BEAST MODE RETURNS?!?!

[Goddard]

Curious if we have any recent examples of RBs coming out of retirement to play effective football. The consensus seems to think Lynch steps in at near full strength after not playing for a year (and not playing very well the last time we saw him on the field).

Only person I can think of was Ricky Williams, but if I remember correctly, he was much younger than Lynch when he came back (don't quote me that though).

[James McGhee]

True. Might be a reach. It's tempting though.

[clarion contrarion]

he will be the top 31 year old rb on my draft board in the rookie draft this season , no question about it !

[Phaded]

Hard to expect too much out of him IF he does come back..
But as a Raiders fan, it beats the duo of DWash & Richard if it happens.

[jimmychoi]

I grabbed him last month for the heck of it. If he indeed comes back, I'll have to trade or drop D. Booker, but I'll deal with that when it comes. The Anderson owner might be interested.

[Valhalla]

Part of my wonders if this is a business decision...
The team gives lynch a 1 year decent deal to come back, maybe 2. Lynch may not quite live up to the contract, but the business side of the team may sell a lot more memorabilia (probably a LOT of lynch raiders jerseys) and they may see themselves coming out financially ahead, as a business. Whereas the contract for the team isn't damaging with the production they get

[HawkeyeState]

I'd put him returning and going to the Raiders at about 75% likely at this point.
I'd temper expectations, but their offense is very good and offensive line is top 5 in the NFL imo.
If Lynch is 70% of his 2014 season, that would put him at 196 carries, 914 yards, 9Tds just pure rushing. 145.4 points from a 31 year old is not bad. Add in some receptions and yards that way and you could do worse that's for sure.

I'd put decent money that he's better than 70% of his 2014 though

[ninotoreS]

he will be the top 31 year old rb on my draft board in the rookie draft this season , no question about it !

heeeee

If Lynch is 70% of his 2014 season, that would put him at 196 carries, 914 yards, 9Tds just pure rushing.

Uh huh. But what if he's 100% of his 2015 season?

[jcc6fd]

A lot of talk about Lynch's down 2015 foreshadowing poor performance in 2017. But pretty much everyone knows how bad Seattle's line was, so why are we neglecting the massive improvement in situation? He would be signed to be the power 2 down and goal line back in a potent offense. He's also had a year free from being hit by NFL defenders. RB2 numbers aren't outlandish to predict.

[onetwothree]

Season doesn't start next week. He'll have a few months to work his way into shape.

Would think a 2 yr deal so the guaranteed money can be spread out and he'll be with the team in their remaining Oakland years.

[ninotoreS]

A lot of talk about Lynch's down 2015 foreshadowing poor performance in 2017. But pretty much everyone knows how bad Seattle's line was

Was it? Rawls beasted behind that same line, that same season most weeks (with a few exceptions), and even mister cut-bait C-Mike came in behind that line in Week 17 and pretty much embarrassed the league's best (or maybe it was second best?) run-D.

Regardless, here's good ol' Football Outsiders to prove the point: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2015

So far as run-blocking goes, Seattle's '15 line wasn't bad at all, as you can see here. The idea that the line was the cause of Lynch's struggles is a myth, which I'm guessing people have assumed because they remember how bad the line's pass-blocking was that year (also shown there on that page), and assumed the run-blocking was similarly bad. But an O-line being good at one job and bad at the other is a fairly common occurrence.

[clarion contrarion]

started to post pretty much this ^^^

some girls are long and lean
some girls cook and clean

[Phaded]

Does anyone else find it amusing that Marshawn Lynch is potentially coming out of retirement to find work - whereas guys like Adrian Peterson & Jamaal Charles have garnered next-to-no interest?

[jcc6fd]

A lot of talk about Lynch's down 2015 foreshadowing poor performance in 2017. But pretty much everyone knows how bad Seattle's line was

Was it? Rawls beasted behind that same line, that same season most weeks (with a few exceptions), and even mister cut-bait C-Mike came in behind that line in Week 17 and pretty much embarrassed the league's best (or maybe it was second best?) run-D.

