http://www.nfl.com/draft/2016/profiles/c.j.-prosise?id=2555417Isn't Promise a 3rd down back or is he a 3 down back?
Has every-down size for the position. Patient, gliding runner with a sense for when it's time to hit the gas and go. Has late cut ability to create new yards for himself. Has effective open-field spin move to elude and the play strength to power through lesser tackle attempts. Efficient runner between the tackles. Runs with desired pad level maintains balance through contact. Falls forward in his finishing. Has enough play speed to turn the corner as outside runner. Experience as receiver gives him upgraded route ability as running back. Has opportunity to be effective on all three levels as receiver if matchup avails itself.
I got it from here.
So then he wouldn't be the "handcuff/backup"?I got it from here.
The Seahawks wanted Prosise, a Notre Dame running back, to be their third-down and pass-catching running back, a job held in previous seasons by Fred Jackson and Robert Turbin. But the current roster didn’t have a player with the necessary background or skill set.
Which is exactly why they drafted Prosise.
Yet I think it is being portrayed overly negative especially when you look at in the context of they already told you they were going to address RB and Rawls as of a month ago when I last heard an update was not yet cleared to run.Yeah not a good weekend for rawls owners. Cjp is big and can catch. Plus they took alex collins and they still have cmike.
Wait, so you're saying the Seahawks drafted a RB who can't pass protect as their 3rd down back? That makes no sense.IMO:
- Rawls will be healthy, will open the season as the starter, and will hold onto the job barring injury. I predict he will get approximately 70% of the carries, which would project to 270 carries or so. He should also be the goal line back and lead all Seattle RBs in TDs.
- Prosise will be the third down back, but in a more limited role than some third down backs because his pass protection is poor. I think his ability to thrive as a NFL RB (other than as a receiver out of the backfield) is being overrated. He has less than one full season of experience as a full-time RB, and he had fumbling, pass protection, and durability issues in that one season. He has talent and the Seahawks will coach him up, but he has a lot to learn.
- Michael will be the primary backup RB. If Rawls gets hurt, I expect he will get the first shot at filling the primary role.
- Collins will make the team and be the #4 RB, which means he likely will not be active on game day unless one of the others above is out.
- Woods won't make the team.
So I disagree with the notion that Rawls' stock took a hit. Entering the draft, the Seahawks only had two RBs under contract and expected to make the final roster. It was expected that they would add two RBs, and that is what they did.
Happens all the time. They used to be called scatbacks. More receiver then runner and marginal blockers at best.Wait, so you're saying the Seahawks drafted a RB who can't pass protect as their 3rd down back? That makes no sense.
Exactly. Woodhead is a great example of a great receiving back who is poor at pass protection, yet he is used extensively. He just isn't asked to pass protect much, he is running routes.Happens all the time. They used to be called scatbacks. More receiver then runner and marginal blockers at best.
"He looks like he has no idea what he's doing at times in protections and that is what could keep him off the field early in his career." -- NFL West area scout
...While Prosise has the acceleration and play strength to fit into an NFL offense, he needs to become a shade more decisive and has to improve in protections if he is to become a three-down option. Prosise looks like an immediate "committee" runner with future starter potential.
Unworried Rawls owners are either lying or trending towards delusional IMO. Don't get me wrong, he flashed nicely last season. But he did so as an UDFA in what amounted to a 6 game sample. A limited sample through which he didn't stay healthy. If I held him I'd be hitting the market to sell to those who value Rawls as a top 10 dynasty RB. There's no way I'd have any comfort in holding him at his current value knowing what we know about Seattle's intent, which isn't a whole lot.Rawls has such a small sample size that I'm not really sure how anybody is projecting a 2015 UDFA as a slam dunk over 3rd and 5th round draft picks. IMO he's the early favorite, as he's got a season in the system already, and he looked pretty good when he did play, but beyond that?
He looked much better than "pretty good" when he played. He looked like the second coming of Lynch in his prime.Rawls has such a small sample size that I'm not really sure how anybody is projecting a 2015 UDFA as a slam dunk over 3rd and 5th round draft picks. IMO he's the early favorite, as he's got a season in the system already, and he looked pretty good when he did play, but beyond that?
Has Woody ever had a fantasy relevant RB on his NFl team that he was behind?Exactly. Woodhead is a great example of a great receiving back who is poor at pass protection, yet he is used extensively. He just isn't asked to pass protect much, he is running routes.
Just read Prosise's draft profiles. For example, from his NFL draft profile:
You had to make personal attacks about possible Rawls owner in order to make an argument?Unworried Rawls owners are either lying or trending towards delusional IMO. Don't get me wrong, he flashed nicely last season. But he did so as an UDFA in what amounted to a 6 game sample. A limited sample through which he didn't stay healthy. If I held him I'd be hitting the market to sell to those who value Rawls as a top 10 dynasty RB. There's no way I'd have any comfort in holding him at his current value knowing what we know about Seattle's intent, which isn't a whole lot.
Are you implying that the fact that he broke his ankle shows he is injury prone? If not, what is the purpose of your bolded statement?Unworried Rawls owners are either lying or trending towards delusional IMO. Don't get me wrong, he flashed nicely last season. But he did so as an UDFA in what amounted to a 6 game sample. A limited sample through which he didn't stay healthy. If I held him I'd be hitting the market to sell to those who value Rawls as a top 10 dynasty RB. There's no way I'd have any comfort in holding him at his current value knowing what we know about Seattle's intent, which isn't a whole lot.
Didn't people project an UDFA in Arian Foster over a 2nd round pick in Ben Tate? Foster had shown less than Rawls has at this point too.Rawls has such a small sample size that I'm not really sure how anybody is projecting a 2015 UDFA as a slam dunk over 3rd and 5th round draft picks. IMO he's the early favorite, as he's got a season in the system already, and he looked pretty good when he did play, but beyond that?
TJones was 1400 with 14 TDs.Has Woody ever had a fantasy relevant RB on his NFl team that he was behind?
Yes:Has Woody ever had a fantasy relevant RB on his NFl team that he was behind?
Seems that way. Maybe see if I can buy low.Besides, lot more people saying Rawls took a giant hit and will lose his job than otherwise. I just got told in one league that Rawls isn't even worth a 1st round pick anymore. That's rookie fever rearing its head IMO.
Thanks. It was an honest question. I just couldn't think that far back on the spot.Yes:
All ranks taken from PFR (non-PPR), YMMV.
- In 2010, Woodhead was the #28 fantasy RB in the same season that his teammate BJGE was the #15 fantasy RB.
- In 2012, Woodhead was the #24 fantasy RB in the same season that his teammate Ridley was the #10 fantasy RB.
- In 2013, Woodhead was the #19 fantasy RB in the same season that his teammate Mathews was the #12 fantasy RB.
Good comparison. Neither of those players is worth anything now.Rawls owners sound like Zac Stacy owners after Tre Mason got drafted.
Yeah, this is what bothers me. The guy basically played 6 games. He looked good, but keep in mind they won all six of those games and we all know winning games produce favorable rushing stats and half of those games were blowouts. You could plug about anyone in there and they'd look good given the situation.Rawls has such a small sample size that I'm not really sure how anybody is projecting a 2015 UDFA as a slam dunk over 3rd and 5th round draft picks. IMO he's the early favorite, as he's got a season in the system already, and he looked pretty good when he did play, but beyond that?
As Lloyd Christmas said, "so you're saying there's a chance." Given a large enough sample size, everything will happen. FF is a probability game.Arian Foster seemed to do OK as an UDFA after playing in only 6 games his rookie year.
Personal attacks? C'mon. All I said was "Rawls owner's expressing no concern are either lying or trending towards delusional." I'll stand by that, even if it greatly offends the Rawls owners. Instead of telling you to grow a pair, I'll offer my apologies.You had to make personal attacks about possible Rawls owner in order to make an argument?
What a horrible post. It stinks of the crap that plagued the Christine Michael thread for years.
FWIW, from PFF:FWIW in the 3 games of Prosise that I watched I noted a few times where he aggressively pursued potential pass rushers and met them near the line of scrimmage and blocked them. I did not notice him missing key protections when asked to do so either.
It was only 3 games, but he didn't seem clueless or inept on these assignments that I observed.
• Very little experience in pass protection. Stayed in to pass block just 61 times in 2015. His 94.7 pass blocking efficiency ranked 32nd out of top 55 draft-eligible backs
Unworried Rawls owners are either lying or trending towards delusional IMO. Don't get me wrong, he flashed nicely last season. But he did so as an UDFA in what amounted to a 6 game sample. A limited sample through which he didn't stay healthy. If I held him I'd be hitting the market to sell to those who value Rawls as a top 10 dynasty RB. There's no way I'd have any comfort in holding him at his current value knowing what we know about Seattle's intent, which isn't a whole lot.
Take it at face value. I'm hoping it's acceptable to Rawls owners when facts are presented. So sure, he could very well be injury prone. He could also be a workhorse that suffered a fluke injury during a half seasons worth of work which ends up being the only injury he suffers in a decade long Hall of Fame career. He could be Arian Foster. He could also be a flash in the pan UDFA that caught lightning in a bottle on a solid ground and pound offense for a few games and ends up getting replaced by competition that was drafted in the 3rd round, 5th round, or 7th round of the current draft, Christine Michael, or heaven forbid another UDFA that impresses the coaching staff.Are you implying that the fact that he broke his ankle shows he is injury prone? If not, what is the purpose of your bolded statement?
