Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.
Why are 72 carries too small a sample size (again not a "sample;" it's his entire body of work), but a 5 carry sample from last year is worth drawing a meaningful conclusion?
A lot of people are going to blow Blount up as something more and cause Bell to be had for cheap in redrafts, I like that.
Well, I don't pay much attention to screen names so I figured I'd just be open about it.
Never said they dont. but nice work trying to be a smart ###. But its a lot different having a guy on your roster like Blount as a back up,
Well you said "the only reason to bring Blount in is to give Bell less of a work load" - you could say that about any backup RB (they lessen the workload), but your implication seemed to that Blount was brought in as something more than just as a backup. Maybe he was, but it's not the only reason a team would sign another RB. The team had no other viable option besides Bell at the position.
right they could of brought back dwyer or redman, or you or me in the backfield but it wouldnt do much for Bells work load.. bringing in viable backup, is going to actually lighten is workload. There is different types of back up rbs in the league. Ones who will take carries away and ones who are mainly their for some carries but in case the main guy gets hurt.
According to Steelers Depot? Just some guys opinion who writes for them is all nothing from coaches.
Couple of things
I would think Haley runs plays where both Bell & Archer are on the field. Bell lined up in back field with Archer in motion.
Indeed, you'll notice he didn't compare Blount's rookie salary in year 2 to Bell's rookie salary in year 2.
Couple of things
1-You point out that 1st and 3 (or less) situations are rare, and I agree, but they do happen at the goal line. Those are most definitely "short yardage" situations. Ok, I looked it up. He's had 3 in of them in 4 years. Scored 1 TD. So small that I can draw no conclusions here.
2-Also, you say that 2nd and 3 (or less) aren't "true" short yardage situations since defenses are forced to play the pass in those situations. You are also correct here, however the fact that defenses are forced to play the pass on 2nd and short should lead to better numbers for RBs who get carries in those situations, not worse. So, it makes no logical sense to discount RB carries on 2nd and short. If anything, a "power RB's" stats would look better, not worse, if you factor in carries on 2nd and short. Everybody's stats should look better, but putting in a guy who primarily plays on rushing downs does tip your hat more than putting in a 3-down back. So I'd think these situations would benefit 3-down backs more than 2-down backs.
3-When you say "especially when comparing him to a guy with 3.6 YPA on a good team," I assume you are talking about Bell, and this is an incredibly inaccurate statement. The Steelers were anything but a good team last year. They backed into an 8-8 record, but they were not a good team. Their O-line, while improving towards the end of the season was in a constant state of flux, and by the end of the season was starting a 3rd-string center. Luckily Bell played more towards the end of the season than the beginning, so he caught the team at the right time. Pit was still a productive offense while the dumpster fire Bucs in 2011 were not (23.7 pts/gm vs. 17.9).
4-I'm not labeling him a bad power back based on what you call a small sample size, I'm labeling him a bad power back based on both the entirety of his short-yardage carries in his career, and what I've seen with my own eyes. So you are basing it on a small sample size of one aspect of a power back's game AND your eye-ball test. Got it.
5-When you say Blount "outshined a fairly well respected runner in Ridley," that is true, but all facts must be taken into account. Blount had a huge game 17 against a team that was completely out of contention and had nothing to play for. Also, Blount had the advantage of getting many of his carries in the 4th quarter against D's that other RBs had "worn down" (although I dislike that phrase) for 3 quarters. 1/3 of Blount's carries came in the 4th quarter last year. He averaged 6.0 YPC on those carries (and scored 5 of his 7 TDs). So, yes, Blount did put up better numbers than Ridley in 2013, but he didn't do it under the exact same conditions, he had fresh legs and got to face defenses that may have been tired, not as quick, "worn down" by other NE RBs, etc. Hey, I'm as big of a detractor from week 17 games as anyone, so let's then replace his week 17 game against a team out of contention with his week 19 game against a playoff team in the playoffs. As I've been writing these responses, I have had an inkling that there was a caveat to Blount's rushing stats in 2013, but I just couldn't recall what it was. And you hit it on the head with the 4th quarter stats. That is enough to give some pause. Not write off his season, but it is worth taking into account.
And I suppose you are right that we haven't seen enough out of Bell to really know how good/bad he is, but I have seen enough out of Blount to know that he is an adequate NFL RB, but is not a RB that the Steelers are going to lean on, or replace Bell with. Again, never said they were going to replace Bell. I just worry about his workload and productivity. I don't want to draft a guy in the 2nd round who isn't going to crack 1000 yards rushing. I'd rather have Mathews, Spiller, or Stacy a round later. Hell, I'd rather have those guys straight up. It's crazy to think they can be had later than Bell.
Expect to hear that from Haley's mouth during training camp, like we hear every year from some team, and then of course it never happens.
McCluster had 114 carries and 46 catches under Haley in 2011 -- granted that was the year every RB in KC got hurt, and that was the year Crennel took over for the last few games, so it probably doesn't mean too much.
If we are worrying about one catch per game either way, we're really just talking about variance or randomness. I guess we can all downgrade Antonio Brown as well, since Archer could take one catch per game away from him as well.
We disagree here. Given the level of investment in Archer, I definitely see him playing some snaps as a passing down RB moving forward -- and those are snaps that would have gone to Bell.
It's certainly possible - teams spend "high" picks for all different reasons. They are playing real football out there (I know you know this), so Archer could have been their target for special teams play and to be an OW (a relatively new term for these gadget players) and even if he's not a huge contributor to the offensive gameplan, they can still be happy with their investment if he contributes a few big kickoff returns or a handful of big plays on offense over the course of the season.
Couple of things
1-You point out that 1st and 3 (or less) situations are rare, and I agree, but they do happen at the goal line. Those are most definitely "short yardage" situations. Ok, I looked it up. He's had 3 in of them in 4 years. Scored 1 TD. So small that I can draw no conclusions here.
Yes, 3 carries is too few to draw conclusions, but when you include them into the entire sum of all his short-yardage carries, they help to show how effective/ineffective he is as a short-yardage runner.
2-Also, you say that 2nd and 3 (or less) aren't "true" short yardage situations since defenses are forced to play the pass in those situations. You are also correct here, however the fact that defenses are forced to play the pass on 2nd and short should lead to better numbers for RBs who get carries in those situations, not worse. So, it makes no logical sense to discount RB carries on 2nd and short. If anything, a "power RB's" stats would look better, not worse, if you factor in carries on 2nd and short. Everybody's stats should look better, but putting in a guy who primarily plays on rushing downs does tip your hat more than putting in a 3-down back. So I'd think these situations would benefit 3-down backs more than 2-down backs.
But, even if you want to make that point, it still returns us to a "typical" short-yardage situation, where the defense is expecting a run, and the "power RB" is expected to use his power to get the yards. As such, these situations should be included in an evaluation of Blount as a short-yardage runner.
3-When you say "especially when comparing him to a guy with 3.6 YPA on a good team," I assume you are talking about Bell, and this is an incredibly inaccurate statement. The Steelers were anything but a good team last year. They backed into an 8-8 record, but they were not a good team. Their O-line, while improving towards the end of the season was in a constant state of flux, and by the end of the season was starting a 3rd-string center. Luckily Bell played more towards the end of the season than the beginning, so he caught the team at the right time. Pit was still a productive offense while the dumpster fire Bucs in 2011 were not (23.7 pts/gm vs. 17.9).
Bell started playing in week 4, it's not like he came back in week 11. He had to deal with the less than stellar performance of the Steeler's offense/O-line when they were at their worst. Furthermore, the Steeler's offense put up 54 more yards on 46 more plays in 2013 than the Bucs did in 2011. The Bucs had a harder time getting the ball into the end-zone, but with regards to yards and plays, the two offense weren't all that different.
4-I'm not labeling him a bad power back based on what you call a small sample size, I'm labeling him a bad power back based on both the entirety of his short-yardage carries in his career, and what I've seen with my own eyes. So you are basing it on a small sample size of one aspect of a power back's game AND your eye-ball test. Got it.
Save the sarcasm and rolly-eyes; I'm not using a small sample size, I'm using EVERY short-yardage play of his career, the sample size can't get any bigger, because it's every single play. Furthermore, if you have access to stats that show his success between the tackles vs on the edge, and his success within 2-3 yards of the LOS (against DL and LBs) vs in the defensive backfield (against DBs), I'd be happy to discuss that. Otherwise, the stats that are available, and what I've seen with my own eyes are all I've got, just as the stats that are available, and what you've see with your eyes are all you've got.
5-When you say Blount "outshined a fairly well respected runner in Ridley," that is true, but all facts must be taken into account. Blount had a huge game 17 against a team that was completely out of contention and had nothing to play for. Also, Blount had the advantage of getting many of his carries in the 4th quarter against D's that other RBs had "worn down" (although I dislike that phrase) for 3 quarters. 1/3 of Blount's carries came in the 4th quarter last year. He averaged 6.0 YPC on those carries (and scored 5 of his 7 TDs). So, yes, Blount did put up better numbers than Ridley in 2013, but he didn't do it under the exact same conditions, he had fresh legs and got to face defenses that may have been tired, not as quick, "worn down" by other NE RBs, etc. Hey, I'm as big of a detractor from week 17 games as anyone, so let's then replace his week 17 game against a team out of contention with his week 19 game against a playoff team in the playoffs. As I've been writing these responses, I have had an inkling that there was a caveat to Blount's rushing stats in 2013, but I just couldn't recall what it was. And you hit it on the head with the 4th quarter stats. That is enough to give some pause. Not write off his season, but it is worth taking into account.
I'm not writing off his season, and I said that you are correct, Blount had a better season than Ridley. I was just adding some context to the situation.
And I suppose you are right that we haven't seen enough out of Bell to really know how good/bad he is, but I have seen enough out of Blount to know that he is an adequate NFL RB, but is not a RB that the Steelers are going to lean on, or replace Bell with. Again, never said they were going to replace Bell. I just worry about his workload and productivity. I don't want to draft a guy in the 2nd round who isn't going to crack 1000 yards rushing. I'd rather have Mathews, Spiller, or Stacy a round later. Hell, I'd rather have those guys straight up. It's crazy to think they can be had later than Bell.
I've already posted some conservative, early projections for Bell. If he hits those numbers, which I don't think is a stretch, he'll have no trouble giving value for a 2nd round pick.
Is it possible he gets better? Sure it is, anything is possible.
I'll bump this one then.
"Level of investment" and 3rd round pick aren't exactly scary together. Teams spend 3rd round picks on depth and special teamers all the time.
1-They are probably going to have more than 380 rushes. They want to run the ball more, and they don't have the receiving threats that they did a few years ago (or even last year).
Blount has talent? He is just a guy. Nothing more. A guy who is on his 4th team or a guy the Steelers invested a lot in by drafting him in the 2nd round? One is younger and better.
How is Blount any different from, say, Chris Ivory? Other than being able to actually stay healthy that is.
Good posting.. It comes down to if you own Bell currently or dont. I am not saying dont draft Bell just be careful of taking him early.
As a person who is not a Steelers fan, Bell is that good, he just is. Sorry. Bell played one season and Blount has played four, so compare more career stats. Seems to make sense since Bell was just a rookie last year.
You will think any post that agrees with you is a good posting. Regardless of how wrong they are in the process. Quite simple, people who own Blount love him, maybe that's why there are so few of you.
right cause you know how I post. I applaud when people bring something to the table.. Stats are nice. Facts are nice..Phenix said:
Everyone says your wrong, but doesnt bring anything to back in up.Coeur de Lion said:
So is Bell even better than Chris Ivory was last year? No one has any huge resources tied up in LeGarrette Blount to be defensive about, guy. Certainly no one "loves" him. The argument isn't that Blount is anything spectacular -- it's that Bell isn't. And besides your own personal "watch the guy play" eyeball test (and after your laughable position on Ivory last year, no thanks on trusting that), there's really not much evidence to support your position; nothing objective at all supports Bell being elite. This is just more baseless unsupported hype.
You can't take touches from last season, then multiply it out for 16 games and 350 touches. CONTEXT is everything. That's like saying Brian Hoyer is going to pass for 3200 yards and 27 touchdowns based on his 3 games as a starter for last season and ignoring they drafted Johnny Football!!!Everyone says your wrong, but doesnt bring anything to back in up.Coeur de Lion said:
So is Bell even better than Chris Ivory was last year? No one has any huge resources tied up in LeGarrette Blount to be defensive about, guy. Certainly no one "loves" him. The argument isn't that Blount is anything spectacular -- it's that Bell isn't. And besides your own personal "watch the guy play" eyeball test (and after your laughable position on Ivory last year, no thanks on trusting that), there's really not much evidence to support your position; nothing objective at all supports Bell being elite. This is just more baseless unsupported hype.
3.5 yards a carry for Bell last year and you would of thought he rushed for 5 or 6
he averaged a little over 4 yards a touch (catches/carries)
289 touches in 12 games, puts him over 350 touches in 16 if he can stay healthy long enough.
Heres to Bell becoming a stud this year!!
Coeur de Lion said:
So is Bell even better than Chris Ivory was last year? No one has any huge resources tied up in LeGarrette Blount to be defensive about, guy. Certainly no one "loves" him. The argument isn't that Blount is anything spectacular -- it's that Bell isn't. And besides your own personal "watch the guy play" eyeball test (and after your laughable position on Ivory last year, no thanks on trusting that), there's really not much evidence to support your position; nothing objective at all supports Bell being elite. This is just more baseless unsupported hype.
Why is that a different argument? You can look at several RB's who made that jump from rookie season to second season. No one is disagreeing with the idea that the volume of touches will go down but I think it's a non issue. I don't see, barring injury, how Bell doesn't get 300 carries and 50 receptions.
Because it IS a different argument. One argument is that his volume of touches will go down, one argument is that his yards/carry will improve. He can see his touches go down, and separate from that, see his YPC go up (or vice versa).
Rk Running Back Car Actual Expected Diff 1 Blount 182 5.2 3.9 1.2 Rk Running Back Car Actual Expected Diff 39 Bell 237 3.5 4.0 -0.5
