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.
So how do your numbers compare to other starting RB's in the league? What about rookie RB's last year? It's quite comical to see a guy spout out numbers and admit he doesn't know how they compare to others yet attempts to find meaning in them. :rotflmao:
I'm not saying it's a certainty. I just don't think it is as impossible as many suggest.Like others, I don't expect the Broncos to draft a RB in rounds 1 or 2. But, they most certainly could do that and that would change my opinion dramatically. Actually, my projections for Griffin took a substantial hit with the signing of Hearst.I just disagree with people who claim that he's useless and too small to ever be the primary ballcarrier in a RBBC system, when Dunn, Westbrook, and even K.Faulk to some extent have all done that at a similar size.I just find Griffin intriguing, and think some people around here might be writing him off too soon. I remember reading and hearing many people last summer claiming that Domanick Davis was drafted to be a kick returner and could never be anything more than a 3rd down/change of pace back. Fact is, nobody here knows what Griffin is capable of yet. But, I think the Broncos must like something about him if they drafted him. Odds are he's a backup RB at best, but there is always a slight chance that the kid could surprise everybody.Open minds are useful when evaluating talent rather than relying on preconceived notions of what a player is or is not capable of.
First, if people keep bringing up Quentin Griffin threads, it's obvious they haven't read the earlier ones so I feel oddly compelled to keep bringing up the relevant comparison players. My point is that Barry Sanders is not the only small back to ever be moderately successful as an NFL RB, which people often fail to grasp in these debates.Second, why do you get to decide what the point of the debate is about? I don't think I've seen anyone in this thread (or anywhere else really) saying that Griffin will put up numbers similar to Clinton Portis, Mike Anderson, or Terrell Davis. That is silly talk and I won't defend those people if you point them out to me.
You're kidding, right?Here are your shining examples of non-Sanders tiny RBs who have the ability to be a featured RB:
Brian Westbrook 2003: 7.8 carries/gm, 2.47 rec/gm, 63 yds/gm, .73TD/gmHe got 10 touches a game and nearly averaged a TD/game despite playing in a 3-way RBBC.You're kidding, right?
Here are your shining examples of non-Sanders tiny RBs who have the ability to be a featured RB:
Westbrook career
5.43 rush att/gm; 26.9 ypg rushing; 0.23 rush TD/gm
Dunn career
14.0 rush att/gm; 56.9 ypg rushing; 0.26 rush TD/gm
Faulk career
6.97 rush att/gm; 26.0 ypg rushing; 0.11 rush TD/gm
And Westbrook lead the Eagles last year in rushing - with a whopping 613 yds. Is this the kind of "success" that you are projecting for Griffin? I have a sneaking suspicion that those numbers don't quite cut it as a featured RB in DEN.
Because he can't run standard plays where he could be touched early. He can't break a tackle to save his life.
I don't think you bring in a Garrison Hearst type back if you think you have a guy on your roster who can carry the load, especially if it's a smallish type back. Hearst is not a goalline back, never has been, so that'snot why he was brought in. He';s an every down back, and Griffin is more suited to a third down role than Hearst. So why bring Hearst in? Obviously beause you don't think Griffin can do it.
Because you don't know if Griffin can do it. If you're no 95% sure Griffin can handle the load, it's smart to bring in a guy like Hearst for the vet minimum. This is how it always works with unproven players, it has little to do with what they think of Griffin. You are seeing signs that aren't there.
I don't buy it - you are ignoring signs that are extremely evident.If you are only 95% sure Griff can handle it, you bring in a Zeroue, Jamel White, Antowain Smith or another sub-starter-quality RB who has shown potential enough to start a few games, but isn't going to expect the immediate starting role.You don't bring in a vet who lost his starting job to injury on a cap-strapped rebuilding team. You don't bring in a guy who was on pace to break 1,000 yards while splitting time.And on top of it all, you don't bring in a guy who is a classic Shanahan fave from Georgia who is a tremendous one cut runner who will excel in the typical Denver system.
And I'll ask it again, why not? Let's suppose it's two years ago, and Shanahan has a youngster that we will all agree, in hindsight, had potential--Clinton Portis. You get a call from Garrison Heart, an aging but still good veteran, a great team player and professional, who says that he will sign with your team for the minimum, as long as he has a real chance to compete for the starting job. Who wouldn't take that? It's a free lunch. It doesn't matter if the youngster is the next Barry Sanders or the next Curtis Enis--it can't hurt to have a guy like Hearst at virtually no cost.Had they paid Hearst $2 million per year, or brought in a 29 year old Corey Dillon or something, I would have a different opinion.Shanahan, more than any other coach I can think of, likes to have 2-3-4 guys with low salary cap hits and the talent to do OK in his system, and have them duke it out over the offseason to see who is best. With Hearst, Griffin, Anderson and possibly a rookie, he has exactly that.
Chemistry....And I believe Shanny soughtout Hearst, not the other way around
I think folks are reading too much into the Hearst signing. Folks seem to forget that at the time Denver brought Hearst in, Denver had nothing at RB. Portis ws gone. Anderson is a fullback & that's where Shanny wants him. They couldn't know if they would get their guy in the draft. Regardless of whether they like or don't like Griffin, he was all they had at RB that had any kind of experience. Hearst was a smart pickup whether they really like Griffin or not.Personally I think it unlikely Hearst will be a factor. When a 32 year old vet coming off an injury signs for the vet. minimum, the question is usually will he make the team, not will he start. Plus Shanny seems to prefer young explosive backs over reliable, less explosive, vets.
where have i seen this exact thing before?
video.
