Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Kevin Barlow Prediction (2 Viewers)
- Thread starter jaredsmarks
- Start date
chinawildman
Footballguy
Smelvin... you praise the objectivity of other people's threads, yet maintain none in your own.Over his career, Barlow has attempted 391 carries for 1778 yds at 4.5 yds a clip and 10 TDs with 53 receptions at 530 yds at 10 yds per catch and 2 more TDs. How is that ineffective? Ineffective is Ron Dayne or Antowain Smith. As others have pointed out, Hearst is not completed washed up like an emmitt smith or eddie george. I remember in preseason the coaches were all about to let Hearst go, until they saw him in action and realized that he still has some juice left in the tank. You make it seem like the only reason the coaches kept Hearst around was because they were "disappointed" in Barlow, where in fact they already stated on record that they were pleasantly surprised and impressed by Hearst's skills and leadership.
Last edited by a moderator:
switz
Footballguy
I'll agree that Barlow can be a servicable back, but not spectacular. I'm sick of hearing Barlow is top-10 material. So is LeShon Johnson if you base it on his 200 yard game. Just go look back at Barlow's stats. Show me consistently good output.Yeah his end of season YPC may look good, but it's skewed by 1 game 1 year where he averaged 9.6 YPC, or another game a different year where he averages 12.3. The rest of the time he is an AVERAGE AT BEST running back, who is only successful on certain running plays. He is not an all around RB.
ghstrainer
Footballguy
starting him in a flex spot over horn and walker :domer:ManningHolmesAlexanderBarlowChadDJaxMRobSharpeStoverBuff "D"Sea "O"
Antowain Smith has a 1000 yard season and a Super bowl ring under his belt in the last three years. Ineffective is not the equivelant of useless - he has been, as Switz says above, "serviceable" as a backup RB for the 9ers.He has yet to prove enough NFL skills to win an NFL start, despite tons of opp. He has been a BUST of a player so far. If he BUSTS this weekend, he will have sealed his coffin. A strong performance, and I will concede he has the chance to get himself into a position to have a chance to maybe be a starter at some point - at least he will haeve demonstrated the heart to have taken advantage of an opportunity.I am NOT objective about Barlow - everything I've seen about him is that he is a talented running back, who gets injured a lot, and can not, after three years of playing in the NFL, pick up the NFL game. I am NOT blown away by his athleticism - Cecil Collins was athletic. It takes a heck of a lot more than being a good athlete to succeed at the RB position and Barlow has shown me none of those skills.For the drop dead last time - I know Barlow has the physical ability. For three years he has shown nothing more than potential - no growth, no learning the game, no dedication to the game, no attempt to become a leader, no spending tons of extra time learning on his own - NOTHING. In short, NO HEART.
P.S. - those who have blasted me for my opinion on Barlow, did you read closely enough to see that I RECOMMEND playing him this weekend if you were dumb enough to have him stashed on your bench for this long, that he makes a good FANTASY play this weekend - in fact, this is probably the best time in Barlow's entire career to play him.I personally believe he'll fall on his face, but that is my beliefe, not my fantasy analysis.
packersfan
Footballguy
Yup, it sure has been frustrating watching Barlow receive all those 20-carry games and fall flat on his face. Oh, you mean he's never gotten a 20-carry game before? But ... but ... but ... I thought he's had "tons of opp" to prove himself before. Nevermind.
Stompin' Tom Connors
Footballguy
Sorry, I meant but not spectacular, not if not spectacular. End of the day post, trying to rush out of the office to get home to my kid. My bad.There are only a few backs who I would call spectacular. Sanders, Sweetness, maybe Emmit in his prime. Maybe.
chinawildman
Footballguy
you're starting to contradict yourself... no point in beating this thread to death. I guess we'll just have to wait until sunday.
Last edited by a moderator:
switz
Footballguy
How many RBs average 20 carries a game?What is it with people who think an RB needs 20 carries a game to be good?Does LT average 20 carries a game? No. There are only 10 or 11 Rbs this season that are averaging 20 carries a game. Most starters get between 15 and 18 carries a game.In fact this year is the first in a long time that RBs are getting 20 carries a game. Even at that, while some are FF productive, they aren't having good seasons (i.e. Ricky Williams at 25/gm is 10th in the league)And if you want to see what Barlow does with a larger share of carries, go back to his 18-carry game against AZ - pitiful.He's had 5 15+ carry games in the last over this and last season, and he's never broken 100 yards.While I am resigned to the fact that Hearst is getting nearer to the end of the road, and that he needs to be spelled, for health reasons. I do not see Barlow as the player that can eventually replace him and be a fulltime starter. He's just not good enough IMO.
packersfan
Footballguy
Fair enough. So how many times has Barlow been given 15-18 carries a game in his career? Want me to wait here while you do the research? Here are the pertinent facts about Barlow: 1. He has rarely been given a chance to carry the ball for an extensive amount in any game. 2. In the rare instances he has been given more carries (although never in the 15-18 range you mention), he has stepped up very nicely. See my post earlier in this thread. 3. This week's game will be his first opportunity to have the bulk of the carries all to himself, something that has not happened the last two seasons. I don't have a problem with people who don't like Barlow. That's perfectly legit since it's an opinion. I happen to be a fan of the guy and have been waiting to see what he could do when given a real opportunity. But that's the thing, the jury's still out on him because he's never gotten a real chance before. Well now he's getting it, so in my opinion now is the time people can finally begin to make a more accurate evaluation of the type of RB he is and may become. I don't think any one game can make or break a RB, but after Sunday I think we'll have far better answers about Barlow than what we've had up until this point.
You can only repeat the same thing over and over so many times before it loses all effect.
Switz, thanks for your opinion, but you are arguing just for the sake of arguing now and you look like a fool as always. It's funny that the same guy who touted Onterrio Smith as being better than Michael Bennett, refuses to see that Kevan Barlow is indeed a good player and perhaps even a better player than Hearst (which remains to be seen, but Sunday will be a good look). So Onterrio Smith is supposed to be the next great RB when he couldn't even beat out Moe Williams and Michael Bennett? Doesn't that sound eerily similar to your argument that Kevan Barlow hasn't been able to beat out Garrison Hearst? Yet you tout Onterrio Smith highly as a great back and bash on Kevan Barlow as a poor back. Your logic contradicts itself and you prove that you know very little about evaluating RB talent.Everwars Nerd
Footballguy
Way to go out on a limb. If Barlow sucks this week I told you so but if he does well I told you so.
p.s. Barlow will suck this weekend.
jcole76
Footballguy
If Brock Forsey could put up monster #'s against AZ Barlow surely can. I bought into the Barlow hype by drafting him this year (6th round-not too early) and truly thought he was going to breakout (like everyone else). I'm on a playoff bye this week and after a carousel of RB's all year, Barlow finally gets a solid chance against a terrible team. I cringe when anyone on this site gives a number prediction of a players production because, realistically, anything can happen. People get paid to predict and research and alot of them suck at it. I do believe that he will have a "quality" game (whatever that means) and I will likely start him the week after and suffer once again because.................he's really not that good. Good Luck everyone!
switz
Footballguy
Actually no, my logic doesn't contradict itself.Despite Barlow and Smith being in similar situations, they are indeed different players. Evaluating RB talent is actually something I am very good at.
If you seriously can't see the difference between Smith and Barlow, you are blind. Let me spell it out:
Barlow couldn't beat out an out-of-shape, recovering-from-a-two-year-injury-layoff, nearing-thirty RB, and has had 3 years and two coaching staffs to do it.
Smith couldn't beat out a veteran RB who bloomed late in his career, and one of the fastest players in the NFL a Pro Bowl running back within the first 12 games of his career.
Smith has shown a willingness to learn. Barlow hasn't.
Barlow has had 6 games witth 15-18 carries. He's averaged 67.5 yards per game, at 4.3 YPC, not bad, not spectacular.
Smith has 1 game with over 10 carries (13) and he averaged 4.8 YPC.
There is a huge difference between the two.
The way I see it, coaches will always find a way to make a kid like Barlow a feature back, provided they're talented enough, and prepared enough to handle the intricacies of an NFL offense. Therefore, the fact that after all this time Barlow has still not emerged as SF's feature back tells me either a) he's not as talented as some think, or b) he's still not equipped to handle the complexities of the 49ers attack.
And the key is, neither of these problems will be solved by the time Sunday rolls around.
I have Barlow, and am starting him this weekend (my other RB2 options are Pittman and Canidate
), but frankly I'm more pessimistic than optimistic.
And the key is, neither of these problems will be solved by the time Sunday rolls around.
I have Barlow, and am starting him this weekend (my other RB2 options are Pittman and Canidate
), but frankly I'm more pessimistic than optimistic.I guess you are anti-Hearst too. He is far from out-of-shape, and his recovery from the injury should be inspiring. An odd twist could even be made that by being injured the rest of his body didn't take the hits. Give the guy his due for crying out loud. This is a weak argument for why Barlow isn't good. However, I do appreciate your sense of realism ... because you are right, to date Barlow has shown only flashes. The rest is left to be seen. But for crying out loud, no need to bash Hearst on this.
chinawildman
Footballguy
LOL, so somehow this decrepit geezer and talentless ##### rank 6th in the NFL in rushing yards? I can see where the skepticism for Barlow comes from, but now you're just getting carried away here...
switz
Footballguy
Both you and chinawildman are totally misinterpreting my comments on Hearst.I am not bashing Hearst, I think he's a tremendous RB who could have had a HoF career if not for the knee and then ankle injury. My point was that when Barlow broke into the league, Hearst was recovering form his ankle, and Barlow had as good a shot as any. Now Hearst is thirty and slowing down, but he's STILL better than Barlow.Hearst is a GREAT RB, but even GREAT ones get phased out by younger talented backs. They tried phasing out Bettis with Zero, they have tried LaMont in NY a bit.Barlow splits time, if he was good enough to start, he'd be the starter by now.
Every FFer should know better than to judge a RB getting limited carries either way. Being a featured back and spelling someone bear about as much relation to each other as a starting pitcher does to a closer. Some RBs look great when they can trot out fresh a couple times a game, some look horrible unless they get enough carries to build a rythem. I do know for a fact that any running back will benefit from being familiar with their O-line. Being the starter means more reps in practice means a better grasp of where the holes are going to open. Its also silly to judge any RB on any one game, there are too many factors involved. If you want to find out if a running back can be a good featured back, the only way is to make him a featured back.
Hey I appreciate your candor, and again, I totally agree that the hype behind Barlow is extreme. But lets face it, on one hand you say that Hearst could be a HoF player but for his injuries, and then bash Barlow for not overtaking him. Hearst is a hell of a player (we agree good) ... but if it wasn't for his miraculous comeback from those knee injuries, we'd merely call Hearst an adequate back. Lets face it, before his time in San Fran, Hearst's career was laughable at best. So to say on one hand that Hearst is a great back, and then slam Barlow for not overtaking him doesn't sway me much. Barlow came into the league right when Hearst really picked up steam and showed what a great player he really is.To slam Barlow for that isn't a strong argument.However, all of that said, I am in total agreement with you that Barlow right now does not deserve all the accolades people throw on him. I think most of it comes from folks remembering Shanny's comments when Barlow was drafted. But hey, you know what? Lets give the guy a chance to show if he can carry the rock before we condemn him too. As much as he hasn't shown he is going to be a stud on Sunday, he hasn't shown he'll be a total bust either.I'm just hoping he shows enough to stay deep on my keeper roster! :rotflmao:
switz
Footballguy
As a fan of Garrison Hearst since college, admitting my bias here, I have to say that his career was better than laughable considering his circumstances.Injured as a rookie in Arizona behind a terrible lineCame back his second year and averaged 4.8 YPCAt that point he had played altogether in 14 games and had 113 carries. His career hadn't even started.Third season put up over 1300 yards, but they waived him in the offseason - drafting Leeland McElroy to replace him LOLCinci picked him up and he split time with KiJana Carter (I believe) putting up almost 1,000 yardsThey didn't resign him so SF grabbed him. In only 13 games he put up over 1200 yards and averaged 4.4YPCThe following year, finally fully healthy, he put up over 2000 yards of offense, and 5.1 YPCAt that point he was a pretty spectaclar RB who had bad luck through his career, with injuries and pitiful teams to pay forIn the playoffs he broke his ankle, and didn't play for two yearsIn 2001 Hearst made his comeback. Barlow was drafted because the team didn't think Hearst would recover. Not only did he recover but he put up over 1500 yards of offense while splitting time.So basically before his time in SF, Hearst was a 1000 yard rusher who had an injury plagued career.As for Barlow, the coaches gave him plenty of opportunity to win the job his rookie season, and this preseason they did as well.The fact Hearst is a great RB doens't discount the fact that Barlow couldn't win the job when given opportunity.
chinawildman
Footballguy
The flaw with your argument is that it usually isn't a young back "winning" the job, but rather the veteran back "losing" the job. In recent history, I can only think of one instance where a veteran RB has been effective, yet was still replaced based on the merit of the younger back, injuries notwithstanding, and that was when jamal lewis replaced priest holmes in 2000. All other cases of a younger RB overtaking the veteran RB has either been due to the ineffectiveness of the starter, or because of injury. (dominick davis, shaun alexander, etc)Seeing as how Hearst has neither been ineffective or injured since his comeback, how can you possibly draw any conclusions about barlow from this? Does this mean that Watters was a better RB than alexander in 2001 or that Mack is a better RB than dominick davis because neither were able to beat out the veteran in camp?
