Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Tre Mason (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter JackReacher
- Start date
duaneok66
Footballguy
bad comparison. Not many hyped up Hillman, and Mason is bigger. Pass blocking is not the only reason why Hillman failed.
EBF
Footballguy
After my rookie drafts and some trading, I ended up grabbing this guy in 4 of 7 leagues. Really like the value he offers in PPR leagues as a late 1st/early 2nd round pick. He's a little bit of a size/speed tweener, but I thought he looked good overall at the combine. He looked efficient in the drills and his 10'6" broad jump and 38.5" vertical are great marks. You can see some of that explosiveness when you watch his game clips. He seems to have a little bit of Gio Bernard and a little bit of Ray Rice to his game. Not as shifty, but stocky with a nice burst and deceptive power. No guarantee he turns out that good, but there's at least a road map for someone with his dimensions to become a FF force.
Faust
MVP
Rotoworld:
ESPN Rams reporter Nick Wagoner "wouldn't be surprised" if third-round RB Tre Mason overtakes Zac Stacy for the starting job at some point in 2014.
We're not so sure. Stacy has shown true feature back ability, and current No. 2 back Benny Cunningham averaged 5.6 YPC as a rookie. We're not so confident Mason will open the season any higher than No. 3. Mason has ball security and pass protection issues. He'll likely max out as a change-of-pace back in 2014.
Source: ESPN.com
May 24 - 6:19 PM
ESPN Rams reporter Nick Wagoner "wouldn't be surprised" if third-round RB Tre Mason overtakes Zac Stacy for the starting job at some point in 2014.
We're not so sure. Stacy has shown true feature back ability, and current No. 2 back Benny Cunningham averaged 5.6 YPC as a rookie. We're not so confident Mason will open the season any higher than No. 3. Mason has ball security and pass protection issues. He'll likely max out as a change-of-pace back in 2014.
Source: ESPN.com
May 24 - 6:19 PM
socrates
Footballguy
Those stats for Bennie Cunningham were in limited touches (47 rushing attempts). Cunningham had a couple of nice showings in back-to-back games mid-season in relief of an injured Zac Stacy, but he did little outside of that. I agree Mason has some ball security issues (and Hillman owners know how that can play out), and he needs to improve in the passing game, but he brings the running skills to challenge Stacy, and I expect him to overtake Cunningham in relatively short order.
EBF
Footballguy
Rotoworld's analysis is really hit or miss. They have their guys they love and their guys they hate. If the Jags had picked Mason there instead of the Rams they'd be penning him into the lineup as a week one starter. Gotta take all their blurbs with a grain of salt.
Personally, I don't see Mason rolling Stacy out of the way immediately. This situation screams committee for next season. The idea that Bennie Cunningham is some kind of formidable roadblock is pretty funny though. If the Rams loved Cunningham so much, why would they have used such a high pick on a similar type of back in Mason?
Yea...not buying that part of it.
Personally, I don't see Mason rolling Stacy out of the way immediately. This situation screams committee for next season. The idea that Bennie Cunningham is some kind of formidable roadblock is pretty funny though. If the Rams loved Cunningham so much, why would they have used such a high pick on a similar type of back in Mason?
Yea...not buying that part of it.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
That is because you don't think like Jeff Fisher. He wants to pound the ball until other teams puke. Than pound it some more.
The same thing was said when Fisher took Chris Johnson in the first round, after already taking second rounders Lendale White (who hadn't yet imploded) and Chris Henry in rapid succession.
They said he was the top player on their board at the time. Some scouts thought he was the best RB as a pure runner (the pass pro concerns are understandable) in a class that didn't have a strong consensus #1 - Hyde seemed to be most popular, but it was all over the place, some had Sankey, others Hill, etc. Of course, they are different RBs, and they were no doubt valued by different teams for different reasons. Anyway, he was the #5 RB off the board, so good value in that sense (if he does turn out to be one of the best pure runners in the class and the pass pro issues aren't catastrophic and insurmountable). They got him in the third round, it isn't like they took him instead of Robinson, Donald or even Joyner. Some said they could have gotten a RB later, but it isn't clear they could have gotten one as good (Crowell is talented, but went undrafted for a reason). As a Ram fan, I'm glad they didn't wait at the position longer, it seems like a good fit. Some thought they should have taken FS Terrance Brooks or OG Trai Turner with the pick, and they would have fit needs. But if Snead and Fisher had Mason higher on the board (in previous years, he might have gone in the second or even first round before the position became as devalued as it has), than I'm glad they didn't feel compelled to reach for a positional need over a player more talented OVERALL. They added two safeties later (and a third, Joyner, before, if you count him as a safety). And they have committed a lot of resources to the OL in the past 2-3 years (Jake Long and Wells in free agency, retaining Saffold, using the 1.2 on Robinson).
Is this a critcism in a vacuum, so to speak (they have Stacy, don't need a RB)? Or have you given specific thought to who you would have taken instead? I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Was Hill a wasted pick? That is a different situation, because Bernard may seem less equipped to be a feature RB than Stacy (though that was also said about Brian Westbrook earlier in his career). But the fact remains, CIN has used a second rounder in two straight drafts on RB. STL has used a fifth and third. Seems like pretty good value to me? Especially if Mason helps the Rams have an outstanding 1-2 punch. If the order of the CIN RBs had been reversed, and they got Hill in 2013 with a second rounder, and he had a Stacy-like rookie season, and they came back with Bernard in 2014 with another second rounder, would that be an example of a "wasted" pick like you view Mason? You could say they have different skill sets, and they do (Bernard much more of a threat in the passing game), but Mason does bring some things to the table, AS A RUNNER, that are different than Stacy. And again, Fisher may have been (probably was, IMO) thinking of this pick in more of a running than passing game context.
Most teams aren't like the Vikings with Peterson and like to use more than one RB. Stacy has a violent, collision-friendly running style, and got dinged several times last year. I'm guessing not having an adequate replacement was unacceptable to Fisher, and Cunningham is a huge question mark.
Beyond that consideration, if Mason is as talented or more so than Stacy, which many people think, the Rams can roll two talented RBs in waves, keeping them fresh in games and over the course of the season.
If Greg Robinson is as good as advertised, and one of the most dominant run blockers in recent memory, it makes a lot of sense to add a player that can leverage that strength. Robinson is like a force multiplier for RBs that will make them better. I think it was already mentioned upthread, but this can be seen even more clearly in that Mason literally followed Robinson at Auburn and they are familiar with what the other is going to do from having played for several years together.
I'm not sure if Stacy is underrated or not. He is a good, honest, tough, physical back. The fact that Mason is inexperienced and raw in pass pro (as is Robinson, for scheme reasons) does increase the chance that Stacy remains the lead RB this season. But Mason is noticeably more explosive and capable of more stop on a dime hard cuts at full speed that just aren't in Stacy's skill set. If Mason rips off chunks of yardage with greater frequency than Stacy, it is going to be hard for Fisher and Schottenheimer to keep him off the field, and for Stacy to hold him off indefinitely. The team has said they view Mason as a change of pace, so that is a caveat, but I would expect them to say that.
I think at some point, maybe later this season, it is going to be some kind of a RBBC (not just spelling Stacy for 5-7 X carries per game). Stacy had 250 carries, but that was really in 12 games (one carry first month), so that would project to over 330 carries. McCoy (314) and Lynch (301) were the only RBs to have over 300 carries. The Rams ran the ball 426 times in 2013, which was right around middle of the pack, but I expect them to run more in 2014. For one thing, again, Stacy missed the first month, and their run game was so bad, they abandoned it at times during that stretch. [edit/add - less three and outs, more sustained drives, defense getting the ball back sooner and more often, all could conspire to give STL more offensive plays, and the oportunity for an increase in the number of runs].
Of course, it is one thing to want to run, but the ability to do so can be dictated by game script. If adding players like Robinson, Donald, Joyner and Mason improves the team and makes them more competitive, that could be favorable to being in more games, and even having the lead more often. Sure there will be times they get behind, but others they can grind the clock at the end. Some games they may run the ball 30 or more times, sometimes less. They would need to climb into the top 10 in carries to average 30 per game (CIN was #8 with 481), so that might be optimistic. If that happened, aside from the occasional carry by Austin or Cunningham, with 30 rushes, something like Stacy with 18 and Mason with 12 would be a 60/40 split.
But IMO, all bets are off in 2015. I do think Mason is more talented than Stacy (which is why I don't think it is a "wasted" pick). I'm not predicting he will take the lead as soon as next year. Just that I think he has the talent to do so, and I won't be surprised if he does.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
There was some talk from Brian Schottenheimer last off season about wanting to use 2 RB in tandem. I was skeptical and looking into both coaches history there was usually one primary RB with the exception of when LT came to the Jets who complimented Greene and one year where White split with Johnson.
So I was expecting more of a rotation between Stacy/Cunningham and Richardson/Pead if what the OC was saying was really the plan. But I also noted that most of the runs that both coaches called were up the middle, not outside runs. So I expected the bangers to get more action.
When they started with Richardson, they mostly ran up the middle with him which was not really as good for him as I think outside runs can be. This also has to do with their offensive line perhaps being better suited for those kinds of runs as well.
This isn't an issue for Mason who has proven capable of being a feature RB. But maybe there is some truth to them wanting to run 2 RB in tandem. They just didn't have the players to do that despite pretty high investment in Pead. So they fixed that mistake by drafting Mason.
He returns kicks too so there is potentially some extra value there.
So I was expecting more of a rotation between Stacy/Cunningham and Richardson/Pead if what the OC was saying was really the plan. But I also noted that most of the runs that both coaches called were up the middle, not outside runs. So I expected the bangers to get more action.
When they started with Richardson, they mostly ran up the middle with him which was not really as good for him as I think outside runs can be. This also has to do with their offensive line perhaps being better suited for those kinds of runs as well.
This isn't an issue for Mason who has proven capable of being a feature RB. But maybe there is some truth to them wanting to run 2 RB in tandem. They just didn't have the players to do that despite pretty high investment in Pead. So they fixed that mistake by drafting Mason.
He returns kicks too so there is potentially some extra value there.
Last edited by a moderator:
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
There isn't anything wrong with Tre. Cudos for getting a dcent player if that is the only way you wish to view the pick. But was a 3 round RB much of a need for the Rams in todays NFL? RBs are coming off the streets and running for 80 yards and a TD (TBB last year). There were plenty of better players left on the board and maybe 5+ RBs just as good as Mason that could have been had later. There are two RBs on the team who are just as talented, if not more. Even you noted Stacy is more of a physical presence who is better at pass pro. You want a drop off in pass protection when Sam Bradford is your only hope at QB Bob? I didn't think so.That is because you don't think like Jeff Fisher. He wants to pound the ball until other teams puke. Than pound it some more.
The same thing was said when Fisher took Chris Johnson in the first round, after already taking second rounders Lendale White (who hadn't yet imploded) and Chris Henry in rapid succession.
They said he was the top player on their board at the time. Some scouts thought he was the best RB as a pure runner (the pass pro concerns are understandable) in a class that didn't have a strong consensus #1 - Hyde seemed to be most popular, but it was all over the place, some had Sankey, others Hill, etc. Of course, they are different RBs, and they were no dount valued by different teams for different reasons. Anyway, he was the #5 RB off the board, so good value in that sense (if he does turn out to be one of the best pure runners in the class and the pass pro issues aren't catastrophic and insurmountable). They got him in the third round, it isn't like they took him instead of Robinson, Donald or even Joyner. Some said they could have gotten a RB later, but it isn't clear they could have gotten one as good (Crowell is talented, but went undrafted for a reason). As a Ram fan, I'm glad they didn't wait at the position longer, it seems like a good fit. Some thought they should have taken FS Terrance Brooks or OG Trai Turner with the pick, and they would have fit needs. But if Snead and Fisher had Mason higher on the board (in previous years, he might have gone in the second or even first round before the position became as devalued as it has), than I'm glad they didn't feel compelled to reach for a positional need over a player more talented OVERALL. They added two safeties later (and a third, Joyner, before, if you count him as a safety). And they have committed a lot of resources to the OL in the past 2-3 years (Jake Long and Wells in free agency, retaining Saffold, using the 1.2 on Robinson).
Is this a critcism in a vacuum, so to speak (they have Stacy, don't need a RB)? Or have you given specific thought to who you would have taken instead? I'd be interested in your thoughts.
Was Hill a wasted pick? That is a different situation, because Bernard may seem less equipped to be a feature RB than Stacy (though that was also said about Brian Westbrook earlier in his career). But the fact remains, CIN has used a second rounder in two straight drafts on RB. STL has used a fifth and third. Seems like pretty good value to me? Especially if Mason helps the Rams have an outstanding 1-2 punch. If the order of the CIN RBs had been reversed, and they got Hill in 2013 with a second rounder, and he had a Stacy-like rookie season, and they came back with Bernard in 2013 with another second rounder, would that be an example of a "wasted" pick like you view Mason? You could say they have different skill sets, and they do (Bernard much more of a threat in the passing game), but Mason does bring some things to the table, AS A RUNNER, that are different than Stacy. And again, Fisher may have been (probably was, IMO) thinking of this pick in more of a running than passing game context.
Most teams aren't like the Vikings with Peterson and like to use more than one RB. Stacy has a violent, collision-friendly run style, and got dinged several times last year. I'm guessing not having an adequate replacement was unacceptable to Fisher, and Cunningham is a huge question mark.
Beyond that consideration, if Mason is as talented or more so than Stacy, which many people think, the Rams can roll two talented RBs in waves, keeping them fresh in games and over the course of the season.
If Greg Robinson is as good as advertised, and one of the most dominant run blockers in recent memory, it makes a lot of sense to add a player that can leverage that strength. Robinson is like a force multiplier for RBs that will make them better. I think it was already mentioned upthread, but this can be seen even more clearly in that Mason literally followed Robinson at Auburn and they are familiar with what the other is going to do from having played for several years together.
I'm not sure if Stacy is underrated or not. He is a good, honest, tough, physical back. The fact that Mason is inexperienced and raw in pass pro (as is Robinson, for scheme reasons) does increase the chance that Stacy remains the lead RB this season. But Mason is noticeably more explosive and capable of more stop on a dime hard cuts at full speed that just aren't in Stacy's skill set. If Mason rips off chunks of yardage with greater frequency than Stacy, it is going to be hard for Fisher and Schottenheimer to keep him off the field, and for Stacy to hold him off indefinitely. The team has said they view Mason as a change of pace, so that is a caveat, but I would expect them to say that..
I think at some point, maybe later this season, it is going to be some kind of a RBBC (not just spelling Stacy for 5-7 X carries per game). Stacy had 250 carries, but that was really in 12 games (one carry first month), so that would project to over 330 carries. McCoy (314) and Lynch (301) were the only RBs to have over 300 carries. The Rams ran the ball 426 times in 2013, which was right around middle of the pack, but I expect them to run more in 2014. For one thing, again, Stacy missed the first month, and their run game was so bad, they abandoned it at times during that stretch.
Of course, it is one thing to want to run, but the ability to do so can be dictated by game script. If adding players like Robinson, Donald, Joyner and Mason improves the team and makes them more competitive, that could be favorable to being in more games, and even having the lead more often. Sure there will be times they get behind, but others they can grind the clock at the end. Some games they may run the ball 30 or more times, sometimes less. They would need to climb into the top 10 in carries to average 30 per game (CIN was #8 with 481), so that might be optimistic. If that happened, aside from the occasional carry by Austin or Cunningham, with 30 rushes, something like Stacy with 18 and Mason with 12 would be a 60/40 split.
But IMO, all bets are off in 2015. I do think Mason is more talented than Stacy (which is why I don't think it is a "wasted" pick). I'm not predicting he will take the lead as soon as next year. Just that I think he has the talent to do so, and I won't be surprised if he does.
You're right. I don't think like Jeff Fisher. I thought he was nuts for prefering D. Richardson to Steven Jackson at times. I thought he was crazy for going into the season with Richardson and Pead last year when you have a team capable of winning the division. I sat and waited for a vet like A. Bradshaw to sign and it never happened. These things have a way of correction itself. Eventually Stacy and Cunningham were at the top of the chart and Pead/Richardson are all but out. Stacy and Cunningham are not pushovers like Pead and Richardson, and Mason isn't a talent that wil force that situation either.
I'm not sure where you're going with the Hill hypothetical and all. BJGE is a canidate to be cut for a cheaper player in Hill. And I'm not high on Hill's talent at all. I think Cin will regret that pick on all fronts.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
There are?
File that in the "TBD" folder. Cunningham is likely JAG and the jury is very much still out on Stacy as a long-term featured back in the NFL. Mason can run inside, he has significantly more north-south explosiveness than Hill/Hyde, and he's pretty good in space too. He only caught 19 balls in college, but his yards per catch was a pretty outrageous 13.1. He also returned two kickoffs for touchdowns. Another sign that he's a playmaker with the ball in his hands.
If anything, I think it was a sneaky good pick by them. Could be a long term starter. Should at least be a strong contributor in a committee.
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
Stacy was a 5th round pick, Cunningham was undrafted, and Mason was a 3rd rounder. End of discussion right? I'm not playing that game again.You are acting like Mason is a perfect prospect. His size hampers how many downs you can play him. He does not have a long-term three-down profile... nor one of a big goal-line threat. There are two other backs on the team that have NFL starter level talent and defied all of your beliefs about the NFL draft by becoming relevant. Stacy can play all three downs and take the goal line work. I liked (not loved) Stacy as a prospect. After I watched him vs Sea before he hurt his ankle and Tenn I'm convinced he's more than a 'solid' RB on a crappy dephtchart.There are?
File that in the "TBD" folder. Cunningham is likely JAG and the jury is very much still out on Stacy as a long-term featured back in the NFL. Mason can run inside, he has significantly more north-south explosiveness than Hill/Hyde, and he's pretty good in space too. He only caught 19 balls in college, but his yards per catch was a pretty outrageous 13.1. He also returned two kickoffs for touchdowns. Another sign that he's a playmaker with the ball in his hands.
If anything, I think it was a sneaky good pick by them. Could be a long term starter. Should at least be a strong contributor in a committee.
Fall for Mason all you want. It's a trap for FF. He is good. He's probably on par of what I thought of Jonathan Franklin last year. He'll be fine as a starter taking 15+ carries a game, but his ability to sustain output long-term is shaky do to his size. It will be hard for him to play 3-downs because his size profiles him to not be a great blocker... so does the tape. He's not some franchise saving RB. He's just good. I'm not saying that to discredit him. It is what it is. #### I wish I was a good NFL RB. But no way Mason is clearly better than both Stacy and Cunningham (just thinking of what you would be saying about his 5.6 ypc all off-season if he was one of 'your guys') if you've done your homework and are not just follow the same mainstream advice that had people thinking Pead and Richardson were sleepers last season. I'm not buying it at all.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
I am? By suggesting that he could force a committee with Zac Stacy and potentially emerge as the starter down the road? That equates to "acting like he's a perfect prospect?" Maybe in a universe where Zac Stacy is Adrian Peterson in his prime. Unfortunately, that's not the universe we live in.ShaHBucks said:
You don't have to be the most talented RB in the world to start for an NFL team. You just have to better than the other guys on the roster. Stacy doesn't have such a strong background nor did he do anything so impressive as a rookie that it's ludicrous to think a player picked significantly higher at his same position will get on the field and potentially overtake him. It's a pretty straightforward take and one that has been echoed by plenty of other observers.
I've even been careful to point out that I DON'T necessarily think he's going to go in there and be the obvious main man from day one. It'll be a battle and there are a lot of ways it can go. I think Mason is at least good enough to have a prominent committee role in the near future. That's not unreasonable based on what we know right this second.
That remains to be seen. Given that he weighs below 215 pounds and doesn't have blistering speed, you might be right. He's stuck in sort of a tweener zone where he doesn't quite have the bulk of a typical workhorse and he doesn't quite have the juice of a Jamaal Charles or Chris Johnson type.
On the other hand, he's really not that small. Ray Rice has put together a pretty good career and he's a similar size. Rice was 5'8.0" and 199 pounds at the combine for a BMI of 30.3. Mason was 5'8.5" and 207 pounds at the combine for a BMI of 31.0. Would you say that Rice's size hampers how many downs you can play him? I liked Rice a lot out of Rutgers, but I did wonder if he wasn't a little too small for the league. Turns out he wasn't at all.
I think Rice was a little more impressive on film than Mason is, but Mason is actually a little bit bigger and he has a lot of the same qualities. Rice was a late 2nd round NFL draft pick and it was hardly a given back then that he would develop into an every-down multi-year workhorse starter. Mason played the role well at Auburn last season and while he's not huge, he's not frail either. When you see him in action at the combine, you can see that he's very stout:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GZQYwbPzDa4
But let's pretend that he's too small to ever be a 300+ touch workhorse. Even if that's the case, he can still have a lot of value. Gio Bernard was great in ppr leagues last year. Even relative scrubs like Woodhead and Vereen were useful. Let's say you're actually right and Mason is just a piece of the puzzle and not the full equation. If that's the downside, it's not that scary at his current cost. He's #15 on the latest DLF rookie rankings list. At that price, he can fall well short of Rice/McCoy/Bernard and still give you a nice return on your investment. Nobody is drafting him as if he's a "perfect prospect."
Great goal line threat doesn't necessarily have to = huge hulking monstrosity. Look at some of the names atop the NFL single season rushing TD list:ShaHBucks said:
LaDainian Tomlinson 2006 - 28
Priest Holmes 2003 - 27
Terrell Davis 1998 - 21
Priest Holmes 2002 - 21
Marshall Faulk 2000 - 18
DeAngelo Williams 2008 - 18
LeSean McCoy 2011 - 17
This is not to say that Mason belongs in the conversation with these players when it comes to talent. Only to point out that you don't have to be John Riggins or Earl Campbell to run effectively at the stripe. Football has changed and it's more about beating the defense to the spot than bulldozing them.
I already quoted this article elsewhere, but it's pertinent:
http://espn.go.com/blog/st-louis-rams/post/_/id/8591/rams-rookies-by-the-numbers
As of right now we can only speculate. I think he's probably better than both of them. At the very least, I don't see either of them having a clear edge on him. It also strikes me as really unlikely that the Rams would've gone RB quite that high if they felt both of those guys were strong options. The pick can mean that they have questions about their RB group, that they thought Mason was just too good to pass up, or both of those things. None of it is good news for the incumbents.
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Giving the nested quotes a break.
I can expand on it later, but I think the main difference of opinion between us is that I like Mason more than you and don't like Stacy as much as you, which is why I think it was a good pick and you don't.
The whole size thing seems like deja vu all over again. Seems like we talked about this in another context, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Mason is short at 5'8", but it isn't like he is tiny, he is 207 lbs. Definitely RBs that size and smaller that were three down RBs. Just as there are plenty of RBs bigger than that that had undistinguished careers and were relegated to the dustbins of NFL history.
How many rookie RBs are master technicians in pass pro? Usually if a RB is good (which I realize is a point in dispute), they aren't kept off the field indefinitely for this reason.
As to protecting Bradford, I do like Mason better in dynasty than redraft, pass pro deficiencies may cause him to not see the field as much this year. But I don't think they only had this year in mind with that pick, and I concluded they think they can coach him up in the future, as a lot of other teams do with their young RBs.
As to a third round pick, its kind of middling enough that I don't NECESSARILY take it as an indictment of Stacy, it COULD BE INTERPRETED at face value that they think he can make them better as part of a RBBC (change of pace can be a pretty broad description), and upgrades their depth. It could also be interpreted that they think he will at least figure prominently in a RBBC with the talent to have a shot to supplant Stacy eventually, maybe they drafted him with the former in mind but are hoping for the latter? If he was a first or even second rounder that would IMO be more of an indictment on Stacy. But I do find it meaningful that he went in the third and Stacy in the fifth, I don't cavalierly dismiss that pedigree information, it is just another layer in the evaluation process, its not the only thing, but conversely it isn't nothing. Its a data point, with a lot of others. In my case, the reason for thinking Stacy could be vulnerable to some form of a RBBC sooner than later and even losing the starting gig in a year or two is based on watching them both.
Not seeing the Cunningham is better than Mason part. If you put him in the 2014 draft, knowing what he did last year (notably the CHI game), where would he go. Maybe he would be drafted? But he wouldn't go anywhere near the third round. So clearly you are seeing things differently. Not necessarily wrong, but an outlier if you think Cunningham and Mason are similar prospects.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. But to say there were better prospects on the board and they could have gotten a comparable RB later is subjective. There is no other RB available later in the draft that I would rather have than Mason (now I'm being subjective, but I acknowledge it). There may have been players at other positions (I mentioned a few, Brooks and Turner) that could also have helped in different ways, just not that in my opinion were no brainer first/second round value that screamed out as being obviously better talents than Mason. Just because you can get RBs later doesn't mean they are all alike (or in this case, even a UFA like Cunningham is as good). You don't seem to like Mason very much?
I'm not trying to convince you, just observing we are seeing very different things, and thinking about them in different ways. Not a lot of middle ground here.
I can expand on it later, but I think the main difference of opinion between us is that I like Mason more than you and don't like Stacy as much as you, which is why I think it was a good pick and you don't.
The whole size thing seems like deja vu all over again. Seems like we talked about this in another context, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Mason is short at 5'8", but it isn't like he is tiny, he is 207 lbs. Definitely RBs that size and smaller that were three down RBs. Just as there are plenty of RBs bigger than that that had undistinguished careers and were relegated to the dustbins of NFL history.
How many rookie RBs are master technicians in pass pro? Usually if a RB is good (which I realize is a point in dispute), they aren't kept off the field indefinitely for this reason.
As to protecting Bradford, I do like Mason better in dynasty than redraft, pass pro deficiencies may cause him to not see the field as much this year. But I don't think they only had this year in mind with that pick, and I concluded they think they can coach him up in the future, as a lot of other teams do with their young RBs.
As to a third round pick, its kind of middling enough that I don't NECESSARILY take it as an indictment of Stacy, it COULD BE INTERPRETED at face value that they think he can make them better as part of a RBBC (change of pace can be a pretty broad description), and upgrades their depth. It could also be interpreted that they think he will at least figure prominently in a RBBC with the talent to have a shot to supplant Stacy eventually, maybe they drafted him with the former in mind but are hoping for the latter? If he was a first or even second rounder that would IMO be more of an indictment on Stacy. But I do find it meaningful that he went in the third and Stacy in the fifth, I don't cavalierly dismiss that pedigree information, it is just another layer in the evaluation process, its not the only thing, but conversely it isn't nothing. Its a data point, with a lot of others. In my case, the reason for thinking Stacy could be vulnerable to some form of a RBBC sooner than later and even losing the starting gig in a year or two is based on watching them both.
Not seeing the Cunningham is better than Mason part. If you put him in the 2014 draft, knowing what he did last year (notably the CHI game), where would he go. Maybe he would be drafted? But he wouldn't go anywhere near the third round. So clearly you are seeing things differently. Not necessarily wrong, but an outlier if you think Cunningham and Mason are similar prospects.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. But to say there were better prospects on the board and they could have gotten a comparable RB later is subjective. There is no other RB available later in the draft that I would rather have than Mason (now I'm being subjective, but I acknowledge it). There may have been players at other positions (I mentioned a few, Brooks and Turner) that could also have helped in different ways, just not that in my opinion were no brainer first/second round value that screamed out as being obviously better talents than Mason. Just because you can get RBs later doesn't mean they are all alike (or in this case, even a UFA like Cunningham is as good). You don't seem to like Mason very much?
I'm not trying to convince you, just observing we are seeing very different things, and thinking about them in different ways. Not a lot of middle ground here.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
I was just thinking about how the RB fell off the board and I think the Rams may have gotten a bit lucky that Mason was available at their pick at 75. I don't think they wanted to wait any longer and play chicken with the pick the way they did with Stacy last season.
The RB came off the board like this-
RB Bishop Sankey 54 TEN 21
RB Jeremy Hill 55 CIN 21
RB Carlos Hyde 57 SF 22
So this was a bit of a run on the position with 3 RB taken within 4 picks of each other.
RB Charles Sims 69 TAM 23 this was the top of the 3rd round
RB Tre Mason 75 STL 20
RB Terrance West 94 CLE 23
RB Jerick McKinnon 96 MIN 22
RB Devonta Freeman 103 ATL 22
RB Andre Williams 113 NYG 21
RB KaDeem Carey 117 CHI 21
I think Mason would have been the 5th RB taken even if the Rams did not draft him. He was not likely to make it through this next run that started towards the end of the 3rd round.
RB James White 130 NE 22
RB Lorenzo Taliaferro 138 BAL
RB Alfred Blue 181 HOU
RB Lache Seastrunk 186 WAS 22
RB Marion Grice 201 SD
RB Tyler Gafney 204 CAR
RB Storm Johnson 222 JAX 21
In the 2013 draft 5 RB were gone by pick 62. It is possible they liked one of those players enough to draft them at 71 if they would have fallen there. So they addressed other positions and then traded up to pick 160 to draft Stacy as the 14th RB selected.
I do think they were targeting both players going into the draft. There are connections between Snead/Fisher with both RB and their colleges, But obviously they had a higher priority on Mason than they did Stacy.
I like both players and think they are both capable of being the feature RB. So pretty tough for me to favor either over the other. I think Mason is a bit faster but behind Zac in terms of pass protection. So if a split does happen it will likely be Zac getting obvious passing downs and Mason getting early downs. Short yardage and goal line I am not sure which one has the advantage.
The RB came off the board like this-
RB Bishop Sankey 54 TEN 21
RB Jeremy Hill 55 CIN 21
RB Carlos Hyde 57 SF 22
So this was a bit of a run on the position with 3 RB taken within 4 picks of each other.
RB Charles Sims 69 TAM 23 this was the top of the 3rd round
RB Tre Mason 75 STL 20
RB Terrance West 94 CLE 23
RB Jerick McKinnon 96 MIN 22
RB Devonta Freeman 103 ATL 22
RB Andre Williams 113 NYG 21
RB KaDeem Carey 117 CHI 21
I think Mason would have been the 5th RB taken even if the Rams did not draft him. He was not likely to make it through this next run that started towards the end of the 3rd round.
RB James White 130 NE 22
RB Lorenzo Taliaferro 138 BAL
RB Alfred Blue 181 HOU
RB Lache Seastrunk 186 WAS 22
RB Marion Grice 201 SD
RB Tyler Gafney 204 CAR
RB Storm Johnson 222 JAX 21
In the 2013 draft 5 RB were gone by pick 62. It is possible they liked one of those players enough to draft them at 71 if they would have fallen there. So they addressed other positions and then traded up to pick 160 to draft Stacy as the 14th RB selected.
I do think they were targeting both players going into the draft. There are connections between Snead/Fisher with both RB and their colleges, But obviously they had a higher priority on Mason than they did Stacy.
I like both players and think they are both capable of being the feature RB. So pretty tough for me to favor either over the other. I think Mason is a bit faster but behind Zac in terms of pass protection. So if a split does happen it will likely be Zac getting obvious passing downs and Mason getting early downs. Short yardage and goal line I am not sure which one has the advantage.
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
You actually made me dust some Cunningham notes off. Jeez. He was on his way to potential stardom as a senior before he ruptured his patellar tendon (217 and 5TD outclassed vs GT). He wasn't 100% when he worked out so I try to factor that in somehow. I'd profile him a a 4.5 runner with the same type of agility as Mason. Cunninham put up one of the more impressive bench press numbers for a 'smaller back'. So he has the strength of a 'power back' built in a 'smaller back' size. When healthy he's a Shane Vereen kind of player -- speed to run outside, strength to run inside, and WR hands. He's everything you think of Mason to me if he gets a chance.
So yea, that's a lot of speculation. Mason is enough of a threat to move Stacy out of my top 8-10 to more like 13-15 for the season. He's not enough or a problem to make me believe the sky is falling. RB get drafted all the time. Big deal. We love rookies so much this time of year. Last season the Cheifs, Seahawks, and Broncos all drafted RBs around the same draft position who had equal-significantly better grades than Mason to me. I got worked up about them initially, but ultimately I realized those teams would not hang their superbowl hopes on a rookie RB most likely.
#sb I'll probably avoid the Rams to start the season and then buy when the schedule lets up. Weeks 13-16 they have 3 games vs Oak, Was and NyG. We'll see who makes in out vs the rough part of the schedule. There shouldn't be much speculation then.
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
Lol yea. I draw another line in the sand to distinguish 'small/speed' from 'big/power' RB prospects for simplistic sake the same way I did with the Harvin/Calvin example for receivers. Even though Adrian Peterson and Jamaal Charles play the same position they have completely different jobs on Sunday's. It's safe to assume Stacy won't be overpowering NFL defenders consistently at 207. I really have no problem with Mason as a talent. He's like that car that will get you from point A to B reliably. You don't go out of your way to pick up chicks or brag to your friends with Tre Mason. He is good. He's not what separated the Rams from Sea/SF previously (Robinson and Donald might be). He's what we all said, at best a commitee RB for now. That can be address later in the draft or after these days if it was such a need.Giving the nested quotes a break.
I can expand on it later, but I think the main difference of opinion between us is that I like Mason more than you and don't like Stacy as much as you, which is why I think it was a good pick and you don't.
The whole size thing seems like deja vu all over again. Seems like we talked about this in another context, but I can't quite put my finger on it.
Mason is short at 5'8", but it isn't like he is tiny, he is 207 lbs. Definitely RBs that size and smaller that were three down RBs. Just as there are plenty of RBs bigger than that that had undistinguished careers and were relegated to the dustbins of NFL history.
How many rookie RBs are master technicians in pass pro? Usually if a RB is good (which I realize is a point in dispute), they aren't kept off the field indefinitely for this reason.
As to protecting Bradford, I do like Mason better in dynasty than redraft, pass pro deficiencies may cause him to not see the field as much this year. But I don't think they only had this year in mind with that pick, and I concluded they think they can coach him up in the future, as a lot of other teams do with their young RBs.
As to a third round pick, its kind of middling enough that I don't NECESSARILY take it as an indictment of Stacy, it COULD BE INTERPRETED at face value that they think he can make them better as part of a RBBC (change of pace can be a pretty broad description), and upgrades their depth. It could also be interpreted that they think he will at least figure prominently in a RBBC with the talent to have a shot to supplant Stacy eventually, maybe they drafted him with the former in mind but are hoping for the latter? If he was a first or even second rounder that would IMO be more of an indictment on Stacy. But I do find it meaningful that he went in the third and Stacy in the fifth, I don't cavalierly dismiss that pedigree information, it is just another layer in the evaluation process, its not the only thing, but conversely it isn't nothing. Its a data point, with a lot of others. In my case, the reason for thinking Stacy could be vulnerable to some form of a RBBC sooner than later and even losing the starting gig in a year or two is based on watching them both.
Not seeing the Cunningham is better than Mason part. If you put him in the 2014 draft, knowing what he did last year (notably the CHI game), where would he go. Maybe he would be drafted? But he wouldn't go anywhere near the third round. So clearly you are seeing things differently. Not necessarily wrong, but an outlier if you think Cunningham and Mason are similar prospects.
Everybody is entitled to their opinion. But to say there were better prospects on the board and they could have gotten a comparable RB later is subjective. There is no other RB available later in the draft that I would rather have than Mason (now I'm being subjective, but I acknowledge it). There may have been players at other positions (I mentioned a few, Brooks and Turner) that could also have helped in different ways, just not that in my opinion were no brainer first/second round value that screamed out as being obviously better talents than Mason. Just because you can get RBs later doesn't mean they are all alike (or in this case, even a UFA like Cunningham is as good). You don't seem to like Mason very much?
I'm not trying to convince you, just observing we are seeing very different things, and thinking about them in different ways. Not a lot of middle ground here.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
That critiques carries less weight if Mason ends up being better than Stacy (and the RBs taken later in the draft, and possibly some in front of him).
Your welcome to your opinion, but nothing you have said makes me think it was a "bad pick".
The outlier lumping of him with Cunningham does have me thinking you are severely underrating him, though. You do realize that isn't a consensus position, right?
He doesn't have to be the difference between STL and SEA/SF, by himself. The Rams do have Robinson, Donald, Joyner and others. With those players, and the gap perhaps narrowed, he does imo have the talent to help narrow that gap further.
I'm curious, does it seem likely he would have broken Bo Jackson's school rushing records if he was some kind of teeny, frail scat back, size-wise, or a pedestrian tomato can (i.e. - no better than Bennie Cunningham), talent-wise?
I didn't get the point about Charles, is it bad to have him because he isn't overpowering.
Mason does have good power for his size and contact balance, he is going to bounce off some DBs.
But IMO, the restrictive overpowering criteria misses the point in a few ways.
It is not just an overpowering game, but also a spread the defense, space and speed game.
Also, Mason may not have to overpower defenders if ROBINSON DOES THAT FOR HIM, LIKE HE DID AT AUBURN, PICKING OFF SECOND AND THIRD LEVEL DEFENDERS WITH DOWNFIELD BLOCKING. Mason just needs to follow the block (and he has more quickness, agility and COD ability to do that than Stacy), which, incidentally, he has a lot of practice at and familiarity with, from several years together with Robinson.
Your welcome to your opinion, but nothing you have said makes me think it was a "bad pick".
The outlier lumping of him with Cunningham does have me thinking you are severely underrating him, though. You do realize that isn't a consensus position, right?
He doesn't have to be the difference between STL and SEA/SF, by himself. The Rams do have Robinson, Donald, Joyner and others. With those players, and the gap perhaps narrowed, he does imo have the talent to help narrow that gap further.
I'm curious, does it seem likely he would have broken Bo Jackson's school rushing records if he was some kind of teeny, frail scat back, size-wise, or a pedestrian tomato can (i.e. - no better than Bennie Cunningham), talent-wise?
I didn't get the point about Charles, is it bad to have him because he isn't overpowering.
Mason does have good power for his size and contact balance, he is going to bounce off some DBs.
But IMO, the restrictive overpowering criteria misses the point in a few ways.
It is not just an overpowering game, but also a spread the defense, space and speed game.
Also, Mason may not have to overpower defenders if ROBINSON DOES THAT FOR HIM, LIKE HE DID AT AUBURN, PICKING OFF SECOND AND THIRD LEVEL DEFENDERS WITH DOWNFIELD BLOCKING. Mason just needs to follow the block (and he has more quickness, agility and COD ability to do that than Stacy), which, incidentally, he has a lot of practice at and familiarity with, from several years together with Robinson.
Last edited by a moderator:
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
A consensus opinion isn't science. I can interpret things myself, reguardless of how popular my thoughts are.
I guess he's Bo Jackson then.
Stacy has plenty of agility. His agility for his size is one of his biggest traits. Thats just not true at all. Mason has more burst, but Stacy has more size and strength. That's usually how committees work. The one that gets the easy TDs and most of the works is a more desirable FF asset to me.
I said RB wasn't such a need that it was worth a 3rd round pick. I said T. Austin was a waste at 8 overall because simular players could be had later and you gave me the same argument. If you think Mason is an upgrade for the team then of course you wouldn't agree with me that it was a bad pick.
I guess he's Bo Jackson then.
Stacy has plenty of agility. His agility for his size is one of his biggest traits. Thats just not true at all. Mason has more burst, but Stacy has more size and strength. That's usually how committees work. The one that gets the easy TDs and most of the works is a more desirable FF asset to me.
I said RB wasn't such a need that it was worth a 3rd round pick. I said T. Austin was a waste at 8 overall because simular players could be had later and you gave me the same argument. If you think Mason is an upgrade for the team then of course you wouldn't agree with me that it was a bad pick.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Bob did you just call Cunningham a can of tomato soup? 
Lets be fair, that soup has more wiggle to it than Bennie does, it is more fluid in it's change of direction abilities and a hotter prospect.
Could you explain the basis of your statement that Mason has more quickness, agility and change of direction ability than Stacy? Because I am not seeing that.
How about Mason compared to chicken noodle?
Lets be fair, that soup has more wiggle to it than Bennie does, it is more fluid in it's change of direction abilities and a hotter prospect.
Could you explain the basis of your statement that Mason has more quickness, agility and change of direction ability than Stacy? Because I am not seeing that.
How about Mason compared to chicken noodle?
lol college stats and all, but...
Top 5 SEC single seasons rushing yards
1. Herschel Walker 1891 1981 Georgia
2. Darren McFadden* 1830 2007 Arkansas
3. Tre Mason 1816 2013 Auburn
4. Bo Jackson 1786 1985 Auburn
5. Herschel Walker 1752 1982 Georgia
His 23 TD is 1st as well.
Top 5 SEC single seasons rushing yards
1. Herschel Walker 1891 1981 Georgia
2. Darren McFadden* 1830 2007 Arkansas
3. Tre Mason 1816 2013 Auburn
4. Bo Jackson 1786 1985 Auburn
5. Herschel Walker 1752 1982 Georgia
His 23 TD is 1st as well.
Last edited by a moderator:
EBF
Footballguy
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Of course, and if you asked 1,000 scouts and personnel-types if Cunningham was better than Mason, and 0 people said Cunningham and 1,000 said Mason, they could all be wrong and you could be right. Maybe he will be a Kurt Warner or RBs. But it isn't a high percentage play.He isn't Bo Jackson, just the guy who had a better season and broke his record. Looking at the list above in post #127, maybe it is just flukey that other than McFadden, you have to go back about three decades for a RB that did as well as Mason. But the SEC s kind of a cupcake conference, so not that impressive. Probably dozens of street free agents like Cunningham could have done that, it obviously is a nothing accomplishment, and it is just an inexplicable anomaly that list of top SEC rushers isn't peppered with more stiffs, instead of the likes of Walker and Jackson.
I didn't say Stacy has zero agility, just that IMO Mason is superior. Sort of like if I said Usain Bolt is faster than Chris Johnson, I'm not implying Johnson has zero speed. I just think Bolt is faster.
Mason is about 30 lbs. heavier than Austin, and there are far more successful comps for him, so that may not be very relevant to this discussion. But since you brought it up, most people who followed STL noted Austin was misused early. Fisher himself alluded to this, that they had a better sense of this as the season progressed. Once they used him more effectively, he had four 50+ yard TDs combined in consecutive weeks against IND and CHI. But again, probably it is just a fluke that you have to go back about a half century to find the only other two times it was done, by Jim Brown and Gale Sayers. He isn't that talented, clearly a wasted pick.
Watkins is too small to be a WR1. The fact that he trucks DBs better than larger WRs and can score from anywhere on the field doesn't matter because he isn't 6'5", 230 lbs.
I define "bad pick" differently.
Does the Mason pick fit the following criteria?
1) Fisher likes to run the ball a lot? Check.
2) Some scouts had Mason as the best RB in the class, but at any rate, top 3-5. He was the fifth RB taken, so reasonable value. Check.
3) Unlike some positions (no QBBC teams), virtually every team has 2-3 RBs to rotate and for depth. Check.
4) Just this draft, CIN, TB and CLE drafted RBs in this general area (round 2-3), despite already having talented young RBs. Check.
5) The Rams (and many scouts) thought Mason was better than other RBs available later in the draft. Check.
6) They also thought he was better than Cunningham, Pead and Richardson (not exactly going out on a big limb there). Check.
7) They just used the second overall pick on a dominant run blocker, getting a top RB from the class better leverages that. Check.
8) Robinson actually blocked for Mason, so they will have the advantage of uncommon familiarity. Check.
Clearly that checks a lot of boxes. That is why I don't think it is a "bad pick".
If the Colts loved Luck, and had the #1 picks in 2013 and 2014 and took Manuel and Bortles, those would be bad picks, because unlike RB, where it is common to rotate a few, nobody rotates 2-3 QBs.
In an anybody could say anything sense, somebody could think there was a game changing, explosive long snapper (he snaps it 30% faster and is deadly accurate, so never any blocks or turnovers), and HOU screwed up by taking Clowney instead of him (drafting isn't scientific, who cares about consensus, maybe Clowney won't be as impactful as the greatest long snapper in NFL history, capable of revolutionizing the position).
On another level, somebody could say Latimer was a bad pick by DEN, because in their opinion it would be best to roll back the calendar a century and implement a single wing offense, abandon the pass and throw zero times a game, and they should have made a positional reach for the best fullback in the draft, because it is so important to have a great fullback in a single wing. To that person, in their world view, Latimer WOULD be a bad pick. But they would just be overlaying and imposing their standards on the DEN draft, which may be completely divorced and unrelated to their team philosophy. Latimer wasn't a bad pick in the conventional sense, he fits what they want to do, and the value where they took him was in the ball park of where he should have gone. Or maybe it was a bad pick because they could get guys off the street just as good?
Clearly running isn't as important to you as it is to Fisher. The picks of Robinson and Mason are about as unambiguous and clear a signal as one could ask for that he intends to run the ball more effectively. He doesn't think "any old RB later in the draft" or a street free agent like Cunningham would be kinda sorta as good, because he doesn't want to be kinda sorta as good, he wants to prioritize the run game and be as good as possible.
The fact that Stacy is bigger doesn't guarantee he will get the most carries or be the goal line carrier in 2015-2016. Mason was a work horse and scored a few times at Auburn. If you look at the NFL career rushing leaders (like the top 5), several were similar size to Mason.
Warrick Dunn was a top 20 outlier, but Mason is nearly 30 lbs. heavier. Watkins isn't Todd Pinkston, Reidel Anthony or Jacquez Green.
They aren't "small".
But maybe a new school of "Size is everything" scouting will catch on and you will be vindicated. Scouts can start hitting up morbidly obese treatment centers, circuses for individuals with the condition of gigantism and Sumo wrestler conventions.
Naturally the fact that you think a street free agent like Cunningham is as good as Mason would lead you to think not only he is a bad pick, but will disappoint in usage relative to Stacy going forward (needless to say, ANY player at ANY position, for which you already had or could get a street free agent as good, would be a bad pick by that low bar). I get that you don't seem high on Mason, but clearly Fisher is. Stacy is a quality RB drafted in the fifth round. Why would Fisher use a pick two rounds higher if he intended for Mason to just get a few carries a game, or thought Cunningham was as good a RB? I think the answer is, he wouldn't. But he did pick him. Since it doesn't make sense to use a pick on a RB there unless he plans a significant role for him, especially when there were other legit needs at OL and DB, it would seem Fisher intends to use him. If YOU you were the HC (not a crack about how good your HC acumen might hypothetically be, just stating the obvious that you don't seem to think too highly of Mason), I'd be a lot more down on his prospects, but than it would be a moot point, as you wouldn't have drafted him.
Fisher isn't perfect, but in questioning his decision in this case because of another one about Richardson and Jackson, it would be more consistent to acknowledge the good with the bad. STL has gotten near universal praise for their draft (in large part due to the first two picks, obviously, but also the day two picks, of which Mason was one). Looking at the big picture, if you compare the roster from the 2012 team he inherited that was coming off maybe the worst half decade (15-65) in league history, the current roster is vastly more talented. Fair enough if it was a bad decision to play Richardson (and by implication, this calls into question Fisher's judgement about Mason seemed to be the point?), but than he should get credit for drafting Brockers, Ogletree, Robinson, Donald. And for that matter, it seems inconsistent to build some kind of indictment of his RB judgement based on his Richardson usage, when he was the person who drafted Stacy, who you like? Should we tar Stacy with the same brush as Mason, since Fisher's judgement is in question?
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Actually, no.I called him a tomato can. It could be a can of whole tomatoes, paste, sauce, etc.Bob did you just call Cunningham a can of tomato soup?
Lets be fair, that soup has more wiggle to it than Bennie does, it is more fluid in it's change of direction abilities and a hotter prospect.
Could you explain the basis of your statement that Mason has more quickness, agility and change of direction ability than Stacy? Because I am not seeing that.
How about Mason compared to chicken noodle?
It is a boxing term, for opponents that are chosen by a fighter's manager because they are basically automatic losses (think Chuck Wepner), presumably because they offer as little resistance, and are as easily tipped over. Have never heard chicken soup can, but maybe in a parallel reality/alternate universe, it is the descriptive term of choice.
To me, Cunningham is a tomato can, there are dozens of free agents like him, Mason is more rare, there aren't dozens of guys who had seasons like him in the SEC (ever, let alone this year).
Some might point out Cunningham had 100+ yards in the second half of the CHI game in maybe his only extended action (after Stacy got dinged, AGAIN). But that was a historically bad defense. Ethel Merman could have rushed for a 100 in a half against the 2013 Bears, and she had questionable vision and instincts, didn't follow her blocks well and ran into the OL backs, and went down on first contact too much.
I don't know what to say about seeing something different in the comparison of traits and attributes between Stacy and Mason, other than it happens, and probably is pretty common. Maybe the descriptive phrase lateral agility would be more precise, I see him make jump cuts and explode out of them in a different direction in a way that IMO isn't in Stacy's repertoire. Just to be clear, because there seemed to be some confusion about this, I'm not saying Stacy is terrible, or even average (I'm not saying you could go to the nearest bus stop and find a few random people better).
BTW, for fantasy purposes, I'm also not suggesting going crazy and taking Mason ahead of OBJ at # 3 overall in drafts. But at a certain point, maybe between 10-15 depending on if RB is a need, he could be better value than some of the other prospects around that spot, possibly at other positions, that may have as many or more question marks. I do think Mason has the talent to eventually (maybe not this year, due to needing to be coached up on blocking and catching, as do most young RBs) push Stacy, at least figure prominently in a RBBC and not just be a depth RB as injury insurance or to give him a breather for a few carries a game, and possibly even surpass and overtake him.
There is a risk that Mason doesn't have a large RBBC role, let alone overtake Stacy, and others need to weigh that risk accordingly for themselves, depending on how they scout the relative physical traits, skill sets and games of Stacy and Mason.
* In none of this am I speaking as someone that follows the Rams closely and may have some insight into usage from something I heard, to be clear again. I am speaking as someone who has seen both play, and thinks Mason has a chance to be better, and also from making inferences about the draft this year, where Mason was taken, etc.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
If I were the Bears or any defense had Ethel Merman come shambling from behind the line after 30 years since the grave that I would likely let her go wherever she wants. Much like the Bears defense widened like the red sea last season. I would want some distance as well in case she starts singing.
I still wouldn't draft her as obviously way past her prime.
I still wouldn't draft her as obviously way past her prime.
Last edited by a moderator:
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
I still wouldn't care. This is about what the evidence tells me, not consensus. That's just a way to avoid a debate and claim the matter already settled. Should I offer my opinion or would you rather I tell you what you want to hear?Nothing you've said makes me think you know much about Cunningham. I don't think he would fall flat on his face vs any college opponents, especially while playing in Aub offense. I'll leave that there. http://youtu.be/U8sV6XrbMTkOf course, and if you asked 1,000 scouts and personnel-types if Cunningham was better than Mason, and 0 people said Cunningham and 1,000 said Mason, they could all be wrong and you could be right. Maybe he will be a Kurt Warner or RBs. But it isn't a high percentage play.He isn't Bo Jackson, just the guy who had a better season and broke his record. Looking at the list above in post #127, maybe it is just flukey that other than McFadden, you have to go back about three decades for a RB that did as well as Mason. But the SEC s kind of a cupcake conference, so not that impressive. Probably dozens of street free agents like Cunningham could have done that, it obviously is a nothing accomplishment, and it is just an inexplicable anomaly that list of top SEC rushers isn't peppered with more stiffs, instead of the likes of Walker and Jackson.
I didn't say Stacy has zero agility, just that IMO Mason is superior. Sort of like if I said Usain Bolt is faster than Chris Johnson, I'm not implying Johnson has zero speed. I just think Bolt is faster.
Mason is about 30 lbs. heavier than Austin, and there are far more successful comps for him, so that may not be very relevant to this discussion. But since you brought it up, most people who followed STL noted Austin was misused early. Fisher himself alluded to this, that they had a better sense of this as the season progressed. Once they used him more effectively, he had four 50+ yard TDs combined in consecutive weeks against IND and CHI. But again, probably it is just a fluke that you have to go back about a half century to find the only other two times it was done, by Jim Brown and Gale Sayers. He isn't that talented, clearly a wasted pick.
Watkins is too small to be a WR1. The fact that he trucks DBs better than larger WRs and can score from anywhere on the field doesn't matter because he isn't 6'5", 230 lbs.
I define "bad pick" differently.
Does the Mason pick fit the following criteria?
1) Fisher likes to run the ball a lot? Check.
2) Some scouts had Mason as the best RB in the class, but at any rate, top 3-5. He was the fifth RB taken, so reasonable value. Check.
3) Unlike some positions (no QBBC teams), virtually every team has 2-3 RBs to rotate and for depth. Check.
4) Just this draft, CIN, TB and CLE drafted RBs in this general area (round 2-3), despite already having talented young RBs. Check.
5) The Rams (and many scouts) thought Mason was better than other RBs available later in the draft. Check.
6) They also thought he was better than Cunningham, Pead and Richardson (not exactly going out on a big limb there). Check.
7) They just used the second overall pick on a dominant run blocker, getting a top RB from the class better leverages that. Check.
8) Robinson actually blocked for Mason, so they will have the advantage of uncommon familiarity. Check.
Clearly that checks a lot of boxes. That is why I don't think it is a "bad pick".
If the Colts loved Luck, and had the #1 picks in 2013 and 2014 and took Manuel and Bortles, those would be bad picks, because unlike RB, where it is common to rotate a few, nobody rotates 2-3 QBs.
In an anybody could say anything sense, somebody could think there was a game changing, explosive long snapper (he snaps it 30% faster and is deadly accurate, so never any blocks or turnovers), and HOU screwed up by taking Clowney instead of him (drafting isn't scientific, who cares about consensus, maybe Clowney won't be as impactful as the greatest long snapper in NFL history, capable of revolutionizing the position).
On another level, somebody could say Latimer was a bad pick by DEN, because in their opinion it would be best to roll back the calendar a century and implement a single wing offense, abandon the pass and throw zero times a game, and they should have made a positional reach for the best fullback in the draft, because it is so important to have a great fullback in a single wing. To that person, in their world view, Latimer WOULD be a bad pick. But they would just be overlaying and imposing their standards on the DEN draft, which may be completely divorced and unrelated to their team philosophy. Latimer wasn't a bad pick in the conventional sense, he fits what they want to do, and the value where they took him was in the ball park of where he should have gone. Or maybe it was a bad pick because they could get guys off the street just as good?
Clearly running isn't as important to you as it is to Fisher. The picks of Robinson and Mason are about as unambiguous and clear a signal as one could ask for that he intends to run the ball more effectively. He doesn't think "any old RB later in the draft" or a street free agent like Cunningham would be kinda sorta as good, because he doesn't want to be kinda sorta as good, he wants to prioritize the run game and be as good as possible.
The fact that Stacy is bigger doesn't guarantee he will get the most carries or be the goal line carrier in 2015-2016. Mason was a work horse and scored a few times at Auburn. If you look at the NFL career rushing leaders (like the top 5), several were similar size to Mason.
Warrick Dunn was a top 20 outlier, but Mason is nearly 30 lbs. heavier. Watkins isn't Todd Pinkston, Reidel Anthony or Jacquez Green.
They aren't "small".
But maybe a new school of "Size is everything" scouting will catch on and you will be vindicated. Scouts can start hitting up morbidly obese treatment centers, circuses for individuals with the condition of gigantism and Sumo wrestler conventions.
Naturally the fact that you think a street free agent like Cunningham is as good as Mason would lead you to think not only he is a bad pick, but will disappoint in usage relative to Stacy going forward (needless to say, ANY player at ANY position, for which you already had or could get a street free agent as good, would be a bad pick by that low bar). I get that you don't seem high on Mason, but clearly Fisher is. Stacy is a quality RB drafted in the fifth round. Why would Fisher use a pick two rounds higher if he intended for Mason to just get a few carries a game, or thought Cunningham was as good a RB? I think the answer is, he wouldn't. But he did pick him. Since it doesn't make sense to use a pick on a RB there unless he plans a significant role for him, especially when there were other legit needs at OL and DB, it would seem Fisher intends to use him. If YOU you were the HC (not a crack about how good your HC acumen might hypothetically be, just stating the obvious that you don't seem to think too highly of Mason), I'd be a lot more down on his prospects, but than it would be a moot point, as you wouldn't have drafted him.
Fisher isn't perfect, but in questioning his decision in this case because of another one about Richardson and Jackson, it would be more consistent to acknowledge the good with the bad. STL has gotten near universal praise for their draft (in large part due to the first two picks, obviously, but also the day two picks, of which Mason was one). Looking at the big picture, if you compare the roster from the 2012 team he inherited that was coming off maybe the worst half decade (15-65) in league history, the current roster is vastly more talented. Fair enough if it was a bad decision to play Richardson (and by implication, this calls into question Fisher's judgement about Mason seemed to be the point?), but than he should get credit for drafting Brockers, Ogletree, Robinson, Donald. And for that matter, it seems inconsistent to build some kind of indictment of his RB judgement based on his Richardson usage, when he was the person who drafted Stacy, who you like? Should we tar Stacy with the same brush as Mason, since Fisher's judgement is in question?
When I studied Mason statistically he had 3 outrageous games to end the season. 164 yards in a nice win vs Bama. 304 (46 carries) and 4 TD in the SEC title game. And the icing on the cake was 195 yards vs Fla. St in the National Championship. Who was he as a prospect before that?
20.2 carries, 105.3 rushing yards, 1.50 TDs, 5.3 YPC = Mason in 10 games outside of his final 3 played + W. Carolina
Those are solid numbers, but in a 13-game extrapolated season that's 1,369 yards and 20 TDs...neat, but there were a few other RBs with similar output in that context. It's not unique, or off-the-charts.
In his final three games in 2013, Mason averaged:
33.0 carries, 221.1 yards rushing, 2.0 TDs, 6.7 YPC = Mason's final 3 games played (Ala, Missouri, FSU)
Mason killed it in those final three games, and that's what put him on the map even more. What if those games are a bit of a misleading blip? The normal output for him is 'good'. His final three games were unreal. Where was unreal-ness in the prior weeks/career?
I watched the Missouri tape. Missouri went with a 3-4 defense that Auburn just gashed on the ground...it was comical. Auburn was blowing holes wide-open and Mason & friends just ran straight through them. Auburn ran for a total of 549 yards and seven TDs against Missouri. Mason had 304 yards on 46 carries. The QB had 101 yards rushing. Three backup RBs combined for 10 carries for 144 yards and 2 TDs on the ground. How special was Mason (46 carries for 304 yards and 4 TDs) that day by comparison? Any one of 4-5 Auburn players could have dropped 300+ on 46 carries against Missouri. Maybe even a can of tomato soup could have had a career day.
As a starter in 2012, Mason never had a 100+ yard rushing game in SEC play. He was noted as 'good', but not super-special in 2012 heading into 2013. He was very good in 2013, and then blew it out on heavier carries down the stretch. I'm not saying this like it is a 'bad' thing, per se. I'm just trying to put him in some kind of context. I struggle with placing Mason as much better than 'good'. There is nothing wrong with 'good', but it's not a special talent to rank or chase after. In the 3rd round I'd still be chasing special talents.
Zac Stacy's agility is amazing for a man his size. It's more impressive than Mason's in the same context. I'll stick to the numbers in that regard over any poll of opinions.
T. Austin was being compared to guys like Percy Harvin. My main point was you're all comparing a horse to a gimmick. I likened him to players like Desean Jackson who will have big games in between injuries and disappointment. I never said he wasn't 'good'. The problem was the opportunity cost and that his skill set wasn't as rare as it was made to be. I'm glad you see that I remain consistent with that thought. But, I guess Tavon Austin is Gayle Sayers and Jim Brown and consensus wins again.
Latimer would be a bad value if anything you said was true or wasn't such an extravagant exaggeration. What I said about Mason is just where I am with RBs in the NFL today. The NFL is now starting to de-emphasize the position as well. Maybe things will be different if a real game-charger was available to be drafted (Todd Gurley perhaps?). Until that day comes I'd rather spend high picks on something that could be special or address a real need. That's my definition of wasting a pick. This Rams draft could yield two HoF'ers. I wouldn't dare call that a bad draft. I never said I didn't like Mason either. While watching him being picked I just thought "not now". You go from two potential HoF'ers to a committee back. I guess you have to keep up with SF/Sea with collecting the most RBs in the div.
I was agreeing with you about me not thinking like Jeff Fisher. He isn't perfect like you said. The question you asked was the same things said about Pead and Austin (even noted in your post). Even you don't think like Jeff Fisher.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
No more than I think you would want me to tell you what you want to hear. What would be the point?
Nothing you have said either makes me think you understand Mason if you are comparing Cunningham to him, especially when your method is to take out his best performances as a way of making the case. But than, I guess all 32 teams don't understand Cunningham as well as you by your logic, because none of them spent as much as a seventh rounder on him. Again, maybe he will be like a Kurt Warner of RBs, but IMO it is a low percentage play.
I don't agree with backing out his three best games. Again, if it was that easy, everybody could have just had three monster games like the 300 yard, 4 TD outburst, tack it on to there body of work and resume, and presto, they would have done better than Walker, Jackson and Mason. But they didn't. Reality is stubborn like that, no matter how we try to reshape it.
I could maybe see where you are coming from if the games came against North-East-South-West Maine, but as you noted, Florida State is a pretty good defense. I would be more likely to highlight it as a positive that he came up big at the most important time, at the end of the season, than looking for reasons to diminish it in some way, sweep it under the rug, or act like it didn't happen.
If a basketball player averaged 20 PPG for the season, than scored 60 points in his last three games (against better teams, in the playoffs), would you be looking to ignore those 60 point outbursts, and say, he is really just a 20 PPG guy, let's ignore those 60 point games. Or if a baseball player had 20 homers, and showed good but not great power, and finished with three straight 3 HR games?
It is possible that not all college players are one uniform thing for their entire career, but could be viewed on a continuum of development (that is, when relevant in the case of players that showed signs of being capable of improvement, which it seemed like Mason did). Maybe he wasn't as good earlier in his career, improved, got better, maybe physically matured and developed and got bigger and stronger? In that case, would it make sense to try and explain who Mason "really " is, by lopping off his best games at the end of that development and improvement, and weight more heavily his early games when he was not that same player.
Aren't the Rams getting the Mason that finished strong in the last three games, and not the Freshman Mason that was not as good?
Was Greg Robinson a big time prospect a year ago? Does that make him any less worthy of the #2 overall pick? A run to the Championship game tends to get more visibility for a program and their players. It also may cause scouts to think more highly of them, if they are able to go up against and beat the best competition to end up at that level.
"Special talent" RBs don't go in the third, players like Adrian Peterson go in the first. Mason didn't even go in the second, where RBs like Bernard, Bell, Ball, Lacy, Sankey, Hill and Hyde went the past few years, who nobody would confuse with Peterson. Mason was expected to go in the second or third, went in the third. In your idiosyncratic sense, he wasn't good value, but according to many scouts, he went where was expected to. What round should a "RB like Mason" go? Round 4-5-6-7? Or maybe undrafted, since an undrafted RB like Cunningham (who all 32 teams and myself don't "really" understand like you). If you are consistent, than every RB that isn't special like Peterson, drafted before whatever round you deem or sanction as not too high for a non-special RB, is a "bad pick".
It's not an insult that Stacy is pretty explosive for his size, I just find Mason's superior explosiveness more compelling, since it isn't like he is some kind of wraith-like wisp (how big was Emmit Smith when he entered the league - hopefully that doesn't elicit the predictable, Bob thinks Mason is as good as Smith response, just making the point RBs not as big as Marion Motley or Christian Okoye don't have to disappoint because they are "small"). You might be mixed up on the poll, that was about you saying Cunningham is as good or better than Mason, not Stacy.
If you went to a convention center and a 1,000 scouts told you, no, Cunningham is not as good as Mason, and it had zero impact on your thinking (this is an abstract exercise), more power to you. In my experience, sometimes players I like don't do well, and players I didn't like do. I overlook things sometimes. So, if I was on the wrong end of a 1,000-0 poll, it might at a minimum cause me to look more deeply to see if I missed something. I wouldn't be looking to back out the best games to make things conform more to my perception of how they should be.
Austin again probably isn't that relevant here since Mason is 30 lbs. heavier and there are more success comps in his case, but you keep bringing it up. He isn't as big or strong as Harvin, but his versatility, skill set and game have some things in common with Harvin and Cobb (maybe OBJ this year), some thought if he had that kind of role, he could be very valuable. Did you think Cobb would turn out as well as he has, seeing as he isn't as big as Kelvin Benjamin? But Austin was horribly misused last year, Fisher acknowledged that they have a better sense of what he does well, so I think the jury is still out on him. What were Calvin Johnson's stats his first year (as with Emmitt Smith, I can hear you later saying, Bob said Austin is as good as Calvin, please don't go there). You seem to take things very literally some times. Austin isn't Brown or Sayers. He is just the only other player in the history of the NFL that did what they did. If it was really a trivial accomplishment, it would happen almost every Sunday, not for the first time in a half century. I don't recall ever seeing an individual performance like Austin against Oklahoma at the college level (unsurprising, since I think it was not far from the combined rushing/receiving yardage record for a game), he looked like a smaller Barry Sanders. I'm not basing his evaluation on a game, but not sure what more a player could do and have his skills be called rare or special - a 1,000 yard game?
Watkins is a better example in this context, I think more relevant than Austin (since he is closer to routine successful comps, as is Mason, than Austin is too either). It seems arbitrary that some don't think he can deliver on the promise of the scouts, because he is about 1" and 10 lbs. less that Dez Bryant.
If the league is deemphasizing the position, than pretty much every RB taken in recent years was a "bad pick" by your Draconian standard. Mason, a third rounder, was a drop off from two potential Hall of Famers? Joyner was a great pick, he went in the second round. He probably won't make the Hall of Fame, either, was that a disappointing pick (admittedly, he isn't as big as David Fulcher, so probably gets dinged for that)? What Hall of Famer were they going to get at pick #75? Terrance Brooks, Trai Turner? Who would you have picked, and would they be any more likely than Mason to make the Hall of Fame? Most people said Clowney, Robinson, Watkins and Mack were the four special talents, and that is how it went (with the insertion of Bortles). Some thought Donald was one of the top 5-8 picks in the draft. You could make a case that virtually every pick in the draft after Donald, doesn't have as good a chance of making the Hall of Fame. They weren't all "bad picks", there just are a limited number of those elite, super blue chip talents in any draft, I'm not sure there was even one as good as Robinson or Donald in the last draft, and they got two. But there usually aren't a lot of Hall of Famers available where Mason went, so again, I'd be curious who you had in mind. You are only saying bad pick, not what would satisfy your criteria for a good pick.
It isn't that simple, you do think like Fisher, he drafted Stacy, who you like. I think like Fisher, thought the Robinson and Donald picks were great. A lot of other people seem to think like Fisher, too, at least in this draft, as they pretty much got A's across the board. Not sure what the parting thought intended, but just because a HC or GM makes a bad pick like Pead, doesn't mean every pick they make the rest of their career is called into question. Should we mistrust Stacy, maybe he isn't that good because Fisher drafted him, and he must be an incompetent drafter since he takes RBs that aren't as good as Adrian Peterson in the third round?
Nothing you have said either makes me think you understand Mason if you are comparing Cunningham to him, especially when your method is to take out his best performances as a way of making the case. But than, I guess all 32 teams don't understand Cunningham as well as you by your logic, because none of them spent as much as a seventh rounder on him. Again, maybe he will be like a Kurt Warner of RBs, but IMO it is a low percentage play.
I don't agree with backing out his three best games. Again, if it was that easy, everybody could have just had three monster games like the 300 yard, 4 TD outburst, tack it on to there body of work and resume, and presto, they would have done better than Walker, Jackson and Mason. But they didn't. Reality is stubborn like that, no matter how we try to reshape it.
I could maybe see where you are coming from if the games came against North-East-South-West Maine, but as you noted, Florida State is a pretty good defense. I would be more likely to highlight it as a positive that he came up big at the most important time, at the end of the season, than looking for reasons to diminish it in some way, sweep it under the rug, or act like it didn't happen.
If a basketball player averaged 20 PPG for the season, than scored 60 points in his last three games (against better teams, in the playoffs), would you be looking to ignore those 60 point outbursts, and say, he is really just a 20 PPG guy, let's ignore those 60 point games. Or if a baseball player had 20 homers, and showed good but not great power, and finished with three straight 3 HR games?
It is possible that not all college players are one uniform thing for their entire career, but could be viewed on a continuum of development (that is, when relevant in the case of players that showed signs of being capable of improvement, which it seemed like Mason did). Maybe he wasn't as good earlier in his career, improved, got better, maybe physically matured and developed and got bigger and stronger? In that case, would it make sense to try and explain who Mason "really " is, by lopping off his best games at the end of that development and improvement, and weight more heavily his early games when he was not that same player.
Aren't the Rams getting the Mason that finished strong in the last three games, and not the Freshman Mason that was not as good?
Was Greg Robinson a big time prospect a year ago? Does that make him any less worthy of the #2 overall pick? A run to the Championship game tends to get more visibility for a program and their players. It also may cause scouts to think more highly of them, if they are able to go up against and beat the best competition to end up at that level.
"Special talent" RBs don't go in the third, players like Adrian Peterson go in the first. Mason didn't even go in the second, where RBs like Bernard, Bell, Ball, Lacy, Sankey, Hill and Hyde went the past few years, who nobody would confuse with Peterson. Mason was expected to go in the second or third, went in the third. In your idiosyncratic sense, he wasn't good value, but according to many scouts, he went where was expected to. What round should a "RB like Mason" go? Round 4-5-6-7? Or maybe undrafted, since an undrafted RB like Cunningham (who all 32 teams and myself don't "really" understand like you). If you are consistent, than every RB that isn't special like Peterson, drafted before whatever round you deem or sanction as not too high for a non-special RB, is a "bad pick".
It's not an insult that Stacy is pretty explosive for his size, I just find Mason's superior explosiveness more compelling, since it isn't like he is some kind of wraith-like wisp (how big was Emmit Smith when he entered the league - hopefully that doesn't elicit the predictable, Bob thinks Mason is as good as Smith response, just making the point RBs not as big as Marion Motley or Christian Okoye don't have to disappoint because they are "small"). You might be mixed up on the poll, that was about you saying Cunningham is as good or better than Mason, not Stacy.
If you went to a convention center and a 1,000 scouts told you, no, Cunningham is not as good as Mason, and it had zero impact on your thinking (this is an abstract exercise), more power to you. In my experience, sometimes players I like don't do well, and players I didn't like do. I overlook things sometimes. So, if I was on the wrong end of a 1,000-0 poll, it might at a minimum cause me to look more deeply to see if I missed something. I wouldn't be looking to back out the best games to make things conform more to my perception of how they should be.
Austin again probably isn't that relevant here since Mason is 30 lbs. heavier and there are more success comps in his case, but you keep bringing it up. He isn't as big or strong as Harvin, but his versatility, skill set and game have some things in common with Harvin and Cobb (maybe OBJ this year), some thought if he had that kind of role, he could be very valuable. Did you think Cobb would turn out as well as he has, seeing as he isn't as big as Kelvin Benjamin?
But Austin was horribly misused last year, Fisher acknowledged that they have a better sense of what he does well, so I think the jury is still out on him. What were Calvin Johnson's stats his first year (as with Emmitt Smith, I can hear you later saying, Bob said Austin is as good as Calvin, please don't go there). You seem to take things very literally some times. Austin isn't Brown or Sayers. He is just the only other player in the history of the NFL that did what they did. If it was really a trivial accomplishment, it would happen almost every Sunday, not for the first time in a half century. I don't recall ever seeing an individual performance like Austin against Oklahoma at the college level (unsurprising, since I think it was not far from the combined rushing/receiving yardage record for a game), he looked like a smaller Barry Sanders. I'm not basing his evaluation on a game, but not sure what more a player could do and have his skills be called rare or special - a 1,000 yard game?Watkins is a better example in this context, I think more relevant than Austin (since he is closer to routine successful comps, as is Mason, than Austin is too either). It seems arbitrary that some don't think he can deliver on the promise of the scouts, because he is about 1" and 10 lbs. less that Dez Bryant.
If the league is deemphasizing the position, than pretty much every RB taken in recent years was a "bad pick" by your Draconian standard. Mason, a third rounder, was a drop off from two potential Hall of Famers? Joyner was a great pick, he went in the second round. He probably won't make the Hall of Fame, either, was that a disappointing pick (admittedly, he isn't as big as David Fulcher, so probably gets dinged for that)? What Hall of Famer were they going to get at pick #75? Terrance Brooks, Trai Turner? Who would you have picked, and would they be any more likely than Mason to make the Hall of Fame? Most people said Clowney, Robinson, Watkins and Mack were the four special talents, and that is how it went (with the insertion of Bortles). Some thought Donald was one of the top 5-8 picks in the draft. You could make a case that virtually every pick in the draft after Donald, doesn't have as good a chance of making the Hall of Fame. They weren't all "bad picks", there just are a limited number of those elite, super blue chip talents in any draft, I'm not sure there was even one as good as Robinson or Donald in the last draft, and they got two. But there usually aren't a lot of Hall of Famers available where Mason went, so again, I'd be curious who you had in mind. You are only saying bad pick, not what would satisfy your criteria for a good pick.
It isn't that simple, you do think like Fisher, he drafted Stacy, who you like. I think like Fisher, thought the Robinson and Donald picks were great. A lot of other people seem to think like Fisher, too, at least in this draft, as they pretty much got A's across the board. Not sure what the parting thought intended, but just because a HC or GM makes a bad pick like Pead, doesn't mean every pick they make the rest of their career is called into question. Should we mistrust Stacy, maybe he isn't that good because Fisher drafted him, and he must be an incompetent drafter since he takes RBs that aren't as good as Adrian Peterson in the third round?
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree. A lot of people say things and I just let it go. I wouldn't respond at the length I did if I wasn't interested in what you think and didn't think the exchange was worthwhile.
Sometimes I express myself sarcastically, but that is just my droll, sardonic sense of humor at work, other times I may use exaggeration, but just to convey a principle in stark relief, as it were.
My intent isn't to be disrespectful, or patronizing or have a condescending tone, just my way of joking around. Hope you got that when I'm talking about Sumo wrestlers and Ethel Merman. Even when I don't agree, I find an exchange conducted in a thoughtful, well reasoned and supported way, sharpens my own thinking in articulating a players strengths and weaknesses, and I value that.
Peace.
Sometimes I express myself sarcastically, but that is just my droll, sardonic sense of humor at work, other times I may use exaggeration, but just to convey a principle in stark relief, as it were.
My intent isn't to be disrespectful, or patronizing or have a condescending tone, just my way of joking around. Hope you got that when I'm talking about Sumo wrestlers and Ethel Merman. Even when I don't agree, I find an exchange conducted in a thoughtful, well reasoned and supported way, sharpens my own thinking in articulating a players strengths and weaknesses, and I value that.
Peace.
Boone22
Footballguy
Rams fourth-round RB Tre Mason says the coaching staff has told him he'll compete for the starting job.
The Rams could mean "compete" in the loosest of senses, but it's worth filing away nonetheless. We'd ultimately be very surprised if Mason pushes Zac Stacy for No. 1 duties. Stacy is coming off an impressive rookie season, while Mason needs to iron out his ball security and pass protection issues. He's likely ticketed for a change-of-pace role.
The Rams could mean "compete" in the loosest of senses, but it's worth filing away nonetheless. We'd ultimately be very surprised if Mason pushes Zac Stacy for No. 1 duties. Stacy is coming off an impressive rookie season, while Mason needs to iron out his ball security and pass protection issues. He's likely ticketed for a change-of-pace role.
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
Donnybrook
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
I can't think of many situations where a team with a successful rookie RB draft another RB in the 3rd or higher the following year.
Not a great examples but:
Roosevelt Potts -> Marshall Faulk (1st)
Michael Bush (4th) -> McFadden (1st)
Buckhalter (4th) -> Westbrook (3rd)
Alstott (2nd) -> Dunn (1st)
This one stands out the most:
Rodney Thomas (3rd) -> Eddie George (1st)
- Thomas had 251/947/5 (3.8 YPC), 39/204/2 (5.2 YPR)
Eerily similar to Stacy's 250/973/7 (3.9 YPC), 26/141/1 (5.4 YPR)
buck naked
Footballguy
It was a good exchange fellas, thanks.I respect your opinion, even if I don't agree. A lot of people say things and I just let it go. I wouldn't respond at the length I did if I wasn't interested in what you think and didn't think the exchange was worthwhile.
Sometimes I express myself sarcastically, but that is just my droll, sardonic sense of humor at work, other times I may use exaggeration, but just to convey a principle in stark relief, as it were.
My intent isn't to be disrespectful, or patronizing or have a condescending tone, just my way of joking around. Hope you got that when I'm talking about Sumo wrestlers and Ethel Merman. Even when I don't agree, I find an exchange conducted in a thoughtful, well reasoned and supported way, sharpens my own thinking in articulating a players strengths and weaknesses, and I value that.
Peace.
Phenix
Footballguy
What I cant understand is people acting like Stacy is a stud but knocking LeVeon Bell.
Bell had 289 Touches for 1268 yards and 8 TDs, far more catches.
Stacy had 276 touches for 1114 yards and 8 TDs
Both played just as few games early on and one is worshiped the other is knocked.
But Mason is no risk to Stacy but Blount is to Bell? Sometimes you have to laugh at peoples opinions and this is one of those moments. Look at MFLs prediction of the two players for god sakes. Its a joke.
I think it is clear on this site many people don't share what they really believe about a player, they defend players they have on their team regardless of their talent to build ones confidence in a player and talk down players they want to decrease value.
Bell had 289 Touches for 1268 yards and 8 TDs, far more catches.
Stacy had 276 touches for 1114 yards and 8 TDs
Both played just as few games early on and one is worshiped the other is knocked.
But Mason is no risk to Stacy but Blount is to Bell? Sometimes you have to laugh at peoples opinions and this is one of those moments. Look at MFLs prediction of the two players for god sakes. Its a joke.
I think it is clear on this site many people don't share what they really believe about a player, they defend players they have on their team regardless of their talent to build ones confidence in a player and talk down players they want to decrease value.
Last edited by a moderator:
cstu
Footballguy
When we've had successful RB's recently who were picked in Mason's (75) draft range (Charles - 73, Murray - 71, Ridley - 73, Greene - 65) it shouldn't that strange to think Mason could be the starter at some point in the future.
Since Charles in 2008, there have only been two RB's in that range who didn't pan out - Glen Coffee (74), who quit after his rookie year saying God told him to and Ronnie Hillman (67).
Since Charles in 2008, there have only been two RB's in that range who didn't pan out - Glen Coffee (74), who quit after his rookie year saying God told him to and Ronnie Hillman (67).
Junior McSpiffy
Footballguy
It's not unreasonable to think he could be the starter, but we need to look at the circumstances of each of those players you are mentioning.
Charles - drafted to replace an aging Priest Holmes
Murray - closest fit to the Stacy/Mason profile with Felix Jones being the incumbant
Ridley - drafted into a fairly vacant backfield
Greene - drafted into a fairly vacant backfield
Zac Stacy may be a bit of a plodder, but he was a successful plodder, and one who is entering his second year, not his eighth. Also, the team knows what Stacy can do in pass pro. Mason is a mystery on that front, with many scouting reports saying it is a major hole in his game. So yeah, Mason may get some time this year and may eventually supplant Stacy as the lead back in a timeshare (or just straightout win the job), but there's nothing right now that says it's likely.
Your comparing his 2014 draft position to other drafts is off - as the 2014 draft was unbelievably ultra talented. You need to bump up Mason a roughly a round in my opinion. A 3rd rounder in 2014 is like a 2nd rounder any other year....
Buffaloes
Footballguy
maybe if we are talking WR. I think this year's RB crop was one of the most ho-hum groups in recent memory. I don't think there is any need to bump Mason because of how deep the WR group was--or bump any other RB from this class for that matter. And I bought Mason in recent rookie draft.
Last edited by a moderator:
Raiderfan32904
Footballguy
Rotoworld
ESPN Rams reporter Nick Wagoner guesses third-round pick Tre Mason could garner 8-10 carries per game as a rookie.
Wagoner seems comfortable with his projection, noting "that means something like 140-160 carries" over the course of the year. Losing that many attempts would be a huge drain on Zac Stacy's fantasy value, as he is very much a volume-dependent commodity, having averaged under 3.9 YPC last season. In a chat with Rams fans, Wagoner later wrote he'd be "surprised" if Mason stole Stacy's starting job, but expects the rookie to "earn his way to plenty of carries as the season wears on." It's certainly a situation to monitor in training camp. Jul 18 - 2:53 PM
Source: ESPN.com
ESPN Rams reporter Nick Wagoner guesses third-round pick Tre Mason could garner 8-10 carries per game as a rookie.
Wagoner seems comfortable with his projection, noting "that means something like 140-160 carries" over the course of the year. Losing that many attempts would be a huge drain on Zac Stacy's fantasy value, as he is very much a volume-dependent commodity, having averaged under 3.9 YPC last season. In a chat with Rams fans, Wagoner later wrote he'd be "surprised" if Mason stole Stacy's starting job, but expects the rookie to "earn his way to plenty of carries as the season wears on." It's certainly a situation to monitor in training camp. Jul 18 - 2:53 PM
Source: ESPN.com
steveski
Footballguy
I think it's pointless trying to predict the carries. It's going to be the same as it was last year for the Rams. Whoever plays the best will get the majority of the carries. Stacy isn't some proven veteran that's had multiple successful seasons. If he sucks for a couple games in a row and Mason looks good, Mason's the starter.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
If STL runs the ball 30 X per game, that would still leave a lot of carries. If they run it 25 X per game, that could still leave 15-17 a game = 240-270+ carries in a full schedule.
25 per game = 400 carries would have been the 25th most rushing attempts (STL had 426 in 2013). 30 carries per game = 480 carries would have been #9 last year in rushing attempts. Most of the top teams were winning teams. BUF was #1 (546) but they run a PHI-like tempo, volume offense, which the STL doesn't. NYJ were #5 (493), TEN was #10 (462).
Drafting Robinson 1.2 and Mason in the third could indicate they want to run more, more effectively or both. No doubt Mason could play his way into a bigger role if he looks significantly better. If they both play well, I'd expect Stacy to get something like 60%-65% of the carries (barring injury, of course). That would be 240-260 carries out of 400, 290-310 carries out of 480. Stacy could also be more productive by improving on his 3.9 yard per carry average, and if the STL offense improves overall, he could get more scoring opportunities. The defense looks better on paper with 1.13 overall DT Donald, second round FS/CB Joyner and new DC Williams, so the offense could get the ball more often and in better field position. Also, the more competitive games are, that could create more rushing opportunities in the second half.
Last edited by a moderator:
