Tre Mason (1 Viewer)

[menobrown]

Alex Marvez ‏@alexmarvez May 5

Tidbit from @Chargers GM Tom Telesco: He was surprised @STLouisRams picked Todd Gurley. Thought they were set at RB w/Tre Mason @SiriusXMNF

A few of us would agree with you Tom.

 

[Bob Magaw]

DET taking Calvin Johnson surprised some people.

 

[menobrown]

DET taking Calvin Johnson surprised some people.

Not me mainly because unlike RB you can play multiple WR's at once.

 

[Kool-Aid Larry]

DET taking Calvin Johnson surprised some people.

det taking a wr - that was a shocker

 

[jurb26]

Alex Marvez ‏@alexmarvez May 5

Tidbit from @Chargers GM Tom Telesco: He was surprised @STLouisRams picked Todd Gurley. Thought they were set at RB w/Tre Mason @SiriusXMNF

A few of us would agree with you Tom.

Meaning we hoped Gurley would fall to us and we #### our paints when he didn't so we moved up for Gordon.

 

[Bob Magaw]

DET taking Calvin Johnson surprised some people.

Not me mainly because unlike RB you can play multiple WR's at once.

And some teams have been known to play more than one RB in a game/season. It could catch on.

The Lions spent like four top 10 picks in about a five year span.

The Rams in the Fisher/Snead-era, before spending ONE top 10 pick, spent a third on Mason, nothing on Bennie Cunningham, and a second and seventh on 2014 IR/bust Pead and (since gone) Richardson, respectively. Richardson was replaced by Stacy who was replaced by Mason who was replaced by Gurley (detecting a trend or pattern?). Why anybody would be surprised Fisher might want to add a RB that could be one of the best in Rams franchise history, along with Jackson, Faulk, Bettis and Dickerson (when he is known to collect RBs like Anchor Man's Brian Fantana collected heinous colognes ) is as much of a puzzler and head scratcher to me than it is to others that he took Gurley the draft after Mason.*

Mason had the potential to be above average, but nobody ever said about him he was the best RB prospect since Adrian Peterson. If Gurley is as good as advertised, they got a big upgrade at the position, and their version of Marshawn Lynch and Frank Gore in the NFC West. Telesco stating "Thought they" (meaning Fisher) along with "were set at RB" don't really even belong in the same novel (let alone sentence). Fisher once spent two seconds and a first round pick on RBs in consecutive drafts, I think (Lendale White, Chris Henry and Chris Johnson).

* IMO, Mason, if not an afterthought, was an example of what represented to them good value at the time, not sure they targeted him from before the draft, it just sort of happened (and obviously they would have had no way of knowing Gurley would suffer an ACL injury and they would be in position to get him the following year, in the highly improbable event they were thinking that far ahead). Gurley was consciously targeted by Fisher to transform their offense (instantly became the most talented Ram on the offensive side of the ball) and to become the centerpiece and focal point of his preferred power run setting up play action pass scheme, that everything else is built around. It probably wasn't an accident that all four OL drafted in the second, third, fourth and sixth rounds are good run blockers, the OL is being purpose built around Gurley with his transcendent rushing talent clearly in mind.

 

[lod01]

Alex Marvez ‏@alexmarvez May 5

Tidbit from @Chargers GM Tom Telesco: He was surprised @STLouisRams picked Todd Gurley. Thought they were set at RB w/Tre Mason @SiriusXMNF

A few of us would agree with you Tom.

Forgot about this one. Another 5-9 207 RB that looked like he could carry the load, is replaced by a bigger RB. However, he did average under 4 ypc in 7 of 11 games in which he had 11 to 29 carries.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Alex Marvez ‏@alexmarvez May 5

Tidbit from @Chargers GM Tom Telesco: He was surprised @STLouisRams picked Todd Gurley. Thought they were set at RB w/Tre Mason @SiriusXMNF

A few of us would agree with you Tom.

Forgot about this one. Another 5-9 207 RB that looked like he could carry the load, is replaced by a bigger RB. However, he did average under 4 ypc in 7 of 11 games in which he had 11 to 29 carries.

And yet Stacy was called out as a plodder for averaging 3.9 Y/C in HIS rookie season (by that criteria, so was Mason in most games - he would fall by the same verdict, 3.9 Y/C or less = plodderdom). Gurley is also a much more complete RB and competent in pass pro, a skill some scoffed at as being important, or his lack thereof being a possible future obstacle to starting.

 

[Ernol]

Alex Marvez ‏@alexmarvez May 5

Tidbit from @Chargers GM Tom Telesco: He was surprised @STLouisRams picked Todd Gurley. Thought they were set at RB w/Tre Mason @SiriusXMNF

A few of us would agree with you Tom.

Forgot about this one. Another 5-9 207 RB that looked like he could carry the load, is replaced by a bigger RB. However, he did average under 4 ypc in 7 of 11 games in which he had 11 to 29 carries.

And yet Stacy was called out as a plodder for averaging 3.9 Y/C in HIS rookie season (by that criteria, so was Mason in most games - he would fall by the same verdict, 3.9 Y/C or less = plodderdom).

Except that Mason's YPC for the year was 4.3. By your measure, Leveon Bell was a plodder or worse in almost half of his games (7 under 4).

 

[Bob Magaw]

Not my measure, just pointing out others indicting Stacy on that basis but being OK with it from Mason in nearly 2/3 of his games (with 10+ carries).

Yes, if Mason was sub-4.0 Y/C in 7 of 11 games, by process of elimination, we can figure out he was over in the other 4 of 11 games in which he had more than 10 carries.

 

[Rhythmdoctor]

Value check:

I Just traded Mason away for 2.03 and 3.03 in 16 team non-IDP dynasty league.

 

[menobrown]

DET taking Calvin Johnson surprised some people.

Not me mainly because unlike RB you can play multiple WR's at once.

And some teams have been known to play more than one RB in a game/season. It could catch on.

Sure but I don't know a lot of teams that play two Rb's a the same time for more than handful of snaps. It's an apples to oranges comp.

 

[Bob Magaw]

DET taking Calvin Johnson surprised some people.

Not me mainly because unlike RB you can play multiple WR's at once.

And some teams have been known to play more than one RB in a game/season. It could catch on.

Sure but I don't know a lot of teams that play two Rb's a the same time for more than handful of snaps. It's an apples to oranges comp.

That is irrelevant to the fact that you need more than one in a game/season. It might not have escaped your attention that 32 teams don't roll with only one RB. As noted above, it is a trend that could "catch on".

 

[menobrown]

Alex Marvez ‏@alexmarvez May 5

Tidbit from @Chargers GM Tom Telesco: He was surprised @STLouisRams picked Todd Gurley. Thought they were set at RB w/Tre Mason @SiriusXMNF

A few of us would agree with you Tom.

Meaning we hoped Gurley would fall to us and we #### our paints when he didn't so we moved up for Gordon.

That's how a lot of people viewed his comment but I don't agree.

It could not have been a shock to him that at pick #15 Gurley was gone. It was hard to find a mock draft that had Gurley slipping past the Dolphins at #14. Had they moved up past the Dolphins into the top 13 I'd have said Gurley going to the Rams changed their draft plans. I don't think it did.

 

[menobrown]

DET taking Calvin Johnson surprised some people.

Not me mainly because unlike RB you can play multiple WR's at once.

And some teams have been known to play more than one RB in a game/season. It could catch on.

Sure but I don't know a lot of teams that play two Rb's a the same time for more than handful of snaps. It's an apples to oranges comp.

That is irrelevant to the fact that you need more than one in a game/season.

No it's absolutely relevant but if you think teams priortize backup RB's over #1 WR's I'll leave you to it.

 

[Bob Magaw]

You think Gurley is a backup RB (his career is expected to last longer than whatever part of his rookie year that may be the case)?

If that is what people think, it could explain the "surprise" on the part of some. Whatever others think, clearly Fisher and Snead think Gurley is compellingly better than Mason. Fisher called Gurley special and a once-a-decade back. He (or anybody else?) never said the latter about Mason. Many scouts have said that, and none have said that about Mason. This is a surprise that Fisher would think he was a big upgrade over Mason, again, WHY?

 

[menobrown]

You think Gurley is a backup RB (his career is expected to last more than whatever part of his rookie year that may be the case)?

If that is what people think, it could explain the "surprise" on the part of some. Whatever others think, clearly Fisher and Snead think Gurley is compellingly better than Mason. Fisher called Gurley special and a once-a-decade back. He (or anybody else?) never said the latter about Mason.

Jesus. No of course Gurley is not the backup, that's Mason.

Point is they took Gurley and relegated a good player to backup status,which surprised people because like the Chargers GM they thought Mason was good enough to be the guy.

