Whether it's your first Bonnaroo or you’re a music festival veteran, we welcome you to Inforoo.
Here you'll find info about artists, rumors, camping tips, and the infamous Roo Clues. Have a look around then create an account and join in the fun. See you at Bonnaroo!!
Post by Alberto Balsalm on Sept 18, 2012 0:49:57 GMT -5
Even with Westbrook, a lot of his production came from receiving out of the backfield, similar to McCoy now, and he was also an incredible punt returner. Despite having the among the weakest receiving corps. in the NFL for years, Reid routinely threw 40-50 times with McNabb during that era, and a lot of it ended up in Westbrook's hands. That has always been my main (only) beef with Reid is his stubborness against the run. I still think it's part of the reason why they lost the Super Bowl in 05.
The McNabb/Westbrook-Vick/McCoy dynamic is actually eerily similar, the Eagles did a great job of seamlessly transitioning between two generations of the roster while maintaining the same offensive principles and gameplans. Even down to McNabb and Vick being forced into trying to become "prototype NFL pocket passers" to "prolong their careers" even though the team is clearly better when they run. McNabb was losing his speed pretty rapidly so that played a role in him transitioning to a more traditional QB, but Vick still has his and the offense is clearly better and more dynamic when he runs, yet Reid is trying to mold him into a pocket QB to preserve his body. He just needs to learn to slide and not take the big hits all the time and his body should be fine.
Sorry, that just turned into a bit of an Eagles rant there at the end.
To be fair, depending on the run to win one individual game, fine. It's pretty much proven though, over the last 20-25 years that a great running game will not carry you to the promised land. You either have to throw the ball or have great defense.
To be fair, depending on the run to win one individual game, fine. It's pretty much proven though, over the last 20-25 years that a great running game will not carry you to the promised land. You either have to throw the ball or have great defense.
Eagles have a great defense, but I don't think Alberto is saying become a running team, I think he's saying commit to running it.
Defenses strive to do one thing early in games, make an opposing offense one-dimensional. It is infinitely easier to defend a team that you know is going to pass it 9/10 times. Sure, it makes that one run more effective than normal, but it makes those 9 passes less effective as well.
As someone who has been forced to watch many, many Eagles games, it frustrates me as a football fan. You have one of the most talented offensive weapons and a player who it is truly enjoyable to watch run the ball and he ignores him for huge stretches.
McCoy running the ball is unique to other backs because he doesn't get touched most times until he's 4 yards downfield. Andy is doing two things by not running it as much as he should: making his team one dimensional and opening his fragile QB up to a lot of unnecessary hits.
I'm not disagreeing with you guys. We don't get much Eagles games here, so I can't speak to Andy Reid's play calling. I agree that having a well balanced offense us crucial to an offenses production. I'm just making the point that overall, the running back position isn't that important to an nfl team's success. We just had a long summer in Chicago dealing with Matt Forte's holdout. A lot of fans were screaming for Forte to get a big deal, and I was steadfast against it. I think that decent run production is easy to come by, and the league seems to see a lot of these backs being seriously over paid: Chris Johnson, Deangelo Williams, and even McCoy. In my opinion, the running back position is the last thing a team should worry about. QB, O-Line, WR's and most defensive positions are much more important. So when you guys started discussing running backs, it reminded me of the debate we had here in Chicago this summer.
I'm not disagreeing with you guys. We don't get much Eagles games here, so I can't speak to Andy Reid's play calling. I agree that having a well balanced offense us crucial to an offenses production. I'm just making the point that overall, the running back position isn't that important to an nfl team's success. We just had a long summer in Chicago dealing with Matt Forte's holdout. A lot of fans were screaming for Forte to get a big deal, and I was steadfast against it. I think that decent run production is easy to come by, and the league seems to see a lot of these backs being seriously over paid: Chris Johnson, Deangelo Williams, and even McCoy. In my opinion, the running back position is the last thing a team should worry about. QB, O-Line, WR's and most defensive positions are much more important. So when you guys started discussing running backs, it reminded me of the debate we had here in Chicago this summer.
Well, I personally think Forte is a bit overrated, and agree he's not worth an Adrian Peterson-level deal, but McCoy is. There are, at any point in time, 3-5 NFL RB's that CAN single-handedly win you games. Peterson, McCoy, Foster, Rice.....and that's it.
So, in your case, I would have definitely sided with you, but in McCoy's case, I would side with someone who wanted to pay him. Certain RB's are just too important and do too much for their teams. Forte is a jack-of-all-trades type, for sure, but I just don't see him in that same class. He's part of the MJD/D-Mac/Marshawn/Ryan Mathews class, IMO.
