PDA

View Full Version : Parker Critics



stlrz d
07-22-2008, 03:19 PM
The Sporting News seems to think pretty highly of him.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/vi ... p?t=434762 (http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=434762)


1. LaDainian Tomlinson, San Diego Chargers. More than being the NFL's defending rushing titlist and record-breaking former league MVP, L.T.'s versatility as a runner and receiver stands out as most impressive.

2. Brian Westbrook, Philadelphia Eagles. Although undersized, Westbrook proved his durability in 2007 and literally carried the Eagles' offense, especially after Donovan McNabb's latest injury. Just like L.T., he's a dangerous runner and receiver who can line up anywhere on the field.

3. Adrian Peterson, Minnesota Vikings. Peterson had a stellar rookie season, but he doesn't quite possess the versatility of LT and Westbrook.

4. Willie Parker, Pittsburgh Steelers. Another undersized back, Parker has blazing speed and will likely surpass 5,000 career rushing yards this season. Even with the Steelers' new emphasis on throwing for some big plays, Parker can also hit home runs by flat-out running past defenders.

5. Steven Jackson, St. Louis Rams. Versatility strikes again! Jackson had 90 receptions two seasons ago, and he is a threat to win this year's rushing title if both he and his offensive teammates remain healthy.

6. Willis McGahee, Baltimore Ravens. On an offense that can only run the ball, McGahee was the runner. He is a versatile rusher who can attack the edges as well as take on defenders between the tackles.

7. Frank Gore, San Francisco 49ers. Gore has carried his team in recent seasons and established himself as one of the league's premier backs with little help. With Mike Martz in the fold as the Niners' offensive coordinator, look for Gore to become a force once again as a dual threat runner and receiver.

8. Ronnie Brown, Miami Dolphins. Brown averaged more than five yards per carry last season before a season-ending knee injury. He has already been running well in the offseason, and with more of a commitment to the run and a solid line in front of him, Brown should emerge as a top 10 back again.

9. Marshawn Lynch, Buffalo Bills. Lynch averaged nearly 22 carries a game in '07 and is a good fit for the Bills' zone-blocking scheme. He is a one-cut runner who attacks the hole but also has good lateral speed and receiving skills. The emergence of Trent Edwards will open up more running lanes for Lynch.

10. Joseph Addai, Indianapolis Colts. There is no question Addai is a premier, complete back, but he also is the product of a strong system and a smart QB who keeps defenses from stacking the box.

frankthetank1
07-22-2008, 03:31 PM
what does the sporting news no about football anyways

Shawn
07-22-2008, 03:38 PM
Did they watch him struggle in between the tackles and in the red zone? Do they realize that he couldn't catch a cold if he lived on the North Pole?

rpmpit
07-22-2008, 03:41 PM
Not sure why so many of us don't love FWP or think he should be traded?? The guy was leading the league in rushing behind one of the worst o-lines the Steelers have had in a long time. Sure there are things he could do better, but he is definitely a top 5 back in this league and I hope we hold on to him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited to see what Mendenhall brings to the table. But for right now, Willie is our starter and I'm happy about that.

Shawn
07-22-2008, 03:46 PM
Not sure why so many of us don't love FWP or think he should be traded?? The guy was leading the league in rushing behind one of the worst o-lines the Steelers have had in a long time. Sure there are things he could do better, but he is definitely a top 5 back in this league and I hope we hold on to him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited to see what Mendenhall brings to the table. But for right now, Willie is our starter and I'm happy about that.

I can't disagree more. Parker is a homerun hitter. IMO, you need a back to do both...run between the tackles...and move the sticks...but also has the speed to take it house. Parker is as much one dimensional as Bettis was...but at least Bettis could get us first downs. You can't have an effective running game, if you can't sustain drives with your running game. I really could care less about the overall yards...it really doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

AngryAsian
07-22-2008, 03:47 PM
Did they watch him struggle in between the tackles and in the red zone? Do they realize that he couldn't catch a cold if he lived on the North Pole?


Though my criticism of Parker may not be as harsh as your assessment, my esteemed brother, I will have to agree with the sentiments. Catching the ball with great efficiency is not one of Willie's strong suits. He most definitely has home-run capabilities... but that's to the outside. Throw an arm on his thigh while he's running between tackles and he's down. I will love the "Thunder and lightning" that he and Mendenhall will bring to the team. Just around the corner ladies and gents.

rpmpit
07-22-2008, 03:56 PM
Not sure why so many of us don't love FWP or think he should be traded?? The guy was leading the league in rushing behind one of the worst o-lines the Steelers have had in a long time. Sure there are things he could do better, but he is definitely a top 5 back in this league and I hope we hold on to him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited to see what Mendenhall brings to the table. But for right now, Willie is our starter and I'm happy about that.

I can't disagree more. Parker is a homerun hitter. IMO, you need a back to do both...run between the tackles...and move the sticks...but also has the speed to take it house. Parker is as much one dimensional as Bettis was...but at least Bettis could get us first downs. You can't have an effective running game, if you can't sustain drives with your running game. I really could care less about the overall yards...it really doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

Does this mean I'm out of the clique??? :shock: :(

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I know what you are saying, Shawn. And I think I argued last year that FWP's yards-per-carry average was skewed by the few long runs he'd have every game. Still, I think he is a quality back and if paired with another rb or fb who can get us those tough third and ones, then I think we will be a dangeous running team.

Ozey74
07-22-2008, 03:56 PM
I would much rather have the consistency that FWP doesn't deliver.

proudpittsburgher
07-22-2008, 04:01 PM
This is one of those hot-button issues that will come up at any steelers board, the key is to keep it civil and agree to disagree. For me, I like what Willie brings to the table.

Shawn
07-22-2008, 04:26 PM
Not sure why so many of us don't love FWP or think he should be traded?? The guy was leading the league in rushing behind one of the worst o-lines the Steelers have had in a long time. Sure there are things he could do better, but he is definitely a top 5 back in this league and I hope we hold on to him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited to see what Mendenhall brings to the table. But for right now, Willie is our starter and I'm happy about that.

I can't disagree more. Parker is a homerun hitter. IMO, you need a back to do both...run between the tackles...and move the sticks...but also has the speed to take it house. Parker is as much one dimensional as Bettis was...but at least Bettis could get us first downs. You can't have an effective running game, if you can't sustain drives with your running game. I really could care less about the overall yards...it really doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

Does this mean I'm out of the clique??? :shock: :(

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I know what you are saying, Shawn. And I think I argued last year that FWP's yards-per-carry average was skewed by the few long runs he'd have every game. Still, I think he is a quality back and if paired with another rb or fb who can get us those tough third and ones, then I think we will be a dangeous running team.

(In my famous clique nazi voice) "No clique for you" !!!!

:lol:

I understand what you are saying...but I guess that would make Parker a great complement back. A premier (top 5) RB shouldn't need another RB to help the team get the tough yards.

rpmpit
07-22-2008, 04:30 PM
Not sure why so many of us don't love FWP or think he should be traded?? The guy was leading the league in rushing behind one of the worst o-lines the Steelers have had in a long time. Sure there are things he could do better, but he is definitely a top 5 back in this league and I hope we hold on to him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited to see what Mendenhall brings to the table. But for right now, Willie is our starter and I'm happy about that.

I can't disagree more. Parker is a homerun hitter. IMO, you need a back to do both...run between the tackles...and move the sticks...but also has the speed to take it house. Parker is as much one dimensional as Bettis was...but at least Bettis could get us first downs. You can't have an effective running game, if you can't sustain drives with your running game. I really could care less about the overall yards...it really doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

Does this mean I'm out of the clique??? :shock: :(

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I know what you are saying, Shawn. And I think I argued last year that FWP's yards-per-carry average was skewed by the few long runs he'd have every game. Still, I think he is a quality back and if paired with another rb or fb who can get us those tough third and ones, then I think we will be a dangeous running team.

(In my famous clique nazi voice) "No clique for you" !!!!

:lol:

I understand what you are saying...but I guess that would make Parker a great complement back. A premier (top 5) RB shouldn't need another RB to help the team get the tough yards.

That's a great point, Shawn. And I'm not just saying that 'cause I want back into the clique!

ikestops85
07-22-2008, 04:49 PM
Did they watch him struggle in between the tackles and in the red zone? Do they realize that he couldn't catch a cold if he lived on the North Pole?

How many drops did WP have last year? I know Davenport, our former 3rd down receiving back, was on the AFC leaderboard for drops last year with 5. The same number Ward had. I just never thought of Willie as a bad receiver.

I do agree that WP struggles up the middle ... so why do we call those plays so frequently? Shouldn't Arians be calling plays that take advantage of Willie's strengths instead of his weaknesses? Why not get the ball to Willie in space more so he can hit MORE home runs instead of complaining he is just a home run type of back?

It's funny because when Willie first got into the lineup the fans were enamored that we finally had a back who could take it to the house. They were tired of all those 3, 4, and 5 yard runs. A 10 yard run for us was few and far between and we complained because we could never break of one of those 50 yard TD runs. Now that we can occasionally get the 50 yard TD runs we want to go back to consistently getting the 3, 4, and 5 yard runs. LT is the only back playing now that can consistently run between the tackles and break off the big run. AP has the possibility of doing it but 1 year hasn't made a believer out of me ... especially since he has proven to be injury prone.

I like Willie ... a lot ... provided he holds on to the ball. That to me is his biggest detriment. What I don't like is how we utilize him. If we used him in a manner similar to how Philly uses Westbrook I think WP could put up some great numbers.

Shawn
07-22-2008, 05:44 PM
Not sure why so many of us don't love FWP or think he should be traded?? The guy was leading the league in rushing behind one of the worst o-lines the Steelers have had in a long time. Sure there are things he could do better, but he is definitely a top 5 back in this league and I hope we hold on to him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited to see what Mendenhall brings to the table. But for right now, Willie is our starter and I'm happy about that.

I can't disagree more. Parker is a homerun hitter. IMO, you need a back to do both...run between the tackles...and move the sticks...but also has the speed to take it house. Parker is as much one dimensional as Bettis was...but at least Bettis could get us first downs. You can't have an effective running game, if you can't sustain drives with your running game. I really could care less about the overall yards...it really doesn't mean a whole lot to me.

Does this mean I'm out of the clique??? :shock: :(

:lol: :lol: :lol:

I know what you are saying, Shawn. And I think I argued last year that FWP's yards-per-carry average was skewed by the few long runs he'd have every game. Still, I think he is a quality back and if paired with another rb or fb who can get us those tough third and ones, then I think we will be a dangeous running team.

(In my famous clique nazi voice) "No clique for you" !!!!

:lol:

I understand what you are saying...but I guess that would make Parker a great complement back. A premier (top 5) RB shouldn't need another RB to help the team get the tough yards.

That's a great point, Shawn. And I'm not just saying that 'cause I want back into the clique!

:lol:

Shawn
07-22-2008, 05:47 PM
Did they watch him struggle in between the tackles and in the red zone? Do they realize that he couldn't catch a cold if he lived on the North Pole?

How many drops did WP have last year? I know Davenport, our former 3rd down receiving back, was on the AFC leaderboard for drops last year with 5. The same number Ward had. I just never thought of Willie as a bad receiver.

I do agree that WP struggles up the middle ... so why do we call those plays so frequently? Shouldn't Arians be calling plays that take advantage of Willie's strengths instead of his weaknesses? Why not get the ball to Willie in space more so he can hit MORE home runs instead of complaining he is just a home run type of back?

It's funny because when Willie first got into the lineup the fans were enamored that we finally had a back who could take it to the house. They were tired of all those 3, 4, and 5 yard runs. A 10 yard run for us was few and far between and we complained because we could never break of one of those 50 yard TD runs. Now that we can occasionally get the 50 yard TD runs we want to go back to consistently getting the 3, 4, and 5 yard runs. LT is the only back playing now that can consistently run between the tackles and break off the big run. AP has the possibility of doing it but 1 year hasn't made a believer out of me ... especially since he has proven to be injury prone.

I like Willie ... a lot ... provided he holds on to the ball. That to me is his biggest detriment. What I don't like is how we utilize him. If we used him in a manner similar to how Philly uses Westbrook I think WP could put up some great numbers.

The problem...because Parker is so one dimensional...it's really easy to stop the outside run....if you know its coming. The great backs make a D think about the middle and the edges. Parker could eat his wheaties every morning and never be able to run through the A and B gaps.

birtikidis
07-22-2008, 05:52 PM
the problem with people saying parker can't catch is that he comes out on passing downs. so he doesn't get the attempts.
the problem with people saying that parker isn't good on the goal line is that special needs kids could penetrate the offensive line and disrupt the play in the backfield.
Jerome bettis in his prime wouldn't have gotten yards up the middle with the way mahan blocks. hell, God couldn't get yards up the middle with the way mahan blocks.
the only player that could block on that O-line last year was hines ward!

ramblinjim
07-22-2008, 05:54 PM
Not sure why so many of us don't love FWP or think he should be traded?? The guy was leading the league in rushing behind one of the worst o-lines the Steelers have had in a long time. Sure there are things he could do better, but he is definitely a top 5 back in this league and I hope we hold on to him.

Don't get me wrong, I'm excited to see what Mendenhall brings to the table. But for right now, Willie is our starter and I'm happy about that.

I can't disagree more. Parker is a homerun hitter. IMO, you need a back to do both...run between the tackles...and move the sticks...but also has the speed to take it house. Parker is as much one dimensional as Bettis was...but at least Bettis could get us first downs. You can't have an effective running game, if you can't sustain drives with your running game. I really could care less about the overall yards...it really doesn't mean a whole lot to me.


SMG - I'm not quite as harsh as your assessment of FWP but I agree that it seemed that those times when we needed a first down he couldn't get it.

I know our line stunk up the join last year and I'm ready to see how he plays this year in comparison to Mendy.

ikestops85
07-22-2008, 06:16 PM
Did they watch him struggle in between the tackles and in the red zone? Do they realize that he couldn't catch a cold if he lived on the North Pole?

How many drops did WP have last year? I know Davenport, our former 3rd down receiving back, was on the AFC leaderboard for drops last year with 5. The same number Ward had. I just never thought of Willie as a bad receiver.

I do agree that WP struggles up the middle ... so why do we call those plays so frequently? Shouldn't Arians be calling plays that take advantage of Willie's strengths instead of his weaknesses? Why not get the ball to Willie in space more so he can hit MORE home runs instead of complaining he is just a home run type of back?

It's funny because when Willie first got into the lineup the fans were enamored that we finally had a back who could take it to the house. They were tired of all those 3, 4, and 5 yard runs. A 10 yard run for us was few and far between and we complained because we could never break of one of those 50 yard TD runs. Now that we can occasionally get the 50 yard TD runs we want to go back to consistently getting the 3, 4, and 5 yard runs. LT is the only back playing now that can consistently run between the tackles and break off the big run. AP has the possibility of doing it but 1 year hasn't made a believer out of me ... especially since he has proven to be injury prone.

I like Willie ... a lot ... provided he holds on to the ball. That to me is his biggest detriment. What I don't like is how we utilize him. If we used him in a manner similar to how Philly uses Westbrook I think WP could put up some great numbers.

The problem...because Parker is so one dimensional...it's really easy to stop the outside run....if you know its coming. The great backs make a D think about the middle and the edges. Parker could eat his wheaties every morning and never be able to run through the A and B gaps.

Then I'm kind of curious how he scored 16 TDs in 2006. Thirteen of them on the ground.

stlrz d
07-22-2008, 06:51 PM
The "Parker can't catch" myth needs to go away forever because it's based on people looking at his total catches and thinking, "He doesn't have many receptions so it must be because he can't catch." They seem to forget that 1) The Steelers historically just don't throw to the RB that often, and 2) When the do Parker usually isn't on the field...or he's kept in to pick up the blitz.

Here's part of a post I made on this topic once before and I think it bears repeating:


His receiving numbers over his career:
2004 - 8 games, 3 catches, 16 yards, 5.3 avg
2005 - 15 games, 18 catches, 218 yards, 12.1 avg
2006 - 16 games, 31 catches, 222 yards, 7.2 avg
2007 - 15 games, 23 catches, 164 yards, 7.1 avg

I don't recall seeing him drop many passes. The Steelers haven't thrown much to the running backs since Bettis was added to the roster. Take a look at his numbers for yourself: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... ayerId=389

Here's Fred Macafee: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... ayerId=152

Najeh Davenport: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=3663

Amos Zereoue: http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=1848

Tim Lester: http://www.databasefootball.com/players ... LESTETIM01

Fu: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=1567

Erric Pegram: http://www.nfl.com/players/erricpegram/ ... =PEG358660

Bam Morris: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... .htm?redir

You have to go back to John L. Williams in '94 to find a season when the Steelers really threw to the RB: http://www.nfl.com/players/johnl.willia ... =WIL381258

That's all I can think for RBs of at the moment. I couldn't even find stats on Jon Whitman.

Shall I continue or can we put to rest the Parker can't catch myth?

Will Mendenhall change that? Who knows...every time the Steelers draft a TE they say they will throw to them more and it never seems to work out that way...so I have my doubts.

The links don't work because they can't be cut & pasted since when they were posted they are displayed as truncated links. The links can be accessed in my post in this thread: viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1052 (http://planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1052)

Now, as for Parker getting the "tough" yards, how do you define tough? Does tough yards mean we need 2 yards and the O line gets one but FWP is responsible for the other or do you define it as FWP is responsible for 2? If your definition is the latter then you're talking about only a small handful of backs who are capable of that. If your definition is the former (as is mine) then I would say that FWP is not nearly as bad as many want to make him out to be. There is no doubt he's not a power back...he doesn't have the physical size to be a power back. That's genetics. But is he a quality back in this league? Absolutely. He takes a pounding and keeps coming back for more. A freak injury in St. Louis probably cost him the rushing title in '07...that certainly accounts for something.

I suspect if we had an O line on par with the Vikings or Cowboys the Parker critics would be silenced.

BURGH86STEEL
07-22-2008, 07:08 PM
The "Parker can't catch" myth needs to go away forever because it's based on people looking at his total catches and thinking, "He doesn't have many receptions so it must be because he can't catch." They seem to forget that 1) The Steelers historically just don't throw to the RB that often, and 2) When the do Parker usually isn't on the field...or he's kept in to pick up the blitz.

Here's part of a post I made on this topic once before and I think it bears repeating:


His receiving numbers over his career:
2004 - 8 games, 3 catches, 16 yards, 5.3 avg
2005 - 15 games, 18 catches, 218 yards, 12.1 avg
2006 - 16 games, 31 catches, 222 yards, 7.2 avg
2007 - 15 games, 23 catches, 164 yards, 7.1 avg

I don't recall seeing him drop many passes. The Steelers haven't thrown much to the running backs since Bettis was added to the roster. Take a look at his numbers for yourself: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... ayerId=389

Here's Fred Macafee: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... ayerId=152

Najeh Davenport: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=3663

Amos Zereoue: http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=1848

Tim Lester: http://www.databasefootball.com/players ... LESTETIM01

Fu: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=1567

Erric Pegram: http://www.nfl.com/players/erricpegram/ ... =PEG358660

Bam Morris: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... .htm?redir

You have to go back to John L. Williams in '94 to find a season when the Steelers really threw to the RB: http://www.nfl.com/players/johnl.willia ... =WIL381258

That's all I can think for RBs of at the moment. I couldn't even find stats on Jon Whitman.

Shall I continue or can we put to rest the Parker can't catch myth?

Will Mendenhall change that? Who knows...every time the Steelers draft a TE they say they will throw to them more and it never seems to work out that way...so I have my doubts.

The links don't work because they can't be cut & pasted since when they were posted they are displayed as truncated links. The links can be accessed in my post in this thread: http://planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewto ... f=2&t=1052 (http://planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1052)

Now, as for Parker getting the "tough" yards, how do you define tough? Does tough yards mean we need 2 yards and the O line gets one but FWP is responsible for the other or do you define it as FWP is responsible for 2? If your definition is the latter then you're talking about only a small handful of backs who are capable of that. If your definition is the former (as is mine) then I would say that FWP is not nearly as bad as many want to make him out to be. There is no doubt he's not a power back...he doesn't have the physical size to be a power back. That's genetics. But is he a quality back in this league? Absolutely. He takes a pounding and keeps coming back for more. A freak injury in St. Louis probably cost him the rushing title in '07...that certainly accounts for something.

I suspect if we had an O line on par with the Vikings or Cowboys the Parker critics would be silenced.

I think that Parker is a tough inside runner. If he was not they would not call those plays. One way that Parker generates power is by the use of his speed and low center of gravity. If the center position was a bit stronger last season that would increase Parker's ability to gain those tough yards. People fail to take into accout that Parker has not run behind a quality Oline in their primes.

I agree the myth about Parker not being a good pass catcher. Parker can catch the football. Most times they do not call plays for Parker or Ben does not look his way when there is nothing open down field. You cannot blame the OC for not throwing the football to the RBs outside of screens with the other weapons they have to incorporate into the offense. It amazes me that people still do not think Parker can get it done after producing quality numbers over the last 2 to 3 years. After all he was leading the league in rushing before he got injured. That means he had more yards than all of the other RBs in the league behind a worse Oline.

Shawn
07-22-2008, 07:25 PM
The "Parker can't catch" myth needs to go away forever because it's based on people looking at his total catches and thinking, "He doesn't have many receptions so it must be because he can't catch." They seem to forget that 1) The Steelers historically just don't throw to the RB that often, and 2) When the do Parker usually isn't on the field...or he's kept in to pick up the blitz.

Here's part of a post I made on this topic once before and I think it bears repeating:


His receiving numbers over his career:
2004 - 8 games, 3 catches, 16 yards, 5.3 avg
2005 - 15 games, 18 catches, 218 yards, 12.1 avg
2006 - 16 games, 31 catches, 222 yards, 7.2 avg
2007 - 15 games, 23 catches, 164 yards, 7.1 avg

I don't recall seeing him drop many passes. The Steelers haven't thrown much to the running backs since Bettis was added to the roster. Take a look at his numbers for yourself: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... ayerId=389

Here's Fred Macafee: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... ayerId=152

Najeh Davenport: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=3663

Amos Zereoue: http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=1848

Tim Lester: http://www.databasefootball.com/players ... LESTETIM01

Fu: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=1567

Erric Pegram: http://www.nfl.com/players/erricpegram/ ... =PEG358660

Bam Morris: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... .htm?redir

You have to go back to John L. Williams in '94 to find a season when the Steelers really threw to the RB: http://www.nfl.com/players/johnl.willia ... =WIL381258

That's all I can think for RBs of at the moment. I couldn't even find stats on Jon Whitman.

Shall I continue or can we put to rest the Parker can't catch myth?

Will Mendenhall change that? Who knows...every time the Steelers draft a TE they say they will throw to them more and it never seems to work out that way...so I have my doubts.

The links don't work because they can't be cut & pasted since when they were posted they are displayed as truncated links. The links can be accessed in my post in this thread: http://planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewto ... f=2&t=1052 (http://planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1052)

Now, as for Parker getting the "tough" yards, how do you define tough? Does tough yards mean we need 2 yards and the O line gets one but FWP is responsible for the other or do you define it as FWP is responsible for 2? If your definition is the latter then you're talking about only a small handful of backs who are capable of that. If your definition is the former (as is mine) then I would say that FWP is not nearly as bad as many want to make him out to be. There is no doubt he's not a power back...he doesn't have the physical size to be a power back. That's genetics. But is he a quality back in this league? Absolutely. He takes a pounding and keeps coming back for more. A freak injury in St. Louis probably cost him the rushing title in '07...that certainly accounts for something.

I suspect if we had an O line on par with the Vikings or Cowboys the Parker critics would be silenced.

I define it as several things...yards in the red zone...can he get 3 to move the sticks on third...etc and so forth. I can care less how the OL is playing...its really not the point. Our OL was not as bad as some make it...run blocking. They can't pass block but they were an above average run blocking team. I want a guy who can find yards when they are there...and when they are not. I want a back that can keep 3rd and long out of the game plan...I want a back that can run in the red zone. I want a back that falls foward. I want a back with vision...patience...natural nack to find holes. Parker is non of these things. I believe Parker could be a terrific complement back...especially if you were to play him late against tired Ds. But, to say Parker is the complete back is very short sighted...especially when you only base it on total yards.

Shawn
07-22-2008, 07:26 PM
The "Parker can't catch" myth needs to go away forever because it's based on people looking at his total catches and thinking, "He doesn't have many receptions so it must be because he can't catch." They seem to forget that 1) The Steelers historically just don't throw to the RB that often, and 2) When the do Parker usually isn't on the field...or he's kept in to pick up the blitz.

Here's part of a post I made on this topic once before and I think it bears repeating:


His receiving numbers over his career:
2004 - 8 games, 3 catches, 16 yards, 5.3 avg
2005 - 15 games, 18 catches, 218 yards, 12.1 avg
2006 - 16 games, 31 catches, 222 yards, 7.2 avg
2007 - 15 games, 23 catches, 164 yards, 7.1 avg

I don't recall seeing him drop many passes. The Steelers haven't thrown much to the running backs since Bettis was added to the roster. Take a look at his numbers for yourself: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... ayerId=389

Here's Fred Macafee: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... ayerId=152

Najeh Davenport: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=3663

Amos Zereoue: http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=1848

Tim Lester: http://www.databasefootball.com/players ... LESTETIM01

Fu: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=1567

Erric Pegram: http://www.nfl.com/players/erricpegram/ ... =PEG358660

Bam Morris: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... .htm?redir

You have to go back to John L. Williams in '94 to find a season when the Steelers really threw to the RB: http://www.nfl.com/players/johnl.willia ... =WIL381258

That's all I can think for RBs of at the moment. I couldn't even find stats on Jon Whitman.

Shall I continue or can we put to rest the Parker can't catch myth?

Will Mendenhall change that? Who knows...every time the Steelers draft a TE they say they will throw to them more and it never seems to work out that way...so I have my doubts.

The links don't work because they can't be cut & pasted since when they were posted they are displayed as truncated links. The links can be accessed in my post in this thread: http://planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewto ... f=2&t=1052 (http://planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1052)

Now, as for Parker getting the "tough" yards, how do you define tough? Does tough yards mean we need 2 yards and the O line gets one but FWP is responsible for the other or do you define it as FWP is responsible for 2? If your definition is the latter then you're talking about only a small handful of backs who are capable of that. If your definition is the former (as is mine) then I would say that FWP is not nearly as bad as many want to make him out to be. There is no doubt he's not a power back...he doesn't have the physical size to be a power back. That's genetics. But is he a quality back in this league? Absolutely. He takes a pounding and keeps coming back for more. A freak injury in St. Louis probably cost him the rushing title in '07...that certainly accounts for something.

I suspect if we had an O line on par with the Vikings or Cowboys the Parker critics would be silenced.

I think that Parker is a tough inside runner. If he was not they would not call those plays. One way that Parker generates power is by the use of his speed and low center of gravity. If the center position was a bit stronger last season that would increase Parker's ability to gain those tough yards. People fail to take into accout that Parker has not run behind a quality Oline in their primes.

I agree the myth about Parker not being a good pass catcher. Parker can catch the football. Most times they do not call plays for Parker or Ben does not look his way when there is nothing open down field. You cannot blame the OC for not throwing the football to the RBs outside of screens with the other weapons they have to incorporate into the offense. It amazes me that people still do not think Parker can get it done after producing quality numbers over the last 2 to 3 years. After all he was leading the league in rushing before he got injured. That means he had more yards than all of the other RBs in the league behind a worse Oline.


I must be in the Twilight Zone. :shock:

SteelerOfDeVille
07-22-2008, 07:27 PM
I'm actually blown away by the ranking...

Seriously... Any of you say you'd take Parker BEFORE Steven Jackson?

If so, I'd love to borrow those cool black and gold glasses you have.

BURGH86STEEL
07-22-2008, 07:38 PM
The "Parker can't catch" myth needs to go away forever because it's based on people looking at his total catches and thinking, "He doesn't have many receptions so it must be because he can't catch." They seem to forget that 1) The Steelers historically just don't throw to the RB that often, and 2) When the do Parker usually isn't on the field...or he's kept in to pick up the blitz.

Here's part of a post I made on this topic once before and I think it bears repeating:


His receiving numbers over his career:
2004 - 8 games, 3 catches, 16 yards, 5.3 avg
2005 - 15 games, 18 catches, 218 yards, 12.1 avg
2006 - 16 games, 31 catches, 222 yards, 7.2 avg
2007 - 15 games, 23 catches, 164 yards, 7.1 avg

I don't recall seeing him drop many passes. The Steelers haven't thrown much to the running backs since Bettis was added to the roster. Take a look at his numbers for yourself: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... ayerId=389

Here's Fred Macafee: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... ayerId=152

Najeh Davenport: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=3663

Amos Zereoue: http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=1848

Tim Lester: http://www.databasefootball.com/players ... LESTETIM01

Fu: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=1567

Erric Pegram: http://www.nfl.com/players/erricpegram/ ... =PEG358660

Bam Morris: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... .htm?redir

You have to go back to John L. Williams in '94 to find a season when the Steelers really threw to the RB: http://www.nfl.com/players/johnl.willia ... =WIL381258

That's all I can think for RBs of at the moment. I couldn't even find stats on Jon Whitman.

Shall I continue or can we put to rest the Parker can't catch myth?

Will Mendenhall change that? Who knows...every time the Steelers draft a TE they say they will throw to them more and it never seems to work out that way...so I have my doubts.

The links don't work because they can't be cut & pasted since when they were posted they are displayed as truncated links. The links can be accessed in my post in this thread: http://planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewto ... f=2&t=1052 (http://planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1052)

Now, as for Parker getting the "tough" yards, how do you define tough? Does tough yards mean we need 2 yards and the O line gets one but FWP is responsible for the other or do you define it as FWP is responsible for 2? If your definition is the latter then you're talking about only a small handful of backs who are capable of that. If your definition is the former (as is mine) then I would say that FWP is not nearly as bad as many want to make him out to be. There is no doubt he's not a power back...he doesn't have the physical size to be a power back. That's genetics. But is he a quality back in this league? Absolutely. He takes a pounding and keeps coming back for more. A freak injury in St. Louis probably cost him the rushing title in '07...that certainly accounts for something.

I suspect if we had an O line on par with the Vikings or Cowboys the Parker critics would be silenced.

I define it as several things...yards in the red zone...can he get 3 to move the sticks on third...etc and so forth. I can care less how the OL is playing...its really not the point. Our OL was not as bad as some make it...run blocking. They can't pass block but they were an above average run blocking team. I want a guy who can find yards when they are there...and when they are not. I want a back that can keep 3rd and long out of the game plan...I want a back that can run in the red zone. I want a back that falls foward. I want a back with vision...patience...natural nack to find holes. Parker is non of these things. I believe Parker could be a terrific complement back...especially if you were to play him late against tired Ds. But, to say Parker is the complete back is very short sighted...especially when you only base it on total yards.


Talk about unrealistic expectations. You can care less about how the OLine is playing? Ok, funny how people do not say that when Ben is under pressure or takes a sack. Above average with Mahan at center? I do not think you will get many to agree with you on that. Parker does a fine job of finding yards when they are there as evidence by the success he's had. I do not know any RB outside of Barry Sanders that could find many yards when they were not there. No RB in gods green earth is going to keep the team out of 3rd and long. Especially when teams line up too stop that RB. This is what I mean by unrealistic expectations. Parker can run in the red zone. They took him out of the red zone last season to save some wear and tear on his body. They decided to pass in those situations. Fall foward? ok. Parkers vision and patience have gotten better. His vision may not be the best but it is good enough. It seems you want a RB that has not been born or played in the league yet.

What is a complete back? Parker can do some things better and has room too improve. That goes for every RB in the league. I believe he works hard too get better. Parker is a fine RB that has proven he can get the job done. We are lucky that we have him.

Mr Smartmonies
07-22-2008, 07:44 PM
The Sporting News seems to think pretty highly of him.

http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/vi ... p?t=434762 (http://www.sportingnews.com/yourturn/viewtopic.php?t=434762)



4. Willie Parker, Pittsburgh Steelers. , Parker can also hit home runs by flat-out running past defenders.
.

With having the most carries per game thru 14 games last year, I just don't remember
any home runs. I could be wrong.

Mr Smartmonies
07-22-2008, 07:46 PM
The "Parker can't catch" myth needs to go away forever because it's based on people looking at his total catches and thinking, "He doesn't have many receptions so it must be because he can't catch." They seem to forget that 1) The Steelers historically just don't throw to the RB that often, and 2) When the do Parker usually isn't on the field...or he's kept in to pick up the blitz.

Here's part of a post I made on this topic once before and I think it bears repeating:


His receiving numbers over his career:
2004 - 8 games, 3 catches, 16 yards, 5.3 avg
2005 - 15 games, 18 catches, 218 yards, 12.1 avg
2006 - 16 games, 31 catches, 222 yards, 7.2 avg
2007 - 15 games, 23 catches, 164 yards, 7.1 avg

I don't recall seeing him drop many passes. The Steelers haven't thrown much to the running backs since Bettis was added to the roster. Take a look at his numbers for yourself: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... ayerId=389

Here's Fred Macafee: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... ayerId=152

Najeh Davenport: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=3663

Amos Zereoue: http://scores.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=1848

Tim Lester: http://www.databasefootball.com/players ... LESTETIM01

Fu: http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/s ... yerId=1567

Erric Pegram: http://www.nfl.com/players/erricpegram/ ... =PEG358660

Bam Morris: http://www.pro-football-reference.com/p ... .htm?redir

You have to go back to John L. Williams in '94 to find a season when the Steelers really threw to the RB: http://www.nfl.com/players/johnl.willia ... =WIL381258

That's all I can think for RBs of at the moment. I couldn't even find stats on Jon Whitman.

Shall I continue or can we put to rest the Parker can't catch myth?

Will Mendenhall change that? Who knows...every time the Steelers draft a TE they say they will throw to them more and it never seems to work out that way...so I have my doubts.

The links don't work because they can't be cut & pasted since when they were posted they are displayed as truncated links. The links can be accessed in my post in this thread: http://planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewto ... f=2&t=1052 (http://planetsteelers.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?f=2&t=1052)

Now, as for Parker getting the "tough" yards, how do you define tough? Does tough yards mean we need 2 yards and the O line gets one but FWP is responsible for the other or do you define it as FWP is responsible for 2? If your definition is the latter then you're talking about only a small handful of backs who are capable of that. If your definition is the former (as is mine) then I would say that FWP is not nearly as bad as many want to make him out to be. There is no doubt he's not a power back...he doesn't have the physical size to be a power back. That's genetics. But is he a quality back in this league? Absolutely. He takes a pounding and keeps coming back for more. A freak injury in St. Louis probably cost him the rushing title in '07...that certainly accounts for something.

I suspect if we had an O line on par with the Vikings or Cowboys the Parker critics would be silenced.

I define it as several things...yards in the red zone...can he get 3 to move the sticks on third...etc and so forth. I can care less how the OL is playing...its really not the point. Our OL was not as bad as some make it...run blocking. They can't pass block but they were an above average run blocking team. I want a guy who can find yards when they are there...and when they are not. I want a back that can keep 3rd and long out of the game plan...I want a back that can run in the red zone. I want a back that falls foward. I want a back with vision...patience...natural nack to find holes. Parker is non of these things. I believe Parker could be a terrific complement back...especially if you were to play him late against tired Ds. But, to say Parker is the complete back is very short sighted...especially when you only base it on total yards.


. Especially when teams line up too stop that RB. quote]

:lol: :lol:

BIG FAN
07-22-2008, 08:03 PM
I must agree with rpmpit on this.
FWP, as we speak is worth more than our highly touted UNPROVEN draft pick, Russell and Moore put together.

Steel Life
07-22-2008, 08:13 PM
the problem with people saying that parker isn't good on the goal line is that special needs kids could penetrate the offensive line and disrupt the play in the backfield. Jerome Bettis in his prime wouldn't have gotten yards up the middle with the way Mahan blocks. Hell, God couldn't get yards up the middle with the way Mahan blocks.
the only player that could block on that O-line last year was Hines Ward!

I'm with you Birt...while Willie isn't perfect & his vision certainly isn't the best, the fact that the line has stunk it up should make us all appreciate what he has given us the past two seasons. He might have an additional 200 yards per season if the line could hold their blocks longer or keep from being blown off the ball. I look at games like what he did against the Pats & I hope for more, but then I look at games like Arizona & I wonder what's the problem?

All in all I'm happy with him, but I saw the need for drafting a stud RB this year (I was hoping for Stewart, expecting Forte, but very excited about Mendenhall) to both complement him & be there in the event of injury. Besides...is there any rule against having two good backs?

stlrz d
07-22-2008, 08:42 PM
MSM - I appreciate you taking the time to define what you mean by tough yards, but it appears as if your definition of tough yards puts it all on the RB and none on the OL. Like I said, if a team needs two yards and the line gets one then a RB who gets the tough yards should get that other one most times (no one succeeds every time). If you expect the RB to always get both then your expectations are completely unrealistic.

SoD - I don't agree with Parker at 4 but my point was there are people who think more highly of him than some Steelers fans. Just as I don't agree that they put Palmer above Ben in the QB rankings. Overall I think their lists are pretty accurate to what most people think, but with a few tweaks.

SteelerOfDeVille
07-22-2008, 10:05 PM
SoD - I don't agree with Parker at 4 but my point was there are people who think more highly of him than some Steelers fans. Just as I don't agree that they put Palmer above Ben in the QB rankings. Overall I think their lists are pretty accurate to what most people think, but with a few tweaks.
fair enough... Ben is top 5, IMO. that's hard to argue... Parker I would remove from the top 5, but, he is top 10...

I could be included in the Parker bashers.... but, I could also be included in the supporters by others...

Realistically, he's a solid RB, with a couple of flaws. And unlike many, I don't include power as one of them. He runs HARD...

Still, I'm hoping Mendy can take his job? Why? Not because I dislike Parker - but, because it would mean he is BETTER than Parker. I also hope Timmons beats out Foote for the same reason. Parker is certainly acceptable... as is Foote. But, I'll always take an upgrade at any position. Just as I rooted for Syracuse to beat out the consistent Clark, I'll also root for Hills to outperform the OTs.

stlrz d
07-22-2008, 10:21 PM
SoD - You'll get no argument from me there. I want to see the team get better too. I agree that if Mendy beats out Parker it's because he is better, which is good for the team and good for the fans.

My only beef is with folks who claim that a guy who has yet to play a regular season NFL down is already better than a guy who's probably going to go over 5,000 yards rushing this season. They can speculate that he'll be better. They can hope that he'll be better. They can predict that he'll be better. But to claim that he is already better is foolishness. It can't be proved.

SteelerOfDeVille
07-22-2008, 10:40 PM
SoD - You'll get no argument from me there. I want to see the team get better too. I agree that if Mendy beats out Parker it's because he is better, which is good for the team and good for the fans.

My only beef is with folks who claim that a guy who has yet to play a regular season NFL down is already better than a guy who's probably going to go over 5,000 yards rushing this season. They can speculate that he'll be better. They can hope that he'll be better. They can predict that he'll be better. But to claim that he is already better is foolishness. It can't be proved.
spot on... it'd be different if the comparison was to Kevan Barlow or some guy who is washed up... But, the comparison against one of the top 10 backs in the league... just can't prove it... but, i sure hope he is...
:Cheers

MeetJoeGreene
07-22-2008, 10:50 PM
SoD - I don't agree with Parker at 4 but my point was there are people who think more highly of him than some Steelers fans. Just as I don't agree that they put Palmer above Ben in the QB rankings. Overall I think their lists are pretty accurate to what most people think, but with a few tweaks.
fair enough... Ben is top 5, IMO. that's hard to argue... Parker I would remove from the top 5, but, he is top 10...

I could be included in the Parker bashers.... but, I could also be included in the supporters by others...

Realistically, he's a solid RB, with a couple of flaws. And unlike many, I don't include power as one of them. He runs HARD...

Still, I'm hoping Mendy can take his job? Why? Not because I dislike Parker - but, because it would mean he is BETTER than Parker. I also hope Timmons beats out Foote for the same reason. Parker is certainly acceptable... as is Foote. But, I'll always take an upgrade at any position. Just as I rooted for Syracuse to beat out the consistent Clark, I'll also root for Hills to outperform the OTs.

You have captured and articulated the essence of how I feel. Very well put.

But, I too, am and have been a Parker waffler -- not basher per se, but waffler.

frankthetank1
07-23-2008, 07:49 AM
a few thoughts about fwp and last season. his ypc average was the lowest of his career but how many plays do you remember fwp getting hit a few yards behind the line of scrimmage? i remember seeing more of those plays then ever before and they definetly affect his ypc average. also about fwp being bad in the red zone or goal line situations to be affective in short yardage situations your o-line must get some push of the line no? almost every situation i remember the line getting no push or even getting blown back off the line. i love fwp but he does have flaws, every player has flaws. he will improve his game though, he isnt that old. hopefully mendenhall can excel in areas where fwp isnt the best, that would be the best situation for the team

stlrz d
07-23-2008, 08:00 AM
MSM - I appreciate you taking the time to define what you mean by tough yards, but it appears as if your definition of tough yards puts it all on the RB and none on the OL. Like I said, if a team needs two yards and the line gets one then a RB who gets the tough yards should get that other one most times (no one succeeds every time). If you expect the RB to always get both then your expectations are completely unrealistic.

SoD - I don't agree with Parker at 4 but my point was there are people who think more highly of him than some Steelers fans. Just as I don't agree that they put Palmer above Ben in the QB rankings. Overall I think their lists are pretty accurate to what most people think, but with a few tweaks.

MSM - I owe you an apology. The above post was in response to something that was posted by SMG (see below) and for some reason I thought it was yours. Sorry.



