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

[Death_From_Above]

I don't see it as having anything to do with Rawls, honestly. I believe it speaks more to Christine Michael. How many times did Seattle either cut or trade him? I'm not even being facetious. If they really liked the guy they wouldn't have let him go as many times as they did. Prosise isn't taking over for Rawls. Neither is Alex Ploddins. Seattle wanted to address their RB depth, which they did. Prosise could very well become the 3rd down back. But he's going to have to work on his pass blocking, a lot, before that's going to happen. Rawls' game isn't predicated on pass catching. He averaged 5.6 YPC and looked damn good last season. None of these rookies is going to usurp his early down role unless he isn't healthy enough to start the season.

Man them rose colored glasses run thick in this thread..

In the Ajayi & Langford threads people are/were foaming at the mouth over every inch of speculation they could gather from MIA/CHI's movements so they could discount both those RBs and say they were out of a job and over rated.

Rawls is on a team that has no loyalty to who or where you came from or what round you were picked up.. If you can play then the current starter better be watching his back.

Miami took a change of pace guy, Chicago took a plodder who could be an early down back and Seattle took not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 RB's in this draft or shortly afterwards..

Yeah I get it depth, but Miami and Chicago who both only had 2 backs on their roster prior to the draft took 1 running back, not 4.

Say what you want, think what you want.. But if your not worried then prepare to go down with the ship. Most definitely this should equal that Rawls is not deserving of RB9 ranking like what this thread asked.. And to answer the previous question if I bought than I'm concerned, if I was a seller than man I wish I had done it before Seattle took 4 RBs.. Cause like it or not this will worry folks.. Or should.

Good luck with this, glad the cost was too much for me to even consider looking at any shares of Rawls..

[Arkived]

I don't see it as having anything to do with Rawls, honestly. I believe it speaks more to Christine Michael. How many times did Seattle either cut or trade him? I'm not even being facetious. If they really liked the guy they wouldn't have let him go as many times as they did. Prosise isn't taking over for Rawls. Neither is Alex Ploddins. Seattle wanted to address their RB depth, which they did. Prosise could very well become the 3rd down back. But he's going to have to work on his pass blocking, a lot, before that's going to happen. Rawls' game isn't predicated on pass catching. He averaged 5.6 YPC and looked damn good last season. None of these rookies is going to usurp his early down role unless he isn't healthy enough to start the season.

Man them rose colored glasses run thick in this thread..

In the Ajayi & Langford threads people are/were foaming at the mouth over every inch of speculation they could gather from MIA/CHI's movements so they could discount both those RBs and say they were out of a job and over rated.

Rawls is on a team that has no loyalty to who or where you came from or what round you were picked up.. If you can play then the current starter better be watching his back.

Miami took a change of pace guy, Chicago took a plodder who could be an early down back and Seattle took not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 RB's in this draft or shortly afterwards..

Yeah I get it depth, but Miami and Chicago who both only had 2 backs on their roster prior to the draft took 1 running back, not 4.

Say what you want, think what you want.. But if your not worried then prepare to go down with the ship. Most definitely this should equal that Rawls is not deserving of RB9 ranking like what this thread asked.. And to answer the previous question if I bought than I'm concerned, if I was a seller than man I wish I had done it before Seattle took 4 RBs.. Cause like it or not this will worry folks.. Or should.

Good luck with this, glad the cost was too much for me to even consider looking at any shares of Rawls..

I would disagree with it being a case of "rose colored glasses" and attribute it to not being a paranoid owner or one of those "I told you so" type of people. Did you watch either Prosise or Collins in college? Honest question. I'm not worried because I watched them play; extensively.

Ajayi looked all right when he played last year. They didn't take anyone that appears to be a real threat to him being the initial starter in Miami. There's still the chance that they sign Foster or that Kenyon Drake is better than people think. But, Miami offered C.J. Anderson a contract. He signed said contract. The only reason he isn't the starter in Miami is because Denver matched their offer. That's a pretty significant reason to be worried about Ajayi's role in Miami.

Jeremy Langford - also a potential casualty of C.J. Anderson before he accepted Miami's offer (when Chicago offered him more money). Another case of the team being VERY public about what they think of their "starter". Also, aside from that one game where Langford had a long TD catch, he was atrocious. Completely incompetent as an NFL RB. He could improve, sure, but he didn't play well and his team tried to sign another RB to be their starter.

Thomas Rawls - 5.6 YPC his rookie season in the NFL. Played very well before breaking his ankle. His team didn't try to sign any of the free agent RBs that were available. His team then went out and drafted a bunch of rookie RBs that serve specific roles. Prosise isn't an early down back. He isn't a good pass blocker either. Alex Collins is pedestrian. He isn't athletic. He isn't a very good RB if I'm being honest. But he fits an early down role. Am I going to be worried about a rookie 3rd down back that cannot pass protect or a rookie early down back that isn't good taking the spot of Thomas Rawls? No.

Do I think that Rawls is the RB1 at the end of the season? Absolutely not. But in every game where Seattle fed him like a work horse before he went down, he played incredibly well. Of course it's a small sample size. I'm not anointing him King. But I'm also not going to discount his ability because the Dolphins and Bears only drafted 1 RB. I am going to do my best to be respectful here, because we are all entitled to our own opinions. But you comparing the three above running backs comes off as grasping at straws. I'm not worried until Rawls isn't starting Week 1 or he turns out not to be as good as he looked last season. Until then, the hate is just a lot of noise.

