FRANk GORE cannot be stopped (3 Viewers)

[Big Score]

I am unconvinced Norv Turner's scheme is better than Capers' for producing RB numbers - Caper likes to run the ball 500-ish times a year.

You're kidding right?

Emmitt Smith, Stephen Davis, LT2, Ricky Williams & LaMont Jordan aren't enough to convince you that Norv is a master at the running game?

 

[Gopher State]

Arizona Cardinals.

Enough said.

/quote]

Very

 

[BuckeyeArt]

HIS TALENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT - he plays against WAY better defenses than AZ most weeks, he lost two OLs and he will take a pounding to get three yards beyond the LOS.

If you place any value in Gray's SOS numbers, you'd see that (according to his preseason chart) San Francisco plays only 3 other teams this year who are tougher against RB's than Arizona.

No - that is what he did on THAT PLAY. He'll do that once or twice a game - and he'll get pounded two yards deep in the backfield on every other play and NOT break the tackle.

Not sure why you'd say that or what you're basing that on. He had 16 carries today. Only 1 was for negative yardage. So, if he is getting hit in the backfield on every other play, he must be breaking the tackles.

???You don't understand my point that in most games he will be getting hit BEHIND the LOS and fighting for three yards (and I am being generous - in fact, if he is hit behind the LOS, he'll be fighting to have non-negative yards) That is in opposition to this game v. AZ where he was a couple yards downfield before first contact - fighting at that point got him 5-7 yards downfield. That looked to be the situation on almost every play I saw, and I watched almost all of this game b/c I was uninterested in the other two afternoon games, and I had quite a few Cards in my various leagues.

In fact, your stat that he had 16 carries, only one with negative yards, indicates his OL was blowing AZ off the LOS and he never had first contact until AFTER he passed the LOS.

And, incidentally, I completely disagree with Gray on a lot of his defensive numbers - especially on how much he thinks the AZ D has improved. Even he will acknowledge, however, that the in-season work he does on defensive numbers is significantly more accurate than his guesses before the season.

Most of Gray's preseason numbers are based upon last season. But, if you don't like those, look at last season. Arizona's rushing defense was 10th best in yards per game and 15th in yards per carry. Their pass defense was 12th. Their total defense was 8th. It doesn't matter if they have improved from last season. Any objective way you look at it, Arizona is not the easiest defense on their schedule. They are more nearly the average defense on the schedule.As for your first point, I do understand it, I just don't believe it. Your assumption that he will be hit in the backfield on every other play in other games is based upon the assumption that Arizona is the easiest defense on their schedule, which has no objective basis.

 

[Bristol]

I am unconvinced Norv Turner's scheme is better than Capers' for producing RB numbers - Caper likes to run the ball 500-ish times a year.

You're kidding right?

Emmitt Smith, Stephen Davis, LT2, Ricky Williams & LaMont Jordan aren't enough to convince you that Norv is a master at the running game?

Did you read my last post about Marc Levin? His analysis is always shaky at best.

 

[Big Score]

I am unconvinced Norv Turner's scheme is better than Capers' for producing RB numbers - Caper likes to run the ball 500-ish times a year.

You're kidding right?

Emmitt Smith, Stephen Davis, LT2, Ricky Williams & LaMont Jordan aren't enough to convince you that Norv is a master at the running game?

Did you read my last post about Marc Levin? His analysis is always shaky at best.

I've read quite a bit of Marc's stuff and while I may not agree with all of it, it ain't as bad as you're making out.But I would like to hear why he thinks Caper's run game schemes are better than Turner's, when historically that is not what we have seen.

 

[Marc Levin]

I am unconvinced Norv Turner's scheme is better than Capers' for producing RB numbers - Caper likes to run the ball 500-ish times a year.

No offense Marc, but you lost all credibility with me a few years ago when we debated Holt's perfromance when Faulk came back. I always question your analysis and judgement since that time.

Whatever - you BARELY won that bet - I was honorable enough not to point out how close you came to losing the bet.You won the bet, and lost the argument, so you are perfectly welcome to find me lacking credibility, but my analysis was spot on. If you recall, we debated Holt's reception, yardage, and TD numbers - I BENT OVER BACKWARDS making the bet palatable to you - and pulled arbitrary numbers - we strongly debated Faulk's impact on Holt's TDs. I argued his return would have minimal impact and he would have 12 TDs againYOU, OTOH, argued Holt wouldn't even have 6 TDs b/c Faulk was a red zone machine. Faulk had 3 TDs that year. Holt had 10 TDs.So, Bristol, say what you will - but my credibility on analysis is fine - I can't believe you brought that up - I CLEARLY won that debate, though you won the stupid bet.

 

[Marc Levin]

I am unconvinced Norv Turner's scheme is better than Capers' for producing RB numbers - Caper likes to run the ball 500-ish times a year.

You're kidding right?

Emmitt Smith, Stephen Davis, LT2, Ricky Williams & LaMont Jordan aren't enough to convince you that Norv is a master at the running game?

Did you read my last post about Marc Levin? His analysis is always shaky at best.

You really want to go here again, Bristol?I CREAMED you last time you tussled with me, and you are NOW stepping way over the line by calling my analaysis "always" shaky.

 

[Otis]

P.S. - and I assume you drafted Gore as your RB3.

Likely and, if so, I'd probably rather (1) keep the depth or (2) trade my RB for an even better WR and stick with Gore.

I said the same thing about Quentin Griffin after week 1 a couple years ago

I wouldn't have, because I wasn't watching Griffin the entire year before that and expecting big things from him. That's the difference -- if I thought Gore really came out of nowhere to do this today, I'd trade him in a second. But I've been watching him and expecting him to do great things for a year now. He's finally doing that.This is a case where I am going to take my chances -- I'd rather keep him and end up with him being hurt or bad than trade him and him end up a top-10 or top-5 fantasy back.

 

[Bristol]

I am unconvinced Norv Turner's scheme is better than Capers' for producing RB numbers - Caper likes to run the ball 500-ish times a year.

No offense Marc, but you lost all credibility with me a few years ago when we debated Holt's perfromance when Faulk came back. I always question your analysis and judgement since that time.

Whatever - you BARELY won that bet - I was honorable enough not to point out how close you came to losing the bet.You won the bet, and lost the argument, so you are perfectly welcome to find me lacking credibility, but my analysis was spot on. If you recall, we debated Holt's reception, yardage, and TD numbers - I BENT OVER BACKWARDS making the bet palatable to you - and pulled arbitrary numbers - we strongly debated Faulk's impact on Holt's TDs. I argued his return would have minimal impact and he would have 12 TDs againYOU, OTOH, argued Holt wouldn't even have 6 TDs b/c Faulk was a red zone machine. Faulk had 3 TDs that year. Holt had 10 TDs.So, Bristol, say what you will - but my credibility on analysis is fine - I can't believe you brought that up - I CLEARLY won that debate, though you won the stupid bet.

I love revisionist history!If you remember, Holt was catching TD passes left and right while Faulk was out due to injury. When Faulk came back, Holt's TD numbers declined significantly (just as I predicted). You argued the counter point, lost the sig bet and the debate. GB that you STILL think you were correct! Word of advice: you are losing the Frank Gore debate too. Give it up while you still have an ounce of credibility left.

 

[Marc Levin]

I am unconvinced Norv Turner's scheme is better than Capers' for producing RB numbers - Caper likes to run the ball 500-ish times a year.

You're kidding right?

Emmitt Smith, Stephen Davis, LT2, Ricky Williams & LaMont Jordan aren't enough to convince you that Norv is a master at the running game?

I am not quite as willing as you are to put Gore on that level. Turner used to be GREAT at melding scheme to talent. he is def. struggling with doing that in SF.On the other hand, when you have a coach like Capers who will run the ball 500 times a year regardless of player talent, a back like Davis can flourish just b/c he will touch the ball so much. I am DEFINITELY not convinced Turner will run the ball as much this year as Capers did with Houston in DD's first year.

Is that a better description of what I mean?

 

[PahtyTom]

You don't understand my point that in most games he will be getting hit BEHIND the LOS and fighting for three yards (and I am being generous - in fact, if he is hit behind the LOS, he'll be fighting to have non-negative yards) That is in opposition to this game v. AZ where he was a couple yards downfield before first contact - fighting at that point got him 5-7 yards downfield.

You think that he'll be fighting to scratch out positive yardage most games? I think you are getting a little carried away here.

Yes.The Cards had absolutely no penetration - even when they were pinning their ears back to get to Gore, they were not touching him until two or three yards downfield.IMO, you will see more 15 carry, 35 yard games than games like today, and a bunch more where he averages under 4 YPC. averaging 4 YPC is the benchmark for a reason - a back who averages less than that is most often getting stuffed and is occasionally busting out a run or two.

Just because the Cards were getting no penetration, does not mean that most other teams will. The Cards D-line is their STRENGTH. Even without Jennings and Allen, the SF O-Line was still run blocking well. The lack of penetration by the Cards D may be contributed more to an improved SF offensive line, than to Arizona's lack of ability. Okeafor, Berry, Dockett, and Clancy is a pretty formiddable defensive front.

 

[Bristol]

I am unconvinced Norv Turner's scheme is better than Capers' for producing RB numbers - Caper likes to run the ball 500-ish times a year.

You're kidding right?