Depending on who you believe multiple reports said Gurley was the Rams top or second ranked player. I've seen two other teams top of their draft boards and both had Gurley in their top 5, Steelers and Tampa. Rams got either their top or second ranked RB at pick #10. That's why they took Gurley. That makes sense but surprised a lot of people who thought Mason looked good, the depth was solid, and positions like WR were more pressing needs. You seem to want to compare Mason's talent to Stacy or frame this as the Rams going out of their way to replace or upgrade on Mason. I think you are over thinking it.

 

[Bob Magaw]

You think Gurley is a backup RB (his career is expected to last more than whatever part of his rookie year that may be the case)?

If that is what people think, it could explain the "surprise" on the part of some. Whatever others think, clearly Fisher and Snead think Gurley is compellingly better than Mason. Fisher called Gurley special and a once-a-decade back. He (or anybody else?) never said the latter about Mason.

Jesus. No of course Gurley is not the backup, that's Mason.

Point is they took Gurley and relegated a good player to backup status,which surprised people because like the Chargers GM they thought Mason was good enough to be the guy.

Depending on who you believe multiple reports said Gurley was the Rams top or second ranked player. I've seen two other teams top of their draft boards and both had Gurley in their top 5, Steelers and Tampa. Rams got either their top or second ranked RB at pick #10. That's why they took Gurley. That makes sense but surprised a lot of people who thought Mason looked good, the depth was solid, and positions like WR were more pressing needs. You seem to want to compare Mason's talent to Stacy or frame this as the Rams going out of their way to replace or upgrade on Mason. I think you are over thinking it.

Jesus, than this was confusingly phrased... "No it's absolutely relevant but if you think teams priortize backup RB's over #1 WR's I'll leave you to it."

They prioritized Gurley over the #1 WR, not the backup RB (Mason being effectively turned into a backup was an ancillary byproduct).

Many of 32 teams have a "the guy" at RB. Maybe Fisher didn't think he was a GOOD ENOUGH "the guy", as much as some other people thought he was a GOOD ENOUGH "the guy". The Jets at #6 also reportedly would have taken him if arguably #1 overall Leonard Williams hadn't fallen to them.

It isn't necessarily mutually exclusive that he could have been #1 or #2 on the Rams board (I believe it) and that they thought he would be a big upgrade over what Mason provided (and that he may not have been a good enough "the guy"). I think you are under thinking it.

I didn't bring up the 3.9 Y/C stat. Just connected it up to a point made about Stacy littered throughout the thread last year.

As to the WRs, what others think may not be what they think. They took Robinson instead of Watkins last year, when many thought they should have prioritized WR. Quick through six games (before shoulder injury) was pacing for right about 1,000 yards and 8 TDs. Keep in mind, this was with backup QBs. Britt led the team in receiving and looked the best he had since pre-knee injury, when he was one of the biggest rising star young WRs in the league, and he isn't exactly ancient at 26-27. Cook is one of the highest paid TEs in the league, and he led the Rams in receiving in 2013 (again, when backup QBs started half the season). If Parker would have touched the ball 3-4 X a game in a run first offense, and Gurley will 15-20 X a game, he could have a much bigger OVERALL impact.

Some people keep wanting Fisher to turn into Sid Gillman/Don Coryell, hose the ball all over the field 40 X a game and keep jamming a square peg into a round hole until they break the board, but it is probably wishful thinking. He is what he is. Fisher wants to run. If Gurley is as good as advertised, with All-Pro potential and the talent to be one of the best RBs in the NFL in a year or two, and others fail to grasp how that might appeal to Fisher (RBs are to him like cheese is to Shemp of the Three Stooges), than imo they aren't very familiar with his background and history. Not to mention, SEA and SF have/had a lot of success within the division, with power run games led by All Pro, 5 X Pro Bowl RBs Marshawn Lynch and Frank Gore, and with a conspicuous absence of YOUNG, TOP END WR talent (it isn't a detonator, no need to draw a schematic ). I think he envisions Gurley as a far faster, more explosive and talented Eddie George, who he rode to a Super Bowl. Gurley is a lot more like George (1.14 overall pedigree, and a complete RB that could also block and catch), than Mason.

* Plus the above doesn't account for the fact it isn't like they haven't already invested a top 10 overall pick and a third in former West Virginia WR teammates Austin and Bailey as recently as just two years ago. For the same reason Quick and Britt could be underrated (back up QB played in the last 24 consecutive regular season games), so could they. Schottenheimer was a notoriously unimaginitive OC in the pass game, and didn't help either. They may not need a WR as good as Demaryius Thomas, Dez Bryant or Julio Jones if they can succeed as a group (again, see SEA and SF in recent years). Adding a first round WR could be tantamount to giving up on Austin and Bailey (who had 300+ yards in a four game stretch last year when he finally got an opportunity), something the Rams may have thought made as little sense as drafting Gurley to replace Mason as #1 RB did to others. If the Rams had drafted Watkins instead of Robinson last year, they probably never would have had the opportunity to see Quick break out, and salvage his second round draft cost. That could be a cautionary tale to the potential danger of similarly prematurely giving up on Austin and Bailey.

** It isn't like Mason is Eddie Lacy or Jeremy Hill, if he was, than I would agree with the point.

*** You are certainly entitled to your opinion, so perhaps we should agree to disagree, as we seem to be looking at things very differently. BTW, I'm not trying to "change your mind" about Parker making more sense than Gurley for the reason you suggested (though I don't agree, for the reasons suggested), just to explain why it shouldn't have been a surprise, imo, that Fisher would think it was a good idea to prioritize Gurley over Parker, even if it meant relegating Mason to backup detail. Perhaps more than any other HC in the league, Fisher wants to run, run and keep running until the defense pukes. Than run some more. Gurley, as noted, has been called by many scouts the best RB prospect since Peterson, so yeah, Fisher and Gurley kind of go together like David Gilmour and his iconic Strat. Some games Gurley may have 18 carries and Mason 12, so the 2014 third rounder could serve as an important complement (albeit in an expected to eventually be lesser part of the RBBC role) to his 2015 first round counterpart, and play a valuable role. Neither could carry 30 X by themselves, and that way Fisher can run them at opponents in waves, keeping both of them fresh.

 

[Andrew74]

Value check:

I Just traded Mason away for 2.03 and 3.03 in 16 team non-IDP dynasty league.

Thanks for the info. I will soon be a Gurley owner and trying to formulate an offer for Mason.

 

[cstu]

Value check:

I Just traded Mason away for 2.03 and 3.03 in 16 team non-IDP dynasty league.

Thanks for the info. I will soon be a Gurley owner and trying to formulate an offer for Mason.

Gurley owner in my league thinks he can get him for Terrence West and Huff.

 

[Slapdash]

Value check:

I Just traded Mason away for 2.03 and 3.03 in 16 team non-IDP dynasty league.

Thanks for the info. I will soon be a Gurley owner and trying to formulate an offer for Mason.

Gurley owner in my league thinks he can get him for Terrence West and Huff.

May ad well hold him for that.

 

[menobrown]

You think Gurley is a backup RB (his career is expected to last more than whatever part of his rookie year that may be the case)?

If that is what people think, it could explain the "surprise" on the part of some. Whatever others think, clearly Fisher and Snead think Gurley is compellingly better than Mason. Fisher called Gurley special and a once-a-decade back. He (or anybody else?) never said the latter about Mason.

Jesus. No of course Gurley is not the backup, that's Mason.

Point is they took Gurley and relegated a good player to backup status,which surprised people because like the Chargers GM they thought Mason was good enough to be the guy.

Depending on who you believe multiple reports said Gurley was the Rams top or second ranked player. I've seen two other teams top of their draft boards and both had Gurley in their top 5, Steelers and Tampa. Rams got either their top or second ranked RB at pick #10. That's why they took Gurley. That makes sense but surprised a lot of people who thought Mason looked good, the depth was solid, and positions like WR were more pressing needs. You seem to want to compare Mason's talent to Stacy or frame this as the Rams going out of their way to replace or upgrade on Mason. I think you are over thinking it.

Jesus, than this was confusingly phrased... "No it's absolutely relevant but if you think teams priortize backup RB's over #1 WR's I'll leave you to it."

This is a Tre Mason thread, not a Todd Gurley thread.

I made a simple post of another NFL GM indicating he felt Mason was talented enough to be the Rams RB. This I feel is relevant information to Tre Mason owners who understand we have a devalued fantasy asset but someone that at least one other NFL decision maker views in somewhat high regard. If for nothing else it's just nice to hear another GM reaffirm what many of us felt, that RB was not a "need" for the Rams but they simply coveted Gurley.

You keep talking up Gurley, no one is disagreeing with you, in fact the opposite. But what is confusing to me is is the long winded Gurley spills you keep posting in the Tre Mason thread.

You seem to want to conclude that picking Gurley is an indictment on Mason. I don't agree so on that yes we can agree to disagree.

 

[menobrown]

Value check:

I Just traded Mason away for 2.03 and 3.03 in 16 team non-IDP dynasty league.

Thanks for the info. I will soon be a Gurley owner and trying to formulate an offer for Mason.

Yes that is good info and in line with with what I'm trying to get in leagues I own Mason and won't be owning Gurley. Won't be looking for any less.

Also that's close to what most people paid for him last season. So unless you traded for Mason this off-season when his value was at the apex, as disappointing as this has become, if you can pull a trade like this off you can at least recoup the cost of what you paid last year in a similar deep draft.

 

[Run It Up]

Saw my opportunity and got out. Traded him for David Johnson at our rookie draft.

Mason was my favorite back in last year's class and I took him with the 1.12. I think he'll start this year but I don't think it will last.

 

[Monty Burns]

Mason was just traded today in my 12 team Dynasty to the Gurley owner for a 2016 #2....likely will be mid/late second

 

[Bob Magaw]

You think Gurley is a backup RB (his career is expected to last more than whatever part of his rookie year that may be the case)?

If that is what people think, it could explain the "surprise" on the part of some. Whatever others think, clearly Fisher and Snead think Gurley is compellingly better than Mason. Fisher called Gurley special and a once-a-decade back. He (or anybody else?) never said the latter about Mason.

Jesus. No of course Gurley is not the backup, that's Mason.

Point is they took Gurley and relegated a good player to backup status,which surprised people because like the Chargers GM they thought Mason was good enough to be the guy.

Depending on who you believe multiple reports said Gurley was the Rams top or second ranked player. I've seen two other teams top of their draft boards and both had Gurley in their top 5, Steelers and Tampa. Rams got either their top or second ranked RB at pick #10. That's why they took Gurley. That makes sense but surprised a lot of people who thought Mason looked good, the depth was solid, and positions like WR were more pressing needs. You seem to want to compare Mason's talent to Stacy or frame this as the Rams going out of their way to replace or upgrade on Mason. I think you are over thinking it.

Jesus, than this was confusingly phrased... "No it's absolutely relevant but if you think teams priortize backup RB's over #1 WR's I'll leave you to it."

This is a Tre Mason thread, not a Todd Gurley thread.

I made a simple post of another NFL GM indicating he felt Mason was talented enough to be the Rams RB. This I feel is relevant information to Tre Mason owners who understand we have a devalued fantasy asset but someone that at least one other NFL decision maker views in somewhat high regard. If for nothing else it's just nice to hear another GM reaffirm what many of us felt, that RB was not a "need" for the Rams but they simply coveted Gurley.

You keep talking up Gurley, no one is disagreeing with you, in fact the opposite. But what is confusing to me is is the long winded Gurley spills you keep posting in the Tre Mason thread.

You seem to want to conclude that picking Gurley is an indictment on Mason. I don't agree so on that yes we can agree to disagree.

You posted the Gurley blurb in a Mason thread, I just responded to it. I don't disagree with posting it, just the premise. There are more than two teams in the NFL, one possible outlier, contrarian, dissenting voice doesn't reflect on what the other 30 teams may have thought (that Gurley could have massively greater upside than Mason, and made complete sense FOR A RUNNING HC).

The subject could have been finished a few exchanges ago, but you decided to emphasize the fact that teams don't start two RBs, while overlooking that virtually all use 2-3 per game/season, than replied with the confusingly phrased "...but if you think teams priortize backup RB's over #1 WR's I'll leave you to it." which in turn required a few Jesus post exchanges. Obviously how the Rams view Gurley, and Mason, and the two relative each other, has a fairly high degree of relevance in a Mason thread (a reminder that you yourself began this current sidebar/digression). If you don't understand that, than to quote you, I'll leave you to it."

The spiel (I think is what you were looking for) was to give context to responses like... "That makes sense but surprised a lot of people who thought Mason looked good, the depth was solid, and positions like WR were more pressing needs." which brings up the assertions of others without explaining WHY we should think Mason looked good (is a sub-4.0 Y/C average in nearly 2/3 of his games, which Stacy was called a plodder for countless times in this thread last year, GOOD?), the depth was solid (does it make sense to NOT draft Gurley because Cunningham and Stacy are on the bench, the fact that the latter was demoted not only behind Mason but UFA Cunningham in 2014, and they moved him for a seventh should have been a clue about how "solid" Fisher thought the depth was) and whether or not WR was a pressing need.

It isn't possible to address the latter (whether or not the Rams are in desperate need of a #1 WR, especially given the scheme of a RUNNING HC), without noting the context that the WRs could be undervalued, that it is hard to evaluate with backup QBs the last 24 games and unimaginitive OC in Schottenheimer, that Quick projected for around 1,000 yards and 8 TDs, that Britt flashed his best form since pre-knee injury and is just 27ish, that Cook is one of the highest paid TEs in the league, and that by adding Parker it could have squashed the value down the depth chart line of 2013 top 10 overall WR Austin and third round WR Bailey, which might be a mistake, given how Quick broke out in HIS third year. If you don't want to talk about their WRs, why bring them up?

To give supporting reasons to the above rather than just contextless assertions, is more involved than just saying, Gurley run good, Mason run not as good. For every Telesco, there were 5-10 voices saying it was a great pick and fit (the exception doesn't prove the rule), which they probably wouldn't have done, if Mason was commonly viewed as an upper echelon RB, Gurley not commonly viewed as an elite, blue prospect with vastly more upside, and the pick NOT being of an ill-advised luxury nature.

Agree to disagree.

 

[Rhythmdoctor]

Value check:

I Just traded Mason away for 2.03 and 3.03 in 16 team non-IDP dynasty league.

Thanks for the info. I will soon be a Gurley owner and trying to formulate an offer for Mason.

Yes that is good info and in line with with what I'm trying to get in leagues I own Mason and won't be owning Gurley. Won't be looking for any less.

Also that's close to what most people paid for him last season. So unless you traded for Mason this off-season when his value was at the apex, as disappointing as this has become, if you can pull a trade like this off you can at least recoup the cost of what you paid last year in a similar deep draft.

Yep. I drafted him last year with the 2.06. So I'm actually coming out ahead

 

[Bob Magaw]

why wouldn't they try to get a 2nd or 3rd for mason, while keeping stacy and cunningham as insurance for gurley? Or pick a RB in rounds 5-6.

They could try, but likely would not get a buyer. Mason had a couple of flashes, but he didn't tear it up last year.

Normally not a fan of backing out a long run or big game (he did what he did, why not back out his worst game?), but not hard to see how the thought of a RB like Gurley that could do a better job than Mason of keeping the Rams on schedule in a down and distance sense might be appealing to Fisher.

Without the OAK outburst (14-117, only multiple rushing TD game, and only receiving TD of his rookie season, he only had 648 yards on 165 carries = 3.9 YPC, 2 rushing and 0 receiving TDs. He didn't play the first month (like Stacy in HIS rookie season), but that still only projects to less than 900 yards and 3 rushing/total TDs, FOR THE SEASON. Its not really hard to see why Fisher might have thought Gurley a massive upgrade, Mason was not a great RB and in need of upgrading, and not being OK with "depth".

Not necessary to make the observation that he got 3.9 Y/C or less in 7 of 11 games, it was really just the one outlier game against OAK that heavily skewed his average (and I think it was Cour de Lion, possibly in here or the Gurley thread?) that pointed out it was really the one run, an 89 yarder, that probably caused the most mischief in leading some to believe he had the kind of season you don't take arguably the best RB since Peterson, a potential future All-Pro and Hall of Fame caliber RB like Gurley over. IMO, that would have been an egregious, grave error if Fisher and Snead had thought that, but fortunately they recognized Gurley for what he is, and Mason for what he isn't. Fisher and Snead were quite clear on this in the aftermath, calling Gurley special and a once a decade-type RB prospect (and not Mason), and concurring with Michael Silver that they viewed Gurley as the continuation of a lineage and legacy of in some cases, historically great, Hall of Fame caliber Rams RBs like Dickerson, Bettis, Faulk and Jackson (Fisher also noted in that same interview that he was with the Bears when they had Payton, and coached George, so he has been around other great RBs)

 

[rdrouyn]

Looking to pick up Mason late in redraft, people are expecting for Gurley to start early. I think the Rams will be conservative and keep him out for a few games.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

why wouldn't they try to get a 2nd or 3rd for mason, while keeping stacy and cunningham as insurance for gurley? Or pick a RB in rounds 5-6.

They could try, but likely would not get a buyer. Mason had a couple of flashes, but he didn't tear it up last year.

Normally not a fan of backing out a long run or big game (he did what he did, why not back out his worst game?), but not hard to see how the thought of a RB like Gurley that could do a better job than Mason of keeping the Rams on schedule in a down and distance sense might be appealing to Fisher.

Without the OAK outburst (14-117, only multiple rushing TD game, and only receiving TD of his rookie season, he only had 648 yards on 165 carries = 3.9 YPC, 2 rushing and 0 receiving TDs. He didn't play the first month (like Stacy in HIS rookie season), but that still only projects to less than 900 yards and 3 rushing/total TDs, FOR THE SEASON. Its not really hard to see why Fisher might have thought Gurley a massive upgrade, Mason was not a great RB and in need of upgrading, and not being OK with "depth".

Not necessary to make the observation that he got 3.9 Y/C or less in 7 of 11 games, it was really just the one outlier game against OAK that heavily skewed his average (and I think it was Cour de Lion, possibly in here or the Gurley thread?) that pointed out it was really the one run, an 89 yarder, that probably caused the most mischief in leading some to believe he had the kind of season you don't take arguably the best RB since Peterson, a potential future All-Pro and Hall of Fame caliber RB like Gurley over. IMO, that would have been an egregious, grave error if Fisher and Snead had thought that, but fortunately they recognized Gurley for what he is, and Mason for what he isn't. Fisher and Snead were quite clear on this in the aftermath, calling Gurley special and a once a decade-type RB prospect (and not Mason), and concurring with Michael Silver that they viewed Gurley as the continuation of a lineage and legacy of in some cases, historically great, Hall of Fame caliber Rams RBs like Dickerson, Bettis, Faulk and Jackson (Fisher also noted in that same interview that he was with the Bears when they had Payton, and coached George, so he has been around other great RBs)

The bolded is an awful summary of his season. You fail to mention that in the 12 games that Mason played last year, FIVE of them were against top 7 run defenses. (Seattle x2, SF x2, Denver). He averaged 4.0YPC in those games. He had three more games against WASH and ARI. They ranked 12th and 13th vs the run last year, and for most of the season, ARI was much better than that. He averaged 3.12YPC in those three games. So eight out of twelve games were against good to excellent run defenses. The other four games he averaged 5.78YPC. Stuff like that matters. Immensely. That's especially true when Austin Davis and Shaun Hill are your QB.

I think the majority of people around here believe Mason is good enough to start for many NFL teams. He's a darn good back. I'm sure the Rams just felt Gurley was special. Its called taking the best player on their board. I don't believe its any sort of indictment on Mason.

 

[Slapdash]

Taking away someone's best game is always a silly exercise.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Taking away someone's best game is always a silly exercise.

If without one play (89 yard run) it dramatically changes his Y/C average, and one less game to 3.9 yards for the other 15 games, it is arguable Fisher would think that a silly exercise with absolutely no possible bearing on issues like keeping the offense on schedule in a down and distance sense over the course of a season. In fact, it might be silly to think THAT!

 

[Bob Magaw]

why wouldn't they try to get a 2nd or 3rd for mason, while keeping stacy and cunningham as insurance for gurley? Or pick a RB in rounds 5-6.

They could try, but likely would not get a buyer. Mason had a couple of flashes, but he didn't tear it up last year.

Normally not a fan of backing out a long run or big game (he did what he did, why not back out his worst game?), but not hard to see how the thought of a RB like Gurley that could do a better job than Mason of keeping the Rams on schedule in a down and distance sense might be appealing to Fisher.

Without the OAK outburst (14-117, only multiple rushing TD game, and only receiving TD of his rookie season, he only had 648 yards on 165 carries = 3.9 YPC, 2 rushing and 0 receiving TDs. He didn't play the first month (like Stacy in HIS rookie season), but that still only projects to less than 900 yards and 3 rushing/total TDs, FOR THE SEASON. Its not really hard to see why Fisher might have thought Gurley a massive upgrade, Mason was not a great RB and in need of upgrading, and not being OK with "depth".

Not necessary to make the observation that he got 3.9 Y/C or less in 7 of 11 games, it was really just the one outlier game against OAK that heavily skewed his average (and I think it was Cour de Lion, possibly in here or the Gurley thread?) that pointed out it was really the one run, an 89 yarder, that probably caused the most mischief in leading some to believe he had the kind of season you don't take arguably the best RB since Peterson, a potential future All-Pro and Hall of Fame caliber RB like Gurley over. IMO, that would have been an egregious, grave error if Fisher and Snead had thought that, but fortunately they recognized Gurley for what he is, and Mason for what he isn't. Fisher and Snead were quite clear on this in the aftermath, calling Gurley special and a once a decade-type RB prospect (and not Mason), and concurring with Michael Silver that they viewed Gurley as the continuation of a lineage and legacy of in some cases, historically great, Hall of Fame caliber Rams RBs like Dickerson, Bettis, Faulk and Jackson (Fisher also noted in that same interview that he was with the Bears when they had Payton, and coached George, so he has been around other great RBs)

The bolded is an awful summary of his season. You fail to mention that in the 12 games that Mason played last year, FIVE of them were against top 7 run defenses. (Seattle x2, SF x2, Denver). He averaged 4.0YPC in those games. He had three more games against WASH and ARI. They ranked 12th and 13th vs the run last year, and for most of the season, ARI was much better than that. He averaged 3.12YPC in those three games. So eight out of twelve games were against good to excellent run defenses. The other four games he averaged 5.78YPC. Stuff like that matters. Immensely. That's especially true when Austin Davis and Shaun Hill are your QB.

I think the majority of people around here believe Mason is good enough to start for many NFL teams. He's a darn good back. I'm sure the Rams just felt Gurley was special. Its called taking the best player on their board. I don't believe its any sort of indictment on Mason.

Numbers are numbers, they aren't awful except for the emotional weight you attach to their interpretation. You inexplicably forgot to account for the fact that Mason and the Rams play in the NFC West, so until/unless there is some some kind of divisional realignment, they are going to play SEA, SF and ARI 6 X EVERY SEASON (and guessing they are likely to face more than 0 out of 10 good run defenses on average in the remainder of their schedules from year to year) . If he is consistently mediocre in division and against strong run defenses, and only does well outside the division and against Stay Puft Marshmallow Man-soft run defenses , that isn't exactly an ideal recipe for rocketing to the playoffs. Stuff like that matters. Immensely. Citing Davis and Hill could also undermine menobrown's argument, that they were in need of WR talent. How would we know (when it directly impacted the WRs as well as Mason, if we aren't being arbitrary and one-sided tracing the implications and repercussions of that specific factor in the more global analysis)?

I'm not as sure as you about what the majority think (maybe I'll start a poll, good question). If Gurley can average better than 3.9 Y/C (taking his single most outlier game out of 16, or however many he plays in, Mason was about 12?) for the season, DESPITE playing in the brutal, wood chipper, defensive divisional powerhouse that is the NFC West (tough cookies ), than that would imo be a better example of a genuinely darn good back. Again, it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive that the Rams thought Gurley is special and Mason isn't. You are welcome to your opinion, I just don't agree. Other than the OAK game (or 1/16, more accurately FOR HIM, 1/12 of the schedule), he didn't look like a world beater.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

why wouldn't they try to get a 2nd or 3rd for mason, while keeping stacy and cunningham as insurance for gurley? Or pick a RB in rounds 5-6.

They could try, but likely would not get a buyer. Mason had a couple of flashes, but he didn't tear it up last year.

Normally not a fan of backing out a long run or big game (he did what he did, why not back out his worst game?), but not hard to see how the thought of a RB like Gurley that could do a better job than Mason of keeping the Rams on schedule in a down and distance sense might be appealing to Fisher.

Without the OAK outburst (14-117, only multiple rushing TD game, and only receiving TD of his rookie season, he only had 648 yards on 165 carries = 3.9 YPC, 2 rushing and 0 receiving TDs. He didn't play the first month (like Stacy in HIS rookie season), but that still only projects to less than 900 yards and 3 rushing/total TDs, FOR THE SEASON. Its not really hard to see why Fisher might have thought Gurley a massive upgrade, Mason was not a great RB and in need of upgrading, and not being OK with "depth".

Not necessary to make the observation that he got 3.9 Y/C or less in 7 of 11 games, it was really just the one outlier game against OAK that heavily skewed his average (and I think it was Cour de Lion, possibly in here or the Gurley thread?) that pointed out it was really the one run, an 89 yarder, that probably caused the most mischief in leading some to believe he had the kind of season you don't take arguably the best RB since Peterson, a potential future All-Pro and Hall of Fame caliber RB like Gurley over. IMO, that would have been an egregious, grave error if Fisher and Snead had thought that, but fortunately they recognized Gurley for what he is, and Mason for what he isn't. Fisher and Snead were quite clear on this in the aftermath, calling Gurley special and a once a decade-type RB prospect (and not Mason), and concurring with Michael Silver that they viewed Gurley as the continuation of a lineage and legacy of in some cases, historically great, Hall of Fame caliber Rams RBs like Dickerson, Bettis, Faulk and Jackson (Fisher also noted in that same interview that he was with the Bears when they had Payton, and coached George, so he has been around other great RBs)

The bolded is an awful summary of his season. You fail to mention that in the 12 games that Mason played last year, FIVE of them were against top 7 run defenses. (Seattle x2, SF x2, Denver). He averaged 4.0YPC in those games. He had three more games against WASH and ARI. They ranked 12th and 13th vs the run last year, and for most of the season, ARI was much better than that. He averaged 3.12YPC in those three games. So eight out of twelve games were against good to excellent run defenses. The other four games he averaged 5.78YPC. Stuff like that matters. Immensely. That's especially true when Austin Davis and Shaun Hill are your QB.

I think the majority of people around here believe Mason is good enough to start for many NFL teams. He's a darn good back. I'm sure the Rams just felt Gurley was special. Its called taking the best player on their board. I don't believe its any sort of indictment on Mason.

Numbers are numbers, they aren't awful except for the emotional weight you attach to their interpretation. You inexplicably forgot to account for the fact that Mason and the Rams play in the NFC West, so until/unless there is some some kind of divisional realignment, they are going to play SEA, SF and ARI 6 X EVERY SEASON (and guessing they are likely to face more than 0 out of 10 good run defenses on average in the remainder of their schedules from year to year) . If he is consistently mediocre in division and only does well outside the division, that isn't exactly an ideal recipe for rocketing to the playoffs. Stuff like that matters. Immensely. Citing Davis and Hill could also undermine menobrown's argument, that they were in need of WR talent. How would we know (when it directly impacted the WRs as well as Mason, if we aren't being one-sided tracing the implications and repercussions of that specific factor in the more global analysis)?

I'm not as sure as you about what the majority think (maybe I'll start a poll, good question). If Gurley can average better than 3.9 Y/C (taking his single most outlier game out of 16, or however many he plays in, Mason was about 12?) for the season, DESPITE playing in the brutal, wood chipper, defensive divisional powerhouse that is the NFC West (tough cookies ), than that would imo be a better example of a genuinely darn good back. Again, it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive that the Rams thought Gurley is special and Mason isn't. You are welcome to your opinion, I just don't agree. Other than the OAK game (or 1/16), he didn't look like a world beater.

Clearly you are pretty upset here. I'll back off on the attitude a bit. I'd recommend it for you too.

Hopefully some things we can agree on:

-Starting Austin Davis and Shaun Hill is less than optimal for offensive output. Everybody on the 2014 Rams offense was at a disadvantage because they were awful at the most important position. Moving forward with Nick Foles will likely improve the overall offense.

-The Rams drafted 4 offensive lineman this year. Greg Robinson is moving into year 2. This seems as if the Rams are acknowledging they had a problem, and are likely to be better up front going forward no?

-The SF defense is likely to be a shell of its former self post Willis and Borland.

-Gurley is more talented than Mason, and will likely be the starter once he's ready.

Now for the key point...

Just because the Rams drafted Gurley doesn't mean they don't think Mason is of starting quality. Heck, maybe they feel he's the 15th best back in the whole NFL, but they got a chance to draft a guy they feel will be the best back in the league.

 

[Bob Magaw]

why wouldn't they try to get a 2nd or 3rd for mason, while keeping stacy and cunningham as insurance for gurley? Or pick a RB in rounds 5-6.

They could try, but likely would not get a buyer. Mason had a couple of flashes, but he didn't tear it up last year.

Normally not a fan of backing out a long run or big game (he did what he did, why not back out his worst game?), but not hard to see how the thought of a RB like Gurley that could do a better job than Mason of keeping the Rams on schedule in a down and distance sense might be appealing to Fisher.

Without the OAK outburst (14-117, only multiple rushing TD game, and only receiving TD of his rookie season, he only had 648 yards on 165 carries = 3.9 YPC, 2 rushing and 0 receiving TDs. He didn't play the first month (like Stacy in HIS rookie season), but that still only projects to less than 900 yards and 3 rushing/total TDs, FOR THE SEASON. Its not really hard to see why Fisher might have thought Gurley a massive upgrade, Mason was not a great RB and in need of upgrading, and not being OK with "depth".

Not necessary to make the observation that he got 3.9 Y/C or less in 7 of 11 games, it was really just the one outlier game against OAK that heavily skewed his average (and I think it was Cour de Lion, possibly in here or the Gurley thread?) that pointed out it was really the one run, an 89 yarder, that probably caused the most mischief in leading some to believe he had the kind of season you don't take arguably the best RB since Peterson, a potential future All-Pro and Hall of Fame caliber RB like Gurley over. IMO, that would have been an egregious, grave error if Fisher and Snead had thought that, but fortunately they recognized Gurley for what he is, and Mason for what he isn't. Fisher and Snead were quite clear on this in the aftermath, calling Gurley special and a once a decade-type RB prospect (and not Mason), and concurring with Michael Silver that they viewed Gurley as the continuation of a lineage and legacy of in some cases, historically great, Hall of Fame caliber Rams RBs like Dickerson, Bettis, Faulk and Jackson (Fisher also noted in that same interview that he was with the Bears when they had Payton, and coached George, so he has been around other great RBs)

The bolded is an awful summary of his season. You fail to mention that in the 12 games that Mason played last year, FIVE of them were against top 7 run defenses. (Seattle x2, SF x2, Denver). He averaged 4.0YPC in those games. He had three more games against WASH and ARI. They ranked 12th and 13th vs the run last year, and for most of the season, ARI was much better than that. He averaged 3.12YPC in those three games. So eight out of twelve games were against good to excellent run defenses. The other four games he averaged 5.78YPC. Stuff like that matters. Immensely. That's especially true when Austin Davis and Shaun Hill are your QB.

I think the majority of people around here believe Mason is good enough to start for many NFL teams. He's a darn good back. I'm sure the Rams just felt Gurley was special. Its called taking the best player on their board. I don't believe its any sort of indictment on Mason.

Numbers are numbers, they aren't awful except for the emotional weight you attach to their interpretation. You inexplicably forgot to account for the fact that Mason and the Rams play in the NFC West, so until/unless there is some some kind of divisional realignment, they are going to play SEA, SF and ARI 6 X EVERY SEASON (and guessing they are likely to face more than 0 out of 10 good run defenses on average in the remainder of their schedules from year to year) . If he is consistently mediocre in division and only does well outside the division, that isn't exactly an ideal recipe for rocketing to the playoffs. Stuff like that matters. Immensely. Citing Davis and Hill could also undermine menobrown's argument, that they were in need of WR talent. How would we know (when it directly impacted the WRs as well as Mason, if we aren't being one-sided tracing the implications and repercussions of that specific factor in the more global analysis)?

I'm not as sure as you about what the majority think (maybe I'll start a poll, good question). If Gurley can average better than 3.9 Y/C (taking his single most outlier game out of 16, or however many he plays in, Mason was about 12?) for the season, DESPITE playing in the brutal, wood chipper, defensive divisional powerhouse that is the NFC West (tough cookies ), than that would imo be a better example of a genuinely darn good back. Again, it doesn't have to be mutually exclusive that the Rams thought Gurley is special and Mason isn't. You are welcome to your opinion, I just don't agree. Other than the OAK game (or 1/16), he didn't look like a world beater.

Clearly you are pretty upset here. I'll back off on the attitude a bit. I'd recommend it for you too.

Hopefully some things we can agree on:

-Starting Austin Davis and Shaun Hill is less than optimal for offensive output. Everybody on the 2014 Rams offense was at a disadvantage because they were awful at the most important position. Moving forward with Nick Foles will likely improve the overall offense.

-The Rams drafted 4 offensive lineman this year. Greg Robinson is moving into year 2. This seems as if the Rams are acknowledging they had a problem, and are likely to be better up front going forward no?

-The SF defense is likely to be a shell of its former self post Willis and Borland.

-Gurley is more talented than Mason, and will likely be the starter once he's ready.

Now for the key point...

Just because the Rams drafted Gurley doesn't mean they don't think Mason is of starting quality. Heck, maybe they feel he's the 15th best back in the whole NFL, but they got a chance to draft a guy they feel will be the best back in the league.

Not upset at all, just think it is a serious oversight to mention he didn't do well against SEA, SF and ARI, and fail to account for the fact or point out that will be the case, with two games against each, every year. No attitude. I'd recommend not characterizing the positions of other as awful, or implying "Stuff that matters IMMENSELY" has clumsily, ham handedly been cherry picked out, when some might observe the above was an awful oversight, and an example of leaving out stuff that matters immensely. I won't point it out if it isn't done in the first place. So lets let byegones be bygones going forward.

We do agree about Davis and Hill, in relation to Mason. You still haven't acknowledged how that would also at least equally impact negatively on the Rams incumbent WRs, though, which undermines menobrown's point that the Rams arguably needed a #1 WR more (how would we know, I'd add the ultra-conservative Schottenheimer to the list).

If Gurley is massively better than Mason, which is my contention of what Fisher (and the rest of the league, except for the occasional quirky, idiosyncratic, fringe take like Telesco) thinks, than he should be able to far better leverage the wealth and profusion of draft capital just spent on OL resources, than Mason would have been able to. IMO.

Willis has been a declining player with eroding skills. Hall of Famer, imo, but didn't make the Pro Bowl last year, or All-Pro the past two seasons (after making it in five of the preceding six seasons from '07-'12). I thought Bowman had already passed him, he was First team All-Pro in his last three years prior to the ACL injury, '11-'13. They get Bowman back. Borland was great, but Aldon Smith has been set back in recent seasons by suspension and off field trouble, after breaking Reggie White's NFL record for most sacks in first 32 (?) games. If his troubles are behind him, he has All-Pro talent. I actually think the loss of Justin Smith, if he retires, will be felt more than Borland, who some thought was a liability in coverage, certainly relative to Bowman (I realize he had 1-2 INTs). So it isn't any more clear to me that the SF defense will be a shell of its former self, than much of the rest of what you have noted above and here. And none of this addresses the fact that the Rams also face strong defenses in SEA and ARI.

Drafting Gurley absolutely COULD bear directly on the Rams potentially not being as enthused about Mason's long term prospects as a feature RB in Fisher's offense, as some others in the thread.

I did think your question was important and interesting, and could also be instructive and useful. How many teams could Mason start for?

"I think the majority of people around here believe Mason is good enough to start for many NFL teams."

First of all, not sure how many people you actually speak for (thus the poll). Naturally, in a Mason thread, some may be higher on him here than in the board at large? Be that as it may, many is a bit vague. Even if you intended the meaning as HALF (more, less?), that is kind of a definition of a mediocre STARTER. Not among all RBs, but as a starter, if he is better than half, worse than half, and sort of in the middle, that is pretty much the definition of AVERAGE, again, as a starter. Until vetted a little more, it is unestablished and therefore unclear if there even is a majority that thinks what you think it does.

Again, I completely respect your right to your opinion (even though not agreeing with it), just imo we should be careful about throwing out statements like these as if they are givens, and not what they are (opinions), and taking assumptions for granted without examing them. It doesn't have to be personal if you don't like the responses I'm bringing to the thread (don't kill the messenger ), we can exchange information disapassionately, and ideally the other contributors to and participants in the thread can make up their own minds, if you, menobrown or I are marshalling and summoning more compelling points to support our respective views. Or even pick and choose from multiple perspectives, incorporating stronger points and eliminating weaker ones, as they see fit?

If Mason is as good as you think he is, he will bear up under the most rigorous scrutiny we can collectively bring. And if he isn't, than potentially shedding light on that and being collectively more well informed on his actual station among the 32 starting RBs in the league is imo a worthwhile goal.

* Obviously ridiculously early in a poll with just 8 votes in so far, but early returns are 0 think he could start for more than half the 32 teams, 3 (or less than a majority) think he is an average starter, if we define that as thinking he is square in the middle of starting RBs league-wide, and the other five (a majority) think he is below average, if we define that as varying degrees of being able to start over less than half, and maybe as few as a third, quarter or tenth of his counterparts and peers.

Actually, the poll has a gap between 1/2 and 2/3 (I didn't want to get bogged down in too many options). Clearly anybody who voted less than 50% wouldn't have voted for some intermediate, unrepresented band higher than 1/2 but lower than 2/3. Some of the three (when I last checked) may have voted for a hypothetical figure higher than 1/2 but lower than 2/3 (3/5?), but it still wouldn't constitute a "majority".

 

[FF Ninja]

Taking away someone's best game is always a silly exercise.

Always? Seems like people should've listened to those of us who were skeptical about Doug Martin w/o his insane Oakland game.

Sometimes it is good to remove the best and worst games and see how that shakes out.

As for this debate about taking a RB or WR, I've got to side with the WR because you can play at least two of them for 100% of your offensive snaps. If you drop an early pick on RB while you've already got a third down specialist, you just gained some utility on maybe 40 snaps.

I understand the Gurley pick here due to offensive philosophy, but in general, spending a high pick on RB when you've already got an above average back results in very little overall gain. RBs also have shorter shelf life. In this case, I think Mason was merely average.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Taking away someone's best game is always a silly exercise.

Always? Seems like people should've listened to those of us who were skeptical about Doug Martin w/o his insane Oakland game.Sometimes it is good to remove the best and worst games and see how that shakes out.

As for this debate about taking a RB or WR, I've got to side with the WR because you can play at least two of them for 100% of your offensive snaps. If you drop an early pick on RB while you've already got a third down specialist, you just gained some utility on maybe 40 snaps.

I understand the Gurley pick here due to offensive philosophy, but in general, spending a high pick on RB when you've already got an above average back results in very little overall gain. RBs also have shorter shelf life. In this case, I think Mason was merely average.

Agree, while one should be careful and it could be misleading in some cases, there might be others when an extreme outlier play or game dramatically changes the OVERALL stats of what happened during the majority of the season, and could be similarly misleading.

I get what you (and menobrown) are saying about a team starting two WRs and one RB, and I think to the extent a team passes more, that criteria is a sensible one and should be weighed more heavily. To a Neanderthal like Fisher who wants to slam RBs, it could be less of a factor. While in theory several WRs can see the field on virtually 100% of the offensive snaps, in practice, in a Fisher offense, maybe they would throw to Parker 3-4 X a game? Even if Gurley is the only starting RB, if he is significantly better than Mason, and gets 100% of the lead back carries (say 18-20, give or take a few) that would otherwise have gone to the less talented Mason, Gurley could have a bigger OVERALL impact, again, in a run heavy Fisher scheme.

I also especially agree with the last sentence (outside of Mason's already highlighted outlier OAK game). That's exactly what I've been saying, Gurley could be special, Mason wasn't (except for the one game scoring outburst), so it shouldn't have been a surprise that Gurley might be irresistible to a HC notoriously gung ho about the run game like Fisher. That he might see in him a faster, more explosive, athletic and talented Eddie George, and covet Gurley to be a similar focal point and centerpiece of the offense.

* Good point about how it is important to measure the potential NET GAIN of adding a prospective #10 overall pick in terms of the INCREMENTAL production they will add, over and above what you already had at the position. On this basis, you can only start one RB, so in this case, Mason will be shunted to backup detail (actually, he could be an important, albeit lesser than Gurley when healthy, component of a RBBC, and a competent 2 part of a 1-2 punch), whereas two WRs can start, so the #1 WR, I think Britt currently, wouldn't similarly or in a parallel fashion be reduced to a reserve, depth role.

While you raised the point, the rest is really addressed more to the rest of the thread. Because I see the issue being exactly the same, as it pertains to the current #2 WR, I think Brian Quick, if healthy (though some depth charts may list Austin). If he would have been the starter, and drafting Parker makes him a backup, or pushes him further down the depth chart to #3 WR, than you also have to, in the interest of consistency of method and symmetry, measure how much incremental production over and above Quick that Parker would have provided? And again, this is in a Fisher, run first offense. Quick was pacing for about 1,000 yards and 8 TDs through six games before suffering his shoulder injury (I know you pointed out something similar, possibly in a Britt thread?). So to me, it isn't clear Parker could have done a lot better than THAT, in terms of net incremental gain, IN A FISHER RUN FIRST OFFENSE, dividing receptions with Britt, Quick (as #3 WR), Austin and/or Bailey, Cook, Kendricks, Gurley, etc.

In this scenario, it is very possible Gurley could add more NET INCREMENTAL GAIN over and above what Mason would hypothetically have done (than Parker over Quick).

 

[georg013]

Mason owners are still in denial. Let me lay it out for them. The Rams organization (a real NFL franchise) isnt as high on Mason as you are (a fake franchise owner). So they drafted Gurley to carry the load. Mason will regain value after he finishes his rookie contract and moves to another team or Gurley gets hurt.

 

[FF Ninja]

Bob, was anyone actually saying STL should've spent the #10 on a WR? I'd honestly have been more shocked if they did that than Gurley. I was just speaking in general, treating the discussion as a hypothetical question, not about the Rams. RB is generally devalued in modern offenses, thus if you've got players capable of filling the position*, it would be shocking to see most teams drop such a high pick on the position. However, as I've already conceded, in a Fisher offense, this draft pick makes sense. Specifically, in the context of this particular team, drafting a WR @ #10 would've been shocking due to the current roster. Quick looked like the real deal last year and Britt also looked like a legitimate NFL starter. Tavon will likely never live up to his draft position, but he's certainly got usable strengths. And Bailey appears deserving of some snaps. Given that kind of depth on a team that doesn't pass very much, drafting a WR would've been bizarre.

*In most offenses, I think the combo of Mason, Stacy, and Cunningham would absolutely allow the team to fill other needs early in the draft.

As I stated in the other thread, I think Mason would only present an upgrade for about 5 NFL teams. I don't think he's outstanding but given most teams' philosophy, I find it totally understandable that it was shocking for a lot of people on first glance to see a team take the 5th (?) RB in the draft one year, watch him have a decent rookie season, and then take the 1st RB in the next draft. But really that shock should wear off quickly once people think about it for a little bit and consider this particular team's overall approach to the game. If Gurley lives up to his hype and an elite RB replaces an average RB, this team will function much better given its design.

 

[zamboni]

Mason owners are still in denial. Let me lay it out for them. The Rams organization (a real NFL franchise) isnt as high on Mason as you are (a fake franchise owner). So they drafted Gurley to carry the load. Mason will regain value after he finishes his rookie contract and moves to another team or Gurley gets hurt.

Fair points. As a Mason owner, I was also obviously very disappointed in the Rams drafting Gurley, but have moved on. In hindsight, the fantasy community probably got overly enamored with Mason, mainly because he stole the job from Stacy (after his own very good rookie year) and Mason himself had a couple of very strong games this year. But looking back, Fisher never really seemed to come out and say that they want to build the offense around Mason - that is something we speculated with a poor QB and relatively weak WR situation.

By the time Mason hits FA his value may be that of just another guy - I wouldn't base my hopes that he'll the attention like a Michael Turner once did.

 

[cstu]

By the time Mason hits FA his value may be that of just another guy - I wouldn't base my hopes that he'll the attention like a Michael Turner once did.

Impossible to say what his value will be as a free agent but he'll be younger than Lacy is right now and 6 months older than CJ Anderson.

When he was a free agent Turner was 2.5 years older than Mason will be.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

Mason owners are still in denial. Let me lay it out for them. The Rams organization (a real NFL franchise) isnt as high on Mason as you are (a fake franchise owner). So they drafted Gurley to carry the load. Mason will regain value after he finishes his rookie contract and moves to another team or Gurley gets hurt.

I've seen two recent Mason deals. Thought both of them were very similarly valued, and seemed fair.

Mason for David Johnson (upthread)

Mason for 2.3, 3.3 12 team non devy league.

Let me lay this out for you. You have no idea what the Rams organization thinks of Mason. As I tried to explain to Bob upthread, the Rams could very well have him rated as anywhere from the 10th best back in the league to the 50th. We just don't know. What I do think is obvious is that they feel Gurley is a special player. My guess is they feel he can/will be the best RB in the league in a short time.

 

[Tango]

Has there really not been one word from Soulfly in here since draft day?

 

[zamboni]

By the time Mason hits FA his value may be that of just another guy - I wouldn't base my hopes that he'll the attention like a Michael Turner once did.

Impossible to say what his value will be as a free agent but he'll be younger than Lacy is right now and 6 months older than CJ Anderson.

When he was a free agent Turner was 2.5 years older than Mason will be.

The age wasn't really the point - more so about how other teams view Mason three years from now. Very few free agents are signed away as starting RBs, and if Mason barely touches the field because Gurley emerges as a stud, I don't see teams lining up to make him a starter when they can draft a new model.

Of course, that's a long ways away and a lot can happen.

 

[Holy Schneikes]

By the time Mason hits FA his value may be that of just another guy - I wouldn't base my hopes that he'll the attention like a Michael Turner once did.

Impossible to say what his value will be as a free agent but he'll be younger than Lacy is right now and 6 months older than CJ Anderson.

When he was a free agent Turner was 2.5 years older than Mason will be.

The age wasn't really the point - more so about how other teams view Mason three years from now. Very few free agents are signed away as starting RBs, and if Mason barely touches the field because Gurley emerges as a stud, I don't see teams lining up to make him a starter when they can draft a new model.

Of course, that's a long ways away and a lot can happen.

I'm an owner and his value was CRUSHED. I'm trying to be realistic about it. That said, I'm not sure how to quantify "very few FAs are signed away to be starting RBs". It does happen. And trades happen too, though more rarely.

Murray was just signed to be a starter.

Gore was just signed to be a starter.

Blount was signed to be a starter last year. Kinda.

Turner was the classic example.

McCoy was just traded away to be a starter.

Lynch did OK as was traded.

Steven Jackson was signed to be a starter a while back.

MJD was signed to be a starter.

Given the fact that RB careers are so short it's no surprise that a good chunk of the time, a guy's prime years are spent with the team that drafted him. That's where Mason's age is a factor. He will still be fairly young and won't have a ton of mileage if he has to be a back up for a while.

Don't get me wrong, this still is beyond terrible for his value, but there is still some hope that he might have an opportunity to shine with another team at some point. Just depends on whether or not you believe in his talent. If you believe that the RAMS believe that Gurley is an Adrian Peterson level talent, there is a LOT of room between that and an average starter in the NFL, and they could still believe that Mason is starter material even though they don't plan to use him that way.

 

[DLR]

If Gurley is the new Peterson then Mason is the new Chester Taylor.

 

[zamboni]

By the time Mason hits FA his value may be that of just another guy - I wouldn't base my hopes that he'll the attention like a Michael Turner once did.

Impossible to say what his value will be as a free agent but he'll be younger than Lacy is right now and 6 months older than CJ Anderson.

When he was a free agent Turner was 2.5 years older than Mason will be.

The age wasn't really the point - more so about how other teams view Mason three years from now. Very few free agents are signed away as starting RBs, and if Mason barely touches the field because Gurley emerges as a stud, I don't see teams lining up to make him a starter when they can draft a new model.Of course, that's a long ways away and a lot can happen.

I'm an owner and his value was CRUSHED. I'm trying to be realistic about it. That said, I'm not sure how to quantify "very few FAs are signed away to be starting RBs". It does happen. And trades happen too, though more rarely.Murray was just signed to be a starter.

Gore was just signed to be a starter.

Blount was signed to be a starter last year. Kinda.

Turner was the classic example.

McCoy was just traded away to be a starter.

Lynch did OK as was traded.

Steven Jackson was signed to be a starter a while back.

MJD was signed to be a starter.

Given the fact that RB careers are so short it's no surprise that a good chunk of the time, a guy's prime years are spent with the team that drafted him. That's where Mason's age is a factor. He will still be fairly young and won't have a ton of mileage if he has to be a back up for a while.

Don't get me wrong, this still is beyond terrible for his value, but there is still some hope that he might have an opportunity to shine with another team at some point. Just depends on whether or not you believe in his talent. If you believe that the RAMS believe that Gurley is an Adrian Peterson level talent, there is a LOT of room between that and an average starter in the NFL, and they could still believe that Mason is starter material even though they don't plan to use him that way.

The difference of course between the Murrays, Gores, etc and Mason is that the former were proven studs while three years from now, barring a bad Gurley injury, Mason will be a languishing backup with little body of work to show.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

By the time Mason hits FA his value may be that of just another guy - I wouldn't base my hopes that he'll the attention like a Michael Turner once did.

Impossible to say what his value will be as a free agent but he'll be younger than Lacy is right now and 6 months older than CJ Anderson.

When he was a free agent Turner was 2.5 years older than Mason will be.

The age wasn't really the point - more so about how other teams view Mason three years from now. Very few free agents are signed away as starting RBs, and if Mason barely touches the field because Gurley emerges as a stud, I don't see teams lining up to make him a starter when they can draft a new model.Of course, that's a long ways away and a lot can happen.

I'm an owner and his value was CRUSHED. I'm trying to be realistic about it. That said, I'm not sure how to quantify "very few FAs are signed away to be starting RBs". It does happen. And trades happen too, though more rarely.Murray was just signed to be a starter.

Gore was just signed to be a starter.

Blount was signed to be a starter last year. Kinda.

Turner was the classic example.

McCoy was just traded away to be a starter.

Lynch did OK as was traded.

Steven Jackson was signed to be a starter a while back.

MJD was signed to be a starter.

