What's new
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums

Welcome to Our Forums. Once you've registered and logged in, you're primed to talk football, among other topics, with the sharpest and most experienced fantasy players on the internet.

Is this a mistake? (1 Viewer)

nag'

Footballguy
33 Receptions ??That would put him 23rd overall in projected receptions among RBs. TWENTY THIRD??? This a player who averaged 66 receptions/season the last 6 years and has NEVER caught less than 34 balls in his entire career! And that was his rookie season.Do the FBGs really believe that Eli and the Giants offense will completly abandon what has been the strength of their star running back for years? I never complain about anyone's projections but I really need this one expained to me or point me to where/if this has already been discussed? Thanks in advance.
 
Last edited by a moderator:

jurb26

Footballguy
Check out his Rec after Manning took over. They didn't just drop... they plumited. 33 is low I must say, but a good drop is to be expeted IMO.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

radballs.

Footballguy
33 Receptions ??

That would put him 23rd overall in projected receptions among RBs. TWENTY THIRD???

This a player who averaged 66 receptions/season the last 6 years and has NEVER caught less than 34 balls in his entire career! And that was his rookie season.

Do the FBGs really believe that Eli and the Giants offense will completly abandon what has been the strength of their star running back for years? I never complain about anyone's projections but I really need this one expained to me or point me to where/if this has already been discussed? Thanks in advance.
This was discussed a bit here. I agree with you. I don't see anything less than 50.
 

nag'

Footballguy
Check out his Rec after Manning took over. They didn't just drop... they plumited. 33 is low I must say, but a good drop is to be expeted IMO.
Plummeted? 3, 1, 0, 2, 5, 2, 3. I see a slight dropoff the first few weeks while Eli was getting into the swing of things, but definitely not a plummet.
 

RestoreTheROAR

Footballguy
Yea they plummited, but look what marshall Faulk did with peyton manning as rookie

1997 Indianapolis Colts 16 16 47 471 10.0 58 1 3 2 15

1998 Indianapolis Colts 16 15 86 908 10.6 78 4 12 1 44

I know their 2 different QB, but just wanted to throw this out there.

I think Tiki wil peform up to the level he has been

 

jurb26

Footballguy
Yea they plummited, but look what marshall Faulk did with peyton manning as rookie

1997 Indianapolis Colts 16 16 47 471 10.0 58 1 3 2 15

1998 Indianapolis Colts 16 15 86 908 10.6 78 4 12 1 44

I know their 2 different QB, but just wanted to throw this out there.

I think Tiki wil peform up to the level he has been
This was covered in the other thread as well. Differnt players, different situations = not applicable comparison.
 

RestoreTheROAR

Footballguy
Yea they plummited, but look what marshall Faulk did with peyton manning as rookie

1997 Indianapolis Colts 16 16 47 471 10.0 58 1 3 2 15

1998 Indianapolis Colts 16 15 86 908 10.6 78 4 12 1 44

I know their 2 different QB, but just wanted to throw this out there.

I think Tiki wil peform up to the level he has been
This was covered in the other thread as well. Differnt players, different situations = not applicable comparison.
 

Marc Levin

Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
Check out his Rec after Manning took over.  They didn't just drop... they plumited.  33 is low I must say, but a good drop is to be expeted IMO.
Plummeted? 3, 1, 0, 2, 5, 2, 3. I see a slight dropoff the first few weeks while Eli was getting into the swing of things, but definitely not a plummet.
That's an average of just over 2 per game, that's 32-36 on the year.I'd say Tiki's drop was due more to the fact that the Giants didn't want Eli throwing the ball much since his decision making has been so bad. Tiki's rush numbers were career highs.

I'd predict as the team trusts Eli more and runs less and throws more, Tiki's numbers will go back up. I think our projection of 33 is way way too low, too, and I believe he'll be up in the 50 catch range or more this year. He's way too valuable out of the backfield and in open space.

The impact of Plex with Toomer will create a lot of opportunities for Tiki as the opposing defense's underneath coverage should be softer than in past years. Shockey, if he stays healthy, should be huge, too.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

diesel7982

Footballguy
reworking numbers now for release by the morning.  This will be corrected.
You got it right the first time Dodds. Don't cave to the pressure.
:lmao:
To be fair here, I was the one who told Dodds his original projection of 50 rec on the year was too high. I was expecting him to put him down around 35-40, and the 33 surprised me, though I don't think its unreasonable.
 
reworking numbers now for release by the morning. This will be corrected.
You got it right the first time Dodds. Don't cave to the pressure.
There is a leaguewide trend of RBs losing receptions while TEs are getting the lion's share of receptions lost. Priest Holmes >> 70 >> 74 >> 38

Tomlinson >> 79 >> 100 >> 53

Warrick Dunn >> 50 >> 53 >> 29

Edge >> 69 >> 62 >> 51

Larry Johnson >> 50

Bold = projected receptions for 16 games

I'm too lazy to do this now, but I wonder if it's even more clear that % of receptions per team are trending away from the RBs leaguewide. Anyone want to do this for me? :)

I think 50 receptions is a good projection for Tiki, but the days of 70+ are over I think.

 

H.K.

Footballguy
33 receptions for Tiki is pretty realistic based on his performance with Manning at QB, but projecting Barber for 11 TD's will be quite damaging to their credibility if its not substantially reduced by the time the magazine is released.

 

H.K.

Footballguy
projecting Barber for 11 TD's will be quite damaging to their credibility if its not substantially reduced by the time the magazine is released.
Eh?
Look at the obvious facts they overlooked:1) Barber averages 6 TD's per year over 8 years of service

2) He's had 11 or more TD only twice in his career, NEVER in consecutive seasons

3) 10 of his 15 TD's last year came from inside the five yard line and Coughlin has publicly stated that he drafted Jacobs specifically to carry the ball in those situations. Even if Jacobs doesn't get it done, then he'll probably go with Ward as his next option.

Any chance of Barber scoring 11 TD's in 2005 is extremely remote, borderline impossible.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Bri

Footballguy
Tiki has been asking to get the ball less.....in a way. He touched the ball on 40-45%(?) of Giant O plays last year. He's afraid of gettin' old and burnt out. Think he turns 30.Searching, seen articles, heard an interview on radio late at night.here

Tiki eager to pass torch, sort of BY RALPH VACCHIANO DAILY NEWS SPORTS WRITER Tiki Barber turned 30 last month, and he knows that's traditionally the age when running backs' careers begin to slide. That's why he's in favor of anything the Giants can do to help extend his NFL life. "Absolutely," Barber said. "I want to play another four or five years, and if I keep getting 330 (carries), or whatever I've had the last few years, my body is going to break down. It's just physics. I'm not against doing it, because all I want to do is win and I know by being on the field I help us do that. But it's good to have help." Help arrives this morning when Brandon Jacobs, the mammoth running back the Giants drafted in the fourth round two weeks ago, takes the field for the start of Big Blue's three-day rookie minicamp. The veterans have the week off, so Barber won't be there to see the 6-foot-4, 267-pound rookie who insists he can run a 4.4 in the 40. But he's hoping Jacobs will be good enough to fill the short-yardage running back role. "It'll be interesting to see how he performs on this level because there's been a trend away from big backs," Barber said. "There are more 5-10, 6-foot guys who are agile. So we'll see if he can keep up with the pace. But I'm excited about him. I think he'll help with some situations, like short-yardage and goal-line." Barber had those roles by default last season due to the failures of Ron Dayne. He had every other role, too, as he touched the ball on 39.5% of the Giants' plays. This offseason, the Giants were determined to lighten that load, which is why they drafted Jacobs out of Southern Illinois. Veteran Mike Cloud likely will be Barber's primary backup, but Jacobs and second-year pro Derrick Ward (5-11, 233) will battle it out for the short-yardage role. And that's a crucial role considering the Giants converted just 48% (13-for-27) of their third-and-1 opportunities last season - the second-worst percentage in the league. Barber believes Ward and Jacobs "will push each other and hopefully give us a powerful punch in the backfield." He also hopes they'll allow him to occasionally step off the field. "I think the best teams in this league truly have two or three guys that can go in and contribute just in case something happens," Barber said. "You know, we've been lucky. I've been healthy the last three years." Notebook MEET & EAT: Barber will spend tomorrow night at Brandon Steiner's "Dream Builders" barbecue in Scarsdale along with other sports legends to raise money for Family Services of Westchester's Boys Residence in White Plains and Camp Sussex in New Jersey. Call 914-307-1010 for tickets.
Ponyboy, couldn't find this a few weeks ago see Mike Cloud/backup stuff? Hard to explain then, hard to now but....I'm not the only one ;)
 

H.K.

Footballguy
Look at the obvious facts they overlooked:

1) Barber averages 6 TD's per year over 8 years of service
How long has Tiki been the undisputed starter? How many times has he had double digit TDs in that time?
He did not score TD's because he was the starter, he scored them because he got the ball at the stripe....which he won't this season.
 

Dancing Bear

Footballguy
I am not a fan of Eli Manning.I believe that it will dramatically impact Barber, Shockey, Toomer, and Burress.Barber will likely end up with somewhere between 40-48 receptions so I agree that 33 is too low a projection.I also think that he will definitely not see double-digit TD's.P.S. Shocky and Toomer both end the year with more Fantasy Points than Burress!!!!!

 
Last edited by a moderator:

Aaron Rudnicki

Keep Walking™
Staff member
I agree with H.K. that Jacobs should steal a bunch of goalline carries from Tiki this year.But, with enough carries, Tiki could still have a decent chance at 8-10 total TDs so I'm not sure I'd agree that 11 is "impossible". Brian Westbrook scored 11 TDs in 2003 without getting a ton of goalline work.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

H.K.

Footballguy
He did not score TD's because he was the starter, he scored them because he got the ball at the stripe
???And he was damn effective at it too. New guy is gonna have to PROVE he can do it at the goalline.

....which he won't this season.
You shouldn't be listening to what coaches say anyway.
I don't listen to what coaches say, I watch what they DO. Coughlin loves GL specialists and he specifically drafted one to replace Barber. Barber scoring 11 or more TDs in 2005 is a statisitical impossibility. I will back that up with a sig bet if you are so bold.

 

H.K.

Footballguy
Barber scoring 11 or more TDs in 2005 is a statisitical impossibility.
that's absolutely priceless :blackdot:
Thanks, its also absolutely correct. Why do people have such a hard time hearing that a player will return to his normal level of production after having a career year? I am not saying Tiki is a bad player, just that people are putting way too much stock in last year's numbers and ignoring his past production and changing role in the offense in 2005.

 
Barber scoring 11 or more TDs in 2005 is a statisitical impossibility.
that's absolutely priceless :blackdot:
Thanks, its also absolutely correct. Why do people have such a hard time hearing that a player will return to his normal level of production after having a career year? I am not saying Tiki is a bad player, just that people are putting way too much stock in last year's numbers and ignoring his past production and changing role in the offense in 2005.
Well considering he repeated his 2002 year, it's hard to say what his "normal production" is.
 

joffer

Footballguy
Barber scoring 11 or more TDs in 2005 is a statisitical impossibility.
that's absolutely priceless :blackdot:
Thanks, its also absolutely correct. Why do people have such a hard time hearing that a player will return to his normal level of production after having a career year? I am not saying Tiki is a bad player, just that people are putting way too much stock in last year's numbers and ignoring his past production and changing role in the offense in 2005.
winning the lottery 5 weeks in a row is a statistical impossibilityto say that the chances of a starting RB scoring X TDs is a statistical impossibility when he's done it 2 out of the last 3 years is ....... well, let's say the only words I can think of don't quite qualify as being excellent to each other. It's laughable, regardless what you think of Tiki.

 

Marc Levin

Hangs out with Oscar Zeta Acosta
I think Tiki scoring 11 TDs is in the world of reasonable possibility - though it is certainly an optimistic projection, it is not outlandish.

 

H.K.

Footballguy
Barber scoring 11 or more TDs in 2005 is a statisitical impossibility.
that's absolutely priceless :blackdot:
Thanks, its also absolutely correct. Why do people have such a hard time hearing that a player will return to his normal level of production after having a career year? I am not saying Tiki is a bad player, just that people are putting way too much stock in last year's numbers and ignoring his past production and changing role in the offense in 2005.
Well considering he repeated his 2002 year, it's hard to say what his "normal production" is.
Extremely weak argument. How did he do in 2001 or 2003? Besides, he didn't repeat his 2002 production last year, he exceeded it. Again, Tiki scoring 11 TD's or more is an exception, not the rule. This is indisputable fact based upon eight years of statisitical data.
 

Aaron Rudnicki

Keep Walking™
Staff member
if you really believe it is "impossible" would you be willing to bet your life on this prediction?I mean, there's no way you could lose if it's impossible, right?

 

H.K.

Footballguy
Barber scoring 11 or more TDs in 2005 is a statisitical impossibility.
that's absolutely priceless :blackdot:
Thanks, its also absolutely correct. Why do people have such a hard time hearing that a player will return to his normal level of production after having a career year? I am not saying Tiki is a bad player, just that people are putting way too much stock in last year's numbers and ignoring his past production and changing role in the offense in 2005.
winning the lottery 5 weeks in a row is a statistical impossibilityto say that the chances of a starting RB scoring X TDs is a statistical impossibility when he's done it 2 out of the last 3 years is ....... well, let's say the only words I can think of don't quite qualify as being excellent to each other. It's laughable, regardless what you think of Tiki.
Actually, I love Tiki as a player, in fact I'm a huge fan of his, but I separate that stuff when I evaluate FF potential. My comments will not be "laughable" at season's end, they will be correct.
 
Extremely weak argument. How did he do in 2001 or 2003? Besides, he didn't repeat his 2002 production last year, he exceeded it. Again, Tiki scoring 11 TD's or more is an exception, not the rule. This is indisputable fact based upon eight years of statisitical data.
No not really, it must be convenient to see what you want to see. How many carries was he getting in 2001? 8 years of whatever. Only the last 3 are relevant. 8 years ago is a lifetime in the NFL.
Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD |+----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+| 1997 nyg | 12 | 136 511 3.8 3 | 34 299 8.8 1 || 1998 nyg | 16 | 52 166 3.2 0 | 42 348 8.3 3 || 1999 nyg | 16 | 62 258 4.2 0 | 66 609 9.2 2 |So you're including that in your analysis. How is that even close to relevant for 2005?Two things will keep Tiki from 10+ TDs this year.

|---------- PASSING -----------||----- RUSHING -----| TOTAL

CMP ATT YD YPA TD INT ATT YD YPA TD YD

269 475 3097 6.52 12 13 424 1904 4.49 18 5001

NFL rank ---> 26 23 25 24 31 10 21 11 5 4 23
Not improving on the bolded areas is reason 1.Not being able to replace the potential influx of talent because of the Eli Manning trade is reason 2 (although that might have more of a long term effect than an immediate impact).

Brandon Jacobs is not one of those reasons.

 
Last edited by a moderator:

H.K.

Footballguy
if you really believe it is "impossible" would you be willing to bet your life on this prediction?

I mean, there's no way you could lose if it's impossible, right?
I'd bet my fantasy season on it, which essentially is my life. :P
 

H.K.

