Final Numbers

Discussion in 'Detroit Lions Blitz' started by TheDane, Jan 1, 2018.

  1. TheDane Well-Known Member

    We weren't excellent at anything except int's (4), dead last in rushing..fuck everyone here who said we were good to go. Average with penalties, D was 6th in total yards and it showed. Worst scripted plays in the history of scripted plays, fuck you Cooter. The turnovers the D created helped plenty. Staffords fumbles and sacks kept him from being "excellent", he was tied for first with 7 fumbles. His sack count was indicative of the OL AND his inability to get rid of the ball when he should have. I don't see anyone's job worth saving, unless the new HC goes that route. I do think that the D gets something of a pass for having less talent. Agnew was all that as a punt returner and Prater was solid as well. I would take the guy who replaced Martin over Martin, doesn't put enough inside the 20 and when he screws up it's at the absolute worst time. Coverage teams did their jobs. Golladay proved he was the real deal, Tabor proved he wasn't. Davis helped, doesn't look like the first MLB that was taken. The new HC will have his work cut out.
  2. Blaming Barry Well-Known Member

    Are you writing him off after one year? He wasn't good but I thought he showed more in less time in his rookie year than Slay did in his.

    And I don't think too many of us said the running game was "good to go". There was just a disagreement on whether it was worth investing a lot of resources in a RB when there were other gaping holes to fill.
  3. TheDane Well-Known Member

    LOL, Tabor had how many snaps this year? How many times was he a "healthy scratch"? They almost RUINED Slay when they kept starting him then benching him. Tabor never had the chance when he was hurt and then didn't even make the game day roster at times when he was healthy. He was a second round pick. "He wasn't good", why even comment after that?

    With re to the running game you asked for it. I'm going to spam the fuck out of this board with the dumb fuck comments that you guys made going in to the 2017 season.
  4. TheDane Well-Known Member

    201/784/5

    That's my prediction for Blount. And that is probably generous.

    This was a quote that was close on yards but not on carries, Blount had 766 yards on 173 carries and 2 TD's. It cost $1.25 million for 1 year. "There was just a disagreement on whether it was worth investing a lot of resources in a RB when there were other gaping holes to fill." Yeah, $1.25 would have broken the fucking bank.

    "It's not practical to assume we'll be rolling with a "star" player by the time we get down to #3 or 4 on our depth chart. That said, you'd like your #3 guy to at least be "average," right? And I look at a guy like Zach Zenner, and he's a perfectly acceptable #3/4 depth guy. At least average.

    Problem is we're not getting average results from our average RB. To use an arbitrary baseline, 4 yards per carry is considered acceptable -- that's about where you want to be. And that also happens to be right about where Zenner has been living since he took over the reigns. Feel free to look it up (not going to google it for you, sorry old man)."

    LOL, that's right, THIS was a consensus that guys like Zenner couldn't be average RB's because of the OL. ALL we had to do was get a better OL and then a guy who isn't an NFL player would suddenly become "average".

    "Worry Wart. We will be fine at RB. Washington may or may not have a role, however, he most likely will not make the team." SEE, we didn't even NEED Washington because we were already "fine".

    "There are going to be a lot of roster casualties, there will be some decent RBs to be had." SURE there are. I mean if they're a "dime-a-dozen" you can get them anywhere. Shit why not just try 7/11?

    "I am not even disagreeing that drafting some competition at RB would have been a good idea and certainly if they don't spend the free agent money they have saved up in hindsight it would have been better to have signed Forte or another veteran"... HINDSIGHT???? LOL...

    "Dane will likely tell you Forte is listed at 218 pounds vs. AAs 204 and hence Forte is much better running north and south, which I would call bullshit I would actually say AAs is better than Forte on those type runs." GOT ME THERE, AA is SO fucking good he may not make the team next year at this point.

    "Ridley and Zenner will take care of the Power Back role for the offense. By the way, Ridley averaged 4.46 yards with New England his first 3 years in the league. He was injured in 2014 and 2015. He is only 27 and should be healthy again. I really really like this guy, very strong runner. He was a great pickup for the Lions."