Given the fact that RB careers are so short it's no surprise that a good chunk of the time, a guy's prime years are spent with the team that drafted him. That's where Mason's age is a factor. He will still be fairly young and won't have a ton of mileage if he has to be a back up for a while.

Don't get me wrong, this still is beyond terrible for his value, but there is still some hope that he might have an opportunity to shine with another team at some point. Just depends on whether or not you believe in his talent. If you believe that the RAMS believe that Gurley is an Adrian Peterson level talent, there is a LOT of room between that and an average starter in the NFL, and they could still believe that Mason is starter material even though they don't plan to use him that way.

The difference of course between the Murrays, Gores, etc and Mason is that the former were proven studs while three years from now, barring a bad Gurley injury, Mason will be a languishing backup with little body of work to show.

If he looks good even on limited touches, then it's definitely possible that he gets first crack somewhere -- ie Ben Tate and Toby Gerhardt last year. Neither of those ended up working out, but that wasn't d/t not getting an opportunity.

 

[Kitrick Taylor]

By the time Mason hits FA his value may be that of just another guy - I wouldn't base my hopes that he'll the attention like a Michael Turner once did.

Impossible to say what his value will be as a free agent but he'll be younger than Lacy is right now and 6 months older than CJ Anderson.

When he was a free agent Turner was 2.5 years older than Mason will be.

The age wasn't really the point - more so about how other teams view Mason three years from now. Very few free agents are signed away as starting RBs, and if Mason barely touches the field because Gurley emerges as a stud, I don't see teams lining up to make him a starter when they can draft a new model.Of course, that's a long ways away and a lot can happen.

I'm an owner and his value was CRUSHED. I'm trying to be realistic about it. That said, I'm not sure how to quantify "very few FAs are signed away to be starting RBs". It does happen. And trades happen too, though more rarely.Murray was just signed to be a starter.

Gore was just signed to be a starter.

Blount was signed to be a starter last year. Kinda.

Turner was the classic example.

McCoy was just traded away to be a starter.

Lynch did OK as was traded.

Steven Jackson was signed to be a starter a while back.

MJD was signed to be a starter.

Given the fact that RB careers are so short it's no surprise that a good chunk of the time, a guy's prime years are spent with the team that drafted him. That's where Mason's age is a factor. He will still be fairly young and won't have a ton of mileage if he has to be a back up for a while.

Don't get me wrong, this still is beyond terrible for his value, but there is still some hope that he might have an opportunity to shine with another team at some point. Just depends on whether or not you believe in his talent. If you believe that the RAMS believe that Gurley is an Adrian Peterson level talent, there is a LOT of room between that and an average starter in the NFL, and they could still believe that Mason is starter material even though they don't plan to use him that way.

The difference of course between the Murrays, Gores, etc and Mason is that the former were proven studs while three years from now, barring a bad Gurley injury or any one of about a dozen different possible outcomes, Mason will be a languishing backup with little body of work to show.

fixed.

 

[Bob Magaw]

Bob, was anyone actually saying STL should've spent the #10 on a WR? I'd honestly have been more shocked if they did that than Gurley. I was just speaking in general, treating the discussion as a hypothetical question, not about the Rams. RB is generally devalued in modern offenses, thus if you've got players capable of filling the position*, it would be shocking to see most teams drop such a high pick on the position. However, as I've already conceded, in a Fisher offense, this draft pick makes sense. Specifically, in the context of this particular team, drafting a WR @ #10 would've been shocking due to the current roster. Quick looked like the real deal last year and Britt also looked like a legitimate NFL starter. Tavon will likely never live up to his draft position, but he's certainly got usable strengths. And Bailey appears deserving of some snaps. Given that kind of depth on a team that doesn't pass very much, drafting a WR would've been bizarre.

*In most offenses, I think the combo of Mason, Stacy, and Cunningham would absolutely allow the team to fill other needs early in the draft.

As I stated in the other thread, I think Mason would only present an upgrade for about 5 NFL teams. I don't think he's outstanding but given most teams' philosophy, I find it totally understandable that it was shocking for a lot of people on first glance to see a team take the 5th (?) RB in the draft one year, watch him have a decent rookie season, and then take the 1st RB in the next draft. But really that shock should wear off quickly once people think about it for a little bit and consider this particular team's overall approach to the game. If Gurley lives up to his hype and an elite RB replaces an average RB, this team will function much better given its design.

Sorry for the long post, maybe skip or skim the first paragraph if you like, it just conveys my thought process on the draft choices presented to the Rams at #10. The shorter remainder and balance of the post addresses more of your points.

FF Ninja, I can only hazard a guess based on things like media and mock draft consensus information, here and at a Rams board I follow. Gurley was not on the radar for most (and probably virtually nobody could have guessed he was #1 or #2 on their board). Many thought if Cooper or White had dropped (which always seemed far fetched to me), one of them would probably be the pick. If they were gone, than I think OL was probably the next most popular option, perhaps with a trade down (which proved true, but wrong round, and it did turn out to be a sound strategy, they manipulated the draft to manufacture another third which became hopeful backup QB Mannion, and were in position to draft highly graded OL like A.J. Cann in the second round, Tre Jackson and T.J. Clemmings in the third or fourth, the Rams opted for other OL like Havenstein and Brown that they preferred for their own reasons). There was a concern that it wasn't a strong OL class, and without a trade down could entail a positional reach, so it might be a better example of BPA to take WR Parker, CB Waynes or even DE Dupree. If an OL, some thought Peat would be the best fit. Other than Dupree, who went in the 20s to PIT, they went #14 (MIA), #11 (MIN) and #13 (NO), so I think we had a pretty good collective sense of what represented value at that juncture in the draft. I didn't want Peat, too many questions about effort, want to, toughness, physicality for my taste (maybe misplaced, but rumblings were there, otherwise much to like, probably the most pro ready pass blocking LT technically and in terms of size, skill and game). I liked Scherff, who was projected to NYG far more than any other team. Some thought he would be a massive reach at #10 as many scouts saw him as a guard, but I think WAS taking the former Iowa Outland Trophy winner (a HOGEYE!) and starting him off as bookend to serial Pro Bowl LT Trent Williams showed he was a legit top 10 prospect. Lately, there was buzz that the Giants had their sights set on Flowers, and I thought whoever the Giants didn't take between Scherff and Flowers might become a Ram. Some also thought Flowers would be a reach (graded out as third rounder in some cases, though consensus probably in the 20s?), but I thought like Scherff, his size, power, physicality, attitude and ability to be a TONE SETTER for an OL would make him attractive to teams like the Giants and Rams, and he did end up going #9. Flowers also has a lot of upside (about two and a half years younger than Scherff, some think he has better tools to eventually play LT - unusual OL combo of strongest [38 reps] and fastest 10 yard split [1.78?]).

You were clear on your position, like I said, I treated it like you bringing up a good point, but I than used that as a launching pad to address the point to the thread in general, as others had suggested that perhaps Parker (or another position, maybe OL, would have made more sense). I noted your cognizance and acknowledgement of Quick's breakout. I was just making the point that, although a team generally starts one RB and two (or three) WRs, Parker rendering an incumbent starting #2 WR like Quick a backup is really no different than Gurley rendering an incumbent starting RB like Mason a backup.

It looks like based on the poll, the consensus expectation is that Mason could start for about 8-12 teams, or roughly 1/4-1/3. IF Gurley is as good as advertised and the best at his position since Peterson, than he could play for possibly 30-32 teams in a few years. I'll leave it to others to figure out if that would be better in a lot of cases, but agreed that in the case of the Rams, we are both preaching to the converted with each other in thinking that it was eminently sensible for a Jeff Fisher offense to get a better Eddie George, this exchange was perhaps recommended to the attention of the thread at large, for what its worth.

* I suppose something like this happened with CIN as recently as 2013 and 2014, though Jeremy Hill not comparable to Gurley as a prospect (but Giovani Bernard graded higher than Mason). The parallel being CIN spent relatively high draft capital (second round picks in consecutive drafts) to take the highest graded RB in Bernard's class, and Hill was within a few picks of Sankey and Hyde as the top RB in HIS class. I don't recall if the Hill pick was questioned as loudly, probably not because a low second not the same as a high first. Hill definitely justified and validated/vindicated the pick, quickly overtaking Bernard and becoming one of the better, more promising young RBs in the league as a rookie. I expect, contingent on health, Gurley to do the same.

** BTW, if the Rams OL improves, I can see Mason doing better, having improved metrics, and than others thinking he is a better RB. Sometimes, though we like to think we are good at compartmentalizing and keeping separate these considerations (Mason's latent/inherent/intrinsic ability, and how that is filtered through his surroundings), in actuality, if he does better, for whatever reasons, we will collectively probably think higher of him. A better OL should create better conditions and circumstances from within which to excel.