M. Drew gets no love (1 Viewer)

[GDogg]

Maurice Drew runs a sub 4.4 40 and beat Reggie Bush in the 100 during the California state T&F championships.

This is false, btw. Drew's best 100 was 10.78 and he never beat Bush in HS. It's an internet legend that's been passed around for over a year. Drew was eliminated in an early qualifier at the state meet. Reggie finished third in the final. His best 100 was 4 tenths faster than Drew ever ran. Reggie was expected to win, but he had a bad race. He was closing on the winner at the tape.ETA: Fwiw, Bush at the State Meet

No, it's not an internet legend. That link isn't to their senior year of high school. That's their junior year. They graduated in 2003, not 2002.Here's a story on the meet:

NORTH/SOUTH RIVALRY ALIVE: The second heat of the boys 100-meter dash had a couple of the top prep football players in the state doing battle in Maurice Drew of De La Salle and Reggie Bush of Helix-San Diego.

The two were in lanes two and three, and for Drew, there was no shortage of incentive.

"In all the postseason (football) stuff, he seemed to be rated ahead of me, so I wanted to beat him," Drew said.

For even more incentive, Drew is headed to UCLA and Bush to USC in the fall, both to play football.

"That meant a lot to me," Drew said. "I don't know if he was thinking about it, but I wanted to be sure to give UCLA an edge."

Drew did come out on top, edging Bush 10.99 to 11.08, but neither one of the two made the finals. There may be a silver lining for Drew however. The senior had to fly home late Friday night for a 8 a.m. De La Salle graduation ceremony. If he had made the finals, he would have flown back to Southern California Saturday around noon.

http://72.14.203.104/search?q=cache:960Xoa...lient=firefox-a

Here's a link to the state finals that year. Notice that neither Drew nor Bush are listed because neither of them qualified:

http://www.cifstate.org/Track%20and%20Field/Results2_03.htm

 

[Gandalf]

Thanks GDogg. I've been a big MJD fan for a while now and didn't know this. Good stuff.

 

[Mungo Burrows]

He gets no love because he's UNDER 5'7" and to my knowledge, there has NEVER been a successful primary ball-carrier under 5'7" in the NFL. Maybe he'll be the first, but there's a REASON it has never been done.

I don't know what Barry Sanders was listed at, but I am 5'8" and looked him right in the eye at a charity event a few years back. I'd consider him a primany ball carrier.

Yeah, he probably picked under 5'7" because sanders was 5'8" (5'11" with the hair). It's much easier to make a point if you can arbitrarily pick thresholds which support your theory.

Hate to state the obvious here, but there was nothing arbitrary about " under 5'7" ". I chose that phrase because that's exactly what Drew IS - " under 5'7" ".Joe Morris, who I had forgotten, is the best only counter-example that seems to pop up. He's was (is) a little taller than Drew, but at least there is one semi-precedent (albeit two decades ago).

Why does height matter? Hell if I know! You could make a case (as many have) that you would be better off shorter than taller at a given minimum weight. But the FACT is that not very many people (if any) his height have EVER done what some people are saying he will do. Just seems unlikely to me, based on historical evidence. That's all I am saying. That's the simple reason he "gets no love", because the odds are heavily against him.

Why are the odds heavily against him? Do you have the information for the number of players his height that have actually failed in the NFL at RB? My guess is that there aren't many because there simply haven't been many players to have played RB in the NFL, period, at that height.

Well, OK - the next question would be why haven't there been many players at that height to play in the NFL. There are lots of short guys in the world - why did none of them make it to the NFL? Coincidence?You are using a circular argument.

don't waste your time . . . these people actually think YOU made up the threshold . . . I'm sure that NFL scouts have NO standards for height, weight, speed etc., for each position . . . as long as you think you can play, you TOO (regardless of physical stature) can play in the NFL . . .

Yes I think he made up the threshold. If he had picked 5'8" then eveyone would have pointed to barry sanders as refuting it. if he picked 5'6" it wouldn't have included Drew. 5'7" conveniently fit his theory so he threw it out there with no facts to show that the failure rate of otherwise equally talented 5'7" players is any higher than the failure rate of taller backs. Strawman arguments should be exposed for what they are.

 

[ellisonb11]

he will have his chance this year to prove himself. looks like greg jones is done for the year apparently. he just has to beat out toefield, i doubt pearman will get in his way.

 

[Chaos Commish]

Maurice Drew runs a sub 4.4 40 and beat Reggie Bush in the 100 during the California state T&F championships.

This is false, btw. Drew's best 100 was 10.78 and he never beat Bush in HS. It's an internet legend that's been passed around for over a year. Drew was eliminated in an early qualifier at the state meet. Reggie finished third in the final. His best 100 was 4 tenths faster than Drew ever ran. Reggie was expected to win, but he had a bad race. He was closing on the winner at the tape.ETA: Fwiw, Bush at the State Meet

No, it's not an internet legend. That link isn't to their senior year of high school. That's their junior year. They graduated in 2003, not 2002.Here's a story on the meet:

Drew did come out on top, edging Bush 10.99 to 11.08, but neither one of the two made the finals.

Factually, you are correct, but you do perpetuate the internet legend with your presentation: "Maurice Drew runs a sub 4.4 40 and beat Reggie Bush in the 100 during the California state T&F championships." Look at the times. Bush ran 11.08? What gives? Even Drew's time is embarrassingly slow. They both got smoked in this heat. Drew's time, while slow, is typical of his upper range 100 times in HS. Bush's time is the worst he ever ran. When you present it, without the story, you perpetuate this myth that was running rampant that Drew is faster than Reggie. Why not spell it out: "One race in HS, when Bush ran his slowest ever time on a bad calf which he strained in the 50 that almost caused him to miss the 100 and did force him to skip the 200, Drew ran a sadly slow time but still beat him, as they both got smoked from the event." That's the way to tell the story and avoid misinformation. Drew has never claimed to be anywhere near Reggie's speed and always mentioned it interviews when his cross-town rival was brought up. "He's just so much faster than everybody else," was a Drew comment last season. Just clearing up the myth. Drew gets caught from behind because he doesn't have that 6th gear that Reggie and Norwood have. Drew's 4.39 was a shock to those who know him, and a friend of his from HS, said he was almost certain it was the first time Drew ever went under 4.4. Drew also expressed surprise with the time. Reggie was disappointed he had a slow run at 4.33. If you watched that run, you know he staggered a little at 25 yards and nearly went out of his lane. He had posted a few sub 4.3s working out for his pro day.

I am very fond of MoJo Drew as a football player and person. I think my assessment on page one is probably the scoop. The good news is most of these rookie backs look very much like they did in college and that bodes well for them. I'm beginning to think these guys, with the exception of Bush, were all underrated in a draft class deep at other positions.

 

[GDogg]

Maurice Drew runs a sub 4.4 40 and beat Reggie Bush in the 100 during the California state T&F championships.

This is false, btw. Drew's best 100 was 10.78 and he never beat Bush in HS. It's an internet legend that's been passed around for over a year. Drew was eliminated in an early qualifier at the state meet. Reggie finished third in the final. His best 100 was 4 tenths faster than Drew ever ran. Reggie was expected to win, but he had a bad race. He was closing on the winner at the tape.ETA: Fwiw, Bush at the State Meet

No, it's not an internet legend. That link isn't to their senior year of high school. That's their junior year. They graduated in 2003, not 2002.Here's a story on the meet:

Drew did come out on top, edging Bush 10.99 to 11.08, but neither one of the two made the finals.

Factually, you are correct, but you do perpetuate the internet legend with your presentation: "Maurice Drew runs a sub 4.4 40 and beat Reggie Bush in the 100 during the California state T&F championships." Look at the times. Bush ran 11.08? What gives? Even Drew's time is embarrassingly slow. They both got smoked in this heat. Drew's time, while slow, is typical of his upper range 100 times in HS. Bush's time is the worst he ever ran. When you present it, without the story, you perpetuate this myth that was running rampant that Drew is faster than Reggie. Why not spell it out: "One race in HS, when Bush ran his slowest ever time on a bad calf which he strained in the 50 that almost caused him to miss the 100 and did force him to skip the 200, Drew ran a sadly slow time but still beat him, as they both got smoked from the event." That's the way to tell the story and avoid misinformation. Drew has never claimed to be anywhere near Reggie's speed and always mentioned it interviews when his cross-town rival was brought up. "He's just so much faster than everybody else," was a Drew comment last season. Just clearing up the myth. Drew gets caught from behind because he doesn't have that 6th gear that Reggie and Norwood have. Drew's 4.39 was a shock to those who know him, and a friend of his from HS, said he was almost certain it was the first time Drew ever went under 4.4. Drew also expressed surprise with the time. Reggie was disappointed he had a slow run at 4.33. If you watched that run, you know he staggered a little at 25 yards and nearly went out of his lane. He had posted a few sub 4.3s working out for his pro day.

I am very fond of MoJo Drew as a football player and person. I think my assessment on page one is probably the scoop. The good news is most of these rookie backs look very much like they did in college and that bodes well for them. I'm beginning to think these guys, with the exception of Bush, were all underrated in a draft class deep at other positions.

Some of this is crazy. Was that whole first paragraph just a long way of saying that you were wrong? You unequivocally stated that "[Drew] never beat Bush in HS." Yes, he did and I presented the facts. You were the one spreading "misinformation" by stating a complete untruth as fact. Again, I stated the fact without any gloss to it, and you then followed it up by calling it a myth and telling everyone that it didn't happen. Don't get pissed when you are wrong. Just say you were wrong.

I am UCLA season ticket holder and Drew was NEVER caught from behind. 16 of his TD's were from 40 yards+ and that's not even counting his kickoff and punt returns for TD's. You don't score that many times from that far away if you get "caught from behind because you don't have that 6th gear." There was a segment on ESPN when Drew was a legitimate Heisman candidate last season where they did an analysis of him and why he is so successful at breaking long runs. Merrill Hoge (I think) stated that most guys that are short are "more quick, than fast." This was prior to him running the 4.39 40. He pointed out that Drew is definitely quick, but was about to point out just how fast he was. He showed a clip of Drew breaking a long run and running up the sideline. There was a DB who had the angle on Drew and should have caught him. Hoge then ran the play from that point frame by frame and showed how Drew takes longer strides than the DB did and Drew quickly pulls away from him because he is so "fast."

As far as him being surprised by the 4.39 40 was concerned, he stated that his goal was to be timed at 4.3 in an interview prior to the draft (I am searching for the link) and that in his workouts, he was routinely in the 4.3's. In fact, here's a link to a listing of the fastest players expected to participate in the NFL Draft combine. Note: These times are from prior to the draft and the source is NFLDraftScout.com

http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=726

 

[Chaos Commish]

Maurice Drew runs a sub 4.4 40 and beat Reggie Bush in the 100 during the California state T&F championships.

This is false, btw. Drew's best 100 was 10.78 and he never beat Bush in HS. It's an internet legend that's been passed around for over a year. Drew was eliminated in an early qualifier at the state meet. Reggie finished third in the final. His best 100 was 4 tenths faster than Drew ever ran. Reggie was expected to win, but he had a bad race. He was closing on the winner at the tape.ETA: Fwiw, Bush at the State Meet

No, it's not an internet legend. That link isn't to their senior year of high school. That's their junior year. They graduated in 2003, not 2002.Here's a story on the meet:

Drew did come out on top, edging Bush 10.99 to 11.08, but neither one of the two made the finals.

