chester taylor ? (1 Viewer)

[David Yudkin]

For those poo-pooing the Taylor has Top 10 potential comment, here are the players that have run behind a combination of 3 Pro Bowlers in the past 15 years(looking at OL and FB):

2005 SEA Shaun Alexander

OL Steve Hutchinson, OL Walter Jones, OL Walter Tobek

2004 PIT Jerome Bettis

OL Alan Faneca, OL Jeff Hartings, OL Marvel Smith

2004 KC Priest Holmes/Larry Johnson

OL William Roaf, OL Will Shields, OL Brian Waters

2003 KC Priest Holmes

OL William Roaf, OL Will Shields, FB Tony Richardson

1996 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Larry Allen, OL Erik Williams, OL Nate Newton

1995 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Larry Allen, OL Ray Donaldson, OL Nate Newton

1994 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Nate Newton, OL Mark Stepnoski, OL Mark Tuinei

1993 DAL Emmitt Smith

FB Daryl Johnson, OL Erik Williams, OL Nate Newton, OL Mark Stepnoski

Now, the Vikings have not had a season with 3 Pro Bowlers yet, but if Birk, Hutchinson, and Richardson perform as they have done in the past I think that bodes well for the Vikings' rushing game. Certainly, it does not appear that the Vikings are going to become the 90s Cowboys or 00s Chiefs in terms of running production, but they should be a lot better than they have been.

 

[Sabertooth]

For those poo-pooing the Taylor has Top 10 potential comment, here are the players that have run behind a combination of 3 Pro Bowlers in the past 15 years(looking at OL and FB):

2005 SEA Shaun Alexander

OL Steve Hutchinson, OL Walter Jones, OL Walter Tobek

2004 PIT Jerome Bettis

OL Alan Faneca, OL Jeff Hartings, OL Marvel Smith

2004 KC Priest Holmes/Larry Johnson

OL William Roaf, OL Will Shields, OL Brian Waters

2003 KC Priest Holmes

OL William Roaf, OL Will Shields, FB Tony Richardson

1996 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Larry Allen, OL Erik Williams, OL Nate Newton

1995 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Larry Allen, OL Ray Donaldson, OL Nate Newton

1994 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Nate Newton, OL Mark Stepnoski, OL Mark Tuinei

1993 DAL Emmitt Smith

FB Daryl Johnson, OL Erik Williams, OL Nate Newton, OL Mark Stepnoski

Now, the Vikings have not had a season with 3 Pro Bowlers yet, but if Birk, Hutchinson, and Richardson perform as they have done in the past I think that bodes well for the Vikings' rushing game. Certainly, it does not appear that the Vikings are going to become the 90s Cowboys or 00s Chiefs in terms of running production, but they should be a lot better than they have been.

Yudkin is my favorite poster on here. Always backs it up with facts...I may just draft off his player rankings this season and save myself the trouble of doing my own projections.

 

[packersfan]

For those poo-pooing the Taylor has Top 10 potential comment, here are the players that have run behind a combination of 3 Pro Bowlers in the past 15 years(looking at OL and FB):

2005 SEA Shaun Alexander

OL Steve Hutchinson, OL Walter Jones, OL Walter Tobek

2004 PIT Jerome Bettis

OL Alan Faneca, OL Jeff Hartings, OL Marvel Smith

2004 KC Priest Holmes/Larry Johnson

OL William Roaf, OL Will Shields, OL Brian Waters

2003 KC Priest Holmes

OL William Roaf, OL Will Shields, FB Tony Richardson

1996 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Larry Allen, OL Erik Williams, OL Nate Newton

1995 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Larry Allen, OL Ray Donaldson, OL Nate Newton

1994 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Nate Newton, OL Mark Stepnoski, OL Mark Tuinei

1993 DAL Emmitt Smith

FB Daryl Johnson, OL Erik Williams, OL Nate Newton, OL Mark Stepnoski

Now, the Vikings have not had a season with 3 Pro Bowlers yet, but if Birk, Hutchinson, and Richardson perform as they have done in the past I think that bodes well for the Vikings' rushing game. Certainly, it does not appear that the Vikings are going to become the 90s Cowboys or 00s Chiefs in terms of running production, but they should be a lot better than they have been.

Good info. However, I would also add that two of the RBs on that list (Emmitt and Bettis) are future Hall of Famers. Alexander is on pace to become one while Holmes was performing at a Hall of Famer level during those years. That's not to dismiss the point you're making which I agree is a strong one but it's not like the RBs on that list were average RBs. Taylor may not be either -- I happen to like him -- but I also don't think he's on the level of sure-fire Hall of Famers or possible Hall of Famers either.

 

[Tau837]

For those poo-pooing the Taylor has Top 10 potential comment, here are the players that have run behind a combination of 3 Pro Bowlers in the past 15 years(looking at OL and FB):

2005 SEA Shaun Alexander

OL Steve Hutchinson, OL Walter Jones, OL Walter Tobek

2004 PIT Jerome Bettis

OL Alan Faneca, OL Jeff Hartings, OL Marvel Smith

2004 KC Priest Holmes/Larry Johnson

OL William Roaf, OL Will Shields, OL Brian Waters

2003 KC Priest Holmes

OL William Roaf, OL Will Shields, FB Tony Richardson

1996 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Larry Allen, OL Erik Williams, OL Nate Newton

1995 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Larry Allen, OL Ray Donaldson, OL Nate Newton

1994 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Nate Newton, OL Mark Stepnoski, OL Mark Tuinei

1993 DAL Emmitt Smith

FB Daryl Johnson, OL Erik Williams, OL Nate Newton, OL Mark Stepnoski

Now, the Vikings have not had a season with 3 Pro Bowlers yet, but if Birk, Hutchinson, and Richardson perform as they have done in the past I think that bodes well for the Vikings' rushing game. Certainly, it does not appear that the Vikings are going to become the 90s Cowboys or 00s Chiefs in terms of running production, but they should be a lot better than they have been.

See the highlighted text. You just rendered your own data set invalid for purposes of this discussion. To put it another way, who here is certain that Birk, Hutchinson, and Richardson will be Pro Bowlers this year? Plus, there are other problems with this data set:1. Too small to be of useful predictive value. In particular, you only named 5 RBs. Does anyone here think Chester Taylor is of comparable talent/ability to Emmitt, Priest, LJ, Bettis, or Alexander? I don't.

2. Chicken and egg situation. Did those RBs succeed because of the 3 Pro Bowlers, or were some of those Pro Bowls due to the talented RBs that made the blockers look good?

3. System. All of those RBs named above were in systems extremely favorable to RBs. That is, in systems that heavily used their feature backs all over the field, including the red zone and goal line. Do we know that Minnesota will use a system that is as favorable for its RBs? I think the jury is out on this one.

 

[RavenFan]

Baltimore wouldn't give him the money that the Vikings offered.

fixedthe guy is a bad apple in the locker room...scream at me all you want, but top freakin' 10 for Chestor Taylor??

pass the bong...

He was such a bad apple that the Raven's matched the Brown's $3M offer in '05 for a backup running back? You hear things different around here than me. I doubt top 10, but the situation is set for him to be a decent RB2 / great RB3.

 

[ravnzfan]

Baltimore wouldn't give him the money that the Vikings offered.

fixedthe guy is a bad apple in the locker room...scream at me all you want, but top freakin' 10 for Chestor Taylor??

pass the bong...

He was such a bad apple that the Raven's matched the Brown's $3M offer in '05 for a backup running back? You hear things different around here than me. I doubt top 10, but the situation is set for him to be a decent RB2 / great RB3.

that would have been from the '04 off season, when the Ravens didn't know what they had comming back in LewistheRavens soured on CT this past season, to the point where there did not offer a contract to him...period

it had nothing to do with "they couldn't match what the Vikings offered"...it had everything to do with they wouldn't offer him a deal at all

he had an unexcused absence from practice last year--week 10 vs Jax--and showed up on a Friday for the first time that week

he was relegated to Special Teams play for the week because he didn't work w/the offense at all, then wondered why he didn't get any touches

we got waxed in the game 30-3 and 'ole CT was telling everybody to "talk to the coach" as to why he didn't get any touches..."I was fine, I wasn't hurt"

after that, it was apparent he wouldn't be back...let's call it "mutual decision"

there are now concerns in Minny about CT's work ethic---I'm not too sure back that, as he never seemed to be a guy that wasn't in shape

I felt the Ravens were wrong to give him the $3M to hang around here another year (he was pissed about that also, as he felt he was robbed about an opportunity to be a starting NFL RB)...too much $$$ committed to the tail back position hurt our depth, IMO

I felt the Vikings overpaid for a career backup, who has never gone a full season as "the guy"...Priest Holmes had a 1000 yard season as a Raven (most people forget that) prior to going to KC and running behind that line--Chestor Taylor has not

I feel the Vikings, while moving in the right direction, aren't there yet...it does take time for new mix in O-line and @FB to jell w/a new tailback

I think Brad Johnson, while a servicable b/u in a pinch, is going to be hard pressed to run this offense effectively for 16 games

bottom line, while I think Taylor can put up top 20-ish production, to say he is going to out produce Mike Anderson(1226 combined-13 TD's) from last year (RB10 in my decimal scoring league)...or

RB11 SJackson (1366-10) or RB12 WDunn (1636-4), for that matter

...is a strech, IMO

now, maybe RF and I listen to different radio around here...so be it---the ones I've heard said all along Lewis was the RB they were going to hold onto...and they did

 

[H.K.]

Competition At Running Back 

By: Viking Update Staff

Date: Jul 3, 2006

The Vikings spent considerable money in the offseason to revamp their running game. But one of the training camp battles is going to see what sort of role the different running backs will have and how well they take to them.

In 2005, the Vikings' plan of attack on the ground was to get Michael Bennett 300 carries and 1,200 yards. That clearly didn't happen, but the ground game has taken on a much different look for 2006.

Chester Taylor remains atop the team's RB depth chart, but the roles of the Vikings running backs are far from defined. It would seem that Jim Kleinsasser has been pushed back to a more traditional tight end role with the signing of fullback Tony Richardson. But the changes don't stop there.

When Mike Tice was head coach, he harped on the fact that Mewelde Moore wasn't an every-down back. Despite being successful when handed those duties, Moore has had a series of injury problems that have slowed his progress. At the same time, Ciatrick Fason has been inconsistent as the team's short-yardage back -- a job he was forced into because of the lack of options.

In an ideal world, Taylor will be the go-to featured back with Fason as a change-of-pace, Moore as a third-down speed option and Richardson as blocker and receiver. That's the plan for now. It could all change with one popped hamstring, but, for the time being, it's a running back committee that is one of well-defined roles. Let's see how long it lasts.

LINK from the Blogger

ravnzfan brings up an excellent point about CT's attitude, he missed those practices at a time when he should have been trying to take advantage of a great opportunity to earn more playing time. Then he signs with Minnesota and its reported numerous times that the brass there is not happy with his conditioning and work ethic. Zebras don't change there stripes, I would expect CT to blow this opportunity, too.

 

[H.K.]

-- Vikings No. 1 RB Still Unknown --Sun Jun 25, 2006 --from FFMastermind.com

FFMastermind.com senior fantasy writer and Vikings Update correspondent John Holler reports Minnesota Vikings RB Chester Taylor has not locked up the starting job yet. There are concerns that Taylor may not have the drive he once had now that he's been paid. There rumblings that Taylor has not taken his offseason workout habits too seriously. He showed up to minicamps overweight and there have been some internal griping that he doesn't have the greatest work ethic. The Vikings have told Taylor to be ready to give his all during training camp and that a full-time starting job hasn't been locked up. With players like RB Mewelde Moore and RB Ciatrick Fason not looking to be part-time situational players, it would appear Taylor has been put on notice -- get in shape and stay in shape or your starting job may be on the line before it ever began.

-- Chester Taylor's Conditioning & Work Ethic Questioned --Sun Jun 25, 2006 --from FFMastermind.com

PSX reports Minnesota Vikings RB Chester Taylor (5-11, 213) may not be giving his all for his new team. There already have been rumblings Taylor isn't in the best of shape, and the Vikings aren't thrilled by his work ethic. Until he signed a free agent deal with the Vikings this offseason, Taylor was a backup to Ravens RB Jamal Lewis. The most carries Taylor has had in a season is 160. He only has four career touchdowns in four seasons. Taylor, though, is guaranteed $5.6 million in the four-year, $14.1 million deal he received from the Vikings.

 

[RavenFan]

Baltimore wouldn't give him the money that the Vikings offered.

fixedthe guy is a bad apple in the locker room...scream at me all you want, but top freakin' 10 for Chestor Taylor??

pass the bong...

He was such a bad apple that the Raven's matched the Brown's $3M offer in '05 for a backup running back? You hear things different around here than me. I doubt top 10, but the situation is set for him to be a decent RB2 / great RB3.

that would have been from the '04 off season, when the Ravens didn't know what they had comming back in LewistheRavens soured on CT this past season, to the point where there did not offer a contract to him...period

it had nothing to do with "they couldn't match what the Vikings offered"...it had everything to do with they wouldn't offer him a deal at all

he had an unexcused absence from practice last year--week 10 vs Jax--and showed up on a Friday for the first time that week

he was relegated to Special Teams play for the week because he didn't work w/the offense at all, then wondered why he didn't get any touches

we got waxed in the game 30-3 and 'ole CT was telling everybody to "talk to the coach" as to why he didn't get any touches..."I was fine, I wasn't hurt"

after that, it was apparent he wouldn't be back...let's call it "mutual decision"

there are now concerns in Minny about CT's work ethic---I'm not too sure back that, as he never seemed to be a guy that wasn't in shape

I felt the Ravens were wrong to give him the $3M to hang around here another year (he was pissed about that also, as he felt he was robbed about an opportunity to be a starting NFL RB)...too much $$$ committed to the tail back position hurt our depth, IMO

I felt the Vikings overpaid for a career backup, who has never gone a full season as "the guy"...Priest Holmes had a 1000 yard season as a Raven (most people forget that) prior to going to KC and running behind that line--Chestor Taylor has not

I feel the Vikings, while moving in the right direction, aren't there yet...it does take time for new mix in O-line and @FB to jell w/a new tailback

I think Brad Johnson, while a servicable b/u in a pinch, is going to be hard pressed to run this offense effectively for 16 games

bottom line, while I think Taylor can put up top 20-ish production, to say he is going to out produce Mike Anderson(1226 combined-13 TD's) from last year (RB10 in my decimal scoring league)...or

RB11 SJackson (1366-10) or RB12 WDunn (1636-4), for that matter

...is a strech, IMO

now, maybe RF and I listen to different radio around here...so be it---the ones I've heard said all along Lewis was the RB they were going to hold onto...and they did

First of all, if anyone was a malcontent on the Raven's last year it was Lewis. I'm not saying Taylor didn't have any issues, but he wasn't the one running his mouth every week saying the team lied to him, didn't support him, etc. I would venture that part of Taylor's frustration last year was the fact that he was considerably more effective than Lewis, yet never received the lions share of carries. This team has a history of sticking with players who aren't performing simply out of loyalty, draft position, etc. I know nothing about Taylor's current situation in Minn, but to call him a trouble-maker and malcontent is disingenuous. All you have to do is check the stats, running behind the exact same line as Lewis, Taylor's ypc was 0.8 higher. Chester was cheered by fans, Lewis booed.My perspective of Taylor is that he's a 6th round draft pick who worked hard to get his shot. He didn't go from 6th round to 1st day free agent signee by being lazy with a poor attitude. I'd think it would be out of character for him to waste his chance in Minn.

 

[H.K.]

My perspective of Taylor is that he's a 6th round draft pick who worked hard to get his shot. He didn't go from 6th round to 1st day free agent signee by being lazy with a poor attitude. I'd think it would be out of character for him to waste his chance in Minn.

He's also a 6th round pick who got a huge signing bonus and should be set for life (if he is smart financially), that may have lessened his desire. I posted a few articles about the Vikings concerns in post #58 of this thread.

 

[Shiver44]

In a PPR league, Taylor is very tempting. Even if he doesn't have the starting role alone. (Childress' hasn't ever been a "feature back" guy). He should register very good yardage behind that line. But specifically a ton of catches, which is why the Vikings/Childress targeted him.

 

[Bojang0301]

Baltimore wouldn't give him the money that the Vikings offered.

fixedthe guy is a bad apple in the locker room...scream at me all you want, but top freakin' 10 for Chestor Taylor??

pass the bong...