Emmitt Smith, Stephen Davis, LT2, Ricky Williams & LaMont Jordan aren't enough to convince you that Norv is a master at the running game?

Did you read my last post about Marc Levin? His analysis is always shaky at best.

You really want to go here again, Bristol?I CREAMED you last time you tussled with me, and you are NOW stepping way over the line by calling my analaysis "always" shaky.

Why is that over the line? I am entitled to my opinion, just as you are entilted to think that you "creamed me". Gotta love your conviction! You may not always be right, but you have the balls to stick with it to the end. I admire that in you.

 

[Otis]

Turner used to be GREAT at melding scheme to talent. he is def. struggling with doing that in SF.

What in god's name is this based on?! His one game there as OC, where he has turned the team into an offensive juggernaut in comparison to what it was less than a year ago??

 

[Big Score]

I am unconvinced Norv Turner's scheme is better than Capers' for producing RB numbers - Caper likes to run the ball 500-ish times a year.

You're kidding right?

Emmitt Smith, Stephen Davis, LT2, Ricky Williams & LaMont Jordan aren't enough to convince you that Norv is a master at the running game?

I am not quite as willing as you are to put Gore on that level. Turner used to be GREAT at melding scheme to talent. he is def. struggling with doing that in SF.On the other hand, when you have a coach like Capers who will run the ball 500 times a year regardless of player talent, a back like Davis can flourish just b/c he will touch the ball so much. I am DEFINITELY not convinced Turner will run the ball as much this year as Capers did with Houston in DD's first year.

Is that a better description of what I mean?

That I understand and I do see your point.However, I do think Gore is as talented as Stephen Davis & LaMont Jordan & Norv seemed to figure out ways of getting excellent production from Jordan last year, without running the ball 500 times.

 

[Marc Levin]

I am unconvinced Norv Turner's scheme is better than Capers' for producing RB numbers - Caper likes to run the ball 500-ish times a year.

No offense Marc, but you lost all credibility with me a few years ago when we debated Holt's perfromance when Faulk came back. I always question your analysis and judgement since that time.

Whatever - you BARELY won that bet - I was honorable enough not to point out how close you came to losing the bet.You won the bet, and lost the argument, so you are perfectly welcome to find me lacking credibility, but my analysis was spot on. If you recall, we debated Holt's reception, yardage, and TD numbers - I BENT OVER BACKWARDS making the bet palatable to you - and pulled arbitrary numbers - we strongly debated Faulk's impact on Holt's TDs. I argued his return would have minimal impact and he would have 12 TDs againYOU, OTOH, argued Holt wouldn't even have 6 TDs b/c Faulk was a red zone machine. Faulk had 3 TDs that year. Holt had 10 TDs.So, Bristol, say what you will - but my credibility on analysis is fine - I can't believe you brought that up - I CLEARLY won that debate, though you won the stupid bet.

I love revisionist history!If you remember, Holt was catching TD passes left and right while Faulk was out due to injury. When Faulk came back, Holt's TD numbers declined significantly (just as I predicted). You argued the counter point, lost the sig bet and the debate. GB that you STILL think you were correct! Word of advice: you are losing the Frank Gore debate too. Give it up while you still have an ounce of credibility left.

Ah - you are right, that is what it was. You are incorrect that his TDs "plummetted." As I recall, Holt was within one TD of whatever number we picked. Unless you remember that differently, too. Holt had 3 TDs down the stretch after Faulk returned (from weeks 10-16)I know that Holt came WAY closer to my predicted numbers than the numbers you were arguing in the debate - I'm pretty sure we had other receiving numbers in there b/c you were arguing Holt would return to being an inconsistent top-fantasy receiver. Maybe 100 yard games.

 

[Marc Levin]

Turner used to be GREAT at melding scheme to talent. he is def. struggling with doing that in SF.

What in god's name is this based on?! His one game there as OC, where he has turned the team into an offensive juggernaut in comparison to what it was less than a year ago??

For some reason I brain farted and thought Turner was the SF head coach last year.

 

[jurb26]

Safe to say that this has gotten out of hand.

 

[Bristol]

I am unconvinced Norv Turner's scheme is better than Capers' for producing RB numbers - Caper likes to run the ball 500-ish times a year.

No offense Marc, but you lost all credibility with me a few years ago when we debated Holt's perfromance when Faulk came back. I always question your analysis and judgement since that time.

Whatever - you BARELY won that bet - I was honorable enough not to point out how close you came to losing the bet.You won the bet, and lost the argument, so you are perfectly welcome to find me lacking credibility, but my analysis was spot on. If you recall, we debated Holt's reception, yardage, and TD numbers - I BENT OVER BACKWARDS making the bet palatable to you - and pulled arbitrary numbers - we strongly debated Faulk's impact on Holt's TDs. I argued his return would have minimal impact and he would have 12 TDs againYOU, OTOH, argued Holt wouldn't even have 6 TDs b/c Faulk was a red zone machine. Faulk had 3 TDs that year. Holt had 10 TDs.So, Bristol, say what you will - but my credibility on analysis is fine - I can't believe you brought that up - I CLEARLY won that debate, though you won the stupid bet.

