Bob Magaw
Footballguy
I haven't found any WR since the merger that reached the rushing criteria noted. I've only found two prior, Ollie Matson and Lenny Moore, both Hall of Famers. I find your characterization as exaggerated, exaggerated. Kind of like the Gordon example, to quote you, invoking him is crazy talk. Whatever you want to call it, I'm uninterested in semantic nitpicking. I'll stand by rare and historically good rushing production for a WR. I'd characterize it as recognizing what happened, as opposed to your pattern of repeatedly pretending it didn't happen.
The repeated, "He had 500 yards as a WR, he isn't that good." If you want to summarily dismiss the rushing yards and pretend they didn't happen, that is up to you. I choose to acknowledge them, since, well, you know, they did happen. By arbitrarily subtracting out a huge chunk of his 2015 production, is a far different prospect than whether LT had a few passing TDs. Subtracting them out wouldn't have the same kind of negative impact on his OVERALL stats. Invoking LT is a better example of exaggeration, to use your term. Anti-pimping?
If I'm right, and Austin is historically rare as a rusher from the WR position, than everything you are saying above is missing the point and meaningless. Just because you can't point to a lot of people that haven't done it in the past, doesn't necessarily mean he won't continue to be used in that capacity, it just speaks more to your belief, which may be spurious, that the way things have been done in the past is how they must always be done in the future.
I think your use of language is revealing, and the very fact that you refer to his rushing ability as a "secondary attribute" betrays the fact that you continue to be unable/unwilling to consider the possibility he could have success, not as a "WR1", but as a *MULTI-PURPOSE* weapon, and a complete inability to frame potentially new data in any way but the old conventions (which may not be well suited for descriptive and explanatory purposes in this case). Its part of the same pattern as pretending the rushing stats didn't happen, conflating receiving yards with TOTAL, combined yards, ignoring combined scoring, etc.
What if rushing isn't a "secondary attribute" for Austin? Was it for Harvin at Florida? He started at RB and WR. What was he in college, a RB or a WR? Why does Harvin have to be one position in college, when he was both? Your entitled to your opinion, but I find the insistence on old nomenclature in this context rigid and pedantic. What if Austin was DRAFTED as a multi-purpose weapon, but it took a new OC (who is the incumbent OC, incidentally, the first one that used him competently, a fact you seem to be completely ignoring, but you did admit to not following the team closely - if you take a hard stance on NE, I'm probably not going to use the phrase "crazy talk" ) to unlock that potential? Austin was a record shattering RB at Dunbar High in Maryland. One of the few times he played RB at West Virginia, he had 344 yards against Oklahoma (and may have had a historically good game all purpose yards-wise, without referencing). During that game, should we have subtracted out those yards and pretend they didn't happen, too?
What if Austin IS what history could be suggesting he is, one of the best rushers from the WR position, EVER? What would the implications be from a coaching standpoint? Because I'm impressed and you aren't, we would act very differently, accordingly. I recognize greatness in that attribute, and would develop, nourish and amplify it. As a coach, with as much rushing success as he had in 2015, I think it would be, to quote you again, crazy talk to suggest not using him at least as much if not more in that capacity. If as the OC you couldn't find creative ways to use a key strength in his arsenal, as the HC, I would have to fire you for gross incompetence. Nothing personal, just business.
I think Austin will get paid more on what he did in 2015 than what he did in underwhelming rookie and soph seasons when the team was in complete disarray with the starting QB suffering torn ACLs TWICE. Just like Marvin Jones was probably paid based more on the potential of his best work (10 TD season) than his poor rookie season. Another case of missing the point, and a continued pattern of emphasizing numbers that highlight the negative.
Again, imo saying Rams should offer him $5 million is tantamount to saying he won't be a Ram in 2017. Just because you may be unable/unwilling to distinguish between a pure WR and a multi-purpose weapon with the potential for rushing greatness from the position, unable to account for upside on that basis or the Rams having upside from *DEAD LAST* in some 2015 passing metrics, as well as conflating "not as good as Josh Gordon" with mediocre, doesn't mean that he can't be a good signing at more than $5 million per year.
The repeated, "He had 500 yards as a WR, he isn't that good." If you want to summarily dismiss the rushing yards and pretend they didn't happen, that is up to you. I choose to acknowledge them, since, well, you know, they did happen. By arbitrarily subtracting out a huge chunk of his 2015 production, is a far different prospect than whether LT had a few passing TDs. Subtracting them out wouldn't have the same kind of negative impact on his OVERALL stats. Invoking LT is a better example of exaggeration, to use your term. Anti-pimping?
If I'm right, and Austin is historically rare as a rusher from the WR position, than everything you are saying above is missing the point and meaningless. Just because you can't point to a lot of people that haven't done it in the past, doesn't necessarily mean he won't continue to be used in that capacity, it just speaks more to your belief, which may be spurious, that the way things have been done in the past is how they must always be done in the future.
I think your use of language is revealing, and the very fact that you refer to his rushing ability as a "secondary attribute" betrays the fact that you continue to be unable/unwilling to consider the possibility he could have success, not as a "WR1", but as a *MULTI-PURPOSE* weapon, and a complete inability to frame potentially new data in any way but the old conventions (which may not be well suited for descriptive and explanatory purposes in this case). Its part of the same pattern as pretending the rushing stats didn't happen, conflating receiving yards with TOTAL, combined yards, ignoring combined scoring, etc.
What if rushing isn't a "secondary attribute" for Austin? Was it for Harvin at Florida? He started at RB and WR. What was he in college, a RB or a WR? Why does Harvin have to be one position in college, when he was both? Your entitled to your opinion, but I find the insistence on old nomenclature in this context rigid and pedantic. What if Austin was DRAFTED as a multi-purpose weapon, but it took a new OC (who is the incumbent OC, incidentally, the first one that used him competently, a fact you seem to be completely ignoring, but you did admit to not following the team closely - if you take a hard stance on NE, I'm probably not going to use the phrase "crazy talk"
) to unlock that potential? Austin was a record shattering RB at Dunbar High in Maryland. One of the few times he played RB at West Virginia, he had 344 yards against Oklahoma (and may have had a historically good game all purpose yards-wise, without referencing). During that game, should we have subtracted out those yards and pretend they didn't happen, too?What if Austin IS what history could be suggesting he is, one of the best rushers from the WR position, EVER? What would the implications be from a coaching standpoint? Because I'm impressed and you aren't, we would act very differently, accordingly. I recognize greatness in that attribute, and would develop, nourish and amplify it. As a coach, with as much rushing success as he had in 2015, I think it would be, to quote you again, crazy talk to suggest not using him at least as much if not more in that capacity. If as the OC you couldn't find creative ways to use a key strength in his arsenal, as the HC, I would have to fire you for gross incompetence. Nothing personal, just business.
I think Austin will get paid more on what he did in 2015 than what he did in underwhelming rookie and soph seasons when the team was in complete disarray with the starting QB suffering torn ACLs TWICE. Just like Marvin Jones was probably paid based more on the potential of his best work (10 TD season) than his poor rookie season. Another case of missing the point, and a continued pattern of emphasizing numbers that highlight the negative.
Again, imo saying Rams should offer him $5 million is tantamount to saying he won't be a Ram in 2017. Just because you may be unable/unwilling to distinguish between a pure WR and a multi-purpose weapon with the potential for rushing greatness from the position, unable to account for upside on that basis or the Rams having upside from *DEAD LAST* in some 2015 passing metrics, as well as conflating "not as good as Josh Gordon" with mediocre, doesn't mean that he can't be a good signing at more than $5 million per year.
Last edited by a moderator:
