bulldog Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 Just got through reading a pure fluff piece at TSN about Fred Taylor. Read it at your own risk In the article, Taylor is quoted as saying he sees himself as one of the top 3 backs in the NFL currently: "I think it's me, Marshall and Edgerrin," said Taylor when asked about the best NFL backs. The author of the piece, Prisko, must be Taylor's agent because he goes hat in hand along with Taylor on this fantasy ride. Prisco notes Taylor's career per carry average at 4.7 is better than Terrell Davis and Edgerrin James or Marshall Faulk. Of course, he conveniently ignores the fact that a high per carry average is often a result of a pass-oriented offense where the defenses are spread out to cover a top passing attack. Also a high average is often associated with players that have breakaway ability but often end up on the injured list with a limited number of carries, see Tim Biakabatuka as an example. The truth is Fred Taylor is a soft player and despite speed and size has failed to stay healthy and play through injuries in his career. He is also one of the few 230 pound backs you see get taken down by a cornerback or safety on first contact. I always knew Jacksonville players were ****y and that made all their losses in the playoffs over the past years so enjoyable, but seriously for Brunell and Taylor to get to the level they obviously think they already deserve to be considered for, they are going to have to play 16 games and start putting up those Emmitt Smith or Steve Young type numbers they are sure they are capable of. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark Horse Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 "The truth is Fred Taylor is a soft player and despite speed and size has failed to stay healthy and play through injuries in his career." As I read through your post, I cannot imgine what you must think of Stephen Davis. Soft running backs do not gain the kind of yards Taylor does running between the tackles. Skip Hicks comes to mind when I think of soft running backs, not Fred Taylor. I went back and looked at Taylor's stats last season. He missed the first three games and then parts of three other games last season. Despite that, he was one yard shy of 1400 yards rushing last season. Of the 13 games he played in, he exceeded the 100 yard mark in 9 of those games. If you compare Taylor's 2000 season to Davis' 1999 season, you'll see that Taylor actually outdid Davis in every category except for touchdowns. And even that is somewhat close. But I don't recall many of us calling Davis soft. "Of course, he conveniently ignores the fact that a high per carry average is often a result of a pass-oriented offense where the defenses are spread out to cover a top passing attack." Again, the same arguement could have been made about Stephen Davis in 1999. Davis' passing attack went away in 1999 and he was still a devistating runner. I'd argue Taylor would be equally successful. [ by The Dark Horse on June 28, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted June 28, 2001 Author Share Posted June 28, 2001 How come I say Taylor is a soft player? Look at his career numbers in big games against good defenses. Remember he gets to play Cleveland and Cincinnati twice each year. What I saw Davis do against the Bucs last year, 141 yards, and against Baltimore, 91 tough yards getting belted by Ray Lewis and still producing the winning touchdown, is something I have not seen from Taylor. Yes, he got his yards last year, but the Jaguars were 1-5 to start and as the team fell from the race, teams preferred to cover the receivers and not let Brunell beat them deep. Taylor got some good yardage against some pretty poor run defenses. Remember also that in looking at stats, Taylor has had an unprecedented level of support on offense. Jimmy Smith and Keenan McCardell together have the most receptions as a duo over the past four years in the NFL. Tony Boselli, before getting injured last year, was the premier left tackle in the NFL. Searcy was another pro bowler on the other side. Then you throw in Brunell's ability to run outside of the pocket and throw downfield and you have offensive versatility a back like Stephen Davis or Emmitt Smith has not had in recent years. These guys are doing it largely as the #1 option in the offense and the production of their complementary players varies wildly from year to year as personnel changes. The difference between Johnson/Connell/Westbrook was they were only there to help Davis in 1999, where were they in 2000? None made the pro bowl. We all know that going back three or four years to see the consistency factor, the Jaguars players outside of Taylor have been FAR more consistent and productive. In fact the Redskins' Connell and Westbrook ONLY have those 1,000 yard seasons from 1999 to put on their resumes. Neither has done anything in another year. But bottome line, the way you know the value of a player is what happens to the team when he is not there. The Redskins CANNOT win without Davis. The Cowboys cannot win without Smith. An argument can be made that the Rams cannot win without Faulk. The Jags won a lot of games and got excellent productivity with James Stewart in there at running back in 1998-2000, which leads me to believe it is largely the offense that has been responsible for the statistics. Ditto for the productivity of the quarterbacks in Minnesota. Cunningham, Johnson, George, Culpepper......they all look good when they had Carter, Moss and Smith to bludgeon the defense with. Davis proved in 2000 that he could get 100 yards and help the team remain competitive even after the Skins lost their #1 receiver for the season and three of its offensive linemen. I think we have a good idea of who is more valuable here to the Skins offense, Davis. Not Brad Johnson, Connell or even Westbrook. Those parts are replaceable. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
The Dark Horse Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 I will agree to disagree with you about Taylor being soft. But I will retort to some of your comments. Soft or not, I think any team would be thrilled to have a guy that can put up 1400 yards and 12 touchdowns in 13 games. "but the Jaguars were 1-5 to start and as the team fell from the race" "The Redskins CANNOT win without Davis. The Cowboys cannot win without Smith. An argument can be made that the Rams cannot win without Faulk." Taylor missed the first three games and Tony Boselli was out. Ironically, the Jags start 1-5. I think you can make the same arguement for the Jags as well last season. "Remember he gets to play Cleveland and Cincinnati twice each year" Dallas and Arizona finished last and second to last against the run last season. We played them twice each last year. Should I also downgrade the importance of Davis' stats now? "Look at his career numbers in big games against good defenses." 104 and 112 yards against the Titans, 124 against the Skins, and 234 in one game against the Steelers. All had pretty good defenses. Heck, Davis did little against the Titans if you think back. "The Jags won a lot of games and got excellent productivity with James Stewart in there " Stewart is a starting back now in Detroit. No wonder the Jags stayed competitive when Taylor was out back then. But they lose Stewart in 2000 and suddenly, the Jags lose when Taylor is out. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GURU Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 Bulldog, I agree with your assessment while comparing Taylor and Davis. I would hesitate to call Taylor soft, however. It's not Taylor's fault he has to play against the Browns and Bengals. And every back is a product of whatever system he plays in, to a large extent. And I don't thinks he's as easy to tackle as you say he is. He's not a true "power" back, but he is explosive and does staggar tacklers on occasion because of his size and speed. But there's no denying he hasn't been able to stay healthy. Unfortunately, many very talented players have been cursed with constant injury, and I agree that durability is a measure of greatness. But durability is something totally separate from physical talent. As far as physical talent goes, Taylor probably IS one of the top two or three backs in the league. He is stronger and more physical Marshall Faulk, and he is faster and more explosive than Edgerrin James. Taylor is a complete back. He is an outstanding receiver who causes matchup problems in the passing game, he is a threat to score anytime he touches the ball because of his speed and explosiveness, and he knows how to get the tough yards inside when he needs to. He is a gifted, gifted back. That being said, he can't do much for the Jags if he is on the sideline in street clothes due to injury. And I'm not a big fan of braggarts. And I like Stephen Davis as a Redskins just fine. [ by GURU on June 28, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bulldog Posted June 28, 2001 Author Share Posted June 28, 2001 thanks GURU for perhaps clarifying form me the point I was trying to make originally, but failed to do so due to my own incoherent scribblings! Taylor p***ed me off because any player who makes a statement about being one of the best backs in the NFL based on his limited production over the past three years is a braggart and blowhard. You don't see Faulk and Eddie George patting themselves on the back in the offseason for being such versatile threats. They are working hard on winning a championship. And that is where Taylor should be focusing his attention, not on his own skills toolbox. I get the impression he has a lot of Michael Westbrook in him, that "I'm the best and you just know it" kind of attitude that just wrankles me when I look down at the career stats and see a lot less than what some more humble players have managed to put up. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Brave Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 Oh, this is an easy one. Is Fred Taylor a quality rinning back? Absolutely. Is he one of the top 3 RBs in the league? Asolutely not. Top ten, maybe, but not top 3. It's tough to compare backs one-on-one when they play different schedules, play in different offensive schemes, have different levels of O-lines to run behind, injuries, etc. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
NavyDave Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 Great players don't need to tell anyone they are in the top 3. The difference between taylor and Davis is obvious. The offense of the Skins revolves around Davis. Those 1000 yd receiver years connel an westy had came largely off of play action passes. You could safely say because of the offensive production of the Jags Wideouts that Taylor benefitted from draw plays while teams were concerned with getting burned by Jimmy smith or mccardell ------------------ Dave [ by NavyDave on June 28, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Beaudry Posted June 28, 2001 Share Posted June 28, 2001 Taylor is an awsome back. But you are right, Bulldog, he's a jerk of a person. For that reason, I'd rather have Davis. ------------------ ShonyX Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 29, 2001 Share Posted June 29, 2001 Taylor's Career Statistics: | Year TM | G | Att Yards Y/A TD | Rec Yards Y/R TD | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | 1998 jax | 15 | 264 1223 4.6 14 | 44 421 9.6 3 | | 1999 jax | 10 | 159 732 4.6 6 | 10 83 8.3 0 | | 2000 jax | 13 | 292 1399 4.8 12 | 36 240 6.7 2 | +----------+-----+--------------------------+-------------------------+ | TOTAL | 38 | 715 3354 4.7 32 | 90 744 8.3 5 | In the big picture, you can see that he's obviously explosive, as the number of TD's and yds per carry. He also obviously is a skilled receiver out of the backfield. I know from watching highlight reels that he's got a lot of long (30+ yd) TD's. He also has yet to play a full 16 games, which is the big knock against him. In fairness bulldog, I have never heard anyone but you claim that he was a soft runner. He to my understanding has been a pretty skilled one who is willing to run between the tackles on what has been one of the biggest and best o-lines in the NFL. I'm gonna break down his career stats against Cleveland and Cinci and Balt, something that I've never done so I have no clue about how it'll turn out as I write this. Taylor versus Cleveland, career (note, Cleveland did not exist in 1998, his rookie year: 1999 | WK OPP | RSH YD | RECYD | TD | +----------+-------------+--------+----+ | 15 cle | 26 136 | 13 | 1 | 2000 | 14 cle | 30 181 | 6 | 3 | Notably, because of his injury problems (and no doubt because the Jags were reluctant to bring a star player back early when they didn't need him to beat the lowly Browns) he's only played Cleveland twice in two years. The result is predictable in those two games - a buttload of yards and 4 TD's, exactly what a good back on a good team should do. Taylor versus Cincinnati, career: 1998 | WK OPP | RSH YD | RECYD | TD | +----------+-------------+--------+----+ | 10 cin | 27 118 | 23 | 1 | | 13 cin | 6 16 | 0 | 0 | 1999 | 8 cin | 15 128 | 3 | 1 | | 17 cin | 22 85 | -1 | 2 | 2000 | 16 cin | 32 110 | 13 | 1 | Again, FT got about half the carries he should have against this team because of his injury problems. When he's played his stats have been good. What we're left with in the final analysis is that for his career, Taylor's played in what amounts to seven of his 38 career regular season games (18.4%) against Cleveland and Cinci, getting 774 out of 3354 (23.1%) career rushing yards. This is relatively proportional, and doesn't resemble the feasting on the inferior teams that Corey Dillon or Priest Holmes have done within that division. He's only had one game rushing over 150 yards against those teams. In short, he's doing what you'd expect a good starting RB on a good team to do against some inferior divisional opponents. Below I've compiled his career game stats against respectable defenses: 1998 | WK OPP | RSH YD | RECYD | TD | +----------+-------------+--------+----+ | 2 kan | 6 44 | 0 | 0 | | 3 bal | 23 128 | 85 | 1 | | 4 ten | 25 116 | -7 | 1 | | 6 mia | 12 89 | 2 | 2 | | 8 den | 6 27 | 50 | 1 | | 9 bal | 22 87 | 78 | 2 | | 11 tam | 20 128 | 68 | 3 | | 12 pit | 20 67 | 21 | 1 | | 15 ten | 20 42 | 32 | 1 | | 17 pit | 21 71 | 21 | 2 | 1999 | 4 pit | 8 28 | 0 | 0 | | 10 bal | 7 12 | 3 | 0 | | 14 den | 9 74 | 0 | 1 | | 16 ten | 16 44 | 18 | 1 | 2000 | 5 pit | 15 24 | 14 | 0 | | 6 bal | 17 54 | 45 | 1 | | 7 ten | 20 112 | 27 | 0 | | 8 was | 22 124 | 33 | 0 | | 12 pit | 30 234 | 14 | 4 | | 13 ten | 24 104 | 22 | 1 | | 17 nyg | 13 52 | 9 | 1 | (Note: Taylor didn't start until week 2 in 1998, when James Stewart blew out his knee.) Predictably, he's been all over the board. But he's definitely had some strong games against some good teams. Career against Baltimore = 69/281 (4.07 ypc). That's respectable. Tennessee appeared to have done a particularly good job overall containing him up to last year, which is curious because that's when Jax had such a banged up o-line. And he's had some big games against some premier run D's, inlcuding Tampa in '98. And particularly impressive are his 23 TD's in the 21 games I've compiled above (admittedly, I don't know whether they're rushing or receiving, but he is being compared to Faulk and James). In those 21 games overall, his rushing stats are 356/1661, an impressive 4.67 ypc average. This means that in the 21 of 38 career regular season games (55.2%) against the opponents with the best rushing defenses, he's rushed for 49.52% of his total career regular season rushing yards. I've spent a lot of time on this, but it's only because I've never seen this breakdown on FT and was curious about it. Let me know if I've made a believer out of you regarding him being a legit NFL RB. ------------------ "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor [ by redman on June 29, 2001.] Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Om Posted June 30, 2001 Share Posted June 30, 2001 Well, I was a Taylor guy to begin with, so you're epic breakdown didn't need to convince me. Still, it reinforces my thinking ... very nice work. What I'm curious about now, however, is how you're going to go about spreading around those billable hours. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
redman Posted June 30, 2001 Share Posted June 30, 2001 Om, I guess I was directing it more towards bulldog who originated the post. If anyone wants to see these or other football stats, they're being compiled on an under-construction website called www.football-reference.com. The baseball version of that site is complete and truly outstanding. Hopefully, the football site will match it some day. Check it out. ------------------ "Loosen up, Sandy baby. You're just too damn tight!" - John Riggins to Supreme Court Justice Sandra Day O'Connor Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.