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!
Martin is a much better overall back than Blount. Blount can be deadly when he has a big crease to work with, but otherwise he's pretty useless. He's bad in space and has very limited elusiveness. When he has to create something in a tight space, he fails. He did have a strong rookie year, but there's a reason he went undrafted and was cut by the Titans in camp. He's not that great. Even if you want to believe that Blount has equal rushing talent to Martin, that's only one piece of the equation. Part of the reason why guys like Forte, Lynch, Rice, and Foster are gold in the NFL and FF is because of their pass catching ability. Blount had 5 catches his entire rookie year. Martin has 35 through 13 games. So no, Blount didn't do what Martin is doing. And I have no reason to believe that he could if given the opportunity. He's simply not a weapon in that facet of the game. Ingram hasn't shown any ability in the passing game either. I think he has more upside in that regard than Blount, but his yards per catch has been downright pathetic thus far in his NFL career and he doesn't have a single 20+ yard play in the passing game. Meanwhile Martin is averaging over 10 yards per catch. I don't really need to bend over backwards explaining why Martin has been great. He's almost beyond reproach at this point. There aren't a lot of 220+ pound backs in the NFL who can make dynamic plays in the running game with power and speed, and also catch 50+ passes in a season. They're a pretty rare breed. When you get those guys in FF, you need to hold onto them.
Very limited role, hope to see his snap count increase to get a better look at him this week. He played about exactly like I thought he would. Great in space, challenged in tight quarters. Will his game suffer in space with an increased workload? That's the question I want answered from him and only way to find out is if he gets more play.
Not this argument. Fine: there's a reason Ingram was drafted higher than Martin. See?
I was not trying to argue that Blount is as good a back. I am putting context on the basic totals you use to hold Martin up to the best RBs in the NFL.
Ingram has great hands and displayed such at Bama. Again, why are we using /touch basic stats for guys in such very different positions? Put Martin on the Saints and see how much of the 3rd down work he gets from Sproles/Thomas - likely just as much as Ingram; not much.
He is a very good, very balanced player in an ideal situation. Ideal situations for a RB, today, are very rare. Hold on to it.
I agree. I think is ideal usage is closer to Sproles than it is to Rice. I was excited, myself, even though the raw numbers don't look great. He did have a coule 0 sum touches.
Yea, but versatile skill sets create ideal situations. When the Ravens had Jamal Lewis, they didn't throw him 70 passes a year. Why? Because he wasn't that good in the receiving game. But now that they have Ray Rice, their approach has totally changed. So you could say that Rice is in an ideal situation, but it would be more accurate to say that he created an ideal situation. Martin is the same way. He was drafted to be a three down back because of his skill set. He gets lots of targets because he's effective in the passing game. That's really where any comparison with Blount or Ingram completely falls apart. Neither guy compares to him as a receiver. You can say that Ingram has great hands, but on 16 career catches he's averaging a paltry 4.3 yards per catch. Martin is averaging 10.8 yards per catch and has almost as many receiving yards as Ingram has total yards. There are lots of backs in the NFL that you can plug in and get 3.8-4.0 YPC from, but a guy who can make plays in space and catch ~50 balls in a year is harder to find. The Saints use a committee because none of their backs are capable of performing all of the roles. Martin combines all of the best qualities of Sproles/Thomas/Ingram into one player, and that's why he's so valuable in the NFL and in FF. Writing him off as a product of the situation is a bit misguided. It's almost like saying RGIII only has good rushing stats because of his situation. If you put Peyton Manning on the Skins, he wouldn't have those rushing yards. That's because his skill set doesn't dictate that kind of usage. Just like how Blount's lack of ability in space restricts what you can do with him. If he were starting in place of Martin, he wouldn't be catching 3-4 balls every game. And Ingram wouldn't suddenly become an explosive player if you put him on a different team.
