hoops
Tua time!
oh ok...i thought he graduated...yes that's him...guess i know why he's not in someones camp...ha ha
James Walker (ESPN) thinks Miami has a QB controversy
- Thread starter number1fin
- Start date
oh ok...i thought he graduated...yes that's him...guess i know why he's not in someones camp...ha ha
hoops
Tua time!
i think leshoure was busted for pot for like the 3rd time this offseason also...mark ingram needs more run...just about anyone can get yards as a back in that shanny offense...murrays gonna stay hurt in the pros
Coach_Rob
Club Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,893
- Reaction score
- 2,413
wtf? first off philbin is the one who game planned all the packers games, and he wont be calling the plays. and how do we not have the talent at rb for this system.
Last edited by a moderator:
Coach_Rob
Club Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,893
- Reaction score
- 2,413
i dont get it ether man. without an offseason, and played on a bad wheel, i thought he played well
Good write up overall, however Reggie Bush, our clear cut #1 RB, is a much better fit in Philbins offense than in The Meatballs offense.
FinHopeful
Starter
- Joined
- Sep 20, 2005
- Messages
- 3,395
- Reaction score
- 13
It is reasonable to question any back with a dancing in the backfield history within a zone blocking scheme. I tought Bush ran decisively most of the time last year, but he did fall back on the dancing occasionally.
ckparrothead
Premium Member
I. A total of 9 rookie tailbacks took 50+ carries this season (Daniel Thomas, DeMarco Murray, Roy Helu, Mark Ingram, Kendall Hunter, Delone Carter, Stevan Ridley, Jacquizz Rodgers and Evan Royster, in order of most carries to least). The least of the group was Evan Royster who took 56 carries. The most carries taken by any rookie tailback not included in the group of 9 was Dion Lewis' 23 carries, so consider that before anyone accuses me of gerrymandering the group selection in order to make Daniel Thomas look worse. The break between Dion Lewis' 23 carries and Evan Royster's 56 carries seems a pretty natural one.
1. Of the group of 9, Daniel Thomas' per carry average at 3.5 yards per carry was the worst.
2. Daniel Thomas' 0 rushing touchdowns ties with Evan Royster, though it should be noted Thomas had the highest number of carries amongst all tailbacks included in the group of 9, whilst Royster had the fewest.
II. Let me go one step further, for you. I tallied the rushing totals of the teams that those 9 tailbacks played for and subtracted the rookie production so that we can compare how well those rookies did compared with the other backs on their own team.
1. Five of the tailbacks did better than the rest of their team (Evan Royster, DeMarco Murray, Stevan Ridley, Roy Helu and Kendall Hunter, in order), and four of them did worse.
2. The very worst was Mark Ingram whose 3.9 yards per carry on 122 carries does not stand up very well to the 5.35 yards per carry of the likes of Pierre Thomas (110 carries), Darren Sproles (87 carries) and Chris Ivory (79 carries).
3. The second-worst, and only other rookie tailback who rusher who had more than 1.0 yard discrepancy between his running and the running of the rest of his teammates, was Daniel Thomas.
4. Between the two, Mark Ingram did have 5 rushing touchdowns though, while Thomas had zero.
III. Let's look at it from a different angle, using Overall ratings from Pro Football Focus.
1. Amongst the 9 of those tailbacks, Pro Football Focus rated only two of them with negative Overall ratings.
2. The worst was Delone Carter a -4.9 but the second-worst was Daniel Thomas at -3.1.
3. The next worst was Stevan Ridley at a +1.4 rating.
IV. Ok, so you know the Overall ratings, which includes things like pass protection, penalties and pass catching, but what about the Run ratings?
1. Well, out of the 9 tailbacks only three received negative ratings.
2. They ranged from +9.7 (DeMarco Murray) to -7.7 (Daniel Thomas).
3. Only three received negative Run grades, and as alluded to, Daniel Thomas was by a WIDE margin the worst.
4. The next-worst was Delone Carter's -2.4 Run rating.
V. Not a fan of Pro Football Focus' subjective ratings system? That's fine. I can take them or leave them myself, to be honest with you. Let's go with some other raw, OBJECTIVE stats rather than subjective ratings.
1. Let's look at fumbles.
a. Delone Carter had the most fumbles of the group at 3, followed by Daniel Thomas at 2 fumbles.
b. No other back had more than 1 fumble, and two didn't have any.
2. Let's look at missed tackles created (which is to say, how many defenders made physical contact with the ball carrier but missed the tackle as the ball carrier got away clean).
a. The most of the group was by a margin DeMarco Murray at 21 missed tackles created.
b. The next best had 15 missed tackles (Kendall Hunter).
c. The worst was Evan Royster at 8 missed tackles, followed by Daniel Thomas, Mark Ingram and Stevan Ridley all tied at 11 missed tackles.
