Is the (Ray) Rice cooked? (1 Viewer)

[Max Power]

I'm a Trent owner and just offered him for Rice. If anything just to swap out the guy I'm disappointed in each week.

 

[Frenchy Fuqua]

@mattvensel: Ray Rice just does not look like himself this year. He looked like a little kid in a snowsuit running in the open field there. #Ravens

Well stated!

 

[cheese]

He looked very bad today. He also looked like he had zero chance to succeed. Man, just goes to show how much O-Line and running schemes matter. Affects the whole freakin' offense. Can't run, can't play action, running game sucks, and Flacco and passing game sucks too. Flacco looks like the worst 100M QB ever. Next to Eli.

Agree that the OLine is most of the problem, but he used to be explosive with YAC in the passing game. He had some crucial catches but looked very average (being generous) running afterwards. That is what makes me think maybe the player himself is slowing down as well.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Since the time I asked this question I have started paying more attnetion to what people in leagues are doing with him and I was (kinda) shocked yesterday that he was not started in any league I play in, yesterday. He was benched in favor of FJAX, Andre Ellington, DWIL, and the likes.

That is a pretty powerful perception among fantasy folks. Reminds me a bit of Larry Fitzgerald last year. Big name with proven production but the wholeness of the situation just led people to pretty much pretend he didn't exist anymore.

I'm a Rice owner, and I wouldn't start him as anything more than a matchup flex right now. A couple people on Twitter yesterday, including Wesseling, were riffing on the analogy that he runs like a little kid in a snowsuit. Just doesn't have the agility. If I'm buying low on Ray Rice, I'm trying to buy the possibility that he turns things around in 2014, not that he has any fantasy value in 2013. I think that ship has sailed. And he looks bad enough that I'm not going to be super-optimistic about him turning it around in 2014, but if tickets have gotten cheap enough where I can get him for low RB2 prices, I'm willing to give him a shot. Unless I was a contender with serious RB issues, for instance, I'd still prefer him to a Knowshon Moreno, who's the same age and currently uber-productive, but has a more uncertain future.

 

[jonboltz]

I traded for Rice a few weeks ago. I would have been super disappointed if I hadn't have given up Trent for him (actually got back a Pierce and a small other piece too).

 

[zftcg]

I traded for him a couple weeks ago in a redraft league: Rice for TRich/Bernard. It looks like a bad trade right now, but Bernard wasn't going to crack my line-up, and his ceiling was limited with Law Firm still in the mix, so I took a chance on Rice returning to form. He may yet, but for now he's parked on my bench until he turns it around.

 

[Dizzy]

Outside of having to run into a wall of Bengals at the line, in the few moments where he did get some room to work yesterday he appeared to get tackled very easily.

Bad eyeball test for me... he looks cooked. Bummer.

 

[cubbie5150]

Yah even on that dump off he caught in OT he didn't try to make the defender miss. Just lowered his shoulder

 

[FF Ninja]

I can't see myself buying in, but they can't afford the cap hit of cutting him. He'll be a starting RB next year. Even in 2015 there will be almost a $2 mil cap hit to cut him. The Rice and Flacco contracts were really horrible.

 

[humpback]

Emmitt Smith had 1,840 touches, including the playoffs, from '91 to '94 (i.e., an average of 460 per year), and then had one of the best fantasy seasons ever in 1995.

Yeah, that's the problem with the workload theory, in my mind. Every time a back has a terrible season following a high workload, it gets added to the "workload matters!" evidence. Every time a back has a massive season following a high workload, it gets... ignored completely. Given time, is it really surprising that the evidence suggesting workload matters starts mounting up, when we ignore all the instances where workload didn't matter?

It's like Tony Romo and the "can't win big games" perception. If Tony Romo loses a game, it's proof that he can't win big games. If Tony Romo wins a game, it's proof that it wasn't a big game, and therefore doesn't matter when discussing whether Tony Romo can win big games. At some point, perception-wise, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You don't have to ignore it to realize that It certainly appears there are far more cases of guys slipping than having massive seasons after accumulating a ton of touches, just like there are far more cases of Romo choking than of him being clutch. As for Emmitt, yes, he had a great season after he accumulated lots of touches, but that season was also his peak. His ypc dropped a full yard the very next season. In any event, he certainly seems to be an outlier.

There isn't some hard and fast rule where a RB can't be productive after "X" touches, but it seems pretty strange that some people completely dismiss it.

But there's not, and there's not. Tony Romo's only thrown 1 INT in a loss this season, but it's the one everyone remembers. Tony Romo has a very good record at 4th quarter comeback attempts. He has some of the best 4th quarter statistics in league history (including his statistics from 1-score games in the 4th quarter). He's had some pretty flipping epic comebacks, like that time he broke a rib, sat out a quarter, watched his backup stake the other team to a two-score lead, then came back into the game (still with a cracked rib) and pulled off the comeback. It only SEEMS like there are more instances of Romo choking because that's the narrative, and because everyone talks about his "chokes" while ignoring his "clutch" moments, until it eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Similarly, it only SEEMS like backs are more likely to break down coming off of a high workload. Ray Rice had a high workload in four consecutive seasons, yet this is the only time he's broken down. Shaun Alexander exceeded 370 touches in three consecutive seasons, but people only talk about that last one. Terrell Davis had FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY ONE touches, and he came back the next year and blew out his knee. No, wait, sorry... he came back the next year and rushed for 2,000 yards, it was the year AFTER that when he blew out his knee. LaDainian Tomlinson had 451, 413, 427, 390, and 429 touches over a 5-year stretch, and was completely fine for all of them. He followed it up with a 410 touch season and yet another 1st team AP All Pro award.

There are tons and tons and tons of examples of guys getting 380, 400, or even more touches and coming back completely fine the next year. Even doing it several years in a row. You just don't hear those examples because they don't fit the narrative of how backs break down after getting a huge workload.

If you just keep predicting "he had a huge workload last year, so he's going to break down this year", eventually you will be right. You'll usually be wrong a lot of times first, though. It's like the guys who projected that age would catch up to Marvin Harrison every year starting at age 32. Sure, eventually they were right, and age caught up to Marvin, and he was done. Not before he put up another 5th place, 9th place, and 1st place fantasy finish first, though.

No offense, but it seems you're the one ignoring things that don't fit your narrative here. I actually agree that Romo gets more flack than he deserves, but you can't possibly think that net/net, he should be considered a clutch performer, do you?

More relevantly, you keep talking about one season's worth of touches, while I've said a few times I'm talking about cumulative. I've also said that there isn't a hard and fast number where RBs absolutely have to fall off a cliff. However, again, I think you're dead wrong if you believe there are far more examples of guys continuing to dominate after accumulating massive amounts of touches. Those seem to be the exception, not the rule.

Touches eventually catch up with players. Some can handle more than others, but it seems inevitable that they will at some point. I'm a big fan of Ray Rice, but he looks like hot garbage right now. No doubt things like the O-line and the overall offensive play are a factor, but there's also no doubt in my mind that the touches are starting to catch up to him.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Emmitt Smith had 1,840 touches, including the playoffs, from '91 to '94 (i.e., an average of 460 per year), and then had one of the best fantasy seasons ever in 1995.

Yeah, that's the problem with the workload theory, in my mind. Every time a back has a terrible season following a high workload, it gets added to the "workload matters!" evidence. Every time a back has a massive season following a high workload, it gets... ignored completely. Given time, is it really surprising that the evidence suggesting workload matters starts mounting up, when we ignore all the instances where workload didn't matter?

It's like Tony Romo and the "can't win big games" perception. If Tony Romo loses a game, it's proof that he can't win big games. If Tony Romo wins a game, it's proof that it wasn't a big game, and therefore doesn't matter when discussing whether Tony Romo can win big games. At some point, perception-wise, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You don't have to ignore it to realize that It certainly appears there are far more cases of guys slipping than having massive seasons after accumulating a ton of touches, just like there are far more cases of Romo choking than of him being clutch. As for Emmitt, yes, he had a great season after he accumulated lots of touches, but that season was also his peak. His ypc dropped a full yard the very next season. In any event, he certainly seems to be an outlier.

There isn't some hard and fast rule where a RB can't be productive after "X" touches, but it seems pretty strange that some people completely dismiss it.

But there's not, and there's not. Tony Romo's only thrown 1 INT in a loss this season, but it's the one everyone remembers. Tony Romo has a very good record at 4th quarter comeback attempts. He has some of the best 4th quarter statistics in league history (including his statistics from 1-score games in the 4th quarter). He's had some pretty flipping epic comebacks, like that time he broke a rib, sat out a quarter, watched his backup stake the other team to a two-score lead, then came back into the game (still with a cracked rib) and pulled off the comeback. It only SEEMS like there are more instances of Romo choking because that's the narrative, and because everyone talks about his "chokes" while ignoring his "clutch" moments, until it eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Similarly, it only SEEMS like backs are more likely to break down coming off of a high workload. Ray Rice had a high workload in four consecutive seasons, yet this is the only time he's broken down. Shaun Alexander exceeded 370 touches in three consecutive seasons, but people only talk about that last one. Terrell Davis had FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY ONE touches, and he came back the next year and blew out his knee. No, wait, sorry... he came back the next year and rushed for 2,000 yards, it was the year AFTER that when he blew out his knee. LaDainian Tomlinson had 451, 413, 427, 390, and 429 touches over a 5-year stretch, and was completely fine for all of them. He followed it up with a 410 touch season and yet another 1st team AP All Pro award.

There are tons and tons and tons of examples of guys getting 380, 400, or even more touches and coming back completely fine the next year. Even doing it several years in a row. You just don't hear those examples because they don't fit the narrative of how backs break down after getting a huge workload.

If you just keep predicting "he had a huge workload last year, so he's going to break down this year", eventually you will be right. You'll usually be wrong a lot of times first, though. It's like the guys who projected that age would catch up to Marvin Harrison every year starting at age 32. Sure, eventually they were right, and age caught up to Marvin, and he was done. Not before he put up another 5th place, 9th place, and 1st place fantasy finish first, though.

No offense, but it seems you're the one ignoring things that don't fit your narrative here. I actually agree that Romo gets more flack than he deserves, but you can't possibly think that net/net, he should be considered a clutch performer, do you?

More relevantly, you keep talking about one season's worth of touches, while I've said a few times I'm talking about cumulative. I've also said that there isn't a hard and fast number where RBs absolutely have to fall off a cliff. However, again, I think you're dead wrong if you believe there are far more examples of guys continuing to dominate after accumulating massive amounts of touches. Those seem to be the exception, not the rule.

Touches eventually catch up with players. Some can handle more than others, but it seems inevitable that they will at some point. I'm a big fan of Ray Rice, but he looks like hot garbage right now. No doubt things like the O-line and the overall offensive play are a factor, but there's also no doubt in my mind that the touches are starting to catch up to him.

I'm surprised that people ignore the idea that there can be a threshold and that threshold has a range depending on the individual player. That's elementary stuff.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Emmitt Smith had 1,840 touches, including the playoffs, from '91 to '94 (i.e., an average of 460 per year), and then had one of the best fantasy seasons ever in 1995.

Yeah, that's the problem with the workload theory, in my mind. Every time a back has a terrible season following a high workload, it gets added to the "workload matters!" evidence. Every time a back has a massive season following a high workload, it gets... ignored completely. Given time, is it really surprising that the evidence suggesting workload matters starts mounting up, when we ignore all the instances where workload didn't matter?

It's like Tony Romo and the "can't win big games" perception. If Tony Romo loses a game, it's proof that he can't win big games. If Tony Romo wins a game, it's proof that it wasn't a big game, and therefore doesn't matter when discussing whether Tony Romo can win big games. At some point, perception-wise, it becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

You don't have to ignore it to realize that It certainly appears there are far more cases of guys slipping than having massive seasons after accumulating a ton of touches, just like there are far more cases of Romo choking than of him being clutch. As for Emmitt, yes, he had a great season after he accumulated lots of touches, but that season was also his peak. His ypc dropped a full yard the very next season. In any event, he certainly seems to be an outlier.

There isn't some hard and fast rule where a RB can't be productive after "X" touches, but it seems pretty strange that some people completely dismiss it.

But there's not, and there's not. Tony Romo's only thrown 1 INT in a loss this season, but it's the one everyone remembers. Tony Romo has a very good record at 4th quarter comeback attempts. He has some of the best 4th quarter statistics in league history (including his statistics from 1-score games in the 4th quarter). He's had some pretty flipping epic comebacks, like that time he broke a rib, sat out a quarter, watched his backup stake the other team to a two-score lead, then came back into the game (still with a cracked rib) and pulled off the comeback. It only SEEMS like there are more instances of Romo choking because that's the narrative, and because everyone talks about his "chokes" while ignoring his "clutch" moments, until it eventually becomes a self-fulfilling prophecy.

Similarly, it only SEEMS like backs are more likely to break down coming off of a high workload. Ray Rice had a high workload in four consecutive seasons, yet this is the only time he's broken down. Shaun Alexander exceeded 370 touches in three consecutive seasons, but people only talk about that last one. Terrell Davis had FIVE HUNDRED THIRTY ONE touches, and he came back the next year and blew out his knee. No, wait, sorry... he came back the next year and rushed for 2,000 yards, it was the year AFTER that when he blew out his knee. LaDainian Tomlinson had 451, 413, 427, 390, and 429 touches over a 5-year stretch, and was completely fine for all of them. He followed it up with a 410 touch season and yet another 1st team AP All Pro award.

