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.

Meecrob's 2013 Rookie RB Rankings (Pre-Draft) (1 Viewer)

Meecrob

Footballguy
After watching a ton of film over the last three months I have put together my top 20 list for the 2013 RB class. For RB's I have looked at the following factors and given basically a 1-10 score based upon each of the following criteria.

Speed

Power

Vision

Pass Catching

Productivity

Upside (This is much more based on my opinion/gut feeling on how their game will translate into the NFL, hard to quantify here and probably leads to a lot of the difference between my rankings and the consensus. AKA my proprietary blend.)

For those who are not mathematically inclined; that's a total potential 60 points. The numbers below represent the total score for each RB across all categories.

What becomes very interesting is comparing these initial rankings to what the players situation will be (offensive style of team; incumbency; expected usage, etc.) after the draft. Typically I go back and look at the combination of post draft landing situation, and above skill rankings to come up with my *final* rankings for use with dynasty drafts.

We can argue about the premise here of whether or not this is the best way to evaluate RB's; but the fact is, this is how I do it! Enjoy!

Tier 1

Giovani Bernard 50

Montee Ball 50

Tier 2

Christine Michael 47

Mike Gillislee 47

Eddie Lacy 46

Joseph Randle 46

Kenjon Barner 46

Stepfan Taylor 45

Le'Veon Bell 45

Tier 3

Robbie Rouse 44

Ray Graham 44

Marcus Lattimore 44

Knile Davis 43

Andre Ellington 42

Jawan Jamison 42

Stefphon Jefferson 42

Cierre Wood 41

Jonathan Franklin 41

Theo Riddick 40

Spencer Ware 40

 
As a reference point, did you have any grades from T-Rich/Martin/Wilson a year ago? (prior to adding in landing spot points)

 
Last edited by a moderator:
We can argue about the premise here of whether or not this is the best way to evaluate RB's; but the fact is, this is how I do it! Enjoy!
Thanks for your efforts. I know you said basically that this is your method and you're ok with it, but do you really think each of the factors that you rate from 1-10 should all receive equal weight?
 
We can argue about the premise here of whether or not this is the best way to evaluate RB's; but the fact is, this is how I do it! Enjoy!
Thanks for your efforts. I know you said basically that this is your method and you're ok with it, but do you really think each of the factors that you rate from 1-10 should all receive equal weight?Yes I really do. I think the above skills (with upside excluded as that's more arbitrary) are more or less equally important to define a successful running back. That being said, please keep in mind that after the draft, I may tend to rate some players higher due to certain skills being more necessary for the team/offensive system they land in. I.E. take two backs both ranked 45; a back who is a great receiver landing on a team that uses the RB in the screen game or as a pass catching option is going to end up with a higher final ranking than the other 45 back who has great power but stone hands.
 
The way you're scoring this, there really isn't that much of a difference between the 3rd and the 12th guy. Is that all going to get determined based on situation?

 
The way you're scoring this, there really isn't that much of a difference between the 3rd and the 12th guy. Is that all going to get determined based on situation?
Yes I would say that NFL landing position tends to stretch the range more. I also think that's more an indicator of this years crop, not many "Elite" guys, but a big depth of "Pretty damn good" guys.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I tentatively have it...Lacy=============Bernard=============LattimoreMichaelTaylor=============BallWareFranklinNot that high on guys like Ellington, Gillislee, and Randle. Do want to see more of Randle though before I totally bury him. I like Dennis Johnson and Curtis McNeal as late round sleepers. Can't believe they weren't invited to the combine.

 
My initial thoughts:Lacy too low.Franklin too lowI like Gillislee about as much as you do.Would you be inclined to move someone like Lacy to the top of your list if he landed in Atl or Pitt?

 
Hi Concept Coop, thanks for your question! To answer, yes I do in fact have Gillislee ranked ahead of Lacy. If you have a more specific question than a smiley with three question marks above it, I would be happy to answer! If not, also great!Can you give me a breakdown of the scores, if you don't mind?Sure sorry if this doesn't paste in well...RB Speed Power Vision Prod PC Upside Total H/WGiovani Bernard 8 8 9 8 8 9 50 5-10 / 205Montee Ball 8 8 9 10 7 8 50 5-11 / 215Christine Michael 8 9 8 7 7 8 47 5-11 / 220Mike Gillislee 8 8 9 7 7 8 47 5-11 / 210Eddie Lacy 8 9 7 8 7 7 46 6-0 / 220Joseph Randle 8 7 7 8 8 8 46 6-1 / 200Kenjon Barner 9 6 7 8 7 9 46 5-11 / 190Stepfan Taylor 7 8 7 9 7 7 45 5-11 / 215Le'Veon Bell 7 9 7 8 7 7 45 6-2 / 245Robbie Rouse 7 6 6 9 9 7 44 5-7 / 190Ray Graham 8 7 7 7 7 8 44 5-9 / 190Marcus Lattimore 7 9 8 6 7 7 44 6-0 / 220Knile Davis 8 7 7 7 7 7 43 6-0 / 225Andre Ellington 9 6 6 8 6 7 42 5-10 / 195Jawan Jamison 8 7 7 6 7 7 42 5-8 / 200Stefphon Jefferson 8 7 6 8 6 7 42 5-11 / 210Cierre Wood 8 6 6 7 7 7 41 6-0 / 215Jonathan Franklin 7 6 6 8 7 7 41 5-11 / 195Theo Riddick 7 7 6 6 7 7 40 5-11 / 200Spencer Ware 6 9 6 6 7 6 40 5-11 /225
 
My initial thoughts:Lacy too low.Franklin too lowI like Gillislee about as much as you do.Would you be inclined to move someone like Lacy to the top of your list if he landed in Atl or Pitt?,
So I figured the big shockers would be my Lacy and Gillislee placement. Suprised no one has given me a WTF on the Christine Michael placement yet though :) .If he went to ATL to take over Turners power back duties I think it would be a good fit, however that offense is evolving more towards the Matt Ryan show then the old Michael Turner ground and pound, so im not sure at this point exactly how MUCH it would bump him. Pitt im not sure about as I think they are switching to a ZBS (?), which lacy doesn't seem a good fit for.
 
I tentatively have it...Lacy=============Bernard=============LattimoreMichaelTaylor=============BallWareFranklinNot that high on guys like Ellington, Gillislee, and Randle. Do want to see more of Randle though before I totally bury him. I like Dennis Johnson and Curtis McNeal as late round sleepers. Can't believe they weren't invited to the combine.
EBF; what do you see in Ware? When I watch him all I see is a slower Marion Barber III. The production isn't there either.
 
My initial thoughts:Lacy too low.Franklin too lowI like Gillislee about as much as you do.Would you be inclined to move someone like Lacy to the top of your list if he landed in Atl or Pitt?,
So I figured the big shockers would be my Lacy and Gillislee placement. Suprised no one has given me a WTF on the Christine Michael placement yet though :) .If he went to ATL to take over Turners power back duties I think it would be a good fit, however that offense is evolving more towards the Matt Ryan show then the old Michael Turner ground and pound, so im not sure at this point exactly how MUCH it would bump him. Pitt im not sure about as I think they are switching to a ZBS (?), which lacy doesn't seem a good fit for.Good point about Pitt. My view is that if Atl spends a high pick on a RB, that player would vault to the top of my RB tiers. I would anticipate a large majority of carries going to this back and, very likely, some spill off from Gonzo's lost targets (assuming he retires). I believe the Falcons are going to try and maintain some balance it their offense to protect Ryan and play keep away from teams like the Saints.
 
RB Speed Power Vision Prod PC Upside Total H/WMike Gillislee 8 8 9 7 7 8 47 5-11 / 210Eddie Lacy 8 9 7 8 7 7 46 6-0 / 220
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and rankings.These stood out to me because they are two guys I am really familiar with, and I do find your rankings odd. I just don't see anything that Gillislee brings to a potential NFL team that Lacy doesn't do better. Speed: I guess we'll need the numbers to come in, but I think 8's are too high for both guys. I think Lacy is a 4.50-4.55 guy, and I can't really get a read on Gillislee - he wasn't' in the open field at top speed as often. Lacy scored on plenty of long runs and I don't think speed will be an issue for him in the NFL, much like Doug Martin and Arian Foster. He's bigger, so I am naturally more impressed by his speed than Gillislee, although I do expect both 40 times to be in the same range. Power: Gillislee can't be an 8 here, if Lacy is a 9. He doesn't move the pile and isn't hard to bring down. I don't know if Lacy is a 9, but he's got to be more than 1 point higher than Gillislee, who I would say is average at best. If 5 is average, I'd say Gilly is a 5, in terms of NFL players.Vision: Again, Gillislee can't be ranked higher than Lacy, in my opinion. Gilly has a nice feel for finding the yardage blocked for him, but Lacy makes people miss, on top of doing the same. I just don't see how Gilly can be rated equally, let alone ahead of Lacy. 9/10 is certainly too high for Gilly, in my opinion.Production: I don't really know how you would put a number on this. There is so much variation between situations in college. If we using blanket raw stats, Lacy needs a bigger bump over Gilly. His YPC and TD production is much higher. Pass catching: The only things I really look for; can a guy catch with his hands? Is he quick to turn of field? So much beyond that is based on usage. I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a score on either of these guys, really. If they go to Denver, they'll get plenty of receptions. But teams aren't going to use then as CHI has Forte. Upside: I don't know how to measure this column; it seems like a collection of other measurements would provide this data. But, as you can guess, I see no basis for suggesting Gilly over Lacy. Lacy is bigger, stronger, and makes people miss at a much higher rate. He's more explosive, quicker... again, I just don't see anything Gilly does better than Lacy.Just my thoughts and would be curious to hear yours. I haven't done much Youtubing, outside of the top guys, but Gilly and Lacy are two guys that I saw plenty in the regular season (Florida fan) and feel that I have a pretty good read on.In my opinion, if Peterson, Luck, Clowney, Peppers, Calvin, Suh are 100's, and the average 5th round pick is 40:Lacy - 80 (#1 in class)Gillislee - 40
 
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF; what do you see in Ware? When I watch him all I see is a slower Marion Barber III. The production isn't there either.
Frame. Power. Receiving ability. Short yardage ability. Pass blocking. He has quick feet behind the line of scrimmage, but seems to struggle to redirect when he's moving at full speed.

Poor man's Marion Barber might be right on the money. As a 4th-6th round NFL draft pick, I like the value. He's not a perfect prospect. The low YPC is a concern. He's not a big play threat. He runs tight and struggles to avoid contact past the LOS. He has some flaws as a runner, but he just looks like an NFL back to me. Can't explain it any more than that.

Bear in mind that LSU has a long tradition of getting the least out of their players. Dwayne Bowe and Rueben Randle never eclipsed 1000+ yards there. Michael Clayton barely did. Devery Henderson was totally unproductive. Joseph Addai never had 1000+ yard season there. Ridley had a pretty good final season there, but even so his 4.6 YPC is not amazing for an NFL caliber starter competing against amateurs. Odell Beckham is a future NFL player and he had a quiet statistical season last year. That's just the way it goes at LSU. They don't get the most out of their talent. In Ware's case, he had a solid sophomore year and then fell behind Jeremy Hill in the pecking order. I do think he's a draftable prospect though and I expect his name to be called sometime on day 3 in April.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Strongly disagree on some of your speed ratings.Cierre Wood and Johnathan Franklin should be 9's. Not sure why you have so many 8's, though. More of them should be 7's and 6's.I think "Productivity" is overrated. You can't produce if you can't get carries, and talented players don't always get opportunities or play on good offenses.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Also, not to pile on - again, thanks for sharing your thoughts and giving us something to talk about - but:-If 6 is as low as you're willing to go - there's no context or variance in your scale. That is 4 levels to push everyone into, so you might as well change it to 1-4. -Quickness should be measured.-"Upside" doesn't smell right to me, used as an equal slice of the pie. Just about everyone is going to measure in at 38-44, then you're just going to say "Well, I think he'll be great, so 10." What is the point of the other values, then? Your other values are already subjective - there is no need to invite the extra wildcard. If you think a guy is bigger, stronger, faster, catches better, is more productive, and has more vision than his peers - that should be enough. Otherwise, it's not really a formula at all.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
RB Speed Power Vision Prod PC Upside Total H/WMike Gillislee 8 8 9 7 7 8 47 5-11 / 210Eddie Lacy 8 9 7 8 7 7 46 6-0 / 220
Thanks for sharing your thoughts and rankings.These stood out to me because they are two guys I am really familiar with, and I do find your rankings odd. I just don't see anything that Gillislee brings to a potential NFL team that Lacy doesn't do better. Speed: I guess we'll need the numbers to come in, but I think 8's are too high for both guys. I think Lacy is a 4.50-4.55 guy, and I can't really get a read on Gillislee - he wasn't' in the open field at top speed as often. Lacy scored on plenty of long runs and I don't think speed will be an issue for him in the NFL, much like Doug Martin and Arian Foster. He's bigger, so I am naturally more impressed by his speed than Gillislee, although I do expect both 40 times to be in the same range. Power: Gillislee can't be an 8 here, if Lacy is a 9. He doesn't move the pile and isn't hard to bring down. I don't know if Lacy is a 9, but he's got to be more than 1 point higher than Gillislee, who I would say is average at best. If 5 is average, I'd say Gilly is a 5, in terms of NFL players.Vision: Again, Gillislee can't be ranked higher than Lacy, in my opinion. Gilly has a nice feel for finding the yardage blocked for him, but Lacy makes people miss, on top of doing the same. I just don't see how Gilly can be rated equally, let alone ahead of Lacy. 9/10 is certainly too high for Gilly, in my opinion.Production: I don't really know how you would put a number on this. There is so much variation between situations in college. If we using blanket raw stats, Lacy needs a bigger bump over Gilly. His YPC and TD production is much higher. Pass catching: The only things I really look for; can a guy catch with his hands? Is he quick to turn of field? So much beyond that is based on usage. I wouldn't feel comfortable putting a score on either of these guys, really. If they go to Denver, they'll get plenty of receptions. But teams aren't going to use then as CHI has Forte. Upside: I don't know how to measure this column; it seems like a collection of other measurements would provide this data. But, as you can guess, I see no basis for suggesting Gilly over Lacy. Lacy is bigger, stronger, and makes people miss at a much higher rate. He's more explosive, quicker... again, I just don't see anything Gilly does better than Lacy.Just my thoughts and would be curious to hear yours. I haven't done much Youtubing, outside of the top guys, but Gilly and Lacy are two guys that I saw plenty in the regular season (Florida fan) and feel that I have a pretty good read on.In my opinion, if Peterson, Luck, Clowney, Peppers, Calvin, Suh are 100's, and the average 5th round pick is 40:Lacy - 80 (#1 in class)Gillislee - 40No problem; I could be way off but like I said, these are my opinions based on what I saw on tape I fully expect people to find them odd, that's why I posted them :) . I will try and add my thoughts to your points above:Speed: I have these guys equal; I agree that they are probably both in the 4.5 range, but keep in mind, speed on the field in pads is different than speed on the track. To me they play at about equal speed on the field. I have seem them both break off several long ones on tape and outrun corners/safety's.Power: I have Lacy as one of the more powerful backs in the class, he pushes piles, breaks through arm tackles easily, has a spin move that he is able to break through trash and maintain balance with. When it come to Gillislee; I see more power than I think you are giving him credit for. Hes not on Lacys level for sure. But I see him breaking arm tackles, falling consistently forward maintaining balance after contact. His stiff arm is good as well. He doesn't seem to initiate as much contact as Lacy, which brings us to the next point...Vision: This is where I think the big difference for me is. I think Gillislee has great vision. When I watch him run I see him showing patience, setting up blocks, he re-routes runs very well when defenders collapse the play. He hits the right holes very consistently and when the hole isn't there he identifies ahead of time where he can scrap out some yards. Lacy; I don't see it. He generally takes the play where it is designed, and then uses his power to break tackles and break off some nice runs. But I don't see patience in him, I don't see him setting up his blocks as well as Gillislee. To me the reason he seems much more powerful than Gilly is because he is forced to use it more because he runs into bad situations; where Gilly simply "goes around".Production: Agree very tough to judge due to so many factors; but these guys were relativity close in output. Lacy gets the edge because of his higher YPC, yards and TD's, you could argue that his o-line was better, but that's a slippery slope, the numbers are what they are so slight edge to Lacy here.Pass Catching: they seem about equal.Upside: Edge for Gilly here because I see him as a more all around back. There are things that Lacy does better, but I think his game will translate very well into the NFL.
 
-If 6 is as low as you're willing to go - there's no context or variance in your scale. That is 4 levels to push everyone into, so you might as well change it to 1-4.
Technically, it would be 1-5 (6, 7, 8, 9, 10) as I saw some 10's in there. But yeah, exactly. I heard a guy do movie ratings and he rated them on a 1-4 scale but never heard him give a 2 rating. All he ever gave was 3, 3 and a quarter, 3 and a half, and four. So technically he did have a 1-4 scale, but a 3 was a 1, 3.25 was a 2, and so on. If you have a scale from 1-10, then use the entire spectrum. These guys are the best in college football, so they are all going to grade high, but how can they all grade above 50% on every scale?
-Quickness should be measured.
I agree with this too. Some guys aren't running great 40's but are plenty quick for the NFL.
 
Also, not to pile on - again, thanks for sharing your thoughts and giving us something to talk about - but:-If 6 is as low as you're willing to go - there's no context or variance in your scale. That is 4 levels to push everyone into, so you might as well change it to 1-4. -Quickness should be measured.-"Upside" doesn't smell right to me, used as an equal slice of the pie. Just about everyone is going to measure in at 38-44, then you're just going to say "Well, I think he'll be great, so 10." What is the point of the other values, then? Your other values are already subjective - there is no need to invite the extra wildcard. If you think a guy is bigger, stronger, faster, catches better, is more productive, and has more vision than his peers - that should be enough. Otherwise, it's not really a formula at all.
No worries; like I said, it may not be the best way to do it, but its how I do it, and it seems to work well for me.-Regarding the scale; its only a scale, it doesn't need to be perfect, at the end of the day for FFL purposes all that matters is that I score RB A higher then RB B and can use that as a draft guide. Also keep in mind this in only the top 20, there are probably 50 back that I could have ranked. I could have easily just posted my rankings using the 1-20 method, but I wanted to try and give a little more insight of the madness behind my method.-Quickness is part of speed.-Upside, fair enough, this is totally proprietary and my own opinion, admittedly so. I try to forecast a bit here on how I think this player will transition their game at the NFL level, on the other areas i try and only look at whats on film in front of me, and not consider how that will translate when grading.
 
Strongly disagree on some of your speed ratings.Cierre Wood and Johnathan Franklin should be 9's. Not sure why you have so many 8's, though. More of them should be 7's and 6's.I think "Productivity" is overrated. You can't produce if you can't get carries, and talented players don't always get opportunities or play on good offenses.
There are always outliers; but in general the ability to be productive at the college level is something I consider important to develop into a good running back. There is always going to be one guy who only had 100 career carries and tears it up in the NFL, but in general, I think the trully great NFL running backs were also very productive college running backs.
 
Strongly disagree on some of your speed ratings.Cierre Wood and Johnathan Franklin should be 9's. Not sure why you have so many 8's, though. More of them should be 7's and 6's.I think "Productivity" is overrated. You can't produce if you can't get carries, and talented players don't always get opportunities or play on good offenses.
There are always outliers; but in general the ability to be productive at the college level is something I consider important to develop into a good running back. There is always going to be one guy who only had 100 career carries and tears it up in the NFL, but in general, I think the trully great NFL running backs were also very productive college running backs.Yes, they are productive, but I don't know how you can quantify and rate one RB's production any higher than the other in the context of this thread.I dunno if you're using final season numbers or career numbers. You have Spencer Ware at 6 for Productivity, but Christine Michael, Knile Davis, and Cierre Wood are close to him in carries for their final season. Stefphon Jefferson had 375 carries, why isn't he a 10?
 
Just a note. The maturity of this dicussion despite great disagreement is very nice to see and unlike other posts. Thanks to the OP on rankings and everyone else on the civil discussion.

 
'matttyl said:
The way you're scoring this, there really isn't that much of a difference between the 3rd and the 12th guy. Is that all going to get determined based on situation?
I would say the closeness of the prospects is that tight this year. I could see some guy rate as a 2nd for some team being a 5th for another.
 
Thanks to the OP for his thoughts. I think this needs to be looked at for what it is, one man's criteria to assemble a ranking of players. Obviously the results aren't exact. Maybe some of the comparisons seem a bit off, but based on what he looked at, this is how he feels. I don't think he's claiming to be the next Kiper or McShay.On that note, I'm not sure what film you are watching, but I'm guessing there is probably a ton of footage that you didn't see on each player. Guys like Kiper and McShay get paid big bucks to analyze film all day and have access to more than some 3 minute youtube highlight reel with "insert any rap song here" soundtrack. There is so much more criteria that goes into a players ranking and they still get it wrong half the time. One thing I did confirm when reading through this is that there are about 10-12 RBs who are so close in overall ranking that I think you can afford to wait a little later in the rookie draft for RB and focus more on WR early.Thanks again for sharing

 
'matttyl said:
The way you're scoring this, there really isn't that much of a difference between the 3rd and the 12th guy. Is that all going to get determined based on situation?
I would say the closeness of the prospects is that tight this year. I could see some guy rate as a 2nd for some team being a 5th for another.I can agree with you on this. Sure I rate Lacy and Taylor higher, but this is a tight class. And I flip flop all the time on Montee Ball. I think that where these guys are drafted is going to be the determining factor more than just about any other year on where they are drafted in fantasy leagues. Which means the NFL draft can't come soon enough...
 
i hope people rate Lacy that low, but once the combine happens and he gets taken by a good team at the end of the 1st round he'll be a top 3 pick

 
'TheFanatic said:
'matttyl said:
The way you're scoring this, there really isn't that much of a difference between the 3rd and the 12th guy. Is that all going to get determined based on situation?
I would say the closeness of the prospects is that tight this year. I could see some guy rate as a 2nd for some team being a 5th for another.
I can agree with you on this. Sure I rate Lacy and Taylor higher, but this is a tight class. And I flip flop all the time on Montee Ball. I think that where these guys are drafted is going to be the determining factor more than just about any other year on where they are drafted in fantasy leagues. Which means the NFL draft can't come soon enough... :goodposting: For me the depth and tightness of this class in skill really implies that situation is going to drive the draft rankings for RB's more than ever. I think this is the year that multiple late first round or early second round picks are really going to be an advantage over single picks in the 1.01-1.04 range. Cant remember the last time that has happened. Should be an atypical year and very interesting dynasty draft strategy.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
'KellysHeroes said:
i hope people rate Lacy that low, but once the combine happens and he gets taken by a good team at the end of the 1st round he'll be a top 3 pick
I despise the combine. If Lacy runs a 4.35 in a straight line with no defenders, does that mean I need to move him up my rankings? How many times will that happen in an NFL game? If you guessed more than zero, you are incorrect.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
like the unique perspective.. I like Michael a lot also... a bigger Mike Goodson, with a hint of Rashard Mendenhall IMO

 
Last edited by a moderator:
Well I'm not going to give you a WTF for Christine Micheal but why rated so high? He looks like a taller Jacquizz Rodgers with a touch more speed.

 
Last edited by a moderator:
In these early rankings Lacy is all over the place. Some people have him as RB1 and some guys don't even have him in their top 5. Personally I don't think he's any lower than RB2 coming out in this draft, but I understand people's doubts. It'll be interesting to see where he lands and how that effects his detractors opinions

 
Well I'm not going to give you a WTF for Christine Micheal but why rated so high? He looks like a taller Jacquizz Rodgers with a touch more speed.
hes 5 inches taller and at least 20lbs heavier... interesting comp, not sure I see it, but could be
 
Last edited by a moderator:
A taller Quizz would be a first round pick. Quizz has everything but height. If he had the same skill set and body type at 5'10", he'd be awesome. I like Michael as a decent stopgap RB solution. He isn't an incredible prospect, but he's built for the NFL at ~ 5'10" 220 and he's got enough speed and quickness to be a threat. He's a bit of a straight-line runner and he's not very durable (probably because he runs tight like Mathews or McFadden). I still have him as a top 5 RB in the draft. A decent plug-and-play guy who can add something right away. Probably not a long term star.

 
A taller Quizz would be a first round pick. Quizz has everything but height. If he had the same skill set and body type at 5'10", he'd be awesome. I like Michael as a decent stopgap RB solution. He isn't an incredible prospect, but he's built for the NFL at ~ 5'10" 220 and he's got enough speed and quickness to be a threat. He's a bit of a straight-line runner and he's not very durable (probably because he runs tight like Mathews or McFadden). I still have him as a top 5 RB in the draft. A decent plug-and-play guy who can add something right away. Probably not a long term star.
Thanks EBF, have followed many posters here for years, just seldom post. Question, what makes you think he's not a long term star? The injury issues?
 
'citsalp said:
A taller Quizz would be a first round pick. Quizz has everything but height. If he had the same skill set and body type at 5'10", he'd be awesome. I like Michael as a decent stopgap RB solution. He isn't an incredible prospect, but he's built for the NFL at ~ 5'10" 220 and he's got enough speed and quickness to be a threat. He's a bit of a straight-line runner and he's not very durable (probably because he runs tight like Mathews or McFadden). I still have him as a top 5 RB in the draft. A decent plug-and-play guy who can add something right away. Probably not a long term star.
Thanks EBF, have followed many posters here for years, just seldom post. Question, what makes you think he's not a long term star? The injury issues?No, I just don't think he's that good. I don't rate him on par with the best RBs in the NFL and it will be a big surprise to me if he ever reaches that level. I do think he has a chance to be a serviceable pro back though. He could be a guy like Ballard, Morris, Green-Ellis, or Ridley who comes into the league with little fanfare and ends up being a pretty decent player. A guy to target in the 3rd-5th round of the NFL draft as a backup who has the potential to develop into a low end NFL starter. I don't want to overrate him because I don't think he's some kind of a first round talent, but he has a lot of the characteristics needed to be effective at the next level. A solid 220 pounds with decent speed and a long track record of respectable production in a major BCS conference. I like Lacy and Bernard more than him. I'd probably rather take a chance on Lattimore even though I'm lukewarm on him. After that, I think Michael is in the discussion for the next slot. I'm not that impressed with guys like Gillislee, Franklin, Randle, and Ellington. They don't have good size for the NFL and they don't really wow me enough to overcome that. I would rather roll the dice on guys like Michael and Ware.
 

Users who are viewing this thread

Top