Priest Holmes and Chester Taylor (1 Viewer)

[WarRedbirds]

I know, this is crazy talk, but do Priest Holmes and Chester Taylor have more in common than we think?

Maybe the Vikings are on to something? Can Taylor experience a Holmes-like rebirth after leaving Baltimore? Could the Minnesota offensive system better serve Taylors talents, allowing him to put up monster numbers?

Chester Taylor: 5-11, 213

From Scout.com

Biography:

One of the greatest players in both Toledo and Mid American Conference history, Chester Taylor finished his career as the all time leading rusher in Rocket history with 4,659 yards. Taylor, who also ran for 55 touchdowns, is second on the career MAC rushing list. Although he hasn't gotten much in the way of playing time, the Ravens rookie has impressed coaches with his quickness and burst into the hole, as well as his running skills overall. He was selected by the Ravens in the sixth round of the 2002 draft with the 207th draft choice overall.

Chester Taylor Facts: 2000, All-America honorable mention and All-Mid American Conference first-team... 2001, All-America third-team, All-Mid American Conference first-team and Offensive Player of the Year... Taylor finished his career as Toledo’s all-time leading rusher with 4,659 yards... 2002, Chester Taylor was named Most Valuable Player(12 Carries, 61 Yards and 2 TD's) for the North team at the Hula Bowl... Wore #19 at Toledo... Drafted in the 6th Round(207 Overall) of the 2002 NFL Draft...

Priest Holmes: 5-9, 213

College Career

Concluded his collegiate career at Texas with 252 carries for 1,276 yards (5.1 avg.) with 20 TDs ... Bounced back in ’96 after sitting out the ’95 season with a torn anterior cruciate ligament suffered in ’95 spring practice ... Tallied 59 carries for 324 yards with 13 TDs, the sixth-highest single-season TD total in school history as a senior in ’96 ... Ran for 120 yards and three touchdowns in the Big 12 Championship game upset over third-ranked Nebraska ... Started five of 12 games, rushing 120 times for 524 yards and five TDs as a junior in ’94 ... Rushed for over 100 yards in three straight games (Pitt, Louisville and TCU), the first time since ’80 (Lam Jones) that a UT back accomplished that feat ... Started twice as a sophomore in ’93 and put up 39 carries for 237 yards with two TDs ... Played in the final seven games of the ’92 season as a true freshman and finished with 34 carries for 191 yards ... Won USA Today fabulous freshman honorable mention honors ... Majored in Sport Management at Texas.

Exhibit 1. Taylor is impressing his teammates, who see similar skills and abilities comparable to Holmes...

Vikings | Taylor has confidence of teammates

Published Tue Aug 8 12:12:00 p.m. ET 2006

(KFFL) Don Seeholzer, of the Pioneer Press, reports Minnesota Vikings RB Chester Taylor, who is entering his first year of being a featured back, is earning the confidence of FB Tony Richardson and other teammates. Richardson, who has blocked for Kansas City Chiefs RB Priest Holmes, believes Taylor can put up numbers similar to Holmes if he is used effectively. "There's definitely a lot of Priest Holmes in Chester," WR Travis Taylor agreed. "He's a guy who can catch balls out of the backfield, make guys miss, run guys over, make big plays."

Exhibit 2.The knocks on Holmes and Taylor in Baltimore were very similar. Both were considered injury prone, and not able to stand up to the rigors of the offensive system. Please refer to this article from 2001 about Holmes.

If Ravens had kept Holmes he wouldn't be this good - NFL Insider - Baltimore Ravens and Kansas City Chiefs' Priest Holmes

Sporting News, The, Dec 31, 2001 by Dan Pompei

Repeating as Super Bowl champs would be more fact than fantasy for the Ravens if they had a running back who could lead the league in rushing yards and total yards from scrimmage. But before you hang V.P. of player personnel Ozzie Newsome and skin coach Brian Billick for allowing that running back to escape from them, know this: Priest Holmes never could have done for the Ravens what he has done for the Chiefs.

There is no question the Ravens did the right thing when they chose to re-sign linebacker Jamie Sharper instead of Holmes when the two players became free agents last offseason. Sharper was a starter; Holmes was a guy who would have taken about 20 percent of the snaps if star running back Jamal Lewis had stayed healthy.

But if they knew then what they know now, the Ravens likely would not have taken Lewis with the fifth pick of the 2000 draft. They would have used their two first-round picks that year to select wide receiver Plaxico Burress and tight end Bubba Franks, as they considered doing. But the swan that Holmes has become still was something of an ugly duckling at the time.

Holmes, who came out of Texas as an undrafted free agent in 1997, wasn't even a full-time starter in college; he played behind Shon Mitchell his senior season. And he missed an entire college season (1995) with a knee injury.

In his second NFL season, Holmes started the final 13 games and played well, rushing for 1,008 yards. But the next year, Billick's first with the team, the new coach promoted Errict Rhett ahead of Holmes. Then, a knee injury caused Holmes to miss seven games. In addition to durability concerns, Holmes' case wasn't helped by the fact that he wasn't particularly consistent from week to week.

Teams look at undrafted free agents like they do table scraps, and Holmes' inability to stay healthy led the Ravens to be more dubious than certain about his NFL chances. "I'm thrilled he's held up the way he has this year," says Billick, a Holmes fan. "But his history has been a little different than that."

The irony is Lewis' medical file is now thicker than Holmes'. But at about 208 pounds, Holmes didn't fit the Ravens' power running game, and his pedigree wasn't impressive enough for the Ravens to change their offense in order to accommodate him.

The Chiefs didn't sign Holmes to wear down defenses, however. Their offense has maximized Holmes' skills because he is a perfect match for his assignment.

