn't answer the question...

Isn't the fact the Panthers have been so inconsistent at RB lately the reason they drafted DeAngelo?

H.K. · Feb 8, 2007

Kit Fisto said:
Showing the Panthers rushing stats from the past few years doesn't answer the question...

Isn't the fact the Panthers have been so inconsistent at RB lately the reason they drafted DeAngelo?

Not completely. Davis was gone and Shelton was a bust, they had nobody besides Goings and his 3.7 career YPC backing up Foster. It would have made sense to add an RB if Tomlinson was their starter at the time.

msommer · Feb 8, 2007

H.K. said:
Kit Fisto said:

Showing the Panthers rushing stats from the past few years doesn't answer the question...

Isn't the fact the Panthers have been so inconsistent at RB lately the reason they drafted DeAngelo?

Click to expand...

Not completely. Davis was gone and Shelton was a bust, they had nobody besides Goings and his 3.7 career YPC backing up Foster. It would have made sense to add an RB if Tomlinson was their starter at the time.

Adding a running back and drafting one in the first round are not synonymous

H.K. · Feb 8, 2007

msommer said:
Adding a running back and drafting one in the first round are not synonymous

The cap plays a big part. I am sure they weighed their options through FA and knew who'd be available in the draft when their turn came up and made their decision based off of what was available. IIRC guys like SAlex and Edge were on the market, so they could have gone that route, but chose to address the position through the draft.

BassNBrew · Feb 8, 2007

Jeff Pasquino said:
pretender said:

No where in this discussion has Eric Shelton been brought up. He still is rostered by the Panthers. Coming off injury his first year - didn't get much of chance this last season. With Foster and DW - why haven't they cut Shelton or is that coming? He was drafted in the second round - must have had some talent to be drafted so high. Any thoughts on how his injury in his rookie year - could have still affected his play in the second year and perhaps given a chance - prove to be a more valuable RB?

Click to expand...

I'll leave it to BNB to tear Shelton to shreds, but it was a well-circulated rumor that Shelton was terrible in his rookie preseason and his "injury" was a convenient one to put him on the shelf for his red shirt year.

He's been so shreded that there's nothing left for me to tear into.

msommer · Feb 8, 2007

H.K. said:
msommer said:

Adding a running back and drafting one in the first round are not synonymous

Click to expand...

The cap plays a big part. I am sure they weighed their options through FA and knew who'd be available in the draft when their turn came up and made their decision based off of what was available. IIRC guys like SAlex and Edge were on the market, so they could have gone that route, but chose to address the position through the draft.

Sure but instead Jones-Drew, Calhoun or Norwood that could have been had later they chose to spend their first rounder on a RB. It is not unlikely that they chose so because they wanted an impact guy.I'm not annointing Williams to anything yet nor am I discarding Foster, suffice to say that Foster did not cement his job as the #1 running back at all.

Warpig · Feb 8, 2007

msommer said:
H.K. said:

Kit Fisto said:

Showing the Panthers rushing stats from the past few years doesn't answer the question...

Isn't the fact the Panthers have been so inconsistent at RB lately the reason they drafted DeAngelo?

Click to expand...

Not completely. Davis was gone and Shelton was a bust, they had nobody besides Goings and his 3.7 career YPC backing up Foster. It would have made sense to add an RB if Tomlinson was their starter at the time.

Click to expand...

Adding a running back and drafting one in the first round are not synonymous

It's called BPA...Best Player Available. Doesn't necessarily mean he is whom they were originally targeting. I'm sure he was the best value on the board at the time. :lmao:

msommer · Feb 8, 2007

Warpig said:
msommer said:

H.K. said:

Kit Fisto said:

Showing the Panthers rushing stats from the past few years doesn't answer the question...

Isn't the fact the Panthers have been so inconsistent at RB lately the reason they drafted DeAngelo?

Click to expand...

Not completely. Davis was gone and Shelton was a bust, they had nobody besides Goings and his 3.7 career YPC backing up Foster. It would have made sense to add an RB if Tomlinson was their starter at the time.

Click to expand...

Adding a running back and drafting one in the first round are not synonymous

Click to expand...

It's called BPA...Best Player Available. Doesn't necessarily mean he is whom they were originally targeting. I'm sure he was the best value on the board at the time.

That might be it, however allowing Davis to leave in FA and the structure of Fosters contract suggest that while it might have been BPA it certainly also could have been drafting for need or at worst insurance (see Perry, Chris or Johnson, Larry)

H.K. · Feb 8, 2007

msommer said:
Sure but instead Jones-Drew, Calhoun or Norwood that could have been had later they chose to spend their first rounder on a RB. It is not unlikely that they chose so because they wanted an impact guy.I'm not annointing Williams to anything yet nor am I discarding Foster, suffice to say that Foster did not cement his job as the #1 running back at all.

Drafting is an inexact science, they took a risk going that route. A gamble they were willing to take because they had confidence in Foster & their scouting reports on Williams. However, as I posted earlier, the decimated o-line, injuries to S.Smith & Delhomme, substantial drop-off in tuurnovers created, and horrible starting field position made 2006 a lost season for Carolina.On the flip side, Williams didn't do much to separate himself from Foster, either. IMHO, anyone counting on either guy as the primary ball carrier next year will be disappointed...barring injury. Foster has a brittle reputation and Williams missed four games in his only season. Not very confidence building in either back.

gregjcross · Jul 4, 2007

H.K. said:
msommer said:

Sure but instead Jones-Drew, Calhoun or Norwood that could have been had later they chose to spend their first rounder on a RB. It is not unlikely that they chose so because they wanted an impact guy.I'm not annointing Williams to anything yet nor am I discarding Foster, suffice to say that Foster did not cement his job as the #1 running back at all.

Click to expand...

Drafting is an inexact science, they took a risk going that route. A gamble they were willing to take because they had confidence in Foster & their scouting reports on Williams. However, as I posted earlier, the decimated o-line, injuries to S.Smith & Delhomme, substantial drop-off in tuurnovers created, and horrible starting field position made 2006 a lost season for Carolina.On the flip side, Williams didn't do much to separate himself from Foster, either. IMHO, anyone counting on either guy as the primary ball carrier next year will be disappointed...barring injury. Foster has a brittle reputation and Williams missed four games in his only season. Not very confidence building in either back.

Neither Foster or DWill are great players right now, but a rising tide lifts all boats, so if CAR gets its O line healthy they will both probably produce. from an NFL perspective, one can make an argument for starting either of them and letting the other come in and complement. But neither looks like a workhorse at this point so sharing only makes sense.I noticed in the Fanex "RB heavy" draft that DWill went ahead of Antonio Gates yesterday; but this is giving too much credit to his perceived "upside" as a year two player in my opinion. He has a long way to go. I would have taken Gates all day long.

Tick · Jul 4, 2007

Warpig said:
msommer said:

H.K. said:

Kit Fisto said:

Showing the Panthers rushing stats from the past few years doesn't answer the question...

Isn't the fact the Panthers have been so inconsistent at RB lately the reason they drafted DeAngelo?

Click to expand...

Not completely. Davis was gone and Shelton was a bust, they had nobody besides Goings and his 3.7 career YPC backing up Foster. It would have made sense to add an RB if Tomlinson was their starter at the time.

Click to expand...

Adding a running back and drafting one in the first round are not synonymous

Click to expand...

It's called BPA...Best Player Available. Doesn't necessarily mean he is whom they were originally targeting. I'm sure he was the best value on the board at the time.

If you remember the draft, though, they practically ran up there to select Williams when their pick came up. No trade talks, no hemming and hawing... their guy fell to them and they jumped on him.

CA_7 · Jul 4, 2007

Posted 7/4:

ESPN.com's Len Pasquarelli reports Carolina Panthers RB DeShaun Foster remains the team's unquestioned No. 1 running back entering the 2007 season. He started a career-high 14 games last season but has a long list of previous injuries on his resume. Foster, who is expected to share time with RB DeAngelo Williams this season, seems to be more productive when sharing the workload.

from KFFL.com

wannabee · Jul 4, 2007

I will take this time to re-iterate from post one that the Panther running game under Fox rarely gives one RB enough touches to make him worthy of the draft spot.

David Yudkin · Jul 13, 2007

wannabee said:
I will take this time to re-iterate from post one that the Panther running game under Fox rarely gives one RB enough touches to make him worthy of the draft spot.

Hmmm . . .Here's how the "main guy" has done when (a) healthy and (b) starting. The RBBC thing has not really been all that prevelant with Fox in the past. That could change this year, but he's normally utilized a featured back approach.2002 Lamar Smith 21 touches per game, Dee Brown 20 touches per game2003 Stephen Davis 23.7 touches per game2004 Nick Goings 30 touches per game2005 Stephen Davis 18.3 touches per game2006 DeShaun Foster 21 touches per game

PantherPower · Jul 13, 2007

Here's how the "main guy" has done when (a) healthy and (b) starting. The RBBC thing has not really been all that prevelant with Fox in the past. That could change this year, but he's normally utilized a featured back approach.2002 Lamar Smith 21 touches per game, Dee Brown 20 touches per game2003 Stephen Davis 23.7 touches per game2004 Nick Goings 30 touches per game2005 Stephen Davis 18.3 touches per game2006 DeShaun Foster 21 touches per game

D-Will is gonna ROCK this year! :thumbup:

David Yudkin · Jul 13, 2007

PantherPower said:
Here's how the "main guy" has done when (a) healthy and (b) starting. The RBBC thing has not really been all that prevelant with Fox in the past. That could change this year, but he's normally utilized a featured back approach.2002 Lamar Smith 21 touches per game, Dee Brown 20 touches per game2003 Stephen Davis 23.7 touches per game2004 Nick Goings 30 touches per game2005 Stephen Davis 18.3 touches per game2006 DeShaun Foster 21 touches per game

Click to expand...