I love revisionist history!If you remember, Holt was catching TD passes left and right while Faulk was out due to injury. When Faulk came back, Holt's TD numbers declined significantly (just as I predicted). You argued the counter point, lost the sig bet and the debate. GB that you STILL think you were correct! Word of advice: you are losing the Frank Gore debate too. Give it up while you still have an ounce of credibility left.

Ah - you are right, that is what it was. You are incorrect that his TDs "plummetted." As I recall, Holt was within one TD of whatever number we picked. Unless you remember that differently, too. Holt had 3 TDs down the stretch after Faulk returned (from weeks 10-16)I know that Holt came WAY closer to my predicted numbers than the numbers you were arguing in the debate - I'm pretty sure we had other receiving numbers in there b/c you were arguing Holt would return to being an inconsistent top-fantasy receiver. Maybe 100 yard games.

Do you even remember the bet? It had nothing to do with his ending numbers. You were so sure of yourself, that you bet me on Holt's stats from one game and you lost. He didn't get 100 yards and didn't catch a TD. As for his end numbers, they were closer to my predictions, than yours.But, like I said, I respect your unwavering support of your arguements (even until they are proven wrong). You will see you are wrong about Gore too.

 

[Marc Levin]

You don't understand my point that in most games he will be getting hit BEHIND the LOS and fighting for three yards (and I am being generous - in fact, if he is hit behind the LOS, he'll be fighting to have non-negative yards) That is in opposition to this game v. AZ where he was a couple yards downfield before first contact - fighting at that point got him 5-7 yards downfield.

You think that he'll be fighting to scratch out positive yardage most games? I think you are getting a little carried away here.

Yes.The Cards had absolutely no penetration - even when they were pinning their ears back to get to Gore, they were not touching him until two or three yards downfield.IMO, you will see more 15 carry, 35 yard games than games like today, and a bunch more where he averages under 4 YPC. averaging 4 YPC is the benchmark for a reason - a back who averages less than that is most often getting stuffed and is occasionally busting out a run or two.

Just because the Cards were getting no penetration, does not mean that most other teams will. The Cards D-line is their STRENGTH. Even without Jennings and Allen, the SF O-Line was still run blocking well. The lack of penetration by the Cards D may be contributed more to an improved SF offensive line, than to Arizona's lack of ability. Okeafor, Berry, Dockett, and Clancy is a pretty formiddable defensive front.

They were getting blown back - other Ds won't get blown back as much as they were. Simply put, they never were able to get a hand ion Gore behind the LOS, so not getting penetration is a HGE deal.AZ looks to have assembled a great pass rush front line, but a questionable one against the run - and today, it showed. Their D-scheme seems, to me, to be clearly based on getting the ball out of the passer's hand as fast as possible to try and create mistakes that the secondary can take advantage of.I also think that the Cards have a weak LB crew - certainly looked pitiful today against the run.

 

[Marc Levin]

HIS TALENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT - he plays against WAY better defenses than AZ most weeks, he lost two OLs and he will take a pounding to get three yards beyond the LOS.

If you place any value in Gray's SOS numbers, you'd see that (according to his preseason chart) San Francisco plays only 3 other teams this year who are tougher against RB's than Arizona.

No - that is what he did on THAT PLAY. He'll do that once or twice a game - and he'll get pounded two yards deep in the backfield on every other play and NOT break the tackle.

Not sure why you'd say that or what you're basing that on. He had 16 carries today. Only 1 was for negative yardage. So, if he is getting hit in the backfield on every other play, he must be breaking the tackles.

???You don't understand my point that in most games he will be getting hit BEHIND the LOS and fighting for three yards (and I am being generous - in fact, if he is hit behind the LOS, he'll be fighting to have non-negative yards) That is in opposition to this game v. AZ where he was a couple yards downfield before first contact - fighting at that point got him 5-7 yards downfield. That looked to be the situation on almost every play I saw, and I watched almost all of this game b/c I was uninterested in the other two afternoon games, and I had quite a few Cards in my various leagues.

In fact, your stat that he had 16 carries, only one with negative yards, indicates his OL was blowing AZ off the LOS and he never had first contact until AFTER he passed the LOS.

And, incidentally, I completely disagree with Gray on a lot of his defensive numbers - especially on how much he thinks the AZ D has improved. Even he will acknowledge, however, that the in-season work he does on defensive numbers is significantly more accurate than his guesses before the season.

Most of Gray's preseason numbers are based upon last season. But, if you don't like those, look at last season. Arizona's rushing defense was 10th best in yards per game and 15th in yards per carry. Their pass defense was 12th. Their total defense was 8th. It doesn't matter if they have improved from last season. Any objective way you look at it, Arizona is not the easiest defense on their schedule. They are more nearly the average defense on the schedule.As for your first point, I do understand it, I just don't believe it. Your assumption that he will be hit in the backfield on every other play in other games is based upon the assumption that Arizona is the easiest defense on their schedule, which has no objective basis.

OK - grab the worst rush defenses from their scheduleAri StL Phi @KC Oak SD bye @Chi Min @Det Sea @StL @NO GB @Sea Ari @Den

I see a lot of tough run defenses on that schedule - and a few easy ones (inside the division, Oak, GB).

Regardless, my argument is NOT based on AZ being the worst D on the schedule - it is based on other teams being better than AZ was today - SF is not going to have anywhere near as many games where their OL manhandles the opposing teams' front seven like that.

 

[PahtyTom]

You don't understand my point that in most games he will be getting hit BEHIND the LOS and fighting for three yards (and I am being generous - in fact, if he is hit behind the LOS, he'll be fighting to have non-negative yards) That is in opposition to this game v. AZ where he was a couple yards downfield before first contact - fighting at that point got him 5-7 yards downfield.

You think that he'll be fighting to scratch out positive yardage most games? I think you are getting a little carried away here.

Yes.The Cards had absolutely no penetration - even when they were pinning their ears back to get to Gore, they were not touching him until two or three yards downfield.IMO, you will see more 15 carry, 35 yard games than games like today, and a bunch more where he averages under 4 YPC. averaging 4 YPC is the benchmark for a reason - a back who averages less than that is most often getting stuffed and is occasionally busting out a run or two.

Just because the Cards were getting no penetration, does not mean that most other teams will. The Cards D-line is their STRENGTH. Even without Jennings and Allen, the SF O-Line was still run blocking well. The lack of penetration by the Cards D may be contributed more to an improved SF offensive line, than to Arizona's lack of ability. Okeafor, Berry, Dockett, and Clancy is a pretty formiddable defensive front.

They were getting blown back - other Ds won't get blown back as much as they were. Simply put, they never were able to get a hand ion Gore behind the LOS, so not getting penetration is a HGE deal.AZ looks to have assembled a great pass rush front line, but a questionable one against the run - and today, it showed. Their D-scheme seems, to me, to be clearly based on getting the ball out of the passer's hand as fast as possible to try and create mistakes that the secondary can take advantage of.I also think that the Cards have a weak LB crew - certainly looked pitiful today against the run.

I agree that lack of penetration is a huge deal, just not that Arizona's D-line's lack of ability was the main reason. However, I can see your point about them assembling a pass rushing line as opposed to one that is better against the run. Fair enough opinion, but I'd have to agree to disagree as of right now.

 

[Otis]

OK - grab the worst rush defenses from their scheduleAri StL Phi @KC Oak SD bye @Chi Min @Det Sea @StL @NO GB @Sea Ari @Den

Man this is the first time I've really looked at their rushing schedule. I feel better than ever about Gore right now.

 

[Marc Levin]

You were so sure of yourself, that you bet me on Holt's stats from one game and you lost. He didn't get 100 yards and didn't catch a TD.

Now I remember the bet - no I didn't really remember the bet. Once one season is over, the slate is cleaned.This was in 2003, right? Holt had tremendous fantasy numbers down the stretch, though a reduction in TDs. I am pretty sure whether or not he'd fall off was NOT at issue - he wasn't going to get another 9 TDs in the last 8 games, regardless of Faulk's return. He isn't a red zone receiver. He is most effective from 21 to midfield.I think you said Faulk's impact would be to make Holt an average fantasy receiver - he remained a top-3 fantasy receiver down the stretch. Either way, that debate caused you to reject all my analysis the previous two years - hmmm. So if Holt had caught another few yards and a TD pass my analysis would be OK with you?This has nothing to do with Gore, so we should stop the trip down memory lane anyway.

 

[Marc Levin]

OK - grab the worst rush defenses from their schedule:

@Ari StL Phi @KC Oak SD bye @Chi Min @Det Sea @StL @NO GB @Sea Ari @Den

Man this is the first time I've really looked at their rushing schedule. I feel better than ever about Gore right now.

It DOES look good down the stretch - not so much in the first half of the year, however.

 

[suchislife]

I think Otis spotlighted Gore long before you, so respect goes to Otis.

I'm sure many people thought Gore would be good, they just don't toot their horns like Otis does.