Factually, you are correct, but you do perpetuate the internet legend with your presentation: "Maurice Drew runs a sub 4.4 40 and beat Reggie Bush in the 100 during the California state T&F championships." Look at the times. Bush ran 11.08? What gives? Even Drew's time is embarrassingly slow. They both got smoked in this heat. Drew's time, while slow, is typical of his upper range 100 times in HS. Bush's time is the worst he ever ran. When you present it, without the story, you perpetuate this myth that was running rampant that Drew is faster than Reggie. Why not spell it out: "One race in HS, when Bush ran his slowest ever time on a bad calf which he strained in the 50 that almost caused him to miss the 100 and did force him to skip the 200, Drew ran a sadly slow time but still beat him, as they both got smoked from the event." That's the way to tell the story and avoid misinformation. Drew has never claimed to be anywhere near Reggie's speed and always mentioned it interviews when his cross-town rival was brought up. "He's just so much faster than everybody else," was a Drew comment last season. Just clearing up the myth. Drew gets caught from behind because he doesn't have that 6th gear that Reggie and Norwood have. Drew's 4.39 was a shock to those who know him, and a friend of his from HS, said he was almost certain it was the first time Drew ever went under 4.4. Drew also expressed surprise with the time. Reggie was disappointed he had a slow run at 4.33. If you watched that run, you know he staggered a little at 25 yards and nearly went out of his lane. He had posted a few sub 4.3s working out for his pro day.

I am very fond of MoJo Drew as a football player and person. I think my assessment on page one is probably the scoop. The good news is most of these rookie backs look very much like they did in college and that bodes well for them. I'm beginning to think these guys, with the exception of Bush, were all underrated in a draft class deep at other positions.

Some of this is crazy. http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=726

Agreed. Some of this is crazy. Can you admit Drew beat a guy who ran 11.+ while running 10.99 and getting smoked by the field? Just curious, if you want to acknowledge the times or perpetuate the "Drew is faster than Bush" myth. I did acknowledge your being factually correct, but you seem determined to avoid the truth behind those facts. coldhardfacts doesn't have their facts straight either (not surprising). They are wrong on his height, his weight and his time.

hth

As for him being caught from behind, it happens. He has gamebreaking long speed, but it isn't the same as Reggie's. He admits it. Do you?

It's not worth a pizzing contest.

Ben Olson has been named the starter and I'm pretty jacked up about that. Go Bruins!

 

[GDogg]

Maurice Drew runs a sub 4.4 40 and beat Reggie Bush in the 100 during the California state T&F championships.

This is false, btw. Drew's best 100 was 10.78 and he never beat Bush in HS. It's an internet legend that's been passed around for over a year. Drew was eliminated in an early qualifier at the state meet. Reggie finished third in the final. His best 100 was 4 tenths faster than Drew ever ran. Reggie was expected to win, but he had a bad race. He was closing on the winner at the tape.ETA: Fwiw, Bush at the State Meet

No, it's not an internet legend. That link isn't to their senior year of high school. That's their junior year. They graduated in 2003, not 2002.Here's a story on the meet:

Drew did come out on top, edging Bush 10.99 to 11.08, but neither one of the two made the finals.

Factually, you are correct, but you do perpetuate the internet legend with your presentation: "Maurice Drew runs a sub 4.4 40 and beat Reggie Bush in the 100 during the California state T&F championships." Look at the times. Bush ran 11.08? What gives? Even Drew's time is embarrassingly slow. They both got smoked in this heat. Drew's time, while slow, is typical of his upper range 100 times in HS. Bush's time is the worst he ever ran. When you present it, without the story, you perpetuate this myth that was running rampant that Drew is faster than Reggie. Why not spell it out: "One race in HS, when Bush ran his slowest ever time on a bad calf which he strained in the 50 that almost caused him to miss the 100 and did force him to skip the 200, Drew ran a sadly slow time but still beat him, as they both got smoked from the event." That's the way to tell the story and avoid misinformation. Drew has never claimed to be anywhere near Reggie's speed and always mentioned it interviews when his cross-town rival was brought up. "He's just so much faster than everybody else," was a Drew comment last season. Just clearing up the myth. Drew gets caught from behind because he doesn't have that 6th gear that Reggie and Norwood have. Drew's 4.39 was a shock to those who know him, and a friend of his from HS, said he was almost certain it was the first time Drew ever went under 4.4. Drew also expressed surprise with the time. Reggie was disappointed he had a slow run at 4.33. If you watched that run, you know he staggered a little at 25 yards and nearly went out of his lane. He had posted a few sub 4.3s working out for his pro day.