Footballguy
Brandon Jacobs is not one of those reasons.
Coughlin is a control freak and a megalomaniac. He will give Jacobs the ball on the goal line irregardless of his success or failure rate. After reaching for Brandon, he must prove to the world that he was right, despite the consequences. Besides, if Jacobs gets hurt, then Ward will get the GL love. Read Bri's article, Coughlin and Accorsi have been consistent on this direction of the team all off-season.
 
I don't listen to what coaches say, I watch what they DO. Coughlin loves GL specialists and he specifically drafted one to replace Barber.
He'll use GL specialists if he HAS to, but I really see no evidence of him favoring a GL specialist in his time at Jax. The only times RBs were splitting TDs is if one was hurt halfway through the season (Taylor), or their #1 RB wasn't really that good anyway. No offense to James Stewart, but he's no Tiki Barber. I don't consider Tiki a candidate to be replaced at the goalline despite who they drafted. He was too effective at it last year. A short yardage specialist between the 20s... Different story.Call me crazy, but I don't think Tiki and Jacobs compare to Stewart and Means.

 

H.K.

Footballguy
I don't listen to what coaches say, I watch what they DO. Coughlin loves GL specialists and he specifically drafted one to replace Barber.
He'll use GL specialists if he HAS to, but I really see no evidence of him favoring a GL specialist in his time at Jax. The only times RBs were splitting TDs is if one was hurt halfway through the season (Taylor), or their #1 RB wasn't really that good anyway. No offense to James Stewart, but he's no Tiki Barber. I don't consider Tiki a candidate to be replaced at the goalline despite who they drafted. He was too effective at it last year. A short yardage specialist between the 20s... Different story.Call me crazy, but I don't think Tiki and Jacobs compare to Stewart and Means.
What about Taylor & Mack?
 

Aaron Rudnicki

Keep Walking™
Staff member
I bet Jacobs gets at least 50% of the goalline work, but maybe not all of it. They don't want Tiki to keep taking the kind of punishment that brings and that's a great opportunity to give him a breather and keep him more effective for the rest of the game.If Jacobs fails, Tiki might still get some chances but it's highly unlikely that he'll get as many chances in 2005 as he did in 2004.

 

Bri

Footballguy
IIRC Gruden tried to save Napoleon Kaufman by not using him at the goalline. Shortly after several coaches did this(some well, some not). Coughlin had Fragile Freddy and went with Mack. Now Tiki is thinking he might be gettin' old and wants to save his legs. Let's suppose he says that to Coughlin(which seems likely from the article) can you think of another way he lessenned the load for one of his featured backs? There's definitely some logic in Jacobs, above, and his size. Definitely some in sticking with the "tried and true method" Tiki.It's May guys, I think the coach is just slotting guys for camp battles. From the article I posted it's Ward vs. Jacobs, Tiki vs Cloud. If Jacobs gets stuffed on 3rd and 1 everytime in preseason, he isn't getting it in the regular season on 3rd and 1. If he does well, why would Coughlin go away from that then?I love the debate but I think it's run it's course. I think you guys should agree to disagree and let the camp battles play out. Just my two cents

 
I don't listen to what coaches say, I watch what they DO. Coughlin loves GL specialists and he specifically drafted one to replace Barber.
He'll use GL specialists if he HAS to, but I really see no evidence of him favoring a GL specialist in his time at Jax. The only times RBs were splitting TDs is if one was hurt halfway through the season (Taylor), or their #1 RB wasn't really that good anyway. No offense to James Stewart, but he's no Tiki Barber. I don't consider Tiki a candidate to be replaced at the goalline despite who they drafted. He was too effective at it last year. A short yardage specialist between the 20s... Different story.Call me crazy, but I don't think Tiki and Jacobs compare to Stewart and Means.
What about Taylor & Mack?
What about them? Mack was on the roster in 2000 when Taylor got 12 TDs. Mack was on the roster in 2001 when Taylor got 8. Only reason he didn't get 10 or more was because he left 2 games early. The argument could also be made that the reason why Mack had 9 TDs that year was because he had a 3 TD game early in the season. Fred Taylor was already declining in effectiveness at the goalline around then anyway.
 
