Willie PArker

**Jooser** · 07-26-2008, 10:19 AM

I am sorry, but piss on the stats. I agree that sometimes Willie is frustrating to watch when he gets no yards. But daggone it, he has provided some incredible excitement when he breaks loose and rolls 50, 60 yrds leaving EVERYTHING in his dust. And by the way, do any of you doubters remember the awsome run in the Super Bowl? That was the SUPER BOWL. Those kinds of things don't happen that often to your favorite team guys. Willie is a good back for his style of running. Willie can benefit greatly from improved blocking, and I think he's got something that will enhance his talent in Mendenhall, who can come in and run effectively as well.

**stlrz d** · 07-26-2008, 10:31 AM

Originally Posted by Jooser

[color=#FFFF40]I am sorry, but piss on the stats. I agree that sometimes Willie is frustrating to watch when he gets no yards. But daggone it, he has provided some incredible excitement when he breaks loose and rolls 50, 60 yrds leaving EVERYTHING in his dust. And by the way, do any of you doubters remember the awsome run in the Super Bowl? That was the SUPER BOWL. Those kinds of things don't happen that often to your favorite team guys. Willie is a good back for his style of running. Willie can benefit greatly from improved blocking, and I think he's got something that will enhance his talent in Mendenhall, who can come in and run effectively as well.

Favorite thing about pictures like this one??? The guys in the background with arms raised in celebration (look left and right). I've always loved that.

**Mr Smartmonies** · 07-26-2008, 01:26 PM

[quote="Jooser"][color=#FFFF40]I am sorry, but piss on the stats. I agree that sometimes Willie is frustrating to watch when he gets no yards. But daggone it, he has provided some incredible excitement when he breaks loose and rolls 50, 60 yrds leaving EVERYTHING in his dust. And by the way, do any of you doubters remember the awsome run in the Super Bowl? That was the SUPER BOWL.

Why is it that the run in the SB always gets mentioned as if it has any relevancy to 2008? just asking...

**Mr Smartmonies** · 07-26-2008, 01:28 PM

Originally Posted by stlrz d

Originally Posted by Jooser

[color=#FFFF40]
Favorite thing about pictures like this one??? The guys in the background with arms raised in celebration (look left and right). I've always loved that.

we agree

**ikestops85** · 07-26-2008, 02:56 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Smartmonies

2007 Parker scored on only 4% of his redzone rushes (45) and only picked up a 1st down 11% of the time in the redzone.

2006 PArker scored on 20% of his redzone carries (56) and picked up a 1st down 29% of the time.

They had to get the guy out of there. Redzone last year.

DAVENPORT

scored on 23% of his redzone carries and picked up a first down 42% of the time behind the same line of scrimmage.

Parker just wasn't good enough last year in the redzone.

So what was the difference in our running game between 2006 and 2007? The running back (FWP) was the same. Seems to me you have to look at the Offensive Coordinator and the fullback and the O-line. Those are the things that changed. Willie was still the same running back he was in 2006.

Originally Posted by Mr Smartmonies

Like I said, the stats speak for themselves. Parker is average to below average back just about anyway you slice it.

That's probably the most idiotic statement I've seen on a message board and that's saying a lot since I post quite a bit on a bengal's smack board. I guess what you are trying to say is the Steelers have had an average to below average running game the last 3 years since Willie has been the starter. If that's the case then the FO really screwed up because they should have taken at least 2 more running backs in the draft. Moore will start camp as the #1 back because at worst he is average. Davis and Russell shouldn't even bother to show up since they are so far down on the depth chart of a below average or at best average rushing team. Why didn't they sign Kevin Jones ... he certainly is average.

I wonder why San Diego didn't keep Michael Turner and let LT go? After all LT rushing ypc is a full yard BELOW Turner's?