Yeah, that was my prediction. Here is my logic:Edit: was just looking at the scores in his play-by-play. I forgot that the Seahawks blew a 24-7 lead vs. CIN in OT. Rawls didn't record a carry in OT. So they were technically 5-1 in his 6 games as a lead back. Given that he's not the complete back that Lynch was, I'm not sure he stays relevant in losses or games in which they plan to pass a lot. The prediction of 270 carries I saw earlier seems very generous. That's pretty much assuming he steps right into the Lynch role minus a few 3rd down carries and receptions.
Prosise will not take carries from him, Collins will. If you want his backup, take Collins.OK, then lets assume you have him on your dynasty roster from last year still, and you can get one other guy somehow. Who do you get?
In 2014, Lynch's last healthy year, he had very little quality competition, played 670 snaps, and totaled 280 carries with 16 on third down. Given that Rawls is unlikely to be as good as Lynch in any facet of the game, much less every facet, I doubt he plays nearly as many snaps. Another reason for the lower expected snap count would be the fact that he's got better competition than Lynch had in 2014. Turbin and Michael were the only guys who got carries other than Lynch in 2014. I'd say these rookies plus a more mature (?) Michael present more of a threat to Rawls than Turbin and 2014 Michael did to the very established Lynch.Just Win Baby said:Yeah, that was my prediction. Here is my logic:
Also, you are correct that Rawls didn't officially record a carry in OT of the Cincy game, but he did get a carry that was wiped out by penalty. Fred Jackson was in for the Seahawks' first drive in OT. Rawls was in to open the second drive, and he got the carry, but there was a clipping penalty on the OL. So they were in 1st and 20 and brought Jackson back in, didn't convert a first down, and they had no more possessions. I don't see that small sample as predictive of anything.
- I assume the Seahawks will have from 380-400 RB rushing attempts, since they have had at least that many in every season under Carroll.
- I assume Rawls will be healthy to open the season and will be the starting RB. In that role, and given I expect he will be clearly better than the other RBs, I expect he will get about 70% of the carries. If he stays healthy, that puts him at around 270 carries, which would be about 17 per game. Lynch averaged 295 carries per season from 2011-2014, so this is almost a 10% reduction.
- As for receptions, Lynch averaged just under 2 receptions per game from 2011-2014. When Lynch got hurt the second time last year, Rawls played 3 full games before getting hurt and had 6/68/1 receiving in those games. Small sample size, of course, and he did not get targeted earlier in the season when he stepped in for Lynch, but IMO it shows that he has the potential to eventually get to 2 receptions per game, same as Lynch.
- And, yes, I am expecting him to step into the Lynch role. That's exactly what he did last year in the games he started until he broke his ankle.
Thomas Rawls averaged over 5 YPC, Stacy wasn't even over 4. Stacy was only fantasy relevant because Jeff Fisher gave him 25 touches every week.Rawls owners sound like Zac Stacy owners after Tre Mason got drafted.
And never did Stacy (or Mason) look like what Rawls looked like. Not even remotely.Thomas Rawls averaged over 5 YPC, Stacy wasn't even over 4. Stacy was only fantasy relevant because Jeff Fisher gave him 25 touches every week.
He averaged over 5 ypc... in 6 games... 3 of which were blowouts... they went 2-1 in the others and were actually up 24-7 in the 4th Q in the one loss. He also ran behind the 4th best blocking line and played with Russell Wilson. Stacy played for 15 games... on a losing team... with a mediocre line... with a predictable coach... with the worst passing attack in the NFL. Apples and oranges.Thomas Rawls averaged over 5 YPC, Stacy wasn't even over 4. Stacy was only fantasy relevant because Jeff Fisher gave him 25 touches every week.
I like how they show the same plays from different angles at different times in the clip rather than back to back, making it appear like a different highlight.
Trent Richardson's highlight reel from his rookie season makes him look scary good - it's amazing what choosing a RBs biggest plays and putting them altogether can do.I like how they show the same plays from different angles at different times in the clip rather than back to back, making it appear like a different highlight.
Agreed, I probably come off as anti-Rawls here since I'm not joining in on the circle jerk, but I really just think there's very little data on him so I'm withholding judgment. He's got mediocre measureables and a tiny sample size of success under extremely favorable circumstances - should give people pause but it seems like the bandwagon is full steam ahead. FFcalc has him going RB8. That's way too rich for my blood with such a tiny amount of data.Trent Richardson's highlight reel from his rookie season makes him look scary good - it's amazing what choosing a RBs biggest plays and putting them altogether can do.
That's not really a comment on Rawls necessarily - just saying that we could do this for almost any RB and make them look unstoppable.
Any yes, I also noticed that they dispersed the same highlight runs a few different times throughout that reel - making it look like he had multiple 69 yard TD runs.