I feel you are considerably overrating the ability of one Doug Martin. Let's not forget how mediocre, disappointing, and non-explosive he looked over the first 1/4 to 1/2 of the season. I am a Martin owner in 2 different dynasty leagues (my most important and most competitive leagues), so I am an absolute fan, but I think you are guilty of extreme hyping here. Read that again- I am a fan, was a buyer from the very beginning, believed in his ability since watching him at Boise St., and STILL believe you are completely overrating him at this point in time.Do you know the biggest difference between Doug Martin and Mark Ingram? It's not talent (I believe they are roughly comparable on a talent scale as their draft positions say as much, and actually so does the eyeball test over the last 1/2 of the season. Martin is better, but I don't believe it is by nearly the same margin as you seem to be implying), it's not pass catching ability (Mark Ingram showed plenty of that at Alabama and it was actually a positive of his heading into the draft, not a negative), and it's not athleticism (I concede that Mark Ingram is not the most athletic player to ever hit the NFL, but there have been all kinds of star running backs who were far from from freak athletes. It's one of the few positions on the football field that actual playing skill trumps athletic ability more times than not. Also, Doug Martin is not what I would call an athletic freak either, so let's not go overboard). The difference between the 2 is mostly situation. Martin was given the opportunity, via sheer volume, to excel over the last 1/2 to 2/3 of the season after starting out slowly and, frankly, looking mediocre to bad at the beginning of the year. Had he been in New Orleans, he never would have had that opportunity. All the pass catching stats you want to spit out would be utterly and completely useless and mute because Sproles would be dominating all of those play calls and opportunities, leaving Martin only the ability to try and excel on a handful of 1st or 2nd down plays per game and/or the short yardage opportunities. What are the odds that his stats would mirror Ingram's fairly closely on some level? I would be willing to wager that they would look pretty eerily similar, as I don't feel anyone but the truly great running backs in the NFL (of which I do not believe Doug Martin is yet) could excel on the amount of touches and the situations Mark Ingram has had to work with.
What do you think that means? You think they got the same routes, caught the ball in the same locations, and Ingram was only able to get 40% of the yards Martin did? Of course not. Situation. Situation. Situation. Ingram has not been given the opportunity to be a 3rd down/passing back at all. Ever. There is nothing the YPR says beyond that. Absolutely nothing. Ingram has great hands, displayed them at Bama, and any scouting profile will support that statement.
This is gross hyperbole. Martin is the best of Sprores/Thomas/Ingram? You can't truly believe this. Martin would be the 3rd best receiving option out of the Saints backfield. He is not on the same planet as Sproles, in that regard. He's a slightly bigger, slightly faster Mark Ingram in a better situation. That's it.
Martin showed flashes from the very beginning. The idea that he was this horrible scrub in the first few weeks has been blown out of proportion. He basically had one bad game and one mediocre game. Certainly not enough evidence to justify the amount of flack he got on these boards. Obviously situation plays a huge role in determining FF performance and value. But it also provides a really convenient excuse for anyone looking to defend a player because it's impossible to refute. You can't prove that Peyton Manning wouldn't have the rushing stats of RGIII if he were on the Redskins. Of course we know that it's a ridiculous claim, but it's also impossible to refute. Saying that Ingram could duplicate Martin's numbers on the Bucs is not as crazy, but that doesn't mean it's accurate either. Nothing about Ingram's NFL performance thus far indicates that he has the same caliber of playmaking skills as Martin. Just like how nothing in Peyton's history suggests he would suddenly become a runner if he were on the Redskins. The objective factors aren't that kind to Ingram. He was a high pick and a great college player, but he did terribly in workouts and has shown very little big play ability at the NFL level. So while you can still say "he looks good to me" and fall back on his college career to defend him, the simple fact is that his play doesn't warrant much excitement up to this point. Maybe that will change in time. Maybe it won't.Again, I don't really need to strain myself to defend Martin. It's all there in the stats. Great YPC. Lots of big plays. Great value in the passing game. He's doing about as well as you could reasonably expect anyone to do in the same situation. And if it matters, he was also a first round pick and (unlike Ingram) didn't flunk all the drills at the combine. His workout numbers are about on par with Lynch, which makes sense. I see Lynch as a realistic floor for him with Rice probably representing something close to his ceiling. He's probably a top 10 overall back in the NFL and he doesn't have any real warts, which is why he might be the #1 dynasty RB right now. The only backs who are clearly better than him are also older with a lot more mileage.
Combine results are not objective, as far their translation to NFL production goes. Chris Henry, anyone? You can't defend Doug Martin by bringing up combine results; he didn't exactly blow anyone away either. And who here is falling back on his college career? Everyone supporting Ingram in this conversation has mentioned is NFL production since starting this year.If you want to ignore that due to his rookie season in which he was never healthy, fine. But don't accuse us of not looking at all available information.
Hands aren't the problem. It's the lack of playmaking ability that hurts him. He's not an explosive player. He can't make things happen in space. He has a lower career YPC than Shonn Greene and averages fewer yards per reception. I'd have to look at the stats to be certain, but his ratio of touches to big plays is probably one of the worst in the league. And that's essentially what separates Martin from him. Martin makes "+" plays. Ingram gets the minimum. Blame it on opportunity all you want. The numbers tell a different story. He has 250+ career touches and no plays longer than 35 yards.
Martin is averaging 10.8 yards per reception compared to 8.4 for Sproles. You could make a case for Martin being the most effective RB in the passing game in the NFL this year. I think he has the highest yards per catch. He has the power of Ingram and the ability to make plays in space of Thomas/Sproles. So what I said applies. He combines the best traits of those backs into one player. If the Saints had him, they wouldn't need the others.
Let me get this straight; you think Doug Martin is a better receiving threat than Darren Sproles?
I'd be the first guy to admit that combine numbers don't always tell you everything about a prospect, but they're certainly relevant to any discussion of a player's athletic ability. It's not a coincidence that guys like Calvin Johnson, Adrian Peterson, and Chris Johnson blew the doors off the combine. They've got rare gifts and it's reflected in the numbers. Combine numbers give you a starting point. In the case of Ingram, they indicate very underwhelming tools. I would be willing to ignore all of that if his on-field performance contradicted it, but it hasn't so far. His workout numbers say that he lacks explosiveness, and that's exactly what we've seen so far in the NFL. Martin's workout numbers are fine. Nothing amazing, but within the range of what you usually see from a first round RB prospect.
Based on what? It was one of Ingram's biggest strengths coming out of college. Just because he hasn't been given the opportunity, doesn't mean he isn't capable.
The Oakland game really altered people perception of Martin. He's fast enough, just as Arian Foster is, but he doesn't have homerun speed. He's not Peterson, he's not Spiller, Charles, or Johnson.
What role? The break-away role? You 50 yard runs are in the playbook?
I'm willing to entertain the idea. Martin has been absolutely great as a receiver this year. He isn't as quite or fast as Sproles, but he's significantly bigger with better tackle breaking ability. He's a very versatile talent and very dangerous in space. People might not realize that he also returned kicks at Boise State and had some big time plays in that area as well.
Would you entertain the idea of Chris Ivory being a better runner than Martin due to YPC? Or D.Richardson, or P. Thomas, or Kendall Hunter, or Aldred Morris, or Chris Johnson, or Frank Gore, or Brandon Bolden, or Shane Vereen, or Andre Brown?Without context YPX numbers are very flawed. Any stat that suggests Martin is the receiving threat that Sproles is needs context.
Let's move away from Ingram for a second and focus in on Martin.If this conversation is telling me anything, it is that I ABSOLUTELY need to be looking to trade Doug Martin right now and cash in on what seems like an extreme over-inflation of his value. #1 overall dynasty RB?! What?! I have watched literally every snap of his season so far this year (remember, owner in my 2 biggest and most competitive leagues so I have a very vested interest) and I have come away thinking he is a solid, above average player but nothing CLOSE to anything that would resemble the #1 overall running back. I am of the belief that his current performance is outpacing his actual skill level and don't value him close to that high. His situation really is pretty damn good- good quarterback, great wide outs to draw attention, run oriented coach who is unwilling to abandon it in most situations, good line (despite the injuries), nobody to challenge his workload or goal line touches (which he has had underwhelming success with so far this year) at all currently, and beautiful schedule that has allowed him to feast on some pretty poor run defenses.
Yea, I would certainly entertain the possibility if they could put up better stats on a similar sample size. I agree that stats aren't everything, but they're pretty significant.
But they're blanket stats. Is Vincent Jackson the best WR in the NFL? He has the highest YPR, followed by Cecil Shorts, Torrey Smith, Josh Gordon, and Brandon LaFell. Martin is great and belongs in any conversation that doesn't include Sproles, Ray Rice, Reggie Bush, and maybe a few others, when it comes to receiving ability. But not because of a 12 game sample of a basic stat.
Breaking long runs isn't just about speed. It's also about vision, quickness, and power. You're right that Martin isn't as fast as Charles, Johnson, or Spiller. Fortunately for him, he's a hell of a lot bigger and stronger. If you watch his reel, you can see how his combination of quickness, power, and speed makes him a constant big play threat.http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=IIw6WfOB59k
The advnced stats that I have looked at suggest his season is worthy of the raw stats he put up; high YPT, solid catch rate, despite going deep often, etc.He is a guy I will need to watch over the off-season, though. Didn't make it a point to watch many Browns games this year. Interested in the opinions of those who did watch a good amount, though.
I am not arguing that Ingram is capable of breaking off long runs at the pace that Martin is; Ingram's top gear just isn't there.Everything needs context; Martin isn't the homerun hitter than Charles is, so any stat that suggests such needs context. Schedule, Raider game, offensive line, scheme, offense in general...a lot goes into to. I don't want to make it sound like I am discrediting him. He's fast enough, and Arian Foster has a lot of 20 yard runs in his career with a top gear not much faster than Martin's. But, again, context.
If you watch a Saints game its pretty apparent the Saints are going to run when Ingram enters the game. He's also used on short yardage and goal-line carries so yes his ypc on such a small sample size isn't going to be all that great.And you're really basing his career ypr on 16 catches?The Saints really don't do any of their RBs any favors by their constant rotation. Sproles is the only back with a defined role and consistent snaps. None of the backs ever get into a rhythm or the flow of the game with such limited opportunities.
I can buy this to a point, but 250+ touches is a lot of opportunities to make something happen. Great players are going to bust big gains on that workload regardless of what the situation and context is.When Ingram was coming into the league I thought the range of outcomes for his career would be Cedric Benson --- Frank Gore. After one year I started leaning heavily towards Benson and that's still where I'm at. They're very similar in every regard. Prolific college backs from major programs who have good power and feet, but poor workout numbers and no real big play ability to speak of. Ingram's plight right now is very similar to what Benson endured in Chicago. I think he can emerge as a serviceable FF RB2 with a change of coaches or scenery just like Benson did, but nothing in his profile or production to date suggests he'll be able to do the things that guys like Martin, Rice, Lynch, Foster, and Forte have done for their teams. I've really said all I want to say on that topic. I'd be more interested in hearing arguments as to why Martin shouldn't be a top 3 dynasty RB, as the more I look at the production and profile, the more I realize that there's almost no one who has a clear and obvious case for being valued higher.
I wouldn't argue against that. But I think that says more about the current collection of RBs than about Martin. He's not what Peterson was 3-4 years ago, or what Foster was 2 years ago. In my opinion, he's not even what McCoy was coming into this year. A lof great backs are getting older, and as they go, teams are implying a RBBC more and more often. He'll be 24 next month, which is still plenty young, but not young enough to value him over guys like Spiller, Charles and Rice, just due to age. Assuming you think the 3 mentioned are better talents, I don't think 1-2 years should cause you to bet against that.
Strongly disagree with point #1.Never said Martin was Spiller, Charles, or Johnson. Been comparing him to an unproven Ray Rice for about a year.How many home runs has Ingram hit in the NFL? Martin doesn't have a 5th gear, but he has a 4th. I'm not sure Ingram has a 4th. He is very good at what he does, run between the tackles, but his 50+ yard runs are going to be infrequent even when he breaks through the front 8 and jukes the safety. I think the corner on the opposite side can catch him, as can LB's chasing the play.
Ingram is going to be much better next year for exactly this reason, Saints offense has been way too predictable, the run vs. pass %'s when each back is on the field is ridiculous.
His ceiling is top 10, not going top 5 but really can't dismiss it either. Physical ability is there and he is translating his game very, very quickly...especially for a guy who was out of football last year.
Was true the 1st half of the season. Last 5-6 games its been much better. Problem with Ingram is he needs 300 carries to be fantasy relevant. Hes not used much in the passing game and the Saints throw near the goalline. Hes not going to bust any long tds. Dont see any of that changing. He is what he is imo, a 4 ypc back with half a dozen tds and a handful of catches.
Expect him to be used more in the passing game next year to keep teams off balance. Expect him to be the goal line guy and do both pass and run plays. Again, keep teams off balance. I think Payton had a plan, but Bounty Gate screwed up his offseason planning.
I don't think Martin is any less talented than Foster. Probably the reverse, actually. I rate Martin over Rice from a dynasty standpoint. Two years younger and has about three years less of NFL mileage. Rice is probably the better overall player, but the margin is thin and Martin is already scoring on par with him as a rookie. Charles and Spiller have a flashier game than Martin, but neither has the bulk of a conventional three down back. I think those guys are exciting talents, but I'd like to see them have a complete season as a workhorse before I rank them as top 5 dynasty RBs. I wouldn't want to take a guy like that top 10 and then be stuck with a time share or injury. McCoy has negatives as well. Bryce Brown is nipping at his heels and he's facing a possible coaching change. If Andy Reid takes that system with him then maybe some of the numbers dry up. I don't think McCoy is objectively a better back than Martin. More elusive. More dangerous in space. Not as powerful. Peterson is for sure a better talent than Martin, but he's a strong sell for me after this season. This is his "Moss in New England" year where his insane production will cause people to overlook how old and spent he is. He's on the downslope of his career, hard as that might be to fathom given his awesome season. So if you're looking for a steady #1 RB for your team for the next 3-4 years, I'm not sure there's a better bet than Martin. I see the Seattle version of Lynch as a pretty reasonable estimate of his floor. He might not have the ceiling of a Faulk/LT/Peterson level player, but he should be a rock in the lineup for years the same way that Rice and Forte have been.
I don't think this is wrong, but I am happy betting on talent to eventually lead to a better situation. I would hope that starts next year by by getting 12-15 carries a game. Since starting, he has gotten roughly touches total a game this year. If he the Saints would commit to the run more, and he could cut into Thomas' touches, he'd be more involved through the passing game. 15 carries (4.5), 2 receptions (7.0) could formulate out to 81 yards a game. Add 8 TDs on the season and we have a respectable RB2. I don't know how likely it is too happen, but I don't think it's too drastic either. I think it is roughly what they envisioned when they drafted him. I won't deny his situation sucks, but that's why his cost is so low. He is younger than Doug Martin, Alfred Morris, and a few others from this rookie class. Having to wait 2 years would suck, but I think it could pay off.
Without big plays I don't see any way he gets to 4.5 ypc for a season at 12-15 carries a game. His 6 game run here has been against some pretty poor run defenses. Only good one was SF and they crushed him. Don't see why the Saints would use him much in the passing game, hes just not explosive enough. There are 10 better receiving options on that team. Unless its a panicked dumpoff why give it to him?
I think Foster is an elite talent and a better NFL RB than Martin, but I respect your call. Charles is finishing a workhorse season as we speak. In even a neutral situation, I think he is a top 2 dynasty back right now. He is a very special football player in my opinion. I understand that McCoy has concerns, but, again, I'll be on what I view as elite talent. He is still only about 6 months older than Martin, IIRC. Again, I don't question your claim that he is a top dynasty option. I just think it is becuase guys like Rice, MJD, Foster, Peterson - truly elite players - are getting older and those following them aren't used as 3 down backs.
Only 7 carries came against the Eagles. The only other bad run defense is Oakland.He has been breaking runs. He has runs of 27,23, and 19 in 6 games. The reason you give it to him is balance. It's not that they target him, just that he'll be going out on routes. If they threaten to run more often, Ingram will be in the lineup more often, thus, more routes. Let's not forget Ingram is a good receiving RB.
Giants are 29th in ypc and Falcons are 31st. I haven't see any receiving ability at the nfl level. Just no explosion there, everything is methodical. Against good defenses with little room to run he will have a lot of 10 for 27 lines. You need big plays on a regular basis to bring that up to 4.5 ypc.
How could have seen receiving ability at this level? Honest question? Do you see him dropping balls or running poor routes? Why would he be able to catch and run routes in college, but not the NFL? The reason you haven't seen it is because he hasn't been given the opportunity. This is the only healthy, starting Mark Ingram we have seen in the NFL; 6 games. I am not saying to ignore his rookie season, but put it in context. Are we really ready to call a kid who graded out as a first round talent a bust after 250 carries, many of which came in short yardage situations, and many while he was playing with turf toe and knee issues?And if we are going to filter Ingram's stats to good defenses, I think we should be fair. Doug Martin would start looking a lot like Mark Ingram, rushing average wise, without the big games against poor competition.
I'm not filtering anything, I'm just saying part of the reason hes looked decent the last 5 games is that hes faced some of the worst run defenses in the nfl. Hes had some huge holes. Want to see how he does against the bucs Sunday. As far as receiving, I guess I could turn it around and ask what you've seen that makes you think hell be a good receiving option capable of 32 catches in a season. College vs pros, obviously the pro game is faster, players catch up to him quicker and hes not padding his stats against Appalachian State. Limited action, he had 4 yards per catch last season and the same this year. Obviously a small sample size. But like I said I haven't seen anything yet and were almost done with 2 years. Don't think many teams had a 1st round grade on him either. He looks like a replacement level player to me. No better than the other guys on his team. If it weren't for his college pedigree he'd be Chris Ivory but less explosive.
Peterson is neither old nor spent. He's 27 dude, and on the "maybe the best RB ever" career path a la Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, Emmitt Smith, Jim Brown. He's very unlikely to suddenly hit the wall at 29 or 30. The Vikings are also a game-managing QB away from having a really good football team, which could move him from guaranteed top 5 RB to likely slam-dunk #1 overall player.If by "strong sell" you mean get another player on your top 11 - AJ Green or someone else who DEFINITELY has more shelf life - then sure. Anything less and you're definitely a sucker.
Season's almost over. He's 28 in a few months. Tons of mileage. He has more career carries than Michael Turner, Maurice Jones-Drew, and Cedric Benson. He's about half a season shy of Frank Gore. I'd guess that he has 1.5 years of top performance left. You'd have to decide for yourself if that's worth the cost. I think he's likely to go in the top 15 of most startups given his name recognition, past production, and 2012 stats. I wouldn't want to pay that price. I know he's probably the most talented RB of his generation, but raw ability didn't help Moss and Tomlinson a lot once their physical gifts started to go. Peterson's situation reminds me a lot of when Moss had that monster year in New England. He was still ranked as a top 5 dynasty WR even though he was clearly approaching his sell-on date. All it took was one mediocre year for his value to plummet about 15-20 spots. That's the risk when you bank on an old guy. And yes, Peterson is very old by RB standards. The guy is a demon, so maybe he can age like Steven Jackson and Ricky Williams. I wouldn't put it past him, but if I could get a younger player with a similar ppg outlook then I'd take him. Some of the lists I've seen on here have Peterson ranked as a top 5 dynasty back and I'd have a tough time getting on board at that kind of valuation.
Couldn't disagree more with this.
You keep mentioning this- Charles doesn't have the "bulk of a conventional three down back". Hogwash and poppycock. Charles plays for the worst team in the league, his coaches have admitted that they had no idea how few carries they were giving him at times, and he still ranks 8th in the league in carries. He's on pace for 300. Trent "bulk of a conventional three down back" Richardson has a whopping seven carries more than Charles. You need to give up the ghost, here. Maybe in your grandma's NFL, guys who look like Charles don't get huge workloads, but this isn't Granny's NFL. Highly drafted, first team AP All Pros like Peterson, Chris Johnson, and yes, Jamaal Charles actually get stereotypical, prototypical three-down RB workloads now. You better get on the Spiller train while you have the chance, too, because despite your antiquated biases, he's hopping on the 300 touch train starting next season, too. Choo choo!
Five years into his career Charles hasn't even come close to the 300 carry barrier. I would draft players like him and Spiller because they have dynamic big play skills, but not because I ever expect them to log insane volume. The fact that guys like Richardson and Martin are putting up touch numbers that would be career highs for guys like Charles and Spiller as rookies kind of illustrates why, all else being equal, I favor that kind of back. 9 of the top 10 NFL leaders in rushing attempts are right in that 215-230 pound sweet spot.
Charles gets a mulligan for year 1. He was drafted to sit behind Larry Johnson, and as a rookie, that's what he did. He also gets a mulligan for year 4, because he tore his ACL, and you have yet to demonstrate any link between size and torn ACLs, making it a non-predictive event (Jamaal Lewis, Terrell Davis, Rashard Mendenhall- way more ideal backs shred their ligaments than small backs). That leaves us with three seasons. Carry totals? 190, 230, 295 (pro-rated). Total touches? 230, 275, 332 (pro-rated). Why, what do we have here? It looks to me like we have a bona-fide workhorse back! He wasn't one from day 1, but neither were ideal backs like MJD, Rice, Priest Holmes, Stephen Jackson, Jonathan Stewart, Rashard Mendenhall, etc, etc, etc. Or, for that matter, neither were non-ideal backs like Chris Johnson, Brian Westbrook, Warrick Dunn, etc, etc, etc. Doesn't change the fact that he's been trending towards workhorse status for his entire career, and now he's finally reached it, and anyone with eyes could have seen it coming from miles away if they weren't so hung up on their own biases and preconceived notions about ideal body types for workhorse RBs. Face it, you were sleeping on Charles's ability to handle a heavy workload, just like you slept on Chris Johnson's, and just like you're sleeping on Spiller's.Fun fact! Jamaal Charles has essentially as many touches per game over the last four years (17.22) as your pet favorite "ideally sized" mediocrity, Rashard Mendenhall (18.08). All this hue and cry you keep raising about how Mendenhall is a proven workhorse with multiple consecutive workhorse seasons and is an ideal size and that's the kind of guy you like to bet on, while Charles is this undersized, sub-ideal CoP back who will never get a real workload and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves... yeah, all that drama is over what essentially amounts to less than 14 touches per 16 games. If that's what "ideal size" is worth- 14 extra touches a year- then ideal size isn't worth wasting bandwidth debating over. Increasing yards per touch by just a single tenth will have more than double the impact of increasing total touches by just 14 a year.
If you look around the NFL, the RBs with the most touches are almost always 215-230 pound guys with compact frames and good power. It was true ten years ago and it's true now. As I mentioned in my previous post, 9 of the top 10 RBs in carries right now are cut from this cloth. The same holds true over a larger sample size. I just opened the NFL career rushing leaders in a different tab. Here are the leaders in carries of the players who are active or recently retired:LaDainian Tomlinson - 3174
Fun fact! Jamaal Charles has essentially as many touches per game over the last four years (17.22) as your pet favorite "ideally sized" mediocrity, Rashard Mendenhall (18.08). All this hue and cry you keep raising about how Mendenhall is a proven workhorse with multiple consecutive workhorse seasons and is an ideal size and that's the kind of guy you like to bet on, while Charles is this undersized, sub-ideal CoP back who will never get a real workload and anyone who thinks otherwise is deluding themselves... yeah, all that drama is over what essentially amounts to less than 14 touches per 16 games. If that's what "ideal size" is worth- 14 extra touches a year- then ideal size isn't worth wasting bandwidth debating over. Increasing yards per touch by just a single tenth will have more than double the impact of increasing total touches by just 14 a year.