[HereForTheComments]

I don't see it as having anything to do with Rawls, honestly. I believe it speaks more to Christine Michael. How many times did Seattle either cut or trade him? I'm not even being facetious. If they really liked the guy they wouldn't have let him go as many times as they did. Prosise isn't taking over for Rawls. Neither is Alex Ploddins. Seattle wanted to address their RB depth, which they did. Prosise could very well become the 3rd down back. But he's going to have to work on his pass blocking, a lot, before that's going to happen. Rawls' game isn't predicated on pass catching. He averaged 5.6 YPC and looked damn good last season. None of these rookies is going to usurp his early down role unless he isn't healthy enough to start the season.

Man them rose colored glasses run thick in this thread..

In the Ajayi & Langford threads people are/were foaming at the mouth over every inch of speculation they could gather from MIA/CHI's movements so they could discount both those RBs and say they were out of a job and over rated.

Rawls is on a team that has no loyalty to who or where you came from or what round you were picked up.. If you can play then the current starter better be watching his back.

Miami took a change of pace guy, Chicago took a plodder who could be an early down back and Seattle took not 1, not 2, not 3, but 4 RB's in this draft or shortly afterwards..

Yeah I get it depth, but Miami and Chicago who both only had 2 backs on their roster prior to the draft took 1 running back, not 4.

Say what you want, think what you want.. But if your not worried then prepare to go down with the ship. Most definitely this should equal that Rawls is not deserving of RB9 ranking like what this thread asked.. And to answer the previous question if I bought than I'm concerned, if I was a seller than man I wish I had done it before Seattle took 4 RBs.. Cause like it or not this will worry folks.. Or should.

Good luck with this, glad the cost was too much for me to even consider looking at any shares of Rawls..

I never owned a share of Rawls and I don't plan to (unless the owner is like some of you and wants to sell off for cheap). I don't have any "rose colored glasses" on, and I pretty much stated the same thing....... I am truly unbiased.

The Seahawks were pretty clear in stating they see Prosis as a 3rd down back (Fred Jackson's role). Are front offices in the NFL always honest? No, but until I have any further information stating something different, I am going to believe them. I am sure Rawls was never brought in to take over their backfield but it happened, so I understand things can change. I am not, though, going to ignore what he did when he was provided the chance. If he is healthy, Carroll will give him the 1st opportunity. It was pretty obvious that the Seahawks have a need for RB depth and they didn't take anyone early. What does that tell me? They wanted to take some fliers on some late round/undrafted players to see who sticks to the wall they throw them at. Michael isn't very good... Jackson is old... and the rest behind Rawls are unknown. If I could bring in 10 RBs to try them out in camp and have first dibs, I would do it... so I see nothing wrong with snagging 4 unknown players (*edit* and also nothing to worry about).

[nwhalen]

You seem to be driving the anti-Rawls train here.

I have Rawls ranked 9th, which is down from 6th in my RB rankings after the draft. So I accounted for adding some RBs, but the only thing that concerns me is not coming back from the ankle injury. CJ Prosise is a soft RB that avoids/bounces runs to the outside and has solid hands.

You think Rawls should be in the 24-30 range with Ameer/Karlos/Duke/Langford/Jones/Jstew/Ivory?
2015:
Rawls 147 attempts 5.6 YPC
Ameer 143 att. 4.2 YPC
Karlos 93 att. 5.6 YPC
Duke 104 att. 3.6 YPC
Langford 148 att 3.6 YPC
Matt Jones 144 att 3.4 YPC
Jstew 242 att. 4.1 YPC
Ivory 247 att. 4.3 YPC
-2 of these are not like the others and it's not close. Karlos had 5.6 YPC as well but on 54 less attempts.
-Are you really going to put Matt Jones in the same tier as Rawls? Rawls averaged 2.2 more YPC than Jones! 2 more YPC than Langford and Duke!

Rawls has one of the best YPC from a rookie RB in recent memory(100 carry minimum). Maurice Jones-Drew was 5.7, AP 5.6 and you guessed it, Rawls was 5.6.

Receptions
Rawls 9 on 11 targets(7 in his last 3 full games)
Ameer 25 on 37 targets
Karlos 11 on 14 targets
Duke 61 on 77 targets
Langford 22 on 42 targets
Matt Jones 19 on 25 targets

The only guy that has proven to be a good pass catcher is Duke. So the only argument I can see is if you want Duke closer to Rawls, but the rest...I don't see it.

These guys are old and at this point if you want 29 year old RBs that are injury prone over a 23 year old Rawls(August) that flashed a higher YPC than either player did in any other single season in their NFL career, i'm not sure what to tell ya.
Jstew
Ivory



After all of this, you may think i'm a numbers guy. I am not, i'm the FILM in Filmetrx. Film tells me Rawls does many things on the football field very well and much better than Prosise. The only way I see him losing his job is if the ankle injury is not healing correctly.

We are all aware of his YPC. This is the problem with small sample sizes. If you take out an OT game against Cinci and 209 yards against a horrible SF defense, it drops to 4.8 YPC. That's almost a full yard less per carry difference. His YPC was great and establishes that he had a fantastic rookie year, I will never disagree with that.

In the game that he put up 209 yards against SF (his best game of his career), Russell Wilson also threw for 24-29 for for 260 yards, 3 TDs and 0 interceptions, so it wasn't exactly like they were locked in a tough game. If we were evaluating Russell Wilson on the same sample size as Rawls he would be the dynasty QB1. He threw for 24 TDs and 1 Int over the last 7 games. Christine Michael also put up 102 yards on 17 carries against a tough Arizona defense, so let's not act like this isn't a good running team and it was all Rawls. Yes, their O-Line needed help but they still were a team built to run.

Further along the YPC argument, if you look "Over the last two years, among backs to see at least 140 carries, here are the top ten in terms of yards per carry."
http://dynastyleaguefootball.com/2016/0 ... -mckinnon/

Yes, Rawls leads the list but look at some of the others, McKinnon, Mathews, Sproles, CJ Anderson. If you notice, Rawls has the second smallest sample size, and as I stated before, if you take out two games he drops to 4.8. Even just removing the easy win against SF, he drops to 5.3. This is far too small of a sample to show that he deserves top ten ranking. What it shows is he tore it up when his number was called, which is great but similar to CJ Anderson's breakout in 2014 the sample is too small for this to be the be-all-end-all of the debate.

Player Attempts Yards YPC TD
Thomas Rawls 147 830 5.65 4
Jamaal Charles 277 1397 5.04 13
Justin Forsett 386 1908 4.94 10
Jerick McKinnon 165 809 4.9 2
Todd Gurley 229 1106 4.83 10
Lamar Miller 410 1971 4.81 16
Ryan Mathews 182 869 4.77 9
Le’Veon Bell 403 1917 4.76 11
C.J. Anderson 331 1569 4.74 13
Darren Sproles 140 646 4.61 9"

Lastly, Rawls ankle injury isn't an anomaly. As I stated previously, it takes a special person to have a career as Beast Mode did. Rawls runs like him but he is too small to take and give that pounding in the NFL. Before he got hurt there were already questions whether he could sustain that style. He is not AP or Lynch. His legs were as young and fresh as they will ever be. He isn't getting faster and the hits will only accrue. He is an awesome back to watch and I can see why people want to make him top ten. I looked at this situation and said Seattle is going to try to replace him, they aren't going to commit to him, a couple months go by and look how they draft. We can quote his rookie stats forever, we all saw it. I'm attempting to see past the stats and say it was premature for him to be ranked this high. I have only continued to defend that position and that isn't being anti-Rawls.

I also watched his college tape and his NFL snaps. Just because you are a film guy doesn't just make you automatically right, I know the game of football too. I bought only two sleeper RBs preseason last year, only two. Karlos and Rawls, I think that's a pretty good predictor. I also posted many comments debating why Latavius Murray would win the starting job in Oakland over Helu when many thought he wouldn't.

This thread was raging far before Prosise showed up and isn't about Rawls vs. Prosise. For me, it's about Rawls future as a lead-back, especially past 2016, and not about any specific rookie they brought in. As far as where he would fit for me, I would have put Rawls behind Karlos and Ameer of those in that 25-30 range and in front of the rest.

1) Sounds like you're taking this as a personal attack on you with "I know the game of football too." Then you list calls that you got correct, etc. It's not a personal attack on you as a person or your football credibility. It's simply about Rawls. You're correct, i'm not going to go back and read through this entire thread. In fact, I rarely go into the message boards because pride/ego come into play way too much. I'd rather keep this on Rawls and dynasty ranking RBs.

2) Small sample size
This is relative IMO, 147 regular season carries is a good chunk. It's not a full season/multiple seasons/or 300 carries, but it's not 50 carries here. With the "small sample size" Rawls finished 16th in the NFL in yards(830) ahead of Jeremy Hill, Mark Ingram, Eddie Lacy, TJ Yeldon, CJ Anderson, Ameer Abdullah, and David Johnson.

3) Taking Rawls' best games out
This is a dangerous exercise and completely unfair unless you do it for every RB.
If you take out David Johnson's best two regular season games he's now averaging 3.9 YPC.
Gurley is down to 4.2
Ameer 3.7
Matt Jones 2.7

Then you took out Rawls best 2 games and his YPC is still at 4.8! Which shows his production not dependent on 1 or 2 games.


4) "Lets not act like Seattle isn't a good running situation"
The last time a Seattle RB averaged more than 5 ypc was 2010 with FB Michael Robinson on 12 attempts for 77 yards.
You throw in Cmike's best game as evidence, but hate the "small sample size" arguments?
Cmike had 60 carries in Seattle in 2015 for 4.4 YPC vs 5.6 for Rawls. Since you like to take games out, I took out Cmike's longest run in Seattle(1 play, not a game) and it dropped his YPC down to 3.7.

5) 40 time is the most worthless measurable trait at the combine for a RB. The amount of times a RB runs 40 yards without pads on, starting from a 3 point stance, without a football, and with no defenders tackling him in the NFL = 0
Burst, vision, leverage, agility, hands, determination, instincts are all more important than a 40 time.

6) Thomas Rawls is too small to withstand the NFL punishment?
Rawls is 5'9" 215
Frank Gore is 5'9" 217 and has played 12 years in the NFL.
Marshawn Lynch is 5'11" 215, in terms of BMI, Rawls>Lynch.

7) You would put Karlos Williams ahead of Rawls. You ding Rawls for a small sample size, what about Williams' 93 carries vs Rawls 147? Situation....Rawls vs Prosise/Collins but Shady McCoy/Jonathan Williams/Gillislee vs Karlos.
Seems like you're picking and choosing situation/sample size to fit your narrative.

8) I think the biggest concern here is deserving of a high dynasty ranking.
I have him #9, his consensus DLF ranking is now down to 12.
Here are the next few guys.
#10) Melvin Gordon. This shows i'm not a stat guy because of his season. On film, Gordon had a much better season than his film shows. Hit in the backfield a lot and no holes due to all of the injuries on the OL.
#11) Eddie Lacy. He's 25 and was overweight last season. Does he stay motivated? He's also an UFA after the season and think a lot of his dynasty value has been tied to his situation in GB, which may not be a long term thing. If he signs a long term deal, i'll move him up.
#12) CJA. Resigned by Denver and got some love from other teams. The scheme in Denver is good, but is the OL getting better? He has had issues with injuries thus far when he's been an NFL starter.
#13) Hyde. Hasn't shown much in the NFL outside of 1 game.
(The last 3 players are almost 2 years older than Rawls, which matters with RBs)
#14) Derrick Henry. I have him this high due to age and talent. His opportunity is cluttered.
#15) Adrian Peterson. He's 31 and everyone falls off out of nowhere near this age. Remember LT?
#16) Charles. He's 29 coming off of another ACL injury. Injuries don't heal as well when they're older and his last full season he saw less than 270 touches. I think it will continue to get dialed back at his age.
#17) Shady McCoy. Turns 28 this offseason. He's seen an increase is injuries the past few years and a big decline in production. Karlos Williams and Jon Williams will chip into his touches.
#18) Ajayi = Less proven than Rawls
#19) K. Dixon = Proven nothing in the NFL and 4th round pick
#20) Yeldon = they signed Ivory, which hurts him for a few years and he needs lots of touches to be a good FF asset.

I can continue, but for the sake of time...that's my reasoning. Rawls is the youngest player that's proven the most on the field and that's why I have him at #9.

[Arkived]

You tell him Nick!

[maxhyde]

I can agree with the assessment of all the players.
I guess I just question why Rawls is assumed to get 250+ touches that Lynch was getting. I see a much uglier timeshare/RBBC as a distinct possibility so I don't give Rawls that large percentage of the work based on his age and that he showed very well last year.
Shady and Lacy are 2 guys I just can't push out of a top 10 because they are 26/27/28 because their roles are fairly certain this year

I guess for me RB is too volatile to play the guessing game with NFL franchises about what they will/should/could do. I probably treat RB's more like redraft than dynasty because of this though and that isn't always an easy style to make work.

[Jfever]

x2 ^

[_yeti]

1) Sounds like you're taking this as a personal attack on you with "I know the game of football too." Then you list calls that you got correct, etc. It's not a personal attack on you as a person or your football credibility. It's simply about Rawls. You're correct, i'm not going to go back and read through this entire thread. In fact, I rarely go into the message boards because pride/ego come into play way too much. I'd rather keep this on Rawls and dynasty ranking RBs.

2) Small sample size
This is relative IMO, 147 regular season carries is a good chunk. It's not a full season/multiple seasons/or 300 carries, but it's not 50 carries here. With the "small sample size" Rawls finished 16th in the NFL in yards(830) ahead of Jeremy Hill, Mark Ingram, Eddie Lacy, TJ Yeldon, CJ Anderson, Ameer Abdullah, and David Johnson.

3) Taking Rawls' best games out
This is a dangerous exercise and completely unfair unless you do it for every RB.
If you take out David Johnson's best two regular season games he's now averaging 3.9 YPC.
Gurley is down to 4.2
Ameer 3.7
Matt Jones 2.7

Then you took out Rawls best 2 games and his YPC is still at 4.8! Which shows his production not dependent on 1 or 2 games.


4) "Lets not act like Seattle isn't a good running situation"
The last time a Seattle RB averaged more than 5 ypc was 2010 with FB Michael Robinson on 12 attempts for 77 yards.
You throw in Cmike's best game as evidence, but hate the "small sample size" arguments?
Cmike had 60 carries in Seattle in 2015 for 4.4 YPC vs 5.6 for Rawls. Since you like to take games out, I took out Cmike's longest run in Seattle(1 play, not a game) and it dropped his YPC down to 3.7.

5) 40 time is the most worthless measurable trait at the combine for a RB. The amount of times a RB runs 40 yards without pads on, starting from a 3 point stance, without a football, and with no defenders tackling him in the NFL = 0
Burst, vision, leverage, agility, hands, determination, instincts are all more important than a 40 time.

6) Thomas Rawls is too small to withstand the NFL punishment?
Rawls is 5'9" 215
Frank Gore is 5'9" 217 and has played 12 years in the NFL.
Marshawn Lynch is 5'11" 215, in terms of BMI, Rawls>Lynch.

7) You would put Karlos Williams ahead of Rawls. You ding Rawls for a small sample size, what about Williams' 93 carries vs Rawls 147? Situation....Rawls vs Prosise/Collins but Shady McCoy/Jonathan Williams/Gillislee vs Karlos.
Seems like you're picking and choosing situation/sample size to fit your narrative.

8) I think the biggest concern here is deserving of a high dynasty ranking.
I have him #9, his consensus DLF ranking is now down to 12.
Here are the next few guys.
#10) Melvin Gordon. This shows i'm not a stat guy because of his season. On film, Gordon had a much better season than his film shows. Hit in the backfield a lot and no holes due to all of the injuries on the OL.
#11) Eddie Lacy. He's 25 and was overweight last season. Does he stay motivated? He's also an UFA after the season and think a lot of his dynasty value has been tied to his situation in GB, which may not be a long term thing. If he signs a long term deal, i'll move him up.
#12) CJA. Resigned by Denver and got some love from other teams. The scheme in Denver is good, but is the OL getting better? He has had issues with injuries thus far when he's been an NFL starter.
#13) Hyde. Hasn't shown much in the NFL outside of 1 game.
(The last 3 players are almost 2 years older than Rawls, which matters with RBs)
#14) Derrick Henry. I have him this high due to age and talent. His opportunity is cluttered.
#15) Adrian Peterson. He's 31 and everyone falls off out of nowhere near this age. Remember LT?
#16) Charles. He's 29 coming off of another ACL injury. Injuries don't heal as well when they're older and his last full season he saw less than 270 touches. I think it will continue to get dialed back at his age.
#17) Shady McCoy. Turns 28 this offseason. He's seen an increase is injuries the past few years and a big decline in production. Karlos Williams and Jon Williams will chip into his touches.
#18) Ajayi = Less proven than Rawls
#19) K. Dixon = Proven nothing in the NFL and 4th round pick
#20) Yeldon = they signed Ivory, which hurts him for a few years and he needs lots of touches to be a good FF asset.

I can continue, but for the sake of time...that's my reasoning. Rawls is the youngest player that's proven the most on the field and that's why I have him at #9.

My responses in bold.
1) Sounds like you're taking this as a personal attack on you with "I know the game of football too." Then you list calls that you got correct, etc. It's not a personal attack on you as a person or your football credibility. It's simply about Rawls. You're correct, i'm not going to go back and read through this entire thread. In fact, I rarely go into the message boards because pride/ego come into play way too much. I'd rather keep this on Rawls and dynasty ranking RBs.

I'm not taking it as a personal attack, but rather responding. You roll in, personally address me, incorrectly label me as leading an anti-Rawls train, don't read any of my reasoning within the thread, rattle off some stats that we all already know, and then drop "After all of this, you may think i'm a numbers guy. I am not, i'm the FILM in Filmetrx." That's a lot of chest-thumping, to just roll in with and declare someone else's points invalid after all of this discussion. I'm the bad guy for listing some calls I got right when you're "the FILM (caps yours) in Filmetrx?" I actually have gone through this whole thread without chest-thumping about any of what makes myself or others qualified or unqualified to offer an opinion. I didn't go on message boards for a quite a long while but I have started to like it. You seem to be saying you are above the boards but as this thread continued to stay toward the top, you felt the need to drop in and grace it with your presence and defend your Rawls ranking. Sounds like you're correct, that does sound like ego coming into play.

2) Small sample size
This is relative IMO, 147 regular season carries is a good chunk. It's not a full season/multiple seasons/or 300 carries, but it's not 50 carries here. With the "small sample size" Rawls finished 16th in the NFL in yards(830) ahead of Jeremy Hill, Mark Ingram, Eddie Lacy, TJ Yeldon, CJ Anderson, Ameer Abdullah, and David Johnson.

Yes, he did. Jeremy Hill also had a horrible sophomore slump that I believe he will bounce back from, a year before Gio was dead to the world due to Hill. Lacy ate himself out of relevance and losing Jordy along with that and having an injured Cobb all year really hurt that offense. Lacy is now in better shape and also looks to bounce back. The Jags, took the smart move of sparingly using Yeldon rather than trying to run him to the wheels fall off. Two reasons why, they gave Bortles and the passing game tons of opportunity to develop, and they weren't remotely close to contending. What they have both said, and also done in bringing in Ivory, is that they value Yeldon very much and for this reason they are not trying to build too much wear and tear in meaningless situations. (The Seahawks on the other hand were battling back, hell-bent on making the playoffs, and had no such allegiance, investment, or concern in Rawls health). CJ Anderson was one who I picked up on waivers his rookie year (yup, him too) and who I did not come close to buying at his post-rookie inflated price (like Rawls). Abdullah is a guy I have said on other posts will not hold down a longterm lead back role but may be a Sproles type guy. David Johnson did the most damage on receptions, and he also did it on a Super Bowl hopeful team, and I think he is also being greatly overrated. He did not produce as well as is thought in the rushing game as you note and is another guy being crowned too early.

3) Taking Rawls' best games out
This is a dangerous exercise and completely unfair unless you do it for every RB.
If you take out David Johnson's best two regular season games he's now averaging 3.9 YPC.
Gurley is down to 4.2
Ameer 3.7
Matt Jones 2.7

Then you took out Rawls best 2 games and his YPC is still at 4.8! Which shows his production not dependent on 1 or 2 games.

I have repeatedly said that he produced well and he is a good football player. That is why predicting the NFL is so tricky. According to your reasoning they shouldn't be bringing any backs at all, but they brought in a ton! And I predicted that. How can that be? If his YPC was so high he must be the best guy for the job. Not the case. My point is just that the sample size is so small that to slightly alter it alters the stats considerably. Gurley is not valued where he is bc of YPC, it is bc of his attributes, skill set, metrics, body of work. He was getting stacked boxes by defenses all year on a horrible offense, to compare the two without this context further shows how prediction of future years can go awry.

4) "Lets not act like Seattle isn't a good running situation"
The last time a Seattle RB averaged more than 5 ypc was 2010 with FB Michael Robinson on 12 attempts for 77 yards.
You throw in Cmike's best game as evidence, but hate the "small sample size" arguments?
Cmike had 60 carries in Seattle in 2015 for 4.4 YPC vs 5.6 for Rawls. Since you like to take games out, I took out Cmike's longest run in Seattle(1 play, not a game) and it dropped his YPC down to 3.7.

Your entire argument for Rawls valuation hinges on production within a very specific window and his YPC. This response comes off as a knock on Lynch and almost saying Rawls was/is better, which is ludicrous! CMike is not included in regards to sample size and also you are using it as if it was an argument FOR CMike, that's where sample size would play. Rather, it was an argument for what the teams rushing offense did in the same window with a guy other than Rawls. The taking out of games was a thought exercise to show how much a small amount can affect stats in a small sample, not to say Rawls didn't earn those stats or they aren't his. You are mixing rationales. Cmike's game is included to show what the team did with another runner in the same window against one of the best defenses in the league. That is a specific point being made.

5) 40 time is the most worthless measurable trait at the combine for a RB. The amount of times a RB runs 40 yards without pads on, starting from a 3 point stance, without a football, and with no defenders tackling him in the NFL = 0
Burst, vision, leverage, agility, hands, determination, instincts are all more important than a 40 time.

40 time is not worthless if it shows he is one of the absolute slowest guys at his position. That matters. Whether the rest of those traits as a runner are important are unquestioned, but a team will not commit to a slow back who will only get slower as the punishment adds up.

6) Thomas Rawls is too small to withstand the NFL punishment?
Rawls is 5'9" 215
Frank Gore is 5'9" 217 and has played 12 years in the NFL.
Marshawn Lynch is 5'11" 215, in terms of BMI, Rawls>Lynch.

He's not too small to withstand punishment, did you not read what I said? His running style IS punishing. He seeks contact, he finishes runs, and he makes the defender pay. This is something I love, and it is what drew Seattle to him. But he is not Lynch. Lynch did this over a career and plays much larger than Rawls. Crazy how a person can quote off heights and weights and that seems to prove everything. Look to Derrick Henry and his soft running style, he doesn't play big at all, and is not aggressive, also for this reason will not have the same type of collisions that Rawls initiates. It is part of what makes Rawls a good back, it just is not something he is going to be able to last in the NFL doing.

The fact that Lynch with only a slightly larger frame is so strong and one of the most physical backs of all time shows why this is not just an area where we can just rattle off stats or height and weight attributes. It was a concern whether Rawls body could hold up before he lowered his shoulder into a D Lineman and got his ankle snapped. I would similarly say Karlos Williams big body is an extreme injury risk after we saw how often he was hurt this past year.

7) You would put Karlos Williams ahead of Rawls. You ding Rawls for a small sample size, what about Williams' 93 carries vs Rawls 147? Situation....Rawls vs Prosise/Collins but Shady McCoy/Jonathan Williams/Gillislee vs Karlos.
Seems like you're picking and choosing situation/sample size to fit your narrative.

It's not picking and choosing to fit an argument. This is more of an art than a science, you can't just add up the factors and stats and get a score and have it be the be-all-end-all. You need to consider all the factors you can, but every player is a unique person, at the end of the day we are predicting there athletic careers, there is no one "correct formula." In this thread I have put rationale behind why I do not think Rawls will be a starter but rather will be a good backup for his career. They are my predictions and they have not played out, nor are they bulletproof. They are educated guesses, as all of this is.

I don't put Karlos ahead of Rawls based just on a measurement of stats. That is the whole problem with this entire endeavor, everyone is just chasing yesterday's stats parroting them back and using them as proof of everything! It takes some guts to make a prediction that isn't just here is YPC, here is how many TDs he scored, he is better, done.

Karlos was one of the biggest backs of his draft and also one of the fastest. He and Rawls both had character and work ethic concerns (Karlos worse than Rawls) and the Bills, a run-focused team took him in the fifth. The difference between 4.4 speed and 4.6 speed is massive. Karlos came in and shot up the depth chart faster than Rawls did in Seattle. He tied a rookie record for TDs and he is a much better receiver than Rawls. Yes, I view him higher, yes these are the reasons why. Is this proven yet? No. This is why we are predicting, it takes a year or two or three to play out what was correct. to just parrot stats and compare them will not necessarily lead to accurate predictions.

8) I think the biggest concern here is deserving of a high dynasty ranking.
I have him #9, his consensus DLF ranking is now down to 12.
Here are the next few guys.
#10) Melvin Gordon. This shows i'm not a stat guy because of his season. On film, Gordon had a much better season than his film shows. Hit in the backfield a lot and no holes due to all of the injuries on the OL.
#11) Eddie Lacy. He's 25 and was overweight last season. Does he stay motivated? He's also an UFA after the season and think a lot of his dynasty value has been tied to his situation in GB, which may not be a long term thing. If he signs a long term deal, i'll move him up.
#12) CJA. Resigned by Denver and got some love from other teams. The scheme in Denver is good, but is the OL getting better? He has had issues with injuries thus far when he's been an NFL starter.
#13) Hyde. Hasn't shown much in the NFL outside of 1 game.
(The last 3 players are almost 2 years older than Rawls, which matters with RBs)
#14) Derrick Henry. I have him this high due to age and talent. His opportunity is cluttered.
#15) Adrian Peterson. He's 31 and everyone falls off out of nowhere near this age. Remember LT?
#16) Charles. He's 29 coming off of another ACL injury. Injuries don't heal as well when they're older and his last full season he saw less than 270 touches. I think it will continue to get dialed back at his age.
#17) Shady McCoy. Turns 28 this offseason. He's seen an increase is injuries the past few years and a big decline in production. Karlos Williams and Jon Williams will chip into his touches.
#18) Ajayi = Less proven than Rawls
#19) K. Dixon = Proven nothing in the NFL and 4th round pick
#20) Yeldon = they signed Ivory, which hurts him for a few years and he needs lots of touches to be a good FF asset.

I can continue, but for the sake of time...that's my reasoning. Rawls is the youngest player that's proven the most on the field and that's why I have him at #9.

I don't agree with slotting all of those guys ahead of Rawls (would put Dixon quite a bit behind him) but yes, I would put the rest of them ahead of him. I disagree with basically every rundown of every player you have there. Be it for being I would rather have a veteran who I know will get burn but may not have as much left in the tank (AP, Charles, McCoy) when Rawls will likely be riding a bench by the time they are over the hill, even if that's 2017. Lacy is back in shape and the pack is getting Jordy back, that offense will be clicking, he is the clear lead back if he is in shape, which we know he now is. The Chargers are very committed to Gordon and he will get the chance to prove he deserved his original projections. Hyde was on a horrible team, and battled injuries, he retains the same projection he had last season for me, which is still better than a guy who may not even be the starter (Rawls). I am not in love with CJA at all and he has a lot of similarities with Rawls, (physical style, unclear committee, UDFA), but he did look better toward the end of the season when they said he was finally healthy. I would not buy CJA anywhere, personally, and would push him further down this list than others. Ajayi and Henry are unproven but are big guys who are a gamble. I would rank them higher than Rawls, because though I think Rawls has proven he has the chops to produce I think they will get a bigger opportunity to be a starter, especially Henry down the line. He may be in what looks like a bad situation, but once again that is redraft thinking. It is a GREAT situation to land on a team with their franchise QB, and learn behind another tall back in Demarco Murray before getting on the field. Henry is a better prospect for that in my opinion because of how it will help him a couple years from now.

I think the signing of Ivory helps Yeldon because it helps him stay healthier. Outside of the top skill tier of backs (Zeke, Gurley, AP, Charles) almost everyone is going to committees, and Yeldon and Ivory will be a good combo. This is a dynamic offense that put up a lot of offense this offseason, by having a banger in Ivory and then a back who can play all three downs in Yeldon isn't as bad as it looks at all. He will still get his touches every game and he is the more important back for the teams future.

I can keep going as well but, as you said time. This took forever, I'm not going to even proof-read it
He's a young guy and he had a great season when he got to be the bellcow. My reasoning all just gets to my position that he will not get that role again and as time goes on he will get further and further from it. There isn't much more we can say. Now to watch the season and next and see who is right.

[nwhalen]

I'm not taking it as a personal attack, but rather responding. You roll in, personally address me, incorrectly label me as leading an anti-Rawls train, don't read any of my reasoning within the thread, rattle off some stats that we all already know, and then drop "After all of this, you may think i'm a numbers guy. I am not, i'm the FILM in Filmetrx." That's a lot of chest-thumping, to just roll in with and declare someone else's points invalid after all of this discussion. I'm the bad guy for listing some calls I got right when you're "the FILM (caps yours) in Filmetrx?" I actually have gone through this whole thread without chest-thumping about any of what makes myself or others qualified or unqualified to offer an opinion. I didn't go on message boards for a quite a long while but I have started to like it. You seem to be saying you are above the boards but as this thread continued to stay toward the top, you felt the need to drop in and grace it with your presence and defend your Rawls ranking. Sounds like you're correct, that does sound like ego coming into play.

Odd everything after that sentence sounds personal. Which I previously stated, I wanted to keep this about Rawls and his ranking.

Chest thumping...seriously. This is a conversation about fake football, on the internet with someone I don't know.

[Death_From_Above]

I would disagree with it being a case of "rose colored glasses" and attribute it to not being a paranoid owner or one of those "I told you so" type of people. Did you watch either Prosise or Collins in college? Honest question. I'm not worried because I watched them play; extensively.

Ajayi looked all right when he played last year. They didn't take anyone that appears to be a real threat to him being the initial starter in Miami. There's still the chance that they sign Foster or that Kenyon Drake is better than people think.

These are those glasses I am talking about...

From your mouth Miami didnt take anyone that appears to be a real threat but then Kenyan Drake can be better than people think...

Yet Prosise and Collins, who were both rated higher by real analysts don't oppose a threat to Rawls.

Not trying to turn this into a Ajayi/Langford Ralws battle.. Just using those threads as examples of exactly what I pointed out with your last statement. Rose colored glasses.

[_yeti]

I'm not taking it as a personal attack, but rather responding. You roll in, personally address me, incorrectly label me as leading an anti-Rawls train, don't read any of my reasoning within the thread, rattle off some stats that we all already know, and then drop "After all of this, you may think i'm a numbers guy. I am not, i'm the FILM in Filmetrx." That's a lot of chest-thumping, to just roll in with and declare someone else's points invalid after all of this discussion. I'm the bad guy for listing some calls I got right when you're "the FILM (caps yours) in Filmetrx?" I actually have gone through this whole thread without chest-thumping about any of what makes myself or others qualified or unqualified to offer an opinion. I didn't go on message boards for a quite a long while but I have started to like it. You seem to be saying you are above the boards but as this thread continued to stay toward the top, you felt the need to drop in and grace it with your presence and defend your Rawls ranking. Sounds like you're correct, that does sound like ego coming into play.

Odd everything after that sentence sounds personal. Which I previously stated, I wanted to keep this about Rawls and his ranking.

Chest thumping...seriously. This is a conversation about fake football, on the internet with someone I don't know.

Interesting route, just completely dismiss any substance of the statement which was analysis of the exchange, and instead just double-down with repeating the label you have placed on it.

There is a bit of an implicit statement included when you refer to yourself almost in the third person as a title/inanimate object, "the FILM in Filmetrx" and then use that qualification to preface what film tells you (which is the things Rawls does better than Prosise and the only way he can lose his job). There is a very all-knowing absoluteness to such a statement, especially when used as a conclusion. You will forgive me if I wanted to explain my position further (reiterating things I had already said on the thread so that you could see my rationale, because as you have said you did not read back through it. One of my key points in response was that my analysis centered around Rawls and the Seahawks organization, not Rawls vs Prosise) and also listed some calls I have gotten right in similar situations (maybe a poor man's description of himself as having some FILM in him, so as to have some qualification for your mic drop to not be the be-all-end-all "only way Rawls can lose his job").

To directly address someone and their position, while acknowledging you didn't really read their rationale for it, and then complete a mic drop ending with your qualification and an absolute statement on what will happen was fine, but apparently I took that too personal and should have not provided any responses of rationale for my position or any similar statements on calls regarding similar running back situations. Sorry about that, next time I will try to keep it strictly on the football as you said and not take it personal, which is what happened here, apparently.

