This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
I remember being really impressed with Spiller in college.With CJohnson I never caught him because he playted at ECU a relatively small school. I do remember his outstanding combine and that when the Titans took him in the first rounder it was seen as a bit of shock.
Thats all i was talking about. Im not suggesting i watched Spiller and thought he was going to be as good as Chris Johnson, but i remeber thinking they looked very similar. I dont get why people come here and say "see i told people he wasnt Chris Johnson". like they knew something that others didnt.
I watch a great deal of college football. I DVR as many games as I possibly can. As I said I'm guessing the comparision solely based on the speed factor because there is nothing similar in their running styles. I've watched Spiller while at Clemson. Never thought he was anything special.....just a really fast RB. I didn't target him in any of my rookie drafts, so I haven't seen much of him in a Bills uniform. I think Matthews end up the best back out of last year's draft.
This is why i dont like comparing one player to another, Because when player B doesnt compare to player A rigt away, people think player B is a failure. Im not suggesting Spiller was identical to CJ, just that they have similatities, speed being the most obvious one(do you think CJ would be CJ if he ran a 4.44 insted of a 4.24?) Spiller may end up as a Reggie Bush II, or worse. However, i have seen enough flashes of him to think he has the ability to be much better. He has alot to learn, particularly pass blocking, but the talent/potential is there.
Cj and spiller were natural comparisons coming out.The speed factor and they constantly bounced everything outside.......i remember mayock pointing this out on cj constantly.Im not a huge spiller fan,i own him in one league where I took him late in a 16 teamer this year, but I do know he had little involvement last year, to which gailey has op enly stated he screwed up not getting him, more involved. I think you really have to let this year transpire before you make a judgment call on him. Improved line play, 2nd year in the league, more comfortability and more touches should reveal what we have in him......
A lot of people overlook just how strong Chris Johnson is. That kid is a wrecking ball for his size and build. He is a tough runner inside (not like Turner but he can power through when called for for a yard or 2). Spiller needs to develop a little more strength. And that can be done....look at Jammal Charles. He is night and day physically from his rookie year.
I think CJ is strong for his size, but i remember him getting arm tackled plenty, especially in his rookie year. I remember a preseason game in particular he he put a left/right shimmy on a DB, and while he had the DB off balance, the DB was able to reach his arm out and pull Johnson backwards like he weighed 60 lbs. He is still probably stronger than Spiller, and certainly proven he can run better inside in the NFL, but for the 100th time, it is way too early to write off Spiller. Edit, i dont think it is CJ's strength that seperates him from other smaller backs. Its his burst, and willingness to use it between the tackles. Nobody gets to the line of scrimmage quicker than CJ. Blockers can only hold blocks for so long, the sooner you get there the better.
Yeah, i think people are confusing his ability to run inside as strength. You dont need to break tackles to be a good inside runner. You just need the willingness to run inside, to trust your oline and hit the whole hard. That combined with his burst/quickness, and small stature, he is able to get through the line mostly untouched(on runs that are successful anway).
You know what makes me nervous, mostly?I remember reading some sick number from Spiller's college career, he had some ridiculous number of TDs over 40 or 50 yards, Runs, returns, receptions, just an amazing number of long scores. It was a stat that, by itself, demanded you take the kid seriously. Enough to make me think he'd be Reggie Bush, at worst.Lol, after one season!!!
he had less than 100 touches from scrimmage last year.He looked good vs NEpate on kickoffs, I also get what your saying.You know what makes me nervous, mostly?I remember reading some sick number from Spiller's college career, he had some ridiculous number of TDs over 40 or 50 yards, Runs, returns, receptions, just an amazing number of long scores. It was a stat that, by itself, demanded you take the kid seriously. Enough to make me think he'd be Reggie Bush, at worst.Lol, after one season!!!
And at RB, speed demon home run hitters are dangerous right off the bat. All they need is a missed tackle, a bad angle, and bye, they are gone. Speed isn't developed; most of these guys, as rookies, are as fast as they are gonna be.
And he didn't show anything. Not one game that you could point to and say, oh, there's a glimpse at what he is capable of. McFadden? Not a great rookie year, but he flashed. Same with Charles. You saw it. The speed, the dangerousness.
One season does not a career make. And it is WAY too early to throw dirt on him. But man, woulda liked to have seen something.
How is B a positive attribute? Not saying I disagree with B, just saying that I don't believe it's necessarily a positive.
Preseason clips??? Wow. Let me pull out some of Victor Cruz's pro bowl season from the preseason...
Read some of those posts, you'll get over it.No worries, we're allowed to disagree in this forum.
exactly! Although seeing you have 41k posts makes me doubt my opinion lol
Just to put some actual numbers to it, here are Johnson's career splits:
Right Sideline 148/805 (5.44 ypc)Right Side 234/1199 (5.12 ypc)Middle 209/945 (4.52 ypc)Left Side 195/821 (4.21 ypc)Left Sideline 139/828 (5.96 ypc) Between the tackles 638/2965 (4.65 ypc)Outside the tackles 287/1633 (5.69 ypc)I dont have anything to add, i just noticed i used the word "whole" instead of "hole".
I don't think that YPC tells the whole story though. When you get stuffed on 9 of 10 carries but break the 10th carry for 42 yards, does that mean that the RB is a good or bad inside runner? I think most NFL teams and experts probably would deem that RB a poor inside runner. Which is why I think that "success rate" is a better measure of a runner's ability there than YPC.
Don't forget non first round talents like L. mccoy, J. charles, R. Rice who managed to do little to nothing their rookie year... them three turned out pretty good if you ask me
They sure did. And Rice averaged 4.2 YPC his rookie year. McCoy averaged 4.1 YPC. Charles? 5.3 YPC.Spiller? 3.8 and couldn't beat out Fred Jackson.Don't forget non first round talents like L. mccoy, J. charles, R. Rice who managed to do little to nothing their rookie year... them three turned out pretty good if you ask me
First of all, 4.1 ypc and 4.2 ypc vs. 3.8 ypc? You think that's a significant difference? What about LT's 3.6 ypc as a rookie? Or other solid RBs that struggled as rookies? Secondly, Fred Jackson is a solid RB. And, Spiller didn't not beat him out because Fred Jackson is a better talent. Spiller didn't beat him out and get the carries because of his pass protection. This was stated by the coaching staff pretty clearly and it's a common reason why RBs don't see the field their first year. It remains to be seen whether or not Spiller can be an effective RB at the NFL level. But basing it on 74 carries as a rookie to say he can't is WAY premature. You also asked if he could have shown SOMETHING. Well, the guy had 5 runs over 15 yds on just 70 carries. Fred Jackson had 6 runs over 15 yds on over 220 carries. Give the guy more than 70 carries before closing the book on him.They sure did. And Rice averaged 4.2 YPC his rookie year. McCoy averaged 4.1 YPC. Charles? 5.3 YPC.Spiller? 3.8 and couldn't beat out Fred Jackson.Don't forget non first round talents like L. mccoy, J. charles, R. Rice who managed to do little to nothing their rookie year... them three turned out pretty good if you ask me
As i have already pointed out in this thread......Neither could 90% of the RB's in the NFL. Jackson would start and see significant touches for more than half of the teams in the NFL. I can think of only a few RB's that i am sure would have done better than what Jackson has done in Buffalo over the last few years.They sure did. And Rice averaged 4.2 YPC his rookie year. McCoy averaged 4.1 YPC. Charles? 5.3 YPC.Spiller? 3.8 and couldn't beat out Fred Jackson.Don't forget non first round talents like L. mccoy, J. charles, R. Rice who managed to do little to nothing their rookie year... them three turned out pretty good if you ask me
I wouldn't necessarily go after him in a redraft because it's still uncertain how much of a role he'll have. And the only reason to feel confident is believing in the talent he has coming into the league based on what he's done in the past and the fact that Buffalo spent the 9th overall pick last year. In another thread, I listed all of the 1st round RBs over the last 6-7 years and all but 1 (Donald Brown) has been given the chance to be the main ball carrier at some point (some earlier than others). Spiller WILL be given that shot at some point. It's just not clear whether it'll be this year or not.If you want something to feel optimistic about, read this quote from his coach:
I dont think anyone is suggesting what he did last year is a reason to be optomistic, just that what he did last year is no reason to be pessimisitic. If you liked him coming out of college, there is no reason to change your mind. If you werent a fan of him before last season, youre still good there too.What is it about Fred Jackson that you dont like?As far as what you said that was irrational, how about suggesting that a guy who avearged 4.1 YPC in his rookie year has proven enough or "shown flashes" but not a guy who has averaged 3.8, with both players doing it with just a handful of touches. Its also irrational to say Spiller isnt any good because he couldnt beat out Fred Jackson.(Its actually not that irrational if you havnt seen him play, it seems like a common misconception for those who havnt watched him.)Im not here saying Spiller is going to be great based on what he did last year, or for any reason, just that it is too early to write him off. Also, i wonder who people would compare him to if Reggie Bush never existed? I can see every small/fast RB drafted in the first round who doesnt have a good rookie year being compared to Bush for the next 10 years.
I didn't say Spiller wasn't any good because he couldn't beat out Jackson. But a kid with his talent, I expect more than 70 carries, or whatever it was. I don't care if he couldn't block my grandmother, a (supposed) home run threat like that, I get him more than 4 carries a game. I am supposed to ignore the per-carry average because the sample size is too small. Well, why is it too small? Over an entire season, we didn't get enough carries to properly judge him? What does that day about him? BTW, there's a big difference between 3.8 and 4.1. One guy keeps his job, the other guy is worried about getting cut. Either way, the only point was that these other examples people were using of good backs that started slow, even those backs didn't start as slow as Spiller. That's all, I am not trying to get caught up in comparing Spiller to players that have nothing to do with his situation. I ignored it last time, but yes, I have seen Fred Jackson play. He's a solid, good back. "you must not have seen him play" is the argument of a 12-year-old. Would he force his way into a rotation on 90% of the teams, or whatever your contention was? I dunno, but he isn't good enough that a team can't spare 6 or 7 carries for its top 10 pick.
Spiller could have ran for 1.8 YPC and been in no danger of getting cut, thats just crazy talk. Your posts are getting more irrational as we go, so i am going to stop now.For everyone else, Spiller may never reach his potential and could be a complete bust, but i wouldnt use last season as a sign of that. Alot of RB's have bad rookie seasons and go on to be very good/great RB's. Meanwhile there has only been one Reggie Bush.
Actually, given the number of carries there really is NOT a big difference between 3.8 and 4.1 ypc.
1. I would hope for more than 70 carries too, but some head coaches just don't do that. Jamaal Charles, the home run threat, had 67 carries as a rookie. I think a lot of people were frustrated with the way Spiller was used, especially on a team that wasn't winning anything anyway. But, as stated before, a big reason was his blocking as well as his fumbling. It's a common thing for rookies. Very talented RBs have sat their 1st year as a result if there was a competent starting RB on the team. I don't understand why you can't get in line with this. It's not something new. It's not an indication that Spiller "sucks" or isn't that "talented'. 2. No one said ignore the per-carry average because it's too small. Just don't get so excited about it. Same reason Jerious Norwood averaged over 6.0 ypc his first 2 yrs in the league on ~100 carries. When you're getting single digit carries in a game, ypc is not the only indicator of effectiveness. Would it have been nice if it were higher? Sure. Have others had lower that went on to do well? Sure. Again, no one said ignore it. But it's not enough, especially over such a small number of carries, to throw in the towel. Let's put it this way: We've seen this here before. Most people have their opinions on a player before he plays as a rookie. If you don't like a guy, it doesn't really matter what he does if it's over such a small sample. Spiller could have run for 6 ypc and people would say "yeah, but he did it on only 70 carries. I doubt he can do that for a whole year". Similarly, you can like a guy and say "yeah, he only ran for 3.8 ypc, but it's over only 70 carries". In the end, the ypc on such a small sample should not change your mind on a guy this early on. It's not a reason to be optimistic but it's also not a reason to be concerned. It's something to note and, if he struggles this year, can give a more complete picture. Would you honestly be shocked if Spiller got out there and pulled a Jamaal Charles and averaged 5 ypc on 200 carries? Would that be unheard of? Similarly, would you be surprised if he came out and struggled again? Bottom line, his ypc as a rookie on 70 carries is not a great indicator of what he'll continue to do, whether it's 3 ypc or 6 ypc.3. As pointed out above, a #9 draft pick isn't going to lose his job after 1 yr because of 3.8 ypc on 70 carries. What he does this year and next will determine how secure his job is. But, as a 1st round pick, his job is pretty secure for the next couple years. I already mentioned it above, but you should look at the list of 1st round RBs over the last few years. They all eventually get a chance. Some deserved it and some didn't. But virtually all of them got the lead role at some point. Spiller should be no exception. For that reason, 3.8 vs. 4.1 ypc in his situation means nothing.You seem to be looking for reasons to be encouraged. There are none from last year. If that's what you're trying to get, you're going to be disappointed. But, the reasons you're finding to be discouraged don't make sense. This is what some of us are trying to say. His lack of carries and low ypc are NOT a reason to be discouraged and throw in the towel. Last year should have very little sway one way or the other. If you liked him beforehand, you should still like him. If you didn't like him beforehand, you still shouldn't like him. He hasn't declared yet how good of a RB he's going to be. Trying to make a judgement on 70 carries as a rookie and figuring out why he didn't do better or get more time or anything like that is not going to give you the answer you're looking for. Go back and watch some of the stuff he did in college and figure out if you think he can succeed. If you don't know, then find a few people whose talent evaluations you trust and go with them. If you still don't know, then steer clear I guess. For me, I don't get very excited about many RBs at the college level before they play an NFL game. I'm quite sure Spiller can do it at the NFL level. As a result, I've bought in as many leagues as I can as a result. Last year did nothing to change my mind. After this year, that may change and I may very well be wrong. I'll gladly admit it if that's the case.
I agree, and my only point was that Spiller wasn't even as good as the backs the previous poster was using as an example. Frankly, the fact that he didn't get enough carries for a proper comparison makes me more nervous. I am a little nervous that Jason Snelling, John Kuhn, Toby Gerhart, and Rashad Jennings all had more carries than Spiller did.
Charles was a 3rd round pick. Economics of being a top 10 pick demand that he gets more looks. Charles was not a highly-touted pick, and was dismissed as a track guy by a LOT of people. I don't think the Chiefs even knew what they had. I get the blocking argument, but geez, you didn't draft Spiller to protect Fitzgerald from Cam Wake anyway. Players like Bush, CJ, Charles, and Spiller--they ain't ever going to be Tony Richardson back there. I am not dismissing it completely, but I buy the fumbles more. 5 fumbles on 74 carries.....still a small sample size, but that's not good. If the Bills are waiting for Spiller to be able to block an OLB before giving him carries, owners should sell now. So I re-read what I wrote, and decided to look at the fumbles. Spiller, including preseason, didn't fumble until week 7. Yet only received 19 carries in weeks 1-5 (Week 6 bye). One carry week 2, a 34-7 blowout in GB. I don't get that. Kinda think Buff coulda used some home run speed that game. Maybe there was a ding, or an injury, I am just looking at game logs here. But Spiller wasn't getting carries even before his fumbling cropped up.
I am not too excited about the YPC, simply responding to a previous post. Lordy, I regret bringing it up.
I was comparing the differences between 3.8 and 4.1. Not suggesting Spiller was getting cut. Just because Go Deep can't read, doesn't mean that's what I said. In the abstract, if a starting back is averaging 4.1, chances are the team is satisfied. 3.8, they might be looking for replacements.
Well, I completely disagree with that. Last year has to matter. If there are no reasons from last year to be encouraged, then I would call that pretty bad news. No one expected him to be a great blocker right off the bat, we knew that. Then we find out he can't hold on to the ball. That's not good either. Maybe the coach underused him. I think that's possible. Maybe the coach didn't want some speedball RB with slippery hands, and thought Fred Jackson was underrated (which he probably is, especially if you ever "watched him play"). If that's the case, I am really nervous that the same coach is there. I am getting the arguments that not every back rips it up out of the gate. But that's not enough, IMO. Because at some point, you need to actually look at the player, at his actual situation, and assess him. Ray Rice's rookie year has nothing to do with Spiller's future.
I pull 16 years worth of data and you tell me that those are "extremely irrelevant." Only the last 10 years matter.The last 10 years don't show some mass migration from "the workhorse era" (1985-2000??) to "a RBBC era" (presumably 2000-present??) so you tell me that doesn't matter either. Now only the last 3 years matter.If none of this data means anything for C.J. Spiller then I suppose you're right. Given the complete and utter absence of useful historical data about 1st round RBs, we can't say much about C.J. Spiller's prospects.
And yet Jackson is ranked 63rd in your very own dynasty rankings, wedged between Stevan Ridley and Noel Devine. I assume whenever Spiller takes over, Fred (90% of the RB in the NFL) Jackson will have no problem getting work; yet he is about as valuable as Noel (not on an NFL roster, and unworthy of being drafted) Devine.'Go deep said:
Totally agree. His lack of carries is the ONLY thing that worries me....but I also think Chan Gailey is a moron, and the Bills franchise is one of the worst run in the NFL. So it's hard to ignore that aspect.'massraider said:
I can't speak for Go Deep, but Jackson is 30 years old. How high would you rate a 30 year-old RB in dynasty?
One that would command carries on 90% of NFL teams, doesn't have a lot of tread on his tires, and is good enough to keep a top 10 pick on the bench?Higher than backs that don't have a job. Higher than 20 spots behind Cedric Benson. Go Deep is either overrating Jackson for the purposes of this thread, or he is of the belief that we are in the midst of the greatest RB boom the NFL has ever seen.
1. Benson is 28 years old and will have a job2. "Doesn't have a lot of tread on his tires" is meaningless. There isn't a single reliable study I've seen that demonstrates "tread" matters more than age
Fred Jackson, born in '81. Ced Benson, born in '82. That's not enough of a difference for a twenty spot drop in dynasty rankings. How do you feel about Ced Benson's 2012 outlook? Yeah, me either.
Fred Jackson: 2/20/81Ced Benson: 12/28/82
