Page 2 of 3 FirstFirst 123 LastLast
Results 11 to 20 of 24

Thread: ESPN ranks the running backs

  1. #11
    Hall of Famer AngryAsian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,014

    Re: ESPN ranks the running backs

    Quote Originally Posted by MeetJoeGreene
    Quote Originally Posted by asiansteel
    How could you rate Gore, Portis and McGahee over Willie. Just garbage.
    They have vision. Willie doesn't.
    They have good instincts. Willie doesn't.

    There... feels like home

    I never even noticed that they were all University of Miami products. We'll see how much this ranking placates into the season. With our backfield, we're going to running over people.

  2. #12
    Legend papillon's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    Location
    Under your bed
    Posts
    6,624

    Re: ESPN ranks the running backs

    Quote Originally Posted by starlifter
    arguing about ANYTHING from ESPN is like wrestling a pig. It's a whole lot of effort that accomplishes nothing. ESPN has been useless since around 1995. I don't watch the channel. I don't read the magazine. I don't surf the website. They are the national enquirer of sports. I have no doubt that when they did their 'ranking' the editors looked at it and said "this is too obvious. we need to change some names around or folks won't get upset and talk about it". ESPN would rank Jamal Lewis #1 if they thought it would sell issues.


    and



    Pappy


    1.15) Ra'Shede Hageman - DE
    2.47) Jason Verrett - CB
    3.97) CJ Fiedorowicz - TE
    4.114) Brandon Coleman - WR
    5.145) Lamin Barrow - ILB
    5.173) Terrance Mitchell - CB
    6.176)
    7.207) Jay Bromley - DT
    7.215)

    "Before you can win a game, you have to not lose it." -- Chuck Noll

  3. #13
    Hall of Famer AngryAsian's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    3,014

    Re: ESPN ranks the running backs

    Quote Originally Posted by papillon
    Quote Originally Posted by starlifter
    arguing about ANYTHING from ESPN is like wrestling a pig. It's a whole lot of effort that accomplishes nothing. ESPN has been useless since around 1995. I don't watch the channel. I don't read the magazine. I don't surf the website. They are the national enquirer of sports. I have no doubt that when they did their 'ranking' the editors looked at it and said "this is too obvious. we need to change some names around or folks won't get upset and talk about it". ESPN would rank Jamal Lewis #1 if they thought it would sell issues.


    and



    Pappy

    I think you are going a littel happy with the smiley's, pappy. :P

  4. #14
    Pro Bowler
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Woooooo!
    Posts
    1,236

    Re: ESPN ranks the running backs

    lol, i don't mind..........

  5. #15

    Re: ESPN ranks the running backs

    sorry guys, but If we're talking healthy RB's I would take portis over willie.
    not sure if that factored into the rankings or not.

  6. #16

    Re: ESPN ranks the running backs

    Quote Originally Posted by steelcityrules!!
    sorry guys, but If we're talking healthy RB's I would take portis over willie.
    agreed about portis. and IMO gore is the 3rd best all-around back when healthy (behind LT and sjack). gore is going to have a HUGE season under martz.

  7. #17

    Re: ESPN ranks the running backs

    Quote Originally Posted by MeetJoeGreene
    Quote Originally Posted by asiansteel
    How could you rate Gore, Portis and McGahee over Willie. Just garbage.
    They have vision. Willie doesn't.
    They have good instincts. Willie doesn't.

    There... feels like home
    hey 43...er...MJG, you may be 1/2-kidding but these are valid points. gore and portis are better backs than willie when healthy.

  8. #18
    Hall of Famer
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Posts
    2,755

    Re: ESPN ranks the running backs

    Quote Originally Posted by steelcityrules!!
    sorry guys, but If we're talking healthy RB's I would take portis over willie.
    not sure if that factored into the rankings or not.
    a healthy clinton portis i guess that would be similar to a dominant sean mahan huh?

    i agree with the rankings being garbage all those mentioned rb's from the u arent as good as willie. i also thought peterson being #2 is a bit high. i know he had the best rookie year for any rb ever but it was only one season

  9. #19
    Legend RuthlessBurgher's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    Location
    Where the Rubber Meets the Road (in NEPA)
    Posts
    20,365

    Re: ESPN ranks the running backs

    Quote Originally Posted by ROLROC
    Quote Originally Posted by steelcityrules!!
    sorry guys, but If we're talking healthy RB's I would take portis over willie.
    agreed about portis. and IMO gore is the 3rd best all-around back when healthy (behind LT and sjack). gore is going to have a HUGE season under martz.
    I'm a big Gore fan, but I worry about him under Martz. Martz didn't run the ball AT ALL last year in Detroit. Marshall Faulk put up big numbers with Martz in St. Louis, but he was a different kind of back, with a lot of his damage done by catching passes out of the backfield. I just don't see Martz wanting to pound the rock (but he may have to, though, since the QB's and WR's in San Fran are well below average). They also may have to give up on the run in the 2nd halves of games, since I expect them to be playing from behind more often than not. I also wonder what becomes of the big investment that team made in Vernon Davis, since Martz has never really been a big proponent of involving the TE in the passing game all that much.


    1.15 WR Mike Evans, Texas A&M
    2.46 TE Austin Seferian-Jenkins, Washington
    3.97c ILB Shayne Skov, Stanford
    4.118 CB Philip Gaines, Rice
    5.157 OT James Hurst, North Carolina
    5.173c RB Jerrick McKinnon, Georgia Southern
    6.192 CB Walt Aikens, Liberty
    6.215c DE Deandre Coleman, California
    7.230 NT Zack Kerr, Delaware

  10. #20

    Re: ESPN ranks the running backs

    Quote Originally Posted by RuthlessBurgher
    Quote Originally Posted by ROLROC
    Quote Originally Posted by steelcityrules!!
    sorry guys, but If we're talking healthy RB's I would take portis over willie.
    agreed about portis. and IMO gore is the 3rd best all-around back when healthy (behind LT and sjack). gore is going to have a HUGE season under martz.
    I'm a big Gore fan, but I worry about him under Martz. Martz didn't run the ball AT ALL last year in Detroit. Marshall Faulk put up big numbers with Martz in St. Louis, but he was a different kind of back, with a lot of his damage done by catching passes out of the backfield. I just don't see Martz wanting to pound the rock (but he may have to, though, since the QB's and WR's in San Fran are well below average). They also may have to give up on the run in the 2nd halves of games, since I expect them to be playing from behind more often than not. I also wonder what becomes of the big investment that team made in Vernon Davis, since Martz has never really been a big proponent of involving the TE in the passing game all that much.
    while no marshall, gore was already getting touches out of the backfield in the passing game pre-martz. i see his rec #s and TDs increasing this season. this will benefit his/SF running game IMO. if he stays healthy, gore will be a beast. smith is the wildcard...

Bookmarks

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •