Which current backup RBs will be starters in the future? (1 Viewer)

[doowain]

Pierce/Tate/Turbin/Vereen/Gerhart are probably the most talented and able to put up at least RB2 numbers. But people aren't blind with these guys, so it might not be cost-effective to acquire them. Gerhart would be the exception except that he's most likely owned by the AP owner already.

Mostly agree, except I'd add Bryce Brown to that list and take out Vereen. Vereen has been pretty quiet after two years in the league. It seems like nobody was high on him until he had that one great playoff game. I don't think one good game on a national stage makes up for two years of anonymity. He has 77 carries on his career and not a single run of 20+ yards. He has some value as a pass catcher, but I think he's the third best rusher on his own team.

Vereen's "anonymity" has been more a product of not staying healthy. Not ineffectiveness.

 

[humpback]

^^ Bernard Pierce is 22 yrs old.

Yes, but the point is he will be 23 in May and rice is 26. The ages are too close considering that Rice is pretty much a consensus elite talent. By the time Rice starts wearing down, at 30-31 or whatever it may be, a 27-28 year old Pierce won't be the next coming; he will be the bridge player for the 21-22 year old rookie the team drafts. The other option is Pierce leaves when his contract finishes, which puts him at 25 going on 26 that May which is right in that fringe area. It just has the looks of one of those scenarios where the bad combo of age/opportunity kinda washes out what could have been. Very JSTEW-like.

Don't mean to stir up the "mileage" debate again, but Rice has a ton of touches in his career. He had over 400 his senior year in college, and he's made the post-season in every one of his 5 NFL seasons. I love the guy and by no means am I predicting his wheels falling off, but just pointing out that he could start wearing down before 30-31. We'll see what happens next year, but his numbers came down a decent amount last season. If Pierce is legit, I think the latest he gets his shot is in 3 years after this contract, either in Baltimore or elsewhere. I don't see a JStew scenario where they both re-sign again.

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

^^ Bernard Pierce is 22 yrs old.

Yes, but the point is he will be 23 in May and rice is 26. The ages are too close considering that Rice is pretty much a consensus elite talent. By the time Rice starts wearing down, at 30-31 or whatever it may be, a 27-28 year old Pierce won't be the next coming; he will be the bridge player for the 21-22 year old rookie the team drafts. The other option is Pierce leaves when his contract finishes, which puts him at 25 going on 26 that May which is right in that fringe area. It just has the looks of one of those scenarios where the bad combo of age/opportunity kinda washes out what could have been. Very JSTEW-like.

Don't mean to stir up the "mileage" debate again, but Rice has a ton of touches in his career. He had over 400 his senior year in college, and he's made the post-season in every one of his 5 NFL seasons. I love the guy and by no means am I predicting his wheels falling off, but just pointing out that he could start wearing down before 30-31. We'll see what happens next year, but his numbers came down a decent amount last season. If Pierce is legit, I think the latest he gets his shot is in 3 years after this contract, either in Baltimore or elsewhere. I don't see a JStew scenario where they both re-sign again.

Have to look at what Ozzy does too, no issue letting a vet walk once he has a replacement in waiting. Pierce IMO is the real deal, could be the starter in 2014~ish.

 

[JFS171]

I agree - I'd love to own Pierce on my bench. Guy looked really, really good to me.

One thing on Dwyer - everyone has said it seems to be completely on him whether or not he gets himself in shape and starts taking advantage of his natural talent. Does anyone else perceive his ultra-quick signing of his RFA tender as a positive?

He literally signed the tender in less than 24 hours, which said one of two things:

1) He sees the opportunity ahead of him, got a taste of success last year, and knows if he knocks it out of the park this offseason, shows up in shape, and plays to his abiity, he's got a starting RB gig in the NFL for one of it's traditional RB powerhouses. A chance to carry on the tradition, if you will.

OR

2) He really felt the RFA tender was the best he was going to do, and didn't think anyone else would sign him and offer more.

Certainly there's a chance it's some of both, but as an owner (trying not to have rose-colored glasses), I took it as a sign he wanted to put the contract situation behind him and get to work.

 

[cstu]

I agree - I'd love to own Pierce on my bench. Guy looked really, really good to me.One thing on Dwyer - everyone has said it seems to be completely on him whether or not he gets himself in shape and starts taking advantage of his natural talent. Does anyone else perceive his ultra-quick signing of his RFA tender as a positive?He literally signed the tender in less than 24 hours, which said one of two things:1) He sees the opportunity ahead of him, got a taste of success last year, and knows if he knocks it out of the park this offseason, shows up in shape, and plays to his abiity, he's got a starting RB gig in the NFL for one of it's traditional RB powerhouses. A chance to carry on the tradition, if you will.OR2) He really felt the RFA tender was the best he was going to do, and didn't think anyone else would sign him and offer more.Certainly there's a chance it's some of both, but as an owner (trying not to have rose-colored glasses), I took it as a sign he wanted to put the contract situation behind him and get to work.

We have no way of knowing either way but I do like the fact that he's a family man now. Hopefully with a wife who is kicking his ### and reminding him not to blow his opportunity. Work ethic IMO is the number reason he's not a starter in the NFL so either he gets that and becomes one or he stays a backup the rest of his career. The good news is that we'll know soon enough.

 

[Dinsy Ejotuz]

Pierce/Tate/Turbin/Vereen/Gerhart are probably the most talented and able to put up at least RB2 numbers. But people aren't blind with these guys, so it might not be cost-effective to acquire them. Gerhart would be the exception except that he's most likely owned by the AP owner already.

Mostly agree, except I'd add Bryce Brown to that list and take out Vereen. Vereen has been pretty quiet after two years in the league. It seems like nobody was high on him until he had that one great playoff game. I don't think one good game on a national stage makes up for two years of anonymity. He has 77 carries on his career and not a single run of 20+ yards. He has some value as a pass catcher, but I think he's the third best rusher on his own team.

Vereen's "anonymity" has been more a product of not staying healthy. Not ineffectiveness.

I'm not so sure that's true. I really think Vereen is a career role player. He just doesn't do anything well enough to grab a starting role.

 

[Nucker101]

Just based on talent, I like these guys:

Bernard Pierce

Ben Tate

Bryce Brown(if he can hold onto the ball)

Toby Gerhart

Chris Ivory

Robert Turbin

I like other backups like Vereen, Hunter, Hillman, etc. as well, but more as RBCC type of players because of their size.

 

[Shutout]

There's just too many different directions (other than Moreno) that Denver can go in at this point that it's tough to get a read right now:

1. McGahee is still on the roster. He's 32 but still looked very effective the last two seasons.

2. Hillman started getting some run late in the year - looked decent in the playoffs.

3. The interest in Mendenhall (if it really existed) could mean other veterans will be looked at - if D. Williams gets released by Carolina, Fox could show interest.

4. The NFL draft could further complicate things.

I saw a RB with little power. I wouldn't describe it as decent but that's just me...

He gained chunks of yardage running up the middle late in the game. I'm only saying he looked decent, not elite. I'm also not trying to imply that he'll be the bellcow back, just that his CoP role may increase thus taking away some of Moreno's potential production, since most of it was a result of volume.I'm not down on Moreno, I'm just not partiularly high on him either. I get the feeling he's really not a big part of the Broncos plans based on some things I've read - but honestly I really have no idea what's going to happen there, which was the general point of that post.

I think people are sleeping on Moreno (reasons listed above and FF Ninja summed it up nicely adding a few things). I know all we heard going into last season was Moreno had no role, he might be traded, he might be cut, the guys here that go to Denver practices and report what they saw were seeing nothing special,etc. but then, when it counted coming down the last month and a half of the season, there he was...doing all the things we had been mentioning he might be adept to do in a manning offense. I know...I get it...looks very iffy, but I think he is worth a roll of the dice more than a lot of guys being talked up.

 

[gonzobill5]

Just based on talent, I like these guys:

Bernard Pierce

Ben Tate

Bryce Brown(if he can hold onto the ball)

Toby Gerhart

Chris Ivory

Robert Turbin

I like other backups like Vereen, Hunter, Hillman, etc. as well, but more as RBCC type of players because of their size.

A lot of people are excited about Pierce, not sure if everyone knows his background. http://articles.philly.com/2013-01-28/sports/36579111_1_glen-mills-school-school-employee-auto-accident'>Pierce turns his life around

The kid has 3 down back talent. Would have likely went to a better school and gotten drafted earlier were it not for the assault.

 

[jonboltz]

Pierce/Tate/Turbin/Vereen/Gerhart are probably the most talented and able to put up at least RB2 numbers. But people aren't blind with these guys, so it might not be cost-effective to acquire them. Gerhart would be the exception except that he's most likely owned by the AP owner already.

Mostly agree, except I'd add Bryce Brown to that list and take out Vereen. Vereen has been pretty quiet after two years in the league. It seems like nobody was high on him until he had that one great playoff game. I don't think one good game on a national stage makes up for two years of anonymity. He has 77 carries on his career and not a single run of 20+ yards. He has some value as a pass catcher, but I think he's the third best rusher on his own team.

Vereen's "anonymity" has been more a product of not staying healthy. Not ineffectiveness.

I'm not so sure that's true. I really think Vereen is a career role player. He just doesn't do anything well enough to grab a starting role.

I don't care about your opinion of Vereens talent. So if you are going to reply to my post please try to keep it on topic.

Sure thing Mr. Dodds. We can keep it to Vereen's health if you like. It's your board after all.

No reason to get snarky. I just don't see the point of you giving your opinion on his talent when I was commenting on his inability to stay healthy. There were other posts discussing his talent that you could've replied to.

The post he replied to included you saying that Vereen wasn't "ineffective". He was just disagreeing with that point, and it absolutely had to do with talent.

 

[doowain]

I don't care about your opinion of Vereens talent. So if you are going to reply to my post please try to keep it on topic.

Sure thing Mr. Dodds. We can keep it to Vereen's health if you like. It's your board after all.

No reason to get snarky. I just don't see the point of you giving your opinion on his talent when I was commenting on his inability to stay healthy. There were other posts discussing his talent that you could've replied to.

The post he replied to included you saying that Vereen wasn't "ineffective". He was just disagreeing with that point, and it absolutely had to do with talent.

Well, then it makes even less sense, as he most certainly has been effective when healthy. And I'd assume that has quite a bit to do with his talent.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

There's just too many different directions (other than Moreno) that Denver can go in at this point that it's tough to get a read right now:

1. McGahee is still on the roster. He's 32 but still looked very effective the last two seasons.

2. Hillman started getting some run late in the year - looked decent in the playoffs.

3. The interest in Mendenhall (if it really existed) could mean other veterans will be looked at - if D. Williams gets released by Carolina, Fox could show interest.

4. The NFL draft could further complicate things.

I saw a RB with little power. I wouldn't describe it as decent but that's just me...

He gained chunks of yardage running up the middle late in the game. I'm only saying he looked decent, not elite. I'm also not trying to imply that he'll be the bellcow back, just that his CoP role may increase thus taking away some of Moreno's potential production, since most of it was a result of volume.I'm not down on Moreno, I'm just not partiularly high on him either. I get the feeling he's really not a big part of the Broncos plans based on some things I've read - but honestly I really have no idea what's going to happen there, which was the general point of that post.

I think people are sleeping on Moreno (reasons listed above and FF Ninja summed it up nicely adding a few things). I know all we heard going into last season was Moreno had no role, he might be traded, he might be cut, the guys here that go to Denver practices and report what they saw were seeing nothing special,etc. but then, when it counted coming down the last month and a half of the season, there he was...doing all the things we had been mentioning he might be adept to do in a manning offense. I know...I get it...looks very iffy, but I think he is worth a roll of the dice more than a lot of guys being talked up.

This is why I continue to maintain investing in any of the Denver backs right now is probably not a great idea. All of this is just speculation right now of course, but the situation is just too damn muddy:

** Insider Mike Klis believes the Broncos are targeting a RB in the first 2 rounds of April's draft. And Klis says they're looking for a big body. He mentions Alabama's Eddie Lacy, Wisconsin's Montee Ball, Michigan State's Le'Veon Bell and Texas A&M's Christine Michael as possibilities. Denver would need to snag Lacy or Ball in the 1st round, while Bell and Michael could probably be had in the 2nd. The report is just another indication that Willis McGahee and Knowshon Moreno might not be in the team's 2013 plans. Ronnie Hillman seems to be viewed as more of a change-of-pace option. If the Broncos add a rookie, he'd be a good bet to open the season as the lead back.