There are tons and tons and tons of examples of guys getting 380, 400, or even more touches and coming back completely fine the next year. Even doing it several years in a row. You just don't hear those examples because they don't fit the narrative of how backs break down after getting a huge workload.

If you just keep predicting "he had a huge workload last year, so he's going to break down this year", eventually you will be right. You'll usually be wrong a lot of times first, though. It's like the guys who projected that age would catch up to Marvin Harrison every year starting at age 32. Sure, eventually they were right, and age caught up to Marvin, and he was done. Not before he put up another 5th place, 9th place, and 1st place fantasy finish first, though.

No offense, but it seems you're the one ignoring things that don't fit your narrative here. I actually agree that Romo gets more flack than he deserves, but you can't possibly think that net/net, he should be considered a clutch performer, do you?

More relevantly, you keep talking about one season's worth of touches, while I've said a few times I'm talking about cumulative. I've also said that there isn't a hard and fast number where RBs absolutely have to fall off a cliff. However, again, I think you're dead wrong if you believe there are far more examples of guys continuing to dominate after accumulating massive amounts of touches. Those seem to be the exception, not the rule.

Touches eventually catch up with players. Some can handle more than others, but it seems inevitable that they will at some point. I'm a big fan of Ray Rice, but he looks like hot garbage right now. No doubt things like the O-line and the overall offensive play are a factor, but there's also no doubt in my mind that the touches are starting to catch up to him.

You're right, I don't think that net/net, Romo is a clutch performer... but that's only because I believe that, net/net, clutch is a myth. The guys who are best at the end of games are largely the same as the guys who are best at the beginning of games, with most of the variation is easy to chalk up to sample size and random variance. Clutch is interesting from a descriptive standpoint, but as an intrinsic character trait, I simply don't buy it. At least, not at the NFL level.

It is absolutely true that there is a huge correlation between a player's career touches and the likelihood that he falls off a cliff. I would never deny that. The problem, though, is that correlation is not causation. There could easily be lurking variables that are accounting for both behaviors. In this case, there also happens to be a huge correlation between career touches and player age, and since I believe that age is the primary driver of player decline, that very easily explains the correlation between touches and decline. Age leads to more touches, age leads to player decline, therefore more touches correlate with player decline even though both are independent of each other.

If you tease apart the age and workload variables, the data supports the theory. Running backs who have more touches PRIOR to age 27 also average more touches AFTER age 27. The relationship holds up even when you restrict your focus just to pro bowl RBs (to strip out the scrubs and backups). Basically, a guy who touches the ball a ton prior to his 27th birthday is usually a better bet to touch the ball a ton AFTER his 27th birthday than a different guy who entered the league late, or who started his career as a promising backup or piece of a timeshare, and who therefore enters age 27 with high expectations and a low career workload. History is littered with guys who got a late start or spent much of their early career in a timeshare who still broke down at about the same time. Start with Larry Johnson, who had fewer than 1,000 career touches before turned into a steaming pile of garbage. Or Michael Turner, who joined Atlanta at age 26 with fewer than 250 career touches, yet still couldn't make it to his age 31 season.

The "Career and/or single-season workload leads to decline" theory has the advantage of being very intuitive, and there's plenty of anecdotal evidence to support it, but I have yet to see any thorough and nuanced analysis of the relationship that has found anything more than an extremely weak relationship between the two (if it finds any relationship at all).

 

[Balco]

I think it is too soon to say Rice's career is done, but after watching him run the last couple of weeks, his season is certainly done. He is either playing hurt, or with too much extra weight. He is not making people miss at all, and lacks explosion.

 

[humpback]

Agreed, this isn't something that can be proven one way or another. You can't say what any particular player would have done if they had more or fewer touches, or if he was a year or two younger or older at the time. Perhaps Emmitt would have had an even better season in 1995 if he had fewer touches prior, perhaps not, but there's no way of knowing. Same goes for LJ, Turner, etc.- was their breakdown due to age? Number of touches over a shorter period of time? Size/style? Etc.

I'm simply pointing out that when you add in his post-season and college touches, it seems to be a fairly substantial factor for Rice. It's obvious from watching him that he isn't the same player right now, and it shouldn't be because of his age- he's not even 27 yet.