I bet Jacobs gets at least 50% of the goalline work, but maybe not all of it. They don't want Tiki to keep taking the kind of punishment that brings and that's a great opportunity to give him a breather and keep him more effective for the rest of the game.

If Jacobs fails, Tiki might still get some chances but it's highly unlikely that he'll get as many chances in 2005 as he did in 2004.
Can anyone tell me how many times the Giants had the ball at the 5 or less as well as the rest of the league?
 
I love the debate but I think it's run it's course. I think you guys should agree to disagree and let the camp battles play out. Just my two cents
That's what I'm saying. Some are declaring a guy as a lock for a goalline specialist and we haven't even gotten to camp yet. It's obviously something to WATCH, but it's far from certain at this point.
 

Aaron Rudnicki

Keep Walking™
Staff member
according to the stats on his FBG player page,2004: Tiki had 15 rushing attempts and 1 pass target from 5 yards and in, and scored 10 rushing TDs and 1 passing TD on them.2003: Tiki had 6 rushing attempts and 1 pass target from 5 yards and in, and scored 2 rushing TDs on them.2002: Tiki had 21 rushing attempts and 0 pass targets from 5 yards and in, and scored 8 rushing TDs on them.

 

Aaron Rudnicki

Keep Walking™
Staff member
I love the debate but I think it's run it's course. I think you guys should agree to disagree and let the camp battles play out. Just my two cents
That's what I'm saying. Some are declaring a guy as a lock for a goalline specialist and we haven't even gotten to camp yet. It's obviously something to WATCH, but it's far from certain at this point.
this was an article from the blogger a little while ago:
When he needs a yard or two at the goal line or in short-yardage

situations, Jacobs said, he has a sense for getting his pads low and

burrowing forward. When he is in the clear, he tends to run upright

and chew up yardage quickly because of his long stride.

The Giants hope he will succeed where Dayne failed as a short-yardage

runner to ease the burden on Tiki Barber. Last season, the Giants were

an awful 13-for-27 on third-and-1 conversions. The goal is to have

Jacobs improve that statistic in the short run and perhaps develop

into an every-down runner who can succeed Barber, 30.

Whereas Dayne won a Heisman Trophy in 1999, Jacobs' more humble resume

includes a transfer out of Auburn - where he was stuck behind future

top-five draft picks Ronnie Brown and Carnell Williams - to Division

I-AA Southern Illinois, where he scored 19 touchdowns last season.

Jacobs certainly talks the talk of a short-yardage back. Asked if he

would go around or through a defender at the goal line, he said: "It's

six points no matter which way I choose to go. But I think I'm going

to go over them. You're on the goal line. Don't chitter-chatter. Just

get in."
 

Bri

Footballguy
Can anyone tell me how many times the Giants had the ball at the 5 or less as well as the rest of the league?
I drew a blank earlier this week, still can't find em'. Usually my strongpoint finding stats...grrr. However, I did post some goalline redzone stats in another Tiki thread.No but

http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/leader...k=005&Submit=Go

Tiki 4th in Stuffs with 34(negative category)

He's not in the top 20 stuffs per carry

4th or 75% scored on runs inside the 3

http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/leader...k=017&Submit=Go

16th or 34.4% runs inside the ten

http://snap.stats.com/stats/nflinfo/leader...k=074&Submit=Go

The large difference between inside 3 and inside the 10 might be Coughlin's concern

 

Chase Stuart

Footballguy
reworking numbers now for release by the morning. This will be corrected.
You got it right the first time Dodds. Don't cave to the pressure.
There is a leaguewide trend of RBs losing receptions while TEs are getting the lion's share of receptions lost. Priest Holmes >> 70 >> 74 >> 38

