Yup, just like most top RBs. I'm not saying JA is a "top" RB, but it is no coincidence most top backs have good OLs.
You have it backwards.
Yup, just like most top RBs. I'm not saying JA is a "top" RB, but it is no coincidence most top backs have good OLs.
I definitely want to keep him under 25 touches a game, but, when you have the hot hand and you're a man amongst boys, you gotta be able to bring it even when the tank is empty.Ajayi was one of my the top backs in college football. Second only to Gurley IMHO.
Were it not for those reports about his knee, after the combine, he would have been a 1st or early 2nd round pick.
This guy is no fluke.
I just hope the coaches pace him and not run him into the ground.
I think you need to go rewatch the game.I don't think the line made a lot of holes. No one other than Ajayi had much success running the ball.
Williams had that 12 yard TD run and his 3 other carries got him 4 yards
Foster had 3 carries for 5 yards.
Tannehill had 6 carries for 21 yards but only one of those was a designed run...the rest were scrambles which makes me wonder how they got a higher grade in pass blocking.
D. Williams was money on that TD run. If he limits the dancing, he'll be a nice option behind Ajayi - both as a receiver and runner. Moving forward, Miami does have to limit Ajayi's touches some. Williams has the physical talent to do most of what Ajayi did Sunday. His lack of decisiveness has limited his production to date, but I'd keep him ahead of Drake and Foster.
It was all Ajayi. Our oline did not dominate anything. This is why in always find it a joke when people disrespect PFF. As if there is no way a running back or qb could do well behind a oline that didn't dominate.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=oAwdHxQ3O2U&sns=em
Almost every carry here, Ajayi has to make an adjustment or break through a tackle to find yards.
Almost none of the yards were giving to Ajayi by the oline this game. The steelers game was a different story, but in this game It was all Ajayi.
PFF is not wrong here.
You have it backwards.
ummm.....no