He was such a bad apple that the Raven's matched the Brown's $3M offer in '05 for a backup running back? You hear things different around here than me. I doubt top 10, but the situation is set for him to be a decent RB2 / great RB3.

that would have been from the '04 off season, when the Ravens didn't know what they had comming back in LewistheRavens soured on CT this past season, to the point where there did not offer a contract to him...period

it had nothing to do with "they couldn't match what the Vikings offered"...it had everything to do with they wouldn't offer him a deal at all

he had an unexcused absence from practice last year--week 10 vs Jax--and showed up on a Friday for the first time that week

he was relegated to Special Teams play for the week because he didn't work w/the offense at all, then wondered why he didn't get any touches

we got waxed in the game 30-3 and 'ole CT was telling everybody to "talk to the coach" as to why he didn't get any touches..."I was fine, I wasn't hurt"

after that, it was apparent he wouldn't be back...let's call it "mutual decision"

there are now concerns in Minny about CT's work ethic---I'm not too sure back that, as he never seemed to be a guy that wasn't in shape

I felt the Ravens were wrong to give him the $3M to hang around here another year (he was pissed about that also, as he felt he was robbed about an opportunity to be a starting NFL RB)...too much $$$ committed to the tail back position hurt our depth, IMO

I felt the Vikings overpaid for a career backup, who has never gone a full season as "the guy"...Priest Holmes had a 1000 yard season as a Raven (most people forget that) prior to going to KC and running behind that line--Chestor Taylor has not

I feel the Vikings, while moving in the right direction, aren't there yet...it does take time for new mix in O-line and @FB to jell w/a new tailback

I think Brad Johnson, while a servicable b/u in a pinch, is going to be hard pressed to run this offense effectively for 16 games

bottom line, while I think Taylor can put up top 20-ish production, to say he is going to out produce Mike Anderson(1226 combined-13 TD's) from last year (RB10 in my decimal scoring league)...or

RB11 SJackson (1366-10) or RB12 WDunn (1636-4), for that matter

...is a strech, IMO

now, maybe RF and I listen to different radio around here...so be it---the ones I've heard said all along Lewis was the RB they were going to hold onto...and they did

IIRC, JamLew stoped talking to Billick towards the end of the season and communicated through the RB coach. I was utterly shocked he went back to the Ravens this season. As far as that goes with CT is that I think the players are revolting against Billick. Ray Ray has been #####in, JamLew kinda the same and that team just seems ready to explode.

 

[mr blond]

The only problem I have with Chester Taylor is his current ADP, 3.09 in a 12 team league. I think he's in a situation to be one of those players that can step up in a big way, but these players come with some risk as well. I'd love him as a RB2 or RB3 in round 4, but I'd have to spend a 3rd for him as of today. I hope some of his negative press continues so that ADP falls a bit come September.

 

[Donnybrook]

Where is all the Mewelde Moore love coming from? Sure, he's done well when he's had the chance . . . but the teams seems instistant on him NOT getting the chance. I recall that he will be the return back this season.

...

I am hoping that Moore will follow in the footsteps of other return backs that have thrived when they got their chance i.e. Tiki Barber, Dominick Davis and Brian Westbook.

 

[mozzy84]

Vikings RB Taylor Remains Atop Depth Chart

Kevin Seifert

7/3/2006

RB Chester Taylor's absence from the early part of offseason workouts caused some consternation at the Vikings' headquarters. Taylor, signed as a free agent to be the team's premier runner, reported for the team's initial mini-camp out of shape. That was not a good start for a player expected to get the majority of carries as well as play a key role in the passing game of Brad Childress' west-coast offense. But Taylor remained in town for the remainder of the team's mini-camps and offseason training workouts, and there appear to be no depth chart concerns as training camp approaches.

http://www.sportingnews.com/nfl/teams/vikings/index.html

 

[broncofan13000]

The other thing to note is that M.Moore is a rather cheap handcuff, compared to handcuffs Dillon/Maroney, Foster/Deangelo, Lendale/Brown, Dayne/Bell, Benson/TJ etc. So if Chester doesn't work out, at least you can get Moore for cheap

Sure Chester/Moore may not look as good as some of those combos, but at least you won't need to use two early to mid round picks.

ADD: moore's ADP is RB47

 

[Tau837]

For those poo-pooing the Taylor has Top 10 potential comment, here are the players that have run behind a combination of 3 Pro Bowlers in the past 15 years(looking at OL and FB):

2005 SEA Shaun Alexander

OL Steve Hutchinson, OL Walter Jones, OL Walter Tobek

2004 PIT Jerome Bettis

OL Alan Faneca, OL Jeff Hartings, OL Marvel Smith

2004 KC Priest Holmes/Larry Johnson

OL William Roaf, OL Will Shields, OL Brian Waters

2003 KC Priest Holmes

OL William Roaf, OL Will Shields, FB Tony Richardson

1996 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Larry Allen, OL Erik Williams, OL Nate Newton

1995 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Larry Allen, OL Ray Donaldson, OL Nate Newton

1994 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Nate Newton, OL Mark Stepnoski, OL Mark Tuinei

1993 DAL Emmitt Smith

FB Daryl Johnson, OL Erik Williams, OL Nate Newton, OL Mark Stepnoski

It occurs to me that this is good stuff to share with my leaguemates, in hopes that it will entice them to reach for Chester.

 

[David Yudkin]

For those poo-pooing the Taylor has Top 10 potential comment, here are the players that have run behind a combination of 3 Pro Bowlers in the past 15 years(looking at OL and FB):

2005 SEA Shaun Alexander

OL Steve Hutchinson, OL Walter Jones, OL Walter Tobek

2004 PIT Jerome Bettis

OL Alan Faneca, OL Jeff Hartings, OL Marvel Smith

2004 KC Priest Holmes/Larry Johnson

OL William Roaf, OL Will Shields, OL Brian Waters

2003 KC Priest Holmes

OL William Roaf, OL Will Shields, FB Tony Richardson

1996 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Larry Allen, OL Erik Williams, OL Nate Newton

1995 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Larry Allen, OL Ray Donaldson, OL Nate Newton

1994 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Nate Newton, OL Mark Stepnoski, OL Mark Tuinei

1993 DAL Emmitt Smith

FB Daryl Johnson, OL Erik Williams, OL Nate Newton, OL Mark Stepnoski

It occurs to me that this is good stuff to share with my leaguemates, in hopes that it will entice them to reach for Chester.

I've said it at least a dozen times this off-season. Taylor will be this year's version of Lamont Jordan. In many leagues Jordan slipped into the 3rd round and was taken after at least 20 other RB were selected. that's basically the same situation that Taylor will be in this year.People keep pointing to Childress as a RBBC coach. In 7 years with the Eagles, he had only 2 years with a healthy RB1. Both years it was Duce Staley, and in those years Duce had almost 1600 total yards and 6-8 TD. (He ranked 10th and 15th in those seasons.)

Darrell Bevell takes over at OC coming over from the Packers. Green Bay semeed to have gotten Ahman Green some decent years the past few seasons. Granted, he was not OC at Green Bay but one would think that he still was part of a system that helped Green rank as a Top 5 RB.

 

[FunkyPlutos]

For those poo-pooing the Taylor has Top 10 potential comment, here are the players that have run behind a combination of 3 Pro Bowlers in the past 15 years(looking at OL and FB):

2005 SEA Shaun Alexander

OL Steve Hutchinson, OL Walter Jones, OL Walter Tobek

2004 PIT Jerome Bettis

OL Alan Faneca, OL Jeff Hartings, OL Marvel Smith

2004 KC Priest Holmes/Larry Johnson

OL William Roaf, OL Will Shields, OL Brian Waters

2003 KC Priest Holmes

OL William Roaf, OL Will Shields, FB Tony Richardson

1996 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Larry Allen, OL Erik Williams, OL Nate Newton

1995 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Larry Allen, OL Ray Donaldson, OL Nate Newton

1994 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Nate Newton, OL Mark Stepnoski, OL Mark Tuinei

1993 DAL Emmitt Smith

FB Daryl Johnson, OL Erik Williams, OL Nate Newton, OL Mark Stepnoski

Now, the Vikings have not had a season with 3 Pro Bowlers yet, but if Birk, Hutchinson, and Richardson perform as they have done in the past I think that bodes well for the Vikings' rushing game. Certainly, it does not appear that the Vikings are going to become the 90s Cowboys or 00s Chiefs in terms of running production, but they should be a lot better than they have been.

I also think that McKinnie is close to Pro Bowl level. He was a monster last year. Taylor will be a steal for owners this year.

 

[Sabertooth]

Another thing to consider is the proliferation of the "handcuff" I'd think you could get Mewelde Moore in the 12th round or later whereas some other handcuffs like DeAngelo Williams or Cedric Benson might need to be taken earlier than that.

 

[Mystery Achiever]

In a PPR league, Taylor is very tempting. Even if he doesn't have the starting role alone. (Childress' hasn't ever been a "feature back" guy). He should register very good yardage behind that line. But specifically a ton of catches, which is why the Vikings/Childress targeted him.

This is an interesting point. It was only a couple of years ago that the Eagles RBs had more receiving touchdowns than their wide receivers.

 

[GregR_2]

...I'm looking at his stat splits and I could rip him apart and explain to you why he's a very poor choice for a starting RB, but he's not underrated or overrated at all. And that leads me to believe that everyone already knows and agrees he isn't going to be any good this season....

At work so I haven't had a long time to pour over them. Are you referring to his rushing average dropping for carries 11-20? Or something else?

 

[TLEF316]

i drafted him last year in a PPR league and am probably keeping him this year. I think people expecting him to be top 10 will be dissapointed, but top 15-17 is very reasonable. As my # 2 behind alexander, id be pretty happy with that. Ill probably try to handcuff him with moore a little early, since we can start up to 4 RB. Even if they split carries, the two of them combined should still give my solid RB # 2 production.