3. That seems a little unfair to Evan Royster though, as he only had 56 carries to make those 8 tacklers miss. So, you look at Runs-per-Miss. The higher the stat, the worse you are, etc.
a. By a good margin, Daniel Thomas came in highest at 15.0 carries per missed tackle.
b. Next came Roy Helu at 12.6 and Mark Ingram at 11.1.
c. Then you get a nice break until Delone Carter's 8.3 carries per missed tackle created.
4. What about the actual tally of yards after contact?
a. Evan Royster created the most yards after contact per carry, at a 3.4 average.
b. Daniel Thomas created the least yards after contact per carry, at a 1.9 average.
c. Amongst all tailbacks (rookie, non-rookie, etc) that took 25% of their teams offensive snaps, Thomas' 1.9 yard after contact average ranked #62 of 67.
Conclusion. Was the worst rookie? That's up to you to decide. But some folks might like to keep the above in mind before they start trying to make it look 'obvious' that Daniel Thomas was definitely not amongst the worst rookie tailbacks in the league last year, just because of his total rushing yards. He received the most carries of any rookie tailback in the league and amongst the ones given at least 50 carries, seemed the least-deserving of them. Does simply receiving a bunch of carries make him good? Not necessarily. It means the coaches counted on him, which is a good thing. But what he did with those carries is what should be used to determine whether he repaid that trust well or poorly. In this case, he repaid that trust poorly. That is not to say he will never get better. That isn't even to say he won't one day lead the NFL in rushing, even. This is purely about what he was in 2011, not what he will be in the future. I cannot predict the future with 100% accuracy nor can anyone else.
1. Of the group of 9, Daniel Thomas' per carry average at 3.5 yards per carry was the worst.
2. Daniel Thomas' 0 rushing touchdowns ties with Evan Royster, though it should be noted Thomas had the highest number of carries amongst all tailbacks included in the group of 9, whilst Royster had the fewest.
II. Let me go one step further, for you. I tallied the rushing totals of the teams that those 9 tailbacks played for and subtracted the rookie production so that we can compare how well those rookies did compared with the other backs on their own team.
1. Five of the tailbacks did better than the rest of their team (Evan Royster, DeMarco Murray, Stevan Ridley, Roy Helu and Kendall Hunter, in order), and four of them did worse.
2. The very worst was Mark Ingram whose 3.9 yards per carry on 122 carries does not stand up very well to the 5.35 yards per carry of the likes of Pierre Thomas (110 carries), Darren Sproles (87 carries) and Chris Ivory (79 carries).
3. The second-worst, and only other rookie tailback who rusher who had more than 1.0 yard discrepancy between his running and the running of the rest of his teammates, was Daniel Thomas.
4. Between the two, Mark Ingram did have 5 rushing touchdowns though, while Thomas had zero.
III. Let's look at it from a different angle, using Overall ratings from Pro Football Focus.
1. Amongst the 9 of those tailbacks, Pro Football Focus rated only two of them with negative Overall ratings.
2. The worst was Delone Carter a -4.9 but the second-worst was Daniel Thomas at -3.1.
3. The next worst was Stevan Ridley at a +1.4 rating.
IV. Ok, so you know the Overall ratings, which includes things like pass protection, penalties and pass catching, but what about the Run ratings?
1. Well, out of the 9 tailbacks only three received negative ratings.
2. They ranged from +9.7 (DeMarco Murray) to -7.7 (Daniel Thomas).
3. Only three received negative Run grades, and as alluded to, Daniel Thomas was by a WIDE margin the worst.
4. The next-worst was Delone Carter's -2.4 Run rating.
V. Not a fan of Pro Football Focus' subjective ratings system? That's fine. I can take them or leave them myself, to be honest with you. Let's go with some other raw, OBJECTIVE stats rather than subjective ratings.
1. Let's look at fumbles.
a. Delone Carter had the most fumbles of the group at 3, followed by Daniel Thomas at 2 fumbles.
b. No other back had more than 1 fumble, and two didn't have any.
2. Let's look at missed tackles created (which is to say, how many defenders made physical contact with the ball carrier but missed the tackle as the ball carrier got away clean).
a. The most of the group was by a margin DeMarco Murray at 21 missed tackles created.
b. The next best had 15 missed tackles (Kendall Hunter).
c. The worst was Evan Royster at 8 missed tackles, followed by Daniel Thomas, Mark Ingram and Stevan Ridley all tied at 11 missed tackles.
3. That seems a little unfair to Evan Royster though, as he only had 56 carries to make those 8 tacklers miss. So, you look at Runs-per-Miss. The higher the stat, the worse you are, etc.
a. By a good margin, Daniel Thomas came in highest at 15.0 carries per missed tackle.
b. Next came Roy Helu at 12.6 and Mark Ingram at 11.1.
c. Then you get a nice break until Delone Carter's 8.3 carries per missed tackle created.
4. What about the actual tally of yards after contact?
a. Evan Royster created the most yards after contact per carry, at a 3.4 average.
b. Daniel Thomas created the least yards after contact per carry, at a 1.9 average.
c. Amongst all tailbacks (rookie, non-rookie, etc) that took 25% of their teams offensive snaps, Thomas' 1.9 yard after contact average ranked #62 of 67.
Conclusion. Was the worst rookie? That's up to you to decide. But some folks might like to keep the above in mind before they start trying to make it look 'obvious' that Daniel Thomas was definitely not amongst the worst rookie tailbacks in the league last year, just because of his total rushing yards. He received the most carries of any rookie tailback in the league and amongst the ones given at least 50 carries, seemed the least-deserving of them. Does simply receiving a bunch of carries make him good? Not necessarily. It means the coaches counted on him, which is a good thing. But what he did with those carries is what should be used to determine whether he repaid that trust well or poorly. In this case, he repaid that trust poorly. That is not to say he will never get better. That isn't even to say he won't one day lead the NFL in rushing, even. This is purely about what he was in 2011, not what he will be in the future. I cannot predict the future with 100% accuracy nor can anyone else.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2006
- Messages
- 4,971
- Reaction score
- 3,059
Yowza. You may have sold me.
ckparrothead
Premium Member
Well said.
ckparrothead
Premium Member
Again, there were loads of backs that didn't really get carries and could very well have been worse than Daniel Thomas. And there's a lot of room for him to get better. And he may just do that.
What I'm saying is that what I saw from him last year was consistent with what I saw from him in college, which was:
1. An upright style with bad pad level
2. A lot fewer missed tackles and yards after contact than people thought
3. No real home run speed to speak of
4. Trouble cutting at cruising speeds
5. Questionable patience
6. A tendency to step lightly and lose his balance in adverse situations (cutting, tackling)
If he were to solve the majority of these problems, he's got a style similar to Arian Foster's. But he has a lot more problems that get in the way, as compared with an Arian Foster, and he doesn't cut the kind of angles Arian can.
What I'm saying is that what I saw from him last year was consistent with what I saw from him in college, which was:
1. An upright style with bad pad level
2. A lot fewer missed tackles and yards after contact than people thought
3. No real home run speed to speak of
4. Trouble cutting at cruising speeds
5. Questionable patience
6. A tendency to step lightly and lose his balance in adverse situations (cutting, tackling)
If he were to solve the majority of these problems, he's got a style similar to Arian Foster's. But he has a lot more problems that get in the way, as compared with an Arian Foster, and he doesn't cut the kind of angles Arian can.
One of
Just my opinion but we went into last years draft with really 2 things in mind draft Pouncy and one of the top 5 big backs in the draft between Ingram, Williams, Vereen, Leshoure and Thomas. The cuboard was bare entering last years draft after letting Williams, Brown and Cobbs go all at once. I was not and am not a big fan of going into a draft in a need position. I believe Bush was brought on board as insurance in case DT did not work out and the Phins lucked out on Bush durability last year. I am hopeful based on the reports that in his first 2 games DT played well early in the season were because he had not injured his hammy yet. I do see your point CK but DT was ranked by almost all the draft guides as one of the top 5 backs picked last years draft. Sporano rode the kid as much as he could because he had few other options at the time. Other than Ingram who was on team loaded with talented backs DT out performed any of those top 5 from production stand point.
Just my opinion but we went into last years draft with really 2 things in mind draft Pouncy and one of the top 5 big backs in the draft between Ingram, Williams, Vereen, Leshoure and Thomas. The cuboard was bare entering last years draft after letting Williams, Brown and Cobbs go all at once. I was not and am not a big fan of going into a draft in a need position. I believe Bush was brought on board as insurance in case DT did not work out and the Phins lucked out on Bush durability last year. I am hopeful based on the reports that in his first 2 games DT played well early in the season were because he had not injured his hammy yet. I do see your point CK but DT was ranked by almost all the draft guides as one of the top 5 backs picked last years draft. Sporano rode the kid as much as he could because he had few other options at the time. Other than Ingram who was on team loaded with talented backs DT out performed any of those top 5 from production stand point.
Last edited by a moderator:
Coach_Rob
Club Member
- Joined
- Mar 21, 2007
- Messages
- 8,893
- Reaction score
- 2,413
man to me you seem like you are digging to deep. what were his stats when he was actually healthy? he had some good games before he reinjured his hammy. was he great no, hell no, but he isnt bad like you are out to make him look. kid has potential and he showed flashes. should he be more physical for a big back your damn right, but not many big backs can move like him. he is a one cut and go guy. not everyone shows up and has a year like the kid in dallas. we need to give dt atleast this year to see what we have.