I don't think a rb should ever be payed more than 6M a year. Even those guys you mentioned. RB's aren't going to win you the Super Bowl. The highest-paid-Super-Bowl-winning RB over the last 15 years, was Willie Parker with the Steelers in 05. He was payed just under 5M. Out of all those 15 backs, only one won the MVP, Terrell Davis in 98. TD and Marshall Faulk are probably the only two HOF's. When teams invest a large chunk of their cap money into the rb position, they fail. All those backs you mentioned have many more pieces around them except for Peterson, and the Vikings are going to be at the bottom of their division. The Lions tried to put the success of their team on the back of the best back to play the game, and all it got them were a bunch of mediocre seasons.
I don't think a rb should ever be payed more than 6M a year. Even those guys you mentioned. RB's aren't going to win you the Super Bowl. The highest-paid-Super-Bowl-winning RB over the last 15 years, was Willie Parker with the Steelers in 05. He was payed just under 5M. Out of all those 15 backs, only one won the MVP, Terrell Davis in 98. TD and Marshall Faulk are probably the only two HOF's. When teams invest a large chunk of their cap money into the rb position, they fail. All those backs you mentioned have many more pieces around them except for Peterson, and the Vikings are going to be at the bottom of their division. The Lions tried to put the success of their team on the back of the best back to play the game, and all it got them were a bunch of mediocre seasons.
You can't use figures from 15 years ago, or even 10 years ago, since the NFL values positions differently from year-to-year.
We're in a trend where the past two SB champions have had little-to-no running games, but from 2007-2009 each SB team emphasized the run enough that they were all top-10 in rushing attempts for the season. Now, would those teams have been even better with an elite RB? I would think so.
There is no single formula for winning, you can win with an elite RB and if the Eagles don't win it's not because they gave McCoy more than $6 million. They're actually exceptional at controlling their cap and their guaranteed $ from year-to-year, so giving McCoy an elite RB contract won't cripple them. Teams that lose with an elite RB don't know how to manage a roster & the cap, they don't lose because of the elite RB.
If the Jets had McCoy they'd be AFC East favorites, probably. The guy makes that much of a difference.
Obviously he doesn't make that big of a difference, otherwise the eagles would be favored in the nfc east. Plus McCoy is going to eat up the most cap room later in his deal, and I guarantee the Eagles will be mediocre. Yes, you can win with an elite back, but you CAN NOT win without either a great QB or a nasty D. That's a fact.
Also, you just said that we are in a trend of seeing running games seemingly becoming less important. Yet we are also seeing backs making way more money than ever before. Hence, these teams are grossly over-paying for a position whose importance is dwindling.
Also, you just said that we are in a trend of seeing running games seemingly becoming less important. Yet we are also seeing backs making way more money than ever before. Hence, these teams are grossly over-paying for a position whose importance is dwindling.
I didn't say I necessarily agree with the trend of "throwing 50 times and running 10," just pointing out that the past two SB champs sucked at running it.
I think a team like Houston can definitely win a SB (or the Jets in 2010). Emphasis on running it with complimentary passing game and a stout defense.
I just want to clarify my stance. I don't mean to say that a great running game won't help you win. Of course it will. Versatility for an offense is key. I just think a great running game is over-valued in today's NFL. I would much rather see my team invest their money in a lot of other positions, before rb.
There are, at any point in time, 3-5 NFL RB's that CAN single-handedly win you games. Peterson, McCoy, Foster, Rice.....and that's it.
. . .
Certain RB's are just too important and do too much for their teams. Forte is a jack-of-all-trades type, for sure, but I just don't see him in that same class. He's part of the MJD/D-Mac/Marshawn/Ryan Mathews class, IMO.
I'd ask you to kindly revisit the second half of last season, then let me know if you'd like to place Beast Mode in that "can single-handedly win you games" category. Lynch WAS the Seahawks offense, every team knew he was going to run it, and that was that.
I'd also argue that MJD is more important to his team's success than, say, McCoy or Foster (both of whom play on teams that have pretty terrific offenses regardless). The argument has to be that in some cases, backs like McCoy or Foster might only be as effective as they are because of the teams they play for - for instance, you can't just stack the line against the Eagles and key on McCoy, because you need to worry about Vick running, or about the receivers (well...maybe). With MJD, or Lynch last year, or Adrian Peterson? Not so much.
Lynch was elite for about 9-10 games last year, I wouldn't argue that. But those other backs have done it for full seasons. Lynch is always doing something dumb to get suspended or getting a nagging injury. I love the guy (easily one of my favorite players to root for based on his insanity and playing style), but I don't think he's the level of those other guys.
MJD you could argue for, but even Thomas Jones had 1400 yards in 2009 when the Jets faced 9 or 10 men in the box defensive formations. Not saying TJ and MJD are on similar levels, or are even in the same building, but having success with one-dimensional offenses isn't impossible if you have a good run blocking OL which, contrary to popular belief, the Jags actually had last year.