**Mr Smartmonies** · 07-26-2008, 04:37 PM

[quote=ikestops85]

Originally Posted by Mr Smartmonies

2007 Parker scored on only 4% of his redzone rushes (45) and only picked up a 1st down 11% of the time in the redzone.

2006 PArker scored on 20% of his redzone carries (56) and picked up a 1st down 29% of the time.

They had to get the guy out of there. Redzone last year.

DAVENPORT

scored on 23% of his redzone carries and picked up a first down 42% of the time behind the same line of scrimmage.

Parker just wasn't good enough last year in the redzone.

So what was the difference in our running game between 2006 and 2007? The running back (FWP) was the same. Seems to me you have to look at the Offensive Coordinator and the fullback and the O-line. Those are the things that changed. Willie was still the same running back he was in 2006.

Originally Posted by "Mr Smartmonies":2duyrey9

Like I said, the stats speak for themselves. Parker is average to below average back just about anyway you slice it.

That's probably the most idiotic statement I've seen on a message board and that's saying a lot since I post quite a bit on a bengal's smack board. I guess what you are trying to say is the Steelers have had an average to below average running game the last 3 years since Willie has been the starter. If that's the case then the FO really screwed up because they should have taken at least 2 more running backs in the draft. Moore will start camp as the #1 back because at worst he is average. Davis and Russell shouldn't even bother to show up since they are so far down on the depth chart of a below average or at best average rushing team. Why didn't they sign Kevin Jones ... he certainly is average.

I wonder why San Diego didn't keep Michael Turner and let LT go? After all LT rushing ypc is a full yard BELOW Turner's?[/quote:2duyrey9]

Turner doesn't have enough carries to enter the discussion. He has an impressive YPC
average, but 18% of his total yardage came on (3) 70 yard runs. Take those three away, and his YPC average drops a full point.

Parker needs more long runs to justify the Stuffs. Were not going to have an offensive line like we had in 2005. You had two probowlers and possibly a third mention with smith on the left side. And its my belief that a better running back will help reduce th third and longs. I say reduce, not eliminate. Were talking percentages over the year. It is common knowledge that Parker possesses great straight line speed. But you should also acknowledge that Parker doesn't have the rare vision nor the physicality tha other backs have. He is ia special, straight line runner. That' s it. ANd he isn't going to get those kind of holes behind this line with that schedule. So go ahead and call me an idiot , like that matters. If it makes you feel good , knock yourself out.

**Shawn** · 07-26-2008, 05:07 PM

Originally Posted by Mr Smartmonies

Originally Posted by Jooser

[color=#FFFF40]I am sorry, but piss on the stats. I agree that sometimes Willie is frustrating to watch when he gets no yards. But daggone it, he has provided some incredible excitement when he breaks loose and rolls 50, 60 yrds leaving EVERYTHING in his dust. And by the way, do any of you doubters remember the awsome run in the Super Bowl? That was the SUPER BOWL.

Why is it that the run in the SB always gets mentioned as if it has any relevancy to 2008? just asking...

Well...because people think that emotional arguements are logical arguements. And I can't believe this post is still alive. I have said all I will say on the subject...and I will let the season speak for itself.

**Shawn** · 07-26-2008, 05:08 PM

[quote=ikestops85]

Originally Posted by Mr Smartmonies

2007 Parker scored on only 4% of his redzone rushes (45) and only picked up a 1st down 11% of the time in the redzone.

2006 PArker scored on 20% of his redzone carries (56) and picked up a 1st down 29% of the time.

They had to get the guy out of there. Redzone last year.

DAVENPORT

scored on 23% of his redzone carries and picked up a first down 42% of the time behind the same line of scrimmage.

Parker just wasn't good enough last year in the redzone.

So what was the difference in our running game between 2006 and 2007? The running back (FWP) was the same. Seems to me you have to look at the Offensive Coordinator and the fullback and the O-line. Those are the things that changed. Willie was still the same running back he was in 2006.