 

[James Daulton]

Rice is getting killed on local radio today. The consensus seems to be that he is either still hurt or just done. No explosion and no power. On the injury front, he did not go to the training room after the game so that seems to make it less likely that he's hurt. I'm guessing he's hit the wall.

 

[Balco]

Rice is getting killed on local radio today. The consensus seems to be that he is either still hurt or just done. No explosion and no power. On the injury front, he did not go to the training room after the game so that seems to make it less likely that he's hurt. I'm guessing he's hit the wall.

Any talk of him packing on the pounds? He looks bigger to me this season.

 

[James Daulton]

Rice is getting killed on local radio today. The consensus seems to be that he is either still hurt or just done. No explosion and no power. On the injury front, he did not go to the training room after the game so that seems to make it less likely that he's hurt. I'm guessing he's hit the wall.

Any talk of him packing on the pounds? He looks bigger to me this season.

There have been questions about his off season workout regimen by one of the radio talking heads.

 

[Sabertooth]

His heyday is done. He might have a few more games or bursts of games but his days as a top 5 back are probably behind him.

 

[Mr. Know-It-All]

His heyday is done. He might have a few more games or bursts of games but his days as a top 5 back are probably behind him.

In our scoring system he is the 27th RB, behind such stalwarts as Andre Ellington, Jacquizz Rodgers, Joique Bell and Zac Stacy (no offense to those 4). The point being on draft day he was seen as a top 5 back - my how things have changed. Blame can be place don the o-line or not having a bunch of great wrs to take the heat off, but Pierce looked more explosive than Rice yesterday and that is not saying much.

 

[EBF]

Agreed, this isn't something that can be proven one way or another. You can't say what any particular player would have done if they had more or fewer touches, or if he was a year or two younger or older at the time. Perhaps Emmitt would have had an even better season in 1995 if he had fewer touches prior, perhaps not, but there's no way of knowing. Same goes for LJ, Turner, etc.- was their breakdown due to age? Number of touches over a shorter period of time? Size/style? Etc.

I'm simply pointing out that when you add in his post-season and college touches, it seems to be a fairly substantial factor for Rice. It's obvious from watching him that he isn't the same player right now, and it shouldn't be because of his age- he's not even 27 yet.

Yea, that's the problem with this particular debate. You can't do an identical twin study to see what the longevity would've been like for guys like Portis, LT, and Edge if they hadn't been run into the ground. Common sense would suggest that getting hit thousands of times is not good for the body and could lead to premature deterioration, so I tend to believe that lots of touches = bad. The fact that Ricky Williams missed a few years and then was able to return at a shockingly high level in his 30s could point towards the notion that sparing your body the punishment might prolong your viability. Others like Fred Jackson, Tiki Barber, and Darren Sproles have played well into their 30s on the back of relatively small workloads early in their careers.

I think the reasons why it looks like workload is irrelevant are pretty straightforward. If you sort RBs according to their career carries, who is going to have the highest total? The players who were A.) talented enough to command a huge workload and B.) durable enough to survive under a huge workload. Look at the 2008 draft class. Why does Chris Johnson have more career carries than Darren McFadden? Because he's (probably) more talented and because he's proven capable of shouldering a huge workload year after year whereas McFadden has had trouble staying healthy.

So the great discovery that backs with high workloads early in their careers are also more likely to survive high workloads deep into their careers really doesn't have any value. It's just a backwards way of saying that the most talented and durable backs of their age group when young will also be the most talented and durable backs of their age group when old. The fact that Ray Rice was one of the most talented and durable backs in his age group from the ages of 20-25 suggests that he has a fair chance of being one of the most talented and durable backs in his age group from 27-30, but it doesn't prove that the touches haven't taken a toll.

I don't have a strong opinion on Rice right now because I think it's clear that something is very wrong with Baltimore's offense (Bernard Pierce is not doing much better this season). On the other hand, I won't be terribly surprised if we've seen the last of his days as an elite NFL RB. He's no longer young by RB standards and, as others have mentioned, he has taken lots of punishment over the years.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Rice is getting killed on local radio today. The consensus seems to be that he is either still hurt or just done. No explosion and no power. On the injury front, he did not go to the training room after the game so that seems to make it less likely that he's hurt. I'm guessing he's hit the wall.

A reporter from the Sun was saying Harbaugh said there was "no doubt about it" that Rice's health has been a big factor.

https://twitter.com/jeffzrebiecsun/status/400008929112903680

 

[Krilons Resa]

Trying to ship his ### out before the deadline tomorrow.