Holmes this year has touched the ball 326 times, more than all but four players in the league, and he hasn't had any significant injury problems. This has to be attributed, at least partly, to how the Chiefs have used him. Holmes isn't slamming into a quarry wall 25 times a game trying to create a crevice. Many of his runs are on the perimeter. He is used on draws, traps and screens. He isn't following a fullback as much as he's running to daylight. The Chiefs use him less as a pass blocker and more as a pass receiver.

The result is less contact--specifically, less contact with big men. In a survey of two of Holmes' games, one from 2000 with the Ravens and one from 2001 with the Chiefs, he was hit or tackled by a lineman or linebacker on 71 percent of his touches as a Raven, and only 64 percent of his touches as a Chief. That might not seem like a big difference, but over the course of a season it can be very significant.

"He does take fewer hits in our system," Chiefs offensive coordinator Al Saunders says. "The Ravens' offense is different from what we are. We get hats on everyone and make it one-on-one in the open field with a safety or cornerback."

Beyond keeping Holmes fresh, the Chiefs' system has made him crisp. It helps Holmes that the Chiefs stretch the field laterally as well as vertically. "For him, you have to create lateral lanes," Saunders says. "We spread things out more than most people. We can do things laterally better than other teams because our offensive linemen are very athletic in space."

Holmes has the patience to allow his blocks to be set up, the vision to recognize the lanes, and the athleticism to get to them while moving east and west. And he's an excellent open-field runner.

All that being said, both the Chiefs and Ravens have been surprised by Holmes' sensational production this year. But the Ravens need not beat themselves up over Holmes as they attempt to get back to the Super Bowl as a wild-card team. All their energy needs to go into trying to run with their group of spare-tire running backs.

Full ArticleAs the article above suggest, Holmes was labeled with fragile tag in Baltimore, yet he thrived when he was placed in a position to exceed (Kansas City), a system that fit his abilities better than the smash-mouth grind of the Baltimore offense.

Taylor with line up behind a potentially awesome offensive line in Minnesota. From what I understand about the new Minnesota offensive, they will run a west coast scheme. I'm not sure if these scheme will be conducive to Taylors skills and help keep him healthy, as the Kansas City scheme did for Holmes.

Please help me evaluate this comparison. Could we be sleeping on Chester?

Discuss...

 

[datonn]

Could we be sleeping on Chester?

I certainly hope so! :chestertaylorowner: :vikingshomer:

 

[Cixelsyd]

Your not crazy, you are just a Chester Taylor owner? Viking fan?...

Just because they both were discarded by the Ravens doesn't make them the same... the clips from the college careers aren't the same...

I don't think Holmes showed up for camp out of shape???

And the Vikings arent the Chiefs....

Right now Taylor is a coin flip... he could be good, he could be bad... but it's 50/50, maybe worse when you consider it's the Vikings...

 

[Dope]

I think I just wet my pants with excitement.

;chester owner in 2 of 3 leagues:

 

[MLBrandow]

Could we be sleeping on Chester?

I certainly hope so! :chestertaylorowner: :vikingshomer:

Exhibit 3:
1998| Priest Holmes career stats | 1998 Baltimore Ravens | +----------+-------------+--------+----+| WK OPP | RSH YD | RECYD | TD |+----------+-------------+--------+----+| 1 pit | 6 23 | 4 | 0 || 2 nyj | 1 3 | 0 | 0 || 3 jax | 0 0 | 3 | 0 || 4 cin | 27 173 | 5 | 2 || 6 ten | 14 29 | 98 | 0 || 7 pit | 23 76 | 42 | 0 || 8 gnb | 10 41 | 25 | 0 || 9 jax | 3 10 | 4 | 0 || 10 oak | 27 99 | 0 | 0 || 11 sdg | 6 9 | 1 | 0 || 12 cin | 36 227 | 0 | 1 || 13 ind | 22 103 | 26 | 2 || 14 ten | 11 27 | 34 | 0 || 15 min | 8 39 | 5 | 1 || 16 chi | 11 17 | 1 | 0 || 17 det | 28 132 | 12 | 1 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+| TOTAL | 233 1008 | 260 | 7 |+----------+-------------+--------+----+Question: how many games with 100+ yards from scrimmage did Chester Taylor have?Priest had 12 in 3 years, including 7 in this year, when he CARRIED THE LOAD (I count the 99 yarder).

He also eclipsed 150 not once, but three times, including a 200+ yard rushing game.

Answer:

4 in five years.

He eclipsed 150 once.

Player comparisons are nice, but Priest actually produced very well on the field before going to KC. It wasn't his fault that he got injured and then lost his job to Jamal Lewis. One could similarly say it wasn't CT's fault he backed up Lewis for five years, but to that I'll say, last year he couldn't beat out an injured Jamal Lewis, and when he was given the chance to start, he skipped practices and stunk it up big time.

And you can praise his receiving skills all you want, but Jamal Lewis averaged almost a full two yards better per reception than Taylor did in Baltimore (8.8 to 7.0)

By the way, those who are high on CT are so because he's going to a Childress offense, which has produced high reception guys like Staley and Westbrook.

Newsflash: Childress didn't call the plays, Andy Reid did.

Now, when asked about how he plans to use the RB, he says "we'd like him to run the ball 20+ times a game and we want to feature a power running game."

Doesn't that article say something about how Priest wasn't suited for a power running game (obviously, he's 213), and aren't you claiming CT to be similar?

I see lots of holes but no swiss cheese and no meat. So I'm going to go buy a sandwich, brb.

 

[Banger]

And the Vikings arent the Chiefs....Right now Taylor is a coin flip... he could be good, he could be bad... but it's 50/50, maybe worse when you consider it's the Vikings...

And the Chiefs weren't the Chiefs before they got a line, new coaching staff and Priest.

