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.

Maurice Clarett's workout today (1 Viewer)

Nothing but you are saying that the stats are similar yet fail to recognize this. If Clarett would have ran the whole year he would have blown Wells numbers out of the water. It is unfair to compare the two just because they went to the same school. They are the same style back but obviously someone see's something more in Clarett for him to be a 2nd round back (probably a first had it not been for all this crap) and Wells a 4th.
iceman, look at their number of rushing attempts. they were practically identical.so, on a similar number of touches, in a nearly identical system with nearly identical surrounding personnel, the performance of Wells in 2001 was statistically equivalent to the performance of Clarett in 2002.

that is pretty much a fact given the numbers that were posted in this thread, and I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would continue to debate the issue.

you can argue that their statistical equivalence isn't all that meaningful, but I still found it to be an interesting comparison. It really should have little impact on how to project Clarett in the future, as the situation he will be in will certainly be very different than the one Wells ended up in and they are different players with different abilities and tendencies.

and as for Maurice Clarett's agent, Irish:

Your memory must be bad, because even though OSU's defense was pretty good during their championship yr, it was Clarett's running
I was talking about the entire season, not just one game. That defense played lights out all year and kept every game close until the offense could win it at the end. Clarett's stats for the championship game were pretty pedestrian, and as other have said already, he missed a few games and parts of others. The defense carried that team.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
iceman, look at their number of rushing attempts. they were practically identical.

so, on a similar number of touches, in a nearly identical system with nearly identical surrounding personnel, the performance of Wells in 2001 was statistically equivalent to the performance of Clarett in 2002.

that is pretty much a fact given the numbers that were posted in this thread, and I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would continue to debate the issue.

you can argue that their statistical equivalence isn't all that meaningful, but I still found it to be an interesting comparison. It really should have little impact on how to project Clarett in the future, as the situation he will be in will certainly be very different than the one Wells ended up in and they are different players with different abilities and tendencies.

and as for Maurice Clarett's agent, Irish:

I was talking about the entire season, not just one game. That defense played lights out all year and kept every game close until the offense could win it at the end. Clarett's stats for the championship game were pretty pedestrian, and as other have said already, he missed a few games and parts of others. The defense carried that team.
I would agree while statistically they are almost identical. The question still remains how many games did each player play? And an in tangible stat, how many games did each player play injured? I think the point is that Clarett had he played as many games as Wells would of had alot more yards and TDs. Now that would of also meant he had a greater opportunity than Wells. Fine, but all we really care about in total yards and TDs anyway! Also in several games Clarett played he only played a one series game, a two series game, a one quarter game and one half game, because he was playing injured. Now if you can't play the whole game one can speculate that his yards per carry are going to be down?It's kind of funny, it seems half or at least a good percentage of this board either wants him to fail or suceed at some level. I think with the right opportunity he will do great, or he could get stuck behind a proven veteran and he may never reach his potential. I just think all the bashing is funny, and the only looserrs will be the ones that don't get him on their dynasty team.

 
iceman, look at their number of rushing attempts. they were practically identical.

so, on a similar number of touches, in a nearly identical system with nearly identical surrounding personnel, the performance of Wells in 2001 was statistically equivalent to the performance of Clarett in 2002.

that is pretty much a fact given the numbers that were posted in this thread, and I'm having a hard time understanding why anyone would continue to debate the issue.

you can argue that their statistical equivalence isn't all that meaningful, but I still found it to be an interesting comparison. It really should have little impact on how to project Clarett in the future, as the situation he will be in will certainly be very different than the one Wells ended up in and they are different players with different abilities and tendencies.

and as for Maurice Clarett's agent, Irish:

I was talking about the entire season, not just one game. That defense played lights out all year and kept every game close until the offense could win it at the end. Clarett's stats for the championship game were pretty pedestrian, and as other have said already, he missed a few games and parts of others. The defense carried that team.
Aaron, instead of comparing him to Wells who was on a different team then Clarett was on, compare him to the 2 backs who replaced him last year in the same offense. This last years group had the same offense as Clarett had and here is the numbers they produced:Combined (every one is included but I'll get the numbers of the 2 below combined):

GP ATT ATT/G YRDS AVG YRDS/G

12 494 41 1639 3.3 136.6

Individual:

Player Att Yds Avg Tds

Lydell Ross 193 826 4.3 10

Maurice Hall 97 316 3.0 1

Combined 290 1142 3.9 11

Also, isn't it kind of hard to ignore the fact that Clarett was a freshman. None of us are pro scouts but someone who is getting paid to see's something more in Clarett then what people did in Wells. Clarett is in the same type of class, IMO, that Wells was in and is more highly touted. I watched Clarett and I truely think he is a special back maybe I am being fooled though.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
yep, Ross and Hall were highly regarded coming into the 2003 season but they pretty much couldn't get anything done. So, Clarett is clearly superior to either of them. What does that prove?

 
yep, Ross and Hall were highly regarded coming into the 2003 season but they pretty much couldn't get anything done. So, Clarett is clearly superior to either of them. What does that prove?
Nothing I guess, but what does comparing them to Wells do either.
 
Nothing I guess, but what does comparing them to Wells do either.
well, for one, Wells was a good enough RB to get drafted and actually start for an NFL team at one point. I don't think either of the 2003 Buckeye RBs will get that opportunity. Everybody knows that Clarett is a great talent, and I can't imagine anybody not appreciating what he did as a true freshman. So, saying he's better than 2 scrubs is not all that informative. BUT, showing that he didn't do much better (statistically) than a guy like Wells who is a medicore NFL RB at best, might temper some of the enthusiasm that people have.I don't think the point was being made that Clarett = Wells. I think the point that was being made was - if Clarett is so much better than Wells (and I think everybody would agree with that), then why wasn't that superior skill evidenced in their statistical comparison? Obviously, age and experience are two of the biggest factors. Clarett was a freshman and didn't have the benefit of being in the system for as long as Wells. Therefore, Wells' numbers were probably about as good as they would ever get. Meanwhile, Clarett's numbers were achieved at such an early age that it is very reasonable to expect that he would have improved on them considerably as a sophomore and junior.I seem to recall another stud freshman from Ohio State that everybody (myself included) thought would be an automatic NFL superstar. Things didn't really work out so well for Mr. Katzenmoyer though. I wouldn't be completely shocked if Clarett flamed out in the NFL as well.I'm not a Clarett hater, but he's far from the sure thing that some people in this thread seem to be implying. I think he has starter potential, but there is also a ton of risk surrounding him, IMO.
 
well, for one, Wells was a good enough RB to get drafted and actually start for an NFL team at one point. I don't think either of the 2003 Buckeye RBs will get that opportunity. Everybody knows that Clarett is a great talent, and I can't imagine anybody not appreciating what he did as a true freshman. So, saying he's better than 2 scrubs is not all that informative. BUT, showing that he didn't do much better (statistically) than a guy like Wells who is a medicore NFL RB at best, might temper some of the enthusiasm that people have.I don't think the point was being made that Clarett = Wells. I think the point that was being made was - if Clarett is so much better than Wells (and I think everybody would agree with that), then why wasn't that superior skill evidenced in their statistical comparison? Obviously, age and experience are two of the biggest factors. Clarett was a freshman and didn't have the benefit of being in the system for as long as Wells. Therefore, Wells' numbers were probably about as good as they would ever get. Meanwhile, Clarett's numbers were achieved at such an early age that it is very reasonable to expect that he would have improved on them considerably as a sophomore and junior.I seem to recall another stud freshman from Ohio State that everybody (myself included) thought would be an automatic NFL superstar. Things didn't really work out so well for Mr. Katzenmoyer though. I wouldn't be completely shocked if Clarett flamed out in the NFL as well.I'm not a Clarett hater, but he's far from the sure thing that some people in this thread seem to be implying. I think he has starter potential, but there is also a ton of risk surrounding him, IMO.
Honestly, I do not fully believe Clarett can or will become a star. I was trying to defend his talent but that was pointless now that I understand what your intentions were. Clarett is very boom/bust. As for Katz I honestly don't remember too much about the situation (as I have become more addicted to football the last 3 years then I ever was before) but I do remember him being forced out on a neck injury and being pretty money hungry. I still do not believe the Wells comparison is fair but you arn't using to say Clarett is Wells. It could also be argues that Wells didn't get all that fair of a chance with the Texans. They tried him as a rookie with a terrible line and he was not a back that could suceed without a good line maybe he would have done well in say Denver or somewhere. We don't know. I was using the comparison to last years back's because honestly I believe that Ross is a decent back and they had a bad run blocking line last year until towards the end of the year when Ross finally turned it on some. Also to show those that say Clarett was a system back what 2 backs did in the same system with the same offense. I am a big supporter of Clarett, but yes, a buyer beware is a need to be placed on this guys head.
 
I seem to recall another stud freshman from Ohio State that everybody (myself included) thought would be an automatic NFL superstar. Things didn't really work out so well for Mr. Katzenmoyer though. I wouldn't be completely shocked if Clarett flamed out in the NFL as well.I'm not a Clarett hater, but he's far from the sure thing that some people in this thread seem to be implying. I think he has starter potential, but there is also a ton of risk surrounding him, IMO.
Katzenmoyer flamed out not because he wasn't good enough, he had a severe neck injury and retired. Sure he was injured early in his career which could lead someone to believe he couldn't make it, but injuries wipe out many promising careers, once again another example of not fully understanding the circumstances.Clarett has a lot to prove, the brief glimpse we got of him in his freshman year leads some of us to believe he has huge potential and others to be believe he hasn't proven anything. That's fine. People can review stats until their blue in the face, watch some of his highlights and you may have a better appreciation of why some of us are very pro-Clarett. Again stats don't tell the whole story.
 
I know all about the Katzenmoyer injury and how it cut his career short. But, his sophomore and junior seasons weren't nearly as impressive as his freshman seasons, IIRC. (Edit to add: I think he was pretty good his sophomore year as well but was ordinary in his junior year) Also, his performance in the NFL before he got injured was not nearly as good as most expected of him.My point is that a player who looks like a can't miss prospect as a freshman can fail to live up to the expectations many of us place on them. Since Clarett has only had 1 good season of college football, it's EXTREMELY difficult to know how he'll perform in the pro game. Consider that he's always had durability problems throughout his high school career as well, and there is even more risk.As I said before, I was impressed by what he did in 2002. I just would have preferred to see him do it over a longer period of time. As for watching highlights, I'm pretty sure you can watch the highlights of every RB in this draft and think they are a potential pro bowler. Highlights don't tell the whole story either. Stats are at least an objective measure of a player's performance. Subjective appraisals are helpful as well, but they are all part of the evaluation process and worth considering/discussing.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
I know all about the Katzenmoyer injury and how it cut his career short. But, his sophomore and junior seasons weren't nearly as impressive as his freshman seasons, IIRC. (Edit to add: I think he was pretty good his sophomore year as well but was ordinary in his junior year) Also, his performance in the NFL before he got injured was not nearly as good as most expected of him.My point is that a player who looks like a can't miss prospect as a freshman can fail to live up to the expectations many of us place on them. Since Clarett has only had 1 good season of college football, it's EXTREMELY difficult to know how he'll perform in the pro game. Consider that he's always had durability problems throughout his high school career as well, and there is even more risk.As I said before, I was impressed by what he did in 2002. I just would have preferred to see him do it over a longer period of time. As for watching highlights, I'm pretty sure you can watch the highlights of every RB in this draft and think they are a potential pro bowler. Highlights don't tell the whole story either. Stats are at least an objective measure of a player's performance. Subjective appraisals are helpful as well, but they are all part of the evaluation process and worth considering/discussing.
I don't think anyone was talking about highlights. I'll assume that RMOF and myself got the opportunity to watch Clarett every game he played in college and I believe he was very mature football wise. He has an amazing sense of when to hit the hole and great tackle breaking ability. I agree though that it still is very iffy as to whether this will translate into sucess in the NFL. He does lack a second gear once he gets into the secondary but he is also able to carry guys on his back for 10 yards or just stiff arm the #### out of them. His catching ability is vastly underrated as well. I'm sure there are questions about blocking ability but that comes with the territory of all backs in the draft. It's too bad that he mad the mistakes he did I, like everyone else (except maybe Michigan fans), would have like to have a second year to watch him but I will have to go with my gut on this one.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top