Draft Countdown Forums

Go Back   Draft Countdown Forums > Draft Countdown Forums > Pro Football

Pro Football Discuss professional football.

Reply
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
Old 06-30-2008, 10:24 AM    (permalink
Duster
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 255
Reputation: -21
Duster needs more cowbell.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockey+Manning=Shocking View Post
But you do realize that the back has to fit our scheme. And in our case all our backs fit our scheme Gilbride has devised. Yeah we could have a "famous" back and change things for him, but we are 4th in the league anyways with the backs we have. Why would we want to pay big bucks for an elite back, when the group can produce equally? It's like we are 19th in the league, and an elite back can vault us to the top 10 or top 5. We are already 4th, so why waste money on a big time back, when that money can be used to shore up other spots, and acquire players for the good of the team.

That's why I love football, everything you do impacts the team in some way. Yeah sure an elite RB could make us # 1 in the league, but at what cost? How much would an elite back demand? Who would we have to let go because of that contract? How would that effect free agency and helping the overall team? So many other factors have to be plugged in. Honestly, I would take a group any day, keep that cost down, and use that money to invest in other players in free agency, or use that money to extend other key parts of the team. To me that's good team management.
This is not an argument about cost vs. talent. This is an argument about overall quality at the RB position. Tomlinson would improve your running game. Jackson would improve your running game. Peterson would improve your running game.

I think the Giants are rated about right on those rankings in terms of talent at RB, except you could possibly argue them above the Packers. Other than that, the RBs on the teams ahead of them are better.
Duster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 10:37 AM    (permalink
NY+Giants=NYG
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 9,323
Reputation: 295348
NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duster View Post
This is not an argument about cost vs. talent. This is an argument about overall quality at the RB position. Tomlinson would improve your running game. Jackson would improve your running game. Peterson would improve your running game.

I think the Giants are rated about right on those rankings in terms of talent at RB, except you could possibly argue them above the Packers. Other than that, the RBs on the teams ahead of them are better.
Everything is related. Quality, especially nowa days comes with a price tag. Also, we have quality, without paying for elite quality status. I'd take that anyday. So that's why I am saying, I like where we stand in terms of quality and production based on it. Factor in our price for what we are paying, and it looks very good!

LT is a sick back, and AP is a good back, but I wouldn't take Jackson. He had one big year where he got 1,500 yards. Jacobs had 1009 and missed 6 games. I think he would have put up better numbers had he stayed healthy.

Now with Gilbride, I would say, without a good blocking TE to seal the edge, Jacobs numbers went down in our system. My question would be if LT, AP and Jackson fit our system. Clearly Gilbride has his set plays, and it's up to the players to run it. That part bothers me, I wish we ran different plays for Jacobs. I don't think he is really suited to run the stuff we have him do. I wouldn't be so quick to say those players would be better in our system.

If you do anything about football, and I don't mean that in a demeaning way, we run lots of power concept football. We run center, and other hybrid plays, that go left to right, or right to left, rather than north and south. So I'd wonder how these other backs would do in our system. I am not going to say they would be better just because they fit in their respective systems. We have a different system then what those backs play in.
NY+Giants=NYG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 11:01 AM    (permalink
BaLLiN
2014 Mock Draft Champion
All-Pro
 
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: New Jersey
Posts: 9,629
Reputation: 336390
BaLLiN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BaLLiN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BaLLiN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BaLLiN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BaLLiN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BaLLiN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BaLLiN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BaLLiN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BaLLiN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BaLLiN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.BaLLiN is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

you cant say that he would improve our running game because #1 his blocking scheme is completely different. And #2 he'll be getting all the carries, if you take all of his carries and then take what we've done as a whole, they are probably similar if not our stats are better.

A group of backs is alot of the time better than one premiere back. Two or Three backs is the best way to win in the NFL. You can't just have one guy getting tired and all the defenders getting used to what he does. When you have two or three different backs they all are different and its hard to predict what they will do and how you can stop them.
__________________


Sig by BK <3

Jerry Reese is sooo Dreamy <3333


Quote:
Originally Posted by Sniper
Quote:
Originally Posted by Thumper's Rep Comment
I ****** hate you, stupid *** smd
Greatest. Rep. Comment. EVER! You're not 12 or anything.
Philadelphia, the city of brotherly love (:
BaLLiN is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 11:13 AM    (permalink
Ness
Icon
 
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: California
Posts: 19,799
Reputation: 2051641
Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.Ness is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by eaglesfan_45 View Post
What about ScottyBoy?
??? Clarify.
__________________

"Every light must fade, every heart return to darkness!"
-San Francisco 49ers: Five Time Super Bowl Champions-
Quote:
Originally Posted by Borat View Post
Oh, my bad. Didn't realize SWDC was the pinnacle of class and grace.
Ness is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 11:28 AM    (permalink
Duster
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 255
Reputation: -21
Duster needs more cowbell.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockey+Manning=Shocking View Post
Everything is related. Quality, especially nowa days comes with a price tag. Also, we have quality, without paying for elite quality status. I'd take that anyday. So that's why I am saying, I like where we stand in terms of quality and production based on it. Factor in our price for what we are paying, and it looks very good!