 

[Warhogs]

Comparing these two is just crazy talk at this point. They may have some similarities to the start of their career but it's what hapens going forward that counts. Priest was dominant for several seasons. You could probably find 10 times more RB that would also fall into this comparison that became nothing. Maybe 100 times more failures is more like it. I am not saying Chester will be a failure (I even have him on one team), this is just a bunch of bull to draw comparisons to Priest at this point.

 

[BlueOnion]

Comparing these two is just crazy talk at this point. They may have some similarities to the start of their career but it's what hapens going forward that counts. Priest was dominant for several seasons. You could probably find 10 times more RB that would also fall into this comparison that became nothing. Maybe 100 times more failures is more like it. I am not saying Chester will be a failure (I even have him on one team), this is just a bunch of bull to draw comparisons to Priest at this point.

I have to agree, as much as a Viking homer as I am. Priest was not good, he was great. And the path to greatness starts from inside a person's soul and mind. We have no way of looking into Priest nor Chester's soul or mind.

 

[Banger]

I too think the comparisons are silly. True they both came from Balt as FA's and have some other similarities but Priest walked into the perfect situation at the perfect time and had the perfect skillset for that offense. CT is going into what looks like a good situation due to the good line, good rushing schedule, etc. but truthfully I'd be shocked if he put up anywhere near Priest type of numbers. I've been playing FF for while and those type of situations/players don't come around every year.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks War.

I'm not into the comparison but I absolutely think people are sleeping on Taylor. He showed good things in Baltimore. He's going to a team that wants to feature him. And most importantly, a team that has added All World players in guard Steve Hutchison and the guy that I think is the most under rated component of Priest Holmes' and Larry Johnson's success - fullback Tony Richardson.

One can make a case that those two guys are in the elite level of what they do. And what they do are key parts of making a RB successful.

Add to it the fact that he's under the radar for lots of owners. I'm loving the guy.

J

 

[Tau837]

And the Vikings arent the Chiefs....Right now Taylor is a coin flip... he could be good, he could be bad... but it's 50/50, maybe worse when you consider it's the Vikings...

And the Chiefs weren't the Chiefs before they got a line, new coaching staff and Priest.

Actually, in Priest's first year in KC he was dominant, and they didn't have a new OL at that point. Roaf came over the next season. And Priest's first year also coincided with Trent Green's first year in KC, whiile the Vikes still have Brad Johnson, whose ceiling is average. IMO Priest's success had mostly to do with Vermeil and Priest himself.Regardless, this comparison is silly. I personally think Taylor is overrated, but even if he produces, it has nothing to do with Priest Holmes... apples and oranges.

 

[WarRedbirds]

I too think the comparisons are silly. True they both came from Balt as FA's and have some other similarities but Priest walked into the perfect situation at the perfect time and had the perfect skillset for that offense. CT is going into what looks like a good situation due to the good line, good rushing schedule, etc. but truthfully I'd be shocked if he put up anywhere near Priest type of numbers. I've been playing FF for while and those type of situations/players don't come around every year.

Then why are the comparisons silly? It sounds like you agree with me that Chester is walking into a good situation. So you say that Priest walked into the perfect situation, that is hindsight. People weren't expecting Priest to put up the numbers that he did in Kansas City.

 

[WarRedbirds]

And the Vikings arent the Chiefs....Right now Taylor is a coin flip... he could be good, he could be bad... but it's 50/50, maybe worse when you consider it's the Vikings...

And the Chiefs weren't the Chiefs before they got a line, new coaching staff and Priest.

Actually, in Priest's first year in KC he was dominant, and they didn't have a new OL at that point. Roaf came over the next season. And Priest's first year also coincided with Trent Green's first year in KC, whiile the Vikes still have Brad Johnson, whose ceiling is average. IMO Priest's success had mostly to do with Vermeil and Priest himself.Regardless, this comparison is silly. I personally think Taylor is overrated, but even if he produces, it has nothing to do with Priest Holmes... apples and oranges.

I'm not really saying Taylor is as talented as Priest. I'm saying that Taylor has the opportunity to put up big numbers due to his situation.Holmes and Taylor have similar skillsets, both are similarly sized backs that could both stretch the field and power through traffic. In addition, both are good receiving backs.Both are going to offenses with a geat offensive line.On the flip side:Taylor has shown a lack of work ethic, which I doubt Priest has ever been accused of.This is looking to be a situation with great upside.

 

[WarRedbirds]

The reason that I'm looking at this comparison so hard is that I'm trying to identify backs that have top 10 potential. This is one situation where if the stars align, Taylor can be a top ten back. Not bad for a 3rd round pick.

 

[Tau837]

Thanks War.I'm not into the comparison but I absolutely think people are sleeping on Taylor. He showed good things in Baltimore. He's going to a team that wants to feature him. And most importantly, a team that has added All World players in guard Steve Hutchison and the guy that I think is the most under rated component of Priest Holmes' and Larry Johnson's success - fullback Tony Richardson.One can make a case that those two guys are in the elite level of what they do. And what they do are key parts of making a RB successful.Add to it the fact that he's under the radar for lots of owners. I'm loving the guy.J

Previous post on the overrating of Richardson for purposes of evaluating Taylor:

I don't disagree with your general point, but I think you are overselling Richardson here. He has made two Pro Bowls in his career, and both of those were in a system more favorable to the run [Kansas City] (better line, better RBs, better coaching... IMO). This will be his 12th season, and he is 34. Sure, he is a good blocking FB. But I don't think he is currently an elite blocking FB. Is he a difference maker? That is TBD.

EDIT: I also think someone posted around here previously that a large percentage of LJ's success came in one back sets, in which Richardson was not even on the field. Not sure how far back that applies (i.e., to how much of Priest's success in prior years that applies).

 

[Banger]

I too think the comparisons are silly. True they both came from Balt as FA's and have some other similarities but Priest walked into the perfect situation at the perfect time and had the perfect skillset for that offense. CT is going into what looks like a good situation due to the good line, good rushing schedule, etc. but truthfully I'd be shocked if he put up anywhere near Priest type of numbers. I've been playing FF for while and those type of situations/players don't come around every year.

