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!
As far as the passing down work, Riddick looked good in that role. Dwayne would need to be so electric and good in the passing game that he would push Riddick aside, which I don't see happening save injury as far as a 3-down workload goes. If he continues to improve between the tackles, he could realistically win the early down/GL work giving him a very nice share of a RBBC in what he looks to be better at.
You both assume that Riddick is #1, why? Because he had 7 catches? They both had the same number of rush attempts. Sure Riddick started, but in terms of a Abdullah like back, that can catch AND run, my bet is on Washington. With Riddick to stay in his passing down role. And don't forget as stated so many times in this thread already, he is a converted receiver. I'm so glad I scooped this guy up, his arrow is trending way up.
Little reason not to hang onto him. He'll be interesting some weeks (Bears this week, Redskins, etc) and meh others (Eagles, plausibly Rams, etc). Generally, the type of player to consider as flex. All this depending on your byes and injuries, natch. Washington looked better at moving the pile, but Riddick won't disappear. Detroit won't be down 2-3 TDs early on every game (probably a few more, though >.>GoBirds said:
, but they're still going to have to be a pass heavy team.
Little reason!? It was his first game, what were you expecting? The guy looks like he is the rushing RB and goal line for an offense that can score a lot of points. Riddick looked TERRIBLE running the ball.Little reason not to hang onto him. He'll be interesting some weeks (Bears this week, Redskins, etc) and meh others (Eagles, plausibly Rams, etc). Generally, the type of player to consider as flex. All this depending on your byes and injuries, natch. Washington looked better at moving the pile, but Riddick won't disappear. Detroit won't be down 2-3 TDs early on every game (probably a few more, though >.>
This. If you watched the game yesterday, you saw exactly what I, and some others here, were saying. Riddick has a role, he's exceptional at it, but he will not excel if that role is expanded. Washington gives them something different. He looks fast, strong, and decisive. He's not going to be a 20+ touch workhorse, that isn't the way the Lion's use their RB's. His upside will be 15 or so carries, a few catches, and the GL work. It's good RB2/Flex material. It will be dictated by matchup.
Uhhh I would much rather have Washington than Pryor still. Only way Pryor would have more value is if he became the starting QB with a wr designation.
There's 16 pages of un####ingbelievable hype in this thread that says otherwise. Most people were expecting to have this year's David Johnson, and immediately.
Wrong. Some people have mentioned the comparison to David Johnson, not most people. There have been several other comparisons in this thread as well, but you cherry picked the one you felt was the most asinine. This was the first week without Abdullah going against the Packers. I didn't expect the Packers to get their offense going this week but I was clearly wrong about that. Given the circumstances of the game, it's difficult to determine what Washington's role will be moving forward. Riddick did not accomplish anything in the run game and if the Lions can keep the game close, I'm sure they would like to utilize a RB that can move the ball effectively. We don't know if Washington can do that yet, but there is reason for optimism and intrigue. At this point I would take a guess that most people are going to hang onto him to see what they have. Especially considering there isn't much out there on the WW that is worth giving up hope on Washington after a week in which expectations should have been hampered.
Couldn't be much more wrong in one post. Yesterday was a big win for Washington IMO. Riddick proved he cannot be an every down back. The game script was against Washington yesterday, this week against Da Bears will be a big opportunity for Washington. Oh yea, when he has a good game I am not going trade him.
False. There's 16 pages of discussion in relation to what we can expect long term from Washington. The vast majority of the postings showed that people had realistic expectations
Again, false. In fact, I made a post that got plenty of likes saying that he is NOT David Johnson. No one in here was saying he'd have immediate David Johnson production. If they were it was sarcasm of "I am dropping Bell for him."
False. No one should be considering dropping him for a flavor of the week. Who- Darkwa? If you want a peice of that 3 headed monster be my guest. I'd rather have the rushing and goal line back for the Lions.
Sounds like so much hype.....
Both Riddick and Washington had 6 carries in the first half.
Riddick had the first few series to himself. He had 5 carries for -10 yards before Washington got a snap in the 2nd quarter. Washington looked much better running the ball once he got in.
ya, it was night and day...one guy was going east-west in the backfield and the other north-south with a good body lean.
If you are going to say I said something you should be more accurate. Also the thread about starting Washington did not say "Must-start" or suggest anything of the sort.
he quotes TheScientist who has been the most sarcastic person in here and should never be taken seriously. Others are asking advice. He quotes me saying I kind of have to start him (it was between McCluster and him... so.... yeah I had to or take a zero). Oh Lord... this is about as useful as the grammar police.
I would be more confident starting his this week vs last week. I wouldn't be surprised at something like 12-70-.5 td and 2-14 ...
I like what I see. Speed, power, stiff arms, the leaping for a couple extra yards.. always falling forward. Aggressive.
Went WR heavy in all drafts so was left w/ D Washington, Crowell, Jennings(hurt), R. Mathews, Langford, Blount.