    "I agree with you that Barry is being a bit conservative in lumping all backs together. And I like Howard a lot. Still don't think RB situation is as dire as you make it out and that they are hold as much responsibility for last season as you do." LOL, this one was in response to Barry's stupid fucking comments...

    Hey Barry you dumb fuck, this was your comment.."That's the problem. No 4th round RB would have been any better than Zenner, Ridley or any other veteran scrub that gets released in preseason. There is very little gap between most RBs in the NFL. You have the top 4 or 5 and then everyone else. Unless you have one of those top 4 or 5 what's the sense in investing heavy resources on a plug and play position?"

    I got plenty more you stupid fuck...
  5. Blaming Barry Well-Known Member

    Oh Dane, you kill me man. I love reading your bullshit. You gotta admit I was pretty spot on about Blount (sometimes I even amaze myself). I do appreciate you posting that quote though. And those numbers probably would have been 50% of that at most on the Lions. Just the fact that you think he would have been just as productive on the Lions tells me you're just talking out your ass like you've been known to do. I do like and respect your opinions on college guys though. Keep that up.
  6. Blaming Barry Well-Known Member

    I do agree with you on their treatment of Slay in his rookie year. I'm just pointing out that it's absurd to write a guy off after his rookie year, especially a CB. CBs typically don't do well in their rookie years.
  7. Blaming Barry Well-Known Member

    I do appreciate you re-posting my genius statements. So who that was drafted in the 4th round or later would have made a bit of difference for the Lions? Your boy Jamaal Williams? He's the definition of dime-a-dozen and would have been dogshit behind this line and is not as talented as Abdullah. Wayne Gallman? Samaje Perine? Keep it going man. I love this.

    I also noticed that Stevan Ridley rushed 17 times for 80 yards (4.7 average) for the Steelers this week. That's a better line than any Lion RB all year and that guy sucks donkey balls. I'm sure the team/line/scheme has nothing to do with it.
  8. TheDane Well-Known Member

    You are fucking clueless. We were looking for a guy who didn't cost much to be part of a rotation, Williams was EXACTLY that guy...http://www.packersnews.com/story/sp...jamaal-williams-down-brett-hundley/982269001/
  9. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    There is no doubt that Quin will add to the RBs this year and it is long overdue. This year's draft class at RB is very good. So hopefully we can fill this hole with someone that will take the running game to a higher level.

    P.S. We need a RB with 4.5 40-yard long speed or faster. Then the NFL better 'bar the door' because the Lions will be trouble.
  10. The Lions need a RB with size, speed, and hits the hole without dancing around. We have drafted or picked up FA smallish fast backs (Bush, Best, Riddick, Abdullah etc), all of which were largely ineffective.
  11. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    Actually in my opinion only Bush and Best fit the fast back mold of good long speed. They were very effective. In fact, Bush (2013) was the last 1000 yd rusher for the Lions and Best would have proven even better if his career had not been cut short.

    Riddick and Abdullah, however, have 4.6 yard 40 yard dash time. I consider them quick but not fast. Long speed is a major contributor to the reason they were/are ineffective. When most DEs or LBs can run faster than your RB, you are in trouble. You can't get the edge without excellent blocking from the TE and WR.
  12. badnews3123 Well-Known Member

    I don’t understand this obsession with 4.5 and below speed. Running fast in a straight line for 40 yards doesn’t equate to success for RB’s.

    Look at the top rushers in the league and you have a bunch of mid 4.5 and 4.6 guys. The top guy is a 4.6 guy. Le’Veon Bell a 4.6 guy. Ingram, Howard 4.6...
  13. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    We've had this argument before. Breaking long runs is the reason a RB needs excellent long speed. They leave no yards on the field because, once they break into the open, no one can catch them.

    The best RB in the League right now is Zeke Elliot of the Cowboys. He has all the tools and 4.45 speed.
  14. badnews3123 Well-Known Member

    Elliot is debatable with Bell and Gurley.