But maybe, could it be that as the writer with Rawls ranked the highest you took this thread continually hanging around a little personal and came to defend your ranking, and you are projecting a bit when you continue to label me as the one taking it personal?

There's a really similar situation in the movie Wedding Crashers, here, check it out:

Owen Wilson: What's wrong with you?
Vince Vaughn: What do you mean "what's wrong with me?" What's wrong with you?
OW: No, what's wrong with you?
VV: No, what's wrong with you? You're projecting!
OW: Drop it.
VV: You drop it! You stop projecting on me! Why don't you go enjoy yourself while I go ice my balls and spit up blood.
OW: Drop it! [starts walking away]
VV: Team player!

[Balzac]

I'm not taking it as a personal attack, but rather responding. You roll in, personally address me, incorrectly label me as leading an anti-Rawls train, don't read any of my reasoning within the thread, rattle off some stats that we all already know, and then drop "After all of this, you may think i'm a numbers guy. I am not, i'm the FILM in Filmetrx." That's a lot of chest-thumping, to just roll in with and declare someone else's points invalid after all of this discussion. I'm the bad guy for listing some calls I got right when you're "the FILM (caps yours) in Filmetrx?" I actually have gone through this whole thread without chest-thumping about any of what makes myself or others qualified or unqualified to offer an opinion. I didn't go on message boards for a quite a long while but I have started to like it. You seem to be saying you are above the boards but as this thread continued to stay toward the top, you felt the need to drop in and grace it with your presence and defend your Rawls ranking. Sounds like you're correct, that does sound like ego coming into play.

Odd everything after that sentence sounds personal. Which I previously stated, I wanted to keep this about Rawls and his ranking.

Chest thumping...seriously. This is a conversation about fake football, on the internet with someone I don't know.

Interesting route, just completely dismiss any substance of the statement which was analysis of the exchange, and instead just double-down with repeating the label you have placed on it.

There is a bit of an implicit statement included when you refer to yourself almost in the third person as a title/inanimate object, "the FILM in Filmetrx" and then use that qualification to preface what film tells you (which is the things Rawls does better than Prosise and the only way he can lose his job). There is a very all-knowing absoluteness to such a statement, especially when used as a conclusion. You will forgive me if I wanted to explain my position further (reiterating things I had already said on the thread so that you could see my rationale, because as you have said you did not read back through it. One of my key points in response was that my analysis centered around Rawls and the Seahawks organization, not Rawls vs Prosise) and also listed some calls I have gotten right in similar situations (maybe a poor man's description of himself as having some FILM in him, so as to have some qualification for your mic drop to not be the be-all-end-all "only way Rawls can lose his job").

To directly address someone and their position, while acknowledging you didn't really read their rationale for it, and then complete a mic drop ending with your qualification and an absolute statement on what will happen was fine, but apparently I took that too personal and should have not provided any responses of rationale for my position or any similar statements on calls regarding similar running back situations. Sorry about that, next time I will try to keep it strictly on the football as you said and not take it personal, which is what happened here, apparently.

But maybe, could it be that as the writer with Rawls ranked the highest you took this thread continually hanging around a little personal and came to defend your ranking, and you are projecting a bit when you continue to label me as the one taking it personal?

There's a really similar situation in the movie Wedding Crashers, here, check it out:

Owen Wilson: What's wrong with you?
Vince Vaughn: What do you mean "what's wrong with me?" What's wrong with you?
OW: No, what's wrong with you?
VV: No, what's wrong with you? You're projecting!
OW: Drop it.
VV: You drop it! You stop projecting on me! Why don't you go enjoy yourself while I go ice my balls and spit up blood.
OW: Drop it! [starts walking away]
VV: Team player!

Looks like you are wasting your time. Your last response to him was very well done. He has taken the low road.

[ArrylT]

Is Rawls Vince Vaughn or is he Owen Wilson?

On a more serious note - really liked the discussion so far - some interesting points being made and I have read it a few times over the past couple days. I dont think it will change my stance on Rawls, but it definitely helps me realize that the variety of outcomes is more pronounced than originally anticipated, and that I am also mis-judging Rawls talent level - so for that my thanks.

[GridironGuerilla]

Is Rawls Vince Vaughn or is he Owen Wilson?

On a more serious note - really liked the discussion so far - some interesting points being made and I have read it a few times over the past couple days. I dont think it will change my stance on Rawls, but it definitely helps me realize that the variety of outcomes is more pronounced than originally anticipated, and that I am also mis-judging Rawls talent level - so for that my thanks.

I think a_yeti is Owen, and dlf_nickw is Vince Vaughn but I could be mistaken.

I agree. Even when conversations go sideways, I always seem to be able to gleen some good info from these threads.

[nwhalen]

Low road= behavior or practice that is immoral.
-I've tried to keep this about Rawls.

I think people need to realize 90% of communication is body language and tone. 0% of my posts have a vicious intent.

"You seem to be driving the anti-Rawls train here"
seem=give the impression
-meaning it's not a definite statement and has plenty of room for error

"Declare someone's points invalid"
"i'm the bad guy because..."
"I know the game of football too"
-NOBODY said you're invalid
-NOBODY said you're a bad guy
-NOBODY said you don't know football

These are assumptions, nothing I said(won't speak for others) indicates any of those.

I'm not going to continue to dedicate time to someone that thinks i'm "chest bumping" "mic dropping" "grace us with your presence" etc
I mentioned FILM in filmetrx because I thought people would jump all over the YPC and statistic points. If you take that as chest bumping, I guess I don't know what to tell ya. Could I have worded that differently? Sure, but I can't go back in time. But trying to speak to what I was thinking when I said something is a silly endeavor.