I watch the 'canes, too - their my favorite college team. I just wasn't about to espouse the value of Gore solely on what I know about his talent level when the other factors weren't present: the team had serious OL problems and Barlow was still expected to earn his contract.

That said, let's talk about Gore's value - trade him TODAY!!

Reasons:

-The loss of two starting OLs.

-His style of running due to those losses is a recipe for overworking a RB and getting him injured.

-They won't play the Cards every week.

-His value is unlikely to ever get higher now because you can trade on his "upside" factor - in a few weeks, that upside factor will be realized, or will have no credibility.

I would not be surprised if Gore plus a b/u WR netted you KJones, RDroughns, or some other starting RB who is more likely to have a better season.

The rushing matchups listed this as a tough match up for Gore. Now after a big game you say its because its against the Cards

 

[Marc Levin]

I think Otis spotlighted Gore long before you, so respect goes to Otis.

I'm sure many people thought Gore would be good, they just don't toot their horns like Otis does.

I watch the 'canes, too - their my favorite college team. I just wasn't about to espouse the value of Gore solely on what I know about his talent level when the other factors weren't present: the team had serious OL problems and Barlow was still expected to earn his contract.

That said, let's talk about Gore's value - trade him TODAY!!

Reasons:

-The loss of two starting OLs.

-His style of running due to those losses is a recipe for overworking a RB and getting him injured.

-They won't play the Cards every week.

-His value is unlikely to ever get higher now because you can trade on his "upside" factor - in a few weeks, that upside factor will be realized, or will have no credibility.

I would not be surprised if Gore plus a b/u WR netted you KJones, RDroughns, or some other starting RB who is more likely to have a better season.

The rushing matchups listed this as a tough match up for Gore. Now after a big game you say its because its against the Cards

Read the rest of the thread before being confused.

 

[thecatch]

You don't understand my point that in most games he will be getting hit BEHIND the LOS and fighting for three yards (and I am being generous - in fact, if he is hit behind the LOS, he'll be fighting to have non-negative yards) That is in opposition to this game v. AZ where he was a couple yards downfield before first contact - fighting at that point got him 5-7 yards downfield.

You think that he'll be fighting to scratch out positive yardage most games? I think you are getting a little carried away here.

Yes.The Cards had absolutely no penetration - even when they were pinning their ears back to get to Gore, they were not touching him until two or three yards downfield.

IMO, you will see more 15 carry, 35 yard games than games like today, and a bunch more where he averages under 4 YPC. averaging 4 YPC is the benchmark for a reason - a back who averages less than that is most often getting stuffed and is occasionally busting out a run or two.

I don't want to pile on or anything, but I'll be very surprised if that's true and I don't buy any of the justification for this. We'll see.

 

[Marc Levin]

Feel free to throw it in my face every week it happens - as long as you bump just as much if he DOES put up those pitiful games.

I would be very happy to see Gore succeed - he played for the 'canes, he has a great moral code, plays like a true football player, he plays for a team many consider pitiful - there is a ton about him I like a lot.

 

[suchislife]

I think Otis spotlighted Gore long before you, so respect goes to Otis.

I'm sure many people thought Gore would be good, they just don't toot their horns like Otis does.

I watch the 'canes, too - their my favorite college team. I just wasn't about to espouse the value of Gore solely on what I know about his talent level when the other factors weren't present: the team had serious OL problems and Barlow was still expected to earn his contract.

That said, let's talk about Gore's value - trade him TODAY!!

Reasons:

-The loss of two starting OLs.

-His style of running due to those losses is a recipe for overworking a RB and getting him injured.

-They won't play the Cards every week.

-His value is unlikely to ever get higher now because you can trade on his "upside" factor - in a few weeks, that upside factor will be realized, or will have no credibility.

I would not be surprised if Gore plus a b/u WR netted you KJones, RDroughns, or some other starting RB who is more likely to have a better season.

The rushing matchups listed this as a tough match up for Gore. Now after a big game you say its because its against the Cards

Read the rest of the thread before being confused.

From FBG's Rushing Matchups - "However, this will be one of his tougher matchups this season as the Cardinal's D is no joke in this phase." Now Gore goes off for a huge game and you say "Well, its the Cards". That's the confusing part. Does FBG's regard the Arizona D as a tough rushing matchup or an easy one?And to say it would be a good trade to ship Gore away for KJones is a mistake, imo. I've had KJones on my dynasty team since his rookie year. I don't think he's ever had a game like Gore just put up against one of FBG's "tough" match ups.

 

[thecatch]

Feel free to throw it in my face every week it happens - as long as you bump just as much if he DOES put up those pitiful games.I would be very happy to see Gore succeed - he played for the 'canes, he has a great moral code, plays like a true football player, he plays for a team many consider pitiful - there is a ton about him I like a lot.