LT is a sick back, and AP is a good back, but I wouldn't take Jackson. He had one big year where he got 1,500 yards. Jacobs had 1009 and missed 6 games. I think he would have put up better numbers had he stayed healthy.

Now with Gilbride, I would say, without a good blocking TE to seal the edge, Jacobs numbers went down in our system. My question would be if LT, AP and Jackson fit our system. Clearly Gilbride has his set plays, and it's up to the players to run it. That part bothers me, I wish we ran different plays for Jacobs. I don't think he is really suited to run the stuff we have him do. I wouldn't be so quick to say those players would be better in our system.

If you do anything about football, and I don't mean that in a demeaning way, we run lots of power concept football. We run center, and other hybrid plays, that go left to right, or right to left, rather than north and south. So I'd wonder how these other backs would do in our system. I am not going to say they would be better just because they fit in their respective systems. We have a different system then what those backs play in.
We're arguing different things. I'm just saying that the Giants are ranked about right in terms of talent at the RB position.

As for LT, AD, and Jackson fitting the scheme...

What scheme would those guys not fit? The reason they are elite is because they can run any play effectively basically. They can stretch the seam because they are fast. They can read and react. The can run between the tackles. They are excellent receivers out of the backfield. There's not much the elite talent at RB can't do in the NFL.
Duster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 11:35 AM    (permalink
NY+Giants=NYG
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 9,323
Reputation: 295348
NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duster View Post
We're arguing different things. I'm just saying that the Giants are ranked about right in terms of talent at the RB position.

As for LT, AD, and Jackson fitting the scheme...

What scheme would those guys not fit? The reason they are elite is because they can run any play effectively basically. They can stretch the seam because they are fast. They can read and react. The can run between the tackles. They are excellent receivers out of the backfield. There's not much the elite talent at RB can't do in the NFL.
I am just saying I think we should be higher on that list because our RBs won't put up big stats like a 1 back system, because we have a group system. So we should be higher. Look at the players skill sets rather our stats.

I don't know what kind of scheme those guys would do well. I just focus on my team, and our scheme. These guys seem to be good at going north and south, and making moves to make defenders look silly.

Let's not forget, each back has a different skill set, different o-linemen, different OC, and differen overall system they are in. You can't just say plugging someone in a different system will have no effect on the RB. For our specific system, Gilbride just runs his plays, and alot of the plays aren't a good fit for Jacobs, and is largely dependent on SHockey being in run blocking very well.

These backs could do well, yes, but to assume they automatically would, because they excel on a different team is out there in my opinion. This isn't a video game, real football as many variables. They could do well, and they very well may not in our system.
NY+Giants=NYG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 11:47 AM    (permalink
Duster
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 255
Reputation: -21
Duster needs more cowbell.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockey+Manning=Shocking View Post
I am just saying I think we should be higher on that list because our RBs won't put up big stats like a 1 back system, because we have a group system. So we should be higher. Look at the players skill sets rather our stats.

I don't know what kind of scheme those guys would do well. I just focus on my team, and our scheme. These guys seem to be good at going north and south, and making moves to make defenders look silly.

Let's not forget, each back has a different skill set, different o-linemen, different OC, and differen overall system they are in. You can't just say plugging someone in a different system will have no effect on the RB. For our specific system, Gilbride just runs his plays, and alot of the plays aren't a good fit for Jacobs, and is largely dependent on SHockey being in run blocking very well.

These backs could do well, yes, but to assume they automatically would, because they excel on a different team is out there in my opinion. This isn't a video game, real football as many variables. They could do well, and they very well may not in our system.
So who would you rank the Giants ahead of?
Duster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 11:59 AM    (permalink
NY+Giants=NYG
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 9,323
Reputation: 295348
NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duster View Post
So who would you rank the Giants ahead of?
In terms RBS, I would should be ranked below Barber, so whereever Barber is I'd put him a beg lower. Now I am talking skill set here. I'd put Bradshaw with Mario Barber, because both are physical runners, and both have good vision. It is my opinion that Bradshaw has a better skill set than Jacobs. So I'd peg Bradshaw with Barber in terms of skill set, which is different than production due to like I said different everything.

That's pretty much it. But in general i hate rankings like this. It's hard to rank football because it's a true team sport, which no team has the exact same talent. Only reason media does it is to sell their stuff, and no with fantasy football it's only going to get worse.

But basically to sum it up, I'd put the skill set of Bradshaw and Barber together, while pegging Jacobs lower, because he has no cut back ability, and not really good vision. He makes up for it in other areas of his game, but to me, I love a RB's vision and ability to make something out of nothing, which is something I see in Marion Barber, and def. in Bradshaw.

I don't break down the other RBs in their respective system, so can't really comment on other teams backs.
NY+Giants=NYG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 12:05 PM    (permalink
Duster
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 255
Reputation: -21
Duster needs more cowbell.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockey+Manning=Shocking View Post
In terms RBS, I would should be ranked below Barber, so whereever Barber is I'd put him a beg lower. Now I am talking skill set here. I'd put Bradshaw with Mario Barber, because both are physical runners, and both have good vision. It is my opinion that Bradshaw has a better skill set than Jacobs. So I'd peg Bradshaw with Barber in terms of skill set, which is different than production due to like I said different everything.

That's pretty much it. But in general i hate rankings like this. It's hard to rank football because it's a true team sport, which no team has the exact same talent. Only reason media does it is to sell their stuff, and no with fantasy football it's only going to get worse.

But basically to sum it up, I'd put the skill set of Bradshaw and Barber together, while pegging Jacobs lower, because he has no cut back ability, and not really good vision. He makes up for it in other areas of his game, but to me, I love a RB's vision and ability to make something out of nothing, which is something I see in Marion Barber, and def. in Bradshaw.

I don't break down the other RBs in their respective system, so can't really comment on other teams backs.
Bradshaw as good as Barber? I just don't see it. Barber is probably the most physical RB in the league whereas Bradshaw is just average in that department (likely due to his size).

Not really sure what you're arguing about then, because all I said was that the Giants' RBs are ranked about right in those rankings.
Duster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 12:08 PM    (permalink
NY+Giants=NYG
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 9,323
Reputation: 295348
NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duster View Post
Bradshaw as good as Barber? I just don't see it. Barber is probably the most physical RB in the league whereas Bradshaw is just average in that department (likely due to his size).

Not really sure what you're arguing about then, because all I said was that the Giants' RBs are ranked about right in those rankings.
That's where your mistaken, Bradshaw is just as physical is Barber and even Jacobs. This is why it's assinine to really judge all these players. Trust me from watching the giants and doing my game analysis play by play, Bradshaw is just as good as them, and for his size that makes it all the more impressive.
NY+Giants=NYG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 12:16 PM    (permalink
Duster
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 255
Reputation: -21
Duster needs more cowbell.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockey+Manning=Shocking View Post
That's where your mistaken, Bradshaw is just as physical is Barber and even Jacobs. This is why it's assinine to really judge all these players. Trust me from watching the giants and doing my game analysis play by play, Bradshaw is just as good as them, and for his size that makes it all the more impressive.
I watched the Giants and Cowboys both extensively. I just don't see Bradshaw punishing ballcarriers the same Barber does. Perhaps you are just being influenced because you are a fan of the Giants and would like Bradshaw to be as good as Barber.
Duster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 12:21 PM    (permalink
NY+Giants=NYG
All-Pro
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: NJ
Posts: 9,323
Reputation: 295348
NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.NY+Giants=NYG is kind of a big deal around here, people know him.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Duster View Post
I watched the Giants and Cowboys both extensively. I just don't see Bradshaw punishing ballcarriers the same Barber does. Perhaps you are just being influenced because you are a fan of the Giants and would like Bradshaw to be as good as Barber.
No I am honest with my assessments. I am pretty much in the minority in judging Jacobs talents. I do love what Bradshaw brings to the table, and watching each play 5-10 times, really provides me with evidence that he is just as physical of a ball carrier. Too bad he has issues in college, or he had a 3rd -4th round grade to him. But I like his skill set the most and what he brings to the table.
NY+Giants=NYG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 12:29 PM    (permalink
Burns336
Pro Bowler
 
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Location: San Diego
Posts: 3,273
Reputation: -45692
Burns336 Burns336 Burns336 Burns336 Burns336 Burns336 Burns336 Burns336 Burns336 Burns336 Burns336
Default

I think Barber is #1 in the league as far as how physical he is when running the ball. I like Bradshaw a lot, but there can only be one guy at the top and for me it's Barber.
Burns336 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-30-2008, 12:29 PM    (permalink
Duster
Rookie
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Posts: 255
Reputation: -21
Duster needs more cowbell.
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Shockey+Manning=Shocking View Post
No I am honest with my assessments. I am pretty much in the minority in judging Jacobs talents. I do love what Bradshaw brings to the table, and watching each play 5-10 times, really provides me with evidence that he is just as physical of a ball carrier. Too bad he has issues in college, or he had a 3rd -4th round grade to him. But I like his skill set the most and what he brings to the table.
I respect your analysis I just don't think many would agree that Bradshaw is as good of runner as Barber. Not really much more to say on the topic, other than to respectfully disagree. Perhaps if you watched some more of Barber your sentiment would change.
Duster is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply


Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On
Forum Jump


All times are GMT -5. The time now is 06:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.