Then why are the comparisons silly? It sounds like you agree with me that Chester is walking into a good situation. So you say that Priest walked into the perfect situation, that is hindsight. People weren't expecting Priest to put up the numbers that he did in Kansas City.

Believe me I am high on CT and his upside as well but Priest was the top back in the league for several years and set a record (which was subsequently broken by SA) so I just think it's awful lofty to even think that could occur again just because it's so rare. At this point we don't even know if CT will be the goal line back. As far as expectations go I could definitely see a Lamont Jordan type year if things break right with more rushing yards and fewer receiving.

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks War.I'm not into the comparison but I absolutely think people are sleeping on Taylor. He showed good things in Baltimore. He's going to a team that wants to feature him. And most importantly, a team that has added All World players in guard Steve Hutchison and the guy that I think is the most under rated component of Priest Holmes' and Larry Johnson's success - fullback Tony Richardson.One can make a case that those two guys are in the elite level of what they do. And what they do are key parts of making a RB successful.Add to it the fact that he's under the radar for lots of owners. I'm loving the guy.J

Previous post on the overrating of Richardson for purposes of evaluating Taylor:

I don't disagree with your general point, but I think you are overselling Richardson here. He has made two Pro Bowls in his career, and both of those were in a system more favorable to the run [Kansas City] (better line, better RBs, better coaching... IMO). This will be his 12th season, and he is 34. Sure, he is a good blocking FB. But I don't think he is currently an elite blocking FB. Is he a difference maker? That is TBD.

EDIT: I also think someone posted around here previously that a large percentage of LJ's success came in one back sets, in which Richardson was not even on the field. Not sure how far back that applies (i.e., to how much of Priest's success in prior years that applies).

Thanks. We'll just have to disagree there on Richardson being over rated. I think Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson and Al Saunders would too. But that's what makes this fun.J

 

[Banger]

EDIT: I also think someone posted around here previously that a large percentage of LJ's success came in one back sets, in which Richardson was not even on the field. Not sure how far back that applies (i.e., to how much of Priest's success in prior years that applies).

Depends on how you define success. I saw the same post and on a YPC basis you're correct he had more yards/better YPC in the single back set but if you look at the TD's I think 13 were scored behind Richardson in the I and something like 3 in the single back set (looked for the post but couldn't find it). To me that would indicate the Richardson was used largely in short yardage/goal line situations which is what you'd expect.Found it....thanks to Chase for this data from the other threadATT YDS AVG LNG TD Shotgun 2 9 4.5 7 0 Backs Split 28 165 5.9 26 0 I-Formation 86 311 3.6 30 13 Lone Setback 192 1052 5.5 46 4So it looks like they may use the single back set between the 20's and when it's money time they bring in Richardson to open space for the TD's.

 

[Tau837]

EDIT: I also think someone posted around here previously that a large percentage of LJ's success came in one back sets, in which Richardson was not even on the field. Not sure how far back that applies (i.e., to how much of Priest's success in prior years that applies).

Depends on how you define success. I saw the same post and on a YPC basis you're correct he had more yards/better YPC in the single back set but if you look at the TD's I think 13 were scored behind Richardson in the I and something like 3 in the single back set (looked for the post but couldn't find it). To me that would indicate the Richardson was used largely in short yardage/goal line situations which is what you'd expect.Found it....thanks to Chase for this data from the other threadATT YDS AVG LNG TD Shotgun 2 9 4.5 7 0 Backs Split 28 165 5.9 26 0 I-Formation 86 311 3.6 30 13 Lone Setback 192 1052 5.5 46 4So it looks like they may use the single back set between the 20's and when it's money time they bring in Richardson to open space for the TD's.

Good post. So the question becomes how much of a difference Richardson made in those short yardage situations over an average FB in the same situation (i.e., with LJ, same coaching/playcalling, same OL, etc.). Impossible to answer, I know.

 

[Tau837]

Thanks War.I'm not into the comparison but I absolutely think people are sleeping on Taylor. He showed good things in Baltimore. He's going to a team that wants to feature him. And most importantly, a team that has added All World players in guard Steve Hutchison and the guy that I think is the most under rated component of Priest Holmes' and Larry Johnson's success - fullback Tony Richardson.One can make a case that those two guys are in the elite level of what they do. And what they do are key parts of making a RB successful.Add to it the fact that he's under the radar for lots of owners. I'm loving the guy.J

Previous post on the overrating of Richardson for purposes of evaluating Taylor:

I don't disagree with your general point, but I think you are overselling Richardson here. He has made two Pro Bowls in his career, and both of those were in a system more favorable to the run [Kansas City] (better line, better RBs, better coaching... IMO). This will be his 12th season, and he is 34. Sure, he is a good blocking FB. But I don't think he is currently an elite blocking FB. Is he a difference maker? That is TBD.

EDIT: I also think someone posted around here previously that a large percentage of LJ's success came in one back sets, in which Richardson was not even on the field. Not sure how far back that applies (i.e., to how much of Priest's success in prior years that applies).

Thanks. We'll just have to disagree there on Richardson being over rated. I think Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson and Al Saunders would too. But that's what makes this fun.J

Agreeing to disagree is fine, though some of what I posted is not subject to disagreement. It is a fact that Richardson is 34 and entering 12th season. How often do blocking fullbacks make a difference at age 34 (and in a new offense to boot)? I don't know the answer, but I suspect it is pretty rare.I also find it interesting that KC let him go, despite how effective he had been in KC. If he made a difference last season for LJ, why didn't they want to keep him blocking for LJ?We'll see how it turns out. I really do agree to disagree.

 

[MLBrandow]

Thanks War.I'm not into the comparison but I absolutely think people are sleeping on Taylor. He showed good things in Baltimore. He's going to a team that wants to feature him. And most importantly, a team that has added All World players in guard Steve Hutchison and the guy that I think is the most under rated component of Priest Holmes' and Larry Johnson's success - fullback Tony Richardson.One can make a case that those two guys are in the elite level of what they do. And what they do are key parts of making a RB successful.Add to it the fact that he's under the radar for lots of owners. I'm loving the guy.J

Previous post on the overrating of Richardson for purposes of evaluating Taylor:

I don't disagree with your general point, but I think you are overselling Richardson here. He has made two Pro Bowls in his career, and both of those were in a system more favorable to the run [Kansas City] (better line, better RBs, better coaching... IMO). This will be his 12th season, and he is 34. Sure, he is a good blocking FB. But I don't think he is currently an elite blocking FB. Is he a difference maker? That is TBD.

EDIT: I also think someone posted around here previously that a large percentage of LJ's success came in one back sets, in which Richardson was not even on the field. Not sure how far back that applies (i.e., to how much of Priest's success in prior years that applies).

Thanks. We'll just have to disagree there on Richardson being over rated. I think Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson and Al Saunders would too. But that's what makes this fun.J

Have to interject here.While clearly Richardson is one of the elite blocking FBs in the NFL, he was unnecessary after Larry Johnson took over, which is what made him expendable.for a 213lb back like Priest Holmes, or any back of that size, having a FB is necessary for achieving a higher level of success.For a 230lb back like Larry Johnson, he just gets in the way, which is evidenced by the fact that LJ ran much more effectively in single back sets.While the departure of Richardson is very overrated for Larry Johnson's purposes, it is similarly underrated for Chester Taylor, and will prove to be a key acquisition for whomever he blocks in Moore, Fason or Taylor.I still wonder who the goal-line back will be for MIN. Childress says he wants Taylor to be the big-carries back, but I just don't see it.To play devil's advocate to myself though, while CT has only 4 career rushing TDs to his resume, 3 of them were goal-line carries. And I believe he's also the biggest RB on the roster currently.Perhaps it could go to Kleinsasser?

 

[shadow2k]

EDIT: I also think someone posted around here previously that a large percentage of LJ's success came in one back sets, in which Richardson was not even on the field. Not sure how far back that applies (i.e., to how much of Priest's success in prior years that applies).

Depends on how you define success. I saw the same post and on a YPC basis you're correct he had more yards/better YPC in the single back set but if you look at the TD's I think 13 were scored behind Richardson in the I and something like 3 in the single back set (looked for the post but couldn't find it). To me that would indicate the Richardson was used largely in short yardage/goal line situations which is what you'd expect.Found it....thanks to Chase for this data from the other threadATT YDS AVG LNG TD Shotgun 2 9 4.5 7 0 Backs Split 28 165 5.9 26 0 I-Formation 86 311 3.6 30 13 Lone Setback 192 1052 5.5 46 4So it looks like they may use the single back set between the 20's and when it's money time they bring in Richardson to open space for the TD's.

The TD's came with Richardson on the field largely due to the fact that they'd be in goal line formation. Don't get me wrong, T.Rich was a great FB for the Chiefs. And he'll help CT do well. But stats can tell you things that may not necessarily be telling the whole story. Just because T.Rich was on the field, doesn't mean he was opening up the hole. The other reason the Chiefs RB's have done so well over the past few years is that our OL was great at pulling to one side, because they were mobile and athletic (not just big and fat), and the WR's and TE's blocked downfield...something other teams seem to not always do. That's why the Chiefs were always hesitant to use the smaller guys like D.Hall a lot...because he wasn't able to do everything they wanted him to do, and still keep his speed through the entire game.

 

[MLBrandow]

thanks to Chase for this data from the other threadATT YDS AVG LNG TD Shotgun 2 9 4.5 7 0 Backs Split 28 165 5.9 26 0 I-Formation 86 311 3.6 30 13 Lone Setback 192 1052 5.5 46 4So it looks like they may use the single back set between the 20's and when it's money time they bring in Richardson to open space for the TD's.

It's pretty standard to run an I-formation on the goal-line.It's not like they said "Holy crap we have Tony Richardson!!! We need to run the I-Formation to score a touchdown."When the Bucs used to run the goal-line formation, what made Alstott most successful was that he had a true FB in front of him, and ran to the side with the two biggest guys on the roster playing LT and LG, and the two most aggressive guys playing double TE (McFarland and Sapp).It wasn't that they said "hey we need to run I-formation because we have Greg Comella!" But he was likewise involved in most of Alstott's TDs.Perhaps it is a bit out on a limb, but I don't buy that Richardson was vital to LJ's goal-line success. He's big enough to open up his own holes.

 

[Sabertooth]

Pro Bowl berths, especially for fullbacks are almost useless for evaluation purposes. Mike Alstott has gone almost every year but it's only because he's labelled a fullback but gets carries like a tailback.

Not saying Alstott wasn't a good player, but he was mislabeled as a fullback and reaped the benefits of huge fullback stats because of it. Plus he was an ESPN poster boy as well. He was nowhere near as good a true fullback as Richardson, Neal, Henderson, Beasley...true fullbacks.

 

[MLBrandow]

Pro Bowl berths, especially for fullbacks are almost useless for evaluation purposes. Mike Alstott has gone almost every year but it's only because he's labelled a fullback but gets carries like a tailback.

Not saying Alstott wasn't a good player, but he was mislabeled as a fullback and reaped the benefits of huge fullback stats because of it. Plus he was an ESPN poster boy as well. He was nowhere near as good a true fullback as Richardson, Neal, Henderson, Beasley...true fullbacks.

nowhere near as good? I think that's giving him more credit than he deserves. He is an absolutely terrible blocker.It is a good point though.

