ShaHBucks
Footballguy
I'm comparing Stacy to Mason from what I know of them as prospects.
Fantasy Football - Footballguys Forums
This is a sample guest message. Register a free account today to become a member! Once signed in, you'll be able to participate on this site by adding your own topics and posts, as well as connect with other members through your own private inbox!
Zac Stacy vs Tre Mason (1 Viewer)
- Thread starter ShaHBucks
- Start date
cstu
Footballguy
Based on what they both did in college I agree they were both similar prospects when it comes to receiving. However, Stacy hasn't proven to be a very good receiver in the NFL.
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
Stacy hit much higher recieving benchmarks in college than Mason did. The stats are a nice way to quickly compare Stacy to other RBs last season. It simplifies things, but there are glaring weaknesses in the numbers. It takes 5+ more players to do their job effectively in order for a RB to be efficient. See what AP did after Kalil was drafted or McCoy with/without Peters or Lynch with Sea. It matters. Now the line is bigger/better. There is reason for optimism if Stacy is the main-carry back.
If anything, look at what he did compared to the other backs on the team. I'd guess he was an upgrade in most departments (not counting Cunningham, he stinks).
Last edited by a moderator:
msommer
Footballguy
And you know this how?
Is there a rule somewhere in the CBA you want to share or is this your personal opinion dressed up as 'fact'?
Phenix
Footballguy
If the Rams thought highly of Stacy, they would not of taken a runner as early as they did.
Now if Mason don't dress for most games I wonder if people will hype Mason as the next big thing next year like they are Michael.
Who am I kidding, Mason is good enough to win some starts this year while Michael wasn't good enough to get on the field.
Mason is your starter here by week 8.
Now if Mason don't dress for most games I wonder if people will hype Mason as the next big thing next year like they are Michael.
Who am I kidding, Mason is good enough to win some starts this year while Michael wasn't good enough to get on the field.
Mason is your starter here by week 8.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Not sure if trolling, or....
The numbers are all laid out for you. 3.9ypc. TD distances - 1,1,1,1,3,9,40. LAST in ypr for all RBs who played 60% of snaps
Which part of that looks "impressive" to you? Make me a believer. As an owner, Im a seller. This guy is going to be the Shonn Greene to Mason's CJ2K.
The grossest part of those numbers, is that it was behind one of football's best o-lines. Stacy on any other team is making TRich look like Jim Brown.
Last edited by a moderator:
Dr. Octopus
Footballguy
I think the truth lies somewhere in the middle. Many liked Stacy as a prospect, but for some reason he fell to Round 5 in the NFL draft and was and was picked after a couple of very uninspiring backs. Perhaps that is telling, perhaps it was just a convergence of events where different teams had very different draft boards and things just played out "weird" for Stacy.
Being a fifth round pick meant the odds were stacked against him, but as we all know there have been been late round and UDFA RBs that have made an impact on the NFL field and in fantasy football, and to some degree Stacy already has shown that he was able to defy the odds by having a successful season (even if you want to argue that he was a compiler).
While his rookie season was uninspiring from a ypc perspective, Kellen Clemmens is a pretty terrible quarterback and the Rams passing game didn't offer much support. His detractors will look at a ypc under 4 and scream marginal talent, his supporters will throw out names like Ladanlian Tomlinson and Marshall Faulk and say even Hall of Fame talents can struggle with low ypc early in their careers.
On the flip side, some people that ignore the ypc argument here will use it against other rookie backs they may not like with blinders on towards their hypocricy. A little consistency would be nice.
Further, the Stacy supporters will proclaim that Tre Mason was only a third round pick and state the long odds of a third round RB making an impact at the NFL level, while of course supporting a RB that was a fifth round RB in a weaker overall draft class.
We don't know if Mason will surpass Stacy anytime soon, if ever, on the depth chart but anyone pretending that the Rams drafting Mason couldn't possibly have any effect on Stacy this season or in future seasons is sticking their head in the sand.
I know this is a fantasy football message board and it would be a pretty boring and useless place if everyone took a vanilla approach and said "let's wait and see what happens" - but it would likely be wise not to speak in such absolutes and come across as blind "homers" in choosing to support Team Stacy or Team Mason while proclaiming your guy is the man.
Like I said the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Training camp and game days will tell a better story when we actually get to see which RB demands the larger share of carries or if both are mired in a tru RBBC split. Meanwhile I think we all need to proceed with caution on both backs. Neither have any large track record, or in Mason's case any track record at all - sometimes the boring approach is the best approach. In a dynasty I would back whichever player you think is the better talent. In a redraft I'd probably pass on both many times until they fell to a place where one starts to take on some risk hoping for a high reward - that probably means that I miss on Stacy and maybe take Mason as a late flier, but of course it depends on your leaguemates.
Being a fifth round pick meant the odds were stacked against him, but as we all know there have been been late round and UDFA RBs that have made an impact on the NFL field and in fantasy football, and to some degree Stacy already has shown that he was able to defy the odds by having a successful season (even if you want to argue that he was a compiler).
While his rookie season was uninspiring from a ypc perspective, Kellen Clemmens is a pretty terrible quarterback and the Rams passing game didn't offer much support. His detractors will look at a ypc under 4 and scream marginal talent, his supporters will throw out names like Ladanlian Tomlinson and Marshall Faulk and say even Hall of Fame talents can struggle with low ypc early in their careers.
On the flip side, some people that ignore the ypc argument here will use it against other rookie backs they may not like with blinders on towards their hypocricy. A little consistency would be nice.
Further, the Stacy supporters will proclaim that Tre Mason was only a third round pick and state the long odds of a third round RB making an impact at the NFL level, while of course supporting a RB that was a fifth round RB in a weaker overall draft class.
We don't know if Mason will surpass Stacy anytime soon, if ever, on the depth chart but anyone pretending that the Rams drafting Mason couldn't possibly have any effect on Stacy this season or in future seasons is sticking their head in the sand.
I know this is a fantasy football message board and it would be a pretty boring and useless place if everyone took a vanilla approach and said "let's wait and see what happens" - but it would likely be wise not to speak in such absolutes and come across as blind "homers" in choosing to support Team Stacy or Team Mason while proclaiming your guy is the man.
Like I said the truth is probably somewhere in the middle. Training camp and game days will tell a better story when we actually get to see which RB demands the larger share of carries or if both are mired in a tru RBBC split. Meanwhile I think we all need to proceed with caution on both backs. Neither have any large track record, or in Mason's case any track record at all - sometimes the boring approach is the best approach. In a dynasty I would back whichever player you think is the better talent. In a redraft I'd probably pass on both many times until they fell to a place where one starts to take on some risk hoping for a high reward - that probably means that I miss on Stacy and maybe take Mason as a late flier, but of course it depends on your leaguemates.
Are you directing this at me again? I know for a fact I've already told you that I don't have a strong feel for Bell this season and that his 3.5 ypc just gives me pause given his extremely high ADP (RB8). It is not lost on me that Bell had a worse line with a more effective and more balance passing attack (14th ranked with 36.5 att/gm) while Stacy had a better line with a terrible passing attack (31st ranked, 26.8 att/gm). I'm sure these factors offset each other somewhat, but it is impossible to say to what extent, so I'm not trying to draw hard conclusions here. (PFF ranked Pit 21st in run blocking and StL 9th).
But with regards to ypc, don't you find it a bit silly that people pile on Stacy for 3.9 ypc when Lacy and Gio are lauded for their talents despite only 4.1 ypc? Seems bizarre to me. (PFF ranked Cincy 5th in run blocking and Green Bay 17th).
And on the last point, I'll state once again, that after a year of NFL experience draft round does not matter. So yeah, I'll support a 5th rounder the same as I'll support a 1st rounder or UDFA who has shown some NFL ability. Speaking of which, should Arian Foster be worried about Andre Brown given that Foster was an UDFA and Brown was a 4th round pick? Last year, I avoided the StL ground game. Didn't have faith in a 5th rounder. I am not a Stacy fan boy. Quite conversely, I am simply admitting I was wrong on Stacy. I'm now willing to push my chips in on a proven talent rather than blindly yammer about compiling stats on a terrible offense or hyping a 3rd round draft pick. As I've already shown, the 1st-3rd round RBs in years past have been misses much more often than hits, so it only seems logical to bet on Stacy.
Of course not 40 times. But you post what you think proves Stacy is a plodder (ypc and ypr) and then compare him to the guy most associated on this board as a plodder.Soulfly3 said:
YPR's importance for a RB is very difficult to discern. How many times do you think Stacy lined up in the slot or even ran routes? I don't know the answer to it, but from watching a few games last year I saw him take dump offs and get immediately tackled. Gio and Bell both ran routes and caught the ball past the line of scrimmage regularly. Silly to rag on Stacy without some sort of study of his receptions.
Even without knowing that stuff, YPR for a running back can vary greatly from year to year in the SAME offense. Look at Mathews under Norv. 50/455 one year and 39/252 the next (9.1 ypr vs. 6.5).
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Stacy Rushing:
T-17th in 20+yd runs
31st in ypc (3.9)
T-48th in longest rush (40yds)
14th in rushing yds (973)
16th in rushing 1st downs (47)
So, ya... Pardon me if I think this guy epitomizes mediocrity.
Put it this way, Im selling everywhere I own him and Im getting little to no action whatsoever on him.
T-17th in 20+yd runs
31st in ypc (3.9)
T-48th in longest rush (40yds)
14th in rushing yds (973)
16th in rushing 1st downs (47)
So, ya... Pardon me if I think this guy epitomizes mediocrity.
Put it this way, Im selling everywhere I own him and Im getting little to no action whatsoever on him.
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
No one likes to buy things you don't want. I sold him pre-draft/late last season and got a fortune. I'd gladly take him back now at a reduced price.