 

[MLBrandow]

...

I'm looking at his stat splits and I could rip him apart and explain to you why he's a very poor choice for a starting RB, but he's not underrated or overrated at all.  And  that leads me to believe that everyone already knows and agrees he isn't going to be any good this season.

...

At work so I haven't had a long time to pour over them. Are you referring to his rushing average dropping for carries 11-20? Or something else?

Everything. Usually when you look at a 3DB moving to a full-load role, it's because there's just something there that tells you "this guy should be money."Someone find me some appealing stats and we can open some semblence of debate... but I don't even see anything that looks like feature back from that.

LaMont Jordan's 2004 splits

You see the difference between he and Taylor? Better YPC as the game goes on, better YPC in Nov/Dec, better YPC on prime time games, etc etc.

Taylor's numbers are the opposite of what you would look for.

What I think is that Minnesota was so desparate to make some noise this offseason to mitigate among fans the departures of Randy Moss and Daunte Culpepper that they tried to sell this guy as looking like a feature back.

Don't buy it. He's not even close. It's smoke and mirrors and if you (not you personally, but whomever) are stupid enough to mortgage a 3rd round pick that could be spent on a solid RB2 or a solid WR1 like a Darrell Jackson, Donald Driver, a guy like Warrick Dunn, maybe even Carson Palmer... and you pick this high-risk, low reward bum... you deserve to be laughed at.

And the arguments I'm hearing for Taylor are rediculous.... Childress is the reason the running game will be so great? You realize the Eagles over the Reid/Childress reign have been one of the least dedicated running team.

Who was it that WANTED to run RBBC in Philadelphia? Only because Correll Buckhalter went on IR two preseasons in a row was Westbrook even allowed into the feature back role (where he happened to do quite well). And even then, he's been more along the lines of what we should expect Reggie Bush to do.

If you expect Taylor to get 1000 yards, you are definitely dreaming. 1000 total yards is certainly possible, but realize that the end result he is going for is that ugly-looking Eagles backfield of Staley, Westbrook and Buckhalter (and McNabb if you count that).

Recent Rushing offenses under Childress:

'05 - 28th, 22.5rpg, 89.5ypg, 11TD

'04 - 24th, 23.5rpg, 102.5ypg, 10TD

'03 - 9th, 26.1rpg, 125.9ypg, 23TD

'02 - 7th, 30.6rpg, 138.8ypg, 15TD

'01 - 14th, 25.8rpg, 111.1ypg, 6TD

I mean you guys say "well Taylor will get a lot of receptions though, so even though he might not get 1000 yards, he'll have like 40 or 50 receptions, so he'll still have like 1300 yards and then 8-10TDs."

Well, how many of you would have wanted Michael Pittman as your RB2 in '02-'04? Or Brian Westbrook or Duce Staley in that three-headed backfield of PHI?

Those are the situations we fantasy players avoid... not overdraft for.

And I say "poor man's Michael Pittman" not as a knock on Taylor but to show you that what you're looking at in your best scenario is the yuck RB3 numbers Pittman produced in Tampa.

Did you ever draft him in the third round?

All three of Ciatrick Fason, Mewelde Moore and Chester Taylor will comprise this backfield.

Moore broke 100 yards in 8 of 11 games he started, and broke 160 in 3 of them. Not to mention his beefy 9.0ypr.

Sure Fason looked like crap. He was forced into being a goal-line back. How many good 200lb goal-line backs do you know?

 

[RavenFan]

...

I'm looking at his stat splits and I could rip him apart and explain to you why he's a very poor choice for a starting RB, but he's not underrated or overrated at all.  And  that leads me to believe that everyone already knows and agrees he isn't going to be any good this season.

...

At work so I haven't had a long time to pour over them. Are you referring to his rushing average dropping for carries 11-20? Or something else?

Everything. Usually when you look at a 3DB moving to a full-load role, it's because there's just something there that tells you "this guy should be money."Someone find me some appealing stats and we can open some semblence of debate... but I don't even see anything that looks like feature back from that.

LaMont Jordan's 2004 splits

You see the difference between he and Taylor? Better YPC as the game goes on, better YPC in Nov/Dec, better YPC on prime time games, etc etc.

Taylor's numbers are the opposite of what you would look for.

What I think is that Minnesota was so desparate to make some noise this offseason to mitigate among fans the departures of Randy Moss and Daunte Culpepper that they tried to sell this guy as looking like a feature back.

Don't buy it. He's not even close. It's smoke and mirrors and if you (not you personally, but whomever) are stupid enough to mortgage a 3rd round pick that could be spent on a solid RB2 or a solid WR1 like a Darrell Jackson, Donald Driver, a guy like Warrick Dunn, maybe even Carson Palmer... and you pick this high-risk, low reward bum... you deserve to be laughed at.

And the arguments I'm hearing for Taylor are rediculous.... Childress is the reason the running game will be so great? You realize the Eagles over the Reid/Childress reign have been one of the least dedicated running team.

Who was it that WANTED to run RBBC in Philadelphia? Only because Correll Buckhalter went on IR two preseasons in a row was Westbrook even allowed into the feature back role (where he happened to do quite well). And even then, he's been more along the lines of what we should expect Reggie Bush to do.

If you expect Taylor to get 1000 yards, you are definitely dreaming. 1000 total yards is certainly possible, but realize that the end result he is going for is that ugly-looking Eagles backfield of Staley, Westbrook and Buckhalter (and McNabb if you count that).

Recent Rushing offenses under Childress:

'05 - 28th, 22.5rpg, 89.5ypg, 11TD

'04 - 24th, 23.5rpg, 102.5ypg, 10TD

'03 - 9th, 26.1rpg, 125.9ypg, 23TD

'02 - 7th, 30.6rpg, 138.8ypg, 15TD

'01 - 14th, 25.8rpg, 111.1ypg, 6TD

I mean you guys say "well Taylor will get a lot of receptions though, so even though he might not get 1000 yards, he'll have like 40 or 50 receptions, so he'll still have like 1300 yards and then 8-10TDs."

Well, how many of you would have wanted Michael Pittman as your RB2 in '02-'04? Or Brian Westbrook or Duce Staley in that three-headed backfield of PHI?

Those are the situations we fantasy players avoid... not overdraft for.

And I say "poor man's Michael Pittman" not as a knock on Taylor but to show you that what you're looking at in your best scenario is the yuck RB3 numbers Pittman produced in Tampa.

Did you ever draft him in the third round?

All three of Ciatrick Fason, Mewelde Moore and Chester Taylor will comprise this backfield.

Moore broke 100 yards in 8 of 11 games he started, and broke 160 in 3 of them. Not to mention his beefy 9.0ypr.

Sure Fason looked like crap. He was forced into being a goal-line back. How many good 200lb goal-line backs do you know?

Yeesh, his splits make him look better:Taylor Lewis

1st down 4.5 ypc 3.2

2nd down 3.3 3.2

3rd down 5.4 5.4

1st qtr 4.6 3.6

2nd qtr 4.4 2.2

3rd qtr 3.5 3.9

4th qtr 4.5 3.9

Own 1 - 20yd line 6.3 3.2

Own 21 - 50yd line 4.1 3.7

Opp 49 - 20yd line 2.6 3.5

Opp 19 - 1 yd line 4.8 2.2

Attempts 1 - 10 4.6 ypc 3.1

Attempts 11 - 20 2.1 ypc 3.7

Except for the last stat, he looks remarkably consistent. Also you keep failing to mention that he ran behind a miserable Raven's line last year. Please don't give me any bs about Lewis's injury. He hurt his ankle the year before, if you watched any games at all you'd know that Taylor was the superior back. If Taylor does get 70% of the carries he'll be a solid RB2.

 

[LTsharks]

...

I'm looking at his stat splits and I could rip him apart and explain to you why he's a very poor choice for a starting RB, but he's not underrated or overrated at all.  And  that leads me to believe that everyone already knows and agrees he isn't going to be any good this season.

...

At work so I haven't had a long time to pour over them. Are you referring to his rushing average dropping for carries 11-20? Or something else?

Everything. Usually when you look at a 3DB moving to a full-load role, it's because there's just something there that tells you "this guy should be money."Someone find me some appealing stats and we can open some semblence of debate... but I don't even see anything that looks like feature back from that.

LaMont Jordan's 2004 splits

You see the difference between he and Taylor? Better YPC as the game goes on, better YPC in Nov/Dec, better YPC on prime time games, etc etc.

Taylor's numbers are the opposite of what you would look for.

What I think is that Minnesota was so desparate to make some noise this offseason to mitigate among fans the departures of Randy Moss and Daunte Culpepper that they tried to sell this guy as looking like a feature back.

Don't buy it. He's not even close. It's smoke and mirrors and if you (not you personally, but whomever) are stupid enough to mortgage a 3rd round pick that could be spent on a solid RB2 or a solid WR1 like a Darrell Jackson, Donald Driver, a guy like Warrick Dunn, maybe even Carson Palmer... and you pick this high-risk, low reward bum... you deserve to be laughed at.

And the arguments I'm hearing for Taylor are rediculous.... Childress is the reason the running game will be so great? You realize the Eagles over the Reid/Childress reign have been one of the least dedicated running team.

Who was it that WANTED to run RBBC in Philadelphia? Only because Correll Buckhalter went on IR two preseasons in a row was Westbrook even allowed into the feature back role (where he happened to do quite well). And even then, he's been more along the lines of what we should expect Reggie Bush to do.

If you expect Taylor to get 1000 yards, you are definitely dreaming. 1000 total yards is certainly possible, but realize that the end result he is going for is that ugly-looking Eagles backfield of Staley, Westbrook and Buckhalter (and McNabb if you count that).

Recent Rushing offenses under Childress:

'05 - 28th, 22.5rpg, 89.5ypg, 11TD

'04 - 24th, 23.5rpg, 102.5ypg, 10TD

'03 - 9th, 26.1rpg, 125.9ypg, 23TD

'02 - 7th, 30.6rpg, 138.8ypg, 15TD

'01 - 14th, 25.8rpg, 111.1ypg, 6TD

I mean you guys say "well Taylor will get a lot of receptions though, so even though he might not get 1000 yards, he'll have like 40 or 50 receptions, so he'll still have like 1300 yards and then 8-10TDs."

Well, how many of you would have wanted Michael Pittman as your RB2 in '02-'04? Or Brian Westbrook or Duce Staley in that three-headed backfield of PHI?

Those are the situations we fantasy players avoid... not overdraft for.

And I say "poor man's Michael Pittman" not as a knock on Taylor but to show you that what you're looking at in your best scenario is the yuck RB3 numbers Pittman produced in Tampa.

Did you ever draft him in the third round?

All three of Ciatrick Fason, Mewelde Moore and Chester Taylor will comprise this backfield.

Moore broke 100 yards in 8 of 11 games he started, and broke 160 in 3 of them. Not to mention his beefy 9.0ypr.

Sure Fason looked like crap. He was forced into being a goal-line back. How many good 200lb goal-line backs do you know?

Doesn't sound like someone you would take at RB26. Could you please explain the following from this thread: http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...howtopic=249748

MLBrandow -

It's loaded with my own biases and I played this like a real draft, drafting against myself with each pick.

5.10 - Chester Taylor, RB, MIN

Just trying to get a feel for where you really stand. You are giving a lot of strong opinions that seem to conflict with other things you have posted, such as the above.

Also, you wouldn't have wanted Westbrook from 2003-05? The number 20,10, and 18 RB by FBG scoring. Looks like a solid RB2 to me. I'm not saying Taylor is Westbrook by any means, it just seems that was a poor statement on your part to use that as a reason not to draft Taylor, even as your RB3.

 

[David Yudkin]

...

I'm looking at his stat splits and I could rip him apart and explain to you why he's a very poor choice for a starting RB, but he's not underrated or overrated at all.  And  that leads me to believe that everyone already knows and agrees he isn't going to be any good this season.

...

At work so I haven't had a long time to pour over them. Are you referring to his rushing average dropping for carries 11-20? Or something else?

Everything. Usually when you look at a 3DB moving to a full-load role, it's because there's just something there that tells you "this guy should be money."Someone find me some appealing stats and we can open some semblence of debate... but I don't even see anything that looks like feature back from that.

LaMont Jordan's 2004 splits

You see the difference between he and Taylor? Better YPC as the game goes on, better YPC in Nov/Dec, better YPC on prime time games, etc etc.

Taylor's numbers are the opposite of what you would look for.

What I think is that Minnesota was so desparate to make some noise this offseason to mitigate among fans the departures of Randy Moss and Daunte Culpepper that they tried to sell this guy as looking like a feature back.

Don't buy it. He's not even close. It's smoke and mirrors and if you (not you personally, but whomever) are stupid enough to mortgage a 3rd round pick that could be spent on a solid RB2 or a solid WR1 like a Darrell Jackson, Donald Driver, a guy like Warrick Dunn, maybe even Carson Palmer... and you pick this high-risk, low reward bum... you deserve to be laughed at.

And the arguments I'm hearing for Taylor are rediculous.... Childress is the reason the running game will be so great? You realize the Eagles over the Reid/Childress reign have been one of the least dedicated running team.

Who was it that WANTED to run RBBC in Philadelphia? Only because Correll Buckhalter went on IR two preseasons in a row was Westbrook even allowed into the feature back role (where he happened to do quite well). And even then, he's been more along the lines of what we should expect Reggie Bush to do.

If you expect Taylor to get 1000 yards, you are definitely dreaming. 1000 total yards is certainly possible, but realize that the end result he is going for is that ugly-looking Eagles backfield of Staley, Westbrook and Buckhalter (and McNabb if you count that).

Recent Rushing offenses under Childress:

'05 - 28th, 22.5rpg, 89.5ypg, 11TD

'04 - 24th, 23.5rpg, 102.5ypg, 10TD

'03 - 9th, 26.1rpg, 125.9ypg, 23TD

'02 - 7th, 30.6rpg, 138.8ypg, 15TD

'01 - 14th, 25.8rpg, 111.1ypg, 6TD

I mean you guys say "well Taylor will get a lot of receptions though, so even though he might not get 1000 yards, he'll have like 40 or 50 receptions, so he'll still have like 1300 yards and then 8-10TDs."

Well, how many of you would have wanted Michael Pittman as your RB2 in '02-'04? Or Brian Westbrook or Duce Staley in that three-headed backfield of PHI?

Those are the situations we fantasy players avoid... not overdraft for.

And I say "poor man's Michael Pittman" not as a knock on Taylor but to show you that what you're looking at in your best scenario is the yuck RB3 numbers Pittman produced in Tampa.

Did you ever draft him in the third round?

All three of Ciatrick Fason, Mewelde Moore and Chester Taylor will comprise this backfield.

Moore broke 100 yards in 8 of 11 games he started, and broke 160 in 3 of them. Not to mention his beefy 9.0ypr.

Sure Fason looked like crap. He was forced into being a goal-line back. How many good 200lb goal-line backs do you know?

Why is it a 3-headed hyrda in PHI when by your own recounting Staley, Buckhalter, and Westbrook all missed significant time with injuries across multiple seasons?Again, using the Lamont Jordan comparison, OAK still ranked a paltry 31st in rushing attempts and 29th in rushing yards, yet he still ranked 9th last year.

The Vikings seemed to have TRIED to not give Moore the starting job and have done seemingly everything in their power to keep him from having a featured role. Maybe they will change their collective minds over him, but it sure doesn't look like that's in the immediate future.

 

[Slider]

Lets not confuse the Eagles running game. It was 55/45 in 02. It was a little higher in 03. In 04 and 05 it was a combination of trying to keep TO happy (04) and the loss of their FB, RB and 3 OLineman by week 5 (05). I guarantee they run a ton more this year.

As for Chester Taylor, I would also factor in the WCO which is generally friendly to RB's.

 

[mlball77]

2. Chicken and egg situation. Did those RBs succeed because of the 3 Pro Bowlers, or were some of those Pro Bowls due to the talented RBs that made the blockers look good?

I'm not sure if I'm sold on Taylor being able to carry the load and becoming a top 10-15 RB, but I STRONGLY believe that in most cases its the blockers (and offensive scheme too... llike DEN) that make the RB look good and not so much the other way around.

 

[vikingdave]

Baltimore wouldn't give him the money that the Vikings offered.

fixedthe guy is a bad apple in the locker room...scream at me all you want, but top freakin' 10 for Chestor Taylor??

pass the bong...

He was such a bad apple that the Raven's matched the Brown's $3M offer in '05 for a backup running back? You hear things different around here than me. I doubt top 10, but the situation is set for him to be a decent RB2 / great RB3.

that would have been from the '04 off season, when the Ravens didn't know what they had comming back in LewistheRavens soured on CT this past season, to the point where there did not offer a contract to him...period

it had nothing to do with "they couldn't match what the Vikings offered"...it had everything to do with they wouldn't offer him a deal at all

Not sure wher you get your info, but Baltimore did offer him a contract, but Taylor is the one that turned them down and went to Minnesota......

 

[SoloMatisse]

the only factor that makes me sweat Chester Taylor making the move to MN is the transition from real grass to turf......outdoor stadium to dome. The two elements are entirely different. Dome football is such a different game......but especially for RBs who take the most pounding of any players on the field. Just a natural concern, and maybe unnessecary, but its enough for me to steer clear of Taylor this season and let the rest of you guys benefit.

 

[Tau837]

2. Chicken and egg situation.  Did those RBs succeed because of the 3 Pro Bowlers, or were some of those Pro Bowls due to the talented RBs that made the blockers look good?