 

[smokin018]

There is another individual who sees the similarities between Taylor and Holmes......

Brad Childress.

Let me take you back to when Childress was the OC for the Eagles. They make a big push to land Priest Holmes, then a free agent after backing up JLewis the prior year. Childress loved his upside but Holmes chose KC because of the opportunity to start (The Philly backfield was pretty crowded at the time).

Also, look at how Childress has crafted this MIN offense along the O-Line and at Fullback.....shades of KC?

I have no idea of what Taylor will do this year, but I do see a comparable environment to what happened with Holmes. Also, doesn't a new head coach want to prove that he found the right guy by putting him in the best position to be successful?

Time will tell.....

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks War.

I'm not into the comparison but I absolutely think people are sleeping on Taylor. He showed good things in Baltimore. He's going to a team that wants to feature him. And most importantly, a team that has added All World players in guard Steve Hutchison and the guy that I think is the most under rated component of Priest Holmes' and Larry Johnson's success - fullback Tony Richardson.

One can make a case that those two guys are in the elite level of what they do. And what they do are key parts of making a RB successful.

Add to it the fact that he's under the radar for lots of owners. I'm loving the guy.

J

Previous post on the overrating of Richardson for purposes of evaluating Taylor:

I don't disagree with your general point, but I think you are overselling Richardson here. He has made two Pro Bowls in his career, and both of those were in a system more favorable to the run [Kansas City] (better line, better RBs, better coaching... IMO). This will be his 12th season, and he is 34. Sure, he is a good blocking FB. But I don't think he is currently an elite blocking FB. Is he a difference maker? That is TBD.

EDIT: I also think someone posted around here previously that a large percentage of LJ's success came in one back sets, in which Richardson was not even on the field. Not sure how far back that applies (i.e., to how much of Priest's success in prior years that applies).

Thanks. We'll just have to disagree there on Richardson being over rated. I think Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson and Al Saunders would too. But that's what makes this fun.J

Agreeing to disagree is fine, though some of what I posted is not subject to disagreement. It is a fact that Richardson is 34 and entering 12th season. How often do blocking fullbacks make a difference at age 34 (and in a new offense to boot)? I don't know the answer, but I suspect it is pretty rare.I also find it interesting that KC let him go, despite how effective he had been in KC. If he made a difference last season for LJ, why didn't they want to keep him blocking for LJ?

We'll see how it turns out. I really do agree to disagree.

I think we're all pretty much on the same page with his age... I disagree with the idea he's over rated. And more importantly, I think Holmes, LJ and Saunders would too. I meant pretty much what I wrote.

But we'll see.

And for the bigger picture for Taylor, do you think Hutchison is an upgrade?

J

 

[Joe Bryant]

As far as the Chiefs not wanting Richardson back or allowing him to go, sounds like Peterson was not happy at all.

J

http://www.kansascity.com/mld/kansascity/s...fs/14154939.htm

Richardson lured away by Vikings

Two-time Pro Bowler gets $2.5 million deal

By ADAM TEICHER

The Kansas City Star

In the end, tearing himself away from the Chiefs and Kansas City was so difficult that Tony Richardson almost couldn’t make himself do it.

He spent a night agonizing over the decision presented just now by the Minnesota Vikings. Could he really leave behind the community where he’d finally made a home and the team he’d sweated for during the last 11 seasons?

On Tuesday, Richardson finally decided he could. The Vikings dangled the prospect of a bright finish to his career, something the Chiefs couldn’t necessarily promise.

That, along with a two-year, $2.5 million contract, led the two-time Pro Bowl fullback to choose a new life and career in Minnesota.

“This was very challenging for Tony,” said Richardson’s agent, Pat Dye Jr. “This was very, very, very difficult, an emotional decision for him.”

Richardson was optimistic last week about returning to the Chiefs, but that was before Minnesota’s top free-agent fullback target, William Henderson, re-signed with Green Bay.

The Vikings then set their sights on Richardson, whisking him to Minnesota on Sunday. By then, Chiefs president/general manager Carl Peterson said, he had an idea Richardson would be gone.

“I think Tony had his mind made up before he went to Minnesota, so we really didn’t even get into any negotiations,” Peterson said. “I’m disappointed about that, and I told him I was disappointed because, frankly, he did not call me back before he left for Minnesota.”

The Chiefs appreciated Richardson for his solid locker-room presence, his many civic and charitable ventures, and his blocking ability. Richardson was no small part of the rushing success of Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson.

But the Chiefs have moved away from using a traditional fullback in recent seasons. They were wary of giving big money to a player who, as Richardson did last season, played only about one-third of the snaps.

“I think maybe it was a situation where he just felt the next step in his career was to go to the Vikings,” Peterson said. “They do run a different offense than us. Very frankly, the fullback is much more involved than our fullback is. I don’t know if that played into his thinking, but I can’t overemphasize the fact that I’m very disappointed from a personal standpoint because Tony and I, I think, have had an outstanding personal relationship. The other side of it is that this is a business. We all know that. I wish him the very best.”

Dye said: “Minnesota did a great job. He had a great visit. The Vikings were very aggressive in their negotiations. They just made Tony feel very welcome and appreciated there.”

Richardson didn’t return phone messages.

The son of a military man who moved his family often, Richardson put down roots in Kansas City. Richardson joined the Chiefs in 1995 as a special-teams player and eventually worked his way up to starting fullback. He did it well enough to become a Pro Bowler.

Few Chiefs were involved in as many charitable endeavors as Richardson. That also made him one of the team’s most popular players.

So ingrained in Kansas City was Richardson that even Dye, his longtime agent, was surprised to see him leave. Among last season’s Chiefs, only Will Shields had been with the team longer.

“I know Tony plans to maintain his ties and relationships to Kansas City,” Dye said. “He will maintain his home there in Kansas City. As soon as these next couple of years are over, or how ever long he continues to play, he will be back in Kansas City full time.”

By then, he might be working for the Chiefs again. Peterson indicated Richardson may be offered a front-office position when his playing career is finished.

 

[Tau837]

Thanks War.

I'm not into the comparison but I absolutely think people are sleeping on Taylor. He showed good things in Baltimore. He's going to a team that wants to feature him. And most importantly, a team that has added All World players in guard Steve Hutchison and the guy that I think is the most under rated component of Priest Holmes' and Larry Johnson's success - fullback Tony Richardson.

One can make a case that those two guys are in the elite level of what they do. And what they do are key parts of making a RB successful.

Add to it the fact that he's under the radar for lots of owners. I'm loving the guy.

J

Previous post on the overrating of Richardson for purposes of evaluating Taylor:

I don't disagree with your general point, but I think you are overselling Richardson here. He has made two Pro Bowls in his career, and both of those were in a system more favorable to the run [Kansas City] (better line, better RBs, better coaching... IMO). This will be his 12th season, and he is 34. Sure, he is a good blocking FB. But I don't think he is currently an elite blocking FB. Is he a difference maker? That is TBD.

EDIT: I also think someone posted around here previously that a large percentage of LJ's success came in one back sets, in which Richardson was not even on the field. Not sure how far back that applies (i.e., to how much of Priest's success in prior years that applies).

Thanks. We'll just have to disagree there on Richardson being over rated. I think Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson and Al Saunders would too. But that's what makes this fun.J

Agreeing to disagree is fine, though some of what I posted is not subject to disagreement. It is a fact that Richardson is 34 and entering 12th season. How often do blocking fullbacks make a difference at age 34 (and in a new offense to boot)? I don't know the answer, but I suspect it is pretty rare.I also find it interesting that KC let him go, despite how effective he had been in KC. If he made a difference last season for LJ, why didn't they want to keep him blocking for LJ?

We'll see how it turns out. I really do agree to disagree.

I think we're all pretty much on the same page with his age... I disagree with the idea he's over rated. And more importantly, I think Holmes, LJ and Saunders would too. I meant pretty much what I wrote.

But we'll see.

And for the bigger picture for Taylor, do you think Hutchison is an upgrade?

J

Upgrade over what? The Baltimore OL? Or the old Vikings OL? I guess what you're saying is that it is a positive for Taylor that Hutchison is there. I agree with that. If we're now going in a different direction from discussing Richardson and into a discussion of Taylor's value, here is a post I made in the other 6 page thread on Taylor:

I think there are multiple questions that get at what we have been discussing in a roundabout way.

1. Just how good are Minnesota's blockers? Where do they rank as a group compared to the rest of the league? I'd say they should be above average. Will they be elite? I don't think so, not in the first year of a new system.

2. How good is Taylor independent of situation? Where does he rank compared to the rest of the league's RBs? I'd say he is average at best, independent of situation. That is, I think I can name 16 RBs I'd take ahead of him for one season based on player specific attributes (e.g., ability, attitude/character, durability, etc.).

3. How much does a group of blockers like Minnesota's (quality determined in quesiton 1) help a RB like Taylor (quality determined in question 2)?

This whole tangent that started with David's post, that I admittedly helped drive us down, I think focuses on #3 while making rosy assumptions about 1 & 2.

And then you still have to evaluate the system, the competition, etc.

Anyway, it is clear that most here are much higher on Taylor than I am.

1 above would include Richardson as well as the OL. #3 above should really generalize from just blockers to include the overall offense. Anyway, you get the point.Here is one direct response that I thought was pretty good:

Excellent post.

I would add 1A....

Does the offensive scheme in MIN produce big numbers for the primary RB? Independent of talent from both the line and RB, is it safe to assume RBs are generally succesful in the system or unsuccesful... or somewhere in the middle?

With these questions, my personal answers wouuld be (scale = poor, average, good, great):

1. I think the line/blockers are good, but not great. With Hutchinson and Birk I think it could be great, but I totally agree with you that the line will need time to become a cohesive unit.

1A. With the new coaching staff in place in MIN, I have very little idea how the productive the offensive scheme will be. At this point, I think I'm leaning toward average.

2. I think that Taylor is average at best when comparing his skill set and attributes to other starting NFL RBs... so we also agree here.

3. So to answer what kind of production I expect from Taylor based on my answers... a RB with average (at best... probably a little lower) skills, in a potenatially average offensive scheme, with a good line anchored by a couple of great lineman... It sounds to me like he is likely to put up average starting RB numbers... maybe somewhere in the RB 15-20 range. But honestly, the big question for me is the offensive scheme to be in place in MIN... I think that is the huge question that needs to be addressed still.

Aside from all that, I note that Taylor's ADP as of 7/25 was RB21. Given his hype around here, I wouldn't be surprised if it has crept up a bit since then. Just exactly how much better than that do you think he will do? I already staked my position in the other thread that he will finish RB21 or worse. How about you?I mean, if he's going to finish as RB18 or RB19, that's a marginal value for his ADP but not really worth debating... do you think he's going to be top 10-15?

 

[Joe Bryant]

Thanks War.

I'm not into the comparison but I absolutely think people are sleeping on Taylor. He showed good things in Baltimore. He's going to a team that wants to feature him. And most importantly, a team that has added All World players in guard Steve Hutchison and the guy that I think is the most under rated component of Priest Holmes' and Larry Johnson's success - fullback Tony Richardson.

One can make a case that those two guys are in the elite level of what they do. And what they do are key parts of making a RB successful.

Add to it the fact that he's under the radar for lots of owners. I'm loving the guy.

J

Previous post on the overrating of Richardson for purposes of evaluating Taylor:

I don't disagree with your general point, but I think you are overselling Richardson here. He has made two Pro Bowls in his career, and both of those were in a system more favorable to the run [Kansas City] (better line, better RBs, better coaching... IMO). This will be his 12th season, and he is 34. Sure, he is a good blocking FB. But I don't think he is currently an elite blocking FB. Is he a difference maker? That is TBD.

EDIT: I also think someone posted around here previously that a large percentage of LJ's success came in one back sets, in which Richardson was not even on the field. Not sure how far back that applies (i.e., to how much of Priest's success in prior years that applies).

Thanks. We'll just have to disagree there on Richardson being over rated. I think Priest Holmes, Larry Johnson and Al Saunders would too. But that's what makes this fun.J

Agreeing to disagree is fine, though some of what I posted is not subject to disagreement. It is a fact that Richardson is 34 and entering 12th season. How often do blocking fullbacks make a difference at age 34 (and in a new offense to boot)? I don't know the answer, but I suspect it is pretty rare.I also find it interesting that KC let him go, despite how effective he had been in KC. If he made a difference last season for LJ, why didn't they want to keep him blocking for LJ?

We'll see how it turns out. I really do agree to disagree.

I think we're all pretty much on the same page with his age... I disagree with the idea he's over rated. And more importantly, I think Holmes, LJ and Saunders would too. I meant pretty much what I wrote.

But we'll see.

And for the bigger picture for Taylor, do you think Hutchison is an upgrade?

J

Upgrade over what? The Baltimore OL? Or the old Vikings OL? I guess what you're saying is that it is a positive for Taylor that Hutchison is there. I agree with that. If we're now going in a different direction from discussing Richardson and into a discussion of Taylor's value, here is a post I made in the other 6 page thread on Taylor:

I think there are multiple questions that get at what we have been discussing in a roundabout way.

1. Just how good are Minnesota's blockers? Where do they rank as a group compared to the rest of the league? I'd say they should be above average. Will they be elite? I don't think so, not in the first year of a new system.

2. How good is Taylor independent of situation? Where does he rank compared to the rest of the league's RBs? I'd say he is average at best, independent of situation. That is, I think I can name 16 RBs I'd take ahead of him for one season based on player specific attributes (e.g., ability, attitude/character, durability, etc.).

3. How much does a group of blockers like Minnesota's (quality determined in quesiton 1) help a RB like Taylor (quality determined in question 2)?

This whole tangent that started with David's post, that I admittedly helped drive us down, I think focuses on #3 while making rosy assumptions about 1 & 2.

And then you still have to evaluate the system, the competition, etc.

Anyway, it is clear that most here are much higher on Taylor than I am.

1 above would include Richardson as well as the OL. #3 above should really generalize from just blockers to include the overall offense. Anyway, you get the point.Here is one direct response that I thought was pretty good:

Excellent post.

I would add 1A....

Does the offensive scheme in MIN produce big numbers for the primary RB? Independent of talent from both the line and RB, is it safe to assume RBs are generally succesful in the system or unsuccesful... or somewhere in the middle?

With these questions, my personal answers wouuld be (scale = poor, average, good, great):

1. I think the line/blockers are good, but not great. With Hutchinson and Birk I think it could be great, but I totally agree with you that the line will need time to become a cohesive unit.

1A. With the new coaching staff in place in MIN, I have very little idea how the productive the offensive scheme will be. At this point, I think I'm leaning toward average.

2. I think that Taylor is average at best when comparing his skill set and attributes to other starting NFL RBs... so we also agree here.

3. So to answer what kind of production I expect from Taylor based on my answers... a RB with average (at best... probably a little lower) skills, in a potenatially average offensive scheme, with a good line anchored by a couple of great lineman... It sounds to me like he is likely to put up average starting RB numbers... maybe somewhere in the RB 15-20 range. But honestly, the big question for me is the offensive scheme to be in place in MIN... I think that is the huge question that needs to be addressed still.

Aside from all that, I note that Taylor's ADP as of 7/25 was RB21. Given his hype around here, I wouldn't be surprised if it has crept up a bit since then. Just exactly how much better than that do you think he will do? I already staked my position in the other thread that he will finish RB21 or worse. How about you?I mean, if he's going to finish as RB18 or RB19, that's a marginal value for his ADP but not really worth debating... do you think he's going to be top 10-15?

I see him at #18 right now and moving up depending on what I see from him in live action during the preseason games. http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/currentproj-rb.phpJ

 

[Tau837]

I see him at #18 right now and moving up depending on what I see from him in live action during the preseason games. http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/currentproj-rb.php

J

OK, those are labeled as David's projections. Wasn't sure if they represented your views or not.So, given that his ADP is probably no worse than RB21, and possibly a bit higher, we seem to be in agreement that there is little value in Taylor right now. (You are projecting him with less than 6 more fantasy points than RB21.)

Your original comment was that he is flying under the radar for many owners, but it appears that you'll have to take him where he will offer little value to get him.

 

[Joe Bryant]

I see him at #18 right now and moving up depending on what I see from him in live action during the preseason games. http://subscribers.footballguys.com/2006/currentproj-rb.php

J

OK, those are labeled as David's projections. Wasn't sure if they represented your views or not.So, given that his ADP is probably no worse than RB21, and possibly a bit higher, we seem to be in agreement that there is little value in Taylor right now. (You are projecting him with less than 6 more fantasy points than RB21.)

Your original comment was that he is flying under the radar for many owners, but it appears that you'll have to take him where he will offer little value to get him.

Yes, David does the creation of the projections but he and I are together on everything. Those represent my views.If ADP is 21 and I'm saying 18 or better, I see that as value. Sure, not steal material. But I also believe there are lots of people out there that don't have him on the radar even at 21.

ADP at the end of July / Early August doesn't represent the ADP of the masses. These early guys are almost always much sharper.

And "value" doesn't have to necessarily mean "ADP minus your ranking" There is value to possibly grabbing a great WR earlier and then picking up Taylor in the next round as well.

J