I am very fond of MoJo Drew as a football player and person. I think my assessment on page one is probably the scoop. The good news is most of these rookie backs look very much like they did in college and that bodes well for them. I'm beginning to think these guys, with the exception of Bush, were all underrated in a draft class deep at other positions.

Some of this is crazy. http://www.coldhardfootballfacts.com/Article.php?Page=726

Agreed. Some of this is crazy. Can you admit Drew beat a guy who ran 11.+ while running 10.99 and getting smoked by the field? Just curious, if you want to acknowledge the times or perpetuate the "Drew is faster than Bush" myth. I did acknowledge your being factually correct, but you seem determined to avoid the truth behind those facts. coldhardfacts doesn't have their facts straight either (not surprising). They are wrong on his height, his weight and his time.

hth

As for him being caught from behind, it happens. He has gamebreaking long speed, but it isn't the same as Reggie's. He admits it. Do you?

It's not worth a pizzing contest.

Ben Olson has been named the starter and I'm pretty jacked up about that. Go Bruins!

Look, I'm not trying to get into a pissing contest either. I never tried to perpetuate any myth and I never even said that he was faster than Bush. He's not. He is, however, the fastest rookie RB outside of Bush. The truth behind the facts is that Drew beat Bush head to head in their qualifying heat for the CIF championships. Reggie came out and said afterward that he was hurt. Neither qualified for the Finals, but I don't think that's a big deal.

I hate this phrase, but I guess we'll have to agree to disagree about Maurice getting caught from behind. I have watched (as I have a strong feeling you have, too) every single Maurice Drew carry in college and he never got caught from behind, as far as I can remember. I am not saying that it for sure didn't happen, but I will say that I don't recall ever seeing it happen. Like I said above, I admit that Maurice isn't faster than Reggie. But, contrary to what you seem to think and are implying, I never said he was and I am now going on record to make it clear, Maurice Drew is not faster than Reggie Bush. He is faster than Brian Calhoun, DeAngelo Williams, Joseph Addai, Lawrence Maroney and any other rookie RB.

I'm pretty jacked up about Ben Olson, as well. I'm also pretty jacked up about the fact that Pat Cowan gave him such a run for his money as it means we at least have a very capable backup. Go Bruins!

By the way, here's where that previous link probably got his measurables. Notice that UCLA used to lie about his height (5-8).

http://uclabruins.cstv.com/sports/m-footbl..._maurice00.html

 

[OneEastRiver]

But will he see any carries this year?

 

[Gandalf]

But will he see any carries this year?

My magic 8-Ball says "perhaps"

 

[rowdyroddypiper]

But will he see any carries this year?

My magic 8-Ball says "perhaps"

So whats this guys value now that gjones is out for the year? Is he the primary backup with tremendous upside when Freddy sucks / gets hurt?

 

[OneEastRiver]

But will he see any carries this year?

My magic 8-Ball says "perhaps"

Excellent. Guess that settles it.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

He gets no love because he's UNDER 5'7" and to my knowledge, there has NEVER been a successful primary ball-carrier under 5'7" in the NFL. Maybe he'll be the first, but there's a REASON it has never been done.

I don't know what Barry Sanders was listed at, but I am 5'8" and looked him right in the eye at a charity event a few years back. I'd consider him a primany ball carrier.

Yeah, he probably picked under 5'7" because sanders was 5'8" (5'11" with the hair). It's much easier to make a point if you can arbitrarily pick thresholds which support your theory.

Hate to state the obvious here, but there was nothing arbitrary about " under 5'7" ". I chose that phrase because that's exactly what Drew IS - " under 5'7" ".Joe Morris, who I had forgotten, is the best only counter-example that seems to pop up. He's was (is) a little taller than Drew, but at least there is one semi-precedent (albeit two decades ago).

Why does height matter? Hell if I know! You could make a case (as many have) that you would be better off shorter than taller at a given minimum weight. But the FACT is that not very many people (if any) his height have EVER done what some people are saying he will do. Just seems unlikely to me, based on historical evidence. That's all I am saying. That's the simple reason he "gets no love", because the odds are heavily against him.

Why are the odds heavily against him? Do you have the information for the number of players his height that have actually failed in the NFL at RB? My guess is that there aren't many because there simply haven't been many players to have played RB in the NFL, period, at that height.

Well, OK - the next question would be why haven't there been many players at that height to play in the NFL. There are lots of short guys in the world - why did none of them make it to the NFL? Coincidence?You are using a circular argument.

don't waste your time . . . these people actually think YOU made up the threshold . . . I'm sure that NFL scouts have NO standards for height, weight, speed etc., for each position . . . as long as you think you can play, you TOO (regardless of physical stature) can play in the NFL . . .

Yes I think he made up the threshold. If he had picked 5'8" then eveyone would have pointed to barry sanders as refuting it. if he picked 5'6" it wouldn't have included Drew. 5'7" conveniently fit his theory so he threw it out there with no facts to show that the failure rate of otherwise equally talented 5'7" players is any higher than the failure rate of taller backs. Strawman arguments should be exposed for what they are.

I am going to say this V-E-R-Y S-L-O-W-L-Y. I didn't "pick" anything. I didn't make anything up. There was absolutely nothing arbitrary in the "threshhold". I used DREW'S HEIGHT. That's it. Nothing more, nothing less. If it helps you grasp the concept, forget the number altogether. You seem to be hung up on it.Let's work from this angle:

No one Drew's height (whatever that might be...) has ever been a successful primary ball-carrier in the NFL.

Of ALL the able-bodied mean who are Drew's height (whatever that might be...) or less, however talented they may have been, whatever their credentials looked like, however fast they were, however thick their legs were, however shifty they were, however strong they may have been, and however many of them there were or are, NONE of them has ever been a successfull primary ball-carrier in the NFL. There are no numbers to confuse you now. I just unstuffed the "strawman".

Also, as someone noted, Joe Morris was close. If he was listed generously (as Drew is sometimes), it is POSSIBLE the he would be a precedent and ONE other person in history has accomplished what Drew proponents think he will accomplish. ALL of the other examples people have come up with were obviously taller (if even only by an inch or two) than Drew. In my mind, those are still some bad odds.

He COULD bust those odds. He could overcome what is fairly clearly a natural disadvantage because he is a truly unique specimen in other aspects of his physique or game. I have already admitted this. If he does, more power to him and to those who "believed" in him.

But please don't imply I am making things up in order deceive anyone about the guy. I am not and it's obvious to anyone who has actually read my post that I am not.

 

[Gandalf]

But will he see any carries this year?

My magic 8-Ball says "perhaps"

Excellent. Guess that settles it.

We must wait and see if Fred Taylor gets hurt. At the very least I'd expect MJD to get a handful of carries per game.

 

[There it is]

But will he see any carries this year?

My magic 8-Ball says "perhaps"

Excellent. Guess that settles it.

We must wait and see if Fred Taylor gets hurt. At the very least I'd expect MJD to get a handful of carries per game.

Thats what I thought. I drafted him in rnd 14 and may have to use him in week 4 as a starter.

 

[satch]

But will he see any carries this year?

My magic 8-Ball says "perhaps"

So whats this guys value now that gjones is out for the year? Is he the primary backup with tremendous upside when Freddy sucks / gets hurt?

I would have to say MJD is a "must pick up" right now if you have a scrub you can drop. Especially in keeper leagues. Greg Jones is out and I think Fred Taylor's age and injury history will catch up to him this year. Jax is a team that relies heavily on the run/ ball control. If Taylor underperforms as expected (by some of us) or gets injured, MJD could get his chance to play much sooner than anyone expected now with Greg Jones out of the mix. MJD appears to have the speed, moves, recieving ability and power to be a featured back and seems to be a great fit in the Jax offense. My advice is to grab MJD before he gets his shot because it may only take one game for MJD to take over as Jax #1 RB. He's the perfect 3rd down back. If he gets the chance at being the every down back the sky's the limit. If he doesn't pan out what have you lost? You're #5 WR? Big deal. If he does pan out, he could be a top 10 fantasy RB.

Of course this is all guess work, but somewhat educated. Zero risk, unlimited upside, the classic grab him now before it's too late.

 

[Armando]

I'll give him love for what I think he is -- a nice 3rd down change of pace guy & special teamer. Nothing wrong with that at all. Not every RB can start in the league.

 

[Gandalf]

I'll give him love for what I think he is -- a nice 3rd down change of pace guy & special teamer. Nothing wrong with that at all. Not every RB can start in the league.

Why do you think he's destined to be only a 3rd down RB?

 

[satch]

I'll give him love for what I think he is -- a nice 3rd down change of pace guy & special teamer. Nothing wrong with that at all. Not every RB can start in the league.

Why do you think he's destined to be only a 3rd down RB?

There's certainly no guarantee that MJD will take over and succeed as Jax #1 RB, but it's certainly possible. That fact alone makes him worth picking up. In fantasy football, the key is to pick up a player before they blow up, not wait until after they blow up only to find out that someone grabbed him yesterday. If MJD doesn't pan out, simply drop him and pick back up another scrub WR like the one you dropped to get him. If MJD does pan out you've just acquired Jax #1 RB. Seems like a worthwile risk to me.

 

[biggamer3]

Can you guys believe what a seson he has had?

hard to think that he was a free agent in the beginning of the season on most leagues

 

[GDogg]

Can you guys believe what a seson he has had? hard to think that he was a free agent in the beginning of the season on most leagues

Yes, I can believe it. See the posts above.He scored a lot of TD's in college, and I truly believe that if Reggie Bush hadn't played across town that Maurice Drew would have been one of the more hyped RB's in college last season.I hope everyone that contributed to this thread picked him up. He's getting his 10th start of the season for me this weekend in the playoffs.

 

[Wadsworth]

The lack of love continues for MJD everywhere outside of UCLA, Jacksonville and fantasy football circles. He just last weekend had arguable one of the top games ever for a rookie RB and couldn't even win offensive rookie of the week. He had over 180 yards and 2 TDs from scimage on only 16 touches and returned a kick-off for a TD. But VY making one run in OT after a marginal game at best trumps all that, it's a better highlight I guess.

 

[LHUCKS]

Another thread I nailed.

 

[GDogg]

Another thread I nailed.

You weren't alone, though.

 

[LHUCKS]

Another thread I nailed. :(

You weren't alone, though.

 

[GOroute]

what a circle jerk this thread has become.

MJD is a playa. nuff said.

now who do i play. TATUM or MJD.

 

[AsimoV]

The lack of love continues for MJD everywhere outside of UCLA, Jacksonville and fantasy football circles. He just last weekend had arguable one of the top games ever for a rookie RB and couldn't even win offensive rookie of the week. He had over 180 yards and 2 TDs from scimage on only 16 touches and returned a kick-off for a TD. But VY making one run in OT after a marginal game at best trumps all that, it's a better highlight I guess.

Much credit for his success goes to the Indy run D. Not saying it's right, but when you listen to ESPN, they're not talking about "Drew-Jones had a great game". Instead you hear, "Indy's run defense is the worst of all time."

 

[Da Guru]

I have been loving him!!

 

[LBH]

The lack of love continues for MJD everywhere outside of UCLA, Jacksonville and fantasy football circles. He just last weekend had arguable one of the top games ever for a rookie RB and couldn't even win offensive rookie of the week. He had over 180 yards and 2 TDs from scimage on only 16 touches and returned a kick-off for a TD. But VY making one run in OT after a marginal game at best trumps all that, it's a better highlight I guess.

Much credit for his success goes to the Indy run D. Not saying it's right, but when you listen to ESPN, they're not talking about "Drew-Jones had a great game". Instead you hear, "Indy's run defense is the worst of all time."

I still think it has to be conceded that MJD looks to be a very good feature back. Think about the numbers he could put up without Taylor in the mix. Pretty scary. Im holding him and F.Gore in a keeper league, and can only keep one. I thought it would be an easy choice, but ill be watching things closely down the stretch