SEA Not Committing to Rawls? Deserving of Dynasty RB9 Rank?

[_yeti]

Seattle sounds like they are not committing to Rawls as the starter. I sense a committee coming on strong, has Rawls done enough to earn the RB9 rank and as of Feb 2016 the 10th RB off the board ADP? As an extremely physical back who is not the biggest and isn't very fast I don't see a team making a long term commitment to him as a starter. I personally would rank him around RB25. Thoughts?

Thomas Rawls will have competition in Seahawks backfield
While Rawls showed special qualities as a rookie and the Seahawks believe he will be ready for the start of training camp, they aren’t putting all their eggs in one basket either.

“He definitely has the talent to (take over for Lynch), but we’re going to get a couple people in there to compete with him,” general manager John Schneider said Wednesday. “And he’s recovering from a significant injury as well too. He’s a fun kid and a really talented guy. I just can’t tell you that (he’ll succeed) right now. I’d go to (Las) Vegas if I could tell you that.”

Rawls is certainly the leader in the clubhouse for the job. He flashed an explosive ability that included a 209-yard effort against the San Francisco 49ers. But even with Rawls’ success, the Seahawks will need to replenish their backfield.

Head coach Pete Carroll expressed a desire to bring back Michael after a strong finish to the season in relief of Lynch and Rawls. But even then, they’ll need a couple rookies (drafted or otherwise) and perhaps a veteran addition to provide depth and competition in camp.
http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/20 ... backfield/

[Cameron Giles]

You're reading too much into it. Rawls is the only RB the Seahawks have under contract for next season. So of course they're going to bring in competition. They have to.

There could be a committee, but it really depends on how talented an RB they bring in for depth. I would probably not take Rawls high in a startup, but he did look really good last season. I don't think RB9 is a ridiculous value to place on him.

[_yeti]

You're reading too much into it. Rawls is the only RB the Seahawks have under contract for next season. So of course they're going to bring in competition. They have to.

There could be a committee, but it really depends on how talented an RB they bring in for depth.

Wouldn't say reading too much into it. I already though this, the article is just backing up already what I thought and just giving me some quotes to work with. Even if he leads the pack in 2016 I am saying committee back and not the #1 back on the team past 2016 and possibly not even for all of 2016.

[Cameron Giles]

Not really reading it into this article as this was already what I thought but they are just giving me some quotes to work with. Even if he leads the pack in 2016 I am saying committee back and not the first back on the team past 2016.

Hard to say committee when we don't know who the RB depth is going to be right now. Plus, look at the carries Rawls had last season when he was the starter:

16, 17, 23, 30, 21, 19.

That doesn't seem like a lack of faith. I'm sure there will be a third down as he wasn't really used in the receiving game extensively, but all signs point to him as the guy on most downs.

[Farley]

You're reading too much into it. Rawls is the only RB the Seahawks have under contract for next season. So of course they're going to bring in competition. They have to.

There could be a committee, but it really depends on how talented an RB they bring in for depth.

Wouldn't say reading too much into it. I already though this, the article is just backing up already what I thought and just giving me some quotes to work with. Even if he leads the pack in 2016 I am saying committee back and not the #1 back on the team past 2016 and possibly not even for all of 2016.

Exactly. And that's why you're reading too much into it. You're looking for material to back your stance.

[_yeti]

You're reading too much into it. Rawls is the only RB the Seahawks have under contract for next season. So of course they're going to bring in competition. They have to.

There could be a committee, but it really depends on how talented an RB they bring in for depth.

Wouldn't say reading too much into it. I already though this, the article is just backing up already what I thought and just giving me some quotes to work with. Even if he leads the pack in 2016 I am saying committee back and not the #1 back on the team past 2016 and possibly not even for all of 2016.

Exactly. And that's why you're reading too much into it. You're looking for material to back your stance.

Wasn't looking for something to back my stance. I had a stance and then saw an article that provided interesting discussion fodder along a developing backfield that interests me. If I thought the majority agreed with my view it wouldn't be much of a discussion.

To be honest I really like Rawls and am not saying he isn't good. I watched as much college tape on him as I could find and traded a third for him before preseason started last year though I no longer have him on my roster.

Hard to say committee when we don't know who the RB depth is going to be right now. Plus, look at the carries Rawls had last season when he was the starter:

16, 17, 23, 30, 21, 19.

That doesn't seem like a lack of faith. I'm sure there will be a third down as he wasn't really used in the receiving game extensively, but all signs point to him as the guy on most downs.

