PDA

View Full Version : From the "Battle Red Blog" - read their arguments for NOT Drafting Ryan Mathews


IDEXAN
04-04-2010, 10:29 AM
Where's the value in this pick? The average life-span of a running back is three-to-four years which is significantly shorter than any other position in the NFL. There's no guarantee that he would start over a healthy Steve Slaton. With his career 19 receptions at Fresno State, there's also no guarantee that he's more than a two-down running back. Is a two-down back-up running back any sort of value at pick 20 especially when our mid-pack defense has need for starters at defensive tackle and cornerback? The Texans need someone who is going to be an unquestioned starter and immediate contributer on the field for hopefully the next decade.

Why are people even praising Mathews? Is it because of his rushing stats (1,808 rushing yards and 19 touchdowns) from 2009? Rick, don't be fooled by these stats. Mathews played in the WAC. Do you know what this means? He played in a conference where teams ran the spread and were built to defend the spread. A power-running team is going to accumulate impressive run totals when there's little resistance from sub-par teams.
http://www.battleredblog.com/2010/4/3/1402867/an-open-letter-to-rick-smith-and#storyjump

stingray
04-04-2010, 10:40 AM
But he wants Montario Hardesty? A back who only had one injury free year and a RB who couldn't beat out an undrafted Arian Foster? If the Texans drafted Montario then they would have to draft another RB in the following round like Anthony Dixon because I don't think they can take that gamble with his injuries as the only RB drafted.

I don't mind not drafting Ryan in the first but I would rather draft Tate or Dwyer in the second. They are talented backs who can get 10-15 carries a game and strong enough to be the goal line backs and who also have injury free histories.

kiwitexansfan
04-04-2010, 10:40 AM
I'm glad I'm not the only one not drinking the Mathews kool-aid.

The more I think about it, the more I think I'd like to see secondary, DT, OL addressed before adding a RB.

rmartin65
04-04-2010, 12:06 PM
Yeah, I am getting his message, but he seems pretty inconsistent.

I have not thought a lot about Mathews running out of a power scheme versus a bunch of defenses prepared for the spread. That is a good catch, and it will impact my rankings when I re-look at some of my film (tonight probably, maybe tomorrow). And I see what he was doing with the Wisconsin example, but you can't just take out a guy's run. Yardage is yardage, but it should be noted that he will not always get lucky enough to have a big run.

But Hardesty is not the answer. One year as a starter, behind a guy who went undrafted. He had one season as a starter, and it was not even a spectacular season. He averaged 4.8 yards a carry, good, but not great. Hardesty is every bit the post season riser that Mathews is. After the season, he was projected as a 4th rounder. Now? 2nd or 3rd.

I would even prefer Tate over Hardesty. Tate at least has potential, I think Hardesty is done growing as a player. And Tate is more athletic, in addition to having a better career/season.

Toby Gerhart is still my guy though, in the second round.

76Texan
04-04-2010, 12:26 PM
Yeah, I am getting his message, but he seems pretty inconsistent.

I have not thought a lot about Mathews running out of a power scheme versus a bunch of defenses prepared for the spread. That is a good catch, and it will impact my rankings when I re-look at some of my film (tonight probably, maybe tomorrow). And I see what he was doing with the Wisconsin example, but you can't just take out a guy's run. Yardage is yardage, but it should be noted that he will not always get lucky enough to have a big run.

But Hardesty is not the answer. One year as a starter, behind a guy who went undrafted. He had one season as a starter, and it was not even a spectacular season. He averaged 4.8 yards a carry, good, but not great. Hardesty is every bit the post season riser that Mathews is. After the season, he was projected as a 4th rounder. Now? 2nd or 3rd.

I would even prefer Tate over Hardesty. Tate at least has potential, I think Hardesty is done growing as a player. And Tate is more athletic, in addition to having a better career/season.

Toby Gerhart is still my guy though, in the second round.

Matthews is a good back who can make himself small in traffic.
He has good vision and knows where the defenders are on the field.
He did well against Wisconsin. He's also a good blocker, leveling a LB once.
Also a good lead blocker on a couple of QB's keeper.
He looked comfortable running behind a FB lead (but they don't do that much).
Surprisingly, in both the Fresno St and Wisc games, they did not use him when they got backed up close to their own goal-line.

As far as Hardesty is concerned, when Foster was still at Tenn, I watched and they looked very similar to me. I remember thinking, hmmm, maybe Hardesty is a little better overall... and he's a year younger, without the fumbling issue.
He was used more in goal-line situations.

It doesn't matter to me whether we take a RB or a CB in the first.
But I imagine Kubiak tends not to go with the first option.

kiwitexansfan
04-04-2010, 12:27 PM
The more I think about it, the more I am looking at 4th Round RB prospects.

I just think there is more positional value drafting secondary, OL and DT in those first three rounds.

bckey
04-04-2010, 12:54 PM
Just say no to Mathews in the 1st.

The Pencil Neck
04-04-2010, 02:21 PM
There are, on average, about 22 running backs selected every year.

About 3 of those are taken in the first round.

Over a 5 year period, that means that you've got around 15 first rounders and 110 running backs taken overall.

Of the top 10 running backs last year, almost all of them were first rounders. Out of the top 20 running backs last year, most of them were first rounders.

If you want a great running game, you shouldn't bet on finding the one Terrell Davis out of the crowd of Larry Neds. You should get a running back early (assuming you don't reach.)

If Ryan Mathews is available at our 20 spot, we should take him. But he's probably not going to be there.

Texan4Ever
04-04-2010, 02:50 PM
IMO, I don't think there is a single running back worth taking in the first round this year. From CJ Spiller to Jahvid Best to Ryan Matthews, all of the top running backs (maybe with Dwyer as an exception) lack consistency. The Texans have other needs we need to address, and I doubt Kubiak will seriously consider drafting a running back in the first.

We also need to improve our offensive line. If our offensive line can't open up holes and block for the running back it doesn't matter who we have, he won't go anywhere.

bckey
04-04-2010, 03:04 PM
IMO, I don't think there is a single running back worth taking in the first round this year.


I agree with this except for CJ Spiller. I don't want the Texans to draft him in the 1st round but he is first round material imho. The guy can score at anytime from anywhere on the field. He is more of a Reggie Bush type (but smaller) that could be very dangerous if used right. I just don't think he will be there at 20. But I wouldn't be too mad if he was and we took him. You can't ever get mad about bpa in the 1st round.

Texan4Ever
04-04-2010, 03:32 PM
I agree with this except for CJ Spiller. I don't want the Texans to draft him in the 1st round but he is first round material imho. The guy can score at anytime from anywhere on the field. He is more of a Reggie Bush type (but smaller) that could be very dangerous if used right. I just don't think he will be there at 20. But I wouldn't be too mad if he was and we took him. You can't ever get mad about bpa in the 1st round.


Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I doubt Spiller will ever rush for 1,000+ yards. Like you said, he is a Reggie Bush-type of player, he can rack up a lot of all-purpose yards but that's all. He would be a good pickup in the 2nd or 3rd however.

Ole Miss Texan
04-04-2010, 07:17 PM
There are, on average, about 22 running backs selected every year.

About 3 of those are taken in the first round.

Over a 5 year period, that means that you've got around 15 first rounders and 110 running backs taken overall.

Of the top 10 running backs last year, almost all of them were first rounders. Out of the top 20 running backs last year, most of them were first rounders.

If you want a great running game, you shouldn't bet on finding the one Terrell Davis out of the crowd of Larry Neds. You should get a running back early (assuming you don't reach.)

If Ryan Mathews is available at our 20 spot, we should take him. But he's probably not going to be there.
Now go take a look at those 1st round RB's and see how many are still with the team that drafted them AND helped their "team" be a Top 10 rushing team.

It doesn't do much good for you if that 1st rounder is with another team or didn't push your team into the top 10 in the league. I'd rather the Texans be Top 10 in rushing than have a guy that ranked in the top 20. Of all the teams and systems, the Texans place more value in a team rushing threat (runningback by commitee) than having a single RB rush for a lot of yards.

beerlover
04-04-2010, 07:45 PM
Maybe I'm wrong about this, but I doubt Spiller will ever rush for 1,000+ yards.

I'm having a real hard time understanding some peoples projections, yours included :fingergun:

Texan4Ever
04-04-2010, 07:58 PM
I'm having a real hard time understanding some peoples projections, yours included :fingergun:

He only rushed for 1,000+ yards once in college. Find me a player who was able to become a multiple 1,000+ yard rusher who hadn't done it at least two or three times in college. He is simply put, not a workhorse running back and can't pick up the tough yards. If he can't do it in college what makes you think he'll be able to do it in the pros?

JB
04-04-2010, 08:03 PM
He only rushed for 1,000+ yards once in college. Find me a player who was able to become a multiple 1,000+ yard rusher who hadn't done it at least two or three times in college. He is simply put, not a workhorse running back and can't pick up the tough yards. If he can't do it in college what makes you think he'll be able to do it in the pros?

Terrell Davis
& I believe
Chris Johnson

The Pencil Neck
04-04-2010, 08:49 PM
Now go take a look at those 1st round RB's and see how many are still with the team that drafted them AND helped their "team" be a Top 10 rushing team.

It doesn't do much good for you if that 1st rounder is with another team or didn't push your team into the top 10 in the league. I'd rather the Texans be Top 10 in rushing than have a guy that ranked in the top 20. Of all the teams and systems, the Texans place more value in a team rushing threat (runningback by commitee) than having a single RB rush for a lot of yards.

The top 10 rushing teams were:

1. Jets (with Jones a first rounder on his second team)
2. Titans (with Johnson a first rounder on his first team)
3. Panthers (with Stewart and Williams 2 first rounders on their first teams)
4. Dolphins (With Ricky Williams a first rounder on his second team and Ronnie Brown a first rounder on his first team)
5. Ravens (with Ray Rice a second rounder)
6. Saints (Running back by committee with Pierre Thomas an UDFA as the main back)
7. Cowboys (with Marion Barber a 4th rounder)
8. Browns (with Jerome Harrision from the 5th round and Jamal Lewis from the first)
9. Bengals (with Cedric Benson a 1st rounder on his second team)
10. Jaguars (with Maurice Jones-Drew a 2nd rounder)

So that's 10 teams with 7 first rounders (I'm counting Brown and Williams), 2 2nd rounders, a 4th, a 5th and a UDFA.

So, even looking at it like this, to me it looks like a first round running back is an important piece of the puzzle.

We aren't getting a 1st round running back via FA and I doubt we're getting one via a trade. That leaves drafting one.

