PDA

View Full Version : What if Willie has a Big season?


The Definiti0n
06-02-2009, 09:16 PM
This was a question asked to Bouchette during a chat. It made me think what if Willie does have a better season than Mendy?

Please don't roast me like you guys do every other time I ask a Wille P question.

BlastFurnace
06-02-2009, 09:25 PM
I still think they have bigger fish to catch in Miller, Reed, extending Holmes, and others.

I like Willie too, but if he's looking to cash in...and I wouldn't blame him if he was, I have a hard time believing he will be around after this year.

Regardless...he'll always be a Steeler in our minds.

MasterOfPuppets
06-02-2009, 09:38 PM
i think he's history either way...he has a big season, he want's a bigger payday...he has another crappy year... well they have other backs to try... they didn't draft mendenhal to sit behind parker for 4 or 5 more years ...even if he was taken because he was the BPA... BPA's are also expected to be starters eventually.

Preacher
06-02-2009, 09:47 PM
I can see Parker here in two cases.

1. Mendy gets injured again, or doesn't produce like they want him to. In that case, Parker comes back as insurance.

2. Willie goes into the FO and says, I want to stay here. . . now let's figure out how to do it, and takes a home town discount. Outside of those two scenarios, I don't see him staying, sadly.

Steel Head
06-02-2009, 09:53 PM
good for him?

and us?

:noidea:

Carolina Steelers
06-02-2009, 09:54 PM
Willie will not take a discount I agree. Now that hes got 2 rings hes lookin for a payday So I believe its Mendy or bust

The Definiti0n
06-02-2009, 10:16 PM
I can see him tearing it up this year because knows if he plays well he either gets a big pay day from another team or the Steelers will try to work out a deal to keep him. Either way the Steelers win. I'm just a huge Parker fan.

Preacher
06-02-2009, 10:19 PM
Parker has made noise about wanting to stay, mainly because it is the Steelers that gave him his opportunity.

So we will see.

fansince'76
06-02-2009, 10:31 PM
i think he's history either way....

Agreed.

Psyychoward86
06-02-2009, 10:48 PM
I dont take solid talent at RB for granted, even tho good runningbacks are supposedly easy to find. Why are so many people just counting down the days for Willie to leave the Steel City? Who are you so confident in behind the other RB's that would do such a better job? Im aware that he seldom performs well against good defenses, that he does nothing but crank out 1 yard losses between the tackles with occasional 20 yard gains to keep his average honest, but he's well above average. Even if you despise scatbacks. Im optimistic about nearly all of our RB's in the wings. But you can never be too cautious. Let's see what he can do one last time before the curtain of judgement falls?

devilsdancefloor
06-02-2009, 10:51 PM
Honestly i think he will talk to his mentor and take a discount:noidea:

The Definiti0n
06-02-2009, 10:58 PM
Willie should only look at other 30+ starting RBs that left their team after having a great deal of success. Shaun Alexander, Edge Jame. He should take a home town discount and stay.

RoethlisBURGHer
06-02-2009, 11:02 PM
I am a big Parker fan, but he knows that his time as the starter in Pittsburgh is close to being over. If it doesn't happen this season, then next season Mendenhall becomes the starter and Parker becomes a change of pace back.

So if he wants to keep starting he leaves. If he wants a big contract, he leaves.

If he is willing to take less money and a lesser role in the offense, I think he can and will stay.

But with Mendenhall chomping at the bit, Parker isn't a priority like Miller, Holmes, and some others.

Galax Steeler
06-03-2009, 04:34 AM
But with Mendenhall chomping at the bit, Parker isn't a priority like Miller, Holmes, and some others.

I think Miller will be the no.1 priority next year to sign and after we sign our priority guys if we have enough room and parker wants to stay then maybe we can work him in.

atlsteelers
06-03-2009, 12:09 PM
i think we stick with willie until mendenhall shows something on the field.

i think willie will get a fair contract offer from the steelers and i think he stays. Almost all good teams have two featured backs so it makes sense to keep him even if mendehall has a breakout season.

Dino 6 Rings
06-03-2009, 12:25 PM
If Willie has a big year, the Jackhole known as UltimateFootballNetwork will have no reason to post on this site again when the season starts.

Can't wait for his Willie Parker sux threads to start in August.

TDLP
06-03-2009, 12:29 PM
Willie should only look at other 30+ starting RBs that left their team after having a great deal of success. Shaun Alexander, Edge Jame. He should take a home town discount and stay.

Exactly. It's such a risk moving into a new system for a RB, especially when so few feature backs have had success doing it.

I do think he will stay, and I hope he stays. He is still a beast when fully healthy, which i think is something that's eluded him since the broken leg game against the Rams.

mmalone
06-03-2009, 12:53 PM
he will leave if arians stays.. or he stays if arians decides this year to create a real running game, since arians does have parker, moore, mendy and summers. what most coaches in the nfl dont have, 4 great players. it should be a no brainer to play some smashmouth.

truesteelerfan
06-03-2009, 12:58 PM
If he has a healthy productive year, I think we would be stupid to at least not offer him a decent contract. Mendy could be great, but he's unproven, plus its a great problem to have when you have too much talent in the backfield. I don't know if he'll give us a discount for giving him his shot, I hope he does, but really who would blame him if he wanted to set up his grandkids for life?

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-03-2009, 01:52 PM
If Willie has a big year, the Jackhole known as UltimateFootballNetwork will have no reason to post on this site again when the season starts.

Can't wait for his Willie Parker sux threads to start in August. You stay classy.

I have never said that Willie Parker sucks, I do, however, like to add facts like...

FWP yards per carry over the past 4 seasons

2005- 4.7
2006- 4.4
2007- 4.1
2008- 3.8

Now if you were objective about it, does 2008 look like a fluke or an obvious trend for a RB going on 29 who has been run til the wheels fall off?

Does that mean I hate Willie Parker or did I say Willie Parker sucks? No. But I am able to be objective.

Now to the original question of what happens if Willie Parker has a big season?

He is still gone.

There are multiple obvious reasons for this.

1) Steelers rarely offer contracts to older players
2) 30+ y/o RBs always slow down.
3) RB the easiest position to fill in the NFL
4) The Steelers have other needs to fill under the salary cap (Starks, Miller, Hampton, Reed)
5) The Steelers w/o Willie Parker are still deep at RB with Mendenhall and Moore under contract.

Add up all these factors and there is close to zero chance that Willie Parker is a Steeler in 2010 no matter what he does in 2009.

scsteeler
06-03-2009, 02:09 PM
I can see Parker here in two cases.

1. Mendy gets injured again, or doesn't produce like they want him to. In that case, Parker comes back as insurance.

2. Willie goes into the FO and says, I want to stay here. . . now let's figure out how to do it, and takes a home town discount. Outside of those two scenarios, I don't see him staying, sadly.


I agree and I do somehow see him finding a way to stay in Pittsburgh at least I hope. I know there are a lot that want to see him gone but I would love to see Parker here a few more years.

Preacher
06-03-2009, 03:53 PM
You stay classy.

I have never said that Willie Parker sucks, I do, however, like to add facts like...

FWP yards per carry over the past 4 seasons

2005- 4.7
2006- 4.4
2007- 4.1
2008- 3.8

Now if you were objective about it, does 2008 look like a fluke or an obvious trend for a RB going on 29 who has been run til the wheels fall off?
.

A trend, absolutely. BUt what kind of trend? Is it specifically teh RB, or is it the degradation of the offensive line? Look at the stats for the O line during that same time period and you have astronomical sack totals starting in 2006. These run totals may speak more to the correlation of sacks and O line than to FWP's ability to run the football.

SteelMember
06-03-2009, 04:19 PM
If Willie has a big year, the Jackhole known as UltimateFootballNetwork will have no reason to post on this site again when the season starts.

Can't wait for his Willie Parker sux threads to start in August.

August? Do you really think it will take that long? I think some other threads (pretty recently) have already been hijacked on this subject. :noidea:

You stay classy.

:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

He hasn't posted since 2-22, but as soon as you mentioned him....there ya go!

LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU, DINO!

:laughing:

Dino 6 Rings
06-03-2009, 05:54 PM
August? Do you really think it will take that long? I think some other threads (pretty recently) have already been hijacked on this subject. :noidea:



:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

He hasn't posted since 2-22, but as soon as you mentioned him....there ya go!

LOOK OUT BEHIND YOU, DINO!

:laughing:

That is SOOOOOOOOOOOO FUNNY!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

:rofl:

Dude must have his name set up for Google alerts or something....Geeshus...and he comes back with more of his "stats back up Parker is not good enough" stuff.

DACEB
06-03-2009, 06:12 PM
I have never said that Willie Parker sucks, I do, however, like to add facts like...

FWP yards per carry over the past 4 seasons

2005- 4.7
2006- 4.4
2007- 4.1
2008- 3.8

Now if you were objective about it, does 2008 look like a fluke or an obvious trend for a RB going on 29 who has been run til the wheels fall off?

Does that mean I hate Willie Parker or did I say Willie Parker sucks? No. But I am able to be objective.

Now to the original question of what happens if Willie Parker has a big season?

He is still gone.

There are multiple obvious reasons for this.

1) Steelers rarely offer contracts to older players
2) 30+ y/o RBs always slow down.
3) RB the easiest position to fill in the NFL
4) The Steelers have other needs to fill under the salary cap (Starks, Miller, Hampton, Reed)
5) The Steelers w/o Willie Parker are still deep at RB with Mendenhall and Moore under contract.

Add up all these factors and there is close to zero chance that Willie Parker is a Steeler in 2010 no matter what he does in 2009.

good post, agree or disagree

A trend, absolutely. BUt what kind of trend? Is it specifically teh RB, or is it the degradation of the offensive line? Look at the stats for the O line during that same time period and you have astronomical sack totals starting in 2006. These run totals may speak more to the correlation of sacks and O line than to FWP's ability to run the football.

good point, let's hope things come together and the O-line can build on last season. I'm looking for a big year from Mendenhall. Hopefully sharing the load will help keep each guy fresh and we'll see each approach 1000 yds.

On paper it seems we've got a decent stable of RB. It would have to be one hell of a hometown discount, Willie's gone after this year IMO,

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-03-2009, 06:40 PM
:toofunny::toofunny::toofunny:

He hasn't posted since 2-22, but as soon as you mentioned him....there ya go!

:laughing:


BTW, what was the post on 2-22?? Something about the Steelers probably losing the Super Bowl because they wouldn't give Mewelde Moore more carries? :noidea: How did that work out again? :rofl:

The Definiti0n
06-03-2009, 06:55 PM
U guys r kill em him

Steel-Bryan
06-03-2009, 07:51 PM
Willie parker ISNT going anywhere, he had one bad year. Come on you guys .

KYsteelfan
06-03-2009, 07:53 PM
i love willie, but i think that Mendenahall is the back of the future

KYsteelfan
06-03-2009, 07:54 PM
*Mendenhall

steelreserve
06-03-2009, 11:49 PM
Don't worry, he won't have a good year.

Even if he gets 1,000 yards again, it'll probably be by gaining 150 yards a game against the Browns, Bengals, Chiefs and Lions, and 28 yards on 19 carries against everyone else. Which is great for the stat sheet, but it really isn't a very good year.

Maybe he'll look like he had a good year though, since we play a lot of shitty teams this season. And that worries me.

LVSteelersfan
06-04-2009, 01:52 AM
Sorry, I don't see Parker returning after this year either. The Steelers are not going to offer him any kind of contract worth much if history continues as it has. The Steelers did not draft RBs and pick up Moore to allow a 30 year old RB who can't catch a ball if his life depended on it to remain in Pittsburgh. I just watched the Baltimore playoff game again and Willie dropped a perfect pass yet again in a crucial situation in that game. If Mendenhall proves he can catch the ball at all, Willie is gone. Moore and the Tank are both good pass catching backs. Willie, the one dimensional one, is not worth keeping.

Steeldude
06-04-2009, 01:59 AM
This was a question asked to Bouchette during a chat. It made me think what if Willie does have a better season than Mendy?

Please don't roast me like you guys do every other time I ask a Wille P question.

if 2010 had a salary cap i would say he is gone regardless of his season.

Preacher
06-04-2009, 02:11 AM
Don't worry, he won't have a good year.

Even if he gets 1,000 yards again, it'll probably be by gaining 150 yards a game against the Browns, Bengals, Chiefs and Lions, and 28 yards on 19 carries against everyone else. Which is great for the stat sheet, but it really isn't a very good year.

Maybe he'll look like he had a good year though, since we play a lot of shitty teams this season. And that worries me.


Your hatred of Willy is hilarious. Of COURSE it can't be the line or anything else. Just Willie right?

Aussie_steeler
06-04-2009, 02:11 AM
FWP deserves the great payday that awaits him at the end of the season. I just think the highest bidder will be somewhere other than Pittsburgh.

He will be chasing big guaranteed money to offset the risk aging running backs have with being cut mid way through their final contracts.

I am happy for another team to contribute to his retirement fund

Preacher
06-04-2009, 02:14 AM
i love willie, but i think that Mendenahall is the back of the future

Its definitely a little too premature for that. I have very high hopes for him. However, he didn't do much in the beginning of last year (not holding that against him, it WAS his rookie year, as a second stringer nonetheless). However, I just don't think that was close to being enough to call him the future back.

steelreserve
06-04-2009, 04:06 AM
Your hatred of Willy is hilarious. Of COURSE it can't be the line or anything else. Just Willie right?

Hey, I'll be the first to admit that my disdain for the guy is of near-cartoonish proportions. If it's mostly comic relief for some people, fine, and I get that. But it really, truly is one of those cases where I've tried to give him a chance and I've heard about every possible explanation for why he's a good back and certain problems aren't his fault. But I still think he's just got certain shortcomings that there's no way around and never will be.

No, I don't think the fundamental problem with our running game is the line. The basic problem is that we don't have anyone who's even average as a power back when needed, and that's been true for three years whether we've had a good line or a bad line. I think the current line makes it worse, but it's just adding to the problem, not causing it. Even with Faneca and Hartings and a healthy Marvel Smith on the line, plus Kreider in the backfield and Tuman instead of Spaeth as the second tight end, that was still just as much of a problem.

What's more, the lack-of-power problem spills over into the passing game because defenses don't always have to respect the run because it's one-dimensional. They can "bet it all" on the pass in certain situations and still be fairly confident that they can stop the run anyway if they're wrong. That's where all the sacks are coming from.

I'll say what I've said all along: Parker is a great back in certain respects. But he is most emphatically not a good option as your "main" running back, and we've further exacerbated the problem by playing him as if he was our ONLY running back. In order to be effective long-term, Parker needs to be on the field with, or rotate SEAMLESSLY with -- not only in obvious situations -- with someone who is a good pass-catcher or a legitimate power threat.

Otherwise, good defenses and good coaching staffs key on Parker and eat him alive, and we'll see the problem of streakiness that's basically followed him his whole career -- except for the one season when he had three Pro Bowlers on the offensive line and he rotated in and out with the fifth-leading rusher in the history of the game, capped off with a lucky but good run in the Super Bowl that the "yeah-but" crowd inevitably points at when people criticize him.

Parker is a decent back, and he could be great if we learned to use him the way the '84 Niners used Roger Craig and Wendell Tyler together. But we'll never learn to do that, and that's really not even the way NFL offenses work anymore, so let's just forget it and move on to someone who's solid enough on all fronts to do what's needed. Sheesh.

TDLP
06-04-2009, 07:19 AM
Don't worry, he won't have a good year.

Even if he gets 1,000 yards again, it'll probably be by gaining 150 yards a game against the Browns, Bengals, Chiefs and Lions, and 28 yards on 19 carries against everyone else. Which is great for the stat sheet, but it really isn't a very good year.

Maybe he'll look like he had a good year though, since we play a lot of shitty teams this season. And that worries me.

I wouldn't let it worry you. If he has a good overall statistical year then teams are going to pay over the odds in free-agency for him, aside from losing IMO a very decent running back, the Steelers haven't lost anything as such because there is depth at the RB position in the form of a first-round pick and Mewelde Moore, who played better than Parker last year, and was more integral to our successes. The Steelers are going to realise where and how Parker's yards came, and make a judgement on what to do based on that, they aren't stupid and won't pay him because of 3 games worth of good running.

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-04-2009, 11:41 AM
Hey, I'll be the first to admit that my disdain for the guy is of near-cartoonish proportions. If it's mostly comic relief for some people, fine, and I get that. .

I am happy you have a sense of humour about this. I for one, find it comic relief and enjoy the posts.

There are only 32 starting NFL feature RB's in the league each year. Parker has been one of them for a few years now. Its not a case where he was anybodys high draft pick either and gets a shot like that based on investment.(See Cedric Benson, William Green, Darren McFadden, Ron Dayne, etc for examples).

If Parker truly sucked as bad as you post, he would have suffered the same fate as Dante Brown who was another Steelers undrafted rookie the same season as Parker.

Dino 6 Rings
06-04-2009, 11:58 AM
I think he'll be fine this year. As long as he doesn't get hurt again.

I also think if he has a good year, he'll at least listen to an offer from the Steelers. They believed in him when no one else did, and the idea of some other team throwing huge dollars at him is incorrect. What free agent RBs lately have gotten huge deals? Usually they are cut and brought into camp late after some young guy gets hurt.

No, if Willie has a good year, I see the Steelers offering him a 3 year deal. And even if it isn't for huge money, I see him taking it.

LVSteelersfan
06-04-2009, 12:57 PM
Willie is just another Edgerrin James in waiting. Some team will pick him up for a ton of money and, when he doesn't pan out, he will be buried on the bench or cut. How many backs are there out of jobs the past couple years that didn't get signed until someone went down on a team somewhere? If he doesn't take the hometown discount, he will be a forgotten back within a year or two. If he stays, he will be buried on the bench.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-04-2009, 01:23 PM
A trend, absolutely. BUt what kind of trend? Is it specifically teh RB, or is it the degradation of the offensive line? Look at the stats for the O line during that same time period and you have astronomical sack totals starting in 2006. These run totals may speak more to the correlation of sacks and O line than to FWP's ability to run the football. No this trend is independent of the OL.

Here are the facts that back that up.

Starts in 08
Mewelde Moore- 4 starts, 90 yds rushing/game, 4.5 yds/carry
Willie Parker- 11 starts, 72 yds rushing/game, 3.8 yds carry

Same OL, very different results.

Dino 6 Rings
06-04-2009, 01:35 PM
UFN! You kill me. I started laughing the second I saw your name posted on this thread again.

Seirously...comedy GOLD!!!:rofl:

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-04-2009, 01:41 PM
Willie is just another Edgerrin James in waiting. Some team will pick him up for a ton of money and, when he doesn't pan out, he will be buried on the bench or cut. How many backs are there out of jobs the past couple years that didn't get signed until someone went down on a team somewhere? If he doesn't take the hometown discount, he will be a forgotten back within a year or two. If he stays, he will be buried on the bench. Yes and No.

The Colts were smart to let Edge walk, knowing that he had hit the wall, and the Colts let him walk at 27 y/o (he is 30 now).

Look at other RBs in FWPs age group who have taken a lot of hits....

Ladanian Tomlinson- 29
Fred Taylor- 32
Warrick Dunn- 33
Jamal Lewis- 29
Ahman Green- 31
Thomas Jones- 30
Deuce Macallister- 30
Rudi Johnson- 29
Larry Johnson- 29

Most of these RBs started slowing down by 28-29, even the all-time great LT. Lewis signed a 3 year, $17M deal when he was 27, and he is a big, bruiser. Thomas Jones has 2 years left on his deal coming off of a 1300 yard, 13 TD season and the Jets wont give him a new deal. Fred Taylor, a HOF RB, only got a 2 year, $5M contract.

No one, and certainly not the frugal, deep at RB Steelers, is going to offer a 29 year old Willie Parker, who relies on his footspeed, anything much above the veteran minimum for a year or two.

Dino 6 Rings
06-04-2009, 01:47 PM
Yes and No.

No one, and certainly not the frugal, deep at RB Steelers, is going to offer a 29 year old Willie Parker, who relies on his footspeed, anything much above the veteran minimum for a year or two.

I tend to agree, he won't be going after that "huge" free agency contract. Instead we'll offer him a smaller 2-3 year deal so he can continue to play for us or end up a journey man on other teams rosters after guys get hurt.

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-04-2009, 04:51 PM
Look at other RBs in FWPs age group who have taken a lot of hits....

Ladanian Tomlinson- 29
Fred Taylor- 32
Warrick Dunn- 33
Jamal Lewis- 29
Ahman Green- 31
Thomas Jones- 30
Deuce Macallister- 30
Rudi Johnson- 29
Larry Johnson- 29

.

All those guys were the main ballcarriers on their respective college teams and had longer than 5 year careers. Willie Parker has only been in the NFL for 5 seasons and only had 32 carries in his rookie season. He also was not played much by his coaches in his final seasons at UNC.

If you want to compare RB's that have taken similar amount of hits, then you should probably compare those RB's that belong to the same 2004 rookie class as Parker. Like:

Steven Jackson
Tatum Bell
Michael Turner
Julius Jones
Derrick Ward
Mewelde Moore

Those guys are all 5 year NFL veterans like Willie Parker and I believe Parker will probably get Derrick Ward type money or better on the open market if not retained by the Steelers

Preacher
06-04-2009, 04:58 PM
Hey, I'll be the first to admit that my disdain for the guy is of near-cartoonish proportions. If it's mostly comic relief for some people, fine, and I get that. But it really, truly is one of those cases where I've tried to give him a chance and I've heard about every possible explanation for why he's a good back and certain problems aren't his fault. But I still think he's just got certain shortcomings that there's no way around and never will be.

No, I don't think the fundamental problem with our running game is the line. The basic problem is that we don't have anyone who's even average as a power back when needed, and that's been true for three years whether we've had a good line or a bad line. I think the current line makes it worse, but it's just adding to the problem, not causing it. Even with Faneca and Hartings and a healthy Marvel Smith on the line, plus Kreider in the backfield and Tuman instead of Spaeth as the second tight end, that was still just as much of a problem.

What's more, the lack-of-power problem spills over into the passing game because defenses don't always have to respect the run because it's one-dimensional. They can "bet it all" on the pass in certain situations and still be fairly confident that they can stop the run anyway if they're wrong. That's where all the sacks are coming from.

I'll say what I've said all along: Parker is a great back in certain respects. But he is most emphatically not a good option as your "main" running back, and we've further exacerbated the problem by playing him as if he was our ONLY running back. In order to be effective long-term, Parker needs to be on the field with, or rotate SEAMLESSLY with -- not only in obvious situations -- with someone who is a good pass-catcher or a legitimate power threat.

Otherwise, good defenses and good coaching staffs key on Parker and eat him alive, and we'll see the problem of streakiness that's basically followed him his whole career -- except for the one season when he had three Pro Bowlers on the offensive line and he rotated in and out with the fifth-leading rusher in the history of the game, capped off with a lucky but good run in the Super Bowl that the "yeah-but" crowd inevitably points at when people criticize him.

Parker is a decent back, and he could be great if we learned to use him the way the '84 Niners used Roger Craig and Wendell Tyler together. But we'll never learn to do that, and that's really not even the way NFL offenses work anymore, so let's just forget it and move on to someone who's solid enough on all fronts to do what's needed. Sheesh.


See, now when you post THIS way. . . I have no problem with what you say.

Willie isn't a power back. We all know this. I, like you, have been wanting to see us go away from the "featured" back. I would LOVE to see Willie and Mendy in the backfield together.

So your problem ISNT Willie. It is how the FO runs willie "until the wheels fall off" that you have a problem with.

You are exactly right.

DACEB
06-04-2009, 05:49 PM
So your problem ISNT Willie. It is how the FO runs willie "until the wheels fall off" that you have a problem with.

That has been somewhat concerning. Whether it was Mendenhal early on or Moore the staff seemed reluctant to share FW's carries, throughout the games he was healthy, with the other RB's.

Dino 6 Rings
06-04-2009, 05:52 PM
That has been somewhat concerning. Whether it was Mendenhal early on or Moore the staff seemed reluctant to share FW's carries, throughout the games he was healthy, with the other RB's.

Now, that could be because of the fact that both Moore and Mendy were New to the Roster and didn't know the playbook as well as Parker going into last season.

Preacher
06-04-2009, 06:19 PM
:thumbsup:Now, that could be because of the fact that both Moore and Mendy were New to the Roster and didn't know the playbook as well as Parker going into last season.

That could very well be true. I think more than that. . . the Steelers are still focused on the featured back. We have done for what now. . . 15 18 years?

The Definiti0n
06-04-2009, 06:31 PM
Isn't this a great probelm to have? What if our Pro Bowl Running back returns to form. If not we will have to settle with our Blue Chip first round stud RB.

Psyychoward86
06-04-2009, 10:10 PM
Add up all these factors and there is close to zero chance that Willie Parker is a Steeler in 2010 no matter what he does in 2009.

People who speak in absolutes are usually wrong. A lot.

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-05-2009, 11:06 AM
People who speak in absolutes are usually wrong. A lot.

Didnt he say something like ..."the Steelers loyalty to Parker and giving him more carries than Moore may cost them the Super Bowl"??

I could come up with a statistical based arguement for that. :chuckle: Football is played on turf, not on a stat sheet.

thumper
06-05-2009, 12:39 PM
Look, FWP was a steal as an undrafted free agent. He has been good for the team - considering the longer TD run in Super Bowl history helped seal the deal on that game. ANY player who was a key part in winning a ring is to be valued. That being said, FWP is not that great. And, when he is in the game, they tend to play call really crappy. That's not WP's fault, but it's still true. I am so sick of WP runs up the middle, in a single back formation, wasting so many plays, making it so much harder for Ben - having to throw on obvious passing downs. I won't be heart broken if WP leaves. I don't know if he will ever have a full, productive year again, and if he does this year, it could easily be his last (making it happen for contract season).

Big D
06-05-2009, 02:02 PM
the only way I would like willie resigned is if he takes far less then market value. Lets face it willie is in his late 20's and is probably only has maybe 3 more productive years left.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-05-2009, 03:46 PM
Didnt he say something like ..."the Steelers loyalty to Parker and giving him more carries than Moore may cost them the Super Bowl"??

I could come up with a statistical based arguement for that. :chuckle: Football is played on turf, not on a stat sheet.
I did say that, and while it did not cost the Steelers the Super Bowl, it sure could have.

To put it another way, an elite defense and a legendary drive from a HOF QB were enough to overcome the 19 carry-53 yard performance from WP.

It is still a fact that the Steelers were a better offensive football team with Moore rather than Parker. (Before you get all excited...thats a fact, not an opinion). Not sure why they went away from it, but yes it almost cost a Super Bowl.

Dino 6 Rings
06-05-2009, 05:43 PM
It is still a fact that the Steelers were a better offensive football team with Moore rather than Parker. (Before you get all excited...thats a fact, not an opinion). Not sure why they went away from it, but yes it almost cost a Super Bowl.

Look man, when Willie wasn't in the game, the other team didn't Key on the running game from a defensive perspective. So that allowed Moore to have ok games from the time he started after Mendenhall went down. Our Running game wasn't the focus of the other team's defense. When Willie was in the game, our Running game was taken seriously. When Moore was in the game, it was an after thought.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-05-2009, 06:17 PM
Look man, when Willie wasn't in the game, the other team didn't Key on the running game from a defensive perspective. So that allowed Moore to have ok games from the time he started after Mendenhall went down. Our Running game wasn't the focus of the other team's defense. When Willie was in the game, our Running game was taken seriously. When Moore was in the game, it was an after thought. And herein you prove that there is a prevailing homer attitude towards Willie Parker around here. The numbers do not back up your statement, and its further ridiculous to think that it is easier to play defense against a RB who is a threat as a receiver or that they simply weren't paying attention to Moore (who finished 2nd in yards from scrimmage on the season for the Super Bowl winning team).

In the 5 games Mewelde Moore got 15+ touches, Steelers scored 25 ppg
In the other 11 games, The Steelers scored 20 ppg

In the 4 games Moore started, he averaged 90 yds rushing/gm AND 20 yds rec/gm (Thats 110 yds/game to reinforce)

In the 11 games Wilie Parker started, he averaged 72 yds rushing/gm and 1 yd rec/gm

The facts are pretty clear--- yards and points went up significantly when Moore was on the field.

Not hating or flaming ust pointing out what I thought was obvious.

MACH1
06-05-2009, 06:28 PM
:yawn:

X-Terminator
06-05-2009, 07:15 PM
This UFN guy is STILL around??? Thought he was gone when the Steelers won the Super Bowl with the object of his nightmares at RB. Again. Oh well, at least it'll be entertaining...for about 5 minutes.

Anyway, I said before that this will be Parker's last year in a Steelers' uniform regardless of how he does, and I'm sticking to that prediction. He could put up 1600 yards and score 15-20 TDs, and it won't matter. The Steelers will not make Mendenhall wait beyond this season to be the feature back.

triphahn
06-05-2009, 07:53 PM
I think Mendenhalls season will be more important to Parkers future then Parkers season. We did not use the number 15 pick for a back up. Unless Mendenhall proves to be a bust he is our running back of the future. Not a lot to back up Summers yet but I really think he could be more then a fullback in the NFL.

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-05-2009, 09:32 PM
Not sure why they went away from it, but yes it almost cost a Super Bowl.

You keep wondering why the Steelers and their coaching staff does not just look at the pure statistics and base their decisions on that. There is your problem.

Professional football talent evaluators, coaches, scouts and GM's know that statistics are just tools. There are other qualitative assessments that are made as to what player is better suited to play in their system. THAT is why Parker is the feature back and Moore is the complimentary/3rd down back.

Almost all the Steeler fans can understand why Parker is the feature back and not Moore. You are the only Washington Redskin and Tulane Alum on this board that sees things inversely.

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-05-2009, 09:34 PM
And herein you prove that there is a prevailing homer attitude towards Willie Parker around here. .

As opposed to your prevailing homer attitude towards fellow Tulane grad Mewelde Moore??? :chuckle:

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-05-2009, 09:48 PM
This UFN guy is STILL around??? Thought he was gone when the Steelers won the Super Bowl with the object of his nightmares at RB. Again. Oh well, at least it'll be entertaining...for about 5 minutes.

Anyway, I said before that this will be Parker's last year in a Steelers' uniform regardless of how he does, and I'm sticking to that prediction. He could put up 1600 yards and score 15-20 TDs, and it won't matter. The Steelers will not make Mendenhall wait beyond this season to be the feature back. Since you agree with me what exactly is the problem with my post?

Do you have a substantive disagreement with my post or are you simply going to attack the messenger?

fansince'76
06-05-2009, 09:53 PM
Didnt he say something like ..."the Steelers loyalty to Parker and giving him more carries than Moore may cost them the Super Bowl"??

Yep. :rolleyes:

Does anyone want to bet that FWP comes up with a 20 carry, 62 yard-type performance when in the playoffs? Will that cost the Steelers their season? Probably.

If the Steelers come up 3 points short in the Super Bowl cause FWP helped with some 3 and outs and fewer points you wont have a problem with that?

And how'd it actually all work out? Oh yeah, they get their new SB rings this Tuesday.

:yawn:

Preacher
06-05-2009, 11:18 PM
I am thoroughly confused. . .

I See UFN posting. . . but Willie hasn't had any fumbles in the last week or two. :hunch:

X-Terminator
06-05-2009, 11:44 PM
Since you agree with me what exactly is the problem with my post?

Do you have a substantive disagreement with my post or are you simply going to attack the messenger?

I just like making fun of big blowhards such as yourself.

If you didn't have an agenda of your own during all of your little diatribes against WP last season, maybe you could be taken seriously.

I am thoroughly confused. . .

I See UFN posting. . . but Willie hasn't had any fumbles in the last week or two. :hunch:

I think you have this guy mixed up with ProvidenceSteel. Or maybe not? Maybe they are in fact the same guy. I mean, Mr. "Parker will cost us games with his fumbles" sounded a lot like this UFN character.

DACEB
06-06-2009, 10:52 AM
Look man, when Willie wasn't in the game, the other team didn't Key on the running game from a defensive perspective. So that allowed Moore to have ok games from the time he started after Mendenhall went down. Our Running game wasn't the focus of the other team's defense. When Willie was in the game, our Running game was taken seriously. When Moore was in the game, it was an after thought.

It sounds like, your describing, a situation where the defense must respect the added dimension of Moore's ability in the passing game therefore opening up the running game.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-06-2009, 05:35 PM
Yep. :rolleyes:

Originally Posted by UltimateFootballNetwork View Post
Does anyone want to bet that FWP comes up with a 20 carry, 62 yard-type performance when in the playoffs? Will that cost the Steelers their season? Probably.



And how'd it actually all work out? Oh yeah, they get their new SB rings this Tuesday.

:yawn:

Arent you proving my point? WP had 19 carries for 53 yards so I was pretty darn close to predicting the outcome. I asked a question....would the insistence on sticking with Parker cost the Steelers the Super Bowl. I said probably, and it almost did.

A little scary that you are looking at my posts from 6 months ago though.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-06-2009, 05:36 PM
It sounds like, your describing, a situation where the defense must respect the added dimension of Moore's ability in the passing game therefore opening up the running game. Bingo. Should be obvious.

fansince'76
06-06-2009, 06:30 PM
Arent you proving my point? WP had 19 carries for 53 yards so I was pretty darn close to predicting the outcome. I asked a question....would the insistence on sticking with Parker cost the Steelers the Super Bowl. I said probably, and it almost did.

No, I'm not. Willie didn't cost the Steelers the SB. You were wrong. And the defense giving up a 13-point lead and 220+ passing yards in the 4th quarter had NOTHING to do with Willie.

A little scary that you are looking at my posts from 6 months ago though.

Your over-the-top slobbering man-crush on Moore is far scarier. If I were a 'Skins fan, I think I'd be more concerned about their clueless dotcom billionaire geek of an owner who gives $100 million contracts to overhyped DTs who can't seem to stay out of trouble than how many touches the Steelers' RBs get, a team the 'Skins might play once every 5 years or so. But that's just me. :coffee:

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-06-2009, 06:48 PM
I think some of Moore's numbers are decieving....His first start was against a Jacksonville team that had game-planned for FWP.

His second start was against an inept Bengals run defense after the bye week

His third start was his best, it was against the Giants, and you cant take anything away from him.

His last start was his worst, against a Colts defense that is not known for its run defense...Moore only had 57 rush yards on 24 attempts for a 2.4 ypc average.

Also take into consideration that Moore had more fumbles than Willie with almost a 1/3 fewer start....and that as a team we were 2-2 with him behind the QB. Not all his falult but those are the facts.

I'm not saying that Moore is a bad RB by any means...but I think he is a niche RB. Very effective as a fill-in when used properly, due to above average hands and a great work ethic....but as a starter he is the type of player that teams would always be looking to "upgrade".

Jaquila
06-06-2009, 06:58 PM
why is it that everyone is so sure that Mendy will push Parker out in the cold!? Parker did good in playoffs and mendy broke his shoulder the first game he started, we havent even seen the guy play a real football game after his injury jeeez
I see Parker as a clear starter and he could surprise your all and mendy may be a bust (dont know yet)
parkers future in pittsburgh is very uncertain yes, but i believe he stays

steelreserve
06-07-2009, 05:43 AM
See, now when you post THIS way. . . I have no problem with what you say.

Willie isn't a power back. We all know this. I, like you, have been wanting to see us go away from the "featured" back. I would LOVE to see Willie and Mendy in the backfield together.

So your problem ISNT Willie. It is how the FO runs willie "until the wheels fall off" that you have a problem with.

You are exactly right.

Well, mostly right, anyway. I'd be as content as can be if we'd use Parker like we always should've been using him -- a guy who comes in 50% of the time to add a new dimension to the offense. If he's in there 100% of the time, he takes away a dimension from the offense, and that's what's killing us.

Unfortunately, when you say that, you always run into people who have an attitude of "how dare criticize him, what the hell do you know", either based on total yards per season, or because "he's the starter and most teams would be glad to have him."

Basically, using Parker correctly would mean using him in a role that's significantly reduced from where he is now, and by now, the staff has spent so long bashing stupidly ahead with Parker for lack of other options, that he's entrenched and doing that won't work because he'll get unhappy. I hope they can find a way to start easing Mendenhall in this season without making waves, but what they really should've been doing the past three years is teaching Parker how to catch passes and be a multiple threat, not trying to teach him to run up the middle.

steelreserve
06-07-2009, 05:56 AM
I am happy you have a sense of humour about this. I for one, find it comic relief and enjoy the posts.

There are only 32 starting NFL feature RB's in the league each year. Parker has been one of them for a few years now. Its not a case where he was anybodys high draft pick either and gets a shot like that based on investment.(See Cedric Benson, William Green, Darren McFadden, Ron Dayne, etc for examples).

If Parker truly sucked as bad as you post, he would have suffered the same fate as Dante Brown who was another Steelers undrafted rookie the same season as Parker.

I don't think Parker all-around sucks. I think he has a few serious limitations that kill us, but his sheer athletic ability is enough to overcome that just often enough to make us keep him anyway. And he's also become further entrenched because we've gone several years without having anyone else who could seriously challenge him for the starting spot. He's been good enough in the management's eyes, and they've focused on other priorities, which in itself has not been a bad thing; we've seen guys like Woodley, Gay, Timmons and Holmes come along because they looked after other more pressing needs. But Parker has really benefited from our constant lack of depth at RB for the past three seasons, and if we'd been at all successful bringing in other contenders, I doubt he'd be the starter anymore.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-07-2009, 02:26 PM
No, I'm not. Willie didn't cost the Steelers the SB. You were wrong. And the defense giving up a 13-point lead and 220+ passing yards in the 4th quarter had NOTHING to do with Willie.



Your over-the-top slobbering man-crush on Moore is far scarier. If I were a 'Skins fan, I think I'd be more concerned about their clueless dotcom billionaire geek of an owner who gives $100 million contracts to overhyped DTs who can't seem to stay out of trouble than how many touches the Steelers' RBs get, a team the 'Skins might play once every 5 years or so. But that's just me. :coffee:

The lack of a running game certainly played a role in not being able to hold a 13 point lead and I would think that any objective fan would agree that running the ball is paramount to running out the clock. Willie Parker accounted for only THREE 1st downs in the Super Bowl.

But you are not being objective, instead accusing me of having an agenda or man-crush. If you do not agree, that's great, but please back your argument with something other than a personal attack. I am fairly certain I have backed up my statements with clear facts (further confusing me as to why there is such an issue here. Moore clearly outplayed Parker but the suggestion seems to invoke anger).

And as a Skins fan, I am objective enough to hate my teams management and know that we wont be winning the Super Bowl until Snyder and Cerrato are gone. And thats part of why I follow the entire NFL and various teams/storylines and find the bizarre allegiance to an overrated RB fascinating and the only thing separating the Steelers from a dynasty.

fansince'76
06-07-2009, 02:32 PM
But you are not being objective, instead accusing me of having an agenda or man-crush.

Sorry buddy, you've been anything BUT objective. You even said as much when you volunteered that you and Moore shared the same alma mater and that you had Moore on your FF team.

tony hipchest
06-07-2009, 02:40 PM
thats part of why I follow the entire NFL and various teams/storylines and find the bizarre allegiance to an overrated RB fascinating and the only thing separating the Steelers from a dynasty.

yeah, cause we woulda won atleast 2 sb's had willie not been a starter in the past 4 years.

since were tossing bs against the wall i will say the steelers win the sb in 04 had willie started instead of jerome.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-07-2009, 02:56 PM
Sorry buddy, you've been anything BUT objective. You even said as much when you volunteered that you and Moore shared the same alma mater and that you had Moore on your FF team. Except I did not say that Moore>Parker because he went to my alma mater or because I had him on my fantasy team. I used facts like yards, first downs, points..

You are trying to make it seem like I am suggesting that the Steelers bench Roethlisberger for Dennis Dixon. Quite the contrary.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-07-2009, 02:59 PM
yeah, cause we woulda won atleast 2 sb's had willie not been a starter in the past 4 years.

since were tossing bs against the wall i will say the steelers win the sb in 04 had willie started instead of jerome.

HOF QB and passing game? Check
Elite Defense? Check
Running Game?....

tony hipchest
06-07-2009, 03:08 PM
HOF QB and passing game? Check
Elite Defense? Check
Running Game?....now youre just talkin circles around yourself.

willie basically red shirted his rookie season and has been a starter 4 years since. and youre saying we woulda won 3+ sb's w/o him and been a "dynasty"?

the 2 out 0f 4 years we didnt win the superbowl were willies best seasons (where he was a pro-bowler and fantasy football favorite).

i dont see how you expect anyone to follow your logic on this one. it just doesnt add up. :noidea:

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-07-2009, 05:39 PM
now youre just talkin circles around yourself.

willie basically red shirted his rookie season and has been a starter 4 years since. and youre saying we woulda won 3+ sb's w/o him and been a "dynasty"?

the 2 out 0f 4 years we didnt win the superbowl were willies best seasons (where he was a pro-bowler and fantasy football favorite).

i dont see how you expect anyone to follow your logic on this one. it just doesnt add up. :noidea: To be clear, I am talking about taking what is a team that has been very successful run and making it into a dynasty... a la the 49ers in the 80s, Steelers before that....

The pieces are all in place except for the running game. Roethlisberger is only going to get better and the key defensive pieces all look to be around for 4-5 more years. Not sure why this is complicated or controversial.

tony hipchest
06-07-2009, 05:57 PM
Not sure why this is complicated or controversial.

the next 5 years havent played themselves out yet, now have they. comments like this make it comlicated and controversial-

the bizarre allegiance to an overrated RB fascinating and the only thing separating the Steelers from a dynasty.

did the patriots have a bizarre allegiance to a. smith or c. dillon? the cowboys to e. smith? how bout the broncos with t. davis?

parker is 1 ring behind e. smith with 4-5 years to go. :noidea: its a good thing to make yourself clear, but what you fail to mention, is that through our potential dynastic run, we are looking at jerome, duce, verron, parker, najeh, kreider, davis, mendenhall, russell, summers, moore.

blaming or giving credit to parker for a dynasty simply isnt looking at the big picture.

The pieces are all in place except for the running game.

parker, mendenhall, moore, summers....

:chuckle: uh..... yeah! :idea:

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-07-2009, 06:04 PM
the next 5 years havent played themselves out yet, now have they. comments like this make it comlicated and controversial-



did the patriots have a bizarre allegiance to a. smith or c. dillon? the cowboys to e. smith? how bout the broncos with t. davis?

parker is 1 ring behind e. smith with 4-5 years to go. :noidea: its a good thing to make yourself clear, but what you fail to mention, is that through our potential dynastic run, we are looking at jerome, duce, verron, parker, najeh, kreider, davis, mendenhall, russell, summers, moore.

blaming or giving credit to parker for a dynasty simply isnt looking at the big picture. exactly my point. All of those other teams, unless they had a rare RB like Emmitt Smith or Terell Davis shared carries and used multiple RBs, including the Steelers teams of the past.

The Steelers have committed their running game to Willie Parker or bust for a few years now and it is increasingly coming up as a bust. So the very simple question is---how long will that be the case? It was clear last year that he was ineffective and yet they stuck with it.

tony hipchest
06-07-2009, 06:25 PM
The Steelers have committed their running game to Willie Parker or bust for a few years now and it is increasingly coming up as a bust. .

:rofl:

maybe youre better off served trying to figure out if LT of the past 4 years was more likely to win a SB with michael turner being more of a fantasy threat, or less.

just remember....

in the past 4 years, fast willie has accomplished more than any other rb in the league.

The Duke
06-07-2009, 06:27 PM
HOF QB and passing game? Check
Elite Defense? Check
Running Game?....

funny you fail to mention that-

Offensive Line?....

which directly affects the running game, in this case Willie.

btw UFN, how would you feel about willie going to the skins next year? :chuckle:

he's probably gone next year and he could be great with the skins oline backing up Portis. I'm sure you'd love him

Psyychoward86
06-07-2009, 06:42 PM
funny you fail to mention that-

Offensive Line?....

which directly affects the running game, in this case Willie.

btw UFN, how would you feel about willie going to the skins next year? :chuckle:

he's probably gone next year and he could be great with the skins oline backing up Portis. I'm sure you'd love him


Good question. Im sure skin fans will be crying once Portis is out of there. Or at least throw their beers at him once he starts to suck. The guy's been carrying the ENTIRE load for a while now....

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-08-2009, 12:28 AM
I don't think Parker all-around sucks. I think he has a few serious limitations that kill us, but his sheer athletic ability is enough to overcome that just often enough to make us keep him anyway. And he's also become further entrenched because we've gone several years without having anyone else who could seriously challenge him for the starting spot. He's been good enough in the management's eyes, and they've focused on other priorities, which in itself has not been a bad thing; we've seen guys like Woodley, Gay, Timmons and Holmes come along because they looked after other more pressing needs. But Parker has really benefited from our constant lack of depth at RB for the past three seasons, and if we'd been at all successful bringing in other contenders, I doubt he'd be the starter anymore.

Parker hasnt benefitted from lack of depth or drafting. The Steelers had him penciled in as the starter because the guy had a big season in 2006 was leading the league in rushing in 2007 until injury and they brought in Mendenhall and Moore to lessen his carries.

I agree that Parker is a good running back, a wiiling and average blocker, but a below average receiver. He isnt a complete 3 down RB, but that is fine as there are few of them in the NFL anyways. The ideal situation is for Mendenhall to share carries with Parker and both be productive, with Moore being the 3rd down back that is the best receiver of the bunch.

If Parker decides he wants to remain a Steeler, he will take a mid level contract for another 4 years and stay, but I think he has his 2 rings and will likely test the market if he has a good season and be gone in 2010.

Preacher
06-08-2009, 01:44 AM
Parker hasnt benefitted from lack of depth or drafting. The Steelers had him penciled in as the starter because the guy had a big season in 2006 was leading the league in rushing in 2007 until injury and they brought in Mendenhall and Moore to lessen his carries.

I agree that Parker is a good running back, a wiiling and average blocker, but a below average receiver. He isnt a complete 3 down RB, but that is fine as there are few of them in the NFL anyways. The ideal situation is for Mendenhall to share carries with Parker and both be productive, with Moore being the 3rd down back that is the best receiver of the bunch.

If Parker decides he wants to remain a Steeler, he will take a mid level contract for another 4 years and stay, but I think he has his 2 rings and will likely test the market if he has a good season and be gone in 2010.

The bolded statements above are probably the absolute best and closest to the truth statements made on this board about Willie.

Might as well close the thread now.

steelreserve
06-08-2009, 06:22 AM
Parker hasnt benefitted from lack of depth or drafting. The Steelers had him penciled in as the starter because the guy had a big season in 2006 was leading the league in rushing in 2007 until injury and they brought in Mendenhall and Moore to lessen his carries.

Well, let me put it this way ... Parker has been pretty much forced into a lot of roles he's not good at, because whenever we've picked up a complementary back to address the holes in Parker's game, whoever we bring in has pretty much sucked.

Davenport was supposed to be a power back, but he sucked at it. Russell could run for short yardage, but that's ALL he could do. Kevan Barlow would've been perfect, but he was washed up. Moore solved some of the problems but turned out to have some of the same holes in his own game.

Basically, Parker's role OUGHT to be like it was in Bettis' last year -- a guy who's on the field 50-60% of the time, with a guy on the bench who can pick up the slack, and who we WILL bring in for more than a couple plays at a time. Yes, I realize you don't find many backs like Bettis, but we don't need one. If we even had someone decent to complement him, it would do wonders. We don't need to aim for the next Bettis, just the next Bam Morris or something. Because without that, we leave Parker in there in situations he's just not suited for, and he gets smacked around like a cheap hooker, which is bad for him and bad for the team.

VTsteel
06-08-2009, 07:58 AM
By my logic . . . If the FO will pay a 2nd tier OT $8mm a year . . . Then, the FO will come up with the money to keep a man whose actually moved the ball for us over 1200 times and made it to the pro bowl and (at 28 yrs. old) has only played 4 seasons really.

My guess is FWP will a Steeler until 2012

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-08-2009, 09:58 AM
Well, let me put it this way ... Parker has been pretty much forced into a lot of roles he's not good at, because whenever we've picked up a complementary back to address the holes in Parker's game, whoever we bring in has pretty much sucked.

Davenport was supposed to be a power back, but he sucked at it. Russell could run for short yardage, but that's ALL he could do. Kevan Barlow would've been perfect, but he was washed up. Moore solved some of the problems but turned out to have some of the same holes in his own game.

Basically, Parker's role OUGHT to be like it was in Bettis' last year -- a guy who's on the field 50-60% of the time, with a guy on the bench who can pick up the slack, and who we WILL bring in for more than a couple plays at a time. Yes, I realize you don't find many backs like Bettis, but we don't need one. If we even had someone decent to complement him, it would do wonders. We don't need to aim for the next Bettis, just the next Bam Morris or something. Because without that, we leave Parker in there in situations he's just not suited for, and he gets smacked around like a cheap hooker, which is bad for him and bad for the team.

Yes, guys were brought in to compete and Parker beat them out. The reason for that is that he is a very good RB. You say Parker was forced into the short yardage role, but I remember Davenport basically getting that job in 2007. If the 250lb dumptruck could not find a hole to run, how was anybody else.

Parker is basically a guy that will run on 1st and 2nd down. Davenport and Moore were both brought in to be 3rd down backs and get some carries. That is what they had been doing for the past 2 seasons.

A "big back" seems to be what you think we need and I think that it all starts up front. Any decent running back can get 1st downs behind a solid blocking o line and good blocking FB.........whether he is 210bs or 250lbs.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-08-2009, 01:12 PM
:rofl:

maybe youre better off served trying to figure out if LT of the past 4 years was more likely to win a SB with michael turner being more of a fantasy threat, or less.

just remember....

in the past 4 years, fast willie has accomplished more than any other rb in the league. leaving the ridiculous comparison to LT/MT aside, the bolded comment seems to be the problem around here.

It is obviously ridiculous and shows the tendency to overrate of Willie Parker around here. He was very good (not great) when he was at full speed and by all appearances (and his ypc) he is no longer at full speed.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-08-2009, 01:21 PM
funny you fail to mention that-

Offensive Line?....

which directly affects the running game, in this case Willie.

btw UFN, how would you feel about willie going to the skins next year? :chuckle:

he's probably gone next year and he could be great with the skins oline backing up Portis. I'm sure you'd love him The OL, while mediocre for the entire season, is not the sole culprit here.

Remember earlier in this thread when I provided facts (yes, facts) showing that Moore ran for 90 yards/gm at 4.5 ypc when starting? Did the OL decide to play better for Moore?

And no I would not like an aging, declining RB to back up Portis. But Snyder/Cerrato are pretty stupid and I put nothing by them. (I wonder regularly how far Portis can go given the number of hits he has taken. He is the one of the toughest RBs ever to play though)

BIGBENFASTWILLIE
06-08-2009, 01:22 PM
[QUOTE=The Definiti0n;612028]This was a question asked to Bouchette during a chat. It made me think what if Willie does have a better season than Mendy?

QUOTE]

we win another superbowl

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-08-2009, 01:23 PM
Yes, guys were brought in to compete and Parker beat them out. The reason for that is that he is a very good RB. You say Parker was forced into the short yardage role, but I remember Davenport basically getting that job in 2007. If the 250lb dumptruck could not find a hole to run, how was anybody else.

Parker is basically a guy that will run on 1st and 2nd down. Davenport and Moore were both brought in to be 3rd down backs and get some carries. That is what they had been doing for the past 2 seasons.

A "big back" seems to be what you think we need and I think that it all starts up front. Any decent running back can get 1st downs behind a solid blocking o line and good blocking FB.........whether he is 210bs or 250lbs.Again, a problem with that comment. 90 yards/gm rushing at 4.5 ypc and 20 yds/gm receiving as a starter and somehow that didnt beat out 72 yds/gm and 3.8 ypc. Would love to understand your thinking.

MACH1
06-08-2009, 02:16 PM
:yawn:

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-08-2009, 02:19 PM
Again, a problem with that comment. 90 yards/gm rushing at 4.5 ypc and 20 yds/gm receiving as a starter and somehow that didnt beat out 72 yds/gm and 3.8 ypc. Would love to understand your thinking.

Football is played on turf, not a stat sheet.

Do you honestly think that professional coaches look at statistics to evaluate what RB gives their team a better chance at winning or do you think coaches like Tomlin and Cowher instead rely on OTA's, Training camp, Preseason and Regular season game competition???

Tomlin knows the difference visually when he watches film of success against the Texans, Bengals, Browns, Chargers....vs poor rushing games vs the Ravens, Colts, Eagles, etc.

My thinking comes from playing football and coaching it as well. When you stand on a sideline during preseason, you can tell what RB gives you a better chance to succeed. When you watch film, you understand if a guy had a big day because of blocking, or if the blocking was poor and he succeeded despite it. Likewise, you see poor games and either the blocking didnt work out, the RB didnt hit the holes, or the D-coordinator had your number that day.

Bottom line for me is that I can clearly see that Parker has more ability to be a 1200+ yard per season back, Mewelde Moore does not. I love Moore and guys like him(I think he is a taller version of Mike Hart) that dont have the physical flash, but are just productive football players.

IMO, I can be paid no greater compliment in football than being called "a good coach" and I can pay no greater compliment to a player than being "just a good football player". Chris Johnson was one of the best rushers in the NFL last year, but Mewelde Moore is just a good football player.

Dino 6 Rings
06-08-2009, 02:25 PM
Again, a problem with that comment. 90 yards/gm rushing at 4.5 ypc and 20 yds/gm receiving as a starter and somehow that didnt beat out 72 yds/gm and 3.8 ypc. Would love to understand your thinking.

Moore averaged 4.2 per carry. 2 fumbles.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-08-2009, 02:41 PM
Again, a problem with that comment. 90 yards/gm rushing at 4.5 ypc and 20 yds/gm receiving as a starter and somehow that didnt beat out 72 yds/gm and 3.8 ypc. Would love to understand your thinking.

The problem with YOUR comment is that you refuse to take other factors into consideration.

As I posted before...Moore's first start was against a Jacksonville team that had game-planned for FWP.

His second start was against an inept Bengals run defense after the bye week

His third start was his best, it was against the Giants, and you cant take anything away from him.

His last start was his worst, against a Colts defense that is not known for its run defense...Moore only had 57 rush yards on 24 attempts for a 2.4 ypc average.

Also take into consideration that Moore had more fumbles than Willie with almost a 1/3 fewer start....and that as a team we were 2-2 with him behind the QB. Not all his fault but those are the facts.


Stats surgically removed from their surrounding factors RARELY tell the whole story.

Hammer67
06-08-2009, 02:59 PM
All this statistical foolery aside, I would be fine with Willy...I think he has done well with the line we have and considering he isn't a threat in the passing attack.

Mendenhall is TOTALLY unproven at the Pro levels, folks. Let's not jump the shark on Parker just yet...

Dino 6 Rings
06-08-2009, 04:44 PM
All this statistical foolery aside, I would be fine with Willy...I think he has done well with the line we have and considering he isn't a threat in the passing attack.

Mendenhall is TOTALLY unproven at the Pro levels, folks. Let's not jump the shark on Parker just yet...

The only one that has jumped the shark on Willie is a Redskins fan that has no hope going into this season again because their QB sucks eggs. Totally know what he's going through, so I can feel for UFN. I mean, we had Bettis in his prime for years without a real QB and he's seeing that happen to Portis right now. No wonder he's busy bashing another team's Starting Running Back instead of focussing on his own bad team. Can't say I blame him. Maybe he's even considering becoming a Steelers fan and just needs us to Cut Willie in order to go out and buy his Big Ben Jersey.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-08-2009, 05:17 PM
Football is played on turf, not a stat sheet.

Do you honestly think that professional coaches look at statistics to evaluate what RB gives their team a better chance at winning or do you think coaches like Tomlin and Cowher instead rely on OTA's, Training camp, Preseason and Regular season game competition???

Tomlin knows the difference visually when he watches film of success against the Texans, Bengals, Browns, Chargers....vs poor rushing games vs the Ravens, Colts, Eagles, etc.

My thinking comes from playing football and coaching it as well. When you stand on a sideline during preseason, you can tell what RB gives you a better chance to succeed. When you watch film, you understand if a guy had a big day because of blocking, or if the blocking was poor and he succeeded despite it. Likewise, you see poor games and either the blocking didnt work out, the RB didnt hit the holes, or the D-coordinator had your number that day.

Bottom line for me is that I can clearly see that Parker has more ability to be a 1200+ yard per season back, Mewelde Moore does not. I love Moore and guys like him(I think he is a taller version of Mike Hart) that dont have the physical flash, but are just productive football players.

IMO, I can be paid no greater compliment in football than being called "a good coach" and I can pay no greater compliment to a player than being "just a good football player". Chris Johnson was one of the best rushers in the NFL last year, but Mewelde Moore is just a good football player. I greatly appreciate your thorough response. I am eager to have engaging dialog about football topics of interest, so I appreciate the rebuttal devoid of personal attacks.

However, I remain in disagreement with a few of your points.

1) Yes there are factors beyond statistics, but 40 yards per game difference (same offense, same OL) and 5+ pts/game is an enormous difference and since it is Moore who brings the passing dimension to the offense and not the other way around, I ask what it is that Willie Parker brings that the coaches prefer him? 40 yds/game translates to 640 yds/season. I would think very few if any coaches overlook that kind of difference.

2) As far as a more detailed analysis (i.e., situational running, taking the defense into account, success rate), check out Football Outsiders RB rankings for 2008. In the 3 categories they rank RBs performance Moore finished 14th, 6th and 6th in the NFL while Willie Parker ranked 28th, 33rd and 41st in the same categories. Do they have a bias as well? (link http://bit.ly/VoyLL)

3) I appreciate the position that you have that Moore is "just a good football player" and I get what you mean. It is sort of damning with faint praise. Mike Hart is not a fair comparison since he is 5 foot 9 inches and has 2 NFL carries and 14 games missed to inury. If you look at who Moore compares to statistically, its Brian Westbrook and Maurice Drew. I think I would also point you to Tiki Barber, who was only a 3rd down back for his 1st 4 years in the NFL until Sean Peyton became the Giants OC and said something to the effect of "every time he got the ball he gained 5 yards".

I guess I fail to understand how Moore gained 908 yds from scrimmage in 2008 despite not being the gameplan half the season and think that he is not capable of 1200 yards.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-08-2009, 05:28 PM
The only one that has jumped the shark on Willie is a Redskins fan that has no hope going into this season again because their QB sucks eggs. Totally know what he's going through, so I can feel for UFN. I mean, we had Bettis in his prime for years without a real QB and he's seeing that happen to Portis right now. No wonder he's busy bashing another team's Starting Running Back instead of focussing on his own bad team. Can't say I blame him. Maybe he's even considering becoming a Steelers fan and just needs us to Cut Willie in order to go out and buy his Big Ben Jersey. I think ason Campbell is fine. He is no Big Ben and I do not know if he is good enough to be a franchise QB, but he is not the problem. Inept management that has refused to address the OL/DL in the draft over the years is the problem.

And I have not bashed anyone. I am simply pointing out some facts that confuse me and I hope to learn more about what it is others see that I do not.

The minute that I am bashing someone, and not making fact-based arguments, I will stop posting on message boards. I have been a Big Ben fan since the day he was drafted and think that making a Westbrook/Faulk/Barber type dual threat in the backfield a focal part of the offense would make the Steelers unstoppable.

Dino 6 Rings
06-08-2009, 05:29 PM
I greatly appreciate your thorough response. I am eager to have engaging dialog about football topics of interest, so I appreciate the rebuttal devoid of personal attacks.

However, I remain in disagreement with a few of your points.

1) Yes there are factors beyond statistics, but 40 yards per game difference (same offense, same OL) and 5+ pts/game is an enormous difference and since it is Moore who brings the passing dimension to the offense and not the other way around, I ask what it is that Willie Parker brings that the coaches prefer him? 40 yds/game translates to 640 yds/season. I would think very few if any coaches overlook that kind of difference.

2) As far as a more detailed analysis (i.e., situational running, taking the defense into account, success rate), check out Football Outsiders RB rankings for 2008. In the 3 categories they rank RBs performance Moore finished 14th, 6th and 6th in the NFL while Willie Parker ranked 28th, 33rd and 41st in the same categories. Do they have a bias as well? (link http://bit.ly/VoyLL)

3) I appreciate the position that you have that Moore is "just a good football player" and I get what you mean. It is sort of damning with faint praise. Mike Hart is not a fair comparison since he is 5 foot 9 inches and has 2 NFL carries and 14 games missed to inury. If you look at who Moore compares to statistically, its Brian Westbrook and Maurice Drew. I think I would also point you to Tiki Barber, who was only a 3rd down back for his 1st 4 years in the NFL until Sean Peyton became the Giants OC and said something to the effect of "every time he got the ball he gained 5 yards".

I guess I fail to understand how Moore gained 908 yds from scrimmage in 2008 despite not being the gameplan half the season and think that he is not capable of 1200 yards.

Same site, that shows those "moore is better stats" also indicates, with Stats that Nate Washington is "Better" than Santonio Holmes.

:applaudit:

Dino 6 Rings
06-08-2009, 05:43 PM
Oh wait, this is great, Same Site, same type of Stats, Ben is the 23rd Best QB in the NFL.

:thumbsup:

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-08-2009, 05:48 PM
I greatly appreciate your thorough response. I am eager to have engaging dialog about football topics of interest, so I appreciate the rebuttal devoid of personal attacks.

However, I remain in disagreement with a few of your points.

1) Yes there are factors beyond statistics, but 40 yards per game difference (same offense, same OL) and 5+ pts/game is an enormous difference and since it is Moore who brings the passing dimension to the offense and not the other way around, I ask what it is that Willie Parker brings that the coaches prefer him? 40 yds/game translates to 640 yds/season. I would think very few if any coaches overlook that kind of difference.

2) As far as a more detailed analysis (i.e., situational running, taking the defense into account, success rate), check out Football Outsiders RB rankings for 2008. In the 3 categories they rank RBs performance Moore finished 14th, 6th and 6th in the NFL while Willie Parker ranked 28th, 33rd and 41st in the same categories. Do they have a bias as well? (link http://bit.ly/VoyLL)

3) I appreciate the position that you have that Moore is "just a good football player" and I get what you mean. It is sort of damning with faint praise. Mike Hart is not a fair comparison since he is 5 foot 9 inches and has 2 NFL carries and 14 games missed to inury. If you look at who Moore compares to statistically, its Brian Westbrook and Maurice Drew. I think I would also point you to Tiki Barber, who was only a 3rd down back for his 1st 4 years in the NFL until Sean Peyton became the Giants OC and said something to the effect of "every time he got the ball he gained 5 yards".

I guess I fail to understand how Moore gained 908 yds from scrimmage in 2008 despite not being the gameplan half the season and think that he is not capable of 1200 yards.

1. You have to ask the coaches what they see in Parker over Moore. I know from experience and instinct that I would want Parker over Moore in my starting backfield. As for comparing same offense and same line, while ignoring not the same game, game plan, defensive opponent, turf, weather conditions and other variables is a bit narrow minded.

2. I never have checked footballoutsiders.com before and never will. I think Dino pointed out they statistically rank Nate Washington as a better WR than Santonio Holmes and a couple seasons ago, they had Najeh Davenport ranked as one of the best YPA RB's in the league...........but he was out of work last year. Again, stats mean shit and can be misleading. Statistically speaking, the average person on earth has 1 testicle and 1 breast.

3. My calling somebody a good football player is the last thing from damning.....if you ever played the game and spent time in the football culture, you would know that is the exact opposite. I also would never compare Tiki Barber, MJD or Brian Westbrook to Mewelde Moore. They are not the similar type player, no matter what their "stats" compare to. They all have speed to run away from defenders where Moore's longest run in his over 400 attempts is 33 yards.

Mewelde Moore has a similar skill set to former Redskin all purpose back Brian Mitchell, but Mitchell was faster and a better return man. Basically, Moore is small at 209lbs and slow, with good hands, vision and blocking ability. Just a good all around football player and asset to any team, but not anybody worthy of being a feature back in the NFL.

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-08-2009, 05:50 PM
Same site, that shows those "moore is better stats" also indicates, with Stats that Nate Washington is "Better" than Santonio Holmes.

:applaudit:

Yeah, stats always tell the story. If Theo Epstein was the GM I guess the Steelers would have paid Washington and released Holmes. :screwy:

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-08-2009, 05:53 PM
Oh wait, this is great, Same Site, same type of Stats, Ben is the 23rd Best QB in the NFL.

:thumbsup: Who were some of the greats ahead of him??? Jason Campbell, Derek Anderson, Jeff Garcia, Trent Edwards.

I know there is a reason I never visited footballoutsiders.com. :rofl: most around here think being #4 is slighting Ben.......but footballoutsiders.com thinks he is #23?? :laughing:

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-08-2009, 05:55 PM
Same site, that shows those "moore is better stats" also indicates, with Stats that Nate Washington is "Better" than Santonio Holmes.

:applaudit: OK, despite the fact that Football Outsiders is well respected, I am happy to discount their rankings for the purposes of this conversation.

That is merely one data point. Would you refute any of the other statistics?

Preacher
06-08-2009, 05:55 PM
And that is why, ladies and gentlemen, stats can NEVER tell the right story.

They can only help us to understand the story.

Dino 6 Rings
06-08-2009, 05:58 PM
Who were some of the greats ahead of him??? Jason Campbell, Derek Anderson, Jeff Garcia, Trent Edwards.

I know there is a reason I never visited footballoutsiders.com. :rofl: most around here think being #4 is slighting Ben.......but footballoutsiders.com thinks he is #23?? :laughing:

Oh, you know, the greats like Jay Cutler, Matt Ryan, Aaron Rogers, Tony Romo, Matt Schaub, Kerry Collins, Joe Flacco, Kyle Orton, yep, real World Beaters and Winners. Winners like Jason Campbell, Jeff Garcia, Jake Delhoume, David Garrard....all Statistically Better than Big Ben on that site. Yep. our Front office and coaching staff really needs to reconsider its entire roster at this point. Maybe we can trade back for Washington and dump Ben on the Seahawks for Wallace their back up, cause statisitcally, He's Better than Ben.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-08-2009, 06:04 PM
Same site, that shows those "moore is better stats" also indicates, with Stats that Nate Washington is "Better" than Santonio Holmes.

:applaudit:

:rofl:

And Matt Forte with his 1554 total yards from scrimmage and 8 TD's is ranked #37...while Moore is ranked #6

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-08-2009, 06:06 PM
So, Dino, this is not opinion.....because its statistically backed up on Footballoutsiders.com it must be "FACT"...right??

Aaron Rogers
Tony Romo
Matt Schaub
Kerry Collins
THE GREAT Kyle Orton
Jason Campbell
David Garrard
Seneca Wallace
Jeff Garcia
Jake Delomme...................are all better than Ben. :sofunny: :rofl:

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-08-2009, 06:12 PM
1. You have to ask the coaches what they see in Parker over Moore. I know from experience and instinct that I would want Parker over Moore in my starting backfield. As for comparing same offense and same line, while ignoring not the same game, game plan, defensive opponent, turf, weather conditions and other variables is a bit narrow minded.

2. I never have checked footballoutsiders.com before and never will. I think Dino pointed out they statistically rank Nate Washington as a better WR than Santonio Holmes and a couple seasons ago, they had Najeh Davenport ranked as one of the best YPA RB's in the league...........but he was out of work last year. Again, stats mean shit and can be misleading. Statistically speaking, the average person on earth has 1 testicle and 1 breast.

3. My calling somebody a good football player is the last thing from damning.....if you ever played the game and spent time in the football culture, you would know that is the exact opposite. I also would never compare Tiki Barber, MJD or Brian Westbrook to Mewelde Moore. They are not the similar type player, no matter what their "stats" compare to. They all have speed to run away from defenders where Moore's longest run in his over 400 attempts is 33 yards.

Mewelde Moore has a similar skill set to former Redskin all purpose back Brian Mitchell, but Mitchell was faster and a better return man. Basically, Moore is small at 209lbs and slow, with good hands, vision and blocking ability. Just a good all around football player and asset to any team, but not anybody worthy of being a feature back in the NFL.

1) The purpose of my discussing this is that I do not understand what the coaches see in Parker>Moore. Whether it is you or any NFL coach in their experience or instinct, history shows that you would be wrong AT LEAST half the time. Hence Kurt Warner was out of the league, Tom Brady was drafted behind Giovanni Carmazzi and Spurgeon Wynn, Priest Holmes and Ryan Grant were both waived by their initial teams, and the Giants were SO CERTAIN that Tiki Barber was NOT a feature back they spent a 1st round draft pick on Ron Dayne. So lets at least acknowledge that history shows quite clearly, coaches and GMs are often wrong about personnnel.

2) If you choose to not trust Football Outsiders, be my guest. But that does not change the rest of the facts, all of which point to the Steelers offense being better with a pass catching back.

3) If you want to suggest that Moore does not have the breakaway speed of those players, I would agree wholeheartedly. But Moore has the same/similar YPC and YPR a those players and consistently is among the NFL leaders in 1st downs/touch. 1st downs are as important (moreso when you have the Steelers defense) as 60+ yard TDs.

4) Your comparison to Brian Mitchell is interesting. I will consider that a fair comparison, but I would disagree on the limitations. I think the limitations are more of a perception than reality, but perception is reality in many cases. Again, I point to what Moore HAS done as a feature back in the NFL, not what I speculate he might be.

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-08-2009, 06:21 PM
UFN, I have only youth and highschool coaching experience and div 3 playing experience, but collectively over 25 years of it. Let's be clear, I have no big time experience, just my opinions.

Pointing to draft rankings and selection order of collegiate players is grasping at straws to save some kind of shred of your statistical arguement. The comparison is between 2 players ON THE STEELER ROSTER.

What I am basically saying is that if you have ever stood in a training camp environment and looked at 6-10 of the players on your team competing for starting position, you know after that month of competition...who has won the battle and who gives the team the best chance to succeed.

THAT.........is how the coaches determine Parker > Moore. NOT, by statistics on footballoutsiders.com.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-08-2009, 06:26 PM
If you choose to not trust Football Outsiders, be my guest. But that does not change the rest of the facts, all of which point to the Steelers offense being better with a pass catching back.



Really?...then why was 50% of our total losses last year, with a "pass-catching" back, who only started 4 games total?

With Moore as the starter we were 2-2.
With Willie as the starter we were 9-2.

Doesnt the facts alone point towards the Steelers being better with Parker in the backfield?

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-08-2009, 06:26 PM
Wow. Lots of "smart alec" answers. Disappointing to say the least.

You should learn the difference between facts and statistical analysis, which are not identical.

The statistics themselves, are FACTS. Statistical analysis, which is what Football Outsiders does, is an attempt to further interpret facts (which is what you were all complaining about before), and thus subjective.

So you can bash Football Outsiders all you want, but the facts remain.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-08-2009, 06:32 PM
UFN, I have only youth and highschool coaching experience and div 3 playing experience, but collectively over 25 years of it. Let's be clear, I have no big time experience, just my opinions.

Pointing to draft rankings and selection order of collegiate players is grasping at straws to save some kind of shred of your statistical arguement. The comparison is between 2 players ON THE STEELER ROSTER.

What I am basically saying is that if you have ever stood in a training camp environment and looked at 6-10 of the players on your team competing for starting position, you know after that month of competition...who has won the battle and who gives the team the best chance to succeed.

THAT.........is how the coaches determine Parker > Moore. NOT, by statistics on footballoutsiders.