Soulfly3
Footballguy
I love buying players someone doesn't want if I think they will outperform what I paid. Apparently noone is convinced he'll do that.
I haven't even set an asking price. Just put the word out that he's available.
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
Nice posting here. A lot of people don't know how random those numbers are. They are very dependent on schedules, teammates, schemes ect... They sure don't matter for FF because Stacy, Ball, Gio and Lacy were among the best.
As stated previously, he was playing alongside the 31st rated passing attack. Having an above average offensive line is nice, but that's only 5 guys. If he's facing 8 in the box regularly, he's not going to get too far. So you'll have to excuse him for not being Adrian Peterson. Some people are shocked to find out that there is some grey area between plodder and Adrian Peterson. Sometimes players in that grey area actually do alright when their offense improves. Similarly, Bradford isn't Peyton, but he's better than Clemens. I hear Britt might even be making a comeback. Stacy should have a nice season. I expect we'll see him "plod" his way to double digit touchdowns while Mason tries to learn how to pass block. Hopefully for you he learns quicker than David Wilson.
Just for fun, here's that list of RBs selected in the top 3 rounds in the past few seasons. Still feeling confident in Mason?
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Yes, I feel confident.
That's why I draft players - because I watch the games, I do the research, and create my own rankings.
msommer
Footballguy
cstu
Footballguy
Stacy - 46/415/0 (9.0 YPR)
Mason - 19/249/1 (13.1 YPR)
It's hard for me to determine on such low receptions which was the better receiving back in college. Stacy had more receptions at a good rate while Mason had few but a higher rate and a TD.
I agree stats don't tell the whole story but it's hard for me to ignore them after the Rams took Mason in the 3rd - that doesn't seem like a coincidence.
...and ignore trends and probability, apparently. I guess those aspects are not part of said "research".
Soulfly3
Footballguy
I trust my eyes more than I trust trends.
Mason is the superior back coming out of college, and will, imo, be the superior back in the NFL
msommer
Footballguy
Soulfly3
Footballguy
are Mason's stats better in college not a fact?
is Mason being drafted higher not a fact?
Are Stacy's piss average stats in the NFL not a fact?
Haven't said anything in this thread that wasn't fact, aside from my own belief that Mason will make Stacy a goal-line back.
msommer
Footballguy
You started this little exercise in futility by stating that a fact was being overlooked, namely that Mason would relegate Stacy to lesser duties.
I'm glad to see that you are now retracting that statement, categorizing it as opinion instead.
Stacy's performance in 2013, and their respective college careers has already been extensively discussed in this thread so your above stated opinion is actually the only constructive thing you have contributed in this thread.
Have a nice day!
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
By this rationale, if the Bengals thought highly of Bernard, they would not have taken a runner in an even higher round in Hill (similarly, does TB taking Sims in the third mean they don't like Martin?).
The third round isn't THAT high, it isn't like they took Mason in the first.
MAYBE you will be right later, but I don't agree with the inference you are making and what you are basing it on now.
It would make more sense if the norm around the league was to have one and only RB.
Fisher wants to run the ball. A lot. That is one reason he took Robinson, a dominant run blocker. A second RB in the stable helps make sure he can do that at a high level, it will serve the dual purpose of keeping both backs fresh in game with rotation, and preserving them both over the course of a season (may even extend their careeers).
Junior McSpiffy
Footballguy
I think you are wrong about this. I think that the Rams want to be in a position where their alternative at RB is the likes of Kenneth Darby and Brian Leonard once the #1 RB goes down. I see no flaw in building a team this way.
Last edited by a moderator:
Soulfly3
Footballguy
Jesus Christ, are you serious?msommer said:
That was NOT the fact I was referring to.
Yes, I firmly believe that will happen, but you clearly aren't following the flow if you think that's what I meant when I said "Seems to me that fact is being overshadowed by misconception in this thread."
We were discussing who was the better pass catching back. But hey, if you want it to mean something else so you can make your point... by all means.
I'll be glad to revisit this thread at midpoint this season and see where we're at w distribution of carries.
msommer
Footballguy
Indeed I am serious.
And no one is getting the majority of the snaps at NFL level that has not shown themselves to be at least adequate pass blockers (in the NFL).
Mason needs to do that. Stacy already has.
Phenix
Footballguy
While I agree it is beyond essential to pass block, it is easier to teach a person to block then to run the ball with great vision, power and agility. I believe if the coaches thought Stacy did that well they wouldnt have spent an early pick on Mason.
Stacy supporters keep forgetting that.
Junior McSpiffy
Footballguy
Your assertion only holds water if you believe the Rams are trying to rediscover the bellcow days of years gone by.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
I don't think it was one of the best OLs in football, last year. I haven't checked the advanced metrics, but I have heard them cited, and I don't think they were in the top half of the league.
Left to Right beginning the 2013 season (note that all the missed games by multiple players were not good for OL continuity)
Long - Williams/Smith - Wells (missed 4 games) - Dahl (missed 7 games) - Saffold (missed 4 games, didn't start 7 games)
Long is a very good run blocker, if no longer playing at his former serial Pro Bowler level.