    I disagree you need a great 40 to break long runs. You need great explosion. Kareem Hunt was tied for most 20+ yard runs in the league with his 4.6 speed. Ingram was next with his 4.6 speed. Then you have guys like Blount, Hyde, C.J. Anderson near the top too.

    And this is all ignoring, big runs are great. I’d take a successful run game.

    And by the way, as bad as the Lions running game was. Abdullah had as many 20+ yard runs as Ellliot with 80 less carries.
  15. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    You do know that saying the above supports my argument for faster long speed. If Abdullah has more 20 yard runs with no 40 yard runs, it confirms he is getting to the open field more often and then getting caught from behind. Tells me that he is too slow to out run the defense and is leaving rushing yards on the field. And I did say long runs normally specified as 40 yards or longer.
  16. badnews3123 Well-Known Member

    That does not support your argument. 20+ could mean 20, could mean 35, could mean 50.

    And what does that mean for Elliot? Was he getting caught from behind too? Thought that didn’t happen with sub 4.5 speed.

    By the way, Elliot’s longest run was 30. Abdullah’s was 34.

    But again, how are Kareem Hunt and Ingram breaking these 20+ yard runs. By the way they were also tops in 40+ yard runs somehow despite their 4.6 speed. Jordan Howard too.

    And again, why are you basing so much of what you want in a RB on his ability to break a run for 40+ yards which for the best backs happens 2-3 times a season? Especially when evidence proves that a fast 40 time doesn’t necassiraly equate to 40+ yard runs.
  17. Blaming Barry Well-Known Member

    Pretty sure any scout will tell you top-end speed (40 time) is pretty far down the list of importance. They will tell you acceleration is much more important.
    K-Dawg likes this.
  18. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    Really, then why are RBs that can run 4.5 or faster taken in the 1st and 2nd round and RBs that run 4.6 or slower are taken in the 3rd or lower rounds most of the time. They are definitely placing a value for the 4.5 or greater speed. Sorry guys but you have no argument. Not to say you can't get a decent RB that runs a 4.6 but the greatest RBs usually run a 4.5 or less 40 yard dash.
  19. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    What is your point. All I said was my opinion. I like RBs that can run a 4.5 40-yard dash. So please get over it.

    P.S. I am sorry you can't understand my obsession. If we get a fast RB with all the tools maybe you will understand. Barry Sanders and Billy Sims spoiled the shit out of me.
  20. Blaming Barry Well-Known Member

    I think most RBs fall in the 4.4-4.6 range so it's really splitting hairs there. My only point is that I don't think scouts covet the super fast (4.4ish) guys that much if they don't have the other traits.

    I'd be curious to see the numbers on draft position vs 40 time though. Just looking at last year's draft, 4 RBs were taken in the first 2 rounds and only 50% of them were below 4.5 (and one of them, McCaffrey was 4.49). Same 50% rate in the previous draft.
  21. badnews3123 Well-Known Member

    Sorry that your point didn't make sense. You argued we needed a guy with a specific time so that we could have a back that does something that happens 2-3 times a season for the best of backs. That would greatly improve our run game?

    And the bigger issue is that you want that trait so badly you would to eliminate guys that lead the league in the category you desire. It doesn't add up.
    K-Dawg likes this.
  22. Liongeezer Ornery Old Fart

    You are not changing my mind. Faster backs with all the tools normally lead the league in rushing. 4.6 yard dash RBs are a dime a dozen. I am done You are not worth arguing with.
  23. Rusty Hilger VP, Wrist Cutter's Club

    Any player, at any position, is usually drafted higher with a faster 40 time.

    Speed is important in the NFL.

    And it's also way over-valued. To a large extent.
  24. badnews3123 Well-Known Member

    So you don’t like facts.

    Nothing wrong with preferring faster backs, but history shows you it’s not necessary to have a great 40 time for NFL RB. Yet it seems to be the overriding factor for you. I don’t understand the line of thinking. Also if you want a 4.45 RB with “all the tools”, you better be willing to part with 1st round pick.
  25. I want a RB that is 6" 5", cuts like he's on rails, and runs a 3.7 40 :)

Share This Page