 

[Shutout]

Where do we stand on this issue now that the season is over?

 

[lod01]

Where do we stand on this issue now that the season is over?

About 2-3 months from now he will have surgery or they will state his real injury.

 

[Ack88]

His play declined so dramatically that you almost feel he had to be much more injured than reported. He has come close to a Shaun Alexander impersonation: pro-bowl one year, barely productive the next.

I'm in a wait and see mode. I wouldn't be willing to invest a top 5-7 round choice on him with the hope he rebounds next year until more information is made available.

 

[ConnSKINS26]

What his dynasty value right now? Buy-low?

 

[Uruk-Hai]

Where do we stand on this issue now that the season is over?

My take as a Ravens fan:

I didn't see the opener, but saw every day game (plus the Thanksgiving night game). So, the first game I actually watched, he got hurt. Rice never looked right to me the whole season. I can't tell you if his training slacked this year, but the injury clearly affected him even after he pronounced himself 100%. On top of that, the OL was absolutely pathetic - no push and horrible execution (see also: preseason darling Bernard Pierce being ungood). Dude's also had a ton of hits in his young life.

I think it's premature to say he's done. I'd like to see an OL that could keep the Little Sisters Of The Poor out of the backfield and a healthy Rice before making that call.

 

[amnesiac]

bought low towards the end of the season.

IF he rebounds to a top 10-15 RB for 2-3 years it'll be worth it.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

What his dynasty value right now? Buy-low?

I'm sniffing around in a few places, but early indications seem to indicate that it's going to be tough to get a good deal. Obviously small sample size, there, but I'd imagine most decent owners know better than to just dump him at this point.

I think his glory days of challenging for the top spot among RBs might be gone, but I think he can still be a major asset as a low end RB1 / great RB2 for the next 2 - 3 years. I trust Ozzie and Harbaugh to right the ship (ie fix that o-line).

I'd be FAR more worried about Rice if Pierce had torn it up this year, but he was actually even worse than Ray was this year. It definitely looks like the blocking was the biggest issue in 2013, unless 23 year old Bernard Pierce suddenly got washed up too.

 

[domvin]

What his dynasty value right now? Buy-low?

I'm sniffing around in a few places, but early indications seem to indicate that it's going to be tough to get a good deal. Obviously small sample size, there, but I'd imagine most decent owners know better than to just dump him at this point.

I think his glory days of challenging for the top spot among RBs might be gone, but I think he can still be a major asset as a low end RB1 / great RB2 for the next 2 - 3 years. I trust Ozzie and Harbaugh to right the ship (ie fix that o-line).

I'd be FAR more worried about Rice if Pierce had torn it up this year, but he was actually even worse than Ray was this year. It definitely looks like the blocking was the biggest issue in 2013, unless 23 year old Bernard Pierce suddenly got washed up too.

Thats the thing. I know earlier in the year, both their ypc were nearly identical. I thought it was purely their o line sucks for both of them. Rice actually looked good getting some dumpoffs in garbage time yesterday. Ran hard, played physical.

The announcers in yesterdays game, simms and nantz mentioned something about Rice being more hurt than he let on with the hip.

The other thing I thought about, was I believed rice used to train with ray lewis in the offseason. Were his workouts this year not as intense?

 

[domvin]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000301045/article/ray-rice-you-dont-just-bounce-back-from-a-hip-injury

Apologies if already posted. That story was from ten days ago.....

He also notates contemplating retirement....

 

[voiceofunreason]

http://www.nfl.com/news/story/0ap2000000301045/article/ray-rice-you-dont-just-bounce-back-from-a-hip-injury

Apologies if already posted. That story was from ten days ago.....

He also notates contemplating retirement....

I'll make a notate of that.

 

[joey]

Notate this:

"This season has been tough enough that Rice now says he will contemplate retirement after three more seasons, at which point he will be 30 years old."

There' say big difference between "contemplate retirement" which to me read "he was hurt enough this year that he contemplated retirement THIS year" vs. the actual quote above.

Either way, I bought Rice in a dynasty league around week 8 (for Lattimore and DeAndre Hopkins) for anyone interested in potential trade value. It's a 12 team, non-ppr, and only Keep 12 league, so that doesn't give as much wiggle room to keep lots of prospects like Lattimore but I'll spare any more awesome details of my league for some other time

Either way, I'm counting on a bounce back next year.

 

[domvin]

Notate this:

"This season has been tough enough that Rice now says he will contemplate retirement after three more seasons, at which point he will be 30 years old."

There' say big difference between "contemplate retirement" which to me read "he was hurt enough this year that he contemplated retirement THIS year" vs. the actual quote above.

Either way, I bought Rice in a dynasty league around week 8 (for Lattimore and DeAndre Hopkins) for anyone interested in potential trade value. It's a 12 team, non-ppr, and only Keep 12 league, so that doesn't give as much wiggle room to keep lots of prospects like Lattimore but I'll spare any more awesome details of my league for some other time

Either way, I'm counting on a bounce back next year.

Definitely. Need to read the link and thats why I posted it. He states clearly hes having thoughts down the road at 30.....was not intending for that post to be misleading. I can see where itcould have been, sorry fellas.

 

[stbugs]

His play declined so dramatically that you almost feel he had to be much more injured than reported. He has come close to a Shaun Alexander impersonation: pro-bowl one year, barely productive the next.

I'm in a wait and see mode. I wouldn't be willing to invest a top 5-7 round choice on him with the hope he rebounds next year until more information is made available.

Don't forget that Alexander's first bad season was when he was 29, although he was still on a top 10 pace that year, he just played only 10 games. He was 30 when he played almost a full year and per game was out of the top 24, i.e. not a starter anymore. Rice will turn 27 this year.

If they make some improvements in their OL and he gets through the hip issue, he could be a great value pick.

 

[ILUVBEER99]

Didn't rice have loads of carries in college too?

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Didn't rice have loads of carries in college too?

Rice is the centerpiece of the Baltimore offense and has played in 18,18,18 and 20 games over the past 4 seasons. Keep in mind that he also has an additional 200+ touches against playoff defenses over this period of time.

He also had something like 950 touches in 3 college seasons (over 400 in his final one).

2009-2012 with the playoffs included he has averaged 402 touches a year, 324 carries and 78 receptions per year average.

Yep. Harstad says none of this counts though.

 

[domvin]

Didn't rice have loads of carries in college too?

Nfl, almost 1800 touches. Did not look at college though

 

[msudaisy26]

Didn't rice have loads of carries in college too?

Nfl, almost 1800 touches. Did not look at college though

Does that even include playoffs?

 

[humpback]

Rice had by far fewest broken tackles this season

Obviously the injury played a role, but I didn't realize it was this bad. Lynch had more than twice as many broken tackles in just 2 playoff games!

 

[humpback]

Didn't rice have loads of carries in college too?

Nfl, almost 1800 touches. Did not look at college though

Does that even include playoffs?

If I'm reading the stats correctly on ESPN, Rice had 910 carries and 37 receptions in college, 1430 carries and 369 receptions in the NFL reg season, and 191 carries and 37 receptions in the post season. Grand total of 2974 touches over 9 years, just over 330 per season.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

His scoring days are behind him.

 

[squistion]

Rice had by far fewest broken tackles this season

Obviously the injury played a role, but I didn't realize it was this bad. Lynch had more than twice as many broken tackles in just 2 playoff games!

It may not have entirely been due to the hip injury, as the article noted, his backup didn't exactly set the world on fire either...

Rice rushed for just 660 yards, his lowest rushing total since becoming the starter in 2009 and fewer than part-time players such as LeGarrette Blount, Lamar Miller and Bilal Powell. And his 3.1 yards per carry ranked 45th among qualifying running backs (though it was still better than teammate Bernard Pierce).

 

[humpback]

Rice had by far fewest broken tackles this season

Obviously the injury played a role, but I didn't realize it was this bad. Lynch had more than twice as many broken tackles in just 2 playoff games!

It may not have entirely been due to the hip injury, as the article noted, his backup didn't exactly set the world on fire either...

Rice rushed for just 660 yards, his lowest rushing total since becoming the starter in 2009 and fewer than part-time players such as LeGarrette Blount, Lamar Miller and Bilal Powell. And his 3.1 yards per carry ranked 45th among qualifying running backs (though it was still better than teammate Bernard Pierce).

I was referring to the broken tackles...

 

[squistion]

Rice had by far fewest broken tackles this season

Obviously the injury played a role, but I didn't realize it was this bad. Lynch had more than twice as many broken tackles in just 2 playoff games!

It may not have entirely been due to the hip injury, as the article noted, his backup didn't exactly set the world on fire either...

Rice rushed for just 660 yards, his lowest rushing total since becoming the starter in 2009 and fewer than part-time players such as LeGarrette Blount, Lamar Miller and Bilal Powell. And his 3.1 yards per carry ranked 45th among qualifying running backs (though it was still better than teammate Bernard Pierce).

I was referring to the broken tackles...

I would tend to think that there is some connection between the two.

 

[humpback]

Rice had by far fewest broken tackles this season

Obviously the injury played a role, but I didn't realize it was this bad. Lynch had more than twice as many broken tackles in just 2 playoff games!

It may not have entirely been due to the hip injury, as the article noted, his backup didn't exactly set the world on fire either...

Rice rushed for just 660 yards, his lowest rushing total since becoming the starter in 2009 and fewer than part-time players such as LeGarrette Blount, Lamar Miller and Bilal Powell. And his 3.1 yards per carry ranked 45th among qualifying running backs (though it was still better than teammate Bernard Pierce).

I was referring to the broken tackles...

I would tend to think that there is some connection between the two.

Obviously ability to break tackles is going to impact your ypc, but several other things are as well- offensive line play, play calling, etc. Those things really aren't a factor when it comes to breaking tackles though, that's pretty much all on the RB.

 

[Adam Harstad]

Rice had by far fewest broken tackles this season

Obviously the injury played a role, but I didn't realize it was this bad. Lynch had more than twice as many broken tackles in just 2 playoff games!

It may not have entirely been due to the hip injury, as the article noted, his backup didn't exactly set the world on fire either...

Rice rushed for just 660 yards, his lowest rushing total since becoming the starter in 2009 and fewer than part-time players such as LeGarrette Blount, Lamar Miller and Bilal Powell. And his 3.1 yards per carry ranked 45th among qualifying running backs (though it was still better than teammate Bernard Pierce).

I was referring to the broken tackles...

I would tend to think that there is some connection between the two.

Obviously ability to break tackles is going to impact your ypc, but several other things are as well- offensive line play, play calling, etc. Those things really aren't a factor when it comes to breaking tackles though, that's pretty much all on the RB.

Not necessarily. I'd imagine it's easier to break a tackle 5 yards past the line of scrimmage when you have a full head of steam than it would be 5 yards deep in the backfield when you're just securing the handoff.

 

[humpback]

Rice had by far fewest broken tackles this season

Obviously the injury played a role, but I didn't realize it was this bad. Lynch had more than twice as many broken tackles in just 2 playoff games!

It may not have entirely been due to the hip injury, as the article noted, his backup didn't exactly set the world on fire either...

Rice rushed for just 660 yards, his lowest rushing total since becoming the starter in 2009 and fewer than part-time players such as LeGarrette Blount, Lamar Miller and Bilal Powell. And his 3.1 yards per carry ranked 45th among qualifying running backs (though it was still better than teammate Bernard Pierce).

I was referring to the broken tackles...

I would tend to think that there is some connection between the two.

Obviously ability to break tackles is going to impact your ypc, but several other things are as well- offensive line play, play calling, etc. Those things really aren't a factor when it comes to breaking tackles though, that's pretty much all on the RB.

Not necessarily. I'd imagine it's easier to break a tackle 5 yards past the line of scrimmage when you have a full head of steam than it would be 5 yards deep in the backfield when you're just securing the handoff.

RBs spin out of tackles behind the los all the time, Rice used to do it quite a bit.

According to this article, as of Dec 5th Rice had forced only 10 missed tackles in 210 touches, while Pierce had 20 in 135 touches. That's ridiculous.

 

[MoveToSkypager]

Rice had by far fewest broken tackles this season

Obviously the injury played a role, but I didn't realize it was this bad. Lynch had more than twice as many broken tackles in just 2 playoff games!

It may not have entirely been due to the hip injury, as the article noted, his backup didn't exactly set the world on fire either...

Rice rushed for just 660 yards, his lowest rushing total since becoming the starter in 2009 and fewer than part-time players such as LeGarrette Blount, Lamar Miller and Bilal Powell. And his 3.1 yards per carry ranked 45th among qualifying running backs (though it was still better than teammate Bernard Pierce).

I was referring to the broken tackles...

I would tend to think that there is some connection between the two.

Obviously ability to break tackles is going to impact your ypc, but several other things are as well- offensive line play, play calling, etc. Those things really aren't a factor when it comes to breaking tackles though, that's pretty much all on the RB.

Not necessarily. I'd imagine it's easier to break a tackle 5 yards past the line of scrimmage when you have a full head of steam than it would be 5 yards deep in the backfield when you're just securing the handoff.

You can't know that. There are just too many situations and variables to say which is easier.

 

[cstu]

He's a husk of his former self.