Originally Posted by "Mr Smartmonies":33yvi40a

Like I said, the stats speak for themselves. Parker is average to below average back just about anyway you slice it.

That's probably the most idiotic statement I've seen on a message board and that's saying a lot since I post quite a bit on a bengal's smack board. I guess what you are trying to say is the Steelers have had an average to below average running game the last 3 years since Willie has been the starter. If that's the case then the FO really screwed up because they should have taken at least 2 more running backs in the draft. Moore will start camp as the #1 back because at worst he is average. Davis and Russell shouldn't even bother to show up since they are so far down on the depth chart of a below average or at best average rushing team. Why didn't they sign Kevin Jones ... he certainly is average.

I wonder why San Diego didn't keep Michael Turner and let LT go? After all LT rushing ypc is a full yard BELOW Turner's?[/quote:33yvi40a]

Your ramblings make zero sense.

**birtikidis** · 07-26-2008, 05:42 PM

smg you lied
you said you had said all you were going to say.
then you posted again

**ikestops85** · 07-26-2008, 06:57 PM

[quote=Mr Smartmonies][quote=ikestops85]

Originally Posted by "Mr Smartmonies":1r2aueyd

2007 Parker scored on only 4% of his redzone rushes (45) and only picked up a 1st down 11% of the time in the redzone.

2006 PArker scored on 20% of his redzone carries (56) and picked up a 1st down 29% of the time.

They had to get the guy out of there. Redzone last year.

DAVENPORT

scored on 23% of his redzone carries and picked up a first down 42% of the time behind the same line of scrimmage.

Parker just wasn't good enough last year in the redzone.

So what was the difference in our running game between 2006 and 2007? The running back (FWP) was the same. Seems to me you have to look at the Offensive Coordinator and the fullback and the O-line. Those are the things that changed. Willie was still the same running back he was in 2006.

Originally Posted by "Mr Smartmonies":1r2aueyd

Like I said, the stats speak for themselves. Parker is average to below average back just about anyway you slice it.

That's probably the most idiotic statement I've seen on a message board and that's saying a lot since I post quite a bit on a bengal's smack board. I guess what you are trying to say is the Steelers have had an average to below average running game the last 3 years since Willie has been the starter. If that's the case then the FO really screwed up because they should have taken at least 2 more running backs in the draft. Moore will start camp as the #1 back because at worst he is average. Davis and Russell shouldn't even bother to show up since they are so far down on the depth chart of a below average or at best average rushing team. Why didn't they sign Kevin Jones ... he certainly is average.

I wonder why San Diego didn't keep Michael Turner and let LT go? After all LT rushing ypc is a full yard BELOW Turner's?[/quote:1r2aueyd]

Turner doesn't have enough carries to enter the discussion. He has an impressive YPC
average, but 18% of his total yardage came on (3) 70 yard runs. Take those three away, and his YPC average drops a full point.

Parker needs more long runs to justify the Stuffs. Were not going to have an offensive line like we had in 2005. You had two probowlers and possibly a third mention with smith on the left side. And its my belief that a better running back will help reduce th third and longs. I say reduce, not eliminate. Were talking percentages over the year. It is common knowledge that Parker possesses great straight line speed. But you should also acknowledge that Parker doesn't have the rare vision nor the physicality tha other backs have. He is ia special, straight line runner. That' s it. ANd he isn't going to get those kind of holes behind this line with that schedule. So go ahead and call me an idiot , like that matters. If it makes you feel good , knock yourself out.[/quote:1r2aueyd]

Sorry MSM if you thought I called you an idiot. I'm not into the name calling so I apologize if you took it that way. What I did say was that one statement you made was idiotic ... big difference. Don't tell anyone but I've been known to make idiotic statements myself.

I have agreed all along that Willie isn't a power back. I also agree his vision is probably average. His speed is excellent. His burst is excellent and something you never seem to mention is his ability to change speeds. That is also excellent and the main thing that separates him from other speed backs.