I still think MJD is a notch below (as is Lynch), but they have days where they look like they're top-tier guys and on average they're still really, really good. I'd say Lynch/MJD/DeMarco Murray have the best shot at joining that top tier. Lynch puts together another year like last year and I'd consider him a fringe member, same goes for MJD. Murray will be there if Jason Garrett stops intentionally ruining his fantasy value by giving him the most random touches possible for a RB who plays 80% of the time.
And Shonn Greene runs like he's got a load in his pants, so this is all just me being jealous that most other teams have a sick RB and I watch Greene tackle himself for 5 yards all game.
Well to be fair Richardson was on limited touches Week 1 considering he hadn't even stepped on a field yet in an NFL uniform and was still recovering from his knee injury
Richardson carried the ball about 60% more than they wanted him to in the opener. If was definitely his first NFL game ever, and his first game in 9 months. He looked sluggish against the Eagles, but 100% better on Sunday. We need that!
Bonnaroo 2008-2013
0ct 11 Pearl Jam
Oct 12 Pearl Jam
March 16 Arcade Fire
April 29 Arcade Fire
Sept 4 Wilco
Sept 9 The Hold Steady
Oct 16 Pearl Jam
Oct 17 Gaslight Anthem
Well to be fair Richardson was on limited touches Week 1 considering he hadn't even stepped on a field yet in an NFL uniform and was still recovering from his knee injury
Richardson carried the ball about 60% more than they wanted him to in the opener. If was definitely his first NFL game ever, and his first game in 9 months. He looked sluggish against the Eagles, but 100% better on Sunday. We need that!
He looked awesome on Sunday. He has a chance to be the real deal for you guys.
Sadly, I used that awesome performance as trade bait to get Julio Jones (down week for Jones, up week for T-Rich). Hope I don't regret it.
Post by clevelndmike on Sept 19, 2012 17:08:17 GMT -5
It would be nice if that was just the tip of the iceberg. He really helped Weeden, and is scary good coming out of the backfield as the outlet.
I will say that I gave the Browns ineptitude a lot of the credit for the opening week loss, but after watching the last 6 minutes of Eagles/Baltimore, that Eagles defense is scary good. Getting Ryans really solidified that squad.
Bonnaroo 2008-2013
0ct 11 Pearl Jam
Oct 12 Pearl Jam
March 16 Arcade Fire
April 29 Arcade Fire
Sept 4 Wilco
Sept 9 The Hold Steady
Oct 16 Pearl Jam
Oct 17 Gaslight Anthem
Danny Amendola was one of the few times my own insight paid off. Figured him and Bradford would have good chemistry both being from the Big 12 and all. Here's hoping that trend continues. Reggie Bush is surprisingly killing it for me as well. Keep feeding him the rock Sherman! Meanwhile Larry Fitzgerald has given me 6 total points...
Cowboys played like shiz last week. Anyone want Felix Jones? Take him now. I'll take a mist machine for him at this point.
I'm going to the game Sunday. Good news is Romo historically smokes Tampa Bay (sorry Bucs fans).
Last Edit: Sept 21, 2012 13:59:31 GMT -5 by Deleted - Back to Top
Does anyone read KSK here? I think the greatest thing to come out of that site has to be the Jay Cutler "DOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOOON'T CAAAAAAAARRRRRRRREEEEEEE."
For the record, I think Reese is a very good GM and deserves all the credit he gets for the Giants' recent success. That being said, last week they rode two players (Brown/Barden) to a victory that they took in '09 and let develop for 3 full years on the bench, . This makes Reese a genius in the papers, while Tanny is an idiot for picking Vlad Ducasse (taken one round earlier than Barden, albeit a year later), letting him sit on the bench for two years and develop, and now that Vlad's beginning to force his way in the starting lineup in his 3rd year (with one offseason taken away because of the lockout) it's being seen as "too little, too late" by the press.
How can a guy who has been in the league one year less be a bust, but Barden was just "given the time to grow on the bench?"
The media is so irritating sometimes.
Anyway, go Jets, I hope they stomp a hole in Flipper today. It's hot, raining and humid in Miami, which means an ugly game that the Jets could easily give away. SWEET. See you at the pub.
Bears need a big bounce back win this weekend. Especially since this whole Cutler-J Webb incident was made a much bigger deal than it is, speaking of ridiculous media coverage. I put 12 points on them in pick-em, so they better not bite me in the ass.
I put 12 points on them in pick-em, so they better not bite me in the ass.
There were a lot of games this week in which I gave teams wayyy more points than I wanted to. I also think I picked like 9-10 road teams which seams asinine but I guess we'll see.