Brintey Spears
Footballguy
I'm insane, but I'm benching Chad Johnson to Start Barlow at Flex.I have 2 big money leagues and both games are MUST wins. I started Chad in one league, and sat him in the other.
switz
Footballguy
Actually Hasselbeck only backed up Favre for two seasons. But then again, QB is the hardest position to learn, Hasselbeck was a 6th round pick, and Favre is a bonafide first ballot Hall of Fame player.So I guess the real question is: Are you comparing Hearst to Favre??
Last edited by a moderator:
Confucius
Footballguy
I don't listen to hypocrites like Switz. Guys like him really make this board a drag and so redundant. He pimps Onterrio Smith highly yets blasts Barlow. :wacko: I don't feel either player has been given the opportunity to truly display their skills yet, so to formulate an opinion at this point in time would be misconceived. Though, Switz has seen enough of Onterrio Smith to realize he's the next stud while Kevan Barlow is the next Troy Hambrick.
Put your money where your mouth is Switz. I'm game for a wager on Barlow's stats this weekend. The question is do you have the sack to wager? Or will you simply come tell us how wrong you are like you already did once with Onterrio Smith. 
Last edited by a moderator:
switz
Footballguy
Brilliant comeback there Slash.
Since you didn't bother taking a stab at reasoning, nor could refute the fact that Haseelbeck/Favre is nothing like Hearst/Barlow, I'll assume you just agree with me but don't want to admit it.Let's enumerate the similarities:1. Hasellbeck was drafted in the 6th round to be a 3rd string QB.Barlow was drafted in the third round to compete for the starting job.2. When Hasellbeck was drafted, he was behind a first ballot Hall of Fame QB in Bret Favre, and a journeyman backup.When Barlow was drafted the 49ers were desperate at RB, after two non-playoff seasons, losing their starter Charlie Garner (and a few other RBs) to FA, and having only Hearst trying to comeback from a two year layoff due to a severe career-threatening injury on the roster. 3. Within two years of Hasselbeck being drafted he was traded for a 1st round pick.Within three years of being drafted Barlow is seeing less carries (10.1 att/gm) than the previous year (10.4 att/gm).4. When a new coaching staff acquired Hasselbeck he was immediately named their starter.When a new coaching staff inherited Barlow, he was asked to compete for the starting job and didn't win it.So as you can see, using Favre/Hasselbeck to try to make a point about the supposed flaw in my logic is ludicrous and illogical.Anyone want to use Hambrick/Smith as an a analogy? Didn't think so.What about Zeroue/Bettis? Yeah exactly.I see people refer to Shaun Alexander and Fred Taylor. Guess what - it didn't take them 3 years.If you want to use anyone as an analogy to Barlow, use Charlie Garner. It took him 6 years to "break out." You guys can hold on to Barlow for three more years. And it took Garner switching teams. It may take Barlow the same, if he ever breaks out.The above Hasselbeck/Barlow debate is of particular interest for those of you deciding between the two in the ever popular QB/RB flex-position leagues. I don't understand how one can look at their stats and sing Hearst praises while trashing Barlow. Even their own coaching staff deems both worthy of playing of time. We'll all have somewhat of a better idea how well Barlow will perform when given full opportunity on Sunday. It won't settle this arguement, but it will be a piece of the puzzle.
I don't understand how one can look at their stats and sing Hearst praises while trashing Barlow. Even their own coaching staff deems both worthy of playing of time. We'll all have somewhat of a better idea how well Barlow will perform when given full opportunity on Sunday. It won't settle this arguement, but it will be a piece of the puzzle.
packersfan
Footballguy
It took Dorsey Levens four seasons in Green Bay before he became a starter -- and at one point he was also sharing carries (with Edgar Bennett during the team's Super Bowl championship season in 96). Ahman Green needed an injury to Levens in his third season (first in GB) before he could really take over. Looking at Green now, it's hard to believe he also (like Barlow) was a backup at one point with the Packers. Now am I saying Barlow will be as good as Green? Nope, although nothing should be ruled out though personally I think he stands a better chance of being closer to what Levens was in his best seasons. The point is, we don't know what Barlow can do in a full-time role because he has never been given such an opportunity. He hasn't had "tons of opportunities." He's had zip. And the idea that he stinks because he couldn't beat out Hearst is ridiculous. Hearst is still a very good NFL running back. What exactly has Hearst done the last two seasons that would merit him being benched? Nothing that I can tell. And yet some folks want to jump on Barlow for not being a starter as if Hearst is some cripple who can barely walk, let alone play running back in the NFL. No matter what his critics say, this is Barlow's first real opportunity to show what he can do as a starting RB. Will this one game provide the final answer? Nope because no one game should ever be used as the ultimate determination for how good a player is or isn't. But it will give us a much better idea than we've had up until this point.
Last edited by a moderator:
chinawildman
Footballguy
switz, no matter how you wanna spin it, the fact remains that starting RBs in the NFL just don't lose their jobs to the back in waiting if they are still effective and not injured (which Hearst has been for the past 3 years). Your conclusions about Barlow's inabilities to perform as a feature back because he hasn't "beat out" Hearst is weak.
buck naked
Footballguy
Smelvin - Just a comment on your comment "if you were dumb enough to have him stashed on your bench this long".I'm in WCOFF, in 4th place overall with three weeks to go, and have been "dumb enough to have him stashed on" my bench this long. The fact that I did may prove to be the difference in winning $200,000 in three weeks, because now I have another undisputed #1 RB in my lineup. Sometimes, things aren't dumb. I've also had Maurice Morris stashed on my bench all year, but never played him. If Alexander goes down in the next two weeks, I have another #1 RB at the perfect time.
Irish
Footballguy
Switz, I think you being in love with Garrison since college has had a bad impact on your evaluation on Barlow. One on hand you say Barlow is a stiff cause he can't beat out an old crippled rb in Hearst yet another post you say Hearst could have been a HOF. You are contradicting yourself and it is hurting your argument. To say Barlow does not have the talent is being short sighted. Barlow is a top talent rb, however he has been playing being behind a warrior of a rb. I admit Barlow's injuries have held him back as much as Hearst has. If you stated that Barlow will never be a featured back because he could never hold up healthwise then you would not get an argument from me on that. I just think he is a big, powerful, fast rb who has unlimited potential and I am willing to take the gamble that when he becomes a featured back he will hold up. Time will tell.
Confucius
Footballguy
Nobody knew how Deuce McAllister would hold up as an NFL featured back, after all, if you recall Deuce McAllister shared time throughout his time in college with Joe Gunn and never truly was ever a feature back in college yet seemed to always have the nagging injuries even as a part-time player. I think McCallister is holding up just fine in the NFL. Even the Kevan Barlow is "injury prone" argument from Switz is weak. Switz, stop running from me and put your money where your mouth is. Let's see you wager a bit of $ with me on Kevan Barlow's stats tomorrow. If you are indeed correct then Barlow should look like Troy Hambrick and get hurt in the 2nd quarter, no? Step up Switz.
Neo
The Dude minds
Nice post. I think your right about being familiar with the offense and the line and all, the thing that was most worrisome about Barlow was his lack of blocking. Runningbacks HAVE to be able to pick up a blitz and put a linebacker on their ### every once in awhile. You can't put someone in for 40 plays if he can't pick it up. Has he improved in this area? I honestly don't know, I don't see niner games and only know about the state of Hearst / Barlow from this board. Barlow can go out there and put up 100 yards with the right number of carries / style of game being played but as a coach, I have to know my general (qb) isn't going to get killed while KB is out there.
or 
chinawildman
Footballguy
Put down the Barlow voodoo doll boys.... it ain't gonna work. 
packersfan
Footballguy
I can't wait to see all the Barlow haters tripping all over themselves trying to come up with rationalizations for his terrific game today. :rotflmao:
StarboardTacker
Footballguy
Barlow will never be a good NFL RB. :rotflmao: :rotflmao: :rotflmao:
Tau837
Footballguy
switz, you and I have covered some of these same points before.
2001
+----------+-------------+----+
| WK OPP | RSH YD | TD |
+----------+-------------+----+
| 7 buf | 16 76 | 0 |
| 8 kan | 13 31 | 1 |
| 9 den | 14 75 | 0 |
| 14 oak | 17 46 | 0 |
| 16 sea | 14 38 | 0 |
+----------+-------------+----+
| TOTAL | 74 266 | 1 |
+----------+-------------+----+
2002
+----------+-------------+----+
| WK OPP | RSH YD | TD |
+----------+-------------+----+
| 5 den | 14 48 | 0 |
| 9 nyj | 12 60 | 1 |
| 12 mia | 14 45 | 0 |
| 14 oak | 18 57 | 1 |
| 17 sea | 17 67 | 0 |
+----------+-------------+----+
| TOTAL | 75 277 | 2 |
+----------+-------------+----+
2003
+----------+-------------+----+
| WK OPP | RSH YD | TD |
+----------+-------------+----+
| 1 kan | 13 34 | 0 |
| 2 den | 16 93 | 0 |
| 5 jax | 10 38 | 0 |
| 9 chi | 16 61 | 1 |
| 10 min | 16 162 | 2 |
| 11 den | 8 29 | 0 |
| 12 cin | 16 95 | 1 |
+----------+-------------+----+
| TOTAL | 95 512 | 4 |
+----------+-------------+----+
Total of 244/1055 = 4.32 ypc... 1 TD for every 34.9 carries. Compare that to Barlow's career before today, all of which was accumulated in games with 18 or fewer carries: 391/1778 = 4.55 ypc... 1 TD per 32.6 carries.
I'm not saying Barlow is as good as LT. But no one would term LT as "not bad, not spectacular," despite the fact that he has performed about the same as Barlow with a comparable number of carries. The simple fact is that LT is considered one of the elite RBs in the game due to his other games, the ones with 19+ carries. And we don't know how Barlow will do with 19+ carries, since he's never had that many in a game.
I agree with this point. However, I do think a RB needs to average 15+ carries to be good, or in this case, to get a true opportunity to be good. To average 15+ carries per game, a RB will need to have a number of games of 20 carries or more to offset games with fewer carries. Barlow has had only one game (before today) in his career with more than 15 carries, and he has averaged less than 10 carries per game for his career. IMO he has not been given a true opportunity to prove himself, and thus cannot be judged to have failed.
As a matter of fact, LT has averaged 21+ carries per game in his career (before today), so you chose a bad example to back your point.
Since you chose to use LT in your earlier argument, I decided to compare his games with 18 or fewer carries to Barlow's, just to get as close to an apples to apples comparison as possible. Here are LT's games with 18 carries or less:
2001
+----------+-------------+----+
| WK OPP | RSH YD | TD |
+----------+-------------+----+
| 7 buf | 16 76 | 0 |
| 8 kan | 13 31 | 1 |
| 9 den | 14 75 | 0 |
| 14 oak | 17 46 | 0 |
| 16 sea | 14 38 | 0 |
+----------+-------------+----+
| TOTAL | 74 266 | 1 |
+----------+-------------+----+
2002
+----------+-------------+----+
| WK OPP | RSH YD | TD |
+----------+-------------+----+
| 5 den | 14 48 | 0 |
| 9 nyj | 12 60 | 1 |
| 12 mia | 14 45 | 0 |
| 14 oak | 18 57 | 1 |
| 17 sea | 17 67 | 0 |
+----------+-------------+----+
| TOTAL | 75 277 | 2 |
+----------+-------------+----+
2003
+----------+-------------+----+
| WK OPP | RSH YD | TD |
+----------+-------------+----+
| 1 kan | 13 34 | 0 |
| 2 den | 16 93 | 0 |
| 5 jax | 10 38 | 0 |
| 9 chi | 16 61 | 1 |
| 10 min | 16 162 | 2 |
| 11 den | 8 29 | 0 |
| 12 cin | 16 95 | 1 |
+----------+-------------+----+
| TOTAL | 95 512 | 4 |
+----------+-------------+----+
Total of 244/1055 = 4.32 ypc... 1 TD for every 34.9 carries. Compare that to Barlow's career before today, all of which was accumulated in games with 18 or fewer carries: 391/1778 = 4.55 ypc... 1 TD per 32.6 carries.
I'm not saying Barlow is as good as LT. But no one would term LT as "not bad, not spectacular," despite the fact that he has performed about the same as Barlow with a comparable number of carries. The simple fact is that LT is considered one of the elite RBs in the game due to his other games, the ones with 19+ carries. And we don't know how Barlow will do with 19+ carries, since he's never had that many in a game.
Care to restate this one after today?He now has two career games with 18 carries, both against Arizona. In those two games he has rushed for 36/205/2 and added 59 yards and 1 TD receiving. That's 44.4 fantasy points in a standard scoring system. Looks to me like the results show he deserves more carries.
Similar threads
