mookie0720 Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 I agree, I'm sure we can find some sort of role for him in short yardage or goal line situations, but it only makes sense if he gains back some of that bulk. Right now he's not really any heavier than Betts and Betts has shown the ability to run the ball. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 29, 2004 Share Posted December 29, 2004 I think Rock can fill a need, and it's a need that we have. (Can anybody say "Red Zone"? Without swearing?) I've been watching for him (and not seeing him) many times this year. Can Betts do the same thing Rock can? Maybe. (I'll confess I haven't been watching Bettes that closely). OTOH, if you claim Betts is equal to Rock, I may agree with you, but I bet I know which one's cheaper, and which one might be worth more as trade bait. (Although, still not much, I suspect.) I'm cheering for him. But I wouldn't label him as "Starter". Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Barney B Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 I like Rock, but I think Betts is better AND runs with more power Apparently, the coaching staff agrees, and they're the ones who watch the Rock and Betts in practice every day. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Better question: Who here is hoping to see both of them, and get a chance to compare them? I'm hoping they'll each get 10-15 carries, and we can then spend the next six months arguing about it. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bubba9497 Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 john simon? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Blondie Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Originally posted by bubba9497 john simon? The running back on the practice squad is better than Simon. Blondie Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Larry Posted December 30, 2004 Share Posted December 30, 2004 Just saw (and followed) this link on another thread. It's a fantasy football site, and they're discussing some newfangled ranking system they've developed to rate running backs. The discussion focusses on the system's ranking of Rock as better than DeShaun Foster, based on every single carry they got in the '03 season. The author points out that their basic stats are virtually identical for the year. (Foster got more total yards), But Rock got rated much higher. Short summary: The system they're discussing takes down-and-distance into the calculations, and examines how a RB did, compared to the league average for RBs in that down-and-distance. Rock got a lot of carries on second-and-two, and he often got 3-4. Foster got a lot of carries on second-and-10, and often got 6-7. Result: Foster got more yards, but Rock moved the chains. I really liked the comparasons. (Note from Satan's Attorney: The ranking system they're discussing takes down-and-distance into account, but they didn't mention it factoring in score. In '03, Carolina was in a lot of close games, while the Skins were on the receiving end of a lot of blowouts. We might've seen more defenses who were willing to give up 5 yards than Carolina did. However, the article also points out that Rock got a lot more carries against top-ranked defenses than Foster did.) I've just got a feeling that we may be about to lose a guy who'll wind up starting someplace else, because we never really gave him a chance in real games. Although, I trust in Joe. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.