Re: Mock Drafts

On 2/20/06 2:12 PM, in article
1140462726.256075.177870@xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx, "joeprof"
<bbshop@xxxxxxxxx> wrote:

Wow - I've got to arrange my life more efficiently so that I can post
more than once every other day or so <G>.

JP said:

We are talking about different things. Most of the time I hear people
saying they want a "power" or "short yardage" back, and that's not what you
are talking about. You are referring to a franchise, LT-type back. And no,
those aren't plentiful. But RBs are. So if you can't use a franchise every
down back, you use a combination. A Antowain Smith/Corey Dillon and Kevin
Faulk, a Willie Parker and Bettis, a Pittman and Alstott.


In terms of available FAs, I used as examples some franchise backs who
can also run inside (Edge, Alexander) but also others (Foster,
Williams) who IMO are not in that category. Green used to be, but
isn't now. But the larger point I am making is that the Iggs need an
effective power back as an alternative to the scatbacks (WB, Moats,
Perry) on the Iggs' roster. Not just some medocrity who weighs 15#
more than WB to run 1-5x a game. Who's available as an FA to fit the
bill?

I mentioned them in the other response, bring in a Rock Cartwright, Najeh
Davenport, Jonathan Wells, all guys who have proven they can get tough yards
AND will contribute on special teams. They aren't future pro bowlers and
they aren't high draft picks, but they can do the job. There are a ton of
free agent RB, there is most likely "one" that can fill the role we need.
A hybrid FB can do the job as well, like Beasly, or just improve the FB
position first and foremost. It's so overlooked, Josh Parry cannot sustain
blocks, and he often blocks the wrong guy. That'll halt any running game.
Lendale White behind Josh Parry isn't scaring anybody.



Having multiple backs IS an advantage - IF they complement each other
(inside vs. outside runners, etc.) and are used regularly as changes of
pace for each other, like Parker/Bettis, Dunn/Duckett,
Williams-Pittman/Alstott, etc. (While Bettis was a franchise back
earlier in his career, for the last 3-4 years he was a short-yardage
back.) I don't see any FA who can run between the tackles consistently
enough to carry the team in the 4th quarters of tight games out there,
othe than those mentioned. If you do - who?

Is the team
better off changing their entire offensive philosophy

That's a discussion for another day <G>.

and banking on one RB,
who you say has a short shelf life and is one injury away from being
marginal or using a combination of RBs? I'm not for changing the entire
offense because Lendale White will be available.
You think we'll and they ball to a RB 25 times, and the same RB at that?

You read too much into what I say. I want a power back to complement
WB - not replace him - but I want a good power back, and not some sorry
excuse for one, which has been the Iggs' MO since Duce left. LenDale
didn't get the ball 25X a game at USC with Bush on the field, and he
won't with the Iggs, but when he's in there, he can make it count. I'd
like to see him get the ball 5-15X a game (depending on game
circumstances) with WB/Moats/Perry having like numbers. THEN the
running game would cook, and I argue, so would Mac5. <GG>

I just can't spend the 14th pick in the draft on a guy who MIGHT play 20
snaps. I can't. Not with the needs they have.





I don't disagree that Andy forgetting to run the ball is absurd, and you
can't win without doing it. Look at the best runners in the game and what
do they have in common? A great line and a good fullback in front of them.
Larry Johnson, LT and Shaun Alexander aren't doing it themselves.
Ironically, one of the best RBs in football IS doing it himself. The
smaller Tiki Barber. Bringing Lendale White or any other 1st round RB here
is absurd if they don't improve the line and the fullback position. The
power running game starts with a power and nasty line. We don't have that,
and losing Runyan puts us farther away. It's useless. You are literally
putting the horse before the cart. Now MAYBE that gets fixed in free
agency, and that would be nice, we don't know yet.

While I agree with your general premise that the OL and fullback are
important to the running game - and that Iggs need an upgrade at FB - I
disagree with your conclusion that it "is absurd" to bring Lendale or
another power back in before all else is in place. First off, I think
the Iggs will retain Runyan, and that power running behind Runyan and
Andrews will work well, even if the left side is less strong at the
point of attack.

Not without an improved fullback. Won't happen. And keeping Runyan is no
gimme right now. He could be running behind Herremans/Andrews/Parry.
Running out the clock brings everybody up, more accountability in blocking.
The playoffs weren't dominated by the big backs. They were dominated by the
best offensive lines. The safest way to improve your running game is to
improve your line.

Many running teams are stronger on one side than the
other. Second, LenDale (or another power back of similar quality) -
even assuming no OL/FB upgrades - is going to do a lot better than
anyone else on the roster at getting tough inside yards. Third, it
will be easier to get a good blocking back than a good running back in
later rounds of the draft (and the Iggs should do that in any case).

I don't care if we have Jim Brown. It starts up front.

Did you ever see Jim Brown play? I did. He didn't need an all-pro
line to run over, through, or around any D in the NFL.

He played with two HOF lineman. Not pro bowlers, Hall of Famers, he was
great, but he had help whether or not it was needed.


I'm not saying LenDale is the 2nd coming of Jim Brown. I AM saying
that he is the best power back in this draft (that I'm aware off), that
power back is a crying need for the Iggs,

I have no idea about other power backs in the draft, we'll know more this
week. I'd safely say there are a few that will be available after Lendale
goes. But without a doubt, I don't see big back as our primary need.

that the OL is good enough
now to get some running room for a quality big back, and that no other
move will have a bigger bang for the buck in '06 - a critical year for
Mac 5 and this team - that picking up a good, big RB. LenDale is the
man, IMO. I'd be happy to hear specific alternatives at RB, but you
haven't given me any.

I mentioned them in another post. My guess is you won't be happy because
they don't have the "name" or pedigree you are looking for. You want a
stud, high first round can't miss pick or featured back in a role. I can't
justify that right now. Najeh has some injury concerns, but Wells and Rock
are proven role players in this league. A-Train or Bryson are adequate in
that role. Moe Williams has made a career out of it. You want a bona fide
can't miss, and no player is that.


Lendale White will be a great fit for a team that wants to hand off 20-30
times a game. We aren't that team. Westbrook has a long term commitment.
Moats was a high pick. A feature power back makes both of them almost
worthless. We need a bigger back to take the big hits in short yardage and
push the pile, not a feature back.
JP

We don't need to run Lendale 20-30X/game for him to be effective. As
I've said above, 5-15X a game - maybe more when circumstances call for
it - will be fine. That will also extend his career as an added
benefit. Drafting LenDale does not have to affect negatively the
team's committment to WB or any other RB (though if all we get from the
running game otherwise is more of the same, I say cut your losses and
change direction to do what works). OTOH, those backs will be doing
much less of what they don't do well anyway (and perhaps avoid getting
injured doing it,) while being freed up to do what they do best
(running outside, catching passes etc.). IMO LenDale is that big back
the Iggs need to "push the pile" and get the tough yards.

I don't doubt he can do the job, but I don't think it's the biggest concern
for this team right now, and I don't think he's the only guy that can fill
that need. RB is the deepest position in the league. What is the dropoff
in talent from Lendale White to a RB the Eagles can select later and fill a
similar role? Is that smaller or greater than the drop off in a DL, OLB or
OL the Eagles can select first or one they would select later. What
position is going to attract more attention in the draft, the DL or RB?
It's not a matter of selecting one player at one position because you need
him and he's rated your highest at that role/position. If you select in
the first round without considering the rest of your picks and talent
available, you are screwed. There is a reason two future HOF running backs
with prime years still left are going to be allowed to test the market.
It's because their current teams believe they can replace a RB easier than
other positions. RBs are getting screwed out of money right now, because
there are so many that can do the job.

The biggest difference is you believe it's their biggest need, and I rank it
4th or 5th. It's an odd argument right now because maybe it does become our
biggest priority after free agency, if we get Kampman, Beasley and
Hutchinson, I'm on board the Lendale White bandwagon. But if the Eagles
bring in Jamal Lewis, well we don't need a power back anymore, we need to
know who blackmailed Andy Reid. I don't even have a problem if Andy signs
a OL and FB and drafts Lendale White, but I sure won't expect 5-15 carries
either, I want 20 per game.


Your main argument seems to revolve around a semantic issue - big back
vs. franchise back - and as of yet, I haven't heard you offer any names
for the type of big, non-franchise back you think is out there and who
will help the Iggs.

Please suggest some names as alternatives. I'm listening. <G>

There are other posts in this thread, you don't need to just listen to
replies to you directly. There are also lists on every football web site of
available free agents, and Sheldon even posted a link IIRFC, I'm guessing
you've seen them, you just don't like what you see at RB for this role. I
happen to think some of these guys would be ideal for what we need, and we
use that pick to improve a lackluster pass rush, or restore a nastiness to
an offensive line.

JP


joeprof


.

Relevant Pages

  • Re: Taking stock of where were at 3 games in.
    ... I think the success of the passing game has a lot to do with the ... The Iggs lack a power back - the new, ... Andy is NOT willing to pay ANY price at all. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.phila-eagles)
  • Re: Mock Drafts
    ... and flanker-back, thus make the Iggs' O truly dangerous, even without ... with a good power back. ... this draft, ladies & gents, that power back is LenDale White. ... RB, especially when running primarily inside, is a young man's game. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.phila-eagles)
  • Re: Mock Drafts
    ... effective power back as an alternative to the scatbacks (WB, Moats, ... Perry) on the Iggs' roster. ... more than WB to run 1-5x a game. ... offense because Lendale White will be available. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.phila-eagles)
  • Re: Mock Drafts
    ... Mac5, and to set up WB in his highest and best use as a change of pace ... and flanker-back, thus make the Iggs' O truly dangerous, even without ... with a good power back. ... RB, especially when running primarily inside, is a young man's game. ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.phila-eagles)
  • Re: Mock Drafts
    ... White provides more power. ... Early on he didn't have Lendale high, mid to lower first round, early ... I would LOVE Lendale, but I don't want a RB at the 14 spot, I see to many ... The Iggs have legit needs at OLB, ...
    (alt.sports.football.pro.phila-eagles)