Call me crazy (1 Viewer)

[Bob Henry]

if mendenhalls a lion do you change your opinion?

Not at all. The Lions are going to TRY to run the ball early and often this year; and Mendenhall would have ZERO competition for touches. Let's remember that Jim Colleto and Kippy Brown aren't going to be calling a 65%/35% pass/run ratio.

Which mean the Lions will be uber predictable running on 1st and 2nd down then throwing on 3rd and long. Ok, sarcasm off..I'll stick with my guns here. I like Mendenhall quite a bit. I just don't think the Lions should pursuit that angle in the 1st round, so I'm hoping that by mid-afternoon the Lions have Derrick Harvey, Ryan Clady, Chris Williams or some other OL/DL via draft day maneuvering. We'll see.

 

[King of the Jungle]

if mendenhalls a lion do you change your opinion?

Not at all. The Lions are going to TRY to run the ball early and often this year; and Mendenhall would have ZERO competition for touches. Let's remember that Jim Colleto and Kippy Brown aren't going to be calling a 65%/35% pass/run ratio.

Which mean the Lions will be uber predictable running on 1st and 2nd down then throwing on 3rd and long. Ok, sarcasm off..I'll stick with my guns here. I like Mendenhall quite a bit. I just don't think the Lions should pursuit that angle in the 1st round, so I'm hoping that by mid-afternoon the Lions have Derrick Harvey, Ryan Clady, Chris Williams or some other OL/DL via draft day maneuvering. We'll see.

I am a Lions fan. I think Mendenhall is the best RB in the draft. If the Lions take him in the first round I will be screaming at the TV angrily. Too many deficiencies at the foundations to F-around with taking a skill position player. Damm Lions.

 

[kremenull]

I know it's a minority opinion, but I would be much happier to have Rashard Mendenhall than Darren McFadden.

Putting aside all the chatter about McFadden's character issues, the dude fumbles...a LOT. 23 fumbles? UGH. Mendenhall has a prototypical build, is tough, loves getting yards after contact, has a 2nd gear (admittedly not like McFadden's) and holds onto the ball.

I have the 1st pick in an upcoming Dynasty draft and, presuming both are in position to have similar playing time in the next few years, I'm taking Mendenhall over McFadden.

Yep......U R CRAZY! And like Deion stated to Mayock...."Have you lost your mind?"........I just don't see how all of you guys are missing this one. I wish I was drafted 2nd in your league.......

 

[duaneok66]

I know it's a minority opinion, but I would be much happier to have Rashard Mendenhall than Darren McFadden.

Putting aside all the chatter about McFadden's character issues, the dude fumbles...a LOT. 23 fumbles? UGH. Mendenhall has a prototypical build, is tough, loves getting yards after contact, has a 2nd gear (admittedly not like McFadden's) and holds onto the ball.

I have the 1st pick in an upcoming Dynasty draft and, presuming both are in position to have similar playing time in the next few years, I'm taking Mendenhall over McFadden.

Yep......U R CRAZY! And like Deion stated to Mayock...."Have you lost your mind?"........I just don't see how all of you guys are missing this one. I wish I was drafted 2nd in your league.......

my bad, I forgot that putting a mic in the hands of an ex-jock makes him an expert in player evaluation . . .

 

[Irish]

Jeesh. I swear you all are more worried about DMAC for his body type than anything else. Is this a fashion show?As far as fumbling is concerned, I think much of that has been explained in the context of him running options where he would mishandle the ball. Of course, if you think his QB limitations are a big factor....Really, I think all you doubters protesteth too much. If he is inferior to the other big 3 members then I fully expect to see the NFL draft give some clue of this. After all, they are in a much better position of judging how DMAC will look in this year's fall fashions.

Uh....Tom Brady was passed over until the 6th rd. The Draft is an inexact science and the paid professionals do make mistakes every year.

 

[Chaos Commish]

I know it's a minority opinion, but I would be much happier to have Rashard Mendenhall than Darren McFadden.

Putting aside all the chatter about McFadden's character issues, the dude fumbles...a LOT. 23 fumbles? UGH. Mendenhall has a prototypical build, is tough, loves getting yards after contact, has a 2nd gear (admittedly not like McFadden's) and holds onto the ball.

I have the 1st pick in an upcoming Dynasty draft and, presuming both are in position to have similar playing time in the next few years, I'm taking Mendenhall over McFadden.

Yep......U R CRAZY! And like Deion stated to Mayock...."Have you lost your mind?"........I just don't see how all of you guys are missing this one. I wish I was drafted 2nd in your league.......

It's easy to understand. McFadden is long and lean in a league that seems to demand low center of gravities and tree trunk thighs. Quicks and power over long speed. Inside runners over guys racing for the edge. I believe all three of these back are headed for the top 10. I prefer McFadden, but you can't be so blinded by his speed not to notice his mass is in his chest arms and shoulders -- high centered. It is an issue, a very real concern. He needs to run lower or he'll get tipped over easily like Bush. He reminds me of OJ or Marcus with jets and I don't give a hoot how long ago they played, they'd both be great this year if they were rookies again.

 

[Maroney=Sped]

Let me fist say that I am an Illini fan and therefore painfully biased.I think they both look like great prospects, but what I fear with McFadden is that he looks so long. He makes me think of Chris Brown (obviously more talented) with how long he is and makes me worry about injuries. I do think the fumbling can be corrected, but injuries are a concern to me.

For any hardcore draftniks...have there been examples of RBs that fumble as much as McFadden and don't struggle with turnovers at the next level? I'm sure there are, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look.

Marshall Faulk is a decent example. His first 2 years in the league with the Colts, he had 12 fumbles, 8 of which were lost. His MVP year in 2000, zero fumbles, zero lost during a 26TD campaign. As a sidebar, listening to Faulk, he personally loves McFadden. Sees the greatness. FWIW.

That's not worth much. Faulk offers little by way of substantive analysis - he's in the booth because he was a tremendous RB and receiver out of the backfield, which is wonderful if you're hiring a RB but doesn't do much to ensure that someone's a good analyst.