 

[Tau837]

Another vote for Pierce and Turbin here.

I am sitting on these two, specifically because I like both their long term prospects and believe they would be immediate starters with injury/suspension in front of them.

 

[werdnoynek]

Another vote for Pierce and Turbin here.

I am sitting on these two, specifically because I like both their long term prospects and believe they would be immediate starters with injury/suspension in front of them.

agreed.as the nfl stands pre-draft - current backups that could be starters and not just stopgap guysierceTurbinB.Brown (i really, really like his prosepcts as a future starter. very young, very talented)K.Hunter (i think many see him as a change of pace, but thats just what his role has been with Gore healthy. if/when gore goes down i see Hunter as the guy and james as the CoP back.)TateWilson/Brown (not sure who the starter is, but if something happened to the other they both would/could be starters)ETA: apologies if you don't think this should be posted doowain, you had your chance though.

 

[SaintsInDome2006]

Everything is situation, isn't it?

If any of these guys land with the right HC, OC and offense and they could be stars.

 

[werdnoynek]

Everything is situation, isn't it?If any of these guys land with the right HC, OC and offense and they could be stars.

situation definitely plays a role here and imo the point of this thread is to think about who could take the role of starter if given the opportunity... so lets say they are put in the right situation - who will succeed? imo some of the guys (going off the first post) are just role players - like vereen, james, ivory, hillman, helu, blount. i don't think they're starters in any situation. but guys like ingram, hunter, pierce, brown, turbin would be starters in my eyes in a better situation or if given the chance. i think it really comes down to talent and while doowain may not want to talk about it, i think it's vital when considering who has what it takes to be a future starter.

 

[FF Ninja]

Everything is situation, isn't it?If any of these guys land with the right HC, OC and offense and they could be stars.

situation definitely plays a role here and imo the point of this thread is to think about who could take the role of starter if given the opportunity... so lets say they are put in the right situation - who will succeed? imo some of the guys (going off the first post) are just role players - like vereen, james, ivory, hillman, helu, blount. i don't think they're starters in any situation. but guys like ingram, hunter, pierce, brown, turbin would be starters in my eyes in a better situation or if given the chance. i think it really comes down to talent and while doowain may not want to talk about it, i think it's vital when considering who has what it takes to be a future starter.

Blount actually HAS been a starter AND he's done quite well in the position. Ivory has run with a significant role before and had success. Vereen almost certainly could start and do well with it. So I'm not sure where this "not starters in any situation" comes from.

 

[werdnoynek]

Everything is situation, isn't it?If any of these guys land with the right HC, OC and offense and they could be stars.

situation definitely plays a role here and imo the point of this thread is to think about who could take the role of starter if given the opportunity... so lets say they are put in the right situation - who will succeed? imo some of the guys (going off the first post) are just role players - like vereen, james, ivory, hillman, helu, blount. i don't think they're starters in any situation. but guys like ingram, hunter, pierce, brown, turbin would be starters in my eyes in a better situation or if given the chance. i think it really comes down to talent and while doowain may not want to talk about it, i think it's vital when considering who has what it takes to be a future starter.

Blount actually HAS been a starter AND he's done quite well in the position. Ivory has run with a significant role before and had success. Vereen almost certainly could start and do well with it. So I'm not sure where this "not starters in any situation" comes from.

blount can't play on third downs - he showed this when we was a "starter" and imo a starter is an every down player. you hyped up blount all off season last year and he surely proved you wrong... i'm surprised you're still on that train.vereen is a third down / CoP back with limited ability between the tackles. he hasn't shown he could be a starter imo and lacks the talent to be one. ivory i could agree with.

 

[jonboltz]

Everything is situation, isn't it?If any of these guys land with the right HC, OC and offense and they could be stars.

situation definitely plays a role here and imo the point of this thread is to think about who could take the role of starter if given the opportunity... so lets say they are put in the right situation - who will succeed? imo some of the guys (going off the first post) are just role players - like vereen, james, ivory, hillman, helu, blount. i don't think they're starters in any situation. but guys like ingram, hunter, pierce, brown, turbin would be starters in my eyes in a better situation or if given the chance. i think it really comes down to talent and while doowain may not want to talk about it, i think it's vital when considering who has what it takes to be a future starter.

Blount actually HAS been a starter AND he's done quite well in the position. Ivory has run with a significant role before and had success. Vereen almost certainly could start and do well with it. So I'm not sure where this "not starters in any situation" comes from.

blount can't play on third downs - he showed this when we was a "starter" and imo a starter is an every down player. you hyped up blount all off season last year and he surely proved you wrong... i'm surprised you're still on that train.vereen is a third down / CoP back with limited ability between the tackles. he hasn't shown he could be a starter imo and lacks the talent to be one. ivory i could agree with.

Guys that can carry the ball 200 times and rush for 1000 yards are starters. HTH.

 

[FF Ninja]

Everything is situation, isn't it?

If any of these guys land with the right HC, OC and offense and they could be stars.

situation definitely plays a role here and imo the point of this thread is to think about who could take the role of starter if given the opportunity... so lets say they are put in the right situation - who will succeed? imo some of the guys (going off the first post) are just role players - like vereen, james, ivory, hillman, helu, blount. i don't think they're starters in any situation. but guys like ingram, hunter, pierce, brown, turbin would be starters in my eyes in a better situation or if given the chance.

i think it really comes down to talent and while doowain may not want to talk about it, i think it's vital when considering who has what it takes to be a future starter.

Blount actually HAS been a starter AND he's done quite well in the position. Ivory has run with a significant role before and had success. Vereen almost certainly could start and do well with it. So I'm not sure where this "not starters in any situation" comes from.

blount can't play on third downs - he showed this when we was a "starter" and imo a starter is an every down player. you hyped up blount all off season last year and he surely proved you wrong... i'm surprised you're still on that train.vereen is a third down / CoP back with limited ability between the tackles. he hasn't shown he could be a starter imo and lacks the talent to be one.

ivory i could agree with.

