PDA

View Full Version : Who is out at RB next year


BlastFurnace
02-12-2009, 11:52 AM
Parker
Mendenhall
Moore
Russell
Davis
McHugh
Little guy just signed from Canada

Is there a spot for Russell anymore on the roster with Mendenhall coming back?

With Willie entering his final year of his contract, is it worth keeping Russell and letting Willie walk after next year?...considering the wear and tear on his body.

I want to see Moore get more touches as a 3rd down back...but this supposedly is the strength of this guy from Canada we are bringing in. Now, I know most players from Canada don't make it in the NFL, but if he does, I don't want it to be at the expense of Moore losing touches.

My thoughts are that we let Willie leave after this year. We go with Mendenhall, Moore, and Russell as the RB's in our backfield.

I do believe that there is a place on this team for Davis (because he can play both RB positions and very good ST). McHugh is valuable because he can play both FB and TE...kind of like our version of Chris Cooley from Washington...ok...maybe I'm reaching a little here.

slippy
02-12-2009, 12:25 PM
i thought the canadian guy was a punt/kick kreturner.

BTW, mendenhall is totally unproven so far. he could be a sidney thornton or kijana carter. who knows

steelreserve
02-12-2009, 12:32 PM
Davis Davis Davis. Yeah, he can play both RB positions, but he's not very good at either. In fact, he flat-out sucks.

If Mendenhall turns out to be anything other than completely incompetent, I don't see us bringing Parker back after next year.

Dino 6 Rings
02-12-2009, 12:34 PM
I think Davis is the odd man out.

Parker, Mendendhall, Moore, McHugh, Russell. That is a pretty ok backfield to go into next season with.

jjpro11
02-12-2009, 01:05 PM
davis is gone...

davis can do a RB/FB role, but mchugh can do a TE/FB role himself. so i think we can afford to carry 5 backs again next year because mchugh can also be the 3rd TE. mchugh is a better fullback than davis and mendenhall is a better running back than davis. so all signs point to davis being the odd man out.

drizze99
02-12-2009, 01:12 PM
I would like to see Davis booted and McHugh take over at FB

Russell will be 4th string RB *if* they carry that many.

Willie/Mendy will be the 1st & 2nd down backs
Moore will be the 3rd down back

The CFL player will be a special teamer and a starter because I can't see him being any worse than Russell or Davis.

Dino 6 Rings
02-12-2009, 01:15 PM
Now Davis and Russell weren't horrible, they just aren't "great"

They are pretty good kick return guys, got us up past the 20 more times than not. Didn't do horrible in short yardage situation, they just weren't "studs" and not too many teams have more than 1 stud on their roster.

Benzbrother
02-12-2009, 01:16 PM
I thought Moore did a great job filling in for Parker this past season, however I don't like the idea of him as our 3rd down back. Particulalry short yardage 3rd downs. How many times did we see Moore get stuffed on 3rd/4th and 1 this season? I would like to see Mendenhall prove himself as the short yardage back

Steelcitygal87
02-12-2009, 01:20 PM
I thought Moore did a great job filling in for Parker this past season, however I don't like the idea of him as our 3rd down back. Particulalry short yardage 3rd downs. How many times did we see Moore get stuffed on 3rd/4th and 1 this season? I would like to see Mendenhall prove himself as the short yardage back

He wasn't the only one, as I seem to recall that happening to Parker and Russel as well. So I don't necessary think it is reflective on his abilities or talent as a runner. In my opinion, most of those stops had more to do with the offensive line play than it did the back. You can't allow as much penetration as our O-line did and expect the runner to go anywhere.

I am very anxious to see about Mendenhall as well.

tucker6
02-12-2009, 01:27 PM
Not saying he should be cut, but I believe FWP's best season is behind him. He seems too fragile to me, and tippy toes too much at the line. Yeah, you could say that the OL is responsible for some of that, but some is on him too. Besides, if he doesn't get a better run blocking OL, is he the right back for us with that type of line?? I don't know the answer, but Parker concerns me.

lilyoder6
02-12-2009, 01:30 PM
i think that we will keep mcHugh before we keep davis... i think that russell will stay with the team until mendenhall can show he can be the power back... and the rb from the cfl, logan, he is a wildshot, we just have 2 see what he does in camp

Steelcitygal87
02-12-2009, 01:33 PM
Not saying he should be cut, but I believe FWP's best season is behind him. He seems too fragile to me, and tippy toes too much at the line. Yeah, you could say that the OL is responsible for some of that, but some is on him too. Besides, if he doesn't get a better run blocking OL, is he the right back for us with that type of line?? I don't know the answer, but Parker concerns me.

That's the thing...in my opinion, it's hard to form a good, solid opinion about the runners until you see what they do when adjustments are made to improve the offensive line.

Justano
02-12-2009, 01:39 PM
They shouldnt let go of parker next year if no injuries happen next year he could lead the league in rushing again if we get the o-line situated and mendenhall would be 3rd down back on runnign plays or short yardage plays and moore would be like 3rd down pass block running back and draw plays

Benzbrother
02-12-2009, 01:39 PM
He wasn't the only one, as I seem to recall that happening to Parker and Russel as well. So I don't necessary think it is reflective on his abilities or talent as a runner. In my opinion, most of those stops had more to do with the offensive line play than it did the back. You can't allow as much penetration as our O-line did and expect the runner to go anywhere.

I am very anxious to see about Mendenhall as well.

Not saying that Moore was the only one struggling, I was just responding to an above post that he would be our "3rd down guy" when I think it would be more beneficial, poor O-line or not, to get a bigger guy in there. I guess I'm just used to the Bus being so dependable in those situations whether he had blocking or not....

Steelcitygal87
02-12-2009, 01:42 PM
Not saying that Moore was the only one struggling, I was just responding to an above post that he would be our "3rd down guy" when I think it would be more beneficial, poor O-line or not, to get a bigger guy in there. I guess I'm just used to the Bus being so dependable in those situations whether he had blocking or not....

Yeah, I know what you mean...The Bus was so reliable in those short yardage situations. What piece of mind, especially in the 4th quarter playing with the lead, to know he can get you that TOUGH 3rd and short and keep the clock ticking! I miss him.

I just looked up some comparisons(weight wise) between Jerome and Mendenhall...

Jerome is 5'10" 250

Mendenhall is 5'10" 225

Dang, wish Rashard was 25 pounds heavier ....he could be Bus#2 lol. That's not to say he can't be...just wish he was a little bulkier.

steelreserve
02-12-2009, 01:43 PM
That's the thing...in my opinion, it's hard to form a good, solid opinion about the runners until you see what they do when adjustments are made to improve the offensive line.

Parker was inconsistent when he ran behind a good offensive line too. Behind a so-so offensive line, he's been horrid. Unless we suddenly re-stock our line with All-Pros this year -- which ain't going to happen -- he's not a very good fit for this offense.

I can see them keeping Russell around because he's also an OK kick returner ... of course, I can also see them cutting him and then he's the first guy we pick up in midseason to fill in for someone who's injured.

Somehow, I have this nagging feeling that some strange sequence of events will conspire to make us bring Dookie back again, if only to stand around on the sidelines for one game.

Steelcitygal87
02-12-2009, 01:50 PM
Parker was inconsistent when he ran behind a good offensive line too. Behind a so-so offensive line, he's been horrid. Unless we suddenly re-stock our line with All-Pros this year -- which ain't going to happen -- he's not a very good fit for this offense.

I can see them keeping Russell around because he's also an OK kick returner ... of course, I can also see them cutting him and then he's the first guy we pick up in midseason to fill in for someone who's injured.

Somehow, I have this nagging feeling that some strange sequence of events will conspire to make us bring Dookie back again, if only to stand around on the sidelines for one game.

To a certain degree I agree with that, but remember, back during the 2007-2008 season he was the leading rusher in the NFL before he broke his leg in that St. Louis Ram game.

Benzbrother
02-12-2009, 01:51 PM
Yeah, I know what you mean...The Bus was so reliable in those short yardage situations. What piece of mind, especially in the 4th quarter playing with the lead, to know he can get you that TOUGH 3rd and short and keep the clock ticking! I miss him.

I just looked up some comparisons(weight wise) between Jerome and Mendenhall...

Jerome is 5'10" 250

Mendenhall is 5'10" 225

Dang, wish Rashard was 25 pounds heavier ....he could be Bus#2

Maybe we should throw that as an incentive into Mendy's contract.....come into camp next year at 250(while keeping his agility of course) and gain an extra $500,000 haha

Steelcitygal87
02-12-2009, 01:54 PM
Maybe we should throw that as an incentive into Mendy's contract.....come into camp next year at 250(while keeping his agility of course) and gain an extra $500,000 haha

LOL...might work. I just have a feeling about him. I really liked what I saw from him in the Rose Bowl game against USC(he was pretty much the only offense Illinois could muster). Now I know that was college and this is the pros, but USC does play as close to a PRO level of football(esp. on defense) as you can get in the college ranks. I truly think Rashard can be that Bettis type back..only time will tell. :tt03:

steelreserve
02-12-2009, 02:04 PM
To a certain degree I agree with that, but remember, back during the 2007-2008 season he was the leading rusher in the NFL before he broke his leg in that St. Louis Ram game.

That's got to be the most brought-up stat ever in the Parker sucks/doesn't suck debate. Yeah, he got a lot of yards, but if you ask me, they were fantasy football yards. We didn't have a running attack that opponents respected and had to change their defensive schemes to account for -- it was one-dimensional and the good teams could shut it down whenever they chose to do so.

Over the past 3 years or so, our running game has not been about grinding out the tough yards and being the engine that gets the offense going when it needs it. More like the running attack has tagged along during games when the whole offense is rolling, and it's picked up yards like an accessory. It was good enough this year, but there was also some luck involved, and I think if we count on the same thing down the road, we're going to be disappointed more often than not.

I know, I know ... "here we go again, :coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee: :coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee: "

also, :coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee: :coffee::coffee:

Steelcitygal87
02-12-2009, 02:14 PM
That's got to be the most brought-up stat ever in the Parker sucks/doesn't suck debate. Yeah, he got a lot of yards, but if you ask me, they were fantasy football yards. We didn't have a running attack that opponents respected and had to change their defensive schemes to account for -- it was one-dimensional and the good teams could shut it down whenever they chose to do so.

Over the past 3 years or so, our running game has not been about grinding out the tough yards and being the engine that gets the offense going when it needs it. More like the running attack has tagged along during games when the whole offense is rolling, and it's picked up yards like an accessory. It was good enough this year, but there was also some luck involved, and I think if we count on the same thing down the road, we're going to be disappointed more often than not.

I know, I know ... "here we go again, :coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee: :coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee: "

also, :coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee::coffee: :coffee::coffee:

No, I wasn't even thinking "here we go again"....so I don't know what all the coffee is about.

Honestly, I don't really know about Willie Parker, haven't made up my mind about him yet. I brought that stat up to point out what he did the year before. Then he got injured and was injured quite a bit of this season. I agree with you that this team, since the departure of Jerome, has not been the grind it out...run time off the clock...ball control type of team, and I miss that. Especially, as I stated before, at the end of games when you are trying to close them out and not keep giving the ball to the other team and giving them chance after chance to score.

OneForTheToe
02-12-2009, 02:15 PM
Why are so many assuming this CFL player (Logan)will even make the team? Obviously, the Steelers saw something in him, or they wouldn't have brought him in. However, this is the NFL not MLB - they can still cut him before the season starts and it would cost the organization very little. Seems like every year we sign a guy or two in the off season who fans assume is going to take a regular players spot, only to find when the season starts that the new player is nowhere to be found. Remember the running back we picked up a few years back, right before the season, from the Patriots? You know, who's its name? I kept reading about whose place he was going to take. I think he was on the PS for 3 weeks before he was let go and never heard from again.

I hope this Logan does make the team. You can never have too many good backs. But, I am not counting on him until we see him strap on a helmet. The CFL is very condusive to speed players used to the bigger field. Their great players do not always transition well to the NFL game.

For the record, I would say Davis might be out regardless of how Logan does. He has clearly been replaced by mcHugh (assuming he is resigned).

FacemeIke
02-12-2009, 02:16 PM
To add to things I think we should draft a FB in the late rounds becuase no one that we use at FB now opens up the holes like we need them to. McHugh is ok, but he's a TE first.

Davis will be gone, Russell is probably gone too due to numbers and we go with Parker/Moore at HB, Moore at 3rd down back, Mendenhall to be the big back, and drafted rookie and McHugh at FB.

Edman
02-12-2009, 02:25 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing Carey Davis shoved out the door. He missed key blocks all season resulting in our backs getting stuffed. And where is his supposed catching ability out of the backfield. I never seen it.

Sean McHugh is much better option at Fullback.

Mewelde Moore better not be the odd man out. He is the ultimate blue chip role player and has done nothing but produce.

OneForTheToe
02-12-2009, 02:26 PM
I would like to see us draft a pure FB for short yardage situations. However, the only way Arians wants a fullback on this team is if the listing after his name on the roster reads - TE/FB. :chuckle:

Steelcitygal87
02-12-2009, 02:28 PM
I wouldn't mind seeing Carey Davis shoved out the door. He missed key blocks all season resulting in our backs getting stuffed. And where is his supposed catching ability out of the backfield. I never seen it.

Sean McHugh is much better option at Fullback.

Mewelde Moore better not be the odd man out. He is the ultimate blue chip role player and has done nothing but produce.

Speaking of that....this new guy from the CFL...Logan, from what I have read about him, is supposed to be a good receiver out of the backfield. So besides his kick return abilities, that might be another reason why the Steelers are bringing him in to take a look.

I agree with you about Moore. He has proven he deserves to be on this team.

revefsreleets
02-12-2009, 02:29 PM
I still think Parker will be traded to help them move up in the draft...

OneForTheToe
02-12-2009, 02:34 PM
I still think Parker will be traded to help them move up in the draft...

I think that might be wishful thinking, revefsreleets. In fact, I'll mow my lawn in a speedo if that happens.:thumbsup:

Steelcitygal87
02-12-2009, 02:47 PM
I still think Parker will be traded to help them move up in the draft...

Who do you have in mind they would be wanting to get, in order to give up Parker?

revefsreleets
02-12-2009, 02:52 PM
Who do you have in mind they would be wanting to get, in order to give up Parker?


I have no idea. I just have a hunch here that they have a player in mind already that they covet. They are loaded at RB, and there's no way they carry Moore, Mendenhall and Parker all at once.

BlastFurnace
02-12-2009, 02:55 PM
I prefer the running back that gets

4,3,5,2,8,3,9,4,3,2,5

Than a running back that gets:

-1,0,20,2,1,0,80,1,2,-2

I know the 80 is more than likely a touchdown, but the other runs are drive killers.

I'm very hopeful for Mendenhall. I really don't want Moore or Russell to go anywhere.

I really believe they will let Willie play out his contract.

Steelcitygal87
02-12-2009, 02:56 PM
I have no idea. I just have a hunch here that they have a player in mind already that they covet. They are loaded at RB, and there's no way they carry Moore, Mendenhall and Parker all at once.

Oh okay. That could very well be. Haven't they moved up to get the guy they wanted in the last few years of the draft? They moved up last year to get Mendenhall didn't they? Maybe I am wrong. Or were they surprised that he was still on the board when it was their turn to pick....can't remember(old age)lol. Btw...were you surprised when Mendenhall was selected? I didn't see that one coming at all, had no idea they were even considering him.

I thought for sure they would go O-line or after that CB you mentioned in the other thread....from South Florida...Mike Jenkins.

steelreserve
02-12-2009, 02:58 PM
No, I wasn't even thinking "here we go again"....so I don't know what all the coffee is about.

Sorry, that wasn't directed at you so much as the dozen or so people for whom the Parker debate is a sore subject. Toward the end of the year, things got pretty heated and even bringing the subject up would guarantee a bunch of people calling you a "hater" and a bunch of other people giving you a wall of coffee smilies.

I think now that the season is over, it's the more appropriate time for it, but of course there will probably also be those who say, "Hey, it's too soon, can't you just enjoy the Super Bowl, you hater??" So sorry if you took that as intended at you.

Anyway, yeah, I share a lot of the same thoughts about the situation too, although as some will probably tell you, my mind is a little more made up on the negative side with him.

revefsreleets
02-12-2009, 03:00 PM
Oh okay. That could very well be. Haven't they moved up to get the guy they wanted in the last few years of the draft? They moved up last year to get Mendenhall didn't they? Maybe I am wrong. Or were they surprised that he was still on the board when it was their turn to pick....can't remember(old age)lol. Btw...were you surprised when Mendenhall was selected? I didn't see that one coming at all, had no idea they were even considering him.

Mendenhall was there when we picked. He just fell to us...it was a surprise to just about everyone I imagine.

But now that we have him and Moore was such a pleasant surprise (and he's signed for 2 more years) I think they take advantage of the situation.

7SteelGal43
02-12-2009, 03:09 PM
Personally, I think we've got to keep Parker. I think when the O line has a good day, he's dangerous. Now, we need a BIG, BRUISING "Bus-like" guy back there too. Anybody think MeMo could put on about 25, 30 lbs and be that type of back ? (notice i said "type" of back...I mean c'mon, where ya gonna find another Jerome ?) :tt03:

Steelcitygal87
02-12-2009, 03:09 PM
Sorry, that wasn't directed at you so much as the dozen or so people for whom the Parker debate is a sore subject. Toward the end of the year, things got pretty heated and even bringing the subject up would guarantee a bunch of people calling you a "hater" and a bunch of other people giving you a wall of coffee smilies.

I think now that the season is over, it's the more appropriate time for it, but of course there will probably also be those who say, "Hey, it's too soon, can't you just enjoy the Super Bowl, you hater??" So sorry if you took that as intended at you.

Anyway, yeah, I share a lot of the same thoughts about the situation too, although as some will probably tell you, my mind is a little more made up on the negative side with him.

Oh okay, thanks for telling me what that was all about lol. :) Yeah, God forbid you have something negative to say about a star player. Which I really never understood because even the player himself would probably tell you there are areas in his game that could use improvement....that need worked on.

I have no problem with you being on the negative side of Parker, if that is how you view him you should stick up for your opinion. For me, can't say I love the guy, but hate is a word I can't use either. There are aspects of his game that I don't care for....receiving ability out of the backfield leaves much to be desired for one thing. He is a little too....skittish( for lack of a better word) when he is making up his mind where to run. Love his speed though when he takes it to the outside, which is obviously where his strength is.

I agree with you about now is the time for discussing this. With free agency and the draft just a few months away(which the way time goes will be here before you know it), there is no reason why it shouldn't be brought up for discussion...imo.

Steelcitygal87
02-12-2009, 03:12 PM
Mendenhall was there when we picked. He just fell to us...it was a surprise to just about everyone I imagine.

But now that we have him and Moore was such a pleasant surprise (and he's signed for 2 more years) I think they take advantage of the situation.

I like Moore...a LOT. :tt03:

AllD
02-12-2009, 03:16 PM
Moore can run and catch. As soon as a good outside running play is reliable, either will be excellent. When the run game slows, use the short pass to Moore as an extension.

tucker6
02-12-2009, 03:22 PM
I prefer the running back that gets

4,3,5,2,8,3,9,4,3,2,5

Than a running back that gets:

-1,0,20,2,1,0,80,1,2,-2

I know the 80 is more than likely a touchdown, but the other runs are drive killers.

I'm very hopeful for Mendenhall. I really don't want Moore or Russell to go anywhere.

I really believe they will let Willie play out his contract.

Exactly my feeling. The 80 yard TD run is exciting, but some of our squeeker games this year could have been easier to win if we had a back that could have gotten us 3 yards on third down. Besides, he only makes those 80 yarders every 3 or 4 games or so. How many did he have this year? The rest of those short or negative runs occur regularly, and have killed more than a few drives.

fansince'76
02-12-2009, 03:24 PM
He is a little too....skittish( for lack of a better word) when he is making up his mind where to run.

Might be because behind this OL, there usually isn't anywhere to run. I hope we do get a big bruiser back again. And when he gets consistently hit 2-3 yards behind the LOS and gets routinely stuffed behind this giant turnstile we have masquerading as an OL, maybe people will finally start to see it wasn't all Parker.

stlrtruck
02-12-2009, 03:25 PM
Parker
Mendenhall
Moore
McHugh (FB)
Logan

Steelcitygal87
02-12-2009, 03:32 PM
Might be because behind this OL, there usually isn't anywhere to run. I hope we do get a big bruiser back again. And when he gets consistently hit 2-3 yards behind the LOS and gets routinely stuffed behind this giant turnstile we have masquerading as an OL, maybe people will finally start to see it wasn't all Parker.

True, that is why I said I hadn't made up my mind about him( I don't believe it was necessarily all Parker). I do understand a lot of our lack of running productivity was due to the offensive line play. When you allow as much penetration as our line did for a good part of the season(did get a little better as the year went on), it would make any back skittish lol. I agree with you....behind this line I don't see how any back...no matter how great he is...gaining much yardage at all.

One of my favorite games of the season was the first time they played the Chargers...Willie had a GREAT GAME. We ran the ball down their throats and controlled the clock. I remember thinking...now this is more what our running game should look like. The Chargers defense wasn't exactly the worst in the league either, they just got manhandled that day and pushed back on their heels. I thought that was one of the best games we played all year.

bradness113
02-12-2009, 03:40 PM
to even THINK that we shouldnt sign Parker is LUDICROUS. Truly shows ur intelligence. A guy has a unlucky year w/ injuries, so we show him the door? hahah IDIOTS! We had one of the most inconsistent lines all year, and Parker still got the job done. Mendenhall is a COMPLETE mystery. Unproven. We will have the greatest tandem in the league with Parker and Mendenhall. After this next season...you guys will be like: Wow, we have the best RB tandem. WE HAVE TO SIGN PARKER for atleast 3-4 more years~!! He had an unlucky year w/ injuries. If you want to write off this gem that we found, go ahead. He feeds of that anyway...but if our organization thinks the same thing (I hope they arent that dumb) then we will lose a GREAT player... as for whos out next year....i say davis or russell

Steelcitygal87
02-12-2009, 03:58 PM
to even THINK that we shouldnt sign Parker is LUDICROUS. Truly shows ur intelligence. A guy has a unlucky year w/ injuries, so we show him the door? hahah IDIOTS! We had one of the most inconsistent lines all year, and Parker still got the job done. Mendenhall is a COMPLETE mystery. Unproven. We will have the greatest tandem in the league with Parker and Mendenhall. After this next season...you guys will be like: Wow, we have the best RB tandem. WE HAVE TO SIGN PARKER for atleast 3-4 more years~!! He had an unlucky year w/ injuries. If you want to write off this gem that we found, go ahead. He feeds of that anyway...but if our organization thinks the same thing (I hope they arent that dumb) then we will lose a GREAT player... as for whos out next year....i say davis or russell

I am confused. In those sentences didn't you contradict yourself? You say Mendenhall is unproven and a COMPLETE mystery, and then in the next breath say with him and Paker we will have the greatest tandem in the league. How can you be so sure about the greatest tandem assessment, if you aren't sure about Mendenhall? What am I missing here?

BlastFurnace
02-12-2009, 04:03 PM
to even THINK that we shouldnt sign Parker is LUDICROUS. Truly shows ur intelligence. A guy has a unlucky year w/ injuries, so we show him the door? hahah IDIOTS! We had one of the most inconsistent lines all year, and Parker still got the job done. Mendenhall is a COMPLETE mystery. Unproven. We will have the greatest tandem in the league with Parker and Mendenhall. After this next season...you guys will be like: Wow, we have the best RB tandem. WE HAVE TO SIGN PARKER for atleast 3-4 more years~!! He had an unlucky year w/ injuries. If you want to write off this gem that we found, go ahead. He feeds of that anyway...but if our organization thinks the same thing (I hope they arent that dumb) then we will lose a GREAT player... as for whos out next year....i say davis or russell

This wasn't the first year he has had injuries. He was hurt before he broke his leg in 2007 with hamstring injuries that had lingered all year. He had 3 straight years of 300+ carries and for someone of his physical stature, they begin to break down near the age of 28-30 after that type of workload. There are plenty of examples of that. Willie's entire game depends on his speed. He's not a power back, he's not a good receiver, so if he follows the natural progression of RB's near his age, we may be tied up with a RB that is past his prime at a high $$$$ amount.

Also, he is not going to sign for the bargain price we got him for last time. He will be looking for more money. We have a lot of guys next year we need to resign.

We drafted his successor in Mendenhall and we still have Moore and Russell.

I don't think it is entirely out of the question that we don't sign Parker. And no...I'm not saying Willie sucks...like this can very easily be twisted...I...like the rest of you want the Steelers to make the best roster choices.

Preacher
02-12-2009, 04:10 PM
I prefer the running back that gets

4,3,5,2,8,3,9,4,3,2,5

Than a running back that gets:

-1,0,20,2,1,0,80,1,2,-2

I know the 80 is more than likely a touchdown, but the other runs are drive killers.

I'm very hopeful for Mendenhall. I really don't want Moore or Russell to go anywhere.

I really believe they will let Willie play out his contract.

Prove to me those are the numbers willie gets versus another RB on this team with this line.

Fact is, Willie's speed has gained him more yards then he shoulda got a number of times over the last couple of years.

The bus was good, but he got stopped A NUMBER OF TIMES... or don't any of you remember all the punts and late drives for wins teams had on us in the playoffs?

BlastFurnace
02-12-2009, 04:21 PM
Prove to me those are the numbers willie gets versus another RB on this team with this line.

Fact is, Willie's speed has gained him more yards then he shoulda got a number of times over the last couple of years.

The bus was good, but he got stopped A NUMBER OF TIMES... or don't any of you remember all the punts and late drives for wins teams had on us in the playoffs?

I can't prove that. I'm not looking to prove that with Willie. I'm not even saying that is Willie.

I prefer a running back that is more like a Michael Turner...which is what I am hoping that Mendenhall will be.

That's all. I like Willie...He doesn't suck...I just want to say that.

steelreserve
02-12-2009, 04:32 PM
Might be because behind this OL, there usually isn't anywhere to run. I hope we do get a big bruiser back again. And when he gets consistently hit 2-3 yards behind the LOS and gets routinely stuffed behind this giant turnstile we have masquerading as an OL, maybe people will finally start to see it wasn't all Parker.

If we can just get a back that will use his legs to push FORWARD and tries to fall FORWARD after contact, that alone will probably be good for an extra 2-3 yards a carry. Because when the blocking isn't perfect, the back we have now seems to mostly freeze in place, do a little dance (which I guess is supposed to be some lame attempt at faking out the defender) and then he ducks and falls sideways. It's a miserable way to run, and it's not fooling anyone.

Even when Parker was picking up 1,400 fantasy football yards a season, people didn't respect our running attack, and it didn't win us any big games. This year, without a good line to clear the way, he was completely horrid. He has had one good game in the playoffs EVER, plus one famously lucky run, to go with five complete stink bomb performances. When is the last time you heard of a team with a 1,400-yard rusher who didn't even worry the opposing defense? Because it happens to us all the time.

Honestly, if we didn't have a defense this year that pinned everyone down to 10 points a game, we would've been hard-pressed to make the playoffs, much less the Super Bowl. I am tired of looking at virtually every other team in the league and saying, "Wow, if only we had a running back like that, it would really help our offense move the ball." Parker might have 85% of the tools to be a star, but without the other 15%, he's a third-rate running back and we can do better. Just give me an average running back with a more balanced skill set and I'll be happy. And when we start moving the chains and not leaving 7-10 points on the board, we'll see that most of it really WAS Parker.

bradness113
02-12-2009, 04:49 PM
ok. fair enough. wut i MEANT to say....was taht mendenhall is unproven...things could go two ways. He could continue to fumble and be a total bust, or he could take a step from last year, not fumble, and b productive in a backup role (he is a back up. not moore. moore is a third down back.) and his contributions could help us have a dangerous tandem. Cuz I KNOW atleast, that parker will do his thing next year, make the probowl and have over 1,oooyds rushing. so if mendenhall...IF he contributes positively...we could have a dangerous tandem. Sorry for the confusion.

Preacher
02-12-2009, 04:50 PM
If we can just get a back that will use his legs to push FORWARD and tries to fall FORWARD after contact, that alone will probably be good for an extra 2-3 yards a carry. Because when the blocking isn't perfect, the back we have now seems to mostly freeze in place, do a little dance (which I guess is supposed to be some lame attempt at faking out the defender) and then he ducks and falls sideways. It's a miserable way to run, and it's not fooling anyone.

Even when Parker was picking up 1,400 fantasy football yards a season, people didn't respect our running attack, and it didn't win us any big games. This year, without a good line to clear the way, he was completely horrid. He has had one good game in the playoffs EVER, plus one famously lucky run, to go with five complete stink bomb performances. When is the last time you heard of a team with a 1,400-yard rusher who didn't even worry the opposing defense? Because it happens to us all the time.

Honestly, if we didn't have a defense this year that pinned everyone down to 10 points a game, we would've been hard-pressed to make the playoffs, much less the Super Bowl. I am tired of looking at virtually every other team in the league and saying, "Wow, if only we had a running back like that, it would really help our offense move the ball." Parker might have 85% of the tools to be a star, but without the other 15%, he's a third-rate running back and we can do better. Just give me an average running back with a more balanced skill set and I'll be happy. And when we start moving the chains and not leaving 7-10 points on the board, we'll see that most of it really WAS Parker.

This is completely sad.

Go back and look at 2003. We had Bettis... and no run game. Why? Because our o line was horrible.

I find it hilarous when people think Bettis could carry 3 people on him for 3 to 5 yards every run... If Bettis was TOUCHED in the backfield, he went down, because it took him getting to the LOS to pick up the speed and momentum to bust through.

People really need to go back and re-watch some of the games to shake off the nostalgia.

Bettis AFTER hitting the LOS... BRUTALLY unstoppable.

Bettis BEFORE the LOS... looked just like WIllie Parker... or worse. ITS CALLED MOMENTUM PEOPLE

fansince'76
02-12-2009, 04:54 PM
....when we start moving the chains and not leaving 7-10 points on the board, we'll see that most of it really WAS Parker.

You mean like the games in which we left 7-10 points on the field or wound up having to settle for FGs because we got stuffed at the goal line regardless of which RB we had in due to our OL getting penetrated like a sieve and/or pushed backward? How was that Parker's fault? Most teams have an OL that can at least capably run block or pass block. Ours isn't good at either. THAT is the problem with this offense, not Parker, IMO.

Steelcitygal87
02-12-2009, 04:58 PM
ok. fair enough. wut i MEANT to say....was taht mendenhall is unproven...things could go two ways. He could continue to fumble and be a total bust, or he could take a step from last year, not fumble, and b productive in a backup role (he is a back up. not moore. moore is a third down back.) and his contributions could help us have a dangerous tandem. Cuz I KNOW atleast, that parker will do his thing next year, make the probowl and have over 1,oooyds rushing. so if mendenhall...IF he contributes positively...we could have a dangerous tandem. Sorry for the confusion.

That is alright. I understand what you mean now.

BlastFurnace
02-12-2009, 05:05 PM
Might be because behind this OL, there usually isn't anywhere to run. I hope we do get a big bruiser back again. And when he gets consistently hit 2-3 yards behind the LOS and gets routinely stuffed behind this giant turnstile we have masquerading as an OL, maybe people will finally start to see it wasn't all Parker.

I know it's not all Wilie's fault. The intent of the thread wasn't to bash Willie.

steelreserve
02-12-2009, 05:11 PM
You mean like the games in which we left 7-10 points on the field or wound up having to settle for FGs because we got stuffed at the goal line regardless of which RB we had in due to our OL getting penetrated like a sieve and/or pushed backward? How was that Parker's fault? Most teams have an OL that can at least capably run block or pass block. Ours isn't good at either. THAT is the problem with this offense, not Parker, IMO.

Well, that argument will just lead us in circles. Point at the OL being weak this year, and I can point out his inconsistency three years ago when he was running behind a good line. Yes, you can run for over 1,000 yards and still be inconsistent.

Besides, by that logic, as long as we fix the line, it shouldn't matter whether it's Parker running the ball or anyone else, right -- any NFL back could get the job done. So I nominate someone else, if for no other reason than it would be nice to have someone more well-rounded.

The same exact argument also goes for the people who say things like "Well, Bettis couldn't run behind a bad line either." See above.

drew102e
02-12-2009, 05:30 PM
of the non starters:

can any of these guys go practice squad or do they have too much time?

Stlrs4Life
02-12-2009, 06:01 PM
Davis Davis Davis. Yeah, he can play both RB positions, but he's not very good at either. In fact, he flat-out sucks.

If Mendenhall turns out to be anything other than completely incompetent, I don't see us bringing Parker back after next year.




Highly doubt it. Russell would be the odd man out.

AllD
02-12-2009, 06:09 PM
In a pinch we could use Harrison as a tailback as long as there is an oxygen tank in the end zone.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-12-2009, 06:13 PM
Russell and Davis will be out. I belive the RB's will be

Parker,
Mendenhall,
Moore,
Conredge Collins (rookie FB)

McHugh will be the #3 TE and Stephan Logan will be the PR/KR.

BIGIRON98
02-12-2009, 07:13 PM
I prefer the running back that gets

4,3,5,2,8,3,9,4,3,2,5

Than a running back that gets:

-1,0,20,2,1,0,80,1,2,-2

I know the 80 is more than likely a touchdown, but the other runs are drive killers.

I'm very hopeful for Mendenhall. I really don't want Moore or Russell to go anywhere.

I really believe they will let Willie play out his contract.


couldn't agree more. beem saying it for a year.

i keep getting the "who has the record for the longest SB run, and i keep telling people even with that run he still didnt have 100 yards in that game.

fansince'76
02-12-2009, 07:36 PM
I find it hilarous when people think Bettis could carry 3 people on him for 3 to 5 yards every run... If Bettis was TOUCHED in the backfield, he went down, because it took him getting to the LOS to pick up the speed and momentum to bust through.

What? You mean the Bus didn't pick up at least 8 yards on every first down play in which he was handed the ball? Especially when we had Korkie behind center and our passing game was absolutely no threat at all and we were guaranteed to face 8-9 in the box? :rolleyes:

steeltheone
02-12-2009, 07:50 PM
Bettis was well over 250 pounds at the end of his career

devilsdancefloor
02-12-2009, 08:01 PM
Willie is in the same boat as larry foote NO team is gonna trade for a player with 1 yr left on his current contract and give up more that a 3rd or 4th round pick at best. i think davis is odd man out or maybe the CFL guy gets cut :noidea: We need a STUD center we have been spoiled fo rto long wht our centers hartwig is not bad but honestly he is not up to steeler center standards! I dont care if yo put water payton behind this line he isnt gonna be the sweetness more like the tart. Doesnt wanyone remember what happened when our Oline actually really showed up for the * game ? Willie & MeMo had great days! So i dont think you can put the weight of the sucky run offense on willie shoulder alone.

lilyoder6
02-12-2009, 08:06 PM
i think we can get mchugh re-signed.. he can still play the dual role of te and fb.. then we cut davis.. i think that if logan is as good as a returner we hope he is thats good.. but if not, it's not like it's going 2 hurt us, we just can cut him..

again all of this could change depending on who we re-sign... b/c me personally, if nate does not re-sign i will pimp derrick williams to be the #4 guy and he returned punts and kick-offs for 4 yrs at psu and did a very good job

Galax Steeler
02-13-2009, 04:59 AM
Russell and Davis will be out. I belive the RB's will be

Parker,
Mendenhall,
Moore,
Conredge Collins (rookie FB)

McHugh will be the #3 TE and Stephan Logan will be the PR/KR.

That is what I am thinking also. Mendenhall will be back this year and I would say that will be the end of Russell and I am not impressed with Davis.

steelerdave1969
02-13-2009, 06:10 AM
I think Davis is the odd man out.

Parker, Mendendhall, Moore, McHugh, Russell. That is a pretty ok backfield to go into next season with.

who is gonna block for the starting RB? No one there is a starting FB for sure. The Steelers are gonna have to sign someone to block for Willie or Rashard or whoever the starter is or this team will never get back to a proven running team, just wont happen and especially if the Steelers do what you are saying above.
Everyone needs to go back and check Willie's stats with a true starting FB like Dan Kreider was, the guy can still run the ball and he proved that when he got closer to healthy at the end of the year, and our offensive line was playing somewhat better than at the beginning of the season. I say Willie is our starter next season and everyone will just have to get used to it for now.

lilyoder6
02-13-2009, 08:54 AM
who is gonna block for the starting RB? No one there is a starting FB for sure. The Steelers are gonna have to sign someone to block for Willie or Rashard or whoever the starter is or this team will never get back to a proven running team, just wont happen and especially if the Steelers do what you are saying above.
Everyone needs to go back and check Willie's stats with a true starting FB like Dan Kreider was, the guy can still run the ball and he proved that when he got closer to healthy at the end of the year, and our offensive line was playing somewhat better than at the beginning of the season. I say Willie is our starter next season and everyone will just have to get used to it for now.

thats y he has the steelers re-signing mchugh, he will play the fb pos as he did this past season.... there are rly only a handful of true fb's left in the league.. and there either a trainwreck and is at the end of there career or they are still playing good ball but still a yr or 2 away from retiring

SteelersMongol
02-13-2009, 09:45 AM
i thought the canadian guy was a punt/kick kreturner.

BTW, mendenhall is totally unproven so far. he could be a sidney thornton or kijana carter. who knows

Mendenhall is unproven? :noidea: I disagree. I personally thought he was great until Ray Lewis broke his shoulder. I'm sure he'll get back, & take his revenge on those Ratbirds.

Cordlisberger
02-13-2009, 09:46 AM
Bring Back the Bus... oh how I miss him
:banging::banging::banging::banging:

Steeldude
02-13-2009, 09:47 AM
davis is the odd man out.

russell will stay because he is the only proven power back on the team. mendenhall hasn't proven he is a power back yet. so far all he has done is break his shoulder. hopefully this year he will show something.

parker
russell
moore
mendenhall
mchugh

they kept 5 RBs last year and they will do the same this coming year.

Steeldude
02-13-2009, 09:58 AM
Mendenhall is unproven? :noidea: I disagree. I personally thought he was great until Ray Lewis broke his shoulder. I'm sure he'll get back, & take his revenge on those Ratbirds.

i'll wait until he plays a little more before labeling him proven. he has the size and speed to do it.

Steelcitygal87
02-13-2009, 10:03 AM
i'll wait until he plays a little more before labeling him proven. he has the size and speed to do it.

That is what I think as well. The only thing I saw he had a problem with so far, was hanging onto the pigskin. He did have a tendency to fumble quite a bit. Hopefully that won't be the case when he returns for 2009.

revefsreleets
02-13-2009, 11:13 AM
I can't see the Steelers carrying 3 effective "starter" type backs. Russell is better than most are giving him credit for. I think the 3 in rotation are:

Mendenhall: everydown back
Moore: 3rd down/long yardage
Russell: Short/GL back

Parker packaged and traded.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-13-2009, 11:58 AM
davis is the odd man out.

russell will stay because he is the only proven power back on the team. mendenhall hasn't proven he is a power back yet. so far all he has done is break his shoulder. hopefully this year he will show something.

parker
russell
moore
mendenhall
mchugh

they kept 5 RBs last year and they will do the same this coming year.

I forgot they kept Russell last season. I now see

Parker
Mendenhall
Moore
Russell
NEW FB

McHugh will be listed as the #3 TE

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-13-2009, 12:01 PM
Parker packaged and traded. It could happen........but I really doubt it.

I think your Parker traded hypothesis might end up like the Browns coaching prediction. :noidea:

The Duke
02-13-2009, 12:02 PM
I forgot they kept Russell last season. I now see

Parker
Mendenhall
Moore
Russell
NEW FB

McHugh will be listed as the #3 TE

Well, he was actually added to the roster after Mendenhall went on IR

But still, I think he'll stay. 5 backs seems good to me. unless he can be traded....

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-13-2009, 12:41 PM
Well, he was actually added to the roster after Mendenhall went on IR

But still, I think he'll stay. 5 backs seems good to me. unless he can be traded....
Was Russell cut early in camp then?? The only RB's I saw on the final list of cuts were Justin Vincent and Billy Latsko. I thought they kept Russell on the roster, but wasnt active for opening day.

I actually found the gameday stats for the opener against the Texans. Russell was on the roster but inactive that day.

http://go.steelers.com/mediacontent/2008/09/07/13/9-7-08_vs._Texans_95756.pdf

Fire Haley
02-13-2009, 01:09 PM
It seems like the running back crop this year is pretty good, which is good for us because we can wait till later in the draft to pick up one if we want.


After Beanie Wells, Knowshon Moreno, and LeSean McCoy, there are a lot of guys who were quality running backs in college that are available after the 1st round.

Guys like Shonn Greene, Glen Coffee, James Davis, Arian Foster, Gartrell Johnson, Ian Johnson, Marlon Lucky, Javon Ringer, Donald Brown, and P.J. Hill all had some success at the college level. And some of them are projected to go into the 7th round.

The Duke
02-13-2009, 01:17 PM
Was Russell cut early in camp then?? The only RB's I saw on the final list of cuts were Justin Vincent and Billy Latsko. I thought they kept Russell on the roster, but wasnt active for opening day.

I actually found the gameday stats for the opener against the Texans. Russell was on the roster but inactive that day.

http://go.steelers.com/mediacontent/2008/09/07/13/9-7-08_vs._Texans_95756.pdf

hmm...I think you're right. Latsko and Vincent went to the PS at the end of camp

But I do remember Russell being cut at one point cause I thought there goes our potential trade bait....And in the Jax game it was all about him being fresh of the practice squad

Anyway, if he was kept in the roster at the end of camp he has a great chance of doing it again this year, considering his performance in limited time

Steelcitygal87
02-13-2009, 01:24 PM
It seems like the running back crop this year is pretty good, which is good for us because we can wait till later in the draft to pick up one if we want.


After Beanie Wells, Knowshon Moreno, and LeSean McCoy, there are a lot of guys who were quality running backs in college that are available after the 1st round.

Guys like Shonn Greene, Glen Coffee, James Davis, Arian Foster, Gartrell Johnson, Ian Johnson, Marlon Lucky, Javon Ringer, Donald Brown, and P.J. Hill all had some success at the college level. And some of them are projected to go into the 7th round.

I like Javon Ringer, has great vision, runs low to the ground and is a GOOD pass catcher. The only draw backs...he doesn't have great speed or quickness.

I remember when Penn State played Michigan St. last game of the season...I was worried if our D would be able to shut him down...but we did! :)

The Lions held him to 42 yards on 17 attempts.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-13-2009, 01:27 PM
hmm...I think you're right. Latsko and Vincent went to the PS at the end of camp

But I do remember Russell being cut at one point cause I thought there goes our potential trade bait....And in the Jax game it was all about him being fresh of the practice squad

Anyway, if he was kept in the roster at the end of camp he has a great chance of doing it again this year, considering his performance in limited time

Yeah, I think he was part of all those cuts when we needed to bring in Paxson because of Keisel's injury, or Bailey because of Woods injury, or Bryant because of McFadden's injury............it was a merry go round and I like Russell, but really don't know how valuable the #4 RB is.

lilyoder6
02-13-2009, 01:29 PM
it will be suprising to see what happens.. mendenhall is due 2 be more involved in the off plans next yr... then if so moore will prob become a 3rd down back or the back in passing situations.. and w/ mendenhall coming back and getting carries.. thats less for russell...

too many rb's to get evryone enough touches 2 be happy

ricksteelers55
02-13-2009, 02:45 PM
I live in Montreal so I've seen plenty of CFL games and Im not convince that RB Stafon Logan will be on the starting roster.

We'll see but my guess is he'll end up being cut before the end of the camp

RB: Parker-Mendenhall-Moore-Russell
FB: McHugh

that is my call unless of course we pick up someone or draft someone for our short yardage game

Preacher
02-13-2009, 04:24 PM
I find it absolutely amazing how someone who is PRODUCTIVE like Willie and Ben are hated on. . .

But people who mailed it in for a whole season like Faneca last year are still doted upon.

Thank goodness fans aren't coaches.

lilyoder6
02-13-2009, 04:44 PM
I live in Montreal so I've seen plenty of CFL games and Im not convince that RB Stafon Logan will be on the starting roster.

We'll see but my guess is he'll end up being cut before the end of the camp

RB: Parker-Mendenhall-Moore-Russell
FB: McHugh

that is my call unless of course we pick up someone or draft someone for our short yardage game

1st we have 2 re-sign mchugh i think... but with him being able to play TE and FB... he will stay and play both pos.. and then that opens up another roster spot

steelreserve
02-13-2009, 05:05 PM
I find it absolutely amazing how someone who is PRODUCTIVE like Willie and Ben are hated on. . .

But people who mailed it in for a whole season like Faneca last year are still doted upon.

... and it amazes me how people dote over guys like Parker who was inconsistent and contributed exactly dick in the big games when we needed it. And who put up good stats a couple years ago but presented a huge liability in the bigger picture.

We've had a glaring hole in our running game for three years now, and it's been there whether we've had a good offensive line or a bad offensive line. Pretending it's not there doesn't make it go away any more than "leading the league in rushing until he got hurt" helps us convert that third-and-9 that we always seem to be facing for some reason.

I'm sorry, but the instant you say anything negative about Parker, some people here will act like he and Bettis are the only two running backs you've ever seen. No. I can honestly say that no Steelers running back has pissed me off this badly since Walter Abercrombie and Tim Worley. Zereoue was close, but our whole offense was a little wack the year we tried featuring him, and more importantly, when that plan wasn't working after a year, WE STOPPED DOING IT. I cannot stress this enough.

We were good enough this year. But we weren't without our weaknesses, and that was definitely one of them. Can we win another Super Bowl with Parker around? More than likely. But give me a real running back and I guarantee we'll win another one.

T.Richardson
02-13-2009, 05:16 PM
Amos Zereoue

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-13-2009, 05:25 PM
I find it absolutely amazing how someone who is PRODUCTIVE like Willie and Ben are hated on. . .

But people who mailed it in for a whole season like Faneca last year are still doted upon.

Thank goodness fans aren't coaches.
Preach, I am with you. Parker gets hacked even though he was injured most of the season and still managed 791 yards rushing and a 3.8YPC average. Its the first time in his career that he averaged less than 4.1 YPC.

I find it amusing that the Willie haters would all love to have Steven Jackson in Pittsburgh, but his 5 year career rushing stats are almost the same as Parker.

Willie Parker, 1,155 attempts- 4,989 yards - 4.3 YPC - longest run 80 yds, 24 TD

Steven Jackson 1,224 attempts- 5,291 yards - 4.3 YPC - longest run 59 yds, 37 TD

T.Richardson
02-13-2009, 05:29 PM
Preach, I am with you. Parker gets hacked even though he was injured most of the season and still managed 791 yards rushing and a 3.8YPC average. Its the first time in his career that he averaged less than 4.1 YPC.

I find it amusing that the Willie haters would all love to have Steven Jackson in Pittsburgh, but his 5 year career rushing stats are almost the same as Parker.

Willie Parker, 1,155 attempts- 4,989 yards - 4.3 YPC - longest run 80 yds, 24 TD

Steven Jackson 1,224 attempts- 5,291 yards - 4.3 YPC - longest run 59 yds, 37 TD

Well to be fair, Jackson is playing for the Rams, and tey dont run the ball as much, and he has been injured (Parker was for this year too).

But I would prefer Jackson over Parker though...

steelreserve
02-13-2009, 05:47 PM
Preach, I am with you. Parker gets hacked even though he was injured most of the season and still managed 791 yards rushing and a 3.8YPC average. Its the first time in his career that he averaged less than 4.1 YPC.

I find it amusing that the Willie haters would all love to have Steven Jackson in Pittsburgh, but his 5 year career rushing stats are almost the same as Parker.

Because you don't win football games with stats. That's why he gets hacked.

How many games did he play a big factor in us winning this year? One or two? And how many times did he play like shit? Four times that? He gets fantasy football yards against bad teams and the good ones have been able to shut him down whenever they choose. This has been going on since his first year in the league.

Want some stats? How about a list of all his 100-yard games -- and who they came against. The guy pads his stats against shitty teams when the offense is rolling anyway. Even the teams with "good" records below were mostly the ones with suspect defenses (Seattle, New Orleans, Cleveland, I'm looking your way).

2008
Houston (8-8)
Cleveland (4-12)
San Diego (8-8)
Cleveland (4-12)

2007
Cleveland (10-6)
Buffalo (7-9)
San Francisco (5-11)
Seattle (10-6)
New England (16-0*)
Jacksonville (11-5)

2006
Miami (6-10)
Cincinnati (8-8)
Kansas City (9-7)
New Orleans (10-6)
Cleveland (4-12)
Carolina (8-8)
Cincinnati (8-8)

2005
Buffalo (9-7)

Add to that the fact that he averages 2-point-something most of the time in the playoffs. He is absolutely ineffective when it counts. I bit my tongue throughout the playoffs hoping he would come through instead of trying to spread a sour mood around. But this is bullshit; I can't believe people can't see it, and I'm sick of the guy.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-13-2009, 06:06 PM
Because you don't win football games with stats. That's why he gets hacked.

How many games did he play a big factor in us winning this year? One or two? And how many times did he play like shit? Four times that? He gets fantasy football yards against bad teams and the good ones have been able to shut him down whenever they choose. This has been going on since his first year in the league.

Want some stats? How about a list of all his 100-yard games -- and who they came against. The guy pads his stats against shitty teams when the offense is rolling anyway. Even the teams with "good" records below were mostly the ones with suspect defenses (Seattle, New Orleans, Cleveland, I'm looking your way).

2008
Houston (8-8)
Cleveland (4-12)
San Diego (8-8)
Cleveland (4-12)

2007
Cleveland (10-6)
Buffalo (7-9)
San Francisco (5-11)
Seattle (10-6)
New England (16-0*)
Jacksonville (11-5)

2006
Miami (6-10)
Cincinnati (8-8)
Kansas City (9-7)
New Orleans (10-6)
Cleveland (4-12)
Carolina (8-8)
Cincinnati (8-8)

2005
Buffalo (9-7)

Add to that the fact that he averages 2-point-something most of the time in the playoffs. He is absolutely ineffective when it counts. I bit my tongue throughout the playoffs hoping he would come through instead of trying to spread a sour mood around. But this is bullshit; I can't believe people can't see it, and I'm sick of the guy.

So you only choose to see his games against the Ravens and Cardinals in the playoffs and dismiss his 146 yards against the Chargers in the playoffs???? You should try drinking some decaf :coffee: the stress of this Parker hate cant be healthy for you.

fansince'76
02-13-2009, 06:09 PM
So you only choose to see his games against the Ravens and Cardinals in the playoffs and dismiss his 146 yards against the Chargers in the playoffs???? You should try drinking some decaf :coffee: the stress of this Parker hate cant be healthy for you.

C'mon El-Gonzo - just look at ALL the SBs we won with Bettis, a good OL, and....well, nothing else.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-13-2009, 06:13 PM
C'mon El-Gonzo - just look at ALL the SBs we won with Bettis, a good OL, and....well, nothing else.
Sorry, I forgot what it is that we do on this board. :rolleyes:

Parker Sucks!!!
Ben Sucks!!!
Hartwig Sucks!!!
Colon Sucks!!!
Arians Sucks!!!
Tyrone Carter Sucks!!!!
Sweed Sucks!!!!
Ike Taylor cant catch.....he sucks!!!!!!
We need a BIG RB. Any little RB sucks!!!!!

fansince'76
02-13-2009, 06:14 PM
Sorry, I forgot what it is that we do on this board. :rolleyes:

Parker Sucks!!!
Ben Sucks!!!
Hartwig Sucks!!!
Colon Sucks!!!
Arians Sucks!!!
Tyrone Carter Sucks!!!!
Sweed Sucks!!!!
Ike Taylor cant catch.....he sucks!!!!!!
We need a BIG RB. Any little RB sucks!!!!!

:toofunny: :toofunny: :toofunny:

Preacher
02-13-2009, 06:14 PM
... and it amazes me how people dote over guys like Parker who was inconsistent and contributed exactly dick in the big games when we needed it. And who put up good stats a couple years ago but presented a huge liability in the bigger picture.

We've had a glaring hole in our running game for three years now, and it's been there whether we've had a good offensive line or a bad offensive line. Pretending it's not there doesn't make it go away any more than "leading the league in rushing until he got hurt" helps us convert that third-and-9 that we always seem to be facing for some reason.

I'm sorry, but the instant you say anything negative about Parker, some people here will act like he and Bettis are the only two running backs you've ever seen. No. I can honestly say that no Steelers running back has pissed me off this badly since Walter Abercrombie and Tim Worley. Zereoue was close, but our whole offense was a little wack the year we tried featuring him, and more importantly, when that plan wasn't working after a year, WE STOPPED DOING IT. I cannot stress this enough.

We were good enough this year. But we weren't without our weaknesses, and that was definitely one of them. Can we win another Super Bowl with Parker around? More than likely. But give me a real running back and I guarantee we'll win another one.

Um, exactly WHEN, in the last three years, did we have a good line? go back and look at the sack stats for one... they have been exorbitant.

As for not critiquing willie, I KNOW you ain't talking about me. I was one of the FIRST ones to mention on this site that the main problem with Willie is that he is a cut and go guy. He has no shake and bake about him what-so-ever. Matter of fact, i was quoting PORTER when I said that.

But seeing his faults DOESNT blind me to his strengths. The problem on this board is that people think unless a running back is 240 pounds, and can carry 3 guys on his back all day, he sucks.

Funny thing is, as I said before, Not even JEROME BETTIS could do that. He FELL when hit BEHIND the LOS. It is called MOMENTUM.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-13-2009, 06:21 PM
Chargers had a subpar run defense if you ask me. So i'll go against you on how well Willie did against them in the divisional round of the playoffs. But im with you when i say its wrong to judge Willie on a couple playoff games. He has talent. And we are far better off him with than without.

Michael Turner had 120 yards rushing on them and a 3.9 YPC in their game on Nov 30.
Parker had 115 yards rushing and a 4.6 YPC on them in the regular season on Nov 16.
Parker had 146 yards rushing and a 5.4 YPC on them in the postseason.

Turner and the Falcons had the same kind of game as Parker and the Steelers lousy O line. Pro Bowl RB Michael Turner Sucks!!!! Willie Parker and the Steeler O line Sucks!!!

slashsteel
02-13-2009, 06:32 PM
Mendenhall being injured def impacted our running game. I for one am not a fan of getting rid of anyone. The free agents that are exiting are cap casualties. Try to strengthen those areas that will be hit. At the same time keep the best available formula in the draft. While concentrating on resigning some of our own such as.

Harrison
Starks
McFadden
Miller
Fox


I don't see a RB getting cut, but Russell could very well be on the outside looking in.

steelreserve
02-13-2009, 07:50 PM
Um, exactly WHEN, in the last three years, did we have a good line? go back and look at the sack stats for one... they have been exorbitant.


Year after the Super Bowl? We had some very talented guys on that line. The next year, we lost Hartings but we were still at least average.

As I've said before, I don't think the sudden increase in sacks had a direct relation to the talent of the linemen. If it was, we would've given up 70 sacks this season. I think the sacks are a byproduct of people not respecting our running game. THAT you can trace to one exact moment with a definite before/after.

As for not critiquing willie, I KNOW you ain't talking about me. I was one of the FIRST ones to mention on this site that the main problem with Willie is that he is a cut and go guy. He has no shake and bake about him what-so-ever. Matter of fact, i was quoting PORTER when I said that.

But seeing his faults DOESNT blind me to his strengths. The problem on this board is that people think unless a running back is 240 pounds, and can carry 3 guys on his back all day, he sucks.

Funny thing is, as I said before, Not even JEROME BETTIS could do that. He FELL when hit BEHIND the LOS. It is called MOMENTUM.
maybe I took it the wrong way, but it does seem like pointing out Parker's shortcomings instantly earns you the label of paying undue attention to size and being obsessed with T.J. Duckett.

No, that's not it at all. It's that in approximately 20 years of watching Steelers football (not counting when I was a little kid), I have never seen a running back who puts us in a hole so often, whether it's stretches of getting stuffed in one game, or just the frequency of bad games throughout the season, both of which are alarmingly high. Actually, I take that back -- I've seen a handful of running backs like that, but we didn't stubbornly insist on sticking with them for four years.

This is not something I'm just making up out of the blue from watching parts of a few games. I'm not only comparing him to Bettis. Yes, his successes can be spectacular, but his failures seem more often and more complete. I think that's a bad tradeoff and hurts the team versus having a balanced back. Not just Bettis; any number of guys from our past.

steelreserve
02-13-2009, 07:56 PM
So you only choose to see his games against the Ravens and Cardinals in the playoffs and dismiss his 146 yards against the Chargers in the playoffs???? You should try drinking some decaf :coffee: the stress of this Parker hate cant be healthy for you.

No, I dismiss his 146 yards against the Chargers because it was the ONLY good playoff game he's ever had, versus five awful ones and one that was turned from terrible into a push by a lucky 75-yard run. Most playoff games, he runs for 40 yards on a 2.4 average and we have to fight out a win in spite of having no rushing game. That's total horsecrap and we shouldn't have to deal with it.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-13-2009, 09:08 PM
No, I dismiss his 146 yards against the Chargers because it was the ONLY good playoff game he's ever had, versus five awful ones and one that was turned from terrible into a push by a lucky 75-yard run. Most playoff games, he runs for 40 yards on a 2.4 average and we have to fight out a win in spite of having no rushing game. That's total horsecrap and we shouldn't have to deal with it.

So I guess you think he played terrible in the Super Bowl too?? I have watched and rewatched it about 3 times now and Parker had some good runs with the opportunities given to him.

He should have been dropped for a loss, yet he escaped Wilson and still got a good 5 yard gain. Again in the 1st series, he had defenders in the backfield and gave them a dead leg fake and got outside for around 10 yards and in the 2nd quarter, he follows a nice pull to the right and runs the ball down to the 4 yard line.

I am gonna take a shot in the dark and guess that you have never had the opportunity to play organized football. Not judging, but just guessing .......am I correct?

I just think if you had some direct experience, you would have an appreciation for the fact that running the ball is a tough thing. That you don't gain positive yards and 4-5 yard runs each time you try to run the ball. The defense on the other side is trying and sometimes is better than your offense. Every RB in the league gets stuffed for 0 or negative yardage..........its the NFL. The fact that Parker has very similar stats in his 5 year career than Steven Jackson (who most think is a very good RB) shows they produce similar results.

Parker is a good RB and those that expect him to gain 4 yards+ each time he touches the ball, have unrealistic expectations as somebody that thinks the QB throwing an INT's should not happen or a lineman giving up 5 sacks a season is a bum.

Willie Parker is here for 1 more season. If you hate him that much, I suggest you dont watch for a year.

The Duke
02-13-2009, 10:35 PM
Willie cant, and wont be cut. I think subconsciously, a lot of people are looking down upon because of his dysmal season.

Nope. Willie parker hate existed way before this season, around the time he first became a starter

One of the first excuses was he was too small for a steelers runningback, then the fumbles( surprised his fumble against the ravens isn't mentioned much by the haters. 1st in more than a year btw....), then he has his broken leg/ sprained knee/ injured shoulder in the span of 11 months and he is injury prone :toofunny:

Like gonzo said, he's here for 1 more year, unless he goes the bettis way which I'd love, so just tolerate the man the steelers are 7-0 with in the playoffs and the coaches love so much

lilyoder6
02-13-2009, 11:35 PM
Nope. Willie parker hate existed way before this season, around the time he first became a starter

One of the first excuses was he was too small for a steelers runningback, then the fumbles( surprised his fumble against the ravens isn't mentioned much by the haters. 1st in more than a year btw....), then he has his broken leg/ sprained knee/ injured shoulder in the span of 11 months and he is injury prone :toofunny:

Like gonzo said, he's here for 1 more year, unless he goes the bettis way which I'd love, so just tolerate the man the steelers are 7-0 with in the playoffs and the coaches love so much

shit.. we could have the best 53 players in steeler history,, and ppl on this board would still bitch about the players

steelerdave1969
02-13-2009, 11:39 PM
I think Davis is the odd man out.

Parker, Mendendhall, Moore, McHugh, Russell. That is a pretty ok backfield to go into next season with.

I am gonna have to agree here and or but I think the Steelers should add a FB like Johnson from LSU to help out in the blocking for the starter and the guy proved during senior bowl week that he can catch the ball out of the backfield.

steelerdave1969
02-13-2009, 11:41 PM
shit.. we could have the best 53 players in steeler history,, and ppl on this board would still bitch about the players

Lilyoder6
You
Are
So
Right!!!! Thank You!!!! :thumbsup:

steelers2685
02-13-2009, 11:52 PM
I have a hunch that if Arians would actually let Willie run outside of the tackles (during his league leading season prior to breaking his leg) then he's worth keeping. But the playcalling this year trying to make his running style work between the tackles not only is making him more fragile, but isn't letting him use the talents he has (quickness, juking ability, etc). McHugh at least helped later in the season with opening up some holes for Willie to follow. Without a FB or outside running game, Willie is not what he used to be for us anymore.

We brought Mendenhall in to be the power guy and I think that will pan out. If we operated our backfield like the Titans do with White and Johnson we could utilize both of their talents to the maximum potential.

Carey Davis needs to be released though. I really wish I could find out who's brilliant idea it was to put him back there to return kickoffs... what other team got a fullback sized guy doing that? We go from Allen Rossum to him??!??! He can't return anything for any decent amount of yardage. He can't catch when he is thrown to. At least McHugh can lay a block similar to Kreider and Russell can get into the endzone when we need a hard run if Mendehall can't prove he can. The CFL guy will be a ST guy.

Pitt$burgh$teeler$
02-14-2009, 12:12 AM
Are Sum Of u People Nuts Parker Is A Great Runningback Give Him A Good Blocking Line And He Looks Like A Probowler!

SaskSteeler
02-14-2009, 12:18 AM
I live in saskatoon and i am a big CFL fan and i dont see stefan logan making much of an impact in the NFL. He wasn't even the best rb on his team. He was pretty much the kind of guy they would put in and try to run screens and other passes out of the backfield. I doubt he sees much if any playing time at rb. If he even makes the team it will probably be as a returner.

We should also just let James Harrison play rb since he ran pretty well in the SB:wink02:

steelreserve
02-20-2009, 02:46 PM
So I guess you think he played terrible in the Super Bowl too?? I have watched and rewatched it about 3 times now and Parker had some good runs with the opportunities given to him.

He should have been dropped for a loss, yet he escaped Wilson and still got a good 5 yard gain. Again in the 1st series, he had defenders in the backfield and gave them a dead leg fake and got outside for around 10 yards and in the 2nd quarter, he follows a nice pull to the right and runs the ball down to the 4 yard line.

I am gonna take a shot in the dark and guess that you have never had the opportunity to play organized football. Not judging, but just guessing .......am I correct?

I just think if you had some direct experience, you would have an appreciation for the fact that running the ball is a tough thing. That you don't gain positive yards and 4-5 yard runs each time you try to run the ball. The defense on the other side is trying and sometimes is better than your offense. Every RB in the league gets stuffed for 0 or negative yardage..........its the NFL. The fact that Parker has very similar stats in his 5 year career than Steven Jackson (who most think is a very good RB) shows they produce similar results.

Parker is a good RB and those that expect him to gain 4 yards+ each time he touches the ball, have unrealistic expectations as somebody that thinks the QB throwing an INT's should not happen or a lineman giving up 5 sacks a season is a bum.

Willie Parker is here for 1 more season. If you hate him that much, I suggest you dont watch for a year.

OK, I've not been around for the better part of a week, but feel this deserves a response.

First, I did have the chance to play organized football ... on the other hand, it wasn't my "first" sport, or even one I stuck with for all that long. I was a lot better at basketball and swimming, probably because that was just what my build favored, so that's what I did. So take from that what you will.

The more important point, and the real reason I responded, is because a lot of the time around here, when (God forbid) there's criticism of an important Steelers player/coach for poor performance, the debate goes something like:

Member A: "I think Parker/Ben/Arians is doing a bad job."
Member B: "Well, you shouldn't comment about professional football."

Seriously, I don't think there are many people among the regulars here who do not have a fundamental understanding of competitive football. Most everyone can also grasp the concepts you pointed out -- in fact, they ought to be pretty obvious to people who have participated in any sport at a decent level of competition.

People who don't like Parker are not expecting him to gain 4 yards EVERY time he touches the ball. We don't think Bettis or anyone else DID gain 4 yards every time he touched the ball. Nobody is that stupid. Not even that UFN guy or the other one who got banned. In fact, implying that that's the reason why someone dislikes Parker generally is only going to provoke them more -- i.e. "how could you possibly think that's what I'm arguing? Is THAT really the lowest common denominator we're still stuck on?"

Sure, you have your points. Nobody succeeds every time. Football is hard, especially when your opponents are all elite athletes too. Making it to the NFL at all is quite an accomplishment. We GET it. That doesn't mean all NFL running backs are created equal, that everyone with similar numbers is just as effective for their offense, or that you can't expect more. There are probably 20 guys I'd rather have in our backfield instead of Willie Parker, and if any of them were on our team tomorrow, I don't think anyone would disagree that even if it didn't work out in the end (because you never can tell, of course), it would be a good idea to at least try.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-20-2009, 03:09 PM
Ok Steelreserve, I just dont understand why you hate Parker so passionately. I see you commenting that he gets stopped for no gain or doesnt have big games against strong defensive teams. My point is that most RB's have weak games against good defensive teams and rushes in the course of a game for little or no gain.

Since you are a former Basketball player, surely you can understand how Kobe can put up 60 aginst the Raptors in a win and then 25 against a better defensive team like the Celtics, Spurs or Cavs and lose. Or even a lesser player like Ginobli, Ray Allen or Rashard Lewis can have a big game or not from night to night. The fact it that they have the skills and are capable, but it varies from what is needed nightly.

The Steelers are 7-0 in the playoffs with Willie Parker and while maybe he hasnt been a big contributor in all of those games, he has been a contributor in getting them to those playoff games. I just don't see the reason for the hate. Especially if you think Moore is the answer, but I know that isnt you as much as UFN.

Never meant to offend you, just clarify your competitive athletic background and gain understanding of why it irks you so much when Parker gets tackled in the backfield or stoned at the line of scrimmage when there is no hole.??

stlrtruck
02-20-2009, 03:20 PM
Why do people want to take away the long runs from a RB? If he was slower, he would have been caught. Long runs are like turnovers - they are part of the game.

Having a RB with that type of burst is a blessing to have. I'm sure there are plenty of teams who wish that after their RB made it through the line that they could turn on the after burner.

Point being people want to utilize the fact that at time our RBs are stopped for minimal, no, or negative yards and wish not to subtract that from their stats - why? It's all part of the game!

steelreserve
02-20-2009, 03:58 PM
Never meant to offend you, just clarify your competitive athletic background and gain understanding of why it irks you so much when Parker gets tackled in the backfield or stoned at the line of scrimmage when there is no hole.??

Honestly, it wasn't you that offended me, so much as that post seemed to exemplify some part of what's really a lot of attitudes and go-to arguments that have been thrown out there all year in the Parker/Ben/Arians debates. The ones along the lines of "Oh, you don't like so-and-so; well, you just must not know much about football." So you probably took the heat for about 10 different people there. Sorry if an excessive amount was directed at you.

My main problem with Parker is something that I'm guessing we'll never be able to settle conclusively with the tools we have available: His status as the ultimate "fair weather running back." I know every player has his ups and downs -- and believe me, many people have gone well out of their way to point that out here -- but Parker's ups and down go way beyond normal.

There are certain games when you absolutely can't count on him at all and you know it from early on. With most of our other backs from Bettis to Foster, even if they were having a bad day, you got the sense that OK, if we hand him the ball this time, he might still be able to pick up that key first down or do something we need. Parker against the Ravens? Not so much. You know exactly what's coming, and we might as well not even bother.

The predictability is another part of it. On average, most backs not named Bo Jackson or Barry Sanders are going to have more bad games against elite defenses. But not every game. And not with such consistency within those games. To me, with Parker we've crossed some invisible line from "OK, the running back had a bad day and we picked up 50 less yards" to "The defense knows how to stop our running game and doesn't respect the run, so now they're tougher against our whole offense." I don't know exactly where that line is or how to prove it, but it's there. That's what I mean when I say his bad games are a special kind of bad that we didn't get with Bettis, Morris, Pegram or anyone else. Our running game isn't even a threat a lot of the time, and the defense can tell in the first quarter. That hurts the passing game, it hurts field position, it hurts time of possession, it tips our hand, and it leads to sacks. THAT'S how we got away from "Steeler football." Again, I don't know how to prove that cascading effect, it's just a difference I've observed from watching literally thousands of football games at all levels.

I know it's far from unique to harp on the one-dimensionality of not being able to catch passes or run for short yardage, but those are the kinds of things that usually help offset a bad day or a tough opponent. I think the lack of that ability is what makes the problems I just talked about worse. Or, if we bring in Russell or Moore to compensate, I can't think of any better way to announce our intentions to the defense, bar shouting. And compounding the frustration is the idea that, unless I'm so completely wrong that I'm a crazy person (and I doubt I'm THAT wrong), the coaches must see at least some of this going on, so why don't we do something about it?

Actually, it seems like they've tried to some extent, first with Dookie and then with Mendenhall/Moore, but in retrospect, Dookie was terrible, we got gypped out of seeing Mendenhall, and Moore worked better but still had problems of his own. But sitting through three years of the same problem, when you think you can see it plain as day, is just aggravating.

So hopefully, that's a better explanation than just "OMG Parker sux11!1!1!!!" Like I said, I don't think you'll ever completely buy my side of it, and I don't think I'll ever be completely satisfied with Parker either barring some transformation. I'm glad it was good enough for us to win this year, but it definitely wasn't our strength and I hope we look out for ways to do better.

7/39/43
02-20-2009, 03:59 PM
parker

lilyoder6
02-20-2009, 04:21 PM
The predictability is another part of it. On average, most backs not named Bo Jackson or Barry Sanders are going to have more bad games against elite defenses.

and the sad part of that statement,, is that barry sanders played for the detroit lions...

just wonder what he could of done if he was on a DECENT team

stlrtruck
02-20-2009, 04:23 PM
Honestly, it wasn't you that offended me, so much as that post seemed to exemplify some part of what's really a lot of attitudes and go-to arguments that have been thrown out there all year in the Parker/Ben/Arians debates. The ones along the lines of "Oh, you don't like so-and-so; well, you just must not know much about football." So you probably took the heat for about 10 different people there. Sorry if an excessive amount was directed at you.

My main problem with Parker is something that I'm guessing we'll never be able to settle conclusively with the tools we have available: His status as the ultimate "fair weather running back." I know every player has his ups and downs -- and believe me, many people have gone well out of their way to point that out here -- but Parker's ups and down go way beyond normal.

There are certain games when you absolutely can't count on him at all and you know it from early on. With most of our other backs from Bettis to Foster, even if they were having a bad day, you got the sense that OK, if we hand him the ball this time, he might still be able to pick up that key first down or do something we need. Parker against the Ravens? Not so much. You know exactly what's coming, and we might as well not even bother.

The predictability is another part of it. On average, most backs not named Bo Jackson or Barry Sanders are going to have more bad games against elite defenses. But not every game. And not with such consistency within those games. To me, with Parker we've crossed some invisible line from "OK, the running back had a bad day and we picked up 50 less yards" to "The defense knows how to stop our running game and doesn't respect the run, so now they're tougher against our whole offense." I don't know exactly where that line is or how to prove it, but it's there. That's what I mean when I say his bad games are a special kind of bad that we didn't get with Bettis, Morris, Pegram or anyone else. Our running game isn't even a threat a lot of the time, and the defense can tell in the first quarter. That hurts the passing game, it hurts field position, it hurts time of possession, it tips our hand, and it leads to sacks. THAT'S how we got away from "Steeler football." Again, I don't know how to prove that cascading effect, it's just a difference I've observed from watching literally thousands of football games at all levels.

I know it's far from unique to harp on the one-dimensionality of not being able to catch passes or run for short yardage, but those are the kinds of things that usually help offset a bad day or a tough opponent. I think the lack of that ability is what makes the problems I just talked about worse. Or, if we bring in Russell or Moore to compensate, I can't think of any better way to announce our intentions to the defense, bar shouting. And compounding the frustration is the idea that, unless I'm so completely wrong that I'm a crazy person (and I doubt I'm THAT wrong), the coaches must see at least some of this going on, so why don't we do something about it?

Actually, it seems like they've tried to some extent, first with Dookie and then with Mendenhall/Moore, but in retrospect, Dookie was terrible, we got gypped out of seeing Mendenhall, and Moore worked better but still had problems of his own. But sitting through three years of the same problem, when you think you can see it plain as day, is just aggravating.

So hopefully, that's a better explanation than just "OMG Parker sux11!1!1!!!" Like I said, I don't think you'll ever completely buy my side of it, and I don't think I'll ever be completely satisfied with Parker either barring some transformation. I'm glad it was good enough for us to win this year, but it definitely wasn't our strength and I hope we look out for ways to do better.

Dude, that's one hell of a post. I understand what you are saying and have to agree that when we play baltimore I don't expect to see much of parket except to attempt to block.

I'm just going to throw this out there. Do you think that maybe it has to do not just the RB but also the o-line? Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to shift all the blame but it seems to me that over the course of the last 5 years, the o-line continues to weaken. And unlike Bus, Foster, and Morris - our current roster of RBs aren't built like linebackers. So I guess this is where the cascade begins (that you referenced). Without the big bruising back to pound the rock, the o-line talented enough to constantly make big enough holes for a skat-style RB to move through, our offense becomes one dimensional - leaving the opponenets defense eligible to tee-off.

I say it's a team game and part of the blame of the running game (or lack there of) also falls on the o-line for not doing their jobs. The other blame falls on the RB for not hitting the holes no matter how big or small they are!

steelreserve
02-20-2009, 04:45 PM
I'm just going to throw this out there. Do you think that maybe it has to do not just the RB but also the o-line? Don't get me wrong I'm not trying to shift all the blame but it seems to me that over the course of the last 5 years, the o-line continues to weaken. And unlike Bus, Foster, and Morris - our current roster of RBs aren't built like linebackers. So I guess this is where the cascade begins (that you referenced). Without the big bruising back to pound the rock, the o-line talented enough to constantly make big enough holes for a skat-style RB to move through, our offense becomes one dimensional - leaving the opponenets defense eligible to tee-off.


Believe me, I've thought about that. But we've had the same exact problems with Parker and a good offensive line, as we did with Parker and a bad offensive line. The line was still very good his first full year as a starter and at least average last season. We still had the much higher sacks and the up-and-down performance throughout.

Granted, the problems got worse as the line deteriorated, to the point where we were completely ineffective this year. So helping the line would seem to help mitigate the problem. But I doubt it would solve it completely.

I think the basic issue is that if you want to make defenses stop running so many aggressive stunts and blitzes to confuse your already overmatched linemen, you're going to actually have to gain some yards up the middle in order to make the linebackers hold their ground. Or do it the other way by having a guy who can catch passes and keep the LBs worried about coverage. If you can do both, even better. If you can do neither, bad news for you.

LukesDad88
02-20-2009, 06:11 PM
Probably the best statistical analysis on the web can be found at Football Outsiders. They go far beynd measuring yards and carries. They factor in situation, downs, success on individual downs, quality of opponent, etc... Very good analysis for evaluating past performance, and one of the best I've seen at helping predict future performance. Here's their RB breakdown from 08. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

LukesDad88
02-20-2009, 06:16 PM
BTW, was anybody else shocked when they saw the Parker's numbers in the boxscore for the Superbowl? It just seemed like as if he had a better day than the numbers showed.

steelreserve
02-20-2009, 06:24 PM
Probably the best statistical analysis on the web can be found at Football Outsiders. They go far beynd measuring yards and carries. They factor in situation, downs, success on individual downs, quality of opponent, etc... Very good analysis for evaluating past performance, and one of the best I've seen at helping predict future performance. Here's their RB breakdown from 08. http://www.footballoutsiders.com/stats/rb

Hmm. The one really interesting thing there is that it looks like even though it's just Starks and Kemo, the left side of our line did extremely well run blocking compared to the rest of the league. And the right side flat-out sucked, which I pretty much expected.
Maybe Starks really is worth some of those millions we're paying. About half of them, anyway.

steelreserve
02-20-2009, 06:25 PM
BTW, was anybody else shocked when they saw the Parker's numbers in the boxscore for the Superbowl? It just seemed like as if he had a better day than the numbers showed.

I actually was at first, because it seemed like he started out doing pretty well. But then I remembered our running game mostly disappeared for the final three quarters.

LukesDad88
02-20-2009, 06:32 PM
Even in the second half, he had a couple of good runs...

steelreserve
02-20-2009, 06:39 PM
Even in the second half, he had a couple of good runs...

It's possible. But by then I was so drunk I could barely remember the score, so I'll have to take your word for it.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-20-2009, 06:42 PM
I personally am not a fan of number crunching sites like footballoutsiders and the like. I believe last year, that a site like that had Najeh Davenport rated as a much better RB than many others in the league............and we all know that just isnt the case.

Parker is a better feature RB than Moore and Moore better than Russell, but I think Mendenhall has a chance to be much better than all of them.

The one thing that most of the statistics based arguements miss is what kind of an offense do guys run in. I think its reasonable to say Parker is better with a lead FB blocking for him. Moore may have better cut back ability in a single back set with a zone block in front of him, but doesnt have the burst to get thru a hole. Maybe Mendenhall has the cutback running ability and acceleration to get thru holes, but the only way to know is see them perform on the field, not on a spreadsheet.

LukesDad88
02-20-2009, 06:53 PM
Parker had a total of 19 carries in the SB. Eight of them were positive carries (4 or more yards) for 54 yards (a 9, two 8, a fifteen, a six, and two 4). He had negative yardage on four carries, and minimal gain (1-2-3) on seven. On 11 carries, he totaled -1 yard. Parker is, by the very definition, a boom or bust back.

bratsinmybelly
02-20-2009, 10:01 PM
It's possible. But by then I was so drunk I could barely remember the score, so I'll have to take your word for it.

:drink::tt03::tt03::tt03:

I remember the big plays but that fourth quarter about killed me. After the Cards took the lead I basically tried to black out. Thankfully it didn't happen before SH made the catch of a lifetime. I sure don't remember the postgame!!:drool::drool::help:

86WARD
02-21-2009, 12:17 AM
Davis is out. He can't block, he can run a little, he can't catch and seems like he is always a yard short...

Parker and Mendenhall are in rotation.

Moore is 3RB.

Russell and Logan are special teams.

McHugh is FB.

SteelCityMan786
02-21-2009, 12:20 AM
Parker
Mendenhall
Moore
Russell
Davis
McHugh
Little guy just signed from Canada

Is there a spot for Russell anymore on the roster with Mendenhall coming back?

With Willie entering his final year of his contract, is it worth keeping Russell and letting Willie walk after next year?...considering the wear and tear on his body.

I want to see Moore get more touches as a 3rd down back...but this supposedly is the strength of this guy from Canada we are bringing in. Now, I know most players from Canada don't make it in the NFL, but if he does, I don't want it to be at the expense of Moore losing touches.

My thoughts are that we let Willie leave after this year. We go with Mendenhall, Moore, and Russell as the RB's in our backfield.

I do believe that there is a place on this team for Davis (because he can play both RB positions and very good ST). McHugh is valuable because he can play both FB and TE...kind of like our version of Chris Cooley from Washington...ok...maybe I'm reaching a little here.

I think you have to keep Parker. Mendenhall still needs some veteran guidance. Eventually that back field will become his in my opinion. He has a lot of potential to improve which is something he did at Illinois(While giving PSU fans like myself nightmares)

Steelcitygal87
02-21-2009, 08:11 AM
I think you have to keep Parker. Mendenhall still needs some veteran guidance. Eventually that back field will become his in my opinion. He has a lot of potential to improve which is something he did at Illinois(While giving PSU fans like myself nightmares)

Yep, me too...GO PENN STATE! His most impressive game to me though was his performance in the Rose Bowl against USC(which, as you know, is about as close to a pro style of D you can get in the college ranks). He was the offense for Illinois.

tube517
02-21-2009, 12:13 PM
I think 3rd and 3 or less will be the short yardage back (Mendenhall or Russell, if they keep Russell)....3rd and 4 or more (Passing downs) is Moore....He is the best pass catching back we have. Moore was all we had last year for 3rd downs so I don't fault him for the "stuffs". Once the OL is improved the short yardage game will improve. I think Mendenhall will be more of a 10-15 carry back on 1st/2nd down.


I thought Moore did a great job filling in for Parker this past season, however I don't like the idea of him as our 3rd down back. Particulalry short yardage 3rd downs. How many times did we see Moore get stuffed on 3rd/4th and 1 this season? I would like to see Mendenhall prove himself as the short yardage back

plenewken
02-21-2009, 12:26 PM
I still think Parker will be traded to help them move up in the draft...

I don't think it'll happen but it wouldn't bother me if it does. I've never been sold on Parker, good OL or not.

St33lersguy
02-21-2009, 01:29 PM
Well looks like the Steelers are set at RB. How about lets get smart and not concern ourselves at this position

lilyoder6
02-21-2009, 03:18 PM
Well looks like the Steelers are set at RB. How about lets get smart and not concern ourselves at this position

not on this site... we can never not concern about something

markymarc
02-22-2009, 12:48 AM
I actually would keep all of them on the roster with the exception of Carey Davis. With injuries IMO it's smart to keep FWP, Moore, Russell and Mendenhall.

Galax Steeler
02-22-2009, 09:11 AM
I actually would keep all of them on the roster with the exception of Carey Davis. With injuries IMO it's smart to keep FWP, Moore, Russell and Mendenhall.

I have to agree I think Davis will be gone also.

lilyoder6
02-22-2009, 10:34 AM
I actually would keep all of them on the roster with the exception of Carey Davis. With injuries IMO it's smart to keep FWP, Moore, Russell and Mendenhall.

if mendenhall can get the tough yrds.. he will become our shorty yrdage back.. then y keep a pointless russell on the roster???

if i remember correctly he wasn't on the roster at the beginning but when parker and rashard got hurt, he was brought back on the roster...

all i am saying is mendenhall is back, russell has no job.. he can go 2 PS or go bye bye..

UltimateFootballNetwork
02-22-2009, 05:05 PM
I still believe the wrong questions are being asked here.

If Mendenhall is as good as hoped, will he be utilized? Seems to me the Steelers are strangely committed to all-FWP-all-the-time regardless of the results.

RB A started 14 games averaging 20 carries per game and 75 yards per game, 3.7 ypc.

RB B started 4 games averaging 20 carries per game and 90 yards per game, 4.5 ypc.

If Arians insists on utilizing RB A exclusively when he has RB B available, what makes anyone think adding RB C to the mix is going to change anything?

Steelcitygal87
02-22-2009, 05:22 PM
I still believe the wrong questions are being asked here.

If Mendenhall is as good as hoped, will he be utilized? Seems to me the Steelers are strangely committed to all-FWP-all-the-time regardless of the results.

RB A started 14 games averaging 20 carries per game and 75 yards per game, 3.7 ypc.

RB B started 4 games averaging 20 carries per game and 90 yards per game, 4.5 ypc.

If Arians insists on utilizing RB A exclusively when he has RB B available, what makes anyone think adding RB C to the mix is going to change anything?

You might be interested in reading this Q&A with Bruce Arians about Mendenhall....it was back in August of 2008

http://www.cbssports.com/nfl/story/10916468

Justano
02-22-2009, 06:54 PM
Parker
Mendenhall
Moore
Russell
Davis
McHugh
Little guy just signed from Canada

Is there a spot for Russell anymore on the roster with Mendenhall coming back?

With Willie entering his final year of his contract, is it worth keeping Russell and letting Willie walk after next year?...considering the wear and tear on his body.

I want to see Moore get more touches as a 3rd down back...but this supposedly is the strength of this guy from Canada we are bringing in. Now, I know most players from Canada don't make it in the NFL, but if he does, I don't want it to be at the expense of Moore losing touches.

My thoughts are that we let Willie leave after this year. We go with Mendenhall, Moore, and Russell as the RB's in our backfield.

I do believe that there is a place on this team for Davis (because he can play both RB positions and very good ST). McHugh is valuable because he can play both FB and TE...kind of like our version of Chris Cooley from Washington...ok...maybe I'm reaching a little here.

Yes willie parker has been injured but who says he wont have great year next year becuz i still believe he is one of the fastest running backs in the league and with a little improvement on the o-line he could be a lil more successful becuz one guy cant do it by himself all the time... idk about russel we could keep him onemore year.... but wif mendenhall shold is alright hewould be3rd down running backon running plays and moore would be 3rd dwn back for passing becuz hes pretty good at blocking...

Who knows? Wille Parker could be the lead Rusher this season.. like he was until he got injured in 2007... and as long as roethlisberger avoids the ints and sacks like he usually does it shuld be a good season.. we might 16-0 lol becuz we got the 4th easiest schedule this season lol..!! cant wait for number 7!

lilyoder6
02-22-2009, 07:20 PM
I still believe the wrong questions are being asked here.

If Mendenhall is as good as hoped, will he be utilized? Seems to me the Steelers are strangely committed to all-FWP-all-the-time regardless of the results.

RB A started 14 games averaging 20 carries per game and 75 yards per game, 3.7 ypc.

RB B started 4 games averaging 20 carries per game and 90 yards per game, 4.5 ypc.

If Arians insists on utilizing RB A exclusively when he has RB B available, what makes anyone think adding RB C to the mix is going to change anything?

i see ur point.. but rb a and rb b were kinda of the same type of rb....
rb c is a different style than rb a and b.. and that could be where C can get more carries than b did

BehindSteelCurtain
02-22-2009, 10:23 PM
That guy from Canada is fast. He might be a KR.

paw-n-maul-u
02-23-2009, 12:42 AM
I would secretly look into the market for Willie Parker. His contract is expiring and health and production are declining. He made a pretty nice comeback this year, and I feel he could generate a decent amount of interest, esp. w/ how slim the market is.

Y not bring in someone like fred taylor who has been a goal line specialist to teach mendenhall if there is enough compensation for parker. WP has a reasonable contract the next two years.

Bring in taylor for a little less than that, resign moore, and develop mendenhall.

I think I just keep holding out for a big FA splash from the steelers ... Foote's, Simmons, Smiths, Kemo's, Washingtons, Parkers, and all the smaller essex, etc. contracts could free up so much room. they could make a run at any number of stud players along the trenches and give a lot more flexibility in the draft.

That really is the main reason I wouldnt mind seeing a big FA splash at the expense of a couple vets. I don't think there is going to be much, if any, value for O and D-lineman at 32 unless the steelers trade up.

However there are some stud players out there at other positions that will undboutably fall, like said in that other article.

MasterOfPuppets
02-23-2009, 01:01 AM
I think I just keep holding out for a big FA splash from the steelers ... Foote's, Simmons, Smiths, Kemo's, Washingtons, Parkers, and all the smaller essex, etc. contracts could free up so much room. they could make a run at any number of stud players along the trenches and give a lot more flexibility in the draft.

.
like who ??? :noidea:

steelwall
02-23-2009, 02:07 AM
I say lets go with Parker, Mendy, and Moore, and bring back Krieder at FB... IMO

lilyoder6
02-23-2009, 08:27 AM
I say lets go with Parker, Mendy, and Moore, and bring back Krieder at FB... IMO

krieder is old.. and he couldn't even finish the season with the rams

HometownGal
02-23-2009, 08:56 AM
I say lets go with Parker, Mendy, and Moore, and bring back Krieder at FB... IMO

Hell - maybe we can coax The Rock out of retirement. :noidea::chuckle:

I think we can all agree that we need to find a good FB out there somewhere. Carey Davis is an energetic young man, but I don't think he's the "right fit" back there.

lamberts-lost-tooth
02-23-2009, 09:28 AM
Carey Davis is an energetic young man, but I don't think he's the "right fit" back there

Bingo!!!

Tony Fiamatta & Brannon Southerland look like studs at the combine...being the two strongest and most athletic.

I also like Travis McCall from Alabama as a 7th rounder or UDFA.

BritishSteel
02-23-2009, 09:40 AM
The FB question is an interesting one. The Bruce Arians offensive plan clearly involves a number of positions and players who have interchangeable skills - Moore is favoured because he represents a receiving threat out of the backfield. McHugh can play TE or FB. Parker is the speed back, Mendenhall the potential short-yardage back. I suspect the players who'll end up being retained will be those that offers Ben/Arians the greatest range of options.

Davis and Russell for me then would be the most likely to disappear. Too early to talk about Logan - I also think we draft either another back or a TE at the bottom of the draft, though that might depend on whether Washington stays and how much faith Arians has that Sweed can contribute regularly in the third receiver slot next year.

El-Gonzo Jackson
02-23-2009, 11:46 AM
Bingo!!!

Tony Fiamatta & Brannon Southerland look like studs at the combine...being the two strongest and most athletic.

I also like Travis McCall from Alabama as a 7th rounder or UDFA.

I've been saying Carey Davis sucks since this time last year. I hope we pickup another FB in the draft of UDFA.........but I actually think the kid from USC that they signed 2 weeks ago will beat him out of a spot.