Pachyderm_Wave
Hartselle Tigers (15-0) 5-A State Champ
- Joined
- Jul 28, 2008
- Messages
- 15,323
- Reaction score
- 13,905
The thing that needs to be taken into consideration when looking at the YPC of those rookie backs is the context of the game itself, and the conditions of those carries in essence of what the offense was trying to accomplish.
In Mark Ingram's case, he had 13 carries inside the opponents 10 yard line in goalline situations, and another 14 carries inside the opponents 20 (red zone). Basically 27 of his 122 (nearly 25%) carries were inside the redzone. That doesn't necessarily lend itself to opportunities for a high YPC average. The point is more along the lines of whether or not he was effective at what the offense was trying to accomplish in the red zone. As already mentioned, his touchdowns support the idea that he was.
Secondly, he had another almost 20 carries in the final 3 minutes or so of games against Detroit, Houston, Jacksonville, Chicago, and the N.Y. Giants where the offense's goal was to keep the clock moving until time expired to secure the win. Add in another few carries against Atlanta in overtime inside the 15 where the offense's only goal was to set up in the middle of the field for the game winning field goal.
Essentially what you have is almost 40% of his 122 carries that were intent on accomplishing more vital aspects than racking up a high YPC average. Ingram has a terrific nose for the endzone, where as Daniel Thomas was given the opportunity to be that and failed miserably due to his ineffective pad level.
Daniel Thomas has significant improvements to make just to maintain status as a rosterable player, whereas some of these other young backs are striving to be the featured back on their teams. All they need is the opportunity to prove it.
In Mark Ingram's case, he had 13 carries inside the opponents 10 yard line in goalline situations, and another 14 carries inside the opponents 20 (red zone). Basically 27 of his 122 (nearly 25%) carries were inside the redzone. That doesn't necessarily lend itself to opportunities for a high YPC average. The point is more along the lines of whether or not he was effective at what the offense was trying to accomplish in the red zone. As already mentioned, his touchdowns support the idea that he was.
Secondly, he had another almost 20 carries in the final 3 minutes or so of games against Detroit, Houston, Jacksonville, Chicago, and the N.Y. Giants where the offense's goal was to keep the clock moving until time expired to secure the win. Add in another few carries against Atlanta in overtime inside the 15 where the offense's only goal was to set up in the middle of the field for the game winning field goal.
Essentially what you have is almost 40% of his 122 carries that were intent on accomplishing more vital aspects than racking up a high YPC average. Ingram has a terrific nose for the endzone, where as Daniel Thomas was given the opportunity to be that and failed miserably due to his ineffective pad level.
Daniel Thomas has significant improvements to make just to maintain status as a rosterable player, whereas some of these other young backs are striving to be the featured back on their teams. All they need is the opportunity to prove it.
If neither QB has separated himself as the better QB, then yes, there's controversy.
That's how this works.
That's how this works.
- Joined
- Aug 22, 2006
- Messages
- 4,971
- Reaction score
- 3,059
I look at a guy like Mark Ingram and I see another Cedric Benson. Same athletic ability, same one cut style, same power... nothing really elite, but great vision and incredible strength from their legs.
Honestly, they are all from the same mold. No real "freaks" like AdP or DMac, just good solid runners. Trent Richardson is a great runner, I absolutely love watching him play. His game speed is much faster than his 4.48 time would have you think, but I think running back is a position that you plug and play every couple of years from round 3-4, to be honest. I just don't see the value from getting a guy in the high 2nd, or even a 1st round pick (minus the aforementioned AdP or DMac)
My point kinda ran away from me, I think. I'm looking at Daniel Thomas, and I think he absolutely has what it takes to be a 700-800 yard complimentary back in this league, but what is so special about that? They moved up and went after him, but why? I've never understood the move, to be blunt, but I was a huge fan of DeMarco Murray and was furious we didn't grab him in the 3rd rather than move for DThomas in the 2nd.
Honestly, they are all from the same mold. No real "freaks" like AdP or DMac, just good solid runners. Trent Richardson is a great runner, I absolutely love watching him play. His game speed is much faster than his 4.48 time would have you think, but I think running back is a position that you plug and play every couple of years from round 3-4, to be honest. I just don't see the value from getting a guy in the high 2nd, or even a 1st round pick (minus the aforementioned AdP or DMac)
My point kinda ran away from me, I think. I'm looking at Daniel Thomas, and I think he absolutely has what it takes to be a 700-800 yard complimentary back in this league, but what is so special about that? They moved up and went after him, but why? I've never understood the move, to be blunt, but I was a huge fan of DeMarco Murray and was furious we didn't grab him in the 3rd rather than move for DThomas in the 2nd.