Regardless, here's good ol' Football Outsiders to prove the point: http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/ol2015

So far as run-blocking goes, Seattle's '15 line wasn't bad at all, as you can see here. The idea that the line was the cause of Lynch's struggles is a myth, which I'm guessing people have assumed because they remember how bad the line's pass-blocking was that year (also shown there on that page), and assumed the run-blocking was similarly bad. But an O-line being good at one job and bad at the other is a fairly common occurrence.

Thanks for posting the link. I have some criticism of it though:

While no one would deny Rawls's 2015 success that doesn't mean the line played well. The metrics per the link you provided are almost solely driven by running back performance, which in theory strongly correlates with the performance of the O-line. Makes sense, unless the running back is in fact transcending the poor performance of the line.

Below I've posted the link of profootballfocus' 2015 offensive line rankings:
https://www.profootballfocus.com/pro-ra ... is-season/

Seattle ranks 30th overall and 29th in run blocking. I trust profootballfocus' approach here, because they use individual player grades to drive their rankings of the O-line performance rather than rushing stats. The summary of Seattle's O-line even states "their poor play serves to only highlight how good the backs were, and how talented Russell Wilson is at extending plays."

We could go back in forth here, but I would submit that there's at least reputable sources that disagree with your assessment of the 2015 Seattle's O-line performance. And because I've owned Rawls since the beginning of 2015 I remember watching the games and seeing how he gained yards. It wasn't through holes the line made but usually through end-around runs and the power to break free from tacklers. Not to mention that a couple of his best games were against terrible run defenses.

Main point: Despite your article's statistical evaluation of rushing numbers the Oakland O-line in 2017 will be a much better situation than running behind the poor 2015 Seattle O-line. I think that will result in success for whatever power back Oakland brings in.

[ninotoreS]

Thanks for posting the link. I have some criticism of it though:

The metrics per the link you provided are almost solely driven by running back performance

Actually, Adjusted Line Yards is the opposite of that. So I have to criticize your criticism. I advise you spend a little more time looking into those various metrics FO employs.

As for PFF....

I generally trust PFF for high-profile, individual player tape study. But beyond that, they have a reliability problem.

PFF grading can be wonky because of the effectively anonymous way they employ their army of tape graders. There's very little accountability, and as a long time subscriber to PFF, I swear to you many of the graders seem to half-bleep it. They have some really weird grades sometimes, and some really fishy patterns. For one example: if there's an unheralded player that's having a bit of a breakout during a season, often that player's early season weekly grades on PFF will be rated replacement-level... then as soon as that player is finally getting noticed by the mainstream media, suddenly his PFF weekly grades instantly improve. Suspicious, yes? It happens A LOT on PFF. I've concluded that some (many?) PFF graders really only start paying attention to a player for truly accurate grading when they think a lot of people might actually be looking up that player's grades. Otherwise, they just guesstimate the grade based on general impressions and preconceptions.

As a PFF subscriber familiar with their occasional shenanigans, I can theorize what went wrong with their Seattle run-blocking grade:

Anonymous grader assigned the more obscure starters on Seattle's O-line watches the football casually, sees Wilson getting sacked a lot, and sees mighty Beast Mode struggling, sees Seattle losing games. Without doing truly careful tape study, he assumes Lynch's struggles must be the fault of the O-line, because he's Lynch, right? He's the star. So he mails in run-blocking and pass-blocking grades of, oh, say 50-60 for every lineman but its highest profile starter, Okung (who actually wasn't very good in '15, contradicting the article's claims, and that's why Seattle jettisoned Okung for '16). Later in the season, when Rawls takes over and starts lighting up the stats, the grades for all the linemen improve, but by then the averages for the linemen on the season have already been sabotaged.

Just a theory, of course. But I've seen this happen before with PFF grading. Too often, sadly.

Despite this problem, I do subscribe to PFF because they're really the only public source of organized individual player tape grading. However, for something like total unit performance, Football Outsiders is a better, more trustworthy source.

Does anyone else find it amusing that Marshawn Lynch is potentially coming out of retirement to find work - whereas guys like Adrian Peterson & Jamaal Charles have garnered next-to-no interest?

There's logic to it. AP isn't getting interest because he wants too much money; I'm guessing that's the only reason. Charles isn't getting much because he's a 30 year old 200lbs RB that is dealing with serious post-op complications from an ACL surgery. He's also torn the ACL in both knees now, iirc.

Lynch presumably is relatively healthy and won't be expensive.