I'm not sure if I'm sold on Taylor being able to carry the load and becoming a top 10-15 RB, but I STRONGLY believe that in most cases its the blockers (and offensive scheme too... llike DEN) that make the RB look good and not so much the other way around.

OK, that is something that might be interesting to think about. Here is the relevant part of David's post:

For those poo-pooing the Taylor has Top 10 potential comment, here are the players that have run behind a combination of 3 Pro Bowlers in the past 15 years(looking at OL and FB):

2005 SEA Shaun Alexander

OL Steve Hutchinson, OL Walter Jones, OL Walter Tobek

2004 PIT Jerome Bettis

OL Alan Faneca, OL Jeff Hartings, OL Marvel Smith

2004 KC Priest Holmes/Larry Johnson

OL William Roaf, OL Will Shields, OL Brian Waters

2003 KC Priest Holmes

OL William Roaf, OL Will Shields, FB Tony Richardson

1996 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Larry Allen, OL Erik Williams, OL Nate Newton

1995 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Larry Allen, OL Ray Donaldson, OL Nate Newton

1994 DAL Emmitt Smith

OL Nate Newton, OL Mark Stepnoski, OL Mark Tuinei

1993 DAL Emmitt Smith

FB Daryl Johnson, OL Erik Williams, OL Nate Newton, OL Mark Stepnoski

Let's start with Emmitt, looking at his career.1990 - Emmitt made the Pro Bowl as a rookie. Blockers Newton, Johnston, Stepnoski, Tuinei were all on the team but did not make it. Emmitt earned this Pro Bowl berth all on his own.

1991 - Emmitt made the Pro Bowl. None of his blockers (including Erik Williams, Newton, Johnston, Stepnoski, Tuinei) made it, unless you count Novacek as a blocker. Emmitt was RB3 without the benefit of any Pro Bowl blockers.

1992 - Emmitt made the Pro Bowl. Newton made it for the first time in his 7th season. Stepnoski made it for the first time in his 4th season. Others including Newton, Johnston, and Tuinei did not make it. Emmitt was RB1. Which is more true: Newton & Stepnoski made Emmitt or Emmitt helped them earn their first Pro Bowls?

1993 - Emmitt made it again. Newton & Stepnoski each made it for the second time. Johnston (in his 5th year) and Williams (in his 3rd year) each made it for the first time. Emmitt was RB1. Which is more true: Emmitt's blockers made Emmitt or Emmitt helped them earn their Pro Bowls?

1994 - Emmitt and his 4 blockers named in 1993 above repeated, and Tuinei made it for the first time in his 12th year. In his 12th year, which is more true: Tuinei helped Emmitt finish as RB1 or Emmitt helped Tuinei earn his first Pro Bowl berth?

1995 - Emmitt and Newton repeated. None of the other blockers from the previous years repeated. Larry Allen made his first Pro Bowl in his 2nd year. Ray Donaldson made his 5th Pro Bowl in his 16th year, but in his first year in Dallas after a 5 year absence from the Pro Bowl. Which is more true: Allen & Donaldson helped Emmitt finish as RB1 or Emmitt helped them earn their Pro Bowl berths?

etc. IMO it is fairly clear that Emmitt was not made by his blockers. I mean, they were obviously very good and helped him, no doubt. I do think it is likely that many of his blockers' Pro Bowl berths were due to Emmitt.

How about Priest?

2001 - Priest made the Pro Bowl in his first year in KC. Will Shields also made it, as he had in 5 of his 8 seasons in KC (but not in 2000). No other blockers made it, unless you count Tony Gonzalez as a blocker. Priest was RB2. Was that because of his blockers or because of Priest?

2002 - Priest and Shields repeated. Roaf also made it in his first year in KC, after having made it in 7 of his 9 seasons in New Orleans (but not in 2001). Priest was RB1 in 14 games. I don't think Priest made Roaf or Shields, but I don't think they made him either.

2003 - Priest, Shields, and Roaf repeated, and Priest was RB1. Richardson made the Pro Bowl for the first time in his 9th season. Did Priest's blockers make him?

2004 - Priest was RB12 in less than 8 full games. However, Blaylock and Johnson went on to dominate in the games after Priest was hurt. This does lend credence to the dominance of the KC blockers.

So looking at Priest is inconclusive. Priest dominated out of the gate without an elite set of blockers, while the entire team learned Vermeil's system. Maybe it is more the system than the blockers... or a combination of the two?

Bettis is a strange example. He finished as RB18 in 2004, and that was primarily because he had 13 rushing TDs in 250 carries... a bit of an anomaly. I suppose that could mean his blockers made his season that year, but I think it was more a testament to Bettis's prowess as a goal line runner--he had 23 carries for 12 TDs from the 5 yard line and in.

Finally, Alexander. In 2005, he made the Pro Bowl and finished as RB1. Tobeck made his first Pro Bowl in his 12th season. Jones made his 5th straight Pro Bowl and Hutchinson his third straight, all with Seattle. Obviously, Seattle had a great line. But Tobeck certainly didn't make Alexander. And Alexander was a top 5 RB for two seasons before Hutchinson made the Pro Bowl. And Watters before him was a top 10 RB for three years with no Pro Bowl blockers.

That was a lot of typing that doesn't prove much... but I don't think it is clear that the Pro Bowl blockers really mean much. More often than not, the RBs were great before the blockers were... or at least before they were recognized as such.

This is important in this case, because Taylor has not shown himself to be great independent of great blockers. So I doubt he'll be great with them, even if they do have a group that could include multiple Pro Bowlers.

I also think this could show that system is as important as the quality of the blockers. Which would logically draw us to question how good Minnesota's system will be, how free of RBBC it will be, etc. I think those are the important questions here.

 

[David Yudkin]

I'm not suggesting that Taylor turns into Holmes, Emmitt, or Alexander. I am saying that if things work out, Taylor could be a Top 10 RB this season. Compared to the guys listed, Taylor's fantasy production could be 30-40% LESS than the uber studs and still be Top 10 (maybe even up to half the production depending upon the year).

As for Bettis, I forgot to include Duce Staley, who average 100+ yards rushing per game the first half of the 2004 season.

Getting back to Taylor, let's use some common sense. Teams would love to add a Pro Bowl linemen or fullback--let alnoe both in the same season.

I doubt anyone would say that the Vikings rushing game got WORSE by adding Hutchinson and Richardson.

 

[Tau837]

I'm not suggesting that Taylor turns into Holmes, Emmitt, or Alexander. I am saying that if things work out, Taylor could be a Top 10 RB this season. Compared to the guys listed, Taylor's fantasy production could be 30-40% LESS than the uber studs and still be Top 10 (maybe even up to half the production depending upon the year).

As for Bettis, I forgot to include Duce Staley, who average 100+ yards rushing per game the first half of the 2004 season.

Getting back to Taylor, let's use some common sense. Teams would love to add a Pro Bowl linemen or fullback--let alnoe both in the same season.

I doubt anyone would say that the Vikings rushing game got WORSE by adding Hutchinson and Richardson.

I don't disagree with your general point, but I think you are overselling Richardson here. He has made two Pro Bowls in his career, and both of those were in a system more favorable to the run (better line, better RBs, better coaching... IMO). This will be his 12th season, and he is 34. Sure, he is a good blocking FB. But I don't think he is currently an elite blocking FB. Is he a difference maker? That is TBD.

 

[mlball77]

Just Win-

You laid out some really nice info.

I will, however, have to disagree with your conclusion.... or maybe we're just looking at the same thing very differently?? Just because Emmitt made the pro bowl before any of his blockers were acknowledged with the same honor, does NOT mean that his greatness made them (Newton et. al) great. I think that commonsensically one would have to believe that the reason that Emmitt or any good-great RB had the opportunity to post big numbers and be rewarded with a pro bowl appearance is in large part due to the great work done by the offensive line. Its cliche, but ball games are won and lost in the trenches. Emmitt may have been aknowledged first, but that doesn't mean he is the cause of Newton becoming a great lineman... Unfortunately for o-lineman, they get very little glory when what they do is incredibly important to the success of their offense.

 

[Tau837]

Just Win-

You laid out some really nice info.

I will, however, have to disagree with your conclusion.... or maybe we're just looking at the same thing very differently?? Just because Emmitt made the pro bowl before any of his blockers were acknowledged with the same honor, does NOT mean that his greatness made them (Newton et. al) great. I think that commonsensically one would have to believe that the reason that Emmitt or any good-great RB had the opportunity to post big numbers and be rewarded with a pro bowl appearance is in large part due to the great work done by the offensive line. Its cliche, but ball games are won and lost in the trenches. Emmitt may have been aknowledged first, but that doesn't mean he is the cause of Newton becoming a great lineman... Unfortunately for o-lineman, they get very little glory when what they do is incredibly important to the success of their offense.

That's fine. I think there are multiple questions that get at what we have been discussing in a roundabout way.1. Just how good are Minnesota's blockers? Where do they rank as a group compared to the rest of the league? I'd say they should be above average. Will they be elite? I don't think so, not in the first year of a new system.

2. How good is Taylor independent of situation? Where does he rank compared to the rest of the league's RBs? I'd say he is average at best, independent of situation. That is, I think I can name 16 RBs I'd take ahead of him for one season based on player specific attributes (e.g., ability, attitude/character, durability, etc.).

3. How much does a group of blockers like Minnesota's (quality determined in quesiton 1) help a RB like Taylor (quality determined in question 2)?

This whole tangent that started with David's post, that I admittedly helped drive us down, I think focuses on #3 while making rosy assumptions about 1 & 2.

And then you still have to evaluate the system, the competition, etc.

Anyway, it is clear that most here are much higher on Taylor than I am.

 

[menobrown]

I've said it at least a dozen times this off-season. Taylor will be this year's version of Lamont Jordan.

Two major flaws exist in that comparasion:1. Jordan played for a coach who has shown a tendency to ride one RB. Meanwhile, Taylor plays for a coach who has shown that he likes to use multiple backs in a game.

2. Jordan had no quality backups behind him therefore Jordan played almost every down. Taylor has players behind him who might be better suited as a third down back(Moore) and goal line back (Fason).

The comparasion of Taylor to Jordan can only become reality if Taylor get the touches Jordan did. I just don't see that happening.

 

[Sabertooth]

I've said it at least a dozen times this off-season.  Taylor will be this year's version of Lamont Jordan. 

Two major flaws exist in that comparasion:1. Jordan played for a coach who has shown a tendency to ride one RB. Meanwhile, Taylor plays for a coach who has shown that he likes to use multiple backs in a game.

2. Jordan had no quality backups behind him therefore Jordan played almost every down. Taylor has players behind him who might be better suited as a third down back(Moore) and goal line back (Fason).

The comparasion of Taylor to Jordan can only become reality if Taylor get the touches Jordan did. I just don't see that happening.

His coach is a rookie. Do you know the playcalling and substituion situation in Philly well enough to state that it was Childress and not Andy Reid making the call on the RBBC? Maybe you do, I'm just asking. I would think the head coach makes this call. And if it is the offensive coordinator's call, then that would be former Packer Darrell Bevell. And the Packers hardly ever went with a RBBC situation.

As for #2 there, I don't know the Fason is any better than Justin Fargas. And the team (at least last season) seems to have soured on Mewelde Moore, the rumor was that he was "soft."

 

[Franknbeans]

-- RBBC in Minnesota --

Tue Jul 4, 2006 --from FFMastermind.com

FFMastermind.com senior fantasy writer and Vikings Update correspondent John Holler reports RB Chester Taylor remains atop the team's RB depth chart, but the roles of the Vikings running backs are far from defined. It would seem that TE Jim Kleinsasser has been pushed back to a more traditional tight end role with the signing of FB Tony Richardson. But the changes don't stop there. When HC Mike Tice was head coach, he harped on the fact that RB Mewelde Moore wasn't an every-down back. Despite being successful when handed those duties, Moore has had a series of injury problems that have slowed his progress. At the same time, RB Ciatrick Fason has been inconsistent as the team's short-yardage back -- a job he was forced into because of the lack of options. In an ideal world, Taylor will be the go-to featured back with Fason as a change-of-pace, Moore as a third-down speed option and Richardson as blocker and receiver. That's the plan for now. It could all change with one popped hamstring, but, for the time being, it's a running back committee that is one of well-defined roles. Let's see how long it lasts.

 

[Sabertooth]

-- RBBC in Minnesota --

Tue Jul 4, 2006 --from FFMastermind.com

FFMastermind.com senior fantasy writer and Vikings Update correspondent John Holler reports RB Chester Taylor remains atop the team's RB depth chart, but the roles of the Vikings running backs are far from defined. It would seem that TE Jim Kleinsasser has been pushed back to a more traditional tight end role with the signing of FB Tony Richardson. But the changes don't stop there. When HC Mike Tice was head coach, he harped on the fact that RB Mewelde Moore wasn't an every-down back. Despite being successful when handed those duties, Moore has had a series of injury problems that have slowed his progress. At the same time, RB Ciatrick Fason has been inconsistent as the team's short-yardage back -- a job he was forced into because of the lack of options. In an ideal world, Taylor will be the go-to featured back with Fason as a change-of-pace, Moore as a third-down speed option and Richardson as blocker and receiver. That's the plan for now. It could all change with one popped hamstring, but, for the time being, it's a running back committee that is one of well-defined roles. Let's see how long it lasts.

 

[mlball77]

Just Win-

You laid out some really nice info.

I will, however, have to disagree with your conclusion.... or maybe we're just looking at the same thing very differently?? Just because Emmitt made the pro bowl before any of his blockers were acknowledged with the same honor, does NOT mean that his greatness made them (Newton et. al) great. I think that commonsensically one would have to believe that the reason that Emmitt or any good-great RB had the opportunity to post big numbers and be rewarded with a pro bowl appearance is in large part due to the great work done by the offensive line. Its cliche, but ball games are won and lost in the trenches. Emmitt may have been aknowledged first, but that doesn't mean he is the cause of Newton becoming a great lineman... Unfortunately for o-lineman, they get very little glory when what they do is incredibly important to the success of their offense.

That's fine. I think there are multiple questions that get at what we have been discussing in a roundabout way.1. Just how good are Minnesota's blockers? Where do they rank as a group compared to the rest of the league? I'd say they should be above average. Will they be elite? I don't think so, not in the first year of a new system.

2. How good is Taylor independent of situation? Where does he rank compared to the rest of the league's RBs? I'd say he is average at best, independent of situation. That is, I think I can name 16 RBs I'd take ahead of him for one season based on player specific attributes (e.g., ability, attitude/character, durability, etc.).

3. How much does a group of blockers like Minnesota's (quality determined in quesiton 1) help a RB like Taylor (quality determined in question 2)?

This whole tangent that started with David's post, that I admittedly helped drive us down, I think focuses on #3 while making rosy assumptions about 1 & 2.

And then you still have to evaluate the system, the competition, etc.

Anyway, it is clear that most here are much higher on Taylor than I am.

Excellent post.I would add 1A....

Does the offensive scheme in MIN produce big numbers for the primary RB? Independent of talent from both the line and RB, is it safe to assume RBs are generally succesful in the system or unsuccesful... or somewhere in the middle?

With these questions, my personal answers wouuld be (scale = poor, average, good, great):

1. I think the line/blockers are good, but not great. With Hutchinson and Birk I think it could be great, but I totally agree with you that the line will need time to become a cohesive unit.

1A. With the new coaching staff in place in MIN, I have very little idea how the productive the offensive scheme will be. At this point, I think I'm leaning toward average.

2. I think that Taylor is average at best when comparing his skill set and attributes to other starting NFL RBs... so we also agree here.

3. So to answer what kind of production I expect from Taylor based on my answers... a RB with average (at best... probably a little lower) skills, in a potenatially average offensive scheme, with a good line anchored by a couple of great lineman... It sounds to me like he is likely to put up average starting RB numbers... maybe somewhere in the RB 15-20 range. But honestly, the big question for me is the offensive scheme to be in place in MIN... I think that is the huge question that needs to be addressed still.

Does anyone have any insight as to the general offensive philosophy and scheme Childress et al will be putting in place?

 

[Franknbeans]

Does anyone have any insight as to the general offensive philosophy and scheme Childress et al will be putting in place?

All I know is he'll be committed to running the ball but if his history in Philly is any indication, he'll likely use many backs to do so.

 

[David Yudkin]

Does anyone have any insight as to the general offensive philosophy and scheme Childress et al will be putting in place?

All I know is he'll be committed to running the ball but if his history in Philly is any indication, he'll likely use many backs to do so.

I explained this once already. Childress would have preferred to use a featured back. In his two healthy seasons in PHI, Duce Staley have about 1600 total yards and 6-8 total TD.In the other seasons that Childress was OC in PHI, he had no choice but to use a variety of backs.

1999

Healthy Staley = 366 touches

2000

Injured Staley = 6 RB with at least 10 touches

2001

Banged up Staley = 229 touches with Correll Buckhalter filling in getting 142 touches

2002

Healthy Staley = 320 touches

2003

Staley holds out and is not 100%. Buckhalter fills in on occasion for 136 touches. Westbrook also gets 154 touches.

2004

Staley gone. Buckhalter blows an ACL. Westbrook default RB but limited to 12-13 carries. Dorsey Levens picked up off waivers as there are no other viable RB options.

2005

Buckhalter again blows an ACL and misses the season. Westbrook misses the end of the season. Moats plays the last few games.

Nowhere in here do I see a track record for a COMMITTEE approach to the running backs. The only varation on that is Westbrook. It's clear to me that the Eagles did not (and likely still do not) want Westbrook to be a workhorse back and prefer to use him as a 12-13 carry back with a ton of receptions.

Now jump to Minnesota. The team already said it hoped to get Taylor the ball 20-30 times a game. I would ignore the talk of 30 touches a game as that's just crazy talk, but 20 touches is not that out of the realm of possibility. 17 carries and 3 receptions seems attainable. That's 272 rushes and another 48 receptions--about what Staley was getting in his healthy seasons.

272 x 4.0 = 1,088 rushing yards

48 x 7.5 = 360 receiving yards

8 total TD

About 193 fantasy points. Last year that would have ranked 12th for RB. A few more yards or another 1-2 TD and he would have ranked in the Top 10 (would have been #9 with 10 more fantasy points).

That's what I see in my crystal ball for Taylor this year . . . IF HE WAKES UP AND DECIDES HE WANTS TO BE THE #1 RB IN MINNESOTA. If he wants to just phone it in and be lazy, that's another story.

 

[mlball77]

Thanks, David... good stuff.

 

[Deuce'sWild]

Does anyone have any insight as to the general offensive philosophy and scheme Childress et al will be putting in place?

All I know is he'll be committed to running the ball but if his history in Philly is any indication, he'll likely use many backs to do so.

I explained this once already. Childress would have preferred to use a featured back. In his two healthy seasons in PHI, Duce Staley have about 1600 total yards and 6-8 total TD.In the other seasons that Childress was OC in PHI, he had no choice but to use a variety of backs.

1999

Healthy Staley = 366 touches

2000

Injured Staley = 6 RB with at least 10 touches

2001

Banged up Staley = 229 touches with Correll Buckhalter filling in getting 142 touches

2002

Healthy Staley = 320 touches

2003

Staley holds out and is not 100%. Buckhalter fills in on occasion for 136 touches. Westbrook also gets 154 touches.

2004

Staley gone. Buckhalter blows an ACL. Westbrook default RB but limited to 12-13 carries. Dorsey Levens picked up off waivers as there are no other viable RB options.

2005

Buckhalter again blows an ACL and misses the season. Westbrook misses the end of the season. Moats plays the last few games.

Nowhere in here do I see a track record for a COMMITTEE approach to the running backs. The only varation on that is Westbrook. It's clear to me that the Eagles did not (and likely still do not) want Westbrook to be a workhorse back and prefer to use him as a 12-13 carry back with a ton of receptions.

Now jump to Minnesota. The team already said it hoped to get Taylor the ball 20-30 times a game. I would ignore the talk of 30 touches a game as that's just crazy talk, but 20 touches is not that out of the realm of possibility. 17 carries and 3 receptions seems attainable. That's 272 rushes and another 48 receptions--about what Staley was getting in his healthy seasons.

272 x 4.0 = 1,088 rushing yards

48 x 7.5 = 360 receiving yards

8 total TD

About 193 fantasy points. Last year that would have ranked 12th for RB. A few more yards or another 1-2 TD and he would have ranked in the Top 10 (would have been #9 with 10 more fantasy points).

That's what I see in my crystal ball for Taylor this year . . . IF HE WAKES UP AND DECIDES HE WANTS TO BE THE #1 RB IN MINNESOTA. If he wants to just phone it in and be lazy, that's another story.

This is almost exactly what I have him at right now. I think the TDs could be better if Johnson and the offensive can move the ball.

 

[srnohav]

I've said it at least a dozen times this off-season.  Taylor will be this year's version of Lamont Jordan. 

Two major flaws exist in that comparasion:1. Jordan played for a coach who has shown a tendency to ride one RB. Meanwhile, Taylor plays for a coach who has shown that he likes to use multiple backs in a game.

2. Jordan had no quality backups behind him therefore Jordan played almost every down. Taylor has players behind him who might be better suited as a third down back(Moore) and goal line back (Fason).

The comparasion of Taylor to Jordan can only become reality if Taylor get the touches Jordan did. I just don't see that happening.

I would disagree with your second point, he had the same situation in Oakland with Zack Crockett the goal line carrier (had 7td's in 2003) and Justin Fargas as the change of pase third down option who Oakland supposably loved as a change of pace guy. I would say it is the same thing Taylor is going into. Did you watch Moore carry the load in the past, he is a good receiver, but could never punch it in on the goaline. and Fason is 6 ft 212 lbs' while Taylor is 5'11" 213 lbs.. I don't see Fason as the battering ram, I just don't think they had any other options. Fason did have several carries when they had 10 yds to go and still only avg 1.9yds a carry last year. This is Taylor's team to see what he can do. only if Taylor falters will you seee these other guys come in. I would say the comparison to Jordan is a very solid one

 

[menobrown]

I've said it at least a dozen times this off-season. Taylor will be this year's version of Lamont Jordan.

Two major flaws exist in that comparasion:1. Jordan played for a coach who has shown a tendency to ride one RB. Meanwhile, Taylor plays for a coach who has shown that he likes to use multiple backs in a game.

2. Jordan had no quality backups behind him therefore Jordan played almost every down. Taylor has players behind him who might be better suited as a third down back(Moore) and goal line back (Fason).

The comparasion of Taylor to Jordan can only become reality if Taylor get the touches Jordan did. I just don't see that happening.

I would disagree with your second point, he had the same situation in Oakland with Zack Crockett the goal line carrier (had 7td's in 2003) and Justin Fargas as the change of pase third down option who Oakland supposably loved as a change of pace guy. I would say it is the same thing Taylor is going into. Did you watch Moore carry the load in the past, he is a good receiver, but could never punch it in on the goaline. and Fason is 6 ft 212 lbs' while Taylor is 5'11" 213 lbs.. I don't see Fason as the battering ram, I just don't think they had any other options. Fason did have several carries when they had 10 yds to go and still only avg 1.9yds a carry last year. This is Taylor's team to see what he can do. only if Taylor falters will you seee these other guys come in. I would say the comparison to Jordan is a very solid one

I don't see how you can even compare Fargas to Moore. Fargas has done zero in his career while Moore has shined every time he has had the chance to play. If nothing else Moore has demonstrated he can be a great third down back while Fargas has demonstarted the ability to do nothing but get hurt.

 

[David Yudkin]

I've said it at least a dozen times this off-season.  Taylor will be this year's version of Lamont Jordan. 

Two major flaws exist in that comparasion:1. Jordan played for a coach who has shown a tendency to ride one RB. Meanwhile, Taylor plays for a coach who has shown that he likes to use multiple backs in a game.

2. Jordan had no quality backups behind him therefore Jordan played almost every down. Taylor has players behind him who might be better suited as a third down back(Moore) and goal line back (Fason).

The comparasion of Taylor to Jordan can only become reality if Taylor get the touches Jordan did. I just don't see that happening.

I would disagree with your second point, he had the same situation in Oakland with Zack Crockett the goal line carrier (had 7td's in 2003) and Justin Fargas as the change of pase third down option who Oakland supposably loved as a change of pace guy. I would say it is the same thing Taylor is going into. Did you watch Moore carry the load in the past, he is a good receiver, but could never punch it in on the goaline. and Fason is 6 ft 212 lbs' while Taylor is 5'11" 213 lbs.. I don't see Fason as the battering ram, I just don't think they had any other options. Fason did have several carries when they had 10 yds to go and still only avg 1.9yds a carry last year. This is Taylor's team to see what he can do. only if Taylor falters will you seee these other guys come in. I would say the comparison to Jordan is a very solid one

I don't see how you can even compare Fargas to Moore. Fargas has done zero in his career while Moore has shined every time he has had the chance to play. If nothing else Moore has demonstrated he can be a great third down back while Fargas has demonstarted the ability to do nothing but get hurt.

While I don't disagree that Fargas hasn't proven a lot more than Moore has at this point, I still think that the Vikings seem to NOT want to give the job to Moore. They could have on several occasions and have not done so--nor do they seem like they are really entertaining the notion.Minnesota has given him 10 or more carries 11 times in 26 games played. In those games, he averaged 16.6 carries a game. But in his other 15 games, he only averaged 2.5 carries a game. Clearly if he is not filling in as the starter, he is an afterthought.

 

[Loan Sharks]

Now with Robinson in rehab even more trouble for the Vikings this year. Stay away from them.

 

[Tau837]

I still think that the Vikings seem to NOT want to give the job to Moore. They could have on several occasions and have not done so--nor do they seem like they are really entertaining the notion.

Minnesota has given him 10 or more carries 11 times in 26 games played. In those games, he averaged 16.6 carries a game. But in his other 15 games, he only averaged 2.5 carries a game. Clearly if he is not filling in as the starter, he is an afterthought.

This was true with the old coaching staff. We don't know if it will be true for the new coaching staff.