But, like you said, it's as much about the threat of the run as how well the team runs. So just having a guy that's a threat back there is what's important. And that means a guy preferably from the first round and if worse comes to worst, the second. Otherwise, you're playing Russian Roulette.

rmartin65
04-04-2010, 09:59 PM
The top 10 rushing teams were:

1. Jets (with Jones a first rounder on his second team)
2. Titans (with Johnson a first rounder on his first team)
3. Panthers (with Stewart and Williams 2 first rounders on their first teams)
4. Dolphins (With Ricky Williams a first rounder on his second team and Ronnie Brown a first rounder on his first team)
5. Ravens (with Ray Rice a second rounder)
6. Saints (Running back by committee with Pierre Thomas an UDFA as the main back)
7. Cowboys (with Marion Barber a 4th rounder)
8. Browns (with Jerome Harrision from the 5th round and Jamal Lewis from the first)
9. Bengals (with Cedric Benson a 1st rounder on his second team)
10. Jaguars (with Maurice Jones-Drew a 2nd rounder)

So that's 10 teams with 7 first rounders (I'm counting Brown and Williams), 2 2nd rounders, a 4th, a 5th and a UDFA.

So, even looking at it like this, to me it looks like a first round running back is an important piece of the puzzle.

We aren't getting a 1st round running back via FA and I doubt we're getting one via a trade. That leaves drafting one.

But, like you said, it's as much about the threat of the run as how well the team runs. So just having a guy that's a threat back there is what's important. And that means a guy preferably from the first round and if worse comes to worst, the second. Otherwise, you're playing Russian Roulette.

Those are some nice stats, but it does not mean every 1st round back is gold. There are busts at the position. it all depends were you have players ranked.

The Pencil Neck
04-04-2010, 11:58 PM
Those are some nice stats, but it does not mean every 1st round back is gold. There are busts at the position. it all depends were you have players ranked.

My point was not that all 1st round picks are gold. There are plenty of examples of 1st round picks that busted. BUT a significantly higher percentage of 1st round backs perform compared to backs chosen later. (I'm going to do a separate post on this.)

My point was that the majority of strong running attacks are based on a 1st round back. Sometimes that 1st round back needs a change of scenery to get going and sometimes that 1st round back performs right where he was originally drafted.

IF we want to have a respectable running game, we can't live by the old creed that running backs break too early and often to be worth a 1st round pick. We can't live by the belief that we can draft a running back in the later rounds and he'll turn into Terrell Davis or Priest Holmes.

The Pencil Neck
04-05-2010, 12:13 AM
BUT a significantly higher percentage of 1st round backs perform compared to backs chosen later. (I'm going to do a separate post on this.)

I chose the year 2000 as a basis for this exercise. It gives enough time so that most of these running backs are toast and out of the game.

In 2000, there were 25 running backs taken:

1st round - 5
2nd round - 0
3rd round - 4
4th round - 4
5th round - 4
6th round - 3
7th round - 5

(I'm leaving out Dante Hall because he wasn't really a running back.)

All of the probowls for this class came from the first round.

The first round averaged:
7.8 seasons per player
2.6 teams per player
109 games played
6819 yards rushing over their career
1 pro bowl each (although the probowls only came from 3 players)

ALL the other rounds combined averaged:
4.15 seasons per player
2.0 teams per player
51 games played
784 yards rushing over their career
0 pro bowls.

Two of the non-first round players are still playing: Sammy Morris and Terrelle Smith (a fullback who has played with 4 teams). The 1st rounders still playing are Thomas Jones and Jamal Lewis. Of the non first rounders, 3 never saw the field. The 1st rounder that had the shortest career of the 1st rounders was Trung Canidate.

Of the non first rounders, two of the guys that actually made some yards were Reuben Droughns (3602) who got most of his yardage with the Broncos and... Mike Anderson (4067) who also got his yardage with the Broncos, a team known for squeezing yards out of later round backs.

In that 2000 draft, there were 2 first round players who could be considered busts: Ron Dayne and Trung Canidate. The other three first rounders were: Jamal Lewis, Thomas Jones, and Shaun Alexander.

So, yeah, first rounders sometimes bust. But late rounders usually have much less fruitful careers. They're just not considered busts because nothing was really expected of them.

awtysst
04-05-2010, 12:21 AM
He only rushed for 1,000+ yards once in college. Find me a player who was able to become a multiple 1,000+ yard rusher who hadn't done it at least two or three times in college. He is simply put, not a workhorse running back and can't pick up the tough yards. If he can't do it in college what makes you think he'll be able to do it in the pros?

Yeah but in college you only play 12 or 13 games whereas in the NFL you play 16. If you can avg 62.5 ypg you will reach 1000 yards rushing.

IDEXAN
04-05-2010, 08:03 AM
The top 10 rushing teams were:
1. Jets (with Jones a first rounder on his second team)
2. Titans (with Johnson a first rounder on his first team)
3. Panthers (with Stewart and Williams 2 first rounders on their first teams)
4. Dolphins (With Ricky Williams a first rounder on his second team and Ronnie Brown a first rounder on his first team)
5. Ravens (with Ray Rice a second rounder)
6. Saints (Running back by committee with Pierre Thomas an UDFA as the main back)
7. Cowboys (with Marion Barber a 4th rounder)
8. Browns (with Jerome Harrision from the 5th round and Jamal Lewis from the first)
9. Bengals (with Cedric Benson a 1st rounder on his second team)
10. Jaguars (with Maurice Jones-Drew a 2nd rounder)

Really now, don't you think you've got to throw out those teams (Panthers & Dolphins) that need 2 first-round backs to meet the criteria in your argument ? That almost makes for a counter-argument ? I mean next thing you're going to be saying is we should draft running back #1 this year and in 2011 ? I'm sorry but the 2-back argument just doesn't compute for me ?
But look at the 2 really outstanding backs in the second-round and the guys in later rounds that have become so valuable for their teams.
Here's a very crude and very simple analogy with the Texans ZB schemes: the OLine personnel and the system are the weapon and the running back is the ammo. And bullets are real cheap, right ?

Ole Miss Texan
04-05-2010, 11:13 AM
The top 10 rushing teams were:
1. Jets (with Jones a first rounder on his second team)
2. Titans (with Johnson a first rounder on his first team)
3. Panthers (with Stewart and Williams 2 first rounders on their first teams)
4. Dolphins (With Ricky Williams a first rounder on his second team and Ronnie Brown a first rounder on his first team)
5. Ravens (with Ray Rice a second rounder)
6. Saints (Running back by committee with Pierre Thomas an UDFA as the main back)
7. Cowboys (with Marion Barber a 4th rounder)
8. Browns (with Jerome Harrision from the 5th round and Jamal Lewis from the first)
9. Bengals (with Cedric Benson a 1st rounder on his second team)
10. Jaguars (with Maurice Jones-Drew a 2nd rounder)
If you look at the Top 10 rushing teams, I see the whole 1st round RB arguement but I don't agree with it for our team. The important thing is the draft pick that you're spending to get the production. There's 7 teams out of last years top 10 that got production out of their RBs that they didn't have to spend a 1st rounder to get.
1. Jets - nope
2. Titans - absolutely
3. Panthers - absolutely (two first rounders!)
4. Dolphins - yes (their 1st rounder in Brown was having a good year)
5. Ravens - nope
6. Saints - nope
7. Cowboys - nope
8. Browns - nope (Lewis had 500 yds and ZERO td's)
9. Bengals - nope
10. Jaguars - nope

Should a 1st round RB be more successful than a 2nd, 3rd.. 6th? All else equaly, yes. But that doesn't mean it's the best value. Looking at the RB's above AND the RB's in this draft: Where is the value? I would say a 2nd or 3rd round pick on Tate, Dwyer, Gerhart, Hardesty, you pick 'em could be just as successful. Keep in mind, in this system we have Slaton and Foster that should be getting carries too, we're probably not going to have a workhorse getting 20+ carries.

This all goes out the window if the Texans think Mathews is their bread and butter in the 1st and all the players (at other positions) don't stack up to his talent. Then he's BPA at a position of need and they go for it... so be it.

kiwitexansfan
04-05-2010, 11:14 AM
Another interesting question.

Of those top 10 teams, how many early round draft picks have been spent on OL?

Ole Miss Texan
04-05-2010, 11:21 AM
Another interesting question.

Of those top 10 teams, how many early round draft picks have been spent on OL?

J-E-T-S, Jets Jets Jets!

Blake
04-05-2010, 12:04 PM
J-E-T-S, Jets Jets Jets!

Nick Mangold - 1st round pick.
D'Brickashaw Ferguson - 1st round pick.
Alan Faneca - 1st round pick. High priced FA acquisition.
Damien Woody - 1st round pick. High priced FA Acquisiton.
Brandon Moore - Undrafted FA.

The Pencil Neck
04-05-2010, 03:35 PM
If you look at the Top 10 rushing teams, I see the whole 1st round RB arguement but I don't agree with it for our team. The important thing is the draft pick that you're spending to get the production. There's 7 teams out of last years top 10 that got production out of their RBs that they didn't have to spend a 1st rounder to get.
1. Jets - nope
2. Titans - absolutely
3. Panthers - absolutely (two first rounders!)
4. Dolphins - yes (their 1st rounder in Brown was having a good year)
5. Ravens - nope
6. Saints - nope
7. Cowboys - nope
8. Browns - nope (Lewis had 500 yds and ZERO td's)
9. Bengals - nope
10. Jaguars - nope

Should a 1st round RB be more successful than a 2nd, 3rd.. 6th? All else equaly, yes. But that doesn't mean it's the best value. Looking at the RB's above AND the RB's in this draft: Where is the value? I would say a 2nd or 3rd round pick on Tate, Dwyer, Gerhart, Hardesty, you pick 'em could be just as successful. Keep in mind, in this system we have Slaton and Foster that should be getting carries too, we're probably not going to have a workhorse getting 20+ carries.

This all goes out the window if the Texans think Mathews is their bread and butter in the 1st and all the players (at other positions) don't stack up to his talent. Then he's BPA at a position of need and they go for it... so be it.

Every case is its own case, but I think it's obvious from all this that it's really helpful to have a "quality" first round running back. We want to be a run-first team, then we need to get a first round running back. As I said in my post, I don't see us getting one via free agency or via a trade. That leaves the draft.

IF Ryan Mathews or CJ Spiller seems to be a quality first round back, then they should draft whichever one is available and they like. If they don't like either of them and don't think they have first round talent, then they should back off.

BUT. From everything I've seen and heard, Mathews and Spiller are more talented than the other RBs in the draft. But, we could trade back and draft someone like Tate at the end of the first round and still get a "first round" back even though most people aren't thinking of him as a first rounder (a lot of people weren't thinking of Chris Johnson as a first rounder, iirc.)

The bottom line is that we can't blindly follow the "draft a back late" and expect to have a good rushing attack.

The Pencil Neck
04-05-2010, 03:35 PM
Another interesting question.

Of those top 10 teams, how many early round draft picks have been spent on OL?

That is a good question. I'll take a look at it later if I have time.

bckey
04-05-2010, 07:13 PM
One thing you have to ask yourself is if Ryan Mathews would be a first round pick in a different draft class.

Brisco_County
04-06-2010, 03:17 AM
After Spiller, Matthews, and Best, there's a big drop off in value. This may be a deep draft, but not for RB's, and there are a lot of teams that need RB's.

Mike Kerns
04-07-2010, 01:22 PM
I write with him over on BRB and while I agree with not taking Ryan Mathews in the 1st, you can't come back by suggesting Hardesty in the second in my opinion. I guess I wouldn't HATE Hardesty there, I'm just not seeing what everyone else there is. I like Tate much better. I wrote a follow up and we got a talk about that going on over there right now:

http://www.battleredblog.com/2010/4/7/1409514/if-not-ryan-mathews-who-do-you-want

El Tejano
04-07-2010, 01:31 PM
Another interesting question.

Of those top 10 teams, how many early round draft picks have been spent on OL?

You took the question right out of my post.

JB
04-07-2010, 01:36 PM
I write with him over on BRB and while I agree with not taking Ryan Mathews in the 1st, you can't come back by suggesting Hardesty in the second in my opinion. I guess I wouldn't HATE Hardesty there, I'm just not seeing what everyone else there is. I like Tate much better. I wrote a follow up and we got a talk about that going on over there right now:

http://www.battleredblog.com/2010/4/7/1409514/if-not-ryan-mathews-who-do-you-want

Great Read! by the way this from Ben Tate's twitter:

Btw just found out that my official 40 time at the combine according to the master list was a 4.34.. yall didnt know i was that fast did u!!!

Wow! a back his size with 4.3 speed...Yes!

Mike Kerns
04-07-2010, 03:34 PM
Great Read! by the way this from Ben Tate's twitter:

Btw just found out that my official 40 time at the combine according to the master list was a 4.34.. yall didnt know i was that fast did u!!!

Wow! a back his size with 4.3 speed...Yes!

Yeah. Complete back. He is easily my pick in Round 2 if he's there.

Speaking of, I will be having a one-on-one interview with Ben Tate on my other site (the link is in my signature) later this week about how he would fit in with The Texans.

wagonhed
04-08-2010, 02:05 AM
I'd so much rather have Dwyer in the 2nd. I'm actually about to take Dwyer in the 3rd if he falls another 9 spots... I'm trying to move up to get him lol. I got Dan Williams in the first because Thomas, Haden, and Wilson were gone. Kareem Jackson in the 2nd cause there was a huge run on CBs.

Er, in a mock I'm doing on another board, that is.

wagonhed
04-08-2010, 02:08 AM
check this out for another perspective: http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/front-office-total-access-stats.html&position=rb

Has Matthews as the 8th and Ben Tate as the 15th best RB in the draft.

rmartin65
04-08-2010, 08:02 AM
check this out for another perspective: http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/front-office-total-access-stats.html&position=rb

Has Matthews as the 8th and Ben Tate as the 15th best RB in the draft.

That guy is an *****. Besides getting news on what players are working out where, that site is useless. Hell, on the Houston Texans part of the site, the spelled it Houstan Texans.

That said, I am not sold on Tate. I dont think I would be upset at the pick (depending on who is available), but I am willing to bet he would not be my first choice.

Dwyer I am staying the hell away from. I smell bust there.

The Pencil Neck
04-08-2010, 12:43 PM
check this out for another perspective: http://www.nationalfootballpost.com/front-office-total-access-stats.html&position=rb

Has Matthews as the 8th and Ben Tate as the 15th best RB in the draft.

http://www.nfl.com/draft/2010/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-position/dt-by-position-input:rb

And this one, like almost all ratings, has Mathews as the 2nd best back in the draft. And has Tate as the 9th best.

wagonhed
04-08-2010, 02:50 PM
That's fair. Although that guy does have Kyle Wilson as the #1 CB. And I think his scouting reports seem really well done... though I'm not a scout and I can't corroborate them myself.

In any case, I do like Dwyer a lot. I might like him the most out of the RBs in this draft, because I like big RBs. I think he can be another Jonathan Stewart. I want a guy who, more than anything, can punch it in at the goalline or on 3rd and 1. We've already got a 3db and scatback in Slaton. I also like the durability prospects of a 230lb back over a 215lb.

infantrycak
04-08-2010, 03:13 PM
In any case, I do like Dwyer a lot. I might like him the most out of the RBs in this draft, because I like big RBs. I think he can be another Jonathan Stewart. I want a guy who, more than anything, can punch it in at the goalline or on 3rd and 1. We've already got a 3db and scatback in Slaton. I also like the durability prospects of a 230lb back over a 215lb.

The most durable and best goal line RBs are rarely the big 225+ lb guys.

Corrosion
04-08-2010, 07:52 PM
That's fair. Although that guy does have Kyle Wilson as the #1 CB. And I think his scouting reports seem really well done... though I'm not a scout and I can't corroborate them myself.

In any case, I do like Dwyer a lot. I might like him the most out of the RBs in this draft, because I like big RBs. I think he can be another Jonathan Stewart. I want a guy who, more than anything, can punch it in at the goalline or on 3rd and 1. We've already got a 3db and scatback in Slaton. I also like the durability prospects of a 230lb back over a 215lb.

I have Wilson as the #1 CB as well. He just sticks to guy's and plays the ball very well.

While I like Matthews , he has his flaws and I dont like him in round 1. I dont think there is any seperation between him and the other backs we have discussed .... Tate , Gerhart and so on.

I'd be much happier with any of the following in round 1 over any RB in this class - Thomas , Wilson or Haden (In that order).

If one of the above could be had in round 1 I'd be looking at RB or OG in round 2 unless someone I had rated higher fell. (Maybe one of the second tier DT's or someone like Pouncey).

Post #10,000

stingray
04-08-2010, 07:58 PM
http://www.nfl.com/draft/2010/tracker#dt-tabs:dt-by-position/dt-by-position-input:rb

And this one, like almost all ratings, has Mathews as the 2nd best back in the draft. And has Tate as the 9th best.

How the hell does a back from the SEC who averaged 5.2 a carry, weighs 220, runs a 4.43 be ranked 9th. The production is there in a tough conference, he is durable and runs fast. Don't understand.

stingray
04-10-2010, 12:18 PM
The average ranking of the defenses he faced? A shade under 80 (remember there are 120 FBS teams) which includes four of the worst defenses in the entire FBS and doesn't include FCS member UC-Davis. Do you know the most impressive defense he faced in 2009? Wisconsin, which is one of only two rush defenses he faced that were in the top-60 nationally. You know what Mathews did against Wisconsin? 19 rushes for 107 yards. That sounds okay, but one run was for 55 yards where Wisconsin looked like Houston early in 2009 and overpursued which means Mathews really did nothing special on the run. Take the one big run out, and he had 18 rushes for 52 yards which isn't that impressive nor any different from what our current backs did behind our injury-ravaged line of crappy back-ups.


Mathews still averaged 5.6 yrds a carry against Wisconsin. Wisconsin was ranked 5th in the nation in run defense. And funny how he didn't mention the other top 60 ranked defense. He averaged a whopping 12.3 a carry against Boise State who were ranked 28th in the nation against the run. The more I actually look at Ryans numbers the more I am enamored with him. And you can't just "take out a big run". What would Spiller's average be if we took out his big runs. This is a very biased piece.

wagonhed
04-10-2010, 12:34 PM
It makes a lot less sense to look at numbers for individual games, especially YPC numbers, than it does to look at the numbers for a season.

Actually I think most of the time numbers for RBs are too misleading to be reliable. Too much difference between Olines, defenses, and systems.

steelbtexan
04-10-2010, 01:11 PM
I dont know what it is about Mathews and Dwyer. but I consider both of them risky picks. Mathews in the 1st because of injury history. Dwyer because he showed up out of shape at the combine and had the worst measurables there.

If I haad to choose between the two I would take Dwyer in the 2/3rd over Mathews in the 1st.

If I were Smithiak I might consider Hardesty in the 3rd and Lonyae Miller in the 5th as part of a tandem. Over either Mathews or Dwyer.

With that said I wouldn't be upset with taking Mathews in the 1st. These kind of choices are why Smithiak get paid the big bucks.

Dutchrudder
04-10-2010, 01:26 PM
Personally, I'm hoping they can trade back 5-8 spots and pick up a 3rd rounder or swap a pick up a round, then grab a good CB in the late first round. I agree Matthews is not worthy of the 20th pick, but if he's there at 51 for some reason, I'd be very happy to get him then :)

Mike Kerns
04-12-2010, 10:11 AM
How the hell does a back from the SEC who averaged 5.2 a carry, weighs 220, runs a 4.43 be ranked 9th. The production is there in a tough conference, he is durable and runs fast. Don't understand.

I don't understand it either. But this could be beneficial to us if he is the target at pick 51 overall.

threetoedpete
04-15-2010, 05:58 PM
Mathews still averaged 5.6 yrds a carry against Wisconsin. Wisconsin was ranked 5th in the nation in run defense. And funny how he didn't mention the other top 60 ranked defense. He averaged a whopping 12.3 a carry against Boise State who were ranked 28th in the nation against the run. The more I actually look at Ryans numbers the more I am enamored with him. And you can't just "take out a big run". What would Spiller's average be if we took out his big runs. This is a very biased piece.

Mathews is the round peg in a round hole. I believe we are backwards in addressing the rushing attack, putting the chicken before the egg, i.e. actual holes provided by the offensive line. However it should be clear by now that Mathews fits the system we supposedly run here. Fits between what we already have here in Slaton and Foster. Cap number is correct. If he falls and they take him I wouldn't be entirely unhappy. He isn't all day Peterson, but he isn't going to cost us what Peterson costs the Vikes.

El Tejano
04-16-2010, 07:52 PM
So my biggest thing when looking at a RB is not only can he punish people, but can he do it after he gets punished. Ronnie Lott said that used to be the first thing he looked for when facing a big time RB. He said he noticed that Icky Woods never got hit so he made it a personal goal of his to hit Icky as hard as ever and when he did, Icky Woods never did the Icky Shuffle again.

Ben Tate has shown that to me and so I am now putting ahead of my RB class as of today. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmYUfVkp7UI&NR=1

and then he strikes back much later in the game:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tK-ttHGJRU&NR=1

playa465
04-16-2010, 08:24 PM
So my biggest thing when looking at a RB is not only can he punish people, but can he do it after he gets punished. Ronnie Lott said that used to be the first thing he looked for when facing a big time RB. He said he noticed that Icky Woods never got hit so he made it a personal goal of his to hit Icky as hard as ever and when he did, Icky Woods never did the Icky Shuffle again.

Ben Tate has shown that to me and so I am now putting ahead of my RB class as of today. Check it out:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZmYUfVkp7UI&NR=1

and then he strikes back much later in the game:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=7tK-ttHGJRU&NR=1

This what I have been preaching on another board...Tate has the measurables at RB that make me feel giddy...the question as with all draft picks is will this transfer into production in the NFL...Tate has the toughness, speed/burst, and looks to be able to get that 1 or 2 yds when there is NO opening. I don't know why he isn't ranked right up at the top, his inconsistency can directly tied to Auburn's offense undergoing the changes in staff. Plus look at the pedigree of RBs that have come from Auburn. I don't really care about catching and blocking b/c you can coach that.

rmartin65
04-16-2010, 08:29 PM
This what I have been preaching on another board...Tate has the measurables at RB that make me feel giddy...the question as with all draft picks is will this transfer into production in the NFL...Tate has the toughness, speed/burst, and looks to be able to get that 1 or 2 yds when there is NO opening. I don't know why he isn't ranked right up at the top, his inconsistency can directly tied to Auburn's offense undergoing the changes in staff. Plus look at the pedigree of RBs that have come from Auburn. I don't really care about catching and blocking b/c you can coach that.

