PDA

View Full Version : Are We Better Off Without Willie Parker?


RJC
12-23-2007, 10:03 PM
Now before you all get your panties all in a bunch, hear me out. RBs gain yards. RBs that get over 100 yards are considered to have a good game. When a RB accumulates 1,000+ yards in a season it's considered to be a great season. However, when you look harder at RBs, and identify the style in which they play you'll discover that YPC is one of the most deceiving stats in sports.

Look closer with me. You have 2 RBs playing for 2 different teams, both end their games on Sunday with stat line that reads like this: 100 yards on 20 carries for 5.0 YPC. Nice numbers for sure. Until you look at the style in which they were gained.
RB #1, his carries played out like this:
1, 3, -1, 5, 2, 0, 0, 4, 2, 8, 2, 4, 54, -4, 1, 3, 4, 2, 9, 0,

RB #2's carries play out like this:
4, 3, 5, 8, 6, 5, 3, 5, 10, 2, 9, 1, 9, 5, 11, 4, 6, 9, 4, 6

Now, you see RB #1 hit a long run of 54 yards. It made SportsCenter high lights. He also had 11 runs under 3 yards. He forced us into 2nd, 3rd and long. Exposed his QB to a heavier pass rush. Led to predictability.

RB#2 never had a run longer than 11 yards, but he also had only 2 runs under 3 yards. He plodded along. Moved chains, broke tackles, sustained drives, converted 3rd downs, ate clock, wore down the defense, kept his QB out of 2nd, 3rd & Long.

As you can clearly see, both had the same stat line, but they played very different games. RB #1's offense had to wait for him to break his long run, to get any real production. RB#2 contributed all throughout the game.

By now you should know who #1 & #2 are. Parker hurt our offense as much as he helped. While he did lead the league in yards, he also lead the league in tackles for loses and stuffs at the line of scrimmage. Davenport, gained consistent positive yardage through out the game. Parker's career high against Baltimore is 68 yards. We'll see how Davenport does next Sunday. How he does will interest us all to see if the offense is better with Naj over Willie.....
:helmet:

OneForTheToe
12-23-2007, 10:06 PM
Are We Better Off Without Willie Parker?



No ... and I am not wearing any panties at all.

Indy_Steelers
12-23-2007, 10:15 PM
they are both good

ShutDown24
12-23-2007, 10:15 PM
Well considering Najeh Davenport was cut from a horrible Packers squad last year you must be right... Parker being out helps us because now Davenport is more consistant right? Wrong.

Parker has 4.2 YPC on the year while Davenport has 4.9... Oh and Davenport has fresh legs most of the time. But if you think .7 yards extra on the average is worth more than better pass protection, a few long runs and better play action then hey, I guess I can't stop you.

Davenport is a decent back up, nothing more.

cubanstogie
12-23-2007, 11:59 PM
unless you have a truly dominate back like Walter Payton, Barry Sanders, eric Dickerson, Bo Jackson, Marcus Allen too many more to name, you need two backs with different styles to be effective. Like Willie and Jerome were. Willis is solid and lightening fast but not in same category as the above mentioned. I don't think we lose that much without willie. I still think we are better off with him than without him though. Davenport by himself is not the answer either. Davenport is better out of the backfield catching passes in my opinion. Davis showed some promise the other night. I really haven't see n Russell do anything in the pros to impress me. If Najeh is injured we are really in trouble and thats what worries me. He is injury prone. I would love to have Brandon Jacobs or a Stephen Jackson type back, I think they are better suited for our offensive style. I could be wrong but I thing if you plugged in a number of backs in our offense and gave them the carries Willie has they would be leading the league in rushing as well. We will be fine without him. We need our defense to get back to the form they had earlier in the season and hope for zero turnovers to win in playoffs.

Glace
12-24-2007, 12:32 AM
Our offense needs a big back.

I'm not trashing willie...never have....but he's not the long-term solution.

Preacher
12-24-2007, 12:37 AM
Our offense needs a big back.

I'm not trashing willie...never have....but he's not the long-term solution.

NO.

Our QB, Receivers, and RB need a OL that can block for him.

You don't change all of your skilled positions for the 5 guys on the line, you change the line for all of your skilled positions.

Do we need a change of pace big back... a back to put up tough yards in the second half? Yes. But Willie is our top back, and our ONLY top back.

Period.

tony hipchest
12-24-2007, 12:38 AM
Now before you all get your panties all in a bunch, hear me out. RBs gain yards. RBs that get over 100 yards are considered to have a good game. When a RB accumulates 1,000+ yards in a season it's considered to be a great season. However, when you look harder at RBs, and identify the style in which they play you'll discover that YPC is one of the most deceiving stats in sports.

Look closer with me. You have 2 RBs playing for 2 different teams, both end their games on Sunday with stat line that reads like this: 100 yards on 20 carries for 5.0 YPC. Nice numbers for sure. Until you look at the style in which they were gained.
RB #1, his carries played out like this:
1, 3, -1, 5, 2, 0, 0, 4, 2, 8, 2, 4, 54, -4, 1, 3, 4, 2, 9, 0,

RB #2's carries play out like this:
4, 3, 5, 8, 6, 5, 3, 5, 10, 2, 9, 1, 9, 5, 11, 4, 6, 9, 4, 6

Now, you see RB #1 hit a long run of 54 yards. It made SportsCenter high lights. He also had 11 runs under 3 yards. He forced us into 2nd, 3rd and long. Exposed his QB to a heavier pass rush. Led to predictability.

RB#2 never had a run longer than 11 yards, but he also had only 2 runs under 3 yards. He plodded along. Moved chains, broke tackles, sustained drives, converted 3rd downs, ate clock, wore down the defense, kept his QB out of 2nd, 3rd & Long.

As you can clearly see, both had the same stat line, but they played very different games. RB #1's offense had to wait for him to break his long run, to get any real production. RB#2 contributed all throughout the game.

By now you should know who #1 & #2 are. Parker hurt our offense as much as he helped. While he did lead the league in yards, he also lead the league in tackles for loses and stuffs at the line of scrimmage. Davenport, gained consistent positive yardage through out the game. Parker's career high against Baltimore is 68 yards. We'll see how Davenport does next Sunday. How he does will interest us all to see if the offense is better with Naj over Willie.....
:helmet:

this might be what someone thought was a good argument last year.

whachu do? rip it off of some other messageboard.

you might wanna check your stats a little closer. willie hasnt been peeling off 54 yarders this season.

this whole argument/debate/rant is old hat anyways.

it reminds me of buddy ryan bitching about chris carter-

all he does is catch touchdowns


while were at it, ben takes too many sacks.

we need somebody like kordell stewart back there to take some snaps and help relieve him....

while he leads the league in plays out of the pocket he also is 2nd in sacks allowed... :rolleyes: :dang:

i guess polamalu is #1 in missed tackles and taylor #1 in missed interceptions too. were probably better off w/o them, right? :rolleyes:

JackHammer
12-24-2007, 05:59 AM
NO.

Our QB, Receivers, and RB need a OL that can block for him.

You don't change all of your skilled positions for the 5 guys on the line, you change the line for all of your skilled positions.

Do we need a change of pace big back... a back to put up tough yards in the second half? Yes. But Willie is our top back, and our ONLY top back.

Period.

Exactly. The guy gets hurt while leading the league in rushing, behind a shaky O-line(trying to be nice). I don't how somebody can say he's not a longterm solution.

Galax Steeler
12-24-2007, 07:40 AM
Parker is a good back but I will agree we need a big bruising back to come in and relieve willie when needed.

RJC
12-24-2007, 10:09 AM
this might be what someone thought was a good argument last year.

whachu do? rip it off of some other messageboard.

you might wanna check your stats a little closer. willie hasnt been peeling off 54 yarders this season.

this whole argument/debate/rant is old hat anyways.

it reminds me of buddy ryan bitching about chris carter-



while were at it, ben takes too many sacks.

we need somebody like kordell stewart back there to take some snaps and help relieve him....

while he leads the league in plays out of the pocket he also is 2nd in sacks allowed... :rolleyes: :dang:

i guess polamalu is #1 in missed tackles and taylor #1 in missed interceptions too. were probably better off w/o them, right? :rolleyes:


Willie led the league in runs of 20 yards or longer. He's a "boom or bust" style runner. Gets the majority of his yards on 1 singular run. At the end of the day, when you lead the league in tackels for loses, and stuffs at the LOS, there's a problem. A big freakin' problem.

Also, if you think I "stole" anything, think again. If you read that anywhere you read it from me at Stillers.com. I've been saying it since day 1......

Dino 6 Rings
12-24-2007, 10:25 AM
I'm pretty sure that Barry Sanders has the NFL record for tackles for loss.

So Detroit would have been better without Barry right?

The Steelers will be less effective with the PA Pass, now that teams won't be so worried about the "home run" Willie provided. They'll give Najeh 3 yards each carry, and be able to use a safety to double a WR instead of loading the box to prevent the big hit run.

So no, we are not better without Willie Parker.

Steeldude
12-24-2007, 10:32 AM
Parker has 4.2 YPC on the year while Davenport has 4.9... Oh and Davenport has fresh legs most of the time. But if you think .7 yards extra on the average is worth more than better pass protection, a few long runs and better play action then hey, I guess I can't stop you.

Davenport is a decent back up, nothing more

play action has been average at best with parker.

the pass protection couldn't be that great with parker considering the amount of sacks the steelers have allowed. how bad could it get with a davenport in?

Rhee Rhee
12-24-2007, 10:37 AM
Well considering Najeh Davenport was cut from a horrible Packers squad last year you must be right... Parker being out helps us because now Davenport is more consistant right? Wrong.

Parker has 4.2 YPC on the year while Davenport has 4.9... Oh and Davenport has fresh legs most of the time. But if you think .7 yards extra on the average is worth more than better pass protection, a few long runs and better play action then hey, I guess I can't stop you.

Davenport is a decent back up, nothing more.

well said. i just please hope that you guys dont go negative on najeh if he has a "willie parker day" against the ravens.. (meaning 20 carries 50 some yards...)

RJC
12-24-2007, 10:45 AM
I'm pretty sure that Barry Sanders has the NFL record for tackles for loss.

So Detroit would have been better without Barry right?

The Steelers will be less effective with the PA Pass, now that teams won't be so worried about the "home run" Willie provided. They'll give Najeh 3 yards each carry, and be able to use a safety to double a WR instead of loading the box to prevent the big hit run.

So no, we are not better without Willie Parker.


Yeah, exactly actually. Barry Sanders was not conducive to winning football games. He made drives harder by constantly putting them in 2nd/3rd & long. He didn't help the sustain drives. He played RB like a KR. He was fun to watch, but counterproductive as a RB. Blasphemy among NFL fans, but true.....

RJC
12-24-2007, 10:47 AM
play action has been average at best with parker.

the pass protection couldn't be that great with parker considering the amount of sacks the steelers have allowed. how bad could it get with a davenport in?

Pass protection and run blocking are 2 very different things. This OL is built to run block. From OT to OT they're run blockers. I'm anxious to see what Davenport does against the Ravens. If he's decisive liek he was against the Rams, it should be better than anything Parkers ever done....

The Duke
12-24-2007, 11:32 AM
I'm pretty sure that Barry Sanders has the NFL record for tackles for loss.

So Detroit would have been better without Barry right?


I think you hit the nail. Barry was one of the best ever( and could have been the best) and still has that record of tackles for loss. willie and barry are kinda similar in some ways. so......if, and I'm saying if, we have a hall of famer in willie then yes we definitely better off without him :coffee:

well said. i just please hope that you guys dont go negative on najeh if he has a "willie parker day" against the ravens.. (meaning 20 carries 50 some yards...)

why would we? I've said it before, no one is gonna run against the ravens D any time soon, that front 7 is the only good thing left on that team( besides Ed Reed).

Stlr4ever
12-24-2007, 11:52 AM
"Now before you all get your panties all in a bunch, hear me out."

LOL...you are assuming that all members of this forum are females. I suspect only a small percentage of them are females.

Anyway, Willie was a great compliment to Jerome. JB gave us those critical 3rd down conversions that required short runs with brute force. Willie gave us those big plays. Case in Point: Super Bowl XL
It's always nice to have a player that presents a potential 'big play' possibility to the opposing defenses.

X-Terminator
12-24-2007, 12:26 PM
It is absolutely unbelievable that Parker proves himself time and time again, lead the league in rushing despite playing behind one of the worst OL in recent memory, and we STILL have people who want to pay for his airfare out of town. What the hell does the guy have to do to finally get some respect around here?

fansince'76
12-24-2007, 12:26 PM
What the hell does the guy have to do to finally get some respect around here?

Gain 50 pounds. :coffee:

Dino 6 Rings
12-24-2007, 12:29 PM
The Steelers are NOT better without Willie Parker.

They will still need to establish the run, and rely on Play Action pass. They lose the "Superbowl Record Setting" runner in Willie and will need to go back to a more Ron Erhardt style of offense "3 yards and a cloud of dust"

X-Terminator
12-24-2007, 12:31 PM
The Steelers are NOT better without Willie Parker...They lose the "Superbowl Record Setting" runner in Willie and will need to go back to a more Ron Erhardt style of offense "3 yards and a cloud of dust"

Which, of course, is just fine with the Steelers' faithful. How dare they evolve and modernize the offense? :coffee:

Dino 6 Rings
12-24-2007, 12:39 PM
That is not what won the superbowl for us 2 years ago. We opened up the play book and passed first and scored points and got a lead, then held on with the running game. I don't see any type of change in that regards, its just I see more "between" the tackles runs being called with Najeh, less attempts to get out to the edges.

Also, I look for some more screens to be worked in to the game plan. Not so much those quick Wide receiver screens either, more running back screens, which is something we seemed to have gotten away from this season.

As for anyone that says we are Better without Willie, they are obviously insane and should see a doctor about their head trama.

pittsburghgirl8786
12-24-2007, 01:50 PM
We will survive without him I suppose, but he is definatley an amazing asset to our team! For example, The patriots without Tom Brady would be doomed, but we are better than that because we are not a one man team! I did miss seeing him on the field but I still think we'll be ok.

skinart82
12-24-2007, 02:05 PM
I love Parker, but I also like a back that can punish a D and wear them out. I'm not saying we need to get rid of Parker and put Davenport up front, but I do think we need to give the ball to Davenport much more often. Besides Najeh can bust the long runs to, he has the longest run this season of 45 yards!

Welcome To Smashmouth
12-24-2007, 02:13 PM
While at first thought I was tempted to go into a huge debate on this one, I'm going to simply defend myboy with a ".....no"

stillers4me
12-24-2007, 02:17 PM
No.....we are a better team with him. But I think we will be ok playing "around" not having him for a few games. Even though they are big games......savvy?

Welcome To Smashmouth
12-24-2007, 02:39 PM
No.....we are a better team with him. But I think we will be ok playing "around" not having him for a few games. Even though they are big games......savvy?

Agreed. We've got a lot of options to experiment with, and with the talent we've got bunched up back there, I expect nothing but excellent results.