I'm not interested in playing the told ya so game, but if this thread comes back later in the season, my guess is that he'll have proven that you are drastically undervaluing him for whatever reason.

 

[Marc Levin]

Well, the easy answer is that FBGuys' staff members are not bound to the party line - we are allowed to think independently. The person who writes the matchups rates the Cards' D a tough rushing matchup.

I do not.

Of course, Gore also had a surprising amount of fantasy production through receptions.

 

[Marc Levin]

Feel free to throw it in my face every week it happens - as long as you bump just as much if he DOES put up those pitiful games.I would be very happy to see Gore succeed - he played for the 'canes, he has a great moral code, plays like a true football player, he plays for a team many consider pitiful - there is a ton about him I like a lot.

I'm not interested in playing the told ya so game, but if this thread comes back later in the season, my guess is that he'll have proven that you are drastically undervaluing him for whatever reason.

It aint him - it's the SF O.I have liked Gore for about 4 years now - loved him as a 'cane and thought he was the victim of poor timing in college when he was running with McGahee.

 

[Lemmiwinks]

I'm kicking myself for not picking Gore. I've known about him for years, but I discounted him too much because he plays for my terrible 49ers. I didn't factor in that Norv Turner utilizes his RB's to an extreme.

IMO, injury is the only thing that will keep Gore from averaging at least 90 total yards per game. But Gore has been too banged up over his career for me to believe he'll make it.

Given this is a Norv Turner offense, it might make sense to pick up Robinson in a deeper league in case Gore goes down.

 

[Pittsburgh United]

I would not be surprised if Gore plus a b/u WR netted you KJones, RDroughns, or some other starting RB who is more likely to have a better season.

 

[lod2005]

I would not be surprised if Gore plus a b/u WR netted you KJones, RDroughns, or some other starting RB who is more likely to have a better season.

Oh man. I got to add this one to my sig.

 

[MrPhoenix]

I had a chance to trade Jerry Porter and a rookie pick (which became Vernon Davis) for Frank Gore.

I balked.

And now, I weep.

 

[hi1111]

Once again, here is what Frank Gore will do against a top notch defense without the lineman you state to be out. You see it doesn't matter when you have all the qualities of a power RB. Hit behind the LOS, so, he will just bounce off them and head towards the end zone. In case you didn't see the game the defense was afraid to get in his way by the end of the game. The announces commented on it.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=iLUTiVJbYXM

Indy isn't a top notch defense though....

 

[switz]

I would not be surprised if Gore plus a b/u WR netted you KJones, RDroughns, or some other starting RB who is more likely to have a better season.

You think KJones and Droughns will have better seasons than Gore?

 

[BuckeyeArt]

HIS TALENT HAS NOTHING TO DO WITH IT - he plays against WAY better defenses than AZ most weeks, he lost two OLs and he will take a pounding to get three yards beyond the LOS.

If you place any value in Gray's SOS numbers, you'd see that (according to his preseason chart) San Francisco plays only 3 other teams this year who are tougher against RB's than Arizona.

No - that is what he did on THAT PLAY. He'll do that once or twice a game - and he'll get pounded two yards deep in the backfield on every other play and NOT break the tackle.

Not sure why you'd say that or what you're basing that on. He had 16 carries today. Only 1 was for negative yardage. So, if he is getting hit in the backfield on every other play, he must be breaking the tackles.

???You don't understand my point that in most games he will be getting hit BEHIND the LOS and fighting for three yards (and I am being generous - in fact, if he is hit behind the LOS, he'll be fighting to have non-negative yards) That is in opposition to this game v. AZ where he was a couple yards downfield before first contact - fighting at that point got him 5-7 yards downfield. That looked to be the situation on almost every play I saw, and I watched almost all of this game b/c I was uninterested in the other two afternoon games, and I had quite a few Cards in my various leagues.

In fact, your stat that he had 16 carries, only one with negative yards, indicates his OL was blowing AZ off the LOS and he never had first contact until AFTER he passed the LOS.

And, incidentally, I completely disagree with Gray on a lot of his defensive numbers - especially on how much he thinks the AZ D has improved. Even he will acknowledge, however, that the in-season work he does on defensive numbers is significantly more accurate than his guesses before the season.

Most of Gray's preseason numbers are based upon last season. But, if you don't like those, look at last season. Arizona's rushing defense was 10th best in yards per game and 15th in yards per carry. Their pass defense was 12th. Their total defense was 8th. It doesn't matter if they have improved from last season. Any objective way you look at it, Arizona is not the easiest defense on their schedule. They are more nearly the average defense on the schedule.As for your first point, I do understand it, I just don't believe it. Your assumption that he will be hit in the backfield on every other play in other games is based upon the assumption that Arizona is the easiest defense on their schedule, which has no objective basis.