I define it as several things...yards in the red zone...can he get 3 to move the sticks on third...etc and so forth. I can care less how the OL is playing...its really not the point. Our OL was not as bad as some make it...run blocking. They can't pass block but they were an above average run blocking team. I want a guy who can find yards when they are there...and when they are not. I want a back that can keep 3rd and long out of the game plan...I want a back that can run in the red zone. I want a back that falls foward. I want a back with vision...patience...natural nack to find holes. Parker is non of these things. I believe Parker could be a terrific complement back...especially if you were to play him late against tired Ds. But, to say Parker is the complete back is very short sighted...especially when you only base it on total yards.

Shawn
07-23-2008, 08:27 AM
See...I think the confusion is this D...you think guys like myself hate Parker. Thats the furthest thing from the truth. I have however been crying out to all that is Steeler for a complete back for 10+ years. Don't tell anyone...but I wasn't a Bettis fan either. So, I'm tough to please. I want a LT type back. I'm not sure Mendy can be that back but I will say from what I have seen from him I'm excited.

I want a back that can catch, run the A, B, and C gaps effectively, block, run with power, run with speed, is a first through third down back. Maybe I want too much...hey maybe I'm greedy...but Parker is none of those things. He is a speedster...when given a proper hole can take it house. Other than that...he is subaverage in every other part of his game.

I will stress again...Parker makes a perfect complement back.

frankthetank1
07-23-2008, 08:34 AM
See...I think the confusion is this D...you think guys like myself hate Parker. Thats the furthest thing from the truth. I have however been crying out to all that is Steeler for a complete back for 10+ years. Don't tell anyone...but I wasn't a Bettis fan either. So, I'm tough to please. I want a LT type back. I'm not sure Mendy can be that back but I will say from what I have seen from him I'm excited.

I want a back that can catch, run the A, B, and C gaps effectively, block, run with power, run with speed, is a first through third down back. Maybe I want too much...hey maybe I'm greedy...but Parker is none of those things. He is a speedster...when given a proper hole can take it house. Other than that...he is subaverage in every other part of his game.

I will stress again...Parker makes a perfect complement back.

you dont hate parker, dvs does though :lol:
everyone wants a complete rb like lt but they are very rare to come by and even still lt has struggled at times. has he even gotten 100 yards against the steelers ever? i dont think he has.

Shawn
07-23-2008, 08:36 AM
See...I think the confusion is this D...you think guys like myself hate Parker. Thats the furthest thing from the truth. I have however been crying out to all that is Steeler for a complete back for 10+ years. Don't tell anyone...but I wasn't a Bettis fan either. So, I'm tough to please. I want a LT type back. I'm not sure Mendy can be that back but I will say from what I have seen from him I'm excited.

I want a back that can catch, run the A, B, and C gaps effectively, block, run with power, run with speed, is a first through third down back. Maybe I want too much...hey maybe I'm greedy...but Parker is none of those things. He is a speedster...when given a proper hole can take it house. Other than that...he is subaverage in every other part of his game.

I will stress again...Parker makes a perfect complement back.

you dont hate parker, dvs does though :lol:
everyone wants a complete rb like lt but they are very rare to come by and even still lt has struggled at times. has he even gotten 100 yards against the steelers ever? i dont think he has.

Every back struggles but having a complete back opens up the entire offense. It's been my desire for at least 10 seasons.

stlrz d
07-23-2008, 08:38 AM
RB's are a dime a dozen. LT type backs aren't. Nothing wrong with wanting one, but expecting one is an entirely different matter.

Again though, for a "compliment" back Parker has given us plenty. My opinion is that most of the criticism directed at him is largely unsubstantiated (especially the can't catch, has no moves and can't break a tackle stuff) and exists due to the expectations of unrealistic fans.

If someone better comes along and takes his place that's fine with me because it means the team gets better...but if that doesn't happen I'm happy with what Parker gives us.

frankthetank1
07-23-2008, 08:51 AM
RB's are a dime a dozen. LT type backs aren't. Nothing wrong with wanting one, but expecting one is an entirely different matter.

Again though, for a "compliment" back Parker has given us plenty. My opinion is that most of the criticism directed at him is largely unsubstantiated (especially the can't catch, has no moves and can't break a tackle stuff) and exists due to the expectations of unrealistic fans.

If someone better comes along and takes his place that's fine with me because it means the team gets better...but if that doesn't happen I'm happy with what Parker gives us.

thats how i feel about fwp as well. he is hardly thrown any passes so you cant say he has no hands. i would love it if the steelers got a rb better than fwp. that would mean it would be an elite rb, but the situation the steelers have now couldnt be better. that is if mendenhall is the player most think he is. this offense could be so freakin good next year

frankthetank1
07-23-2008, 08:52 AM
RB's are a dime a dozen. LT type backs aren't. Nothing wrong with wanting one, but expecting one is an entirely different matter.

Again though, for a "compliment" back Parker has given us plenty. My opinion is that most of the criticism directed at him is largely unsubstantiated (especially the can't catch, has no moves and can't break a tackle stuff) and exists due to the expectations of unrealistic fans.

If someone better comes along and takes his place that's fine with me because it means the team gets better...but if that doesn't happen I'm happy with what Parker gives us.

thats how i feel about fwp as well. he is hardly thrown any passes so you cant say he has no hands. i would love it if the steelers got a rb better than fwp. that would mean it would be an elite rb, but the situation the steelers have now couldnt be better. that is if mendenhall is the player most think he is. this offense could be so freakin good next year

frankthetank1
07-23-2008, 08:54 AM
i forgot to add that he may not ever run through defenders like bettis but parker makes a lot of deffenders miss. the result is exactly the same

ikestops85
07-23-2008, 10:40 AM
I want a back that can catch, run the A, B, and C gaps effectively, block, run with power, run with speed, is a first through third down back. Maybe I want too much...hey maybe I'm greedy...but Parker is none of those things. He is a speedster...when given a proper hole can take it house. Other than that...he is subaverage in every other part of his game.

I will stress again...Parker makes a perfect complement back.

All I can say is there have been plenty of running backs in the league with blazing speed but have never come close to rushing for 1337 yards a season (Willie's average). This leads me to believe Willie must have other abilities that are above average or else these other runners would have put up those types of rushing yards.

I think we all would like to have a running back that excels in all facets of the game. I've been following the Steelers since Dick Hoak was in the backfield and we have never had a back like that. At least not one I can think of. Barry Foster might have been the closest but I don't think he was ever considered to have blazing speed.

Again, I like WP and think he is a very good back. Now if we get a back who comes in and is great I think that will be fantastic ... but until that time kicking WP to the curb would be a big mistake.

steeler_fan_in_t.o.
07-23-2008, 01:16 PM
i forgot to add that he may not ever run through defenders like bettis but parker makes a lot of deffenders miss. the result is exactly the same

I'm not really on either side of the Parker debate, but I disagree with this statement. If a defender misses Parker it is because he takes a bad angle or can't catch him. However, Parker rarely, if ever, jukes a defender to make him miss. Bettis actually did this much more than Parker.

Shawn
07-23-2008, 01:17 PM
I want a back that can catch, run the A, B, and C gaps effectively, block, run with power, run with speed, is a first through third down back. Maybe I want too much...hey maybe I'm greedy...but Parker is none of those things. He is a speedster...when given a proper hole can take it house. Other than that...he is subaverage in every other part of his game.

I will stress again...Parker makes a perfect complement back.

All I can say is there have been plenty of running backs in the league with blazing speed but have never come close to rushing for 1337 yards a season (Willie's average). This leads me to believe Willie must have other abilities that are above average or else these other runners would have put up those types of rushing yards.

I think we all would like to have a running back that excels in all facets of the game. I've been following the Steelers since bad word Hoak was in the backfield and we have never had a back like that. At least not one I can think of. Barry Foster might have been the closest but I don't think he was ever considered to have blazing speed.

Again, I like WP and think he is a very good back. Now if we get a back who comes in and is great I think that will be fantastic ... but until that time kicking WP to the curb would be a big mistake.

Name these RBs. Willie has been clocked at a 4.29...and is an easy 4.35. How many backs have that kind of speed? Second, how many of them play for a running team like the Steelers. Third, there is a reason pure speed backs don't generally make it in the NFL. The next couple seasons will settle it...and you will say SMG...yep you were right. A complete back like Mendy plays a big role in making an O elite. Parker is a good complement. Why else would we draft Mendy? How long do you think Mendy will be the #2 back?

Oviedo
07-23-2008, 01:21 PM
i forgot to add that he may not ever run through defenders like bettis but parker makes a lot of deffenders miss. the result is exactly the same

I'm not really on either side of the Parker debate, but I disagree with this statement. If a defender misses Parker it is because he takes a bad angle or can't catch him. However, Parker rarely, if ever, jukes a defender to make him miss. Bettis actually did this much more than Parker.

That is why Bettis is going to the Hall of Fame...he was a freak of nature with his size and quickness. FWP is about speed, but he does not have the quick, nimble feet that Bettis had. Bettis is the best RB the Steelers ever had...period! If you compare him to every other Steeler RB you will never be satisfied because we are unlikely to ever have one as good as him for as long as he did it.

Bettis made Cowher when we had mediocre QBs and a very unimaginative offense. If Cowher goes to the HoF the first person he should thank is Bettis.

SteelerSal1
07-23-2008, 01:35 PM
I'm not ready to give up on Willie, who has proven himself to be a top 10 back in the league, for Mendy who had one good season and has not played a snap in the NFL.

I have high hopes for him and hope he becomes the future for the Steelers but his game stats last season against good opponents leave alot to be desired,IMO.

2007 Game Log Rushing Receiving Fumbles
DATE OPP RESULT ATT YDS AVG LNG TD REC YDS AVG LNG TD FUM LST
9/1 Missouri L 40-34 11 33 3.0 25 2 3 59 19.7 42 0 0 0
9/8 Western Illinois W 21-0 23 139 6.0 17 1 1 16 16.0 16 0 0 0
9/15 @Syracuse W 41-20 16 150 9.4 50 3 3 20 6.7 9 0 0 0
9/22 @Indiana W 27-14 27 214 7.9 39 1 3 18 6.0 15 1 0 0
9/29 Penn State W 27-20 18 76 4.2 16 1 4 27 6.8 10 0 0 0
10/6 Wisconsin W 31-26 19 160 8.4 32 2 4 33 8.3 15 1 0 0
10/13 @Iowa L 10-6 15 67 4.5 15 0 3 27 9.0 12 0 0 0
10/20 Michigan L 27-17 18 85 4.7 13 0 4 26 6.5 15 0 0 0
10/27 Ball State W 28-17 28 189 6.8 30 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
11/3 @Minnesota W 44-17 17 201 11.8 64 2 0 0 0.0 0 0 0 0
11/10 @Ohio State W 28-21 26 88 3.4 25 0 1 4 4.0 4 0 0 0
11/17 Northwestern W 41-22 27 124 4.6 17 2 3 29 9.7 19 0 0 0
THE ROSE BOWL GAME PRESENTED BY CITI AT PASADENA CA @USC L 49-17 17 155 9.1 79 1 5 59 11.8 55 0 0 0
Chartable Statistics
Rushing Yards By Year2005200620070 Yards 334 Yards 668 Yards 1002 Yards 1336 Yards 1670 Yards 2000 Yards 2186401681 Rushing Yards By Year
Carries By Year
Touchdowns By Year

Stats provided by STATS LLC

stlrz d
07-23-2008, 02:28 PM
I want a back that can catch, run the A, B, and C gaps effectively, block, run with power, run with speed, is a first through third down back. Maybe I want too much...hey maybe I'm greedy...but Parker is none of those things. He is a speedster...when given a proper hole can take it house. Other than that...he is subaverage in every other part of his game.

I will stress again...Parker makes a perfect complement back.

All I can say is there have been plenty of running backs in the league with blazing speed but have never come close to rushing for 1337 yards a season (Willie's average). This leads me to believe Willie must have other abilities that are above average or else these other runners would have put up those types of rushing yards.

I think we all would like to have a running back that excels in all facets of the game. I've been following the Steelers since bad word Hoak was in the backfield and we have never had a back like that. At least not one I can think of. Barry Foster might have been the closest but I don't think he was ever considered to have blazing speed.

Again, I like WP and think he is a very good back. Now if we get a back who comes in and is great I think that will be fantastic ... but until that time kicking WP to the curb would be a big mistake.

Name these RBs. Willie has been clocked at a 4.29...and is an easy 4.35. How many backs have that kind of speed? Second, how many of them play for a running team like the Steelers. Third, there is a reason pure speed backs don't generally make it in the NFL. The next couple seasons will settle it...and you will say SMG...yep you were right. A complete back like Mendy plays a big role in making an O elite. Parker is a good complement. Why else would we draft Mendy? How long do you think Mendy will be the #2 back?

Complimentary backs don't average 1337 yards/season. We drafted Mendy because he was BPA when we picked.

ikestops85
07-23-2008, 03:08 PM
All I can say is there have been plenty of running backs in the league with blazing speed but have never come close to rushing for 1337 yards a season (Willie's average). This leads me to believe Willie must have other abilities that are above average or else these other runners would have put up those types of rushing yards.

I think we all would like to have a running back that excels in all facets of the game. I've been following the Steelers since bad word Hoak was in the backfield and we have never had a back like that. At least not one I can think of. Barry Foster might have been the closest but I don't think he was ever considered to have blazing speed.

Again, I like WP and think he is a very good back. Now if we get a back who comes in and is great I think that will be fantastic ... but until that time kicking WP to the curb would be a big mistake.

Name these RBs. Willie has been clocked at a 4.29...and is an easy 4.35. How many backs have that kind of speed? Second, how many of them play for a running team like the Steelers. Third, there is a reason pure speed backs don't generally make it in the NFL. The next couple seasons will settle it...and you will say SMG...yep you were right. A complete back like Mendy plays a big role in making an O elite. Parker is a good complement. Why else would we draft Mendy? How long do you think Mendy will be the #2 back?

Trung Canidate is probably the poster back for speedsters who never made it. Michael Bennett supposedly ran a sub 4.2 at his pro day @ Wisconsin. I've also read where TJ Duckett has run in the low 4.3s although I find that hard to believe. That is why I say Willie has to have more going for him than just speed. You need more than that to make it in the NFL. Otherwise we would be looking at track stars to fill the running back position. Unless your argument is Willie hasn't made it in the NFL. If that's the case then I am speechless.

I think we drafted Mendy because he was the BPA and that is a whole lot better than reaching for someone just because of need. If Mendy takes over the #1 back slot I will be thrilled because that means we have a superstar on our hands.

Mr Smartmonies
07-23-2008, 04:10 PM
I want a back that can catch, run the A, B, and C gaps effectively, block, run with power, run with speed, is a first through third down back. Maybe I want too much...hey maybe I'm greedy...but Parker is none of those things. He is a speedster...when given a proper hole can take it house. Other than that...he is subaverage in every other part of his game.

I will stress again...Parker makes a perfect complement back.

All I can say is there have been plenty of running backs in the league with blazing speed but have never come close to rushing for 1337 yards a season (Willie's average). This leads me to believe Willie must have other abilities that are above average or else these other runners would have put up those types of rushing yards.

I think we all would like to have a running back that excels in all facets of the game. I've been following the Steelers since bad word Hoak was in the backfield and we have never had a back like that. At least not one I can think of. Barry Foster might have been the closest but I don't think he was ever considered to have blazing speed.

Again, I like WP and think he is a very good back. Now if we get a back who comes in and is great I think that will be fantastic ... but until that time kicking WP to the curb would be a big mistake.

Name these RBs. Willie has been clocked at a 4.29...and is an easy 4.35. How many backs have that kind of speed? Second, how many of them play for a running team like the Steelers. Third, there is a reason pure speed backs don't generally make it in the NFL. The next couple seasons will settle it...and you will say SMG...yep you were right. A complete back like Mendy plays a big role in making an O elite. Parker is a good complement. Why else would we draft Mendy? How long do you think Mendy will be the #2 back?

Complimentary backs don't average 1337 yards/season. We drafted Mendy because he was BPA when we picked.

Compare the Stats of Parker last year to that of Reuben Droughns in 2005. Then ask yourself If Reuben Jones is anything special? Parker is a nice change up back that has been over used do to lack of depth. Parker even admitted that last year. He said " If htey brign someone else in here to help me out, I'm all for it." Bettis said, I want the ball 30 times a game.

Shawn
07-23-2008, 04:43 PM
I want a back that can catch, run the A, B, and C gaps effectively, block, run with power, run with speed, is a first through third down back. Maybe I want too much...hey maybe I'm greedy...but Parker is none of those things. He is a speedster...when given a proper hole can take it house. Other than that...he is subaverage in every other part of his game.

I will stress again...Parker makes a perfect complement back.

All I can say is there have been plenty of running backs in the league with blazing speed but have never come close to rushing for 1337 yards a season (Willie's average). This leads me to believe Willie must have other abilities that are above average or else these other runners would have put up those types of rushing yards.

I think we all would like to have a running back that excels in all facets of the game. I've been following the Steelers since bad word Hoak was in the backfield and we have never had a back like that. At least not one I can think of. Barry Foster might have been the closest but I don't think he was ever considered to have blazing speed.

Again, I like WP and think he is a very good back. Now if we get a back who comes in and is great I think that will be fantastic ... but until that time kicking WP to the curb would be a big mistake.

Name these RBs. Willie has been clocked at a 4.29...and is an easy 4.35. How many backs have that kind of speed? Second, how many of them play for a running team like the Steelers. Third, there is a reason pure speed backs don't generally make it in the NFL. The next couple seasons will settle it...and you will say SMG...yep you were right. A complete back like Mendy plays a big role in making an O elite. Parker is a good complement. Why else would we draft Mendy? How long do you think Mendy will be the #2 back?

Complimentary backs don't average 1337 yards/season. We drafted Mendy because he was BPA when we picked.

Puleez...the guy can't consistantly move the chains. You can keep throwing that total yards stat out there and it doesn't mean anything to me. There is a reason the Steelers drafted a first round RB...and it wasn't to be a #2 back. That right there should speak volumes.

Shawn
07-23-2008, 04:47 PM
All I can say is there have been plenty of running backs in the league with blazing speed but have never come close to rushing for 1337 yards a season (Willie's average). This leads me to believe Willie must have other abilities that are above average or else these other runners would have put up those types of rushing yards.

I think we all would like to have a running back that excels in all facets of the game. I've been following the Steelers since bad word Hoak was in the backfield and we have never had a back like that. At least not one I can think of. Barry Foster might have been the closest but I don't think he was ever considered to have blazing speed.

Again, I like WP and think he is a very good back. Now if we get a back who comes in and is great I think that will be fantastic ... but until that time kicking WP to the curb would be a big mistake.

Name these RBs. Willie has been clocked at a 4.29...and is an easy 4.35. How many backs have that kind of speed? Second, how many of them play for a running team like the Steelers. Third, there is a reason pure speed backs don't generally make it in the NFL. The next couple seasons will settle it...and you will say SMG...yep you were right. A complete back like Mendy plays a big role in making an O elite. Parker is a good complement. Why else would we draft Mendy? How long do you think Mendy will be the #2 back?

Trung Canidate is probably the poster back for speedsters who never made it. Michael Bennett supposedly ran a sub 4.2 at his pro day @ Wisconsin. I've also read where TJ Duckett has run in the low 4.3s although I find that hard to believe. That is why I say Willie has to have more going for him than just speed. You need more than that to make it in the NFL. Otherwise we would be looking at track stars to fill the running back position. Unless your argument is Willie hasn't made it in the NFL. If that's the case then I am speechless.

I think we drafted Mendy because he was the BPA and that is a whole lot better than reaching for someone just because of need. If Mendy takes over the #1 back slot I will be thrilled because that means we have a superstar on our hands.

My arguement is Parker is not a complete back which will always be a problem for our O. He runs up the back side of his blockers...no he doesnt break many tackles...and no he doesnt make many people miss. He is a straight blazing speed runner with average vision and sup par power. He doesn't sustain drives, and he forces the Steelers into way too many 3rd and longs. I don't know how else to say it. And I'm getting myself frustrated so I probably should best stop debating here. We are just going in circles. Believe what you want but total yards doesn't tell the whole story.

Shawn
07-23-2008, 04:48 PM
[quote=ShawnMedGuy]I want a back that can catch, run the A, B, and C gaps effectively, block, run with power, run with speed, is a first through third down back. Maybe I want too much...hey maybe I'm greedy...but Parker is none of those things. He is a speedster...when given a proper hole can take it house. Other than that...he is subaverage in every other part of his game.

I will stress again...Parker makes a perfect complement back.

All I can say is there have been plenty of running backs in the league with blazing speed but have never come close to rushing for 1337 yards a season (Willie's average). This leads me to believe Willie must have other abilities that are above average or else these other runners would have put up those types of rushing yards.

I think we all would like to have a running back that excels in all facets of the game. I've been following the Steelers since bad word Hoak was in the backfield and we have never had a back like that. At least not one I can think of. Barry Foster might have been the closest but I don't think he was ever considered to have blazing speed.

Again, I like WP and think he is a very good back. Now if we get a back who comes in and is great I think that will be fantastic ... but until that time kicking WP to the curb would be a big mistake.

Name these RBs. Willie has been clocked at a 4.29...and is an easy 4.35. How many backs have that kind of speed? Second, how many of them play for a running team like the Steelers. Third, there is a reason pure speed backs don't generally make it in the NFL. The next couple seasons will settle it...and you will say SMG...yep you were right. A complete back like Mendy plays a big role in making an O elite. Parker is a good complement. Why else would we draft Mendy? How long do you think Mendy will be the #2 back?

Complimentary backs don't average 1337 yards/season. We drafted Mendy because he was BPA when we picked.

Compare the Stats of Parker last year to that of Reuben Droughns in 2005. Then ask yourself If Reuben Jones is anything special? Parker is a nice change up back that has been over used do to lack of depth. Parker even admitted that last year. He said " If htey brign someone else in here to help me out, I'm all for it." Bettis said, I want the ball 30 times a game.[/quote:3ho1ec4o]

No matter how much sense that makes to you and I...it will never make sense to some.

birtikidis
07-23-2008, 05:00 PM
I hate to say it, but what droughns did in Cleveland was pretty impressive. I'm not surprised that he had over 1k for the donks, but for the browns I am a little impressed.
the hole in your arguement is that it took him 4 years to get to the thousand yards mark whereas it took willie two years. doing it in your second compared to your 4th is pretty significant.
I don't know how anyone would compare droughns to parker. a more fitting comparison to me would be tiki barber to parker. of course that won't work for you though, because it took barber 5 years to crack 1k and he barely did it (by 6 yards). that's where my comparison is.
Parker is the #1 now mendy is the change of pace back. get used to it.

Mr Smartmonies
07-23-2008, 06:31 PM
I hate to say it, but what droughns did in Cleveland was pretty impressive. I'm not surprised that he had over 1k for the donks, but for the browns I am a little impressed.
the hole in your arguement is that it took him 4 years to get to the thousand yards mark whereas it took willie two years. doing it in your second compared to your 4th is pretty significant.
I don't know how anyone would compare droughns to parker. a more fitting comparison to me would be tiki barber to parker. of course that won't work for you though, because it took barber 5 years to crack 1k and he barely did it (by 6 yards). that's where my comparison is.
Parker is the #1 now mendy is the change of pace back. get used to it.


In 2002 and 2003, Droughns had a total of 10 Rushing attempts. :D


Tiki Barber

Yards Rushing Per attempt

2000 4.7
2001 5.2
2002 4.6
2003 4.4
2004 4.7
2005 5.2
2006 5.1

3yr average (2004-2005-2006)

1st down 5.2 YPR
2nd down 4.8 YPR
3rd down 4.9 YPR


3 year total

Rushing TD's 27
1st downs 61


Yards receiving

2000 719
2001 577
2002 597
2003 461
2004 578
2005 530
2006 465
--------------------------------------------------
Super M F'n fast Wille PARKER

Yards rushing per attempt

2005 4.7
2006 4.4
2007 4.1

3 year average

1st down 4.2
2nd down 4.1
3rd down 5.8

3 year total

Rushing TD's 15
1st downs 19

Yards Receiving

2005 218
2006 222
2007 164

birtikidis
07-23-2008, 06:41 PM
So MSM, the only way you compare people is at their peak?
seriously I'm trying to compare them at similar points in their career. barber was drafted in 97 not in 2000. what do his first three years not count, but they do for parker? give me a break.
HERE is the Comparison:
1997 New York Giants 12 6 136 511 3.8
1998 New York Giants 16 4 52 166 3.2
1999 New York Giants 16 1 62 258 4.2
2000 New York Giants 16 12 213 1,006 4.7

pretty crappy 1st three years. I know, you ONLY WANT to compare Tiki after he DEVELOPED AS A BACK.

2004 Pittsburgh Steelers 8 32 186 5.8
2005 Pittsburgh Steelers 15 255 1,202 4.7
2006 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 337 1,494 4.4
2007 Pittsburgh Steelers 15 321 1,316 4.1

which one of those two would you take?

eniparadoxgma
07-23-2008, 06:44 PM
It's my opinion that we would have went OL if there had been someone worth picking 1st round.

I do not agree with all the people stating that we drafted a RB because of FWP's deficiencies, even though he does have some. If much of anything else other than BPA had to do with the pick, I will say it had more to do with the people backing FWP up then FWP himself.

Mr Smartmonies
07-23-2008, 07:10 PM
So MSM, the only way you compare people is at their peak?
seriously I'm trying to compare them at similar points in their career. barber was drafted in 97 not in 2000. what do his first three years not count, but they do for parker? give me a break.
HERE is the Comparison:
1997 New York Giants 12 6 136 511 3.8
1998 New York Giants 16 4 52 166 3.2
1999 New York Giants 16 1 62 258 4.2
2000 New York Giants 16 12 213 1,006 4.7

pretty crappy 1st three years. I know, you ONLY WANT to compare Tiki after he DEVELOPED AS A BACK.

2004 Pittsburgh Steelers 8 32 186 5.8
2005 Pittsburgh Steelers 15 255 1,202 4.7
2006 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 337 1,494 4.4
2007 Pittsburgh Steelers 15 321 1,316 4.1

which one of those two would you take?


Let me please calm down before I try to answer this.

ok, Why in the hell would you not use the peak seasons ? I don't give a flying F what Parkers average was in 2004 when he had 30 carries. I want to know what these guys did when they were the "man." stop posting stupid stuff to try to make a point that cannot be made.

Shawn
07-23-2008, 07:15 PM
It's my opinion that we would have went OL if there had been someone worth picking 1st round.

I do not agree with all the people stating that we drafted a RB because of FWP's deficiencies, even though he does have some. If much of anything else other than BPA had to do with the pick, I will say it had more to do with the people backing FWP up then FWP himself.

So, if BPA was QB or TE we should have drafted them? Of course not...why? Because they wouldn't play. Mendy should be a hellacious bust if he can't beat Parker out for the starting position come season 2. He was not brought in to sit bench...he was not drafted in the first to play second fiddle. He was drafted to start...make no mistakes about it. And when he is in the game...you will understand why we drafted him.

Ozey74
07-23-2008, 07:35 PM
I agree. Mendenhall was drafted to take over the starting role sooner than later. FWP isn't meant to be a feature back. We just got extremely lucky when Mendy was available.

birtikidis
07-23-2008, 08:10 PM
So MSM, the only way you compare people is at their peak?
seriously I'm trying to compare them at similar points in their career. barber was drafted in 97 not in 2000. what do his first three years not count, but they do for parker? give me a break.
HERE is the Comparison:
1997 New York Giants 12 6 136 511 3.8
1998 New York Giants 16 4 52 166 3.2
1999 New York Giants 16 1 62 258 4.2
2000 New York Giants 16 12 213 1,006 4.7

pretty crappy 1st three years. I know, you ONLY WANT to compare Tiki after he DEVELOPED AS A BACK.

2004 Pittsburgh Steelers 8 32 186 5.8
2005 Pittsburgh Steelers 15 255 1,202 4.7
2006 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 337 1,494 4.4
2007 Pittsburgh Steelers 15 321 1,316 4.1

which one of those two would you take?


Let me please calm down before I try to answer this.

ok, Why in the hell would you not use the peak seasons ? I don't give a flying F what Parkers average was in 2004 when he had 30 carries. I want to know what these guys did when they were the "man." stop posting stupid stuff to try to make a point that cannot be made.
because unless you're retarded, you compare the players at the same point in their careers. tiki barber sucked most of his career and then came on towards the end. are you an idiot or something?

Shawn
07-23-2008, 08:39 PM
I agree. Mendenhall was drafted to take over the starting role sooner than later. FWP isn't meant to be a feature back. We just got extremely lucky when Mendy was available.

:Clap

birtikidis
07-23-2008, 08:44 PM
I agree. Mendenhall was drafted to take over the starting role sooner than later. FWP isn't meant to be a feature back. We just got extremely lucky when Mendy was available.

:Clap
SMG i'm convinced that you only like mendy because sOSU got beat by the Illini!

:moon

Shawn
07-23-2008, 08:46 PM
So MSM, the only way you compare people is at their peak?
seriously I'm trying to compare them at similar points in their career. barber was drafted in 97 not in 2000. what do his first three years not count, but they do for parker? give me a break.
HERE is the Comparison:
1997 New York Giants 12 6 136 511 3.8
1998 New York Giants 16 4 52 166 3.2
1999 New York Giants 16 1 62 258 4.2
2000 New York Giants 16 12 213 1,006 4.7

pretty crappy 1st three years. I know, you ONLY WANT to compare Tiki after he DEVELOPED AS A BACK.

2004 Pittsburgh Steelers 8 32 186 5.8
2005 Pittsburgh Steelers 15 255 1,202 4.7
2006 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 337 1,494 4.4
2007 Pittsburgh Steelers 15 321 1,316 4.1

which one of those two would you take?


Let me please calm down before I try to answer this.

ok, Why in the hell would you not use the peak seasons ? I don't give a flying F what Parkers average was in 2004 when he had 30 carries. I want to know what these guys did when they were the "man." stop posting stupid stuff to try to make a point that cannot be made.
because unless you're retarded, you compare the players at the same point in their careers. tiki barber sucked most of his career and then came on towards the end. are you an idiot or something?

I don't know...I must be an idiot but I would compare what players did when they were the feature back...while I would take into account same point in career stuff...it wouldn't be my starting point. Why? Too many factors play a role in the amount of carries a back will receive. I want to know how a back did when they were the man.

birtikidis
07-23-2008, 08:46 PM
well you said it SMG... not me!

Shawn
07-23-2008, 08:47 PM
I agree. Mendenhall was drafted to take over the starting role sooner than later. FWP isn't meant to be a feature back. We just got extremely lucky when Mendy was available.

:Clap
SMG i'm convinced that you only like mendy because sOSU got beat by the Illini!

:moon

http://msn.mess.be/data/media/26/Finger_2.jpg

:mrgreen:

birtikidis
07-23-2008, 08:48 PM
you simply cannot compare a player who has reached his peak and has developed fully and hit his ceiling to a guy that is still developing.

Mr Smartmonies
07-23-2008, 08:48 PM
So MSM, the only way you compare people is at their peak?
seriously I'm trying to compare them at similar points in their career. barber was drafted in 97 not in 2000. what do his first three years not count, but they do for parker? give me a break.
HERE is the Comparison:
1997 New York Giants 12 6 136 511 3.8
1998 New York Giants 16 4 52 166 3.2
1999 New York Giants 16 1 62 258 4.2
2000 New York Giants 16 12 213 1,006 4.7

pretty crappy 1st three years. I know, you ONLY WANT to compare Tiki after he DEVELOPED AS A BACK.

2004 Pittsburgh Steelers 8 32 186 5.8
2005 Pittsburgh Steelers 15 255 1,202 4.7
2006 Pittsburgh Steelers 16 337 1,494 4.4
2007 Pittsburgh Steelers 15 321 1,316 4.1

which one of those two would you take?


Let me please calm down before I try to answer this.

ok, Why in the hell would you not use the peak seasons ? I don't give a flying F what Parkers average was in 2004 when he had 30 carries. I want to know what these guys did when they were the "man." stop posting stupid stuff to try to make a point that cannot be made.
because unless you're retarded, you compare the players at the same point in their careers. tiki barber sucked most of his career and then came on towards the end. are you an idiot or something?

His final 9 seasons he averaged more yards per carry every single year then Parker averaged last year. And 8 of the nine season he averaged more Yards per carry than Parkers career average. You also fail to mention the that thru his 1st 4 season, Tiki had over 200 catches for more than 2100 pass receiving yards.

birtikidis
07-23-2008, 08:49 PM
I agree. Mendenhall was drafted to take over the starting role sooner than later. FWP isn't meant to be a feature back. We just got extremely lucky when Mendy was available.

:Clap
SMG i'm convinced that you only like mendy because sOSU got beat by the Illini!

:moon

http://msn.mess.be/data/media/26/Finger_2.jpg

:mrgreen:
:Hater

stlrz d
07-23-2008, 08:55 PM
No matter how much sense that makes to you and I...it will never make sense to some.

It's not that it doesn't make sense to some...it's that it doesn't make sense period.

Mr Smartmonies
07-23-2008, 08:56 PM
No matter how much sense that makes to you and I...it will never make sense to some.

It's not that it doesn't make sense to some...it's that it doesn't make sense period.

3rd and long. 3rd and long. 3rd and long.

stlrz d
07-23-2008, 08:57 PM
[quote=ShawnMedGuy]
No matter how much sense that makes to you and I...it will never make sense to some.

It's not that it doesn't make sense to some...it's that it doesn't make sense period.

3rd and long. 3rd and long. 3rd and long.[/quote:20uu2fkw]

O line for Parker = good. O line for Ben = bad. :roll:

Mr Smartmonies
07-23-2008, 08:58 PM
[quote="stlrz d":maol4v15][quote=ShawnMedGuy]
No matter how much sense that makes to you and I...it will never make sense to some.

It's not that it doesn't make sense to some...it's that it doesn't make sense period.

3rd and long. 3rd and long. 3rd and long.[/quote:maol4v15]

O line for Parker = good. O line for Ben = bad. :roll:[/quote:maol4v15]

Ben was great on 3rd down. Parker was bad on 1st and 2nd.

Shawn
07-23-2008, 08:59 PM
No matter how much sense that makes to you and I...it will never make sense to some.

It's not that it doesn't make sense to some...it's that it doesn't make sense period.

No, it doesn't make sense to you.

Shawn
07-23-2008, 08:59 PM
[quote="stlrz d":292530yb][quote=ShawnMedGuy]
No matter how much sense that makes to you and I...it will never make sense to some.

It's not that it doesn't make sense to some...it's that it doesn't make sense period.

3rd and long. 3rd and long. 3rd and long.[/quote:292530yb]

O line for Parker = good. O line for Ben = bad. :roll:[/quote:292530yb]

I think you are aware of the difference between run blocking and pass blocking...but maybe I assume too much.

Shawn
07-23-2008, 09:01 PM
[quote=ShawnMedGuy]
No matter how much sense that makes to you and I...it will never make sense to some.

It's not that it doesn't make sense to some...it's that it doesn't make sense period.

3rd and long. 3rd and long. 3rd and long.[/quote:12v90u0v]

Exactly.

Maybe you can pull up some stats about how many 3rd and longs we had while Bettis was our RB and now that Parker is our RB. It would have to be a significant difference. I say this...and I'm not even a big Bettis fan.

stlrz d
07-23-2008, 09:02 PM
What I am aware of is that our O line stunk regardless of if they were run blocking or pass blocking. I think you are aware of that but maybe I assume too much?

Shawn
07-23-2008, 09:02 PM
[quote="Mr Smartmonies":1r7vlwr3][quote="stlrz d":1r7vlwr3][quote=ShawnMedGuy]
No matter how much sense that makes to you and I...it will never make sense to some.

It's not that it doesn't make sense to some...it's that it doesn't make sense period.

3rd and long. 3rd and long. 3rd and long.[/quote:1r7vlwr3]

O line for Parker = good. O line for Ben = bad. :roll:[/quote:1r7vlwr3]

Ben was great on 3rd down. Parker was bad on 1st and 2nd.[/quote:1r7vlwr3]

Again money. But, hey at least he can break off a 60 yarders. :roll:

birtikidis
07-23-2008, 09:02 PM
[quote="Mr Smartmonies":9mlw6rih][quote="stlrz d":9mlw6rih][quote=ShawnMedGuy]
No matter how much sense that makes to you and I...it will never make sense to some.

It's not that it doesn't make sense to some...it's that it doesn't make sense period.

3rd and long. 3rd and long. 3rd and long.[/quote:9mlw6rih]

O line for Parker = good. O line for Ben = bad. :roll:[/quote:9mlw6rih]

Ben was great on 3rd down. Parker was bad on 1st and 2nd.[/quote:9mlw6rih]

I don't know why you make this a ben vs. willie conversation.
you are ridiculous.
how someone can't be happy with parkers production is beyond me.
in my veiwpoint we had ONE HELL OF AN OFFENSE LAST YEAR.
it wasn't just ben it wasn't just willie it was a great offense.
IF our line had been at least average, we would have had the best offense in the league.
yet there are still people who are ridiculous and stupid.

birtikidis
07-23-2008, 09:04 PM
i'm sorry. i seem to remember many games where bettis did NOTHING in the first half of games.
more carries than yards. terrible down and distances.
and not until the 2nd half of games did he come on.

Shawn
07-23-2008, 09:04 PM
What I am aware of is that our O line stunk regardless of if they were run blocking or pass blocking. I think you are aware of that but maybe I assume too much?

And again you couldn't be more wrong. Our Oline was not a poor run blocking team...thats also a common misperception by those that seen alot of sacks and Parkers poor performance between the tackles. This OL is a run blocking line...it certainly could get better but it wasn't a poor run blocking line. It was indeed a line that couldn't pick up blitzes...but that is a whole different beast.

stlrz d
07-23-2008, 09:06 PM
Almost forgot...for the person who said Willie welcomed help (I'm too lazy to look back) you didn't use the whole quote. He said, "If bringing someone else in here will help extend my career then I'm all for it."

For the love of all that is holy in this world please get rid of that effing there has been at least one new post made to this topic" **** please!!!!! :HeadBanger :HeadBanger :HeadBanger :HeadBanger :HeadBanger :HeadBanger :HeadBanger :HeadBanger :HeadBanger :HeadBanger :HeadBanger :HeadBanger

stlrz d
07-23-2008, 09:07 PM
What I am aware of is that our O line stunk regardless of if they were run blocking or pass blocking. I think you are aware of that but maybe I assume too much?

And again you couldn't be more wrong. Our Oline was not a poor run blocking team...thats also a common misperception by those that seen alot of sacks and Parkers poor performance between the tackles. This OL is a run blocking line...it certainly could get better but it wasn't a poor run blocking line. It was indeed a line that couldn't pick up blitzes...but that is a whole different beast.

No friend...you are wrong. That line sucked period.

birtikidis
07-23-2008, 09:07 PM
What I am aware of is that our O line stunk regardless of if they were run blocking or pass blocking. I think you are aware of that but maybe I assume too much?

And again you couldn't be more wrong. Our Oline was not a poor run blocking team...thats also a common misperception by those that seen alot of sacks and Parkers poor performance between the tackles. This OL is a run blocking line...it certainly could get better but it wasn't a poor run blocking line. It was indeed a line that couldn't pick up blitzes...but that is a whole different beast.
sean mahan couldn't block my lil sister nor my dead grandmother and you want him to run up the middle?
God couldn't run up the middle with our offensive line.

stlrz d
07-23-2008, 09:08 PM
birt - SMS*

*stop making sense

:Clap

birtikidis
07-23-2008, 09:11 PM
birt - SMS*

*stop making sense

:Clap

maybe i need some of those drugs SMG prescribes for MSM?

Shawn
07-23-2008, 09:14 PM
Wow...ok you two can keep smokin that Parker crack pipe and come game oh lets say 6-7 lets see what's going on. Parkers days as the #1 back on this team are numbered. The writing is on the wall. If you don't want to read it...fine.

Mr Smartmonies
07-23-2008, 09:19 PM
What I am aware of is that our O line stunk regardless of if they were run blocking or pass blocking. I think you are aware of that but maybe I assume too much?

And again you couldn't be more wrong. Our Oline was not a poor run blocking team...thats also a common misperception by those that seen alot of sacks and Parkers poor performance between the tackles. This OL is a run blocking line...it certainly could get better but it wasn't a poor run blocking line. It was indeed a line that couldn't pick up blitzes...but that is a whole different beast.
sean mahan couldn't block my lil sister nor my dead grandmother and you want him to run up the middle?
God couldn't run up the middle with our offensive line.

Steelers Rushing Rankings on 1st and 2nd down per play

2006 (without Mahan)

1st down #21
2nd down #26

2007 (with Mahan)

1st down #22
2nd down #27

I know , I know what your thinking.. How could we have such poor rankings when Parker managed 1300 yards. It's because informed observers rank things based on a per play basis. They don't give f uck if you had 10 runs of 1 yard and finally broke one for 30.
They want to know what your doing on a per play basis. Consistency and efficiency. Parker gets stuffed too much. It doesn't matter who the Center is. He has too many negative runs. His high amount of attempts as well as a couple of nice runs a game allow him to churn out a decent amount of yards. But from an efficiency and consistency standpoint, he hurts the offense.

stlrz d
07-23-2008, 09:27 PM
Wow...ok you two can keep smokin that Parker crack pipe and come game oh lets say 6-7 lets see what's going on. Parkers days as the #1 back on this team are numbered. The writing is on the wall. If you don't want to read it...fine.

birt - I think so.

SMG - You're one of the "Mendy and Russell are better than Parker" posters. What have you seen either of those two do in the NFL that shows that? Mendy has never faced NFL talent and Russell has been on the team yet has not supplanted Parker or seen any significant PT. So why is it that you see it but no scouts or coaches do? The Steelers drafted Mendy because he was too good to pass at 23. Period.

MSM - When this whole debate started I did a breakdown by distance of every one of Parker's runs from last season and the negative runs were not nearly as many as people claimed them to be and neither were the "big" runs. Unfortunately I didn't save it and I'm not about to go over to that other board to look for it. If you wanna go through every game and catalog each and every carry you will see it for yourself. Parker is not an all universe back so the haters will continue to hate. Hate on...he'll continue to prove you wrong just as he has done his entire NFL career.

birtikidis
07-23-2008, 09:31 PM
stlrz :Clap :Cheers :Boobs
need i say more?

Mr Smartmonies
07-23-2008, 10:05 PM
Wow...ok you two can keep smokin that Parker crack pipe and come game oh lets say 6-7 lets see what's going on. Parkers days as the #1 back on this team are numbered. The writing is on the wall. If you don't want to read it...fine.

birt - I think so.

SMG - You're one of the "Mendy and Russell are better than Parker" posters. What have you seen either of those two do in the NFL that shows that? Mendy has never faced NFL talent and Russell has been on the team yet has not supplanted Parker or seen any significant PT. So why is it that you see it but no scouts or coaches do? The Steelers drafted Mendy because he was too good to pass at 23. Period.

MSM - When this whole debate started I did a breakdown by distance of every one of Parker's runs from last season and the negative runs were not nearly as many as people claimed them to be and neither were the "big" runs. Unfortunately I didn't save it and I'm not about to go over to that other board to look for it. If you wanna go through every game and catalog each and every carry you will see it for yourself. Parker is not an all universe back so the haters will continue to hate. Hate on...he'll continue to prove you wrong just as he has done his entire NFL career.

You would need to save something like that and prove your point. I cannot accept your word for it.

stlrz d
07-23-2008, 10:07 PM
[quote=ShawnMedGuy]Wow...ok you two can keep smokin that Parker crack pipe and come game oh lets say 6-7 lets see what's going on. Parkers days as the #1 back on this team are numbered. The writing is on the wall. If you don't want to read it...fine.

birt - I think so.

SMG - You're one of the "Mendy and Russell are better than Parker" posters. What have you seen either of those two do in the NFL that shows that? Mendy has never faced NFL talent and Russell has been on the team yet has not supplanted Parker or seen any significant PT. So why is it that you see it but no scouts or coaches do? The Steelers drafted Mendy because he was too good to pass at 23. Period.

MSM - When this whole debate started I did a breakdown by distance of every one of Parker's runs from last season and the negative runs were not nearly as many as people claimed them to be and neither were the "big" runs. Unfortunately I didn't save it and I'm not about to go over to that other board to look for it. If you wanna go through every game and catalog each and every carry you will see it for yourself. Parker is not an all universe back so the haters will continue to hate. Hate on...he'll continue to prove you wrong just as he has done his entire NFL career.

You would need to save something like that and prove your point. I cannot accept your word for it.[/quote:23ph0vjw]

Go look for it...it's there. Ask oldtimer67...he was thrilled when I posted it.

Birt - Thanks! :tt2

eniparadoxgma
07-23-2008, 10:52 PM
It's my opinion that we would have went OL if there had been someone worth picking 1st round.

I do not agree with all the people stating that we drafted a RB because of FWP's deficiencies, even though he does have some. If much of anything else other than BPA had to do with the pick, I will say it had more to do with the people backing FWP up then FWP himself.

So, if BPA was QB or TE we should have drafted them? Of course not...why? Because they wouldn't play. Mendy should be a hellacious bust if he can't beat Parker out for the starting position come season 2. He was not brought in to sit bench...he was not drafted in the first to play second fiddle. He was drafted to start...make no mistakes about it. And when he is in the game...you will understand why we drafted him.


There's a big jump between drafting someone to take over the starting RB position and taking the BPA at a position that we needed quality depth at. You can toot Russell's horn all day long, but until he does something in an NFL game I'm not buying into the hype. (Of course, I hope he sets the world on fire, yada yada)

I still don't agree with the sentiment that the Steeler organization is all of a sudden ready to crown a rookie the starting RB over FWP. FWP has his flaws, but so do most RBs whose initials aren't LT or AP.

We supposedly were going to a faster, quicker, explosive offense and less of a bruising type of run game, no? Isn't that why (or least partly why) they axed Kreider in favor of a ho-hum Davis? Wasn't that Arian's plan (haha)? If so, isn't FWP a better fit for that type of offense than say, the Bus? Or at least isn't he a better first option?

While FWP did seem somewhat inconsistent last year and does have trouble getting the tough yards, I still don't think they drafted a rookie RB with the specific intention of putting FWP into a secondary role. However, if this kid Mendenhall is as good as a lot of you think he'll be, then by all means let our version of Adrian Peterson run amok, and put FWP in there to change the looks we give the opposing D.

What's different about drafting an RB as opposed to a TE at that time is that we have two really good (IMO) TEs already. We (also IMO) do not have two really good RBs. We have a really good RB that has his flaws, and some dudes that I haven't seen a damn thing from yet.

Anyhow, just my opinion. I could be wrong. F it who wants pie?

Shawn
07-23-2008, 11:49 PM
Wow...ok you two can keep smokin that Parker crack pipe and come game oh lets say 6-7 lets see what's going on. Parkers days as the #1 back on this team are numbered. The writing is on the wall. If you don't want to read it...fine.

birt - I think so.

SMG - You're one of the "Mendy and Russell are better than Parker" posters. What have you seen either of those two do in the NFL that shows that? Mendy has never faced NFL talent and Russell has been on the team yet has not supplanted Parker or seen any significant PT. So why is it that you see it but no scouts or coaches do? The Steelers drafted Mendy because he was too good to pass at 23. Period.

MSM - When this whole debate started I did a breakdown by distance of every one of Parker's runs from last season and the negative runs were not nearly as many as people claimed them to be and neither were the "big" runs. Unfortunately I didn't save it and I'm not about to go over to that other board to look for it. If you wanna go through every game and catalog each and every carry you will see it for yourself. Parker is not an all universe back so the haters will continue to hate. Hate on...he'll continue to prove you wrong just as he has done his entire NFL career.

Don't put words in my mouth. I said, I'm not happy with Parker as a starter. I said, the writing is on the wall. I said, that I want a complete back...I said soooo many things but never Russell and Mendy are better than Parker. How can anyone say that yet? My suspicion is that they will indeed be better...yes both of them. My suspicion is that the coaches agree that Parker is not a feature back...hence the reason they drafted Mendy. Come on man we are running in circles here. This is a fuggin waste of time. Come game day...lets see what happens. If Parker is the feature back for years to come...then you were right.

Shawn
07-23-2008, 11:52 PM
It's my opinion that we would have went OL if there had been someone worth picking 1st round.

I do not agree with all the people stating that we drafted a RB because of FWP's deficiencies, even though he does have some. If much of anything else other than BPA had to do with the pick, I will say it had more to do with the people backing FWP up then FWP himself.

So, if BPA was QB or TE we should have drafted them? Of course not...why? Because they wouldn't play. Mendy should be a hellacious bust if he can't beat Parker out for the starting position come season 2. He was not brought in to sit bench...he was not drafted in the first to play second fiddle. He was drafted to start...make no mistakes about it. And when he is in the game...you will understand why we drafted him.


There's a big jump between drafting someone to take over the starting RB position and taking the BPA at a position that we needed quality depth at. You can toot Russell's horn all day long, but until he does something in an NFL game I'm not buying into the hype. (Of course, I hope he sets the world on fire, yada yada)

I still don't agree with the sentiment that the Steeler organization is all of a sudden ready to crown a rookie the starting RB over FWP. FWP has his flaws, but so do most RBs whose initials aren't LT or AP.

We supposedly were going to a faster, quicker, explosive offense and less of a bruising type of run game, no? Isn't that why (or least partly why) they axed Kreider in favor of a ho-hum Davis? Wasn't that Arian's plan (haha)? If so, isn't FWP a better fit for that type of offense than say, the Bus? Or at least isn't he a better first option?

While FWP did seem somewhat inconsistent last year and does have trouble getting the tough yards, I still don't think they drafted a rookie RB with the specific intention of putting FWP into a secondary role. However, if this kid Mendenhall is as good as a lot of you think he'll be, then by all means let our version of Adrian Peterson run amok, and put FWP in there to change the looks we give the opposing D.

What's different about drafting an RB as opposed to a TE at that time is that we have two really good (IMO) TEs already. We (also IMO) do not have two really good RBs. We have a really good RB that has his flaws, and some dudes that I haven't seen a damn thing from yet.

Anyhow, just my opinion. I could be wrong. F it who wants pie?

There is zero way Tomlin will annoint Mendy the starter out of the gates. Thats a given. Did I say he would?

eniparadoxgma
07-24-2008, 03:23 AM
It's my opinion that we would have went OL if there had been someone worth picking 1st round.

I do not agree with all the people stating that we drafted a RB because of FWP's deficiencies, even though he does have some. If much of anything else other than BPA had to do with the pick, I will say it had more to do with the people backing FWP up then FWP himself.

So, if BPA was QB or TE we should have drafted them? Of course not...why? Because they wouldn't play. Mendy should be a hellacious bust if he can't beat Parker out for the starting position come season 2. He was not brought in to sit bench...he was not drafted in the first to play second fiddle. He was drafted to start...make no mistakes about it. And when he is in the game...you will understand why we drafted him.


There's a big jump between drafting someone to take over the starting RB position and taking the BPA at a position that we needed quality depth at. You can toot Russell's horn all day long, but until he does something in an NFL game I'm not buying into the hype. (Of course, I hope he sets the world on fire, yada yada)

I still don't agree with the sentiment that the Steeler organization is all of a sudden ready to crown a rookie the starting RB over FWP. FWP has his flaws, but so do most RBs whose initials aren't LT or AP.

We supposedly were going to a faster, quicker, explosive offense and less of a bruising type of run game, no? Isn't that why (or least partly why) they axed Kreider in favor of a ho-hum Davis? Wasn't that Arian's plan (haha)? If so, isn't FWP a better fit for that type of offense than say, the Bus? Or at least isn't he a better first option?

While FWP did seem somewhat inconsistent last year and does have trouble getting the tough yards, I still don't think they drafted a rookie RB with the specific intention of putting FWP into a secondary role. However, if this kid Mendenhall is as good as a lot of you think he'll be, then by all means let our version of Adrian Peterson run amok, and put FWP in there to change the looks we give the opposing D.

What's different about drafting an RB as opposed to a TE at that time is that we have two really good (IMO) TEs already. We (also IMO) do not have two really good RBs. We have a really good RB that has his flaws, and some dudes that I haven't seen a damn thing from yet.

Anyhow, just my opinion. I could be wrong. F it who wants pie?

There is zero way Tomlin will annoint Mendy the starter out of the gates. Thats a given. Did I say he would?

Nope. That's not my point.

However, you guyz are acting as if he was drafted to take over for him in the very very near future (I guess assuming that the Steelers FO has a problem with FWP). That's what I am disagreeing with.

stlrz d
07-24-2008, 07:28 AM
Nope. That's not my point.

However, you guyz are acting as if he was drafted to take over for him in the very very near future (I guess assuming that the Steelers FO has a problem with FWP). That's what I am disagreeing with.

Same here. He was taken because our RB depth is lacking and he was there at 23. Had there been a stud O lineman at 23 Mendy would be in another team's camp right now.

ikestops85
07-24-2008, 09:19 AM
There's a big jump between drafting someone to take over the starting RB position and taking the BPA at a position that we needed quality depth at. You can toot Russell's horn all day long, but until he does something in an NFL game I'm not buying into the hype. (Of course, I hope he sets the world on fire, yada yada)

I still don't agree with the sentiment that the Steeler organization is all of a sudden ready to crown a rookie the starting RB over FWP. FWP has his flaws, but so do most RBs whose initials aren't LT or AP.

We supposedly were going to a faster, quicker, explosive offense and less of a bruising type of run game, no? Isn't that why (or least partly why) they axed Kreider in favor of a ho-hum Davis? Wasn't that Arian's plan (haha)? If so, isn't FWP a better fit for that type of offense than say, the Bus? Or at least isn't he a better first option?

While FWP did seem somewhat inconsistent last year and does have trouble getting the tough yards, I still don't think they drafted a rookie RB with the specific intention of putting FWP into a secondary role. However, if this kid Mendenhall is as good as a lot of you think he'll be, then by all means let our version of Adrian Peterson run amok, and put FWP in there to change the looks we give the opposing D.

What's different about drafting an RB as opposed to a TE at that time is that we have two really good (IMO) TEs already. We (also IMO) do not have two really good RBs. We have a really good RB that has his flaws, and some dudes that I haven't seen a damn thing from yet.

Anyhow, just my opinion. I could be wrong. F it who wants pie?

:Agree :Clap

Well said ...

http://www.picpop.com/gallery/albums/userpics/Cookies/cookie.jpg

Shawn
07-24-2008, 12:32 PM
If the Steeler drafted Mendy merely for depth...in the first round...that will go down as one of the greatest flub ups in team history. They drafted Mendy because they couldn't pass on a guy that could be "the man". They drafted him...despite having a pretty good back...but why? Because Mendy has the complete package...he is a complete back. Parker is a good back...he is not a great back...I know it...and the Steelers know it.

proudpittsburgher
07-24-2008, 04:59 PM
If the Steeler drafted Mendy merely for depth...in the first round...that will go down as one of the greatest flub ups in team history. They drafted Mendy because they couldn't pass on a guy that could be "the man". They drafted him...despite having a pretty good back...but why? Because Mendy has the complete package...he is a complete back. Parker is a good back...he is not a great back...I know
it...and the Steelers know it.


I hope you are right, it would net us a very nice draft pick in the long-run, :tt1 but all i can say is there are a whole heck of a lot of running backs who are labled "complete backs" coming out of college, only to wither and die in the pros. For now, all I know is willie Parker averaged 1300 yards over his last three seasons, never rushing for under 1200 in any of them. And that was in an injury-shortened year last season with a very questionable offensive line. For a flawed running back, that ain't small potatas.

Oh yea, and another thing. :brownssuck :ratsuck :bungalssuck

:Beer The season must be gettign closer

Shawn
07-24-2008, 05:29 PM
If the Steeler drafted Mendy merely for depth...in the first round...that will go down as one of the greatest flub ups in team history. They drafted Mendy because they couldn't pass on a guy that could be "the man". They drafted him...despite having a pretty good back...but why? Because Mendy has the complete package...he is a complete back. Parker is a good back...he is not a great back...I know
it...and the Steelers know it.


I hope you are right, it would net us a very nice draft pick in the long-run, :tt1 but all i can say is there are a whole heck of a lot of running backs who are labled "complete backs" coming out of college, only to wither and die in the pros. For now, all I know is willie Parker averaged 1300 yards over his last three seasons, never rushing for under 1200 in any of them. And that was in an injury-shortened year last season with a very questionable offensive line. For a flawed running back, that ain't small potatas.

Oh yea, and another thing. :brownssuck :ratsuck :bungalssuck

:Beer The season must be gettign closer

You will hear no guarantees from me about Mendy. What you will hear is that I don't believe Parker to be that complete back we need. I will say this however...I watched alot of Mendy and the guy has it all. Yes, it was in college...yes he has alot to prove but I'm excited. If Mendy doesn't end up starting...it will be because of Mendy not Parker.

eniparadoxgma
07-24-2008, 06:29 PM
If the Steeler drafted Mendy merely for depth...in the first round...that will go down as one of the greatest flub ups in team history. They drafted Mendy because they couldn't pass on a guy that could be "the man". They drafted him...despite having a pretty good back...but why? Because Mendy has the complete package...he is a complete back. Parker is a good back...he is not a great back...I know it...and the Steelers know it.

Most teams aren't content with just one pretty good back. Most teams would prefer to have at least 2 pretty good backs, or complimentary backs. If you draft the BPA at a position you need depth at, then it's not a bad thing if the guy is a "complete back" or he could be "the man". It's just icing on a cake that was bought for a different reason then you're giving.

NKySteeler
07-24-2008, 06:34 PM
Most teams aren't content with just one pretty good back. Most teams would prefer to have at least 2 pretty good backs, or complimentary backs.

I don't think it's a matter of "contentment" as much as it is a necessity....

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7999/m42dd8f7c6015277e5ab326fo7.jpg

eniparadoxgma
07-24-2008, 06:49 PM
Most teams aren't content with just one pretty good back. Most teams would prefer to have at least 2 pretty good backs, or complimentary backs.

I don't think it's a matter of "contentment" as much as it is a necessity....

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7999/m42dd8f7c6015277e5ab326fo7.jpg
And that, my good sir, was my point. :Beer

P.S. Where'd ya get pics of my girlfriend, you bastard?!!?

NKySteeler
07-24-2008, 06:54 PM
Most teams aren't content with just one pretty good back. Most teams would prefer to have at least 2 pretty good backs, or complimentary backs.

I don't think it's a matter of "contentment" as much as it is a necessity....

http://img148.imageshack.us/img148/7999/m42dd8f7c6015277e5ab326fo7.jpg
And that, my good sir, was my point. :Beer

P.S. Where'd ya get pics of my girlfriend, you bastard?!!?


:lol: :lol: :lol:

Shawn
07-24-2008, 08:28 PM
If the Steeler drafted Mendy merely for depth...in the first round...that will go down as one of the greatest flub ups in team history. They drafted Mendy because they couldn't pass on a guy that could be "the man". They drafted him...despite having a pretty good back...but why? Because Mendy has the complete package...he is a complete back. Parker is a good back...he is not a great back...I know it...and the Steelers know it.

Most teams aren't content with just one pretty good back. Most teams would prefer to have at least 2 pretty good backs, or complimentary backs. If you draft the BPA at a position you need depth at, then it's not a bad thing if the guy is a "complete back" or he could be "the man". It's just icing on a cake that was bought for a different reason then you're giving.

And so you say...but I guess we will see soon enough.

frankthetank1
07-25-2008, 08:41 AM
it would be stupid to think mendy was drafted JUST for depth. depth is an issue now, but most likely he will be the number 1 guy in the future IF he proves himself worthy, but to think he was drafted to replace parker this year or even next is stupid. you think tomlin and the fo liked giving FWP more carries than any other rb? that didnt work out to well did it. especially in the post season you dont want your rb run down, its a long season and depth is so important

Shawn
07-25-2008, 10:01 AM
Then I must be stupid because I believe by the start of next season Mendy will
be the clear cut starter. I just don't see the Steelers being all that patient with
Parker as he decides to run up the backsides of his linemen, and get 1-2 yards a pop
between the tackles. If Mendy proves he can get 3-4 tough yards...when teams are gearing up for him....hand off after hand off...Parker won't be the starter for long.

stlrz d
07-25-2008, 10:07 AM
Then I must be stupid because I believe by the start of next season Mendy will
be the clear cut starter. I just don't see the Steelers being all that patient with
Parker as he decides to run up the backsides of his linemen, and get 1-2 yards a pop
between the tackles. If Mendy proves he can get 3-4 tough yards...when teams are gearing up for him....hand off after hand off...Parker won't be the starter for long.

Unless our O line improves, Mendy will just be a bigger guy running up the backsides of his linemen.

frankthetank1
07-25-2008, 10:09 AM
Then I must be stupid because I believe by the start of next season Mendy will
be the clear cut starter. I just don't see the Steelers being all that patient with
Parker as he decides to run up the backsides of his linemen, and get 1-2 yards a pop
between the tackles. If Mendy proves he can get 3-4 tough yards...when teams are gearing up for him....hand off after hand off...Parker won't be the starter for long.

i guess so :lol:
just kidding, well maybe next season, maybe. mendy will have to have an absolute amazing rookie year for that to happen and fwp will have to absolutely suck. the thing is parker will benefit from this arrangement a ton, just watch. he will be fresher and its much harder for a defense to game plan against parker and mendy opposed to just parker

Shawn
07-25-2008, 11:09 AM
Then I must be stupid because I believe by the start of next season Mendy will
be the clear cut starter. I just don't see the Steelers being all that patient with
Parker as he decides to run up the backsides of his linemen, and get 1-2 yards a pop
between the tackles. If Mendy proves he can get 3-4 tough yards...when teams are gearing up for him....hand off after hand off...Parker won't be the starter for long.

i guess so :lol:
just kidding, well maybe next season, maybe. mendy will have to have an absolute amazing rookie year for that to happen and fwp will have to absolutely suck. the thing is parker will benefit from this arrangement a ton, just watch. he will be fresher and its much harder for a defense to game plan against parker and mendy opposed to just parker

You will not hear me disagree there at all. I think Mendy just helped Parker out tremendously. Keeping Parker fresh and fast all game would be sick. Can you imagine Mendy beating up on a D all game and the speedy Parker coming in? I love the thought of Parker running all over a tired D. I just do not like the thought of Parker pounding it out, run after run.

frankthetank1
07-25-2008, 11:29 AM
Then I must be stupid because I believe by the start of next season Mendy will
be the clear cut starter. I just don't see the Steelers being all that patient with
Parker as he decides to run up the backsides of his linemen, and get 1-2 yards a pop
between the tackles. If Mendy proves he can get 3-4 tough yards...when teams are gearing up for him....hand off after hand off...Parker won't be the starter for long.

i guess so :lol:
just kidding, well maybe next season, maybe. mendy will have to have an absolute amazing rookie year for that to happen and fwp will have to absolutely suck. the thing is parker will benefit from this arrangement a ton, just watch. he will be fresher and its much harder for a defense to game plan against parker and mendy opposed to just parker

You will not hear me disagree there at all. I think Mendy just helped Parker out tremendously. Keeping Parker fresh and fast all game would be sick. Can you imagine Mendy beating up on a D all game and the speedy Parker coming in? I love the thought of Parker running all over a tired D. I just do not like the thought of Parker pounding it out, run after run.

exactly!! and that is why parker wont be traded. parker will be better with mendy and vice versa. i would hate to see parker getting stuffed play after play but that wont happen. if parker is ineffective in a game then mendy will get the bulk of the carries and vice versa

Shawn
07-25-2008, 12:48 PM
Then I must be stupid because I believe by the start of next season Mendy will
be the clear cut starter. I just don't see the Steelers being all that patient with
Parker as he decides to run up the backsides of his linemen, and get 1-2 yards a pop
between the tackles. If Mendy proves he can get 3-4 tough yards...when teams are gearing up for him....hand off after hand off...Parker won't be the starter for long.

i guess so :lol:
just kidding, well maybe next season, maybe. mendy will have to have an absolute amazing rookie year for that to happen and fwp will have to absolutely suck. the thing is parker will benefit from this arrangement a ton, just watch. he will be fresher and its much harder for a defense to game plan against parker and mendy opposed to just parker

You will not hear me disagree there at all. I think Mendy just helped Parker out tremendously. Keeping Parker fresh and fast all game would be sick. Can you imagine Mendy beating up on a D all game and the speedy Parker coming in? I love the thought of Parker running all over a tired D. I just do not like the thought of Parker pounding it out, run after run.

exactly!! and that is why parker wont be traded. parker will be better with mendy and vice versa. i would hate to see parker getting stuffed play after play but that wont happen. if parker is ineffective in a game then mendy will get the bulk of the carries and vice versa

I think the trade scenerio mostly depends on Russell. If Russell proves his worth as a #2 guy...it might become tough to keep 3 good backs. If Russell and Mendy proved to be very good backs...would you trade Parker for a good young Center? I know I would.

Mr Smartmonies
07-25-2008, 12:56 PM
In 2007, the avg RB ran for 4.3 yards per carry. Parker was a below average back at 4.1.
But if you run him 320 times, he would be expected to pick up 1300 yards. A below average back would be expected to pick up 1300 yards. Just simply do that math, its not hard to figure out.

Was the offensive line below average? Sure. I buy that. But unlike the QB who rose to the occasion with the 2nd best Passer rating, 4th best YPA, 2nd most TD throws, Parker remained below average at 4.1, with fewer long runs, more stuffs, few catches, and barely 2 scores.

In 2006, the average RB in the NFL gained 4.4 yards per carry. Parker also gained 4.4 yards per carry. His increase in YPC certainly had something to do with Hartings.
But even with hartings, Faneca (year younger), healthy Smith, Parker was just average at 4.4.

What does this all tell you? It tells you that Parker is an average back. He's not disgusting. He's just average. And he might be below average at this point. Especially considering he broke his leg. The Steelers can do better at that postion.

birtikidis
07-25-2008, 01:03 PM
so by your reasoning, Parker is a BETTER back then LJ? since LJ set the career record for caries on his way to a 1700 yd season (having more then 400 carries) wouldn't that mean that parker is a better back?

frankthetank1
07-25-2008, 01:16 PM
I think the trade scenerio mostly depends on Russell. If Russell proves his worth as a #2 guy...it might become tough to keep 3 good backs. If Russell and Mendy proved to be very good backs...would you trade Parker for a good young Center? I know I would.

without a doubt i would trade parker IF russell proves to be a solid #2 rb, but thats a big IF. i didnt see much from him last year but i what i saw didnt exactly blow me away

birtikidis
07-25-2008, 01:27 PM
lotta wishing on this board.
here click your heels together and say after me:
I wish russell would beome a good #2
I wish russell would become a good #2
I wish Mendy and russell will allow us to trade parker
I wish Mendy and Russell will allow us to trade parker.

there that should do it.

Mr Smartmonies
07-25-2008, 01:33 PM
so by your reasoning, Parker is a BETTER back then LJ? since LJ set the career record for caries on his way to a 1700 yd season (having more then 400 carries) wouldn't that mean that parker is a better back?

Total rushing Yards means nothing to me unless they are a product of very efficientwork. How many times are you going to keep bringing it up?

in 2005, LJ had 1750 Yards on 338 carries.

In 2006 LJ had 1789 Yards on 416 attempts.

His best season was 2005. but you would just look at his over all rushing yards and deem 2006 to be the better season.

birtikidis
07-25-2008, 01:36 PM
see there you go not reading again.
did i say that one season was better than another?
didn't think so.
maybe, JUST MAYBE if you learned how to read, you'd learn something.
quick who was the starter at RB for most of 2004?

frankthetank1
07-25-2008, 01:36 PM
so by your reasoning, Parker is a BETTER back then LJ? since LJ set the career record for caries on his way to a 1700 yd season (having more then 400 carries) wouldn't that mean that parker is a better back?

Total rushing Yards means nothing to me unless they are a product of very efficientwork. How many times are you going to keep bringing it up?

in 2005, LJ had 1750 Yards on 338 carries.

In 2006 LJ had 1789 Yards on 416 attempts.

His best season was 2005. but you would just look at his over all rushing yards and deem 2006 to be the better season.

total yards is pretty important if we are talking a big difference. that example is a tiny difference in total yards and a pretty big difference in number of carries

Shawn
07-25-2008, 01:45 PM
so by your reasoning, Parker is a BETTER back then LJ? since LJ set the career record for caries on his way to a 1700 yd season (having more then 400 carries) wouldn't that mean that parker is a better back?

Total rushing Yards means nothing to me unless they are a product of very efficientwork. How many times are you going to keep bringing it up?

in 2005, LJ had 1750 Yards on 338 carries.

In 2006 LJ had 1789 Yards on 416 attempts.

His best season was 2005. but you would just look at his over all rushing yards and deem 2006 to be the better season.

total yards is pretty important if we are talking a big difference. that example is a tiny difference in total yards and a pretty big difference in number of carries

What total yards mean to me is that someone had alot of carries/and or had a terrific average. The only thing alot of carries tells me is that the team was committed to running and the running back was fairly durable. YPC is certainly more relevant though that number can also be suspect under certain circumstances...ie few runs from a passing offense. Anyone watching with two eyes on the screen knows Parker is not a powerhouse between the tackles. Thats where you earn your tough yards.

Mr Smartmonies
07-25-2008, 01:47 PM
so by your reasoning, Parker is a BETTER back then LJ? since LJ set the career record for caries on his way to a 1700 yd season (having more then 400 carries) wouldn't that mean that parker is a better back?

Total rushing Yards means nothing to me unless they are a product of very efficientwork. How many times are you going to keep bringing it up?

in 2005, LJ had 1750 Yards on 338 carries.

In 2006 LJ had 1789 Yards on 416 attempts.

His best season was 2005. but you would just look at his over all rushing yards and deem 2006 to be the better season.

total yards is pretty important if we are talking a big difference. that example is a tiny difference in total yards and a pretty big difference in number of carries

correct Mr Tank. If a player has 2 carries and totals 20 yards, well then his 10 yPC average is bogus.