Reaganaut Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 [WEB]http://www.nfl.com/fantasy/story/6480815[/WEB] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
JMac Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 I dont think it really matters who our running back is, they are all gonna get their shot to perform. If any of you listened to the Junkies this morning it was fun to listen to Matt Bowen who said its hard to get to and tackle Morton. Gonna be fun no matter who is back there Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
jbooma Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 When you take a kicker, you want him to be on a team with either a great defense or a poor defense, but always with an offense that can stall in the red zoneWithout any big-play receivers, the Eagles have been solid stallers inside the 20, which is when David Akers is called in to boot three points. It also doesn't hurt to take an accurate kicker who has proven that he can split the uprights from 50 yards out. :rotflmao: :eaglesuck Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
tenaciousd Posted July 16, 2003 Share Posted July 16, 2003 Morton is incredibly fast. From what I read apparantly the coaches were even shocked how fast he is. They were very excited about the possiblity of running him on draw plays and the such. Oh, and I have to thank Dave Richard (whoever that is) for my laugh of the day: "Michael Vick exploded onto the fantasy scene last year, but it's only the first time he's done it." No kidding Davey! It was his first year starting! :gus: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7stepdrop Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Ok, let me think. This is a hard one. On one hand, I can have Troy Hambrick, an RB who backed up one of the greatest RBs in NFL history, and did it well when called upon. On the other hand, I can have Trung Canidate, fumble master who couldn't even win the 2nd string job over Lamar Freaking Gordon. :finger: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 With analysis like that 7step, it's hard to go right. The problem with your thinking is that while Hambrick backed up one of the greatest running backs in the history of the NFL he also backed up, at the exact same time, an aging, limited threat, who was incapable of even being a very good running back anymore. Smith was barely and not even a 1,000 yard rusher in a heavy rushing offense where getting to that number by simple force of effort should be impossible to avoid. But, that is just one factor as to why you may want to think harder on the hard ones to be better prepared to speak. Let's just put it this way, the running back position for the Washington Redskins scares most fans for our understanding that we can't be sure what type of production will be possible from the spot. But, as usual when we worry about things like that, we look down and realize, at least we're not in YOUR position at the position. All's well. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
7stepdrop Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by Art With analysis like that 7step, it's hard to go right. The problem with your thinking is that while Hambrick backed up one of the greatest running backs in the history of the NFL he also backed up, at the exact same time, an aging, limited threat, who was incapable of even being a very good running back anymore. Smith was barely and not even a 1,000 yard rusher in a heavy rushing offense where getting to that number by simple force of effort should be impossible to avoid. But, that is just one factor as to why you may want to think harder on the hard ones to be better prepared to speak. Let's just put it this way, the running back position for the Washington Redskins scares most fans for our understanding that we can't be sure what type of production will be possible from the spot. But, as usual when we worry about things like that, we look down and realize, at least we're not in YOUR position at the position. All's well. I never said that I thought the Cowboys were more set at the RB than the skins. I understand that the skins are in a better position than the cowboys at that position. I just simply don't think Trung Canidate is anything to get excited about. He had a few good games in 2001, specifically the game against NY where he rushed for 195 yards on 23 attempts. That's amazing. But where he leaves something to be desired is the very next week against New Orleans, I believe, he had 12 carries for 19 yards in a game in which he started. He also fumbled twice in that game. Now I am sure one could pick out a ton of flaws in Hambricks game, and who knows how either one of them will turn out. I just think if I had to pick one to start any team, I would have to go with Hambrick. To me, Canidate is speed, and that gets people excited when they don't have much else to be excited about. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Remarkably, this seems a bright, thoughtful, well-intentioned post, 7step. I can't fault you for much at all in it other than the thought that you'd take Hambrick to start on any team. Hambrick doesn't fit the type of offense the Redskins would run, so you wouldn't pick Hambrick to start on that team. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
glorydays Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 To boot, Hambrick DID NOT back up Emmitt Smith well. In fact when called upon, he often fizzled, leaving the team in situations to pass or simply leaving them short of a first in critical moments. It's his size that Parcells is clearly lookiing at, but he won't put him in the class of an O.J. Anderson or Joe Morris, until he sees for himself what the problem is. Parcells may feel with the size Hambrick has and if the back can absorb what he wants from a feature back, then he may have something. On the other hand he may dump him after the same redundant Hambrick shows in a few games. Parcells is not known for a lot of patience, thus the reason he's been with so many teams. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
G-Town Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 I hate the Cowgirls as much as anyone on this board, but Hambrick is good. That is what I have to say. PS I got LOADED tonight with my buddies. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Bill Watts Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 a choice of two career backup RBs, neither of whom has proven a swinging thing so far. some choice. whichever QB has the best year will dictate which RB has the best year. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 CBW, You'd better hope it doesn't come down to whichever QB has the best year as the determining factor as to which running back will because if that's the case you've just made a guarantee the Redskins will have the advantage at running back. There is no doubt we'll have better QB production than you will. We'll have more passing yardage. That's what we do. Parcells can allow a great passing game as well, but, when he's got a team built like yours it's more likely he'll have more of a running team. The question isn't really about QB production, which is an area in which you are hopelessly overmatched before we even address who the QBs are, but, whether the running back production in your offense can be greater than in ours given the difference in the system we run as compared to you. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boozeman3 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by Art With analysis like that 7step, it's hard to go right. The problem with your thinking is that while Hambrick backed up one of the greatest running backs in the history of the NFL he also backed up, at the exact same time, an aging, limited threat, who was incapable of even being a very good running back anymore. Smith was barely and not even a 1,000 yard rusher in a heavy rushing offense where getting to that number by simple force of effort should be impossible to avoid. But, that is just one factor as to why you may want to think harder on the hard ones to be better prepared to speak. Let's just put it this way, the running back position for the Washington Redskins scares most fans for our understanding that we can't be sure what type of production will be possible from the spot. But, as usual when we worry about things like that, we look down and realize, at least we're not in YOUR position at the position. All's well. Art: May I post your message over at my board? I might liven up an otherwise dull morning :cool: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisFul Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Art: Are you so worried about the redskins that you get up in the morning and find any way you possibly can to rip the Cowboys to make yourself feel better? This latest "At least we aren't the Cowboys at RB" is quite funny. Hambrick ran for 500+ yards two years ago as a backup, averaging over FIVE yards per carry and 317 last year on 4 yards per carry. He also caught 21 balls. For his 3-year career, he has averaged 4.7 ypc and that's WITH teams stacking the line since we havent had much of a passing game since '99. Whereas you have a first-round BUST who couldn't fight his way out of 3rd on the depth chart even WITH his blinding speed for a coach who LOVES to put speed on the field (and has a rep for fumbling), and two guys who both played well last season - neither of whom played any better than Hambrick has. Not to mention that Dallas has the better fullback. So how is your starting backfield so much better than Dallas? There's a clear advantage there, but it doesnt rest with the Skins. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
boozeman3 Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by boozeman3 Art: May I post your message over at my board? I might liven up an otherwise dull morning :cool: Nevermind, Art. ChrisFool is bringing his wood here. :rotflmao: Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 very difficult to compare players who have not shown much on the field as of yet in the NFL. in a way this is like comparing Carr, Harrington and Ramsey after last year's draft. no one really knew at the time which one would turn out to be the best of the #1 picks at qb. Hambrick and Canidate are physically and stylistically opposites. There is no comparison in that regard. Hambrick is over 220 and Canidate is known as a finesse, find the hole on the draw type of darter. If both players become starters and are productive, I expect to see Hambrick with more rushing yardage in the aggregate, but Canidate will have a better per carry average and more receptions. To get an accurate gauge on the Skins backs I think you will have to look at the total numbers for Canidate, Betts and Watson. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Cowboy Bill Watts Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 art, you are absolutely correct (as you often are) in response to my prior post. the candidate/hambrick comparison in terms of who fares the best will be a function of the level the rest of the offense plays at. neither back is a franchise-type back. if they were, they wouldn't be career backups. as for which offense will allow the best RB production, i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one till opening day....... :-) Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Chris, I feel rather good about my team. I just enjoy the fact that whenever I have a roster worry I can look at your roster, wipe my brow and say, "Whew, we're not them at least." The beautiful benefit of such an ability, based entirely upon the unquestioned truth of the statements, makes it all worth while in the offseason. For the record, since you appear to have missed it, the conversation is about the position of running back. You may be of the impression you have a better starting backfield, and I suppose we can speak as to whether you do, but, I didn't speak about the starting backfield. I spoke about the position of running back which goes beyond starters. We have greater depth and speed and possibilities against failure than you have. And that was what the discussion was about. As for the more narrow conversation about the starting backfield, I really wouldn't think to expand upon what was written to start this thread. What we know is we were a better rushing offense than you were a year ago. We know you lost Smith and we lost Davis. And, we know we added Canidate and you added Anderson. We know we have one back who outperformed your top back last year and we have a second back who came 10 yards short in 14 fewer carries. And the third back is a guy who seems well suited for the style of offense who may wind up being the guy who starts. Given how limited a threat Anderson is and how generally weak a blocker he is being little more than a poor-man's Larry Centers the fact is our backfield may well have three guys who could easily rotate in as the best runner on your roster. And we run a scheme that isn't likely to require any of them to carry the load where you are much more likely to be based off Hambrick's success in your offense. That's why in the balance I get to smile about how things shape up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Art Posted July 17, 2003 Share Posted July 17, 2003 Originally posted by Cowboy Bill Watts art, you are absolutely correct (as you often are) in response to my prior post. the candidate/hambrick comparison in terms of who fares the best will be a function of the level the rest of the offense plays at. neither back is a franchise-type back. if they were, they wouldn't be career backups. as for which offense will allow the best RB production, i guess we'll have to agree to disagree on that one till opening day....... :-) CBW, We shouldn't have to agree to disagree at all. I didn't say our offensive system is the sort that will allow the best running back production. In fact, I think YOUR system would be more likely to do that than our system. I simply said if it comes down, as you initially stated, to QB production that determines the success, then you're out of luck, because we're going to have far greater production there. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ChrisFul Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 I agree the skins have the better depth at the position, but you are only going to be putting one of those guys on the field at any given time more than likely, and neither of your two main backs (Betts and Watson) are any better than Hambrick. We have our Trung Canidate in Michael Wiley to fill the speed role. Id rather have our starting backfield than the skins anyday. Well, with the exception of QB that is. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 Betts was a rookie last year and ran for 112 and 98 yards in two of his starts. I think it is way too early to draw any conclusions about him. He may be MUCH better than Hambrick, he may be not as good. We just don't know yet. There are a number of very good backs in the NFL that came on at the end of their first seasons and made a splash in Year 2. We will have to see if Betts does the same. Spurrier may SAY that he wants speed in the backfield and big play ability, but if Canidate fumbles the ball and doesn't show himself to be durable, Betts may end up being Spurrier's best friend Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
shawn Posted July 18, 2003 Share Posted July 18, 2003 in that the RB situation for both teams is a question mark at this point, there is not doubt. but, I am not sure if I take any of the redskins RB over what we have. certainly not candiate over wiley. wiley has shown more potential than candiate already, given how highly candiate was touted coming out. Canidate had a chance to start a couple of games behind faulk, but wiley hasn't had a chance to start as a primary RB and has been used as a 3rd down back exclusivley and has shown he can be dangerous. Hambrick, watson and betts have shown pretty much the same thing. Hambrick had a chance to start in 2001 and showed he was pretty decent given our QB situation then. watts and betts have pretty much shown the same thing. they all show pretty much the same potential. Emmitt at his age may still be a better RB than all of them :-) would I take morton over anything we have, 100% not, unless we are going to look for a return man and we are not. as a RB morton doesn't offer anything that wiley or cason don't, so I am not sure why we would put him above any of them as a RB. better depth for the skins!?, maybe with watson and betts in there you could make an argument, but if one of those was not on the roster come opening week, then without having played a game, both backfields are pretty much the same, with Hambrick, wiley and cason compared to Betts (or watson), canidate and morton (as a RB). all are unproven, with potential and have shown a little bit of what they can be and at the same time have shown not much yet. now, its true that washington was better rushing offense last year, but both teams are missing their formerly primary runners. with them out of the equation, who knows. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.