Measurerables are nice, but his play is what should make you feel giddy. It does at times, but not enough (for me) to feel comfortable picking him before the 3rd round.

I have to disagree with you about the teaching catching. Catching is all hand/eye coordination. You either have it, or you don't.

playa465
04-16-2010, 09:48 PM
Measurerables are nice, but his play is what should make you feel giddy. It does at times, but not enough (for me) to feel comfortable picking him before the 3rd round.

I have to disagree with you about the teaching catching. Catching is all hand/eye coordination. You either have it, or you don't.

You are correct about his play should be what grabs the attention, I didn't mention it b/c its his play that has us talking about him in the first place. The catching thing I also agree a lil bit. If we were talking about a WR or TE absolutely your hand eye coordination is of utmost importance since its your primary job to catch passes. But a RB's primary job is a runner, pass catching is a bonus and I know we utilize it somewhat. I personally feel he should not be asked to run routes where he is a primary target other than a screen. Flats and dump offs are usually done out of desperation but I would expect him to be able to catch a ball 2-5 yards off the LOS. I know there are the LTs, Marshall Faulks etc. and I will admit I have seen plays where Slaton (if he comes back he can be our receiving RB) looks to be on a fly/go route. But our passing game is fine...our running game is what is sucking (could be OL play)...On a side note Tate has more receptions than Hardesty, Gerhart and Mathews. Spiller on the other hand well lets just say he caught alot.

JB
04-17-2010, 09:38 AM
You are correct about his play should be what grabs the attention, I didn't mention it b/c its his play that has us talking about him in the first place. The catching thing I also agree a lil bit. If we were talking about a WR or TE absolutely your hand eye coordination is of utmost importance since its your primary job to catch passes. But a RB's primary job is a runner, pass catching is a bonus and I know we utilize it somewhat. I personally feel he should not be asked to run routes where he is a primary target other than a screen. Flats and dump offs are usually done out of desperation but I would expect him to be able to catch a ball 2-5 yards off the LOS. I know there are the LTs, Marshall Faulks etc. and I will admit I have seen plays where Slaton (if he comes back he can be our receiving RB) looks to be on a fly/go route. But our passing game is fine...our running game is what is sucking (could be OL play)...On a side note Tate has more receptions than Hardesty, Gerhart and Mathews. Spiller on the other hand well lets just say he caught alot.

Tate is actually pretty good in the passing game. That is what sets him above some of the other big backs. From Scouts Inc.Has good experience as a receiver. Displays above-average ball skills for a bigger back. Does a fine job of getting open underneath and will run over some smaller DBs when he catches the ball in space.

And aslo in pass pro.Displays adequate awareness in pass pro. Is thickly built and can anchor versus the blitzing linebacker but needs to improve consistency as a space blocker.

http://insider.espn.go.com/nfl/draft/player/_/id/25495/ben-tate

IDEXAN
04-17-2010, 10:32 AM
If the Texans draft a running back in the first round (no matter who the back might be), that's gonna tell us all what they really think about the prospects of Steve Slatons return to his rookie year form.

The Pencil Neck
04-17-2010, 12:01 PM
If the Texans draft a running back in the first round (no matter who the back might be), that's gonna tell us all what they really think about the prospects of Steve Slatons return to his rookie year form.

Exactly.

And my position on this has been that we have to learn from the DD example. This is a very serious injury. You can't expect Slaton to ever return to form no matter how positive he is that he will. From a drafting strategy perspective, we should just approach this as though Slaton isn't even on the team. That means we've got:

1. Ryan Moats - who's a decent backup/changeup guy but he's not good in pass pro and not a quality starter
2. Arian Foster - who showed some flashes but hasn't really proven anything, yet
3. Jeremiah Johnson - who is a huge question mark
4. Chris Henry - who is a question mark (at least to the fans)

To me, without a certified starter in the bunch, that's easily the worst position on our team. We need to grab someone early and we need to grab someone late and then we may need to grab someone in FA. And then we need to hope we've grabbed the right guys.

otisbean
04-17-2010, 03:44 PM
Exactly.

And my position on this has been that we have to learn from the DD example. This is a very serious injury. You can't expect Slaton to ever return to form no matter how positive he is that he will. From a drafting strategy perspective, we should just approach this as though Slaton isn't even on the team. That means we've got:

1. Ryan Moats - who's a decent backup/changeup guy but he's not good in pass pro and not a quality starter
2. Arian Foster - who showed some flashes but hasn't really proven anything, yet
3. Jeremiah Johnson - who is a huge question mark
4. Chris Henry - who is a question mark (at least to the fans)

To me, without a certified starter in the bunch, that's easily the worst position on our team. We need to grab someone early and we need to grab someone late and then we may need to grab someone in FA. And then we need to hope we've grabbed the right guys.

Great post! I understand everyone wanting a CB, but RB is a scary position for us. Also, take a look at the first and second rounds and the teams that need a RB, waiting until 51 will be too long. The guys that we want probably won't be there.

El Tejano
04-18-2010, 11:40 PM
Well, looks like Dwyer's stock could be potentially falling:

NFL | McCoy, Dwyer reportedly fail drug tests
Comment (0)
Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:56:58 -0400

Jay Glazer and Alex Marvez, of FOXSports.com, reports Southern California TE Anthony McCoy and Georgia Tech RB Jonathan Dwyer reportedly flunked their drug tests at the NFL Scouting Combine, according to a source. Dwyer allegedly tested positive for amphetamines, but he had clearance



Read more: http://www.kffl.com/hotw/nfl#ixzz0lVvSoHzv

playa465
04-19-2010, 12:39 AM
Well, looks like Dwyer's stock could be potentially falling:

NFL | McCoy, Dwyer reportedly fail drug tests
Comment (0)
Sun, 18 Apr 2010 15:56:58 -0400

Jay Glazer and Alex Marvez, of FOXSports.com, reports Southern California TE Anthony McCoy and Georgia Tech RB Jonathan Dwyer reportedly flunked their drug tests at the NFL Scouting Combine, according to a source. Dwyer allegedly tested positive for amphetamines, but he had clearance

Read more: http://www.kffl.com/hotw/nfl#ixzz0lVvSoHzv

If Dwyer had clearance how is his stock dropping due to this?

stingray
04-19-2010, 07:55 AM
"All 32 teams received notification prior to the combine that a medication he's taken since childhood would likely result in a positive result at the combine," Adisa Bakari told ESPN's Joe Schad. "We provided the necessary medical documentation."

Dwyer told Schad the medication is for an attention deficit disorder. The NFL calls Dwyer's situation a "therapeutic use exemption," a source told Schad.

"I have had it since I was in the fifth grade," Dwyer said. "Georgia Tech knew about it when I went there. The NCAA knew about it before every drug test I took there. And the league knew about it before the combine as they got several letters from my doctor who prescribed me the medication."


I don't see it as a big deal.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/draft10/news/story?id=5111130

El Tejano
04-19-2010, 10:12 AM
Thanks for clearing it up.

Blake
04-19-2010, 11:02 AM
This is how I have it going into draft week. Which Round I think they get drafted in.

No order.

Round 1:
Spiller - Mathews
Round 2:
Best - Dwyer
Round 3:
Tate - Hardesty - Gerhart - McCluster
Round 4:
Dixon - McNight
Round 5:
Blount - Lonyae Miller - Stafon Johnson
Round 6:
Scott - Starks - Dixon - Bell
Round 7:
James - Karim -

kastofsna
04-19-2010, 11:29 AM
i'm hearing Miami is considering taking Mathews at #12. no clue what to make of that.

Goldensilence
04-19-2010, 11:33 AM
i'm hearing Miami is considering taking Mathews at #12. no clue what to make of that.

Ronnie Brown coming off surgery and pushing 30. Ricky Williams past 30.

Makes sense to want to look at a back early, but I don't think Mathews has the kind of game to warrant him going at 12.

kastofsna
04-19-2010, 11:35 AM
yeah, he does seem to be a 2-down guy, and that would be fine with a pretty decent backfield as it is (assuming Ronnie is traded on draft day, that leaves Ricky Williams, Patrick Cobb, and Lex Hilliard; decent on any team's depth chart). so Mathews would make a fine compliment to them, but with the pick at #12? not really. however, if he turns out to be a damned good player, draft position means nothing.

Mike Kerns
04-20-2010, 07:34 PM
Nothing fancy and his answers were pretty vanilla, but you can read my interview with Ben Tate on my site now:

http://dontmesswithtexans.com/2010/04/20/624/

stingray
04-20-2010, 08:01 PM
Nothing fancy and his answers were pretty vanilla, but you can read my interview with Ben Tate on my site now:

http://dontmesswithtexans.com/2010/04/20/624/

Thanks ... good info.

JB
04-20-2010, 08:32 PM
Thanks a lot. I sure hope we pick up Tate in the 2nd or 3rd.

Mike Kerns
04-21-2010, 11:08 PM
Thanks a lot. I sure hope we pick up Tate in the 2nd or 3rd.

Nice dude, but his answers were pretty cut and dry. Said if Houston picks him he'll give me a "better" interview.

Wolf
04-24-2010, 02:12 PM
A Chargers fan, Mathews had heard that the Texans would draft him 20th. Then came the happy jolt from the Bolts.

"All the talk about Houston and stuff, it really started to scare me and everything," Mathews said. "I'm lucky and blessed that (the Chargers) traded up and picked me. I'm super-excited. It's mind-blowing that they did that."




http://www.battleredblog.com/2010/4/23/1440655/i-apologize-if-this-is-biased-but

hope he says the same thing around NOV 7th :bat:

Blake
04-27-2010, 12:25 PM
http://www.battleredblog.com/2010/4/23/1440655/i-apologize-if-this-is-biased-but

hope he says the same thing around NOV 7th :bat:

That is gonna make headlines.

He does understand that by getting his "wish" we are going to sick our wild dogs Cushing and Pollard on him right? He might not make it through the game if he plays soft.

God I would hate to see those guys coming at me.

Yankee_In_TX
05-02-2010, 06:12 PM
http://www.battleredblog.com/2010/4/23/1440655/i-apologize-if-this-is-biased-but

hope he says the same thing around NOV 7th :bat:

I just heard this yesterday. Probably taken out of context, but it not...

kastofsna
05-05-2010, 12:18 PM
i'm hearing Miami is considering taking Mathews at #12. no clue what to make of that.

well someone took him at 12 anyway