Um, no. A starter is a starter. I guess Michael Turner was never a starter since he wasn't an every down player. And no, Blount didn't prove me wrong. He never got a chance to prove anything last year. Schiano is a putz. But either way, it's hilarious that you claim players who have been starters can never be starters. Whoops...

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Everything is situation, isn't it?

If any of these guys land with the right HC, OC and offense and they could be stars.

situation definitely plays a role here and imo the point of this thread is to think about who could take the role of starter if given the opportunity... so lets say they are put in the right situation - who will succeed? imo some of the guys (going off the first post) are just role players - like vereen, james, ivory, hillman, helu, blount. i don't think they're starters in any situation. but guys like ingram, hunter, pierce, brown, turbin would be starters in my eyes in a better situation or if given the chance.

i think it really comes down to talent and while doowain may not want to talk about it, i think it's vital when considering who has what it takes to be a future starter.

Blount actually HAS been a starter AND he's done quite well in the position. Ivory has run with a significant role before and had success. Vereen almost certainly could start and do well with it. So I'm not sure where this "not starters in any situation" comes from.

blount can't play on third downs - he showed this when we was a "starter" and imo a starter is an every down player. you hyped up blount all off season last year and he surely proved you wrong... i'm surprised you're still on that train.vereen is a third down / CoP back with limited ability between the tackles. he hasn't shown he could be a starter imo and lacks the talent to be one.

ivory i could agree with.

Um, no. A starter is a starter. I guess Michael Turner was never a starter since he wasn't an every down player. And no, Blount didn't prove me wrong. He never got a chance to prove anything last year. Schiano is a putz. But either way, it's hilarious that you claim players who have been starters can never be starters. Whoops...

Schiano is a putz? martin is a dynamic RB, why would Blount see the field over him? :rollseyes:

 

[werdnoynek]

Um, no. A starter is a starter. I guess Michael Turner was never a starter since he wasn't an every down player. And no, Blount didn't prove me wrong. He never got a chance to prove anything last year. Schiano is a putz. But either way, it's hilarious that you claim players who have been starters can never be starters. Whoops...

blount was a fill in, not a starter. the bucs were pretty quick to change that too drafting an all around player the following year after blount put up some decent stats. i'm not sure you noticed him since you seem to have eyes only for blount, his name is doug martin. he's the one who kept blount where he belongs last year... on the bench.ETA: while he was a starter previously, i highly doubt he'll be a starter ever again... he just isn't that good.

 

[Coeur de Lion]

Um, no. A starter is a starter. I guess Michael Turner was never a starter since he wasn't an every down player. And no, Blount didn't prove me wrong. He never got a chance to prove anything last year. Schiano is a putz. But either way, it's hilarious that you claim players who have been starters can never be starters. Whoops...

blount was a fill in, not a starter. the bucs were pretty quick to change that too drafting an all around player the following year after blount put up some decent stats. i'm not sure you noticed him since you seem to have eyes only for blount, his name is doug martin. he's the one who kept blount where he belongs last year... on the bench.ETA: while he was a starter previously, i highly doubt he'll be a starter ever again... he just isn't that good.

This is pretty much dead wrong. In three years, Blount has almost 2K on the ground at 4.6 YPC. He can definitely play. Is he going to beat out Doug Martin? Obviously not, but Martin's really good and there's no shame in that. Blount will be a UFA again next year, and there are definitely teams out there on which he'd easily be the best RB -- GB, Pitt, AZ, Jets, Colts, STL off the top of my head. And there are probably a few more...

 

[werdnoynek]

Um, no. A starter is a starter. I guess Michael Turner was never a starter since he wasn't an every down player. And no, Blount didn't prove me wrong. He never got a chance to prove anything last year. Schiano is a putz. But either way, it's hilarious that you claim players who have been starters can never be starters. Whoops...

blount was a fill in, not a starter. the bucs were pretty quick to change that too drafting an all around player the following year after blount put up some decent stats. i'm not sure you noticed him since you seem to have eyes only for blount, his name is doug martin. he's the one who kept blount where he belongs last year... on the bench.ETA: while he was a starter previously, i highly doubt he'll be a starter ever again... he just isn't that good.

This is pretty much dead wrong. In three years, Blount has almost 2K on the ground at 4.6 YPC. He can definitely play. Is he going to beat out Doug Martin? Obviously not, but Martin's really good and there's no shame in that. Blount will be a UFA again next year, and there are definitely teams out there on which he'd easily be the best RB -- GB, Pitt, AZ, Jets, Colts, STL off the top of my head. And there are probably a few more...

time will tell, keep tooting the blount horn - i'm more of a what have you done for me lately kind of person rather and what did you do 2 years ago as a fill in back only to be replaced by a rookie guy. majority of those teams will be addressing RB in the draft this season but we can come back to this next year and i'll happily eat crow. i just don't see the infatuation with blount... 4.6 ypc is great but if he was a good back i think he would have had a role last season.

 

[FF Ninja]

Um, no. A starter is a starter. I guess Michael Turner was never a starter since he wasn't an every down player. And no, Blount didn't prove me wrong. He never got a chance to prove anything last year. Schiano is a putz. But either way, it's hilarious that you claim players who have been starters can never be starters. Whoops...

blount was a fill in, not a starter. the bucs were pretty quick to change that too drafting an all around player the following year after blount put up some decent stats. i'm not sure you noticed him since you seem to have eyes only for blount, his name is doug martin. he's the one who kept blount where he belongs last year... on the bench.ETA: while he was a starter previously, i highly doubt he'll be a starter ever again... he just isn't that good.

This is pretty much dead wrong. In three years, Blount has almost 2K on the ground at 4.6 YPC. He can definitely play. Is he going to beat out Doug Martin? Obviously not, but Martin's really good and there's no shame in that. Blount will be a UFA again next year, and there are definitely teams out there on which he'd easily be the best RB -- GB, Pitt, AZ, Jets, Colts, STL off the top of my head. And there are probably a few more...

time will tell, keep tooting the blount horn - i'm more of a what have you done for me lately kind of person rather and what did you do 2 years ago as a fill in back only to be replaced by a rookie guy. majority of those teams will be addressing RB in the draft this season but we can come back to this next year and i'll happily eat crow. i just don't see the infatuation with blount... 4.6 ypc is great but if he was a good back i think he would have had a role last season.

It's not about tooting Blount's horn... simply pointing out that you've got no clue what you are talking about. And you just keep making that easier.

Schiano is a putz? martin is a dynamic RB, why would Blount see the field over him? :rollseyes:

Yeah, he's so much more talented that, on a much better team than when Blount was the lead back, he put up the same ypc as Blount. I think Schiano is a putz for never making it a fair competition. For Blount to do what he did on that mess of a Raheem Morris team speaks volumes about his talent.Look, I know Martin is extremely popular here because he was fantasy gold. He got a sick workload and produced stats for his owners. But aside from that freak game against Oakland, the guy had 15 games @ 4.1 ypc. Is it possible he's just the product of high workload and medium talent? I'm not certain one way or another. I just think it is a possibility. Didn't mean to make this about Blount or Martin, but just had to take issue with this shortsighted reply.

 

[werdnoynek]

Um, no. A starter is a starter. I guess Michael Turner was never a starter since he wasn't an every down player. And no, Blount didn't prove me wrong. He never got a chance to prove anything last year. Schiano is a putz. But either way, it's hilarious that you claim players who have been starters can never be starters. Whoops...

blount was a fill in, not a starter. the bucs were pretty quick to change that too drafting an all around player the following year after blount put up some decent stats. i'm not sure you noticed him since you seem to have eyes only for blount, his name is doug martin. he's the one who kept blount where he belongs last year... on the bench.ETA: while he was a starter previously, i highly doubt he'll be a starter ever again... he just isn't that good.

This is pretty much dead wrong. In three years, Blount has almost 2K on the ground at 4.6 YPC. He can definitely play. Is he going to beat out Doug Martin? Obviously not, but Martin's really good and there's no shame in that. Blount will be a UFA again next year, and there are definitely teams out there on which he'd easily be the best RB -- GB, Pitt, AZ, Jets, Colts, STL off the top of my head. And there are probably a few more...

time will tell, keep tooting the blount horn - i'm more of a what have you done for me lately kind of person rather and what did you do 2 years ago as a fill in back only to be replaced by a rookie guy. majority of those teams will be addressing RB in the draft this season but we can come back to this next year and i'll happily eat crow. i just don't see the infatuation with blount... 4.6 ypc is great but if he was a good back i think he would have had a role last season.

It's not about tooting Blount's horn... simply pointing out that you've got no clue what you are talking about. And you just keep making that easier.

Schiano is a putz? martin is a dynamic RB, why would Blount see the field over him? :rollseyes:

Yeah, he's so much more talented that, on a much better team than when Blount was the lead back, he put up the same ypc as Blount. I think Schiano is a putz for never making it a fair competition. For Blount to do what he did on that mess of a Raheem Morris team speaks volumes about his talent.Look, I know Martin is extremely popular here because he was fantasy gold. He got a sick workload and produced stats for his owners. But aside from that freak game against Oakland, the guy had 15 games @ 4.1 ypc. Is it possible he's just the product of high workload and medium talent? I'm not certain one way or another. I just think it is a possibility. Didn't mean to make this about Blount or Martin, but just had to take issue with this shortsighted reply.

well we could ignore the fact that Martin is fantasy gold and he's still 3 times the player Blount ever was. if i don't have a clue, you don't even know what a clue is.

ETA: your infatuation with blount was thick last year too...

http://forums.footballguys.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=649229&st=0 i was being called out for being off base quite a bit in that thread... looking back now, who was off base???

 

[higgins]

Oh, yeah? Well you're a poopie pants!

 

[EBF]

I don't think Blount is devoid of talent, but IMO his big year was pretty flukish. There's a reason why he wasn't drafted and why the Titans cut him in training camp, and it's not all to do with his character problems. He's just not a complete back. Not elusive. Not much of a threat as a pass catcher. Those are two areas where Martin has him beaten by a wide margin.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him getting some PT on a new team. I'd be surprised if he ever became a starter again barring injury though.

 

[jonboltz]

I don't think Blount is devoid of talent, but IMO his big year was pretty flukish. There's a reason why he wasn't drafted and why the Titans cut him in training camp, and it's not all to do with his character problems. He's just not a complete back. Not elusive. Not much of a threat as a pass catcher. Those are two areas where Martin has him beaten by a wide margin.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him getting some PT on a new team. I'd be surprised if he ever became a starter again barring injury though.

I'll give you his lack of ability in the 3rd down game -- both in terms of pass catching and, more importantly, pass protection. I'm not willing to give you that Blount lacks elusiveness. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/03/24/elusive-rating-2010/

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

Um, no. A starter is a starter. I guess Michael Turner was never a starter since he wasn't an every down player. And no, Blount didn't prove me wrong. He never got a chance to prove anything last year. Schiano is a putz. But either way, it's hilarious that you claim players who have been starters can never be starters. Whoops...

blount was a fill in, not a starter. the bucs were pretty quick to change that too drafting an all around player the following year after blount put up some decent stats. i'm not sure you noticed him since you seem to have eyes only for blount, his name is doug martin. he's the one who kept blount where he belongs last year... on the bench.ETA: while he was a starter previously, i highly doubt he'll be a starter ever again... he just isn't that good.

This is pretty much dead wrong. In three years, Blount has almost 2K on the ground at 4.6 YPC. He can definitely play. Is he going to beat out Doug Martin? Obviously not, but Martin's really good and there's no shame in that. Blount will be a UFA again next year, and there are definitely teams out there on which he'd easily be the best RB -- GB, Pitt, AZ, Jets, Colts, STL off the top of my head. And there are probably a few more...

time will tell, keep tooting the blount horn - i'm more of a what have you done for me lately kind of person rather and what did you do 2 years ago as a fill in back only to be replaced by a rookie guy. majority of those teams will be addressing RB in the draft this season but we can come back to this next year and i'll happily eat crow. i just don't see the infatuation with blount... 4.6 ypc is great but if he was a good back i think he would have had a role last season.

It's not about tooting Blount's horn... simply pointing out that you've got no clue what you are talking about. And you just keep making that easier.

Schiano is a putz? martin is a dynamic RB, why would Blount see the field over him? :rollseyes:

Yeah, he's so much more talented that, on a much better team than when Blount was the lead back, he put up the same ypc as Blount. I think Schiano is a putz for never making it a fair competition. For Blount to do what he did on that mess of a Raheem Morris team speaks volumes about his talent.Look, I know Martin is extremely popular here because he was fantasy gold. He got a sick workload and produced stats for his owners. But aside from that freak game against Oakland, the guy had 15 games @ 4.1 ypc. Is it possible he's just the product of high workload and medium talent? I'm not certain one way or another. I just think it is a possibility. Didn't mean to make this about Blount or Martin, but just had to take issue with this shortsighted reply.

i suggest you break the prozacs in half from now on. Geez, get over it blount is a below replacement level NFL RB. sorry he is

 

[werdnoynek]

i suggest you break the prozacs in half from now on. Geez, get over it blount is a below replacement level NFL RB. sorry he is

i hear a side effect is blindly looking at only YPC from random years and comparing RB's with only that.

 

[werdnoynek]

I don't think Blount is devoid of talent, but IMO his big year was pretty flukish. There's a reason why he wasn't drafted and why the Titans cut him in training camp, and it's not all to do with his character problems. He's just not a complete back. Not elusive. Not much of a threat as a pass catcher. Those are two areas where Martin has him beaten by a wide margin.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him getting some PT on a new team. I'd be surprised if he ever became a starter again barring injury though.

I'll give you his lack of ability in the 3rd down game -- both in terms of pass catching and, more importantly, pass protection. I'm not willing to give you that Blount lacks elusiveness. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/03/24/elusive-rating-2010/

i will give him that. it's impressive to see that for a big man, but then we see ryan torain below him and ray rice in the bottom group... meh. he can make the first guy miss or plow them over, but can he outrun the next guy? nope.

give me a short and stout shifty back with the ability to play all downs over a role player like blount every single sunday, monday, or thursday.

 

[jonboltz]

I don't think Blount is devoid of talent, but IMO his big year was pretty flukish. There's a reason why he wasn't drafted and why the Titans cut him in training camp, and it's not all to do with his character problems. He's just not a complete back. Not elusive. Not much of a threat as a pass catcher. Those are two areas where Martin has him beaten by a wide margin.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him getting some PT on a new team. I'd be surprised if he ever became a starter again barring injury though.

I'll give you his lack of ability in the 3rd down game -- both in terms of pass catching and, more importantly, pass protection. I'm not willing to give you that Blount lacks elusiveness. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/03/24/elusive-rating-2010/

i will give him that. it's impressive to see that for a big man, but then we see ryan torain below him and ray rice in the bottom group... meh. he can make the first guy miss or plow them over, but can he outrun the next guy? nope.

give me a short and stout shifty back with the ability to play all downs over a role player like blount every single sunday, monday, or thursday.

A few things: -Most of the guys on the elusive list were very good football players, so I don't doubt the validity of PFF on this one.

-Rice actually had a really down year in 2010.

-I think everyone would take Rice or similar every-down-back over Blount. Unfortunately, there are not 32 Ray Rice's in the NFL.

 

[werdnoynek]

I don't think Blount is devoid of talent, but IMO his big year was pretty flukish. There's a reason why he wasn't drafted and why the Titans cut him in training camp, and it's not all to do with his character problems. He's just not a complete back. Not elusive. Not much of a threat as a pass catcher. Those are two areas where Martin has him beaten by a wide margin.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him getting some PT on a new team. I'd be surprised if he ever became a starter again barring injury though.

I'll give you his lack of ability in the 3rd down game -- both in terms of pass catching and, more importantly, pass protection. I'm not willing to give you that Blount lacks elusiveness. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/03/24/elusive-rating-2010/

i will give him that. it's impressive to see that for a big man, but then we see ryan torain below him and ray rice in the bottom group... meh. he can make the first guy miss or plow them over, but can he outrun the next guy? nope.

give me a short and stout shifty back with the ability to play all downs over a role player like blount every single sunday, monday, or thursday.

A few things: -Most of the guys on the elusive list were very good football players, so I don't doubt the validity of PFF on this one.

-Rice actually had a really down year in 2010.

-I think everyone would take Rice or similar every-down-back over Blount. Unfortunately, there are not 32 Ray Rice's in the NFL.

i agree with everything you said. i'm not doubting the validity at all, it's definitely impressive for someone like blount. i know you weren't saying this or implying this, but i'm just saying that i don't think those statistics are indicative of becoming or being a starter in the NFL.

 

[Lott's Fingertip]

Yeah, he's so much more talented that, on a much better team than when Blount was the lead back, he put up the same ypc as Blount. I think Schiano is a putz for never making it a fair competition. For Blount to do what he did on that mess of a Raheem Morris team speaks volumes about his talent.Look, I know Martin is extremely popular here because he was fantasy gold. He got a sick workload and produced stats for his owners. But aside from that freak game against Oakland, the guy had 15 games @ 4.1 ypc. Is it possible he's just the product of high workload and medium talent? I'm not certain one way or another. I just think it is a possibility. Didn't mean to make this about Blount or Martin, but just had to take issue with this shortsighted reply.

I like Martin, but don't see him as a stud. I think he is good to very good at most everything. Frankly, I think everything Blount does, Martin does better, plus Martin is an asset in the passing game.IIRC, Blount ran behind a better Oline pre-2012 than Martin did this past season. Getting multiple probowler Olinemen back may do wonders for Martin's efficiency. That is a big reason I traded Ray Rice for Martin in one league.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't think Blount is devoid of talent, but IMO his big year was pretty flukish. There's a reason why he wasn't drafted and why the Titans cut him in training camp, and it's not all to do with his character problems. He's just not a complete back. Not elusive. Not much of a threat as a pass catcher. Those are two areas where Martin has him beaten by a wide margin.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him getting some PT on a new team. I'd be surprised if he ever became a starter again barring injury though.