They didn't really have any other options, if they get some depth that they believe in I think that changes. He's not too fast, coming off an ankle injury I can't see that improving. With his physical running style I see a higher chance of injury even broken ankle notwithstanding. He goes for contact like Lynch and gives defenders some violence, but he is not Lynch. He will never be as injury free and fresh as he was coming into his playing time this year. Don't know if his playing style at his size can hold up to significant carries.

He was productive but he just strikes me as a guy that NFL teams will be looking to upgrade on. I know the lack of any other notable backs being there yet and Lynch leaving gives a situation that looks tailor made for him to seize the job, but I am giving my own personal valuation that he doesn't remain a lead back and with that I would rank him significantly lower. I think Seattle is intending as always at contending and I think they are looking for another option so that they aren't only relying on Rawls. I guess it all depends on who else they bring in and what kind of skills that guy has. Up in the air right now. Just wanted to give some push back on his ranking.

Maybe someone in a startup will make the wise decision to not spend a pick that high on him after this thread gets going... or maybe they will feel more belief and better about taking him at his current ADP

[Phaded]

I don't think Rawls is deserving of ghf RB9 ranking..

But that has nothing to do with this article.

Everyone should know already Rawls will be in an RB competition this off season.

[_yeti]

I'm not saying the article was the only reason for the discussion or that this was breaking news he would have competition. I just thought it was a good starting point to a discussion on his ranking that has fresh quotes.

I have had similar thoughts to Abdullah's situation in other threads. I just don't see Rawls earning a ranking that far above Abdullah, Karlos Williams, and Jeremy Langford outside of his apparent inside track to the starting job. Outside of situation is he that much better than those backs or does he have a case for why he will be better over the longterm? I don't see it.

[Shoreline Steamers]

I think a lot of people are on the Rawls train because of Seattle's reputation as a run-first team. If Rawls can nail down the lead back role in a system like that he could return a lot of value. But, nothing it set in stone and he'll have to earn it in camp. I guess where Seattle adds the competition (round(s) of the draft) will say a lot about how they actually view him.

But I think RB9 is a little high, and I've got the guy on my team! I'd put him top-20, but more in the 10-20 range.

[_yeti]

I think a lot of people are on the Rawls train because of Seattle's reputation as a run-first team. If Rawls can nail down the lead back role in a system like that he could return a lot of value. But, nothing it set in stone and he'll have to earn it in camp. I guess where Seattle adds the competition (round(s) of the draft) will say a lot about how they actually view him.

But I think RB9 is a little high, and I've got the guy on my team! I'd put him top-20, but more in the 10-20 range.

Good point. I definitely see the commitment they have to the run as a factor in making a Seattle running back valuable. My only pushback on this is without Beast Mode and with the passing explosion they finally had once he was gone, do they transition out of such a run heavy attack. All NFL teams want to run the ball well but with an unproven UDFA 2nd year player I dont see them being as much of a run-first team. I feel to keep that commitment to being run first they would want to bring in a higher profile guy?

[Jason]

Pete Carroll has always stressed competition, more than any other coach, that's how Matt Flynn lost his job before he ever took a regular season snap for them. This is nothing new or unexpected for this team so I'm not really panicking. I have faith that Rawls will beat out whatever they have on their roster unless they make some outlandish moves in free agency or he gets hurt again.

That said, he's probably not deserving of RB9 yet, but it's not like he's RB20 in my eyes either, he probably lies somewhere in the middle.

[slaughterrt]

Also gotta take into consideration this...if teams designate a RB as their "starter next year" now...then those RBs get complacent and get that sense of entitlement. All players have to put the work in, even vets. Even guys like Forte, AP, and similar guys should at least get the same "treatment" from their respective teams...even if the public (and everyone else) knows it's just bs. If players aren't pushed, then a lot of them won't push themselves, and as a result they don't get better. If the Hawks says that Rawls is the guy, then Rawls might get lazy/complacent and might not push himself as much as if he were declared as a RB in competition.

[DFHustle]

RB9 is valued too high. He's coming off an injury that could have more serious concerns (ligament tears, etc.). Rawls was good, but he wasn't much better than dozens of other running backs given the same opportunity. Would you, as Seattle, invest in an average-good running back off an injury when there are plenty of others you could sign off the street to do just as well? I wouldn't, I'd have a backup plan. So then what happens if he ends up in the split? Too many variables to see him as anything more than RB20+

[FantasyFreak]

Wait until Arizona resigns CJ2K.

[skip]

When the Seahawks sign Lamar Miller the Rawls owners are going to flip out...