 

[duaneok66]

Let me fist say that I am an Illini fan and therefore painfully biased.I think they both look like great prospects, but what I fear with McFadden is that he looks so long. He makes me think of Chris Brown (obviously more talented) with how long he is and makes me worry about injuries. I do think the fumbling can be corrected, but injuries are a concern to me.

For any hardcore draftniks...have there been examples of RBs that fumble as much as McFadden and don't struggle with turnovers at the next level? I'm sure there are, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look.

Marshall Faulk is a decent example. His first 2 years in the league with the Colts, he had 12 fumbles, 8 of which were lost. His MVP year in 2000, zero fumbles, zero lost during a 26TD campaign. As a sidebar, listening to Faulk, he personally loves McFadden. Sees the greatness. FWIW.

That's not worth much. Faulk offers little by way of substantive analysis - he's in the booth because he was a tremendous RB and receiver out of the backfield, which is wonderful if you're hiring a RB but doesn't do much to ensure that someone's a good analyst.

excellent post . . .these networks put too many guys at the table -NFLN should have Eisen, Mayock, and Sanders (for comic relief) . . . Mooch and Faulk just take up space . . .BTW - I miss Chavous . . .

 

[Raider Nation]

I definitely like Mendenhall more than McFadden this year.Skinny legs just don't do it for me.

Tony Dorsett, Marcus Allen, Gale Sayers, O.J. Simpson and some other modern-era Hall of Fame RBs had "skinny legs"...You can find reasons not to like McFadden, but that shouldn't be one of them. It means less than nothing.

Name one drafted in the last 20 years.

That's not a good posting. It's a horrible posting.The average HoF RB played approximately 11 years. There is a 5-year waiting period to get into the Hall.So what I'm essentially being asked to do is name a Hall-of-Fame RB with skinny legs who was drafted between 1987-1990.

 

[The Man with the Plan]

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

 

[duaneok66]

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

expert reasoning . . .

 

[The Man with the Plan]

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

expert reasoning . . .

Let's see...Arguments for Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-dominated the best college conference in the country for two consecutive seasons

-dominated all of the workouts at the combine

Arguments against Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-his legs are too skinny

-his mother smokes crack

I don't know. It seems to me that when you focus on the important stuff on the field there's little reason to doubt this guy. Haters are who they are though so they'll try to come up with any excuse to hate on McFadden. No matter how stupid and petty the reasons ultimately are.

 

[duaneok66]

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

expert reasoning . . .

Let's see...Arguments for Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-dominated the best college conference in the country for two consecutive seasons

-dominated all of the workouts at the combine

Arguments against Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-his legs are too skinny

-his mother smokes crack

I don't know. It seems to me that when you focus on the important stuff on the field there's little reason to doubt this guy. Haters are who they are though so they'll try to come up with any excuse to hate on McFadden. No matter how stupid and petty the reasons ultimately are.

you left out - below average vision

- below average tackle breaking ability

nice try though . . .

 

[identikit]

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

expert reasoning . . .

Let's see...Arguments for Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-dominated the best college conference in the country for two consecutive seasons

-dominated all of the workouts at the combine

Arguments against Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-his legs are too skinny

-his mother smokes crack

I don't know. It seems to me that when you focus on the important stuff on the field there's little reason to doubt this guy. Haters are who they are though so they'll try to come up with any excuse to hate on McFadden. No matter how stupid and petty the reasons ultimately are.

You forgot the high # of fumbles

 

[Buckeyedawgs]

I'll call u crazy Jason! Wish u had the 1 pick and me the 2 in a league rookie draft. Unfortunatly my guts are usually right and I never get hi drafts 1 or 2. I have a 4 in one of my misfits an that's lowest I have ever had any of my Ten Dynasty leagues over many many years unless I traded up a few times.

Mendenhall couldn't gain crap against a real defense! (My Buckeyes)

McFadden ran circles thru LSU not once, but twice!

McFadden might just make AP look average. He sure did in his combine!

Enough said!

 

[The Man with the Plan]

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

expert reasoning . . .

Let's see...Arguments for Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-dominated the best college conference in the country for two consecutive seasons

-dominated all of the workouts at the combine

Arguments against Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-his legs are too skinny

-his mother smokes crack

I don't know. It seems to me that when you focus on the important stuff on the field there's little reason to doubt this guy. Haters are who they are though so they'll try to come up with any excuse to hate on McFadden. No matter how stupid and petty the reasons ultimately are.

You forgot the high # of fumbles

That can be fixed. Remember Tiki Barber? He used to fumble all the time but he fixed the problem and got over it. I don't even see that as a real big problem. When he's rushing for over 1400 yards a season a couple of fumbles here or there just won't seem to matter all that much.

 

[twitch]

Let me fist say that I am an Illini fan and therefore painfully biased.I think they both look like great prospects, but what I fear with McFadden is that he looks so long. He makes me think of Chris Brown (obviously more talented) with how long he is and makes me worry about injuries. I do think the fumbling can be corrected, but injuries are a concern to me.

For any hardcore draftniks...have there been examples of RBs that fumble as much as McFadden and don't struggle with turnovers at the next level? I'm sure there are, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look.

Marshall Faulk is a decent example. His first 2 years in the league with the Colts, he had 12 fumbles, 8 of which were lost. His MVP year in 2000, zero fumbles, zero lost during a 26TD campaign. As a sidebar, listening to Faulk, he personally loves McFadden. Sees the greatness. FWIW.

That's not worth much. Faulk offers little by way of substantive analysis - he's in the booth because he was a tremendous RB and receiver out of the backfield, which is wonderful if you're hiring a RB but doesn't do much to ensure that someone's a good analyst.

I hear where youre coming from, M. Do indeed. I dont listen to or agree with everything Faulk says. But when it comes to specifically breaking down a RB's skills, who would you rather listen to? Seriously? Mike Mayock? Gimme the guy who's played the position, understands the intricacies, the important qualities that a top back needs. Im not saying the guy is the world's best analyst. But he knows backs. It was his professional field of choice. You'd think the guy might know something about his own area of expertise.

 

[Irish]

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

expert reasoning . . .

Let's see...Arguments for Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-dominated the best college conference in the country for two consecutive seasons

-dominated all of the workouts at the combine

Arguments against Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-his legs are too skinny

-his mother smokes crack

I don't know. It seems to me that when you focus on the important stuff on the field there's little reason to doubt this guy. Haters are who they are though so they'll try to come up with any excuse to hate on McFadden. No matter how stupid and petty the reasons ultimately are.

I think you are overlooking the other knocks against him. Does not show any power or finish off his runs, fumbles a lot and played out of a shotgun type of offense.

 

[duaneok66]

Let me fist say that I am an Illini fan and therefore painfully biased.I think they both look like great prospects, but what I fear with McFadden is that he looks so long. He makes me think of Chris Brown (obviously more talented) with how long he is and makes me worry about injuries. I do think the fumbling can be corrected, but injuries are a concern to me.

For any hardcore draftniks...have there been examples of RBs that fumble as much as McFadden and don't struggle with turnovers at the next level? I'm sure there are, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look.

Marshall Faulk is a decent example. His first 2 years in the league with the Colts, he had 12 fumbles, 8 of which were lost. His MVP year in 2000, zero fumbles, zero lost during a 26TD campaign. As a sidebar, listening to Faulk, he personally loves McFadden. Sees the greatness. FWIW.

That's not worth much. Faulk offers little by way of substantive analysis - he's in the booth because he was a tremendous RB and receiver out of the backfield, which is wonderful if you're hiring a RB but doesn't do much to ensure that someone's a good analyst.

I hear where youre coming from, M. Do indeed. I dont listen to or agree with everything Faulk says. But when it comes to specifically breaking down a RB's skills, who would you rather listen to? Seriously? Mike Mayock? Gimme the guy who's played the position, understands the intricacies, the important qualities that a top back needs. Im not saying the guy is the world's best analyst. But he knows backs. It was his professional field of choice. You'd think the guy might know something about his own area of expertise.

Michael Jordan was a horrific evaluator of talent . . . playing and evaluating are two different animals . . .

 

[identikit]

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

expert reasoning . . .

Let's see...Arguments for Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-dominated the best college conference in the country for two consecutive seasons

-dominated all of the workouts at the combine

Arguments against Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-his legs are too skinny

-his mother smokes crack

I don't know. It seems to me that when you focus on the important stuff on the field there's little reason to doubt this guy. Haters are who they are though so they'll try to come up with any excuse to hate on McFadden. No matter how stupid and petty the reasons ultimately are.

You forgot the high # of fumbles

That can be fixed. Remember Tiki Barber? He used to fumble all the time but he fixed the problem and got over it. I don't even see that as a real big problem. When he's rushing for over 1400 yards a season a couple of fumbles here or there just won't seem to matter all that much.

I agree, it can be fixed.But it should also be considered, somewhere above his mom having a crack habit.

 

[Maroney=Sped]

Let me fist say that I am an Illini fan and therefore painfully biased.

I think they both look like great prospects, but what I fear with McFadden is that he looks so long. He makes me think of Chris Brown (obviously more talented) with how long he is and makes me worry about injuries. I do think the fumbling can be corrected, but injuries are a concern to me.

For any hardcore draftniks...have there been examples of RBs that fumble as much as McFadden and don't struggle with turnovers at the next level? I'm sure there are, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look.

Marshall Faulk is a decent example. His first 2 years in the league with the Colts, he had 12 fumbles, 8 of which were lost. His MVP year in 2000, zero fumbles, zero lost during a 26TD campaign. As a sidebar, listening to Faulk, he personally loves McFadden. Sees the greatness. FWIW.

That's not worth much. Faulk offers little by way of substantive analysis - he's in the booth because he was a tremendous RB and receiver out of the backfield, which is wonderful if you're hiring a RB but doesn't do much to ensure that someone's a good analyst.

I hear where youre coming from, M. Do indeed. I dont listen to or agree with everything Faulk says. But when it comes to specifically breaking down a RB's skills, who would you rather listen to? Seriously? Mike Mayock? Gimme the guy who's played the position, understands the intricacies, the important qualities that a top back needs. Im not saying the guy is the world's best analyst. But he knows backs. It was his professional field of choice. You'd think the guy might know something about his own area of expertise.

I'm sure he knows something in "his own area of expertise", but how do you define that? Absent any other information, "his own area of expertise" consists of Marshall Faulk being handed the ball or going out into a pass pattern. The guy has never coached other players at any level, much less done any sort of talent assessment (other than of the female variety, at which I understand he's quite prolific). We all know that the number of coaches who are good at both coaching and talent assessment is limited, which is why so few are coach/GM's, and fewer still are successful in both roles (or either role for that matter). And yet we have Faulk, a guy who isn't all that articulate, offering his endorsement of a player who he's never seen play at the NFL level? If I'm looking for a former NFL RB to talk to me about a college RB's talent, I'd rather look to a guy like Tom Rathman or Ernest Byner, who have actually played and coached at the NFL level.

It's not like my criticism is unique to Faulk either. Emmitt is practically brain damaged when it comes to analysis, and the next time I hear a useful comment from Merrill Hoge will be the first time (after about what, 20 years?).

 

[twitch]

Let me fist say that I am an Illini fan and therefore painfully biased.I think they both look like great prospects, but what I fear with McFadden is that he looks so long. He makes me think of Chris Brown (obviously more talented) with how long he is and makes me worry about injuries. I do think the fumbling can be corrected, but injuries are a concern to me.

For any hardcore draftniks...have there been examples of RBs that fumble as much as McFadden and don't struggle with turnovers at the next level? I'm sure there are, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look.

Marshall Faulk is a decent example. His first 2 years in the league with the Colts, he had 12 fumbles, 8 of which were lost. His MVP year in 2000, zero fumbles, zero lost during a 26TD campaign. As a sidebar, listening to Faulk, he personally loves McFadden. Sees the greatness. FWIW.

That's not worth much. Faulk offers little by way of substantive analysis - he's in the booth because he was a tremendous RB and receiver out of the backfield, which is wonderful if you're hiring a RB but doesn't do much to ensure that someone's a good analyst.

I hear where youre coming from, M. Do indeed. I dont listen to or agree with everything Faulk says. But when it comes to specifically breaking down a RB's skills, who would you rather listen to? Seriously? Mike Mayock? Gimme the guy who's played the position, understands the intricacies, the important qualities that a top back needs. Im not saying the guy is the world's best analyst. But he knows backs. It was his professional field of choice. You'd think the guy might know something about his own area of expertise.

Michael Jordan was a horrific evaluator of talent . . . playing and evaluating are two different animals . . .

Joe Dumars, Jerry West, and Kiki Vandeweghe were not. Not all people suck at evaluation simply because they were great at performing.

 

[Irish]

Let me fist say that I am an Illini fan and therefore painfully biased.

I think they both look like great prospects, but what I fear with McFadden is that he looks so long. He makes me think of Chris Brown (obviously more talented) with how long he is and makes me worry about injuries. I do think the fumbling can be corrected, but injuries are a concern to me.

For any hardcore draftniks...have there been examples of RBs that fumble as much as McFadden and don't struggle with turnovers at the next level? I'm sure there are, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look.

Marshall Faulk is a decent example. His first 2 years in the league with the Colts, he had 12 fumbles, 8 of which were lost. His MVP year in 2000, zero fumbles, zero lost during a 26TD campaign. As a sidebar, listening to Faulk, he personally loves McFadden. Sees the greatness. FWIW.

That's not worth much. Faulk offers little by way of substantive analysis - he's in the booth because he was a tremendous RB and receiver out of the backfield, which is wonderful if you're hiring a RB but doesn't do much to ensure that someone's a good analyst.

I hear where youre coming from, M. Do indeed. I dont listen to or agree with everything Faulk says. But when it comes to specifically breaking down a RB's skills, who would you rather listen to? Seriously? Mike Mayock? Gimme the guy who's played the position, understands the intricacies, the important qualities that a top back needs. Im not saying the guy is the world's best analyst. But he knows backs. It was his professional field of choice. You'd think the guy might know something about his own area of expertise.

I'm sure he knows something in "his own area of expertise", but how do you define that? Absent any other information, "his own area of expertise" consists of Marshall Faulk being handed the ball or going out into a pass pattern. The guy has never coached other players at any level, much less done any sort of talent assessment (other than of the female variety, at which I understand he's quite prolific). We all know that the number of coaches who are good at both coaching and talent assessment is limited, which is why so few are coach/GM's, and fewer still are successful in both roles (or either role for that matter). And yet we have Faulk, a guy who isn't all that articulate, offering his endorsement of a player who he's never seen play at the NFL level? If I'm looking for a former NFL RB to talk to me about a college RB's talent, I'd rather look to a guy like Tom Rathman or Ernest Byner, who have actually played and coached at the NFL level.

It's not like my criticism is unique to Faulk either. Emmitt is practically brain damaged when it comes to analysis, and the next time I hear a useful comment from Merrill Hoge will be the first time (after about what, 20 years?).

There is a big difference between an ex player who had marginal talent, but got the most out of it by being smart and knowing how to play vs an ex player who was just so gifted physically with enormous talent and excelled using his talent. Players who had to think make the best analysts and coaches, not the super talented stud ex players as a general rule of thumb IMO.

 

[Irish]

Let me fist say that I am an Illini fan and therefore painfully biased.

I think they both look like great prospects, but what I fear with McFadden is that he looks so long. He makes me think of Chris Brown (obviously more talented) with how long he is and makes me worry about injuries. I do think the fumbling can be corrected, but injuries are a concern to me.

For any hardcore draftniks...have there been examples of RBs that fumble as much as McFadden and don't struggle with turnovers at the next level? I'm sure there are, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look.

Marshall Faulk is a decent example. His first 2 years in the league with the Colts, he had 12 fumbles, 8 of which were lost. His MVP year in 2000, zero fumbles, zero lost during a 26TD campaign. As a sidebar, listening to Faulk, he personally loves McFadden. Sees the greatness. FWIW.

That's not worth much. Faulk offers little by way of substantive analysis - he's in the booth because he was a tremendous RB and receiver out of the backfield, which is wonderful if you're hiring a RB but doesn't do much to ensure that someone's a good analyst.

I hear where youre coming from, M. Do indeed. I dont listen to or agree with everything Faulk says. But when it comes to specifically breaking down a RB's skills, who would you rather listen to? Seriously? Mike Mayock? Gimme the guy who's played the position, understands the intricacies, the important qualities that a top back needs. Im not saying the guy is the world's best analyst. But he knows backs. It was his professional field of choice. You'd think the guy might know something about his own area of expertise.

Michael Jordan was a horrific evaluator of talent . . . playing and evaluating are two different animals . . .

Joe Dumars, Jerry West, and Kiki Vandeweghe were not. Not all people suck at evaluation simply because they were great at performing.

Dumars selected Darko over Carmello. Not a good argument.

 

[Maroney=Sped]

Let me fist say that I am an Illini fan and therefore painfully biased.

I think they both look like great prospects, but what I fear with McFadden is that he looks so long. He makes me think of Chris Brown (obviously more talented) with how long he is and makes me worry about injuries. I do think the fumbling can be corrected, but injuries are a concern to me.

For any hardcore draftniks...have there been examples of RBs that fumble as much as McFadden and don't struggle with turnovers at the next level? I'm sure there are, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look.

Marshall Faulk is a decent example. His first 2 years in the league with the Colts, he had 12 fumbles, 8 of which were lost. His MVP year in 2000, zero fumbles, zero lost during a 26TD campaign. As a sidebar, listening to Faulk, he personally loves McFadden. Sees the greatness. FWIW.

That's not worth much. Faulk offers little by way of substantive analysis - he's in the booth because he was a tremendous RB and receiver out of the backfield, which is wonderful if you're hiring a RB but doesn't do much to ensure that someone's a good analyst.

I hear where youre coming from, M. Do indeed. I dont listen to or agree with everything Faulk says. But when it comes to specifically breaking down a RB's skills, who would you rather listen to? Seriously? Mike Mayock? Gimme the guy who's played the position, understands the intricacies, the important qualities that a top back needs. Im not saying the guy is the world's best analyst. But he knows backs. It was his professional field of choice. You'd think the guy might know something about his own area of expertise.

I'm sure he knows something in "his own area of expertise", but how do you define that? Absent any other information, "his own area of expertise" consists of Marshall Faulk being handed the ball or going out into a pass pattern. The guy has never coached other players at any level, much less done any sort of talent assessment (other than of the female variety, at which I understand he's quite prolific). We all know that the number of coaches who are good at both coaching and talent assessment is limited, which is why so few are coach/GM's, and fewer still are successful in both roles (or either role for that matter). And yet we have Faulk, a guy who isn't all that articulate, offering his endorsement of a player who he's never seen play at the NFL level? If I'm looking for a former NFL RB to talk to me about a college RB's talent, I'd rather look to a guy like Tom Rathman or Ernest Byner, who have actually played and coached at the NFL level.

It's not like my criticism is unique to Faulk either. Emmitt is practically brain damaged when it comes to analysis, and the next time I hear a useful comment from Merrill Hoge will be the first time (after about what, 20 years?).

There is a big difference between an ex player who had marginal talent, but got the most out of it by being smart and knowing how to play vs an ex player who was just so gifted physically with enormous talent and excelled using his talent. Players who had to think make the best analysts and coaches, not the super talented stud ex players as a general rule of thumb IMO.

 

[Maroney=Sped]

Let me fist say that I am an Illini fan and therefore painfully biased.

I think they both look like great prospects, but what I fear with McFadden is that he looks so long. He makes me think of Chris Brown (obviously more talented) with how long he is and makes me worry about injuries. I do think the fumbling can be corrected, but injuries are a concern to me.

For any hardcore draftniks...have there been examples of RBs that fumble as much as McFadden and don't struggle with turnovers at the next level? I'm sure there are, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look.

Marshall Faulk is a decent example. His first 2 years in the league with the Colts, he had 12 fumbles, 8 of which were lost. His MVP year in 2000, zero fumbles, zero lost during a 26TD campaign. As a sidebar, listening to Faulk, he personally loves McFadden. Sees the greatness. FWIW.

That's not worth much. Faulk offers little by way of substantive analysis - he's in the booth because he was a tremendous RB and receiver out of the backfield, which is wonderful if you're hiring a RB but doesn't do much to ensure that someone's a good analyst.

I hear where youre coming from, M. Do indeed. I dont listen to or agree with everything Faulk says. But when it comes to specifically breaking down a RB's skills, who would you rather listen to? Seriously? Mike Mayock? Gimme the guy who's played the position, understands the intricacies, the important qualities that a top back needs. Im not saying the guy is the world's best analyst. But he knows backs. It was his professional field of choice. You'd think the guy might know something about his own area of expertise.

Michael Jordan was a horrific evaluator of talent . . . playing and evaluating are two different animals . . .

Joe Dumars, Jerry West, and Kiki Vandeweghe were not. Not all people suck at evaluation simply because they were great at performing.

This is a huge straw man. Not a single person in this thread has argued this.

 

[twitch]

Let me fist say that I am an Illini fan and therefore painfully biased.

I think they both look like great prospects, but what I fear with McFadden is that he looks so long. He makes me think of Chris Brown (obviously more talented) with how long he is and makes me worry about injuries. I do think the fumbling can be corrected, but injuries are a concern to me.

For any hardcore draftniks...have there been examples of RBs that fumble as much as McFadden and don't struggle with turnovers at the next level? I'm sure there are, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look.

Marshall Faulk is a decent example. His first 2 years in the league with the Colts, he had 12 fumbles, 8 of which were lost. His MVP year in 2000, zero fumbles, zero lost during a 26TD campaign. As a sidebar, listening to Faulk, he personally loves McFadden. Sees the greatness. FWIW.

That's not worth much. Faulk offers little by way of substantive analysis - he's in the booth because he was a tremendous RB and receiver out of the backfield, which is wonderful if you're hiring a RB but doesn't do much to ensure that someone's a good analyst.

I hear where youre coming from, M. Do indeed. I dont listen to or agree with everything Faulk says. But when it comes to specifically breaking down a RB's skills, who would you rather listen to? Seriously? Mike Mayock? Gimme the guy who's played the position, understands the intricacies, the important qualities that a top back needs. Im not saying the guy is the world's best analyst. But he knows backs. It was his professional field of choice. You'd think the guy might know something about his own area of expertise.

Michael Jordan was a horrific evaluator of talent . . . playing and evaluating are two different animals . . .

Joe Dumars, Jerry West, and Kiki Vandeweghe were not. Not all people suck at evaluation simply because they were great at performing.

Dumars selected Darko over Carmello. Not a good argument.

One pick. A guy has to be perfect to be respected nowadays. Good god. Youre right. Joe Dumars knows absolutely nothing about what he is doing. What was I thinking mentioning his name?

 

[Irish]

Let me fist say that I am an Illini fan and therefore painfully biased.

I think they both look like great prospects, but what I fear with McFadden is that he looks so long. He makes me think of Chris Brown (obviously more talented) with how long he is and makes me worry about injuries. I do think the fumbling can be corrected, but injuries are a concern to me.

For any hardcore draftniks...have there been examples of RBs that fumble as much as McFadden and don't struggle with turnovers at the next level? I'm sure there are, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look.

Marshall Faulk is a decent example. His first 2 years in the league with the Colts, he had 12 fumbles, 8 of which were lost. His MVP year in 2000, zero fumbles, zero lost during a 26TD campaign. As a sidebar, listening to Faulk, he personally loves McFadden. Sees the greatness. FWIW.

That's not worth much. Faulk offers little by way of substantive analysis - he's in the booth because he was a tremendous RB and receiver out of the backfield, which is wonderful if you're hiring a RB but doesn't do much to ensure that someone's a good analyst.

I hear where youre coming from, M. Do indeed. I dont listen to or agree with everything Faulk says. But when it comes to specifically breaking down a RB's skills, who would you rather listen to? Seriously? Mike Mayock? Gimme the guy who's played the position, understands the intricacies, the important qualities that a top back needs. Im not saying the guy is the world's best analyst. But he knows backs. It was his professional field of choice. You'd think the guy might know something about his own area of expertise.

Michael Jordan was a horrific evaluator of talent . . . playing and evaluating are two different animals . . .

Joe Dumars, Jerry West, and Kiki Vandeweghe were not. Not all people suck at evaluation simply because they were great at performing.

Dumars selected Darko over Carmello. Not a good argument.

One pick. A guy has to be perfect to be respected nowadays. Good god. Youre right. Joe Dumars knows absolutely nothing about what he is doing. What was I thinking mentioning his name?

It was not some late 1st rd pick. He botched up the 2nd pick in the entire draft. It also needs mentioning that this draft consisted of LeBron, Carmello, D-Wade and Bosh among others and Dumars selects Darko.

 

[duaneok66]

Let me fist say that I am an Illini fan and therefore painfully biased.

I think they both look like great prospects, but what I fear with McFadden is that he looks so long. He makes me think of Chris Brown (obviously more talented) with how long he is and makes me worry about injuries. I do think the fumbling can be corrected, but injuries are a concern to me.

For any hardcore draftniks...have there been examples of RBs that fumble as much as McFadden and don't struggle with turnovers at the next level? I'm sure there are, but I wouldn't know where to begin to look.

Marshall Faulk is a decent example. His first 2 years in the league with the Colts, he had 12 fumbles, 8 of which were lost. His MVP year in 2000, zero fumbles, zero lost during a 26TD campaign. As a sidebar, listening to Faulk, he personally loves McFadden. Sees the greatness. FWIW.

That's not worth much. Faulk offers little by way of substantive analysis - he's in the booth because he was a tremendous RB and receiver out of the backfield, which is wonderful if you're hiring a RB but doesn't do much to ensure that someone's a good analyst.

I hear where youre coming from, M. Do indeed. I dont listen to or agree with everything Faulk says. But when it comes to specifically breaking down a RB's skills, who would you rather listen to? Seriously? Mike Mayock? Gimme the guy who's played the position, understands the intricacies, the important qualities that a top back needs. Im not saying the guy is the world's best analyst. But he knows backs. It was his professional field of choice. You'd think the guy might know something about his own area of expertise.

Michael Jordan was a horrific evaluator of talent . . . playing and evaluating are two different animals . . .

Joe Dumars, Jerry West, and Kiki Vandeweghe were not. Not all people suck at evaluation simply because they were great at performing.

Dumars selected Darko over Carmello. Not a good argument.

One pick. A guy has to be perfect to be respected nowadays. Good god. Youre right. Joe Dumars knows absolutely nothing about what he is doing. What was I thinking mentioning his name?

It was not some late 1st rd pick. He botched up the 2nd pick in the entire draft. It also needs mentioning that this draft consisted of LeBron, Carmello, D-Wade and Bosh among others and Dumars selects Darko.

and it's besides the point . . . Jordan, I Thomas, Baylor off the top of my head stink as evaluators . . . saying that Faulk is a better evaluator than Mayock solely becuase Faulk played the position doesn't hold much water . . .

 

[Jason Wood]

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

That's completely unfair and unwelcome in this thread. No one has claimed we're experts, any more than those who love McFadden are. The consensus view is he'll be a stud; which basically makes it a 50/50 shot based on NFL history. Let's not confused ANY OF US for anything CLOSE to experts.

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

expert reasoning . . .

Let's see...Arguments for Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-dominated the best college conference in the country for two consecutive seasons

-dominated all of the workouts at the combine

Arguments against Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-his legs are too skinny

-his mother smokes crack

I don't know. It seems to me that when you focus on the important stuff on the field there's little reason to doubt this guy. Haters are who they are though so they'll try to come up with any excuse to hate on McFadden. No matter how stupid and petty the reasons ultimately are.

Again, I started this thread and your recap is not at all representative of what I said.1) I am not arguing he'll be a bust, just that I prefer Mendenhall. Those are night and day declarations. Perhaps some others have jumped in and said he'll be a bust, I haven't.

2) My concerns with him as stated were not about his mother or his legs, I'm concerned with his inability to break tackles and his tendency to fumble. Nothing gets your benched faster than a penchant for fumbling; and he's fumbled more than almost any RB I can recall in my lifetime. How many other college RBs fumbled 23 times in their careers?

 

[The Man with the Plan]

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

That's completely unfair and unwelcome in this thread. No one has claimed we're experts, any more than those who love McFadden are. The consensus view is he'll be a stud; which basically makes it a 50/50 shot based on NFL history. Let's not confused ANY OF US for anything CLOSE to experts.

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

expert reasoning . . .

Let's see...Arguments for Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-dominated the best college conference in the country for two consecutive seasons

-dominated all of the workouts at the combine

Arguments against Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-his legs are too skinny

-his mother smokes crack

I don't know. It seems to me that when you focus on the important stuff on the field there's little reason to doubt this guy. Haters are who they are though so they'll try to come up with any excuse to hate on McFadden. No matter how stupid and petty the reasons ultimately are.

Again, I started this thread and your recap is not at all representative of what I said.1) I am not arguing he'll be a bust, just that I prefer Mendenhall. Those are night and day declarations. Perhaps some others have jumped in and said he'll be a bust, I haven't.

2) My concerns with him as stated were not about his mother or his legs, I'm concerned with his inability to break tackles and his tendency to fumble. Nothing gets your benched faster than a penchant for fumbling; and he's fumbled more than almost any RB I can recall in my lifetime. How many other college RBs fumbled 23 times in their careers?

You know people always say this but I can't think of a single good running back that got benched because they fumbled the ball too much. It never happened to Tiki Barber. Or Frank Gore, or Jamal Lewis, or Ahman Green all guys who would considered rbs who fumble the ball alot. Maybe I'm drawing a blank somewhere but I honestly can't remember that ever happening. As I mentioned in a previous post if he's running the hell out of the ball any good coach is going to deal with the fact that he might have a fumbling problem (which I also mentioned is fixable). I don't think it's nearly as much of a big deal as you're making it out to be.As for the Mendenhall comparisons I don't even really see how there is one. Who was this guy before last season? Just another running back. Just because he's had one good season he's all of a sudden better than Darren McFadden's who's been a beast all 3 seasons at Arkansas? Come on.

 

[Maroney=Sped]

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

That's completely unfair and unwelcome in this thread. No one has claimed we're experts, any more than those who love McFadden are. The consensus view is he'll be a stud; which basically makes it a 50/50 shot based on NFL history. Let's not confused ANY OF US for anything CLOSE to experts.

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

expert reasoning . . .

Let's see...Arguments for Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-dominated the best college conference in the country for two consecutive seasons

-dominated all of the workouts at the combine

Arguments against Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-his legs are too skinny

-his mother smokes crack

I don't know. It seems to me that when you focus on the important stuff on the field there's little reason to doubt this guy. Haters are who they are though so they'll try to come up with any excuse to hate on McFadden. No matter how stupid and petty the reasons ultimately are.

Again, I started this thread and your recap is not at all representative of what I said.1) I am not arguing he'll be a bust, just that I prefer Mendenhall. Those are night and day declarations. Perhaps some others have jumped in and said he'll be a bust, I haven't.

2) My concerns with him as stated were not about his mother or his legs, I'm concerned with his inability to break tackles and his tendency to fumble. Nothing gets your benched faster than a penchant for fumbling; and he's fumbled more than almost any RB I can recall in my lifetime. How many other college RBs fumbled 23 times in their careers?

You know people always say this but I can't think of a single good running back that got benched because they fumbled the ball too much. It never happened to Tiki Barber. Or Frank Gore, or Jamal Lewis, or Ahman Green all guys who would considered rbs who fumble the ball alot. Maybe I'm drawing a blank somewhere but I honestly can't remember that ever happening. As I mentioned in a previous post if he's running the hell out of the ball any good coach is going to deal with the fact that he might have a fumbling problem (which I also mentioned is fixable). I don't think it's nearly as much of a big deal as you're making it out to be.As for the Mendenhall comparisons I don't even really see how there is one. Who was this guy before last season? Just another running back. Just because he's had one good season he's all of a sudden better than Darren McFadden's who's been a beast all 3 seasons at Arkansas? Come on.

Ask Bobby Humphrey or Sammy Smith what fumbling did for their careers. They were actually traded for each other by Denver and Miami because those teams had gotten so sick of their fumbling as I recall. Both were top-10 picks in the draft too.

 

[duaneok66]

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

That's completely unfair and unwelcome in this thread. No one has claimed we're experts, any more than those who love McFadden are. The consensus view is he'll be a stud; which basically makes it a 50/50 shot based on NFL history. Let's not confused ANY OF US for anything CLOSE to experts.

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

expert reasoning . . .

Let's see...Arguments for Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-dominated the best college conference in the country for two consecutive seasons

-dominated all of the workouts at the combine

Arguments against Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-his legs are too skinny

-his mother smokes crack

I don't know. It seems to me that when you focus on the important stuff on the field there's little reason to doubt this guy. Haters are who they are though so they'll try to come up with any excuse to hate on McFadden. No matter how stupid and petty the reasons ultimately are.

Again, I started this thread and your recap is not at all representative of what I said.1) I am not arguing he'll be a bust, just that I prefer Mendenhall. Those are night and day declarations. Perhaps some others have jumped in and said he'll be a bust, I haven't.

2) My concerns with him as stated were not about his mother or his legs, I'm concerned with his inability to break tackles and his tendency to fumble. Nothing gets your benched faster than a penchant for fumbling; and he's fumbled more than almost any RB I can recall in my lifetime. How many other college RBs fumbled 23 times in their careers?

You know people always say this but I can't think of a single good running back that got benched because they fumbled the ball too much. It never happened to Tiki Barber. Or Frank Gore, or Jamal Lewis, or Ahman Green all guys who would considered rbs who fumble the ball alot. Maybe I'm drawing a blank somewhere but I honestly can't remember that ever happening. As I mentioned in a previous post if he's running the hell out of the ball any good coach is going to deal with the fact that he might have a fumbling problem (which I also mentioned is fixable). I don't think it's nearly as much of a big deal as you're making it out to be.As for the Mendenhall comparisons I don't even really see how there is one. Who was this guy before last season? Just another running back. Just because he's had one good season he's all of a sudden better than Darren McFadden's who's been a beast all 3 seasons at Arkansas? Come on.

Ask Bobby Humphrey or Sammy Smith what fumbling did for their careers. They were actually traded for each other by Denver and Miami because those teams had gotten so sick of their fumbling as I recall. Both were top-10 picks in the draft too.

McFadden is assured of being a Hall of Famer, so this type of analysis is moot . . .

 

[Maroney=Sped]

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

That's completely unfair and unwelcome in this thread. No one has claimed we're experts, any more than those who love McFadden are. The consensus view is he'll be a stud; which basically makes it a 50/50 shot based on NFL history. Let's not confused ANY OF US for anything CLOSE to experts.

After seeing the so-called expert replies in this thread, I'm that much more convinced that Darren McFadden will be a stud.

expert reasoning . . .

Let's see...Arguments for Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-dominated the best college conference in the country for two consecutive seasons

-dominated all of the workouts at the combine

Arguments against Darren McFadden becoming a stud running back in the NFL

-his legs are too skinny

-his mother smokes crack

I don't know. It seems to me that when you focus on the important stuff on the field there's little reason to doubt this guy. Haters are who they are though so they'll try to come up with any excuse to hate on McFadden. No matter how stupid and petty the reasons ultimately are.

Again, I started this thread and your recap is not at all representative of what I said.1) I am not arguing he'll be a bust, just that I prefer Mendenhall. Those are night and day declarations. Perhaps some others have jumped in and said he'll be a bust, I haven't.

2) My concerns with him as stated were not about his mother or his legs, I'm concerned with his inability to break tackles and his tendency to fumble. Nothing gets your benched faster than a penchant for fumbling; and he's fumbled more than almost any RB I can recall in my lifetime. How many other college RBs fumbled 23 times in their careers?

You know people always say this but I can't think of a single good running back that got benched because they fumbled the ball too much. It never happened to Tiki Barber. Or Frank Gore, or Jamal Lewis, or Ahman Green all guys who would considered rbs who fumble the ball alot. Maybe I'm drawing a blank somewhere but I honestly can't remember that ever happening. As I mentioned in a previous post if he's running the hell out of the ball any good coach is going to deal with the fact that he might have a fumbling problem (which I also mentioned is fixable). I don't think it's nearly as much of a big deal as you're making it out to be.As for the Mendenhall comparisons I don't even really see how there is one. Who was this guy before last season? Just another running back. Just because he's had one good season he's all of a sudden better than Darren McFadden's who's been a beast all 3 seasons at Arkansas? Come on.

Ask Bobby Humphrey or Sammy Smith what fumbling did for their careers. They were actually traded for each other by Denver and Miami because those teams had gotten so sick of their fumbling as I recall. Both were top-10 picks in the draft too.

McFadden is assured of being a Hall of Famer, so this type of analysis is moot . . .

Sorry - how could I forget!

 

[The Man with the Plan]

Still drafting Mendenhall #1?

 

[KellysHeroes]

DMac is 1.01 more now than ever... however, I am unhappy w/ all the RB landing spots

No one landed in Sea / Det / Hou / or Den

All the top RBs are in sometype of RBBC... all the rookie RBs (maybe except McFadden) move down my start-up draft board..

 

[renesauz]

Still drafting Mendenhall #1?

Better read his statement again....he said if they were in equivalent postions to contribute.I too, like Mendenhall better, but there is a huge disparity in their chances to contribute early, enough to move McFadden ahead of him on many draft boards, including mine, and I strongly suspect, Chase's. Even when you draft for talent, you can't ignore this big a disparity when it was close to start with.FWIW...still have Stewart ahead of McFadden!

 

[Jason Wood]

Still drafting Mendenhall #1?

Better read his statement again....he said if they were in equivalent postions to contribute.I too, like Mendenhall better, but there is a huge disparity in their chances to contribute early, enough to move McFadden ahead of him on many draft boards, including mine, and I strongly suspect, Chase's. Even when you draft for talent, you can't ignore this big a disparity when it was close to start with.FWIW...still have Stewart ahead of McFadden!

Yep...obviously this is disappointing for dynasty owners who were Mendenhall fans. I'm probably now going to opt for McFadden. I really want to take Jon Stewart but his injury worries me relative to making him my 1st pick.

 

[yinzer]

DMac is 1.01 more now than ever... however, I am unhappy w/ all the RB landing spots

No one landed in Sea / Det / Hou / or Den

All the top RBs are in sometype of RBBC... all the rookie RBs (maybe except McFadden) move down my start-up draft board..

Not me!!!!

 

[kremenull]

I know it's a minority opinion, but I would be much happier to have Rashard Mendenhall than Darren McFadden.

Putting aside all the chatter about McFadden's character issues, the dude fumbles...a LOT. 23 fumbles? UGH. Mendenhall has a prototypical build, is tough, loves getting yards after contact, has a 2nd gear (admittedly not like McFadden's) and holds onto the ball.

I have the 1st pick in an upcoming Dynasty draft and, presuming both are in position to have similar playing time in the next few years, I'm taking Mendenhall over McFadden.

Yep......U R CRAZY! And like Deion stated to Mayock...."Have you lost your mind?"........I just don't see how all of you guys are missing this one. I wish I was drafted 2nd in your league.......

It's easy to understand. McFadden is long and lean in a league that seems to demand low center of gravities and tree trunk thighs. Quicks and power over long speed. Inside runners over guys racing for the edge. I believe all three of these back are headed for the top 10. I prefer McFadden, but you can't be so blinded by his speed not to notice his mass is in his chest arms and shoulders -- high centered. It is an issue, a very real concern. He needs to run lower or he'll get tipped over easily like Bush. He reminds me of OJ or Marcus with jets and I don't give a hoot how long ago they played, they'd both be great this year if they were rookies again.

Well, we're on the same page to some degree....But my friend, I'm not blinded by his mere speed......My evaluations of RBs is very clear. And when you are a special RB, of which there are very few in the league, you will have success. There are certain attributes, in order of importance, that make an NFL RB truly special........Scale of 1-5, with 5 being elite and 1 being poor.......an overall score of 25 or better is needed to earn "Special" status

And he better exhibit at least decent marks (at least a 3) in each category or be "off the charts" in several so that another category doesn't factor significantly in his rating.

Categories.

1. Vision (and patience also factored in here)

2. Burst/Acceleration

3. Toughness

4. Agility

5. Power

6. Speed

Only 4 guys currently in the league earned 25 or better from me.......but my lips are sealed as to who those four are....

 

[Hoss_Cartwright]

McFadden is assured of being a Hall of Famer, so this type of analysis is moot . . .