I'll give you his lack of ability in the 3rd down game -- both in terms of pass catching and, more importantly, pass protection. I'm not willing to give you that Blount lacks elusiveness. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/03/24/elusive-rating-2010/

PFF's elusiveness rankings have always looked a little wonky to me.

 

[FF Ninja]

i suggest you break the prozacs in half from now on. Geez, get over it blount is a below replacement level NFL RB. sorry he is

I haven't seen a lick of worthwhile analysis from you, so I'm not sure why you think your one line absolutes are very convincing.

looking back now, who was off base???

A broken clock is right twice a day...

 

[bicycle_seat_sniffer]

i suggest you break the prozacs in half from now on. Geez, get over it blount is a below replacement level NFL RB. sorry he is

I haven't seen a lick of worthwhile analysis from you, so I'm not sure why you think your one line absolutes are very convincing.

looking back now, who was off base???

A broken clock is right twice a day...

what you want me to do? cherry pick great games out of blounts stats to make him look worse?How about this last year Martin ranked as rb#3 in FBG scoring, Blounts best season he ranked at rb#24.

 

[squistion]

I don't think Blount is devoid of talent, but IMO his big year was pretty flukish. There's a reason why he wasn't drafted and why the Titans cut him in training camp, and it's not all to do with his character problems. He's just not a complete back. Not elusive. Not much of a threat as a pass catcher. Those are two areas where Martin has him beaten by a wide margin.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him getting some PT on a new team. I'd be surprised if he ever became a starter again barring injury though.

I'll give you his lack of ability in the 3rd down game -- both in terms of pass catching and, more importantly, pass protection. I'm not willing to give you that Blount lacks elusiveness. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/03/24/elusive-rating-2010/

PFF's elusiveness rankings have always looked a little wonky to me.

Depends what you mean by wonky. Too esoteric? Well, perhaps, but to me more like when the word means some blend of wacky and bonkers. I have never quite completely bought the correlation of forced missed tackles and elusiveness.And on a side note (contrary to the above) his character issues were the primary reason he wasn't drafted - he had the reputation as a loose cannon and teams didn't want to deal with that. And, IRRC, he was cut by the Titans because they didn't have the roster space more than anything else. He is though, a non-factor in the passing game and that tends to make him one-dimensional.

 

[werdnoynek]

i suggest you break the prozacs in half from now on. Geez, get over it blount is a below replacement level NFL RB. sorry he is

I haven't seen a lick of worthwhile analysis from you, so I'm not sure why you think your one line absolutes are very convincing.

looking back now, who was off base???

A broken clock is right twice a day...

well at least you admit i'm right.

 

[jonboltz]

I don't think Blount is devoid of talent, but IMO his big year was pretty flukish. There's a reason why he wasn't drafted and why the Titans cut him in training camp, and it's not all to do with his character problems. He's just not a complete back. Not elusive. Not much of a threat as a pass catcher. Those are two areas where Martin has him beaten by a wide margin.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him getting some PT on a new team. I'd be surprised if he ever became a starter again barring injury though.

I'll give you his lack of ability in the 3rd down game -- both in terms of pass catching and, more importantly, pass protection. I'm not willing to give you that Blount lacks elusiveness. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/03/24/elusive-rating-2010/

PFF's elusiveness rankings have always looked a little wonky to me.

Depends what you mean by wonky. Too esoteric? Well, perhaps, but to me more like when the word means some blend of wacky and bonkers. I have never quite completely bought the correlation of forced missed tackles and elusiveness.And on a side note (contrary to the above) his character issues were the primary reason he wasn't drafted - he had the reputation as a loose cannon and teams didn't want to deal with that. And, IRRC, he was cut by the Titans because they didn't have the roster space more than anything else. He is though, a non-factor in the passing game and that tends to make him one-dimensional.

His biggest limiting factor will continue to be his passing game/blocking duties. He barely played last year, and I didn't hear a single complaint from him in the media. I doubt his reputation will cost him anything in the eyes of other GMs.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't think Blount is devoid of talent, but IMO his big year was pretty flukish. There's a reason why he wasn't drafted and why the Titans cut him in training camp, and it's not all to do with his character problems. He's just not a complete back. Not elusive. Not much of a threat as a pass catcher. Those are two areas where Martin has him beaten by a wide margin.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him getting some PT on a new team. I'd be surprised if he ever became a starter again barring injury though.

I'll give you his lack of ability in the 3rd down game -- both in terms of pass catching and, more importantly, pass protection. I'm not willing to give you that Blount lacks elusiveness. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/03/24/elusive-rating-2010/

PFF's elusiveness rankings have always looked a little wonky to me.

Depends what you mean by wonky. Too esoteric? Well, perhaps, but to me more like when the word means some blend of wacky and bonkers. I have never quite completely bought the correlation of forced missed tackles and elusiveness.

I guess I should just say "off" based on what I see on the field and consider "elusiveness". I'm not necessarily saying "I'm right and PFF is wrong", I just never agreed with their list based on my perceptions.

 

[jonboltz]

I don't think Blount is devoid of talent, but IMO his big year was pretty flukish. There's a reason why he wasn't drafted and why the Titans cut him in training camp, and it's not all to do with his character problems. He's just not a complete back. Not elusive. Not much of a threat as a pass catcher. Those are two areas where Martin has him beaten by a wide margin.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him getting some PT on a new team. I'd be surprised if he ever became a starter again barring injury though.

I'll give you his lack of ability in the 3rd down game -- both in terms of pass catching and, more importantly, pass protection. I'm not willing to give you that Blount lacks elusiveness. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/03/24/elusive-rating-2010/

PFF's elusiveness rankings have always looked a little wonky to me.

Depends what you mean by wonky. Too esoteric? Well, perhaps, but to me more like when the word means some blend of wacky and bonkers. I have never quite completely bought the correlation of forced missed tackles and elusiveness.

I guess I should just say "off" based on what I see on the field and consider "elusiveness". I'm not necessarily saying "I'm right and PFF is wrong", I just never agreed with their list based on my perceptions.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I wonder if this is more of a "what have you done with me lately" approach as we look at the ratings several years later.In 2010, Blount was an absolute beast with the ball in his hands.

 

[Dr. Octopus]

I don't think Blount is devoid of talent, but IMO his big year was pretty flukish. There's a reason why he wasn't drafted and why the Titans cut him in training camp, and it's not all to do with his character problems. He's just not a complete back. Not elusive. Not much of a threat as a pass catcher. Those are two areas where Martin has him beaten by a wide margin.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him getting some PT on a new team. I'd be surprised if he ever became a starter again barring injury though.

I'll give you his lack of ability in the 3rd down game -- both in terms of pass catching and, more importantly, pass protection. I'm not willing to give you that Blount lacks elusiveness. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/03/24/elusive-rating-2010/

PFF's elusiveness rankings have always looked a little wonky to me.

Depends what you mean by wonky. Too esoteric? Well, perhaps, but to me more like when the word means some blend of wacky and bonkers. I have never quite completely bought the correlation of forced missed tackles and elusiveness.

I guess I should just say "off" based on what I see on the field and consider "elusiveness". I'm not necessarily saying "I'm right and PFF is wrong", I just never agreed with their list based on my perceptions.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I wonder if this is more of a "what have you done with me lately" approach as we look at the ratings several years later.In 2010, Blount was an absolute beast with the ball in his hands.

I'm not really commenting on Blount specifically, but while I agree he was real solid in 2010, I wouldn't call him elusive. He did have quick feet for a back his size - but considered him a more straightline speed/power guy (i.e. a better Shonn Greene).

 

[TheFanatic]

i suggest you break the prozacs in half from now on. Geez, get over it blount is a below replacement level NFL RB. sorry he is

I haven't seen a lick of worthwhile analysis from you, so I'm not sure why you think your one line absolutes are very convincing.

looking back now, who was off base???

A broken clock is right twice a day...

what you want me to do? cherry pick great games out of blounts stats to make him look worse?How about this last year Martin ranked as rb#3 in FBG scoring, Blounts best season he ranked at rb#24.

Nice job proving the bolded part above. Martin ranked 3rd last year and Blount's best season he ranked 24th? That's your comparison? Seriously? If you knew absolutely anything about statistics, or just plain bothered to look at the stats yourself rather than relying on FBG doing it for you, then you would know that Blount was the 24th RB in 2010 only really playing in 11 games with 7 starts. Sure, he got 30 yards on 10 carries in two other games but then he broke off 977 yards on 191 carries for a 5.1 YPC. That's not a fill in back, that's someone who took the starting job and ran with it. Had he been able to block at all he would still be the starter IMO. Well that and gotten his head out of his butt.

As for the statement he was cut by the Titans. Fisher tried to move him to the practice squad and greatly regretted that decision when Tampa nabbed him. I think the Rams are waiting for the Bucs to cut him. Blount with Pead/Richardson could be a pretty lethal combo at RB.

But he can't block? He can learn to block. You can;t teach guys to run over or around defenders, that's instinctual, but you can teach them to block.

 

[TheFanatic]

I don't think Blount is devoid of talent, but IMO his big year was pretty flukish. There's a reason why he wasn't drafted and why the Titans cut him in training camp, and it's not all to do with his character problems. He's just not a complete back. Not elusive. Not much of a threat as a pass catcher. Those are two areas where Martin has him beaten by a wide margin.

I wouldn't rule out the possibility of him getting some PT on a new team. I'd be surprised if he ever became a starter again barring injury though.

I'll give you his lack of ability in the 3rd down game -- both in terms of pass catching and, more importantly, pass protection. I'm not willing to give you that Blount lacks elusiveness. https://www.profootballfocus.com/blog/2011/03/24/elusive-rating-2010/

PFF's elusiveness rankings have always looked a little wonky to me.

Depends what you mean by wonky. Too esoteric? Well, perhaps, but to me more like when the word means some blend of wacky and bonkers. I have never quite completely bought the correlation of forced missed tackles and elusiveness.

I guess I should just say "off" based on what I see on the field and consider "elusiveness". I'm not necessarily saying "I'm right and PFF is wrong", I just never agreed with their list based on my perceptions.

Just playing devil's advocate here, but I wonder if this is more of a "what have you done with me lately" approach as we look at the ratings several years later.In 2010, Blount was an absolute beast with the ball in his hands.

It's always a what have you done for me lately around here. 95% of people on this board can't remember back farther than 364 days. Look at the rankings every year? They are minor shifts from the way guys finished the year before when we know that half the top 10 at each position will not be there the next year.

 

[werdnoynek]

It's always a what have you done for me lately around here. 95% of people on this board can't remember back farther than 364 days. Look at the rankings every year? They are minor shifts from the way guys finished the year before when we know that half the top 10 at each position will not be there the next year.

right and chasing stats from 3 years ago seems to work out well too.it's interesting that the blount backers continue to point to 2010, yet they just gloss over the fact that blount was given an opportunity in 2011 to be the guy and floundered. that is why the bucs looked to the draft in 2012 for a complete back and found their guy. this discussion is about starters. i'm not doubting blount could be a role player like jacobs or some other bulldozer but he isn't a complete back or a starter in my eyes and i'd hazard to guess in the NFL's eyes. he had his chance. you say we're what have you done for me lately... well the NFL is too in most cases.

 

[jonboltz]

It's always a what have you done for me lately around here. 95% of people on this board can't remember back farther than 364 days. Look at the rankings every year? They are minor shifts from the way guys finished the year before when we know that half the top 10 at each position will not be there the next year.

right and chasing stats from 3 years ago seems to work out well too.

Stashing a guy at the end of your bench isn't "chasing stats".

 

[Otis]

Some guys on this list I like very much, but Turbin is my pick. You had to be patient with Michael Turner as he sat for years behind LT2, and this feels the same to me. Turbin will be a fantasy RB1 eventually.

 

[werdnoynek]

It's always a what have you done for me lately around here. 95% of people on this board can't remember back farther than 364 days. Look at the rankings every year? They are minor shifts from the way guys finished the year before when we know that half the top 10 at each position will not be there the next year.

right and chasing stats from 3 years ago seems to work out well too.

Stashing a guy at the end of your bench isn't "chasing stats".

stashing a guy like blount is though imo if you're looking for a starter. why waste space with a role player when you could add people like brown, hunter, turbin or pierce?