D-Will is gonna ROCK this year!

Except at the moment DWill IS NOT the starter.

David Yudkin · Jul 14, 2007

Jeff Tefertiller said:
David Yudkin said:

wannabee said:

I will take this time to re-iterate from post one that the Panther running game under Fox rarely gives one RB enough touches to make him worthy of the draft spot.

Click to expand...

Hmmm . . .Here's how the "main guy" has done when (a) healthy and (b) starting. The RBBC thing has not really been all that prevelant with Fox in the past. That could change this year, but he's normally utilized a featured back approach.

2002 Lamar Smith 21 touches per game, Dee Brown 20 touches per game

2003 Stephen Davis 23.7 touches per game

2004 Nick Goings 30 touches per game

2005 Stephen Davis 18.3 touches per game

2006 DeShaun Foster 21 touches per game

Click to expand...

Please tell me where you got these numbers. Pro-football-reference has a different set of numbers. Last year, Foster had 227 carries and 32 catches in 14 games. NFL.com has Foster as starting all 14 games. So, are you just pulling out the games he was not the RB with the most touches? Please tell me how that equals 21 touches a game. Here is the link: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/car2006.htmIn 2005, Stephen Davis had 180 carries and 5 catches during 13 games. Once again, please tell me how this equates to 18 touches a game. In 2005, the two games that Foster had the most touches were games he did not start per NFL.com. Are you just using the games where one RB had the most touches? If so, a fantasy owner would not have known that Foster would have more touches in two of his games he did NOT start than he did in any of the games he started. Here is that link: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/car2006.htm here is the NFL.com link for Foster: http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302193/gamelogs/2005.

In 2004, Nick Goings had 217 carries and 45 catches in 16 games. Once again, please tell me how that is 30 touches per game. Goings did have some games with huge carries, but that was only because the other Panther RBs were injured. One cannot really look at a decimated Panther RB corps and say Goings was the guy. He was really the only healthy RB for 6 weeks. This does not say Fox did not want RBBC. Here is the link to the numbers I used: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/car2004.htm

Do I need to go on? David, what numbers are you using? The numbers referenced above are not even close to what P-F-R quotes in some cases. In others, like Goings, you used part of the info. If Goings was "the guy" why was it Thanksgiving before he got his chance? It was because he was only healthy RB. In 2006, I would like to know how you got your numbers when Foster started every game he played. We cannot just pull out the players that have the best game. In 2004, Davis played 13 games and Foster 15. You use Goings in 2004, but that was for less than half of the season. How about the other games? I just think you either have to use the starter each week, or assume it is RBBC. That is what fantasy owners had to do at that time. They could not wait until Monday to see who would have the most carries that week.

I cited the games AS A STARTER. Clealry some players were role players (having a handful of carries) and then took on the primary role (like Goings). If you would rather look at it on a game by game basis . . .Leading RB Ball Carrier, Rushes, Receptions

Listed from Game 1 through Game 16

2002

LSmith 24/0

LSmith 21/3

LSmith 30/2

LSmith 22/1

LSmith 18/5

LSmith 25/1

LSmith 8/1

LSmith 22/0

LSmith 17/4

LSmith 15/1

LSmith 8/2

DBrown 27/1 (LSmith injured)

DBrown 17/2

DBrown 8/1

DBrown 23/0

Goings 18/3 (DBrown injured)

2003

SDavis 22/1

SDavis 33/0

SDavis 21/4

SDavis 30/1

SDavis 15/0, Foster 16/2

SDavis 11/1

SDavis 31/1

SDavis 30/0

Foster 22/1 (SDavis injured)

SDavis 28/2

SDavis 26/1

SDavis 23/0

SDavis 24/0

SDavis 13/3

Foster 21/6 (SDavis injured)

Foster 17/3, SDavis 11/0

2004

SDavis 9/1

Foster 32/0 (SDavis injured)

Foster 19/3 (SDavis injured)

Goings 12/1 (SDavis injured, Foster to IR)

SDavis 15/1

Hoover 24/2 (SDavis to IR)

JHarris 9/0, Hoover 7/1

Hoover 8/2

Goings 8/3

Goings 22/3

Goings 23/3

Goings 36/6

Goings 31/0

Goings 24/3

Goings 33/4

Goings 13/6

2005

SDavis 13/0

SDavis 25/0

SDavis 16/2

SDavis 19/1

SDavis 18/0

SDavis 13/0

SDavis 17/1, Foster 12/1

SDavis 12/1, Foster 16/2

SDavis 27/0

Foster 9/3 (Foster promoted to starter)

Foster 23/4

Foster 24/3

Foster 14/2

Foster 21/2, Goings 16/2

Foster 22/2

Foster 18/0

2006

Foster 15/4

Foster 13/2, DWilliams 13/5

Foster 20/3

Foster 16/1

Foster 24/3

Foster 26/2

Foster 14/2

Foster 15/4

Foster 13/2

DWilliams 20/2 (Foster injured)

DWilliams 17/3 (Foster injured)

DWilliams 17/7 (Foster injured)

Foster 8/2

Foster 7/3

Foster 28/1

Foster 19/3

I DO NOT see any pattern of utlizing a RBBC. That *COULD* happen this year, but IMO Fox has gone with one primary back and for the most part everyone else has seen very limited action.

Jeff Tefertiller · Jul 14, 2007

David Yudkin said:
Jeff Tefertiller said:

David Yudkin said:

wannabee said:

I will take this time to re-iterate from post one that the Panther running game under Fox rarely gives one RB enough touches to make him worthy of the draft spot.

Click to expand...

Hmmm . . .Here's how the "main guy" has done when (a) healthy and (b) starting. The RBBC thing has not really been all that prevelant with Fox in the past. That could change this year, but he's normally utilized a featured back approach.

2002 Lamar Smith 21 touches per game, Dee Brown 20 touches per game

2003 Stephen Davis 23.7 touches per game

2004 Nick Goings 30 touches per game

2005 Stephen Davis 18.3 touches per game

2006 DeShaun Foster 21 touches per game

Click to expand...

Please tell me where you got these numbers. Pro-football-reference has a different set of numbers. Last year, Foster had 227 carries and 32 catches in 14 games. NFL.com has Foster as starting all 14 games. So, are you just pulling out the games he was not the RB with the most touches? Please tell me how that equals 21 touches a game. Here is the link: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/car2006.htmIn 2005, Stephen Davis had 180 carries and 5 catches during 13 games. Once again, please tell me how this equates to 18 touches a game. In 2005, the two games that Foster had the most touches were games he did not start per NFL.com. Are you just using the games where one RB had the most touches? If so, a fantasy owner would not have known that Foster would have more touches in two of his games he did NOT start than he did in any of the games he started. Here is that link: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/car2006.htm here is the NFL.com link for Foster: http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302193/gamelogs/2005.

In 2004, Nick Goings had 217 carries and 45 catches in 16 games. Once again, please tell me how that is 30 touches per game. Goings did have some games with huge carries, but that was only because the other Panther RBs were injured. One cannot really look at a decimated Panther RB corps and say Goings was the guy. He was really the only healthy RB for 6 weeks. This does not say Fox did not want RBBC. Here is the link to the numbers I used: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/car2004.htm

Do I need to go on? David, what numbers are you using? The numbers referenced above are not even close to what P-F-R quotes in some cases. In others, like Goings, you used part of the info. If Goings was "the guy" why was it Thanksgiving before he got his chance? It was because he was only healthy RB. In 2006, I would like to know how you got your numbers when Foster started every game he played. We cannot just pull out the players that have the best game. In 2004, Davis played 13 games and Foster 15. You use Goings in 2004, but that was for less than half of the season. How about the other games? I just think you either have to use the starter each week, or assume it is RBBC. That is what fantasy owners had to do at that time. They could not wait until Monday to see who would have the most carries that week.

Click to expand...

I cited the games AS A STARTER. Clealry some players were role players (having a handful of carries) and then took on the primary role (like Goings). If you would rather look at it on a game by game basis . . .Leading RB Ball Carrier, Rushes, Receptions

Listed from Game 1 through Game 16

2002

LSmith 24/0

LSmith 21/3

LSmith 30/2

LSmith 22/1

LSmith 18/5

LSmith 25/1

LSmith 8/1

LSmith 22/0

LSmith 17/4

LSmith 15/1

LSmith 8/2

DBrown 27/1 (LSmith injured)

DBrown 17/2

DBrown 8/1

DBrown 23/0

Goings 18/3 (DBrown injured)

2003

SDavis 22/1

SDavis 33/0

SDavis 21/4

SDavis 30/1

SDavis 15/0, Foster 16/2

SDavis 11/1

SDavis 31/1

SDavis 30/0

Foster 22/1 (SDavis injured)

SDavis 28/2

SDavis 26/1

SDavis 23/0

SDavis 24/0

SDavis 13/3

Foster 21/6 (SDavis injured)

Foster 17/3, SDavis 11/0

2004

SDavis 9/1

Foster 32/0 (SDavis injured)

Foster 19/3 (SDavis injured)

Goings 12/1 (SDavis injured, Foster to IR)

SDavis 15/1

Hoover 24/2 (SDavis to IR)

JHarris 9/0, Hoover 7/1

Hoover 8/2

Goings 8/3

Goings 22/3

Goings 23/3

Goings 36/6

Goings 31/0

Goings 24/3

Goings 33/4

Goings 13/6

2005

SDavis 13/0

SDavis 25/0

SDavis 16/2

SDavis 19/1

SDavis 18/0

SDavis 13/0

SDavis 17/1, Foster 12/1

SDavis 12/1, Foster 16/2

SDavis 27/0

Foster 9/3 (Foster promoted to starter)

Foster 23/4

Foster 24/3

Foster 14/2

Foster 21/2, Goings 16/2

Foster 22/2

Foster 18/0

2006

Foster 15/4

Foster 13/2, DWilliams 13/5

Foster 20/3

Foster 16/1

Foster 24/3

Foster 26/2

Foster 14/2

Foster 15/4

Foster 13/2

DWilliams 20/2 (Foster injured)

DWilliams 17/3 (Foster injured)

DWilliams 17/7 (Foster injured)

Foster 8/2

Foster 7/3

Foster 28/1

Foster 19/3

I DO NOT see any pattern of utlizing a RBBC. That *COULD* happen this year, but IMO Fox has gone with one primary back and for the most part everyone else has seen very limited action.

my point is that you chose the leading ball carrier after the fact, not the running back who started. Many of the games you cite above are the RB with the mos carries, not the RB listed as a starter, as listed by NFL.com. A typical fantasy owner is NOT going to start a RB not starting for his team. Looking back on it as though we knew it then is not the way it was. If a RB is the leading ball carrier and is not the starter, how is that not RBBC?Since Foster shows up a lot, let's look at him. NFL.com shows him starting 14 games in 2006 meaning one of the games you show for DWIlliams being a game Foster started. No one would have started Williams that game. In 2005, NFL.com shows Foster as starting 5 games. You show him as the leading carrier in 7 games. There is no reasonable way a fantasy owner would know when to start Foster when he is not starting for the Panthers. In 2004, Foster started 3 games. You have him as leading ball carrier in two games. Also, in 2004, Goings is listed as the leading ball carrier 9 times above even though he only started 8 games. Plus, to say that Goings was the starter because Fox shows no indication of RBBC probably needs explaining since he was only the primary RB after a few injuries. He only had 35 carries in the 8 games before his first start.

If you want to say that this is because of the numerous injuries the Panthers have endured, that is fine. But, other than Lamar Smith in 2002 when healthy, and Stephen Davis in 2003 listed above as the highest number of rushes in the Fox tenure, the Panthers did not use one RB by choice. In 2004 above, you point to Goings, who only had 35 carries in the 8 games he did not start, but had 150 more carries than the RB with the 2nd most carries. That team had several RBs sharing the ball. They had injuries. The RB corps was a mess. Look how many different RBs were the leading carrier. Since that stretch when the Panthers had to go to Goings, the RB carries have been split.

In 2005 and especially 2006, the fantasy owner did not have a good feel for who the Panthers would give the carries to. In 2005, Davis had 180 carries in 13 games and Foster had 205 carries in 15 games. So, that means that many of those games, they split carries. In 2006, you list Foster averaging 21 touches a game. But, by my count, he only had 5 games over 20 touches and 4 games with 15 touches or less. The point is that very few of these games in 2006 was Foster startable for fantasy owners and the fantasy owner did not know which games would be which. The same goes for Davis and Foster in 2005.

I expect that this will stay the same in 2007. The RB who is RB2 will get enough touches per game to make the RB1 unstartable in most leagues, unless injury. In addition, unless the Panthers increase the total amount of carries by RBs, the passing game will suffer. I know you wanted to get this off on touches, when the stats used in the original post were in carries. Using touches changes things. In the last 2 years, 32 games, only 11 times has one RB carried the ball 20 times by your numbers. Many of the remaining two-thirds of the games had a RB2 getting enough carries to minimize the startability of the RB1. If you think the RB1 in Carolina is startable, be my guest. But, until Fox gives one RB enough carries, I do not think starting a Panther RB will be fruitful.

David Yudkin · Jul 14, 2007

Jeff Tefertiller said:
David Yudkin said:

Jeff Tefertiller said:

David Yudkin said:

wannabee said:

I will take this time to re-iterate from post one that the Panther running game under Fox rarely gives one RB enough touches to make him worthy of the draft spot.

Click to expand...

Hmmm . . .Here's how the "main guy" has done when (a) healthy and (b) starting. The RBBC thing has not really been all that prevelant with Fox in the past. That could change this year, but he's normally utilized a featured back approach.

2002 Lamar Smith 21 touches per game, Dee Brown 20 touches per game

2003 Stephen Davis 23.7 touches per game

2004 Nick Goings 30 touches per game

2005 Stephen Davis 18.3 touches per game

2006 DeShaun Foster 21 touches per game

Click to expand...

Please tell me where you got these numbers. Pro-football-reference has a different set of numbers. Last year, Foster had 227 carries and 32 catches in 14 games. NFL.com has Foster as starting all 14 games. So, are you just pulling out the games he was not the RB with the most touches? Please tell me how that equals 21 touches a game. Here is the link: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/car2006.htmIn 2005, Stephen Davis had 180 carries and 5 catches during 13 games. Once again, please tell me how this equates to 18 touches a game. In 2005, the two games that Foster had the most touches were games he did not start per NFL.com. Are you just using the games where one RB had the most touches? If so, a fantasy owner would not have known that Foster would have more touches in two of his games he did NOT start than he did in any of the games he started. Here is that link: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/car2006.htm here is the NFL.com link for Foster: http://www.nfl.com/players/playerpage/302193/gamelogs/2005.

In 2004, Nick Goings had 217 carries and 45 catches in 16 games. Once again, please tell me how that is 30 touches per game. Goings did have some games with huge carries, but that was only because the other Panther RBs were injured. One cannot really look at a decimated Panther RB corps and say Goings was the guy. He was really the only healthy RB for 6 weeks. This does not say Fox did not want RBBC. Here is the link to the numbers I used: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/teams/car2004.htm

Do I need to go on? David, what numbers are you using? The numbers referenced above are not even close to what P-F-R quotes in some cases. In others, like Goings, you used part of the info. If Goings was "the guy" why was it Thanksgiving before he got his chance? It was because he was only healthy RB. In 2006, I would like to know how you got your numbers when Foster started every game he played. We cannot just pull out the players that have the best game. In 2004, Davis played 13 games and Foster 15. You use Goings in 2004, but that was for less than half of the season. How about the other games? I just think you either have to use the starter each week, or assume it is RBBC. That is what fantasy owners had to do at that time. They could not wait until Monday to see who would have the most carries that week.

Click to expand...

I cited the games AS A STARTER. Clealry some players were role players (having a handful of carries) and then took on the primary role (like Goings). If you would rather look at it on a game by game basis . . .Leading RB Ball Carrier, Rushes, Receptions

Listed from Game 1 through Game 16

2002

LSmith 24/0

LSmith 21/3

LSmith 30/2

LSmith 22/1

LSmith 18/5

LSmith 25/1

LSmith 8/1

LSmith 22/0

LSmith 17/4

LSmith 15/1

LSmith 8/2

DBrown 27/1 (LSmith injured)

DBrown 17/2

DBrown 8/1

DBrown 23/0

Goings 18/3 (DBrown injured)

2003

SDavis 22/1

SDavis 33/0

SDavis 21/4

SDavis 30/1

SDavis 15/0, Foster 16/2

SDavis 11/1

SDavis 31/1

SDavis 30/0

Foster 22/1 (SDavis injured)

SDavis 28/2

SDavis 26/1

SDavis 23/0

SDavis 24/0

SDavis 13/3

Foster 21/6 (SDavis injured)

Foster 17/3, SDavis 11/0

2004

SDavis 9/1

Foster 32/0 (SDavis injured)

Foster 19/3 (SDavis injured)

Goings 12/1 (SDavis injured, Foster to IR)

SDavis 15/1

Hoover 24/2 (SDavis to IR)

JHarris 9/0, Hoover 7/1

Hoover 8/2

Goings 8/3

Goings 22/3

Goings 23/3

Goings 36/6

Goings 31/0

Goings 24/3

Goings 33/4

Goings 13/6

2005

SDavis 13/0

SDavis 25/0

SDavis 16/2

SDavis 19/1

SDavis 18/0

SDavis 13/0

SDavis 17/1, Foster 12/1

SDavis 12/1, Foster 16/2

SDavis 27/0

Foster 9/3 (Foster promoted to starter)

Foster 23/4

Foster 24/3

Foster 14/2

Foster 21/2, Goings 16/2

Foster 22/2

Foster 18/0

2006

Foster 15/4

Foster 13/2, DWilliams 13/5

Foster 20/3

Foster 16/1

Foster 24/3

Foster 26/2

Foster 14/2

Foster 15/4

Foster 13/2

DWilliams 20/2 (Foster injured)

DWilliams 17/3 (Foster injured)

DWilliams 17/7 (Foster injured)

Foster 8/2

Foster 7/3

Foster 28/1

Foster 19/3

I DO NOT see any pattern of utlizing a RBBC. That *COULD* happen this year, but IMO Fox has gone with one primary back and for the most part everyone else has seen very limited action.

