Sell me on Mathews (1 Viewer)

[sholditch]

OK, I get that he has ideal height and weight, and decent speed (4.9-4.53) but what really separates him from the rest of the field? His situation used to be perfect for RBs but the line and situation are inextricably linked to LT2. When it was on, impossible to say whether LT made his line look good or vice versa. Same with when it was off (08 and 09). So the situation is TBD. I do remember seeing LT and Sproles getting hit behind the line A LOT.

Spiller and Best both have far better speed and Best seems to have a similar situation in that he's being handed the starting job. I could see Spiller mired in a 3-headed beast for 2010.

Tate is about the same size and is a good deal faster and played against much tougher defenses. So if it's size, then it seems Tate should be the second player off the board. If it's not size, then shouldn't the faster, shiftier Best be drafted ahead? Or Spiller if you're thinking long term?

When listening the the talking heads discuss Mathews during the draft, one word seemed to sum up what they were all saying: underwhelming.

 

[Concept Coop]

Like you, I am not yet drinking the kool-aid. But a good deal of stock needs to be placed in the fact that he went in the top 15, in an era where backs don't go in the top 15. SD gave up a lot to get him. You have to assume, to some degree, that the Chargers - one of the better drafting teams - did their home work and are more informed than any of us. He will get every chance to produce and will get all the carries needed to justify his selection. That alone puts him HEAD AND SHOULDERS above Tate.

Having said that, I didn't see elite, based on the little I have seen. I think with his situation and the Charger's value of him, he is the #1 rookie in the class, unless you need a WR. But again, like you, I personally didn't see elite.

 

[karmarooster]

he's this year's Matt Forte. if you're talking dynasty, sell him after this year because he'll probably put together a nice season due to the opportunity. but nothing about him is "special." if you're talking re-draft, he might be worth RB2 but he'll likely be going to high come august. his ADP is already 3.12. a better idea for re-draft is to wait for Best. less risk, more upside.

 

[lyon812]

OK, I get that he has ideal height and weight, and decent speed (4.9-4.53) but what really separates him from the rest of the field? His situation used to be perfect for RBs but the line and situation are inextricably linked to LT2. When it was on, impossible to say whether LT made his line look good or vice versa. Same with when it was off (08 and 09). So the situation is TBD. I do remember seeing LT and Sproles getting hit behind the line A LOT. Spiller and Best both have far better speed and Best seems to have a similar situation in that he's being handed the starting job. I could see Spiller mired in a 3-headed beast for 2010.Tate is about the same size and is a good deal faster and played against much tougher defenses. So if it's size, then it seems Tate should be the second player off the board. If it's not size, then shouldn't the faster, shiftier Best be drafted ahead? Or Spiller if you're thinking long term?When listening the the talking heads discuss Mathews during the draft, one word seemed to sum up what they were all saying: underwhelming.

Advantages over Spiller and Best: Size, power. Better vision than Spiller. Clearly an early- or three-down back, where the jury is out on how many carries Best/Spiller will receive or can handle.Advantages over Tate: Vision, patience, cutting ability. Really, if you just Google "ryan mathews scouting report", you'll get tons of reports. You'll frequently see "can cut on a dime", "excellent vision", "great balance through the hole", "ideal NFL size", "power and toughness" etc. His greatest concern is his upright running style, which may cost him in terms of durability. Oh, and he's a crappy blocker, which isn't really uncommon for rookies anyway.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index...&hl=mathews

If you want to learn about Mathews.

Mathews is physical, quick, great vision, and has open field speed.

Spiller is quick and has open field speed.

Best is quick, open field speed, vision, and elusiveness.

That is how they stack up in my book....without getting into injuries.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

he's this year's Matt Forte. if you're talking dynasty, sell him after this year because he'll probably put together a nice season due to the opportunity. but nothing about him is "special." if you're talking re-draft, he might be worth RB2 but he'll likely be going to high come august. his ADP is already 3.12. a better idea for re-draft is to wait for Best. less risk, more upside.

Injuries down???

 

[karmarooster]

he's this year's Matt Forte. if you're talking dynasty, sell him after this year because he'll probably put together a nice season due to the opportunity. but nothing about him is "special." if you're talking re-draft, he might be worth RB2 but he'll likely be going to high come august. his ADP is already 3.12. a better idea for re-draft is to wait for Best. less risk, more upside.

Injuries down???

err.... what i mean was... Mathews is the "safe" pick (as safe as can be for a rookie RB, so its relative) with low ceiling, but his ADP is already high and will continue to rise. high ADP = high risk. if mathews stinks, however unlikely, you had to pass on proven 1,000 yard backs and WRs to get him.so, in that sense Best is "less risk" because lower ADP = less risk.... as best is currently going in the 6th round. of course straight up, Best is the higher risk player.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

he's this year's Matt Forte. if you're talking dynasty, sell him after this year because he'll probably put together a nice season due to the opportunity. but nothing about him is "special." if you're talking re-draft, he might be worth RB2 but he'll likely be going to high come august. his ADP is already 3.12. a better idea for re-draft is to wait for Best. less risk, more upside.

Injuries down???

err.... what i mean was... Mathews is the "safe" pick (as safe as can be for a rookie RB, so its relative) with low ceiling, but his ADP is already high and will continue to rise. high ADP = high risk. if mathews stinks, however unlikely, you had to pass on proven 1,000 yard backs and WRs to get him.so, in that sense Best is "less risk" because lower ADP = less risk.... as best is currently going in the 6th round. of course straight up, Best is the higher risk player.

True....but in the same regard if you don't get mathews now...you will have to take him in round 1 of future dynasty startups.

He has the best setup with an established stud QB(Rivers), stud WR(Vincent Jackson), Stud TE(Gates).

He plays in a warm weather area for half his game with a team that will at least short term have more leads in games than be trailing=leading games.

He also plays in the easiest division in football(Denver got worse, KC, Oakland) which will help his value vs the AFC East(spiller).

What 1000 yard RB's are you passing on??? at 3.12...Ryan Grant, Benson, etc.....it is worth the risk to me.

 

[karmarooster]

well i was talking about re-draft, not dynasty start up. if you take Mathews at 3.12, this is what you have to pass on:

SS Car

Ronnie

Jstew

Forte

Addai

Bowe

Welker

Clark

Gates

VDavis

Passing on most of those players to take Mathews IMO is risky. in fact, it's probably a good rule of thumb to never be the guy to draft the first rookie in redraft, just as its generally a good idea to never be the guy to take the first QB or first TE.

 

[Tanner9919]

defenses can't crowd the LOS against SD, they have to contain V. Jackson and Gates, and keep Rivers in check..

Plus, while it's getting better , the AFC West is still defensively-challenged.

Norv Turner's offense relies heavily on the running game...this from a guy who turned Terry Allen into a stud RB, after two blown knees..Steven Davis, Emmitt, Lt2..the results are there..

in Norv we trust.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

well i was talking about re-draft, not dynasty start up. if you take Mathews at 3.12, this is what you have to pass on:SS CarRonnieJstewForteAddaiBoweWelkerClarkGatesVDavisPassing on most of those players to take Mathews IMO is risky. in fact, it's probably a good rule of thumb to never be the guy to draft the first rookie in redraft, just as its generally a good idea to never be the guy to take the first QB or first TE.

I feel that you don't like to be a trend setter first off(first to take a rookie, QB, TE) that is how u win championships my friend(IMO).As far as redraft, which I don't play often. I would rather have mathews than any of those players. They all have significant questionmarks as well....not sure why it is that risk at that point considering you should have two studs already on your team. Redraft is all about taking guys that have high upside.

 

[Matt Waldman]

OK, I get that he has ideal height and weight, and decent speed (4.9-4.53) but what really separates him from the rest of the field? His situation used to be perfect for RBs but the line and situation are inextricably linked to LT2. When it was on, impossible to say whether LT made his line look good or vice versa. Same with when it was off (08 and 09). So the situation is TBD. I do remember seeing LT and Sproles getting hit behind the line A LOT.

Spiller and Best both have far better speed and Best seems to have a similar situation in that he's being handed the starting job. I could see Spiller mired in a 3-headed beast for 2010.

Tate is about the same size and is a good deal faster and played against much tougher defenses. So if it's size, then it seems Tate should be the second player off the board. If it's not size, then shouldn't the faster, shiftier Best be drafted ahead? Or Spiller if you're thinking long term?

When listening the the talking heads discuss Mathews during the draft, one word seemed to sum up what they were all saying: underwhelming.

I don't mean this to be sarcastic, but I recall that you were among the folks on this board who was very much enamored with Darren McFadden and engaged in a pretty strong debate about him for the first two years of his career. While McFadden still has time to develop into a terrific player, he has been underwhelming. If Mathews turns out to be a very good player, maybe the first thing to consider in your thought process about what makes an RB very good isn't speed. What I see when I read your post is an emphasis on speed (see bold sections above). As you mention, you are aware that Mathews has decent speed. What I'm seeing from your analysis is that you seem to base what makes a good back on his size, speed, and agility, which is fundamentally important but you don't talk about vision, balance or techniques (pad level, protects the football, etc.) to running the ball. Those three things I just mentioned are what makes Mathews such a good back. He has the fundamental three you mention and he has very good vision at the line of scrimmage. Spiller could be a very good back, but he has some issues with vision (patience and decision making) and pad techniques that might require some adjustment to his game for him to become an effective between the tackles runner on a consistent basis. Best has very good vision and technique, but what he lacks with size/power, he makes up with great speed. .

 

[wildbill]

Norv Turner's offense relies heavily on the running game...this from a guy who turned Terry Allen into a stud RB, after two blown knees..Steven Davis, Emmitt, Lt2..the results are there..in Norv we trust.

This is the key, IMO. In addition to the guys you mentioned, didn't Norv coach Ricky Williams, Frank Gore and Lamont Jordan to their best seasons?

 

[Stinkin Ref]

posted in the mock draft forum:

I think he has an excellent chance to land in the top 10 for these reasons:

1. he is very talented

2. SD did not bring anybody else in when there were guys they could have gone after (Lynch, TJ, etc)...I think he was in SD sights long before the draft......

3. there is nobody else on the roster currently to steal carries.....Sproles will just be Sproles

4. they moved up big time and used a high draft pick on him....they will give him the rock

5. their schedule looks very nice.....very very nice.....AFC west and NFC west...

6. this offense is potent and he will probably get all the goaline looks when they do chose to run

7. the way SD throws the ball, he will have some space when they do run

8. I think he has more "upside" than most of the other RB left on the board at this point....will the guys taken after him really blow him away....I don't think so....

 

[footballsavvy]

I took him high (end of the 2nd round) in startup dynasty recently for these reasons:

He's the safest rookie RB to come out in awhille. While I could have had Shonn Green or Jammaal Charles or Sidney Rice or Colston... I went with Matthews. Why? Well, I analyzed the risk/reward and determined Mathews provided the lowest ratio. He was drafted as a high first round running back to a team that will make him the unabated starter immediately. He has ideal size, decent speed, visions, etc etc. And most of all, his coach has already publically stated that he is targeting 250 carries and 40 receptions in his 2010 season.

Some people compare him to Forte - but I think his floor is about what Forte's rookie season was. In a worst case scenario, he doesn't do much with those carries and averages under 4 yds per carry. He would still be around 1300 to 1500 total yards with ~40 receptions and a smattering of TDs (I'm talking PPR league, by the way).

Imagine if he acutally looks good when he carreis the ball. He would get closer to 300 carries (since they would feed him the ball a litlte more often if hes running for 5 ypc), and still have all the receptions, if not more... then you are looking at 300/1400/10 50/400/3 type stat line and top 10.

The bottom line is that in this age of committe backs we have found ourselves a rookie running back taken high in the first round who not only projects to be an every down back, but who the coaches have clearly given prjected 2010 stats that support his every down back role out of the gates. 250 carries and 40 receptions is a stat line that is only shared by a small handfull of backs in the league right now and every one of them should be drafted in the first two rounds of any PPR league. Matthews is clearly on that list, and is the youngest of the bunch.

My educated guess is that by the end of 2010 you could trade matthews for Spiller or Best and get somethign else good thrown in to "even it up". I also think you could easily trade him for just about any receiver ranked 5 through 10 after 2010. And thats if he hits his floor. If he maximized his opportunity (5 ypc and solid double-digit TDs) he would almost be untouchable in the same category that MJD, RR, ADP and CJ are in this year.

The icing on the cake for why I took him in the late 2nd round was that like most PPR leagues everyone went WR crazy to start the draft. This meant I was able to follow up Matthews with Jamaal Charles and Pierre Thomas to give me some depth at RB. I'm still a believer that a good stable of RB's is the path of least resistance to a championship. I won it all last year with CJ, Gore, Charles and Benson... and my opponent in the Superbowl had ADP, Ray Rice and Thomas Jones. All of those teams who thought they were being savvy by having good receivers and crappy running backs finished in the middle of the pack. People undervalue the ability to predictably play matchups with RB depth, whereas playing matchups with receivers is nearly impossible to do.

If I'm not satisfied with his play after 2010, I will trade him away - taking advantage of his high residual value.

 

[karmarooster]

posted in the mock draft forum:I think he has an excellent chance to land in the top 10 for these reasons:1. he is very talented2. SD did not bring anybody else in when there were guys they could have gone after (Lynch, TJ, etc)...I think he was in SD sights long before the draft......3. there is nobody else on the roster currently to steal carries.....Sproles will just be Sproles4. they moved up big time and used a high draft pick on him....they will give him the rock5. their schedule looks very nice.....very very nice.....AFC west and NFC west...6. this offense is potent and he will probably get all the goaline looks when they do chose to run7. the way SD throws the ball, he will have some space when they do run8. I think he has more "upside" than most of the other RB left on the board at this point....will the guys taken after him really blow him away....I don't think so....

Why he won't be top 10 PPR:1. sure2. didn't bring in anyone but retained sproles for good $3. Sproles will still get 80-100 carries and 40-50 receptions, including all 3rd down work4. true, already stated 250 carries by turner5. schedule does appear nice but never make the mistake of using last years stats to predict future defensive performance. Broncos, Raiders, 49ers, Seahawks, even Chiefs could improve on defense, in fact it's certain that at least some of them will6. true, offense is a well oiled machine7. true, will never face 8 man front. But O-line is very average. 8. upside is limited by playing only 2 downslook i know this is the Mathews hype thread and i'm pretty much the lone guy saying to temper expectations, so i'll probably step aside soon. I just think his ADP will rise more than Moreno and McFadden the year before, who were the stud-can't-miss rookie backs of their respective years. The best strategy the past two years for rookie RBs wasn't to be the guy to jump on them in the 3rd round, but wait and get value rookie RBs such as Forte, CJ, Slaton, and to a lesser extent last year, Wells. I just don't see a 250 carry, 20 reception back being top 10 on a team with an average o-line who are dedicated to passing the ball via Pro-Bowl QB, TE, and WR. Not to mention that team has the best COP/3rd down back in the league. When the get in the red-zone they have tall guys in Gates, Jackson, and Floyd, limiting his TDs. This is Rivers' team now.250 carries at 4 ypc = 1,000 yards20 receptions at 8 ypc = 160 yards10 TDs196 points, last year approx. RB18. to get into the top 10 he would've need more than Ryan Grant's 234. Where do those 40 points come from?

 

[karmarooster]

well i was talking about re-draft, not dynasty start up. if you take Mathews at 3.12, this is what you have to pass on:SS CarRonnieJstewForteAddaiBoweWelkerClarkGatesVDavisPassing on most of those players to take Mathews IMO is risky. in fact, it's probably a good rule of thumb to never be the guy to draft the first rookie in redraft, just as its generally a good idea to never be the guy to take the first QB or first TE.

I feel that you don't like to be a trend setter first off(first to take a rookie, QB, TE) that is how u win championships my friend(IMO).As far as redraft, which I don't play often. I would rather have mathews than any of those players. They all have significant questionmarks as well....not sure why it is that risk at that point considering you should have two studs already on your team. Redraft is all about taking guys that have high upside.

so your high-risk recipe for success includes: Grab the first QB, first TE, and first rookie RB? as stated you don't play redraft much, because that makes little sense. last year it would've given you Brees/Brady, Witten, and Moreno. not bad but not exactly world-beating either. all of them are easily replaceable. with smarter drafting you could've gotten Rodgers, Celek, and Rice, on top of 2 or 3 RBs and WRs from the early rounds. in contrast, Waldman's high-risk strategy is to do something crazy like WR-WR-WR-QB-TE thru and then grab known quantities at RB who will provide moderate but un-sexy production. personally, i stock up on RBs and WRs while targeting a QB and a TE who i think can make post top 5 numbers at a value ADP. ie Romo, Rivers, Schaub and Celek, Finely, Miller this year. The home-run rookie RB this year (redraft) is Best. Honorable mention: Ben Tate.

 

[footballsavvy]

250 carries at 4 ypc = 1,000 yards

20 receptions at 8 ypc = 160 yards

10 TDs

196 points, last year approx. RB18. to get into the top 10 he would've need more than Ryan Grant's 234. Where do those 40 points come from?

It's not a sure thing that he's in the top 10 (though I think his chances are pretty decent). That being said, you are over selling Sproles. You give Matthews only 20 receptions, which is painfully below average. The general concensus is that he is (and will be used) as an above average receiver. Norv has already stated specifically that he is targeting 40 receptions for Matthews - yet you are saying 'no I think Norv is wrong and he will use matthews as a pure grinder'. To answer your question, the other 40 points would come from 20 more catches, plus the yards that come with that and the likelihood of 1 extra TD that comes with that.

Tomlinson only had 20 receptions last season (so maybe that where you are getting that from), but he was horribly innefective which limited the opportunity that he was given. The year before he had 52, then 60, 56, 51, 53 in previous years. Sproles picked up the slack from Tomlinson last season, but prior to that was used more as a situation/passing down back.

If SD wanted a back that only got 20 receptions a year and came off the field on every 3rd down, then they would not have traded up in the 1st round to get the most well rounded back in the draft. They could have let the Texans draft Matthews and taken Ben Tate in the 3rd or Dwyer in the 5th or Dixon, etc. Instead they traded up to get an every down back, then immediatley come out and states on the record that their rookie back will have 250 rushes and 40 recetpions - yet you peg him as a thumper who will give up passing downs to Sproles. Makes no sense.

 

[footballsavvy]

Why he won't be top 10 PPR:

Nobody cares about ppr. The OP did not say ppr. Why do people assume this ridiculous scoring system is everyone else's default?And where did you get 20 receptions from anyway? Norv said 40.

Actually, its pretty hard to find a non-ppr league these days. Personally, I just assume any ranking or analysis is geared towards PPR unless specifically stated otherwise.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

well i was talking about re-draft, not dynasty start up. if you take Mathews at 3.12, this is what you have to pass on:

SS Car

Ronnie

Jstew

Forte

Addai

Bowe

Welker

Clark

Gates

VDavis

Passing on most of those players to take Mathews IMO is risky. in fact, it's probably a good rule of thumb to never be the guy to draft the first rookie in redraft, just as its generally a good idea to never be the guy to take the first QB or first TE.

I feel that you don't like to be a trend setter first off(first to take a rookie, QB, TE) that is how u win championships my friend(IMO).

As far as redraft, which I don't play often. I would rather have mathews than any of those players. They all have significant questionmarks as well....not sure why it is that risk at that point considering you should have two studs already on your team. Redraft is all about taking guys that have high upside.

so your high-risk recipe for success includes: Grab the first QB, first TE, and first rookie RB? No not all of these....but you have to take chances as stated you don't play redraft muchI played only one last year, but won it., because that makes little sense. last year it would've given you Brees/Brady, Witten, and Moreno. not bad but not exactly world-beating either. all of them are easily replaceable. with smarter drafting you could've gotten Rodgers, Celek, and Rice, nobody is a mind reader and can hit on ALL of the sleepers that turn into studson top of 2 or 3 RBs and WRs from the early rounds. in contrast, Waldman's high-risk strategy is to do something crazy like WR-WR-WR-QB-TE thru and then grab known quantities at RB who will provide moderate but un-sexy productionI won a dynasty startup doing this last year....(with trading) had AJ, Jennings, Randy Moss, Bowe, Brady, and luckily hit on V. Davis. personally, i stock up on RBs and WRs while targeting a QB and a TE who i think can make post top 5 numbers at a value ADPto each their own. ie Romo, Rivers, Schaub and Celek, Finely, Miller this year.

The home-run rookie RB this year (redraft) is Best. Honorable mention: Ben Tate.

Overall....I think redraft is a battle to get a couple of consistent studs....and then take some chances b/c most teams r so even....u need to seperate yourself. But then again...that's my strategy(which it's relative to starting requirements and scoring too)

 

[Multiple Scores]

he's this year's Matt Forte. if you're talking dynasty, sell him after this year because he'll probably put together a nice season due to the opportunity. but nothing about him is "special." if you're talking re-draft, he might be worth RB2 but he'll likely be going to high come august. his ADP is already 3.12. a better idea for re-draft is to wait for Best. less risk, more upside.

What does being Matt Forte mean? If being Matt Forte means being a player who has a good year due to opportunity and doesn't have any talent to sustain it then Ben Tate is your man. As for what is "Special" about Ryan Mathews is 1. His vision 2. His balance ............ Speed is not the only thing that makes a back "special".

 

[footballsavvy]

he's this year's Matt Forte. if you're talking dynasty, sell him after this year because he'll probably put together a nice season due to the opportunity. but nothing about him is "special." if you're talking re-draft, he might be worth RB2 but he'll likely be going to high come august. his ADP is already 3.12. a better idea for re-draft is to wait for Best. less risk, more upside.

What does being Matt Forte mean? If being Matt Forte means being a player who has a good year due to opportunity and doesn't have any talent to sustain it then Ben Tate is your man. As for what is "Special" about Ryan Mathews is 1. His vision 2. His balance ............ Speed is not the only thing that makes a back "special".

I feel the same way. Emmitt Smith? Vision, Balance and decent power and good agility for his size. Successful speed backs are their own breeed and Matthews is not in that category.To be the best you need to have the tangibles, intangibles, opportunity and a great surrounding cast. To be a top 10 or 12, you just need some of those things.

 

[healthpellets]

I also think you could easily trade him for just about any receiver ranked 5 through 10 after 2010.

either you drastically undervalue top 10 WRs or i drastically overvalue them. but there is no way i'd do that deal giving up the WR.

 

[footballsavvy]

I also think you could easily trade him for just about any receiver ranked 5 through 10 after 2010.

either you drastically undervalue top 10 WRs or i drastically overvalue them. but there is no way i'd do that deal giving up the WR.

Sounds like you drastically over-value them. You're telling me that if, say, Beanie wells had 1400 all purpose yards last year.... you would not trade Greg Jennings for Benie Wells entering his second season coming off of a monster rookie year? Wish I was in your league. I love all those teams that over value "top 10 receivers" and only borderline make the playoffs every other year because they are cycling "value" rag tag running backs like Ahmad Bradshaw, Benson, and Michael Bush.Receviers might be more "predictable" but they also drop off very gradually and linearly. If you have two running backs on your roster that are putting up 1400 total yards and double-digit TD's, you will make the playoff every year even if you only have the likes of Maclin and Breaston s your receivers. The fantay point differential between Maclin and Jennings vs Gore and Bradshaw is the difference.The more I hear people assume the attitude that they can just get by with a committe back these days, the easier it is for me to glide into the playoffs. This year tkae note of the running back stable of your top teams. I gurantee you that they have guys that are getting 300+ touches in their lineup.

 

[sholditch]

OK, I get that he has ideal height and weight, and decent speed (4.9-4.53) but what really separates him from the rest of the field? His situation used to be perfect for RBs but the line and situation are inextricably linked to LT2. When it was on, impossible to say whether LT made his line look good or vice versa. Same with when it was off (08 and 09). So the situation is TBD. I do remember seeing LT and Sproles getting hit behind the line A LOT.

Spiller and Best both have far better speed and Best seems to have a similar situation in that he's being handed the starting job. I could see Spiller mired in a 3-headed beast for 2010.

Tate is about the same size and is a good deal faster and played against much tougher defenses. So if it's size, then it seems Tate should be the second player off the board. If it's not size, then shouldn't the faster, shiftier Best be drafted ahead? Or Spiller if you're thinking long term?

When listening the the talking heads discuss Mathews during the draft, one word seemed to sum up what they were all saying: underwhelming.

I don't mean this to be sarcastic, but I recall that you were among the folks on this board who was very much enamored with Darren McFadden and engaged in a pretty strong debate about him for the first two years of his career. While McFadden still has time to develop into a terrific player, he has been underwhelming. If Mathews turns out to be a very good player, maybe the first thing to consider in your thought process about what makes an RB very good isn't speed. What I see when I read your post is an emphasis on speed (see bold sections above). As you mention, you are aware that Mathews has decent speed. What I'm seeing from your analysis is that you seem to base what makes a good back on his size, speed, and agility, which is fundamentally important but you don't talk about vision, balance or techniques (pad level, protects the football, etc.) to running the ball. Those three things I just mentioned are what makes Mathews such a good back. He has the fundamental three you mention and he has very good vision at the line of scrimmage. Spiller could be a very good back, but he has some issues with vision (patience and decision making) and pad techniques that might require some adjustment to his game for him to become an effective between the tackles runner on a consistent basis. Best has very good vision and technique, but what he lacks with size/power, he makes up with great speed. .

I agree to an extent, but I just can't believe a Titans fan wrote this. What do you think makes CJ so good? Also another poster said Mathews runs upright. From the highlights I've seen he looks like he has pretty good stance through the line.

 

[Matt Waldman]

OK, I get that he has ideal height and weight, and decent speed (4.9-4.53) but what really separates him from the rest of the field? His situation used to be perfect for RBs but the line and situation are inextricably linked to LT2. When it was on, impossible to say whether LT made his line look good or vice versa. Same with when it was off (08 and 09). So the situation is TBD. I do remember seeing LT and Sproles getting hit behind the line A LOT.

Spiller and Best both have far better speed and Best seems to have a similar situation in that he's being handed the starting job. I could see Spiller mired in a 3-headed beast for 2010.

Tate is about the same size and is a good deal faster and played against much tougher defenses. So if it's size, then it seems Tate should be the second player off the board. If it's not size, then shouldn't the faster, shiftier Best be drafted ahead? Or Spiller if you're thinking long term?

When listening the the talking heads discuss Mathews during the draft, one word seemed to sum up what they were all saying: underwhelming.

I don't mean this to be sarcastic, but I recall that you were among the folks on this board who was very much enamored with Darren McFadden and engaged in a pretty strong debate about him for the first two years of his career. While McFadden still has time to develop into a terrific player, he has been underwhelming. If Mathews turns out to be a very good player, maybe the first thing to consider in your thought process about what makes an RB very good isn't speed. What I see when I read your post is an emphasis on speed (see bold sections above). As you mention, you are aware that Mathews has decent speed. What I'm seeing from your analysis is that you seem to base what makes a good back on his size, speed, and agility, which is fundamentally important but you don't talk about vision, balance or techniques (pad level, protects the football, etc.) to running the ball. Those three things I just mentioned are what makes Mathews such a good back. He has the fundamental three you mention and he has very good vision at the line of scrimmage. Spiller could be a very good back, but he has some issues with vision (patience and decision making) and pad techniques that might require some adjustment to his game for him to become an effective between the tackles runner on a consistent basis. Best has very good vision and technique, but what he lacks with size/power, he makes up with great speed. .

I agree to an extent, but I just can't believe a Titans fan wrote this. What do you think makes CJ so good? Also another poster said Mathews runs upright. From the highlights I've seen he looks like he has pretty good stance through the line.

What makes CJ so good is what separates him from fast backs like Leeland McElroy, Darren McFadden, LeShon Johnson, and several others who flashed great burst and speed, but couldn't (or haven't yet) gotten it done: vision, balance, and the ability to get low and finish runs. CJ has excellent balance for a smaller-size back. He frequently spins off hits and makes yardage after contact because he runs with strong pad level. If you run with a pad level where your hips and knees are bent so you are leading with your shoulders it makes it easier to get lower than a defender during a collision and fall past him rather than get knocked backwards. It also helps you duck under trash for extra yardage. What also makes CJ so good isn't his highlight runs of 50-70 yards, it's the fact he can get 4-7 yards with excellent decisions when to be patient and when to hit the hole quickly depending on his reads and then finish those runs with good technique. Speed makes him a special athlete, but if he had 4.5 speed and the same vision/balance, he'd still be a 1400-1500 yard runner.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

OK, I get that he has ideal height and weight, and decent speed (4.9-4.53) but what really separates him from the rest of the field? His situation used to be perfect for RBs but the line and situation are inextricably linked to LT2. When it was on, impossible to say whether LT made his line look good or vice versa. Same with when it was off (08 and 09). So the situation is TBD. I do remember seeing LT and Sproles getting hit behind the line A LOT.

Spiller and Best both have far better speed and Best seems to have a similar situation in that he's being handed the starting job. I could see Spiller mired in a 3-headed beast for 2010.

Tate is about the same size and is a good deal faster and played against much tougher defenses. So if it's size, then it seems Tate should be the second player off the board. If it's not size, then shouldn't the faster, shiftier Best be drafted ahead? Or Spiller if you're thinking long term?

When listening the the talking heads discuss Mathews during the draft, one word seemed to sum up what they were all saying: underwhelming.

I don't mean this to be sarcastic, but I recall that you were among the folks on this board who was very much enamored with Darren McFadden and engaged in a pretty strong debate about him for the first two years of his career. While McFadden still has time to develop into a terrific player, he has been underwhelming. If Mathews turns out to be a very good player, maybe the first thing to consider in your thought process about what makes an RB very good isn't speed. What I see when I read your post is an emphasis on speed (see bold sections above). As you mention, you are aware that Mathews has decent speed. What I'm seeing from your analysis is that you seem to base what makes a good back on his size, speed, and agility, which is fundamentally important but you don't talk about vision, balance or techniques (pad level, protects the football, etc.) to running the ball. Those three things I just mentioned are what makes Mathews such a good back. He has the fundamental three you mention and he has very good vision at the line of scrimmage. Spiller could be a very good back, but he has some issues with vision (patience and decision making) and pad techniques that might require some adjustment to his game for him to become an effective between the tackles runner on a consistent basis. Best has very good vision and technique, but what he lacks with size/power, he makes up with great speed. .

I agree to an extent, but I just can't believe a Titans fan wrote this. What do you think makes CJ so good? Also another poster said Mathews runs upright. From the highlights I've seen he looks like he has pretty good stance through the line.

What makes CJ so good is what separates him from fast backs like Leeland McElroy, Darren McFadden, LeShon Johnson, and several others who flashed great burst and speed, but couldn't (or haven't yet) gotten it done: vision, balance, and the ability to get low and finish runs. CJ has excellent balance for a smaller-size back. He frequently spins off hits and makes yardage after contact because he runs with strong pad level. If you run with a pad level where your hips and knees are bent so you are leading with your shoulders it makes it easier to get lower than a defender during a collision and fall past him rather than get knocked backwards. It also helps you duck under trash for extra yardage. What also makes CJ so good isn't his highlight runs of 50-70 yards, it's the fact he can get 4-7 yards with excellent decisions when to be patient and when to hit the hole quickly depending on his reads and then finish those runs with good technique. Speed makes him a special athlete, but if he had 4.5 speed and the same vision/balance, he'd still be a 1400-1500 yard runner.

Matt I was in complete agreeance with you up until that statement. I think he would still be a decent runner.....maybe a 1000 yard guy. I feel that what makes him special is that with the pad leverage you were talking about and the speed and acceleration at which he can make that contact = allowing him to break tackles. Plus add in that he has a smaller area for defenders to hit....makes it much easier for him to bounce off tacklers than say a Hardesty in this class.

But CJ's speed and acceleration allow him to outrun angles that he simply wouldn't be able to do as a 4.5 guy. Defenders still don't know how fast he is until he is already by them.

 

[Matt Waldman]

OK, I get that he has ideal height and weight, and decent speed (4.9-4.53) but what really separates him from the rest of the field? His situation used to be perfect for RBs but the line and situation are inextricably linked to LT2. When it was on, impossible to say whether LT made his line look good or vice versa. Same with when it was off (08 and 09). So the situation is TBD. I do remember seeing LT and Sproles getting hit behind the line A LOT.

Spiller and Best both have far better speed and Best seems to have a similar situation in that he's being handed the starting job. I could see Spiller mired in a 3-headed beast for 2010.

Tate is about the same size and is a good deal faster and played against much tougher defenses. So if it's size, then it seems Tate should be the second player off the board. If it's not size, then shouldn't the faster, shiftier Best be drafted ahead? Or Spiller if you're thinking long term?

When listening the the talking heads discuss Mathews during the draft, one word seemed to sum up what they were all saying: underwhelming.

I don't mean this to be sarcastic, but I recall that you were among the folks on this board who was very much enamored with Darren McFadden and engaged in a pretty strong debate about him for the first two years of his career. While McFadden still has time to develop into a terrific player, he has been underwhelming. If Mathews turns out to be a very good player, maybe the first thing to consider in your thought process about what makes an RB very good isn't speed. What I see when I read your post is an emphasis on speed (see bold sections above). As you mention, you are aware that Mathews has decent speed. What I'm seeing from your analysis is that you seem to base what makes a good back on his size, speed, and agility, which is fundamentally important but you don't talk about vision, balance or techniques (pad level, protects the football, etc.) to running the ball. Those three things I just mentioned are what makes Mathews such a good back. He has the fundamental three you mention and he has very good vision at the line of scrimmage. Spiller could be a very good back, but he has some issues with vision (patience and decision making) and pad techniques that might require some adjustment to his game for him to become an effective between the tackles runner on a consistent basis. Best has very good vision and technique, but what he lacks with size/power, he makes up with great speed. .

I agree to an extent, but I just can't believe a Titans fan wrote this. What do you think makes CJ so good? Also another poster said Mathews runs upright. From the highlights I've seen he looks like he has pretty good stance through the line.

What makes CJ so good is what separates him from fast backs like Leeland McElroy, Darren McFadden, LeShon Johnson, and several others who flashed great burst and speed, but couldn't (or haven't yet) gotten it done: vision, balance, and the ability to get low and finish runs. CJ has excellent balance for a smaller-size back. He frequently spins off hits and makes yardage after contact because he runs with strong pad level. If you run with a pad level where your hips and knees are bent so you are leading with your shoulders it makes it easier to get lower than a defender during a collision and fall past him rather than get knocked backwards. It also helps you duck under trash for extra yardage. What also makes CJ so good isn't his highlight runs of 50-70 yards, it's the fact he can get 4-7 yards with excellent decisions when to be patient and when to hit the hole quickly depending on his reads and then finish those runs with good technique. Speed makes him a special athlete, but if he had 4.5 speed and the same vision/balance, he'd still be a 1400-1500 yard runner.

Matt I was in complete agreeance with you up until that statement. I think he would still be a decent runner.....maybe a 1000 yard guy. I feel that what makes him special is that with the pad leverage you were talking about and the speed and acceleration at which he can make that contact = allowing him to break tackles. Plus add in that he has a smaller area for defenders to hit....makes it much easier for him to bounce off tacklers than say a Hardesty in this class.

But CJ's speed and acceleration allow him to outrun angles that he simply wouldn't be able to do as a 4.5 guy. Defenders still don't know how fast he is until he is already by them.

My counterpoint back is that those angles he outruns with his better than 4.5-speed are angles that happen maybe 1-2 times per game and typically occur after a back turns the corner and beats a DB down the sideline or through a hole. These are the 50-70 yard runs. I might be wrong, but I don't think Chris Johnson accounted for a 50-70 yard run in every game. He did have 3 runs of over 85 yards in 2009, which is amazing, but you're talking about 255 yards here. For fairness sake, lets presume he had 4.5 speed and cut each of his long runs in each game in half. I would argue this is a pretty dramatic cut of yardage but just to favor your argument I want to see what his total might have been.

Game 1: 32 (16)

Game 2: 91 (45)

Game 3: 30 (15)

Game 4: 18 (9)

Game 5: 8 (4)

Game 6: 48 (24)

Game 8: 89 (44)

Game 9: 41 (20)

Game 10: 32 (16)

Game 11: 36 (18)

Game 12: 85 (42)

Game 13: 11 (5)

Game 14: 39 (19)

Game 15: 14 (7)

Game 16: 30 (15)

GAme 17: 12 (6)

Total of long runs: 616

Total if cut in half: 308

Yardage in 2009: 2006

If subtracted all long runs: 1390

If cut all long runs in half: 1688

Not extremely scientific, but you allow for the fact that some one caught him halfway through each long gain of his, he still comes out as nearly a 1700-yard runner. If you say if he had average NFL starter speed, which I contend is probably in the 4.45-4.55 range, and you want to deduct his long runs completely out (which is unfair, but fine) then Johnson still nearly got 1400 yards last year.

Yes, the speed is important for him to have the huge runs but it's the recognition, patience, decision-making, and balance that gets him to the right spot. Then it's the speed that helps him turn gains behind a strong OL that separate a 1400-1700 yard year from 4.5-40 runner with similar qualities as CJ minus the speed into a 2000-yard producer that Johnson was last year.

Terrell Davis was a 4.5 runner (at best) and he gained 2000 yards because of a strong OL, great decision-making, patience, and balance. Speed helps, but if it outweighed recognition, patience, decision-making, and balance then I believe Reggie Bush would be a 1500-yard back. Think about DeAngelo Williams. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue he isn't fast. He has some very nice breakaway runs. What changed between the years everyone want to call him a bust (which was merely two seasons) and him becoming a big-time player? One of the big things was him learning how to read the flow of plays in the NFL and run with the skills I keep talking about. THEN his speed and athleticism came to the forefront. If he had merely average speed and athleticism we might not see the yardage he got, but I believe he'd still be a productive starter.

I think people overreact when I downplay speed. It's not that speed isn't important, it's just not as important as people make it compared to other characteristics. You have to have a certain amount of it, but you must have these other skills I keep mentioning. Otherwise, you will not be able to use that speed to its fullest. On the other hand, you can have the base amount of speed needed to compete and be even more successful than a really fast guy when you have the other skills in abundance.

Speed is easy to see. The other characteristics I mention require closer study.

 

[Todem]

Matthews looks like the complete package. And patience as a RB is so key in the NFL. Matthews let's his blocks develop before he hits the hole hard. He has great balance and vision.

I can't see why anyone would not take him at 1.1. You could make a good argument for Dez Bryant too. And I do believe CJ Spiller has silly elite skills. This years top 3 in my eyes are all blue chip top grade elite talents.

 

[benson_will_lead_the_way]

Matt I was in complete agreeance with you up until that statement. I think he would still be a decent runner.....maybe a 1000 yard guy. I feel that what makes him special is that with the pad leverage you were talking about and the speed and acceleration at which he can make that contact = allowing him to break tackles. Plus add in that he has a smaller area for defenders to hit....makes it much easier for him to bounce off tacklers than say a Hardesty in this class.But CJ's speed and acceleration allow him to outrun angles that he simply wouldn't be able to do as a 4.5 guy. Defenders still don't know how fast he is until he is already by them.

My counterpoint back is that those angles he outruns with his better than 4.5-speed are angles that happen maybe 1-2 times per game and typically occur after a back turns the corner and beats a DB down the sideline or through a hole. These are the 50-70 yard runs. I might be wrong, but I don't think Chris Johnson accounted for a 50-70 yard run in every game. He did have 3 runs of over 85 yards in 2009, which is amazing, but you're talking about 255 yards here. For fairness sake, lets presume he had 4.5 speed and cut each of his long runs in each game in half. I would argue this is a pretty dramatic cut of yardage but just to favor your argument I want to see what his total might have been. Game 1: 32 (16)Game 2: 91 (45)Game 3: 30 (15)Game 4: 18 (9)Game 5: 8 (4)Game 6: 48 (24)Game 8: 89 (44)Game 9: 41 (20)Game 10: 32 (16)Game 11: 36 (18)Game 12: 85 (42)Game 13: 11 (5)Game 14: 39 (19)Game 15: 14 (7)Game 16: 30 (15)GAme 17: 12 (6)Total of long runs: 616Total if cut in half: 308Yardage in 2009: 2006If subtracted all long runs: 1390If cut all long runs in half: 1688Not extremely scientific, but you allow for the fact that some one caught him halfway through each long gain of his, he still comes out as nearly a 1700-yard runner. If you say if he had average NFL starter speed, which I contend is probably in the 4.45-4.55 range, and you want to deduct his long runs completely out (which is unfair, but fine) then Johnson still nearly got 1400 yards last year. Yes, the speed is important for him to have the huge runs but it's the recognition, patience, decision-making, and balance that gets him to the right spot. Then it's the speed that helps him turn gains behind a strong OL that separate a 1400-1700 yard year from 4.5-40 runner with similar qualities as CJ minus the speed into a 2000-yard producer that Johnson was last year. Terrell Davis was a 4.5 runner (at best) and he gained 2000 yards because of a strong OL, great decision-making, patience, and balance. Speed helps, but if it outweighed recognition, patience, decision-making, and balance then I believe Reggie Bush would be a 1500-yard back. Think about DeAngelo Williams. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue he isn't fast. He has some very nice breakaway runs. What changed between the years everyone want to call him a bust (which was merely two seasons) and him becoming a big-time player? One of the big things was him learning how to read the flow of plays in the NFL and run with the skills I keep talking about. THEN his speed and athleticism came to the forefront. If he had merely average speed and athleticism we might not see the yardage he got, but I believe he'd still be a productive starter. I think people overreact when I downplay speed. It's not that speed isn't important, it's just not as important as people make it compared to other characteristics. You have to have a certain amount of it, but you must have these other skills I keep mentioning. Otherwise, you will not be able to use that speed to its fullest. On the other hand, you can have the base amount of speed needed to compete and be even more successful than a really fast guy when you have the other skills in abundance. Speed is easy to see. The other characteristics I mention require closer study.

I appreciate the well thought out post Matt...and I hate taking this discussion away from my man Mathews...haha.But I think outrunning angles doesn't happen only downfield. It happens on most plays. He uses that speed and acceleration deceptively(so maybe we are on the same page with it) because he will glide and then bam go full speed through a hole or a cut back.....that the defenders aren't expecting him to hit with that kind of speed and bam he is by them. Or they can't hit him square...or it is only an arm tackle attempt.

 

[Matt Waldman]

Matt I was in complete agreeance with you up until that statement. I think he would still be a decent runner.....maybe a 1000 yard guy. I feel that what makes him special is that with the pad leverage you were talking about and the speed and acceleration at which he can make that contact = allowing him to break tackles. Plus add in that he has a smaller area for defenders to hit....makes it much easier for him to bounce off tacklers than say a Hardesty in this class.But CJ's speed and acceleration allow him to outrun angles that he simply wouldn't be able to do as a 4.5 guy. Defenders still don't know how fast he is until he is already by them.

My counterpoint back is that those angles he outruns with his better than 4.5-speed are angles that happen maybe 1-2 times per game and typically occur after a back turns the corner and beats a DB down the sideline or through a hole. These are the 50-70 yard runs. I might be wrong, but I don't think Chris Johnson accounted for a 50-70 yard run in every game. He did have 3 runs of over 85 yards in 2009, which is amazing, but you're talking about 255 yards here. For fairness sake, lets presume he had 4.5 speed and cut each of his long runs in each game in half. I would argue this is a pretty dramatic cut of yardage but just to favor your argument I want to see what his total might have been. Game 1: 32 (16)Game 2: 91 (45)Game 3: 30 (15)Game 4: 18 (9)Game 5: 8 (4)Game 6: 48 (24)Game 8: 89 (44)Game 9: 41 (20)Game 10: 32 (16)Game 11: 36 (18)Game 12: 85 (42)Game 13: 11 (5)Game 14: 39 (19)Game 15: 14 (7)Game 16: 30 (15)GAme 17: 12 (6)Total of long runs: 616Total if cut in half: 308Yardage in 2009: 2006If subtracted all long runs: 1390If cut all long runs in half: 1688Not extremely scientific, but you allow for the fact that some one caught him halfway through each long gain of his, he still comes out as nearly a 1700-yard runner. If you say if he had average NFL starter speed, which I contend is probably in the 4.45-4.55 range, and you want to deduct his long runs completely out (which is unfair, but fine) then Johnson still nearly got 1400 yards last year. Yes, the speed is important for him to have the huge runs but it's the recognition, patience, decision-making, and balance that gets him to the right spot. Then it's the speed that helps him turn gains behind a strong OL that separate a 1400-1700 yard year from 4.5-40 runner with similar qualities as CJ minus the speed into a 2000-yard producer that Johnson was last year. Terrell Davis was a 4.5 runner (at best) and he gained 2000 yards because of a strong OL, great decision-making, patience, and balance. Speed helps, but if it outweighed recognition, patience, decision-making, and balance then I believe Reggie Bush would be a 1500-yard back. Think about DeAngelo Williams. I don't think anyone in their right mind would argue he isn't fast. He has some very nice breakaway runs. What changed between the years everyone want to call him a bust (which was merely two seasons) and him becoming a big-time player? One of the big things was him learning how to read the flow of plays in the NFL and run with the skills I keep talking about. THEN his speed and athleticism came to the forefront. If he had merely average speed and athleticism we might not see the yardage he got, but I believe he'd still be a productive starter. I think people overreact when I downplay speed. It's not that speed isn't important, it's just not as important as people make it compared to other characteristics. You have to have a certain amount of it, but you must have these other skills I keep mentioning. Otherwise, you will not be able to use that speed to its fullest. On the other hand, you can have the base amount of speed needed to compete and be even more successful than a really fast guy when you have the other skills in abundance. Speed is easy to see. The other characteristics I mention require closer study.

I appreciate the well thought out post Matt...and I hate taking this discussion away from my man Mathews...haha.But I think outrunning angles doesn't happen only downfield. It happens on most plays. He uses that speed and acceleration deceptively(so maybe we are on the same page with it) because he will glide and then bam go full speed through a hole or a cut back.....that the defenders aren't expecting him to hit with that kind of speed and bam he is by them. Or they can't hit him square...or it is only an arm tackle attempt.

I agree, but we see that with 4.5 guys that defenders didn't think were as quick as they were. Anyhow, back to the regularly scheduled program...

 

[jsharlan]

The question I have, is if you had the option of taking either Mathews or Best in a rookie dynasty nonPPR draft regardless of draft position, which would you take? Alot of people say Best is more talented, but is Mathews talented enough that he is still the better long term choice? I think his situation right out of the gate makes him attractive, but in a couple years how do you think he will compare with Best? This is something I am pondering in an upcoming draft as it is likely I can have my pick of the two.

 

[Roc Pile]

The question I have, is if you had the option of taking either Mathews or Best in a rookie dynasty nonPPR draft regardless of draft position, which would you take? Alot of people say Best is more talented, but is Mathews talented enough that he is still the better long term choice? I think his situation right out of the gate makes him attractive, but in a couple years how do you think he will compare with Best? This is something I am pondering in an upcoming draft as it is likely I can have my pick of the two.

I have the same problem....and I keep going back and forth, I think it's very very close

 

[firstseason1988]

The question I have, is if you had the option of taking either Mathews or Best in a rookie dynasty nonPPR draft regardless of draft position, which would you take? Alot of people say Best is more talented, but is Mathews talented enough that he is still the better long term choice? I think his situation right out of the gate makes him attractive, but in a couple years how do you think he will compare with Best? This is something I am pondering in an upcoming draft as it is likely I can have my pick of the two.

I have the same problem....and I keep going back and forth, I think it's very very close

I am having a tough time with Bryant and Matthews, I have the 1.01 pick and need a RB more than a WR but really like the upside of Bryant, it is non PPR league with must start 2 RB 2 WR and 1 flex. So you can have 3 RBs starting, making RBs very highly valued. I really want Bryant, my head says Matthews, my heart says Bryant. Almost wish I had 1.02. Trying to trade for it to get both.

 

[sholditch]

Ppl have sold me on mathews S being the best of a weak class. Not special bu good enough for a rudi/deuce type career. Spiller I think can be special but not in 2010. I think Best will never make it as more than a cop

 

[Matt Waldman]

More on Mathews and interview with a Fresno coach