Williams was a CHI first round bust reclamation project that was allowed to walk, Smith also a journeyman that was allowed to walk.
Wells is a former GB Pro Bowler (?) that is a heady vet and great at making line calls, but he has missed 13 games since coming to STL in 2012, just took a significant hair cut on his salary or was going to be released, turns 35 next year, and isn't known as a dominant run blocker, probably better in pass protection.
Dahl was released after missing about half the season, Saffold did stabilize the position later in the season once he went down, but he has missed 17 games since 2011 (I'll get back to him)
Saffold began the season at RT, ceding the LT role he held in in his first three seasons to Long. He's been a decent OT during that time, last year, they mutually discovered guard is his most natural and best pro position, he has a chance to be an outstanding guard, which is why he was their stated priority internal free agent re-signing, and they were lucky and happy for the OAK failed physical-gate fiasco (IF, and thats a big if, he stays healthy, but the contract has playing time incentives to protect STL). Barksdale was picked up off the OAK scrap heap, he was a former blue chip LSU recruit with third round pedigree, Boudreau is a good OL coach, he played well, I wouldn't say he is great, and like Wells, he is probably more valued for pass blocking, pretty average as a run blocker.
To sum up, the best part of the STL OL, going forward as far as RUN BLOCKING, are, by far, Long and the two guards (again, incumbents at center and RT, Wells and Barksdale aren't special in this department). Only one of them, Long, was either on the team and/or playing the same position this time last year. They didn't have Robinson, obviously, and didn't have Saffold the whole season, or at guard the whole time he did play. Do I think they will be good THIS YEAR, health permitting, yes. They basically have a 4 LT OL, and in guards Robinson and Saffold, twin 330+ lb. dancing behemoths with the agility, flexibility and athleticism to pull and hit downfield blocks.
But again, that will be good for Stacy, too.
You make some good points, maybe he isn't a great goal line runner or pass catcher, which can be discrete and separate skill sets. But as has been pointed out, you would have no trouble finding many RBs that turned out to have a lot of future success that didn't necessarily have 4.5-5.0 YPC averages as rookies, if you look for it. Stacy may be better than you are accounting for, imo, if your evaluation is based on the assumption that STL had one of the top OLs in the league last year.
* When are you predicting Mason will sweep aside Stacy and become the primary ball carrier, week 4-8-?
Last edited by a moderator:
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
By this rationale, if the Bengals thought highly of Bernard, they would not have taken a runner in an even higher round in Hill (similarly, does TB taking Sims in the third mean they don't like Martin?).
The third round isn't THAT high, it isn't like they took Mason in the first.
MAYBE you will be right later, but I don't agree with the inference you are making and what you are basing it on now.
It would make more sense if the norm around the league was to have one and only RB.
Fisher wants to run the ball. A lot. That is one reason he took Robinson, a dominant run blocker. A second RB in the stable helps make sure he can do that at a high level, it will serve the dual purpose of keeping both backs fresh in game with rotation, and preserving them both over the course of a season (may even extend their careeers).
Soulfly3
Footballguy
I'll go on the record as saying he carves a nice role immediately, and sure... by midseason, week 8, I say he'll be the primary ball carrier.
be it 60-40 or 70-30, or whatever. Just primary
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
Why did the Chiefs draft Knile Davis and the Seahawks draft C. Michael?
Phenix
Footballguy
I'm sorry I could be confused, but Mason does not have an elite NFL back in front of him?
I also can be confused but who did the Chiefs have besides McCluster and Charles before Davis and who did the Seahawks have besides Lynch and Turbin before Charles... also how old are Charles and Lynch? Called an expensive contingency plan.
The Rams had Stacy, Pead, Cunningham and Richardson but still drafted Mason.
Last edited by a moderator:
Boone22
Footballguy
Because they both have starting RBs who are getting old and/or have contracts that are expensive. This situation does not apply to the Stacy/Mason discussion.
Mason is a good player and will surely see the field. It will be some sort of a committee, no doubt.
Am happy to own both. But I am baffled that otherwise respectable and frequent posters seem to have lost all perception of reality in this specific debate. Really, Stacy sucks? The new Shonn Greene? Slow, hopeless, displaced by week 8, etc.? 22nd out of 22 backs? Have you guys been living under a rock last season? Never saw a Rams game?
Here are NFL highlights of a 5th-round back. Yeah, he is obviously terrible. No doubt will be thrown to the curbside as soon as Mason is healthy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oplKg5Brh_M
Mason will take a piece of the pie, but the tirades about how much Stacy sucks reek of ulterior motives.
Am happy to own both. But I am baffled that otherwise respectable and frequent posters seem to have lost all perception of reality in this specific debate. Really, Stacy sucks? The new Shonn Greene? Slow, hopeless, displaced by week 8, etc.? 22nd out of 22 backs? Have you guys been living under a rock last season? Never saw a Rams game?
Here are NFL highlights of a 5th-round back. Yeah, he is obviously terrible. No doubt will be thrown to the curbside as soon as Mason is healthy.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oplKg5Brh_M
Mason will take a piece of the pie, but the tirades about how much Stacy sucks reek of ulterior motives.
Junior McSpiffy
Footballguy
Really wish those highlight clips would show some RBs blowing up a blitzing LB in pass pro. Done right, it's just as sexy as the spin move to break a big run. It would also show what Mason can't do and why his field time will be more limited than what his running skills merit.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
According to FO the Rams were the 12 best in adjusted line yards. So slightly above average. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol
What is interesting is that the Rams ran middle/guard on 67% of their run plays. The average is 54%. The Rams only ran outside of the tackles on 8% of their carries. The average is 20%
jurb26
Footballguy
I'd expect that to change this year with Robinson on the field. He's one of the best run blocking T's to come out in a while. It should bump the oline as a whole I to the top 5 and increase their likelihood to run outside.
cstu
Footballguy
Woah, woah, woah, back up...I'm NOT saying he's a bad back by any means - I'm not pointing that he was not outstanding last year and there were weaknesses in his game.
IMO this is headed toward full blown RBBC unless one gets hurt.
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Having Bradford back will likely present at least some threat of a passing game which should help the RBs as well.
cstu
Footballguy
IMO pass blocking is a matter of effort and overcoming fear rather than talent.
jurb26
Footballguy
Meh, Bradford will be along for the ride.
ShaHBucks
Footballguy
next question. Why did Richardson play more than Pead? And why did Givens play more that Austin? I hope it's not because of draft position
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Per post #133 (didn't quote).
Like a lot of things football-related, it can be complex, there may be some things that are different, and some that are similar.
It's not like Mason can serve no possible role other than supplanting Stacy and starting, his role could be intended as one subordinate to but supplementing and complementing the incumbent starter in a RBBC, like Hill to Bernard.
I strongly disagree that drafting a third round RB = STL being down on Stacy in any way, or we should bank on Mason starting by week 8. Do you agree with those points? If not, than we don't disagree on the larger points.
At earlier points in the thread, I thought some were too high on Stacy, and too low on Mason, and tried correct that as I see it. Lately, IMO some are too down on Stacy and possibly too high on Mason and so am trying to redress the balance as I see it in this case.
Yes, Gio is expected to carry the ball less than Stacy, if Stacy remains the starter. But some here think Mason will relegate Stacy to a backup role by mid-season if not sooner. Again, unless you think Hill is going to relegate Bernard to a backup role by week 8 (or at all), than that is the similarity and the point still stands. Even though Bernard isn't a bruiser and they may want Hill to split carries more than STL may intend to in their RBBC (if they have one), taking a RB in the second doesn't mean they view Hill as a starter and Gio a backup, so why would drafting Mason a round later mean that for Stacy, as in NECESSARILY. It's somebody's opinion.
Not saying you are saying this, but for the purposes of the the thread, this situation may be more nuanced than Stacy is terrible and will be relegated to a back up role by mid-season or sooner, and Mason is awesome and will emerge as the starter by mid-season. Maybe they will both be good, as Bernard and Hill appear to be? I don't think Stacy is great, but he could be pretty good. As noted, other RBs that later turned out be to very good have turned in 3.9 YPC averages (or worse, and maybe in better situations than having Clemens as a starter in 9/12 games, or all the injury-caused OL churning?) as rookies, and it wasn't a death blow to their career. Maybe Stacy isn't a good goal line runner? I didn't comb the game logs on a play by play basis to see why he seemed to have an unusual number of 1 yard TD runs. Was he repulsed on a lot of no or short gain runs leading up to that, or was he or a a WR stopped short at the one a flukey amount of times (12 games, again, with Clemens starting most of them, isn't an extensive body of work). Maybe he will have more 2-3 yard TD runs this year with upgraded run blocking? I realize it may be a sign of lack of explosiveness (and some leagues get bonus points for long TDs), he isn't Jamaal Charles and probably will never break a lot of 50+ yard TD runs, but could still be valuable if he remains the starter.
As to Stacy's pass catching, the same potential root cause of a low YPC could have had a similar impact on his low reception yardage average. Since defenses didn't respect Clemens or the passing game, they crashed the line on run plays. Since defenses didn't respect the passing game even on pass plays, that may have left the short/intermediate areas congested, and more likely to snuff out dump offs (Stacy wasn't running WR routes like Faulk, Westbrook, or even Gio, but most RBs don't).
A hypothetical that Sims could outplay Martin still doesn't mean we have to interpret drafting a third round RB (like Sims or Mason) as meaning the teams thinks the incumbent is mediocre, per Phenix, the point I was objecting to.
STL and CIN drafted a big RB and a smaller RB in consecutive drafts, they just flipped the order in which they took them, with the former following up a bigger RB with a smaller one, and vice verce in the latter case. It seems to me at least as face value and straightforward an explanation for the drafting of Mason, like Hill, is both teams want to run it a lot, can do it better with two starter caliber RBs each (which I think Mason and Hill are), and if the starter is injured, not skip a beat in the ground game, which is very important to them. Hill presents a more obvious skill set complement to Bernard, but Mason also brings different skills to the table from the incumbent.
I just don't think a third is a high pick for a RB like Mason, when that would have put him outside the top 5 RBs in 2013 (after second rounders Bernard, Bell, Ball, Lacy and Michael), and fifth in 2014, after Sankey, Hill, Hyde and Sims. How far back does a RB have to be drafted, at what point, where it no longer suggests the team wants to pull the plug on the incumbent, 10-15 deep?
Fisher and/or Snead called Mason a change of pace back during the draft, and recently tossed out a 70% figure as the percentage Stacy is expected to get in 2014. Anything can happen. Stacy could turn into a pumpkin, and average 1.0 YPC like he did the in the last game against SEA, Mason could go crazy and average 200 yards and 2 TDs per game.
But I don't think that drafting a RB in the third round necessarily means the team must not like the incumbent is the only, best or even likely interpretation of the data. Is it true that drafting a third round RB usually leads to the incumbent being replaced immediately. Are complementary, depth and potential future starting RBs sometimes taken with third round picks?
I also don't think STL had one of the best OLs in the league in 2013, and that "only" pacing for 1,300 rushing yards and 10+ TDs (whether they included an inordinate amount of the 1 yard variety or not) or being last in receiving yardage average, under the circumstances, with the QB and OL injuries and shuffling, means Stacy isn't a good RB. Better QB and OL talent and continuity in 2014, health permitting, that could help Mason, can help Stacy do better as well.
Fisher and Snead claimed they weren't necessarily looking for a RB, but the value of Mason to them was too good to pass up at that point. Maybe they viewed him as a potential second rounder (I think round 2-3 grade may have been the consensus, but the same players can have different values depending on fit for different teams). It didn't sound like they thought of it as a dire need, as if Stacy was a deficient and sub-standard starter in their eyes (maybe it was just disinformation?). Given that many seem to agree Fisher wants to run, how important it is too him, and it makes sense for a lot of reasons (QB and LT tore ACLs 6-8 months ago, they just retained an expensive interior OL in Saffold and drafted a dominant run blocker at 1.2, etc.), if Fisher and Snead were as down on Stacy as Phenix and Soulfly have it, would they have prioritized replacing him with an even higher pick, maybe even used a second rounder, or at least traded up from the third? Sure, they needed Joyner, too, as a nickel CB/FS, and he no doubt graded higher (they took him first), but if Stacy is as bad as some think, than getting a starting RB would seem to have been internally viewed as a more pressing problem than their actual draft decisions indicate (there is no way they could have known Mason would last to their third round pick, and there was arguably a drop off after him, to RBs like West and Williams). If a new starting RB was viewed as a dire need, they could have made certain they got the one of their choice in the second round, and had their pick of Hyde, Hill or even Mason (who again, if they in fact liked him best in the class, couldn't have known would fall to them).
* Every pick has a specific context, every third round pick may not necessarily be like every other third round pick (even for the same team with multiple picks in that round, or in different drafts), depending on team need and intent. In the case of the Rams, this may not have been a typical third round pick. For one reason, due to the RG3 windfall, they have had 5 first round picks in the past three drafts (four in the top half of the first round), and don't have as many gaping holes as in recent years. Between that and free agency (Finnegan imploded, but they added starters Long, Cook, Wells, Dunbar and retained Saffold), they have upgraded starter talent, competition and depth at many positions, they may not have needed to positional reach, they could afford the "luxury" of a player intended as key depth at first, with possible future upside. In a way, it was a bonus pick perhaps a bit less encumbered than some other recent ones. With two firsts, a second and third, even before picking Mason as there fourth player, they had already filled two of their most glaring needs with best in class LT Robinson and top 5 safety/top 2 nickel CB Joyner, plus an unexpected BPA gift with best in class DT Donald. They later backstopped BOTH OL and DB positions multiple times later. STL thinking Mason makes the team better doesn't necessarily entail they thought the position was a glaring need, or that he is ticketed as a near immediate starter, and the pick was prompted by the coaches and front office being down on Stacy.
If we do a taxonomy of the other STL third round picks in the Fisher/Snead-era, who are they, where are they now, and did they immediately displace incumbents, or at least that had done as well as Stacy in his rookie year?
2012 - Trumaine Johnson, starting CB, promoted year two, due to Finnegan's unexpectedly rapid decline.
2013 - T.J. McDonald, starting safety as a rookie and Stedman Bailey, started a few games at the end of the year when Austin was injured (missed last 3 games), was expected to play a bigger role in 2014, recently suspended for the first four games could land him in the dog house or delay his progress.
In the cases of Johnson and McDonald starting, they weren't displacing strong starters, and the same would probably hold for Bailey if he emerges. McDonald was the only one of the three that started immediately.
Like a lot of things football-related, it can be complex, there may be some things that are different, and some that are similar.
It's not like Mason can serve no possible role other than supplanting Stacy and starting, his role could be intended as one subordinate to but supplementing and complementing the incumbent starter in a RBBC, like Hill to Bernard.
I strongly disagree that drafting a third round RB = STL being down on Stacy in any way, or we should bank on Mason starting by week 8. Do you agree with those points? If not, than we don't disagree on the larger points.
At earlier points in the thread, I thought some were too high on Stacy, and too low on Mason, and tried correct that as I see it. Lately, IMO some are too down on Stacy and possibly too high on Mason and so am trying to redress the balance as I see it in this case.
Yes, Gio is expected to carry the ball less than Stacy, if Stacy remains the starter. But some here think Mason will relegate Stacy to a backup role by mid-season if not sooner. Again, unless you think Hill is going to relegate Bernard to a backup role by week 8 (or at all), than that is the similarity and the point still stands. Even though Bernard isn't a bruiser and they may want Hill to split carries more than STL may intend to in their RBBC (if they have one), taking a RB in the second doesn't mean they view Hill as a starter and Gio a backup, so why would drafting Mason a round later mean that for Stacy, as in NECESSARILY. It's somebody's opinion.
Not saying you are saying this, but for the purposes of the the thread, this situation may be more nuanced than Stacy is terrible and will be relegated to a back up role by mid-season or sooner, and Mason is awesome and will emerge as the starter by mid-season. Maybe they will both be good, as Bernard and Hill appear to be? I don't think Stacy is great, but he could be pretty good. As noted, other RBs that later turned out be to very good have turned in 3.9 YPC averages (or worse, and maybe in better situations than having Clemens as a starter in 9/12 games, or all the injury-caused OL churning?) as rookies, and it wasn't a death blow to their career. Maybe Stacy isn't a good goal line runner? I didn't comb the game logs on a play by play basis to see why he seemed to have an unusual number of 1 yard TD runs. Was he repulsed on a lot of no or short gain runs leading up to that, or was he or a a WR stopped short at the one a flukey amount of times (12 games, again, with Clemens starting most of them, isn't an extensive body of work). Maybe he will have more 2-3 yard TD runs this year with upgraded run blocking? I realize it may be a sign of lack of explosiveness (and some leagues get bonus points for long TDs), he isn't Jamaal Charles and probably will never break a lot of 50+ yard TD runs, but could still be valuable if he remains the starter.
As to Stacy's pass catching, the same potential root cause of a low YPC could have had a similar impact on his low reception yardage average. Since defenses didn't respect Clemens or the passing game, they crashed the line on run plays. Since defenses didn't respect the passing game even on pass plays, that may have left the short/intermediate areas congested, and more likely to snuff out dump offs (Stacy wasn't running WR routes like Faulk, Westbrook, or even Gio, but most RBs don't).
A hypothetical that Sims could outplay Martin still doesn't mean we have to interpret drafting a third round RB (like Sims or Mason) as meaning the teams thinks the incumbent is mediocre, per Phenix, the point I was objecting to.
STL and CIN drafted a big RB and a smaller RB in consecutive drafts, they just flipped the order in which they took them, with the former following up a bigger RB with a smaller one, and vice verce in the latter case. It seems to me at least as face value and straightforward an explanation for the drafting of Mason, like Hill, is both teams want to run it a lot, can do it better with two starter caliber RBs each (which I think Mason and Hill are), and if the starter is injured, not skip a beat in the ground game, which is very important to them. Hill presents a more obvious skill set complement to Bernard, but Mason also brings different skills to the table from the incumbent.
I just don't think a third is a high pick for a RB like Mason, when that would have put him outside the top 5 RBs in 2013 (after second rounders Bernard, Bell, Ball, Lacy and Michael), and fifth in 2014, after Sankey, Hill, Hyde and Sims. How far back does a RB have to be drafted, at what point, where it no longer suggests the team wants to pull the plug on the incumbent, 10-15 deep?
Fisher and/or Snead called Mason a change of pace back during the draft, and recently tossed out a 70% figure as the percentage Stacy is expected to get in 2014. Anything can happen. Stacy could turn into a pumpkin, and average 1.0 YPC like he did the in the last game against SEA, Mason could go crazy and average 200 yards and 2 TDs per game.
But I don't think that drafting a RB in the third round necessarily means the team must not like the incumbent is the only, best or even likely interpretation of the data. Is it true that drafting a third round RB usually leads to the incumbent being replaced immediately. Are complementary, depth and potential future starting RBs sometimes taken with third round picks?
I also don't think STL had one of the best OLs in the league in 2013, and that "only" pacing for 1,300 rushing yards and 10+ TDs (whether they included an inordinate amount of the 1 yard variety or not) or being last in receiving yardage average, under the circumstances, with the QB and OL injuries and shuffling, means Stacy isn't a good RB. Better QB and OL talent and continuity in 2014, health permitting, that could help Mason, can help Stacy do better as well.
Fisher and Snead claimed they weren't necessarily looking for a RB, but the value of Mason to them was too good to pass up at that point. Maybe they viewed him as a potential second rounder (I think round 2-3 grade may have been the consensus, but the same players can have different values depending on fit for different teams). It didn't sound like they thought of it as a dire need, as if Stacy was a deficient and sub-standard starter in their eyes (maybe it was just disinformation?). Given that many seem to agree Fisher wants to run, how important it is too him, and it makes sense for a lot of reasons (QB and LT tore ACLs 6-8 months ago, they just retained an expensive interior OL in Saffold and drafted a dominant run blocker at 1.2, etc.), if Fisher and Snead were as down on Stacy as Phenix and Soulfly have it, would they have prioritized replacing him with an even higher pick, maybe even used a second rounder, or at least traded up from the third? Sure, they needed Joyner, too, as a nickel CB/FS, and he no doubt graded higher (they took him first), but if Stacy is as bad as some think, than getting a starting RB would seem to have been internally viewed as a more pressing problem than their actual draft decisions indicate (there is no way they could have known Mason would last to their third round pick, and there was arguably a drop off after him, to RBs like West and Williams). If a new starting RB was viewed as a dire need, they could have made certain they got the one of their choice in the second round, and had their pick of Hyde, Hill or even Mason (who again, if they in fact liked him best in the class, couldn't have known would fall to them).
* Every pick has a specific context, every third round pick may not necessarily be like every other third round pick (even for the same team with multiple picks in that round, or in different drafts), depending on team need and intent. In the case of the Rams, this may not have been a typical third round pick. For one reason, due to the RG3 windfall, they have had 5 first round picks in the past three drafts (four in the top half of the first round), and don't have as many gaping holes as in recent years. Between that and free agency (Finnegan imploded, but they added starters Long, Cook, Wells, Dunbar and retained Saffold), they have upgraded starter talent, competition and depth at many positions, they may not have needed to positional reach, they could afford the "luxury" of a player intended as key depth at first, with possible future upside. In a way, it was a bonus pick perhaps a bit less encumbered than some other recent ones. With two firsts, a second and third, even before picking Mason as there fourth player, they had already filled two of their most glaring needs with best in class LT Robinson and top 5 safety/top 2 nickel CB Joyner, plus an unexpected BPA gift with best in class DT Donald. They later backstopped BOTH OL and DB positions multiple times later. STL thinking Mason makes the team better doesn't necessarily entail they thought the position was a glaring need, or that he is ticketed as a near immediate starter, and the pick was prompted by the coaches and front office being down on Stacy.
If we do a taxonomy of the other STL third round picks in the Fisher/Snead-era, who are they, where are they now, and did they immediately displace incumbents, or at least that had done as well as Stacy in his rookie year?
2012 - Trumaine Johnson, starting CB, promoted year two, due to Finnegan's unexpectedly rapid decline.
2013 - T.J. McDonald, starting safety as a rookie and Stedman Bailey, started a few games at the end of the year when Austin was injured (missed last 3 games), was expected to play a bigger role in 2014, recently suspended for the first four games could land him in the dog house or delay his progress.
In the cases of Johnson and McDonald starting, they weren't displacing strong starters, and the same would probably hold for Bailey if he emerges. McDonald was the only one of the three that started immediately.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
Then why do players as good as Adrian Peterson continue to struggle in pass protection?
It isn't due to a lack of effort or fear for him. Other players like Gerhart and Taylor were just better at it than he was.
Bob Magaw
Footballguy
Me, too, I was just disputing that STL had one of the top OLs in the league last year, and thinking that was a good reason to downgrade Stacy. If the OL is good for Mason, it will be good for Stacy, too (and a QB better than Clemens, noted a few times).Just to be clear, I do think Mason may be more talented than Stacy, and could force close to an even split of carries or even supplant him. I would distinguish my position from Phenix and Soulfly in a few ways. I don't expect it by week 8 or sooner (and not as a rookie, if it does eventually happen). Also, I don't think Stacy is as bad as they seem to think (or that the Rams think that, based on the stated rationale for thinking the Rams think that), and because of that, while I also like Mason, I don't share their conviction that Stacy is doomed to be quickly swept aside by Mason, and think it is misplaced (after this season is a separate conversation, I think he MIGHT have the talent to supplant Stacy). Even if Mason does emerge as the lead RB, there are more nuanced possibilities than Stacy terrible, Mason awesome.
Stacy could be good and Mason could be a little better (or vice verce). That might suggest, even for those hopefuls in the Mason camp (Free Masons?) less dominance in a future RBBC split than they are expecting. That would make it harder for Mason to decisively beat out Stacy, imo, than some have suggested.
Last edited by a moderator:
Biabreakable
Footballguy
You're cracking me up Bob. Free LenDale! 
Similar threads