Click to expand...

my point is that you chose the leading ball carrier after the fact, not the running back who started. Many of the games you cite above are the RB with the mos carries, not the RB listed as a starter, as listed by NFL.com. A typical fantasy owner is NOT going to start a RB not starting for his team. Looking back on it as though we knew it then is not the way it was. If a RB is the leading ball carrier and is not the starter, how is that not RBBC?Since Foster shows up a lot, let's look at him. NFL.com shows him starting 14 games in 2006 meaning one of the games you show for DWIlliams being a game Foster started. No one would have started Williams that game. In 2005, NFL.com shows Foster as starting 5 games. You show him as the leading carrier in 7 games. There is no reasonable way a fantasy owner would know when to start Foster when he is not starting for the Panthers. In 2004, Foster started 3 games. You have him as leading ball carrier in two games. Also, in 2004, Goings is listed as the leading ball carrier 9 times above even though he only started 8 games. Plus, to say that Goings was the starter because Fox shows no indication of RBBC probably needs explaining since he was only the primary RB after a few injuries. He only had 35 carries in the 8 games before his first start.

If you want to say that this is because of the numerous injuries the Panthers have endured, that is fine. But, other than Lamar Smith in 2002 when healthy, and Stephen Davis in 2003 listed above as the highest number of rushes in the Fox tenure, the Panthers did not use one RB by choice. In 2004 above, you point to Goings, who only had 35 carries in the 8 games he did not start, but had 150 more carries than the RB with the 2nd most carries. That team had several RBs sharing the ball. They had injuries. The RB corps was a mess. Look how many different RBs were the leading carrier. Since that stretch when the Panthers had to go to Goings, the RB carries have been split.

In 2005 and especially 2006, the fantasy owner did not have a good feel for who the Panthers would give the carries to. In 2005, Davis had 180 carries in 13 games and Foster had 205 carries in 15 games. So, that means that many of those games, they split carries. In 2006, you list Foster averaging 21 touches a game. But, by my count, he only had 5 games over 20 touches and 4 games with 15 touches or less. The point is that very few of these games in 2006 was Foster startable for fantasy owners and the fantasy owner did not know which games would be which. The same goes for Davis and Foster in 2005.

I expect that this will stay the same in 2007. The RB who is RB2 will get enough touches per game to make the RB1 unstartable in most leagues, unless injury. In addition, unless the Panthers increase the total amount of carries by RBs, the passing game will suffer. I know you wanted to get this off on touches, when the stats used in the original post were in carries. Using touches changes things. In the last 2 years, 32 games, only 11 times has one RB carried the ball 20 times by your numbers. Many of the remaining two-thirds of the games had a RB2 getting enough carries to minimize the startability of the RB1. If you think the RB1 in Carolina is startable, be my guest. But, until Fox gives one RB enough carries, I do not think starting a Panther RB will be fruitful.

My point was that there was not ever truly a committee where either (a) players were often rotated in DURING a game or (b) players were rotated in THROUGHOUT the season BY DESIGN. The only time anything really changed was due to injuries, which admittedly was quite frequently.Better stated, if the same RB had started ALL of the games in each season that guy could have seen substantial touches--that only changed because players got hurt. The primary ball carrier totals per year equalled:

Year, Carries, Receptions

2002: 303/27

2003: 368/26

2004: 318/38

2005: 285/22

2006: 272/47

The numbers show several things IMO: (1) that the Pathers generally have given the ball a lot to a featured back in the huge majority of games, (2) that up until now there has not been two guys normally sharing the load on a game by game basis, (3) that the Panthers have suffered a lot of RB injuries, (4) that the Panthers running totals overall have been below average, and (5) if one guy could stay healthy for an enitre season he'd put up decent numbers.

I don't see any of that really changing this year with the exception that Fox might try using more of a two back system (but that's just a guess). Bottom line, the primary ball carrier has averaged 21.3 touches per game over the past 5 seasons. That tells me WHOEVER gets the ball on any given week for CAR will at least see the ball enough to consider starting for fantasy purposes even if that player's YEARLY TOTALS may not be starting worthy.

If Foster breaks camp as the starter (which at this point I suspect is going to be the case), then he should be a steall as the 40th RB off the fantasy draft board.

I know your retort will be that the official stats include ALL games not just some of them, to which I would say to fantasy owners don't play a player that is not scheduled to start.

I have had pretty much all the CAR RBs over the past few years (except for Williams) and I was able to play some of them when needed and they did fine fantasy wise (but again if you are looking for a nice simple yearend total and ranking of one player ending the year as the #11 RB you won't find it).

IMO, this line of reasoning is a bit misguided:

In 2005, Davis had 180 carries in 13 games and Foster had 205 carries in 15 games. So, that means that many of those games, they split carries.

One guy started X amount of games and one guy started Y amount of games. It's pretty straight forward. There were basically only two weeks when both guys saw the ball a lot.By comparison, look at NE last year. Dillon and Maroney had similar carry totals as the 05 Davis and Foster duo. But Maroney and Dillon split the workload EVERY WEEK. The Panthers did not operate that way.

If you want to classify a team that uses a featured back as a RBBC when the only reason they made any changes was due to injuries, then I guess I can't stop you . . .

Using that rationale, the Eagles have used QBBC for years now.

KnowledgeReignsSupreme · Jul 14, 2007

The problem with the Panthers running game is they have a remarkable talent at finding RBs who can't stay healthy more than 4-5 games.

Fox is similar to Shanahan in that when he has a guy healthy, they will get the bulk of the carries. I remember starting Lamar Smith in 2003. Even though he stunk, he got the rock constantly and was putting up lots of TDs. Fox wants a guy to be his main workhorse, but he's been unsuccessful outside of Stephen Davis for one year.

I feel pretty confident that DeShaun can NOT be a workhorse. But Fox will stubbornly stick with him, despite the fact that he's not really as good as FFers make him out to be. If/when DeShaun gets hurt, DeAngelo will be given the chance to be a workhorse.

gianmarco · Jul 14, 2007

David Yudkin said:
The numbers show several things IMO: (1) that the Pathers generally have given the ball a lot to a featured back in the huge majority of games, (2) that up until now there has not been two guys normally sharing the load on a game by game basis, (3) that the Panthers have suffered a lot of RB injuries, (4) that the Panthers running totals overall have been below average, and (5) if one guy could stay healthy for an enitre season he'd put up decent numbers.

I don't really see how #5 can be true if #4 is true. That's one of the main problems with any of these Carolina backs. Carolina just doesn't put up good rushing totals. And that's been going on for a while now. Yes, I know they've had a lot of injuries, yes I know they've shuffled different guys in, yes I know they changed to a ZBS this year, but I just don't see how if one guy is just given the job and stays healthy how he could really have that good of a season given what Carolina has churned out over the last 5 yrs. And I don't think the problem is the RB's bc I truly believe Foster is a pretty good RB but moreso the actual system itself. This is the main reason that I think all of the DeAngelo pimpers are gonna be in for a big disappointment.

David Yudkin · Jul 14, 2007

gianmarco said:
David Yudkin said:

The numbers show several things IMO: (1) that the Pathers generally have given the ball a lot to a featured back in the huge majority of games, (2) that up until now there has not been two guys normally sharing the load on a game by game basis, (3) that the Panthers have suffered a lot of RB injuries, (4) that the Panthers running totals overall have been below average, and (5) if one guy could stay healthy for an enitre season he'd put up decent numbers.

Click to expand...

I don't really see how #5 can be true if #4 is true. That's one of the main problems with any of these Carolina backs. Carolina just doesn't put up good rushing totals. And that's been going on for a while now. Yes, I know they've had a lot of injuries, yes I know they've shuffled different guys in, yes I know they changed to a ZBS this year, but I just don't see how if one guy is just given the job and stays healthy how he could really have that good of a season given what Carolina has churned out over the last 5 yrs. And I don't think the problem is the RB's bc I truly believe Foster is a pretty good RB but moreso the actual system itself. This is the main reason that I think all of the DeAngelo pimpers are gonna be in for a big disappointment.

If one guy could stay healthy enough to get 300+ carries he'd still be an ok fantasy option. EXHIBIT A: James, Edgerrin James, ARI, 2006. James got the ball a ton and ranked 20th last year. EXHIBIT B: Taylor, Chester, MIN, 2006. CT had 340 touches and ranked 12th last year. I don't see fantasy RB1 numbers coming out of CAR, but RB2 numbers could happen if one guy got the majority of touches. As I indicated early, 21.3 touches per game (the average for the CAR primary ball carrier on a per game basis) times 16 games = 341 touches = Chester Taylor above. In 2003, SDavis ranked 12th in CAR as well. That's probably the ceiling this year if one guy got a ton of the work and stayed healthy.

We all have to fish somewhere to find sleepers and untapped production, and CAR could be a possible destination if it looks like you could draft a starting NFL RB (if one emerges in camp) for below market value.

A look at the 2006 Panther RBs (1 Viewer)

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Footballguy

Similar threads

Users who are viewing this thread