OK - grab the worst rush defenses from their scheduleAri StL Phi @KC Oak SD bye @Chi Min @Det Sea @StL @NO GB @Sea Ari @Den

I see a lot of tough run defenses on that schedule - and a few easy ones (inside the division, Oak, GB).

Regardless, my argument is NOT based on AZ being the worst D on the schedule - it is based on other teams being better than AZ was today - SF is not going to have anywhere near as many games where their OL manhandles the opposing teams' front seven like that.

OK, here are the teams that were better than AZ last year against the run. By yards per game: SD, Den, Pit, Car, Sea, TB, KC, NE, and Bal. Here are the additional teams with a lower yards per carry: Miami, Chic, Phil, SF, Jax, NYG, and NYJ. Even if I give you all of those as being better (and don't remove NE, KC, Den, SD, NYG, and Sea - the teams that may be skewed because of their worse passing defense), the only ones that appear on their schedule are Phi, KC, SD, Chic, Sea (2), and Den. That's only 7 games, which makes Arizona, at worst, only an average rushing defense, which means Gore gets 8 more teams similar or worse.All you have given so far is your subjective opinion that Arizona is a bad rushing defense (or your subjective opinion that SF's O-line won't block as well in the future). Give me something objective.

 

[Otis]

I have at Gore at 32TDs 1,392 rushing and 1,328 receiving for the year. YEAH RIGHT!

Does anyone really believe that this is going to be a regular thing for him?

Any realistic projections on this guy?

ETA: I'm more concerned about the team as a whole more than I am about Gore. I don't think he can be really productive on a sub-par offence.

1307 rushing yards (300+ carries, so a YPC capped at 4.3), 8 TDs, 48 catches for 406 yards, 2 TDsMy analysis here.

 

[lod2005]

Update.

Cadillac Williams...yuck

Cedric Benson...zip.

Ronnie Brown...nothing.

Who's the best RB of the 2005 class?

FRANK GORE. That's who.

 

[Doovz]

Update.

Cadillac Williams...yuck

Cedric Benson...zip.

Ronnie Brown...nothing.

Who's the best RB of the 2005 class?

FRANK GORE. That's who.

Give up this schtick already....Seriously. We all know how good you are at picking talent. Can we move on now? You don't have to bump every thread pimpin your pick. If everyone else did that around here there would be nothing to talk about.

 

[ChampBailey24]

OK - grab the worst rush defenses from their schedule:

@Ari StL Phi @KC Oak SD bye @Chi Min @Det Sea @StL @NO GB @Sea Ari @Den

Man this is the first time I've really looked at their rushing schedule. I feel better than ever about Gore right now.

It DOES look good down the stretch - not so much in the first half of the year, however.

Arizona, St-Louis, Kansas City, Oak, Min....5 out of his 8 games look like good/great matchups....

 

[switz]

I would not be surprised if Gore plus a b/u WR netted you KJones, RDroughns, or some other starting RB who is more likely to have a better season.

You think KJones and Droughns will have better seasons than Gore?

How's this coming on Marc? Droughns looks like the crap he is, and Jones looks as worthless as ever. Gore on the other hand....

 

[The Jacket]

Arizona.

St. Louis.

Next?

 

[lod2005]

I would not be surprised if Gore plus a b/u WR netted you KJones, RDroughns, or some other starting RB who is more likely to have a better season.

You think KJones and Droughns will have better seasons than Gore?

How's this coming on Marc? Droughns looks like the crap he is, and Jones looks as worthless as ever. Gore on the other hand....

 

[One]

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't still trying to sell high.

just my

 

[jurb26]

I'd be lying if I said I wasn't still trying to sell high. just my

I just don't see the point tratding a guy like Gore to be honest. He is the heartbeat of the SF O. It's a Norv Turner O. He has the talent and the opportunity. Unless he gets hurt, I really can't see him not ending up top 10. More than likely top 5 at this point.

 

[suchislife]

I would not be surprised if Gore plus a b/u WR netted you KJones, RDroughns, or some other starting RB who is more likely to have a better season.

You think KJones and Droughns will have better seasons than Gore?

How's this coming on Marc? Droughns looks like the crap he is, and Jones looks as worthless as ever. Gore on the other hand....

I just can't wait for CPortis to get healthy so I keep KJones on my bench. Portis/Gore the rest of the way. I just keep waiting and waiting for the moment KJone's lives up to the potential. Meanwhile, I keep wishing my RB2 would produce....<sigh>Talking dynasty, btw.

 

[ThePittbully]

gore in round 2 doesn't really translate to steal to me.

thats what i was gonna say. I have him in all my leagues and i dont think there was a single one where i picked him before fourth round