Tomlinson >> 79 >> 100 >> 53

Warrick Dunn >> 50 >> 53 >> 29

Edge >> 69 >> 62 >> 51

Larry Johnson >> 50

Bold = projected receptions for 16 games

I'm too lazy to do this now, but I wonder if it's even more clear that % of receptions per team are trending away from the RBs leaguewide. Anyone want to do this for me? :)

I think 50 receptions is a good projection for Tiki, but the days of 70+ are over I think.
Not exactly what you asked for, but here are the leaguewide percentages of receiving yards by position:
Year WR TE RB2004 66.4% 17.2% 16.4%2003 65.0% 16.6% 18.4%2002 65.7% 15.3% 19.0%2001 66.8% 14.4% 18.8%2000 64.9% 15.4% 19.7%TEs have been steadily increasing while RB production has been steadily decreasing. What's interesting to note is despite 2004 being the "Year of the Tight End", tight ends caught 17% of all receiving yards in both 2003 and 2004. 2004: 19,819 receiving yards out of 115,202 receiving yards from WRs, TEs and RBs

2003: 18,172 receiving yards out of 109,272 receiving yards from WRs, TEs and RBs

Subjectively, I think that the top TEs had great years while the top WRs (Moss, Harrison) had down years. Additionally, TEs had 187 TDs last year, compared to just 128 in 2003.

As for receiving yards, in both 2003 and 2004, exactly 24 tight ends topped the 300 yard. So outside of the top guys, TE production was very similar.

 

Holy Schneikes

Footballguy
projecting Barber for 11 TD's will be quite damaging to their credibility if its not substantially reduced by the time the magazine is released.
Eh?
3) 10 of his 15 TD's last year came from inside the five yard line and Coughlin has publicly stated that he drafted Jacobs specifically to carry the ball in those situations. Even if Jacobs doesn't get it done, then he'll probably go with Ward as his next option.Any chance of Barber scoring 11 TD's in 2005 is extremely remote, borderline impossible.
I'm surprised Tiki got any scores last year at all considering Coughlin publicly stated that Ron Dayne was definitely going to get the goal-line carries. Oh wait, sometimes what coaches say they are going to do in May isn't what actually happens in September through December.Despite the common MISconception, Tiki is actually a decent performer on the goal-line as his solid ratio and 10 GL scores proves. IF the new guy shows promise in the NFL on the GL, he he will probably get most of those looks. But it is FAR from a foregone conclusion and in any case Tiki will very likely still get a few looks on the GL even if someone else is the primary option.

To call a projection of 11 TDs for a guy who scored 15 the previous year (when all the same indications about his GL opportunities were in place) "borderline impossible" seems inane to me.

 

H.K.

Footballguy
projecting Barber for 11 TD's will be quite damaging to their credibility if its not substantially reduced by the time the magazine is released.
Eh?
3) 10 of his 15 TD's last year came from inside the five yard line and Coughlin has publicly stated that he drafted Jacobs specifically to carry the ball in those situations. Even if Jacobs doesn't get it done, then he'll probably go with Ward as his next option.Any chance of Barber scoring 11 TD's in 2005 is extremely remote, borderline impossible.
I'm surprised Tiki got any scores last year at all considering Coughlin publicly stated that Ron Dayne was definitely going to get the goal-line carries. Oh wait, sometimes what coaches say they are going to do in May isn't what actually happens in September through December.Despite the common MISconception, Tiki is actually a decent performer on the goal-line as his solid ratio and 10 GL scores proves. IF the new guy shows promise in the NFL on the GL, he he will probably get most of those looks. But it is FAR from a foregone conclusion and in any case Tiki will very likely still get a few looks on the GL even if someone else is the primary option.

To call a projection of 11 TDs for a guy who scored 15 the previous year (when all the same indications about his GL opportunities were in place) "borderline impossible" seems inane to me.
This has been discussed ad nauseum, but even if Jacobs (hand picked by Coughlin, where as Dayne was not) fails, then the next in line for GL is Ward. Barber is a guaranteed 100% lock to score less than 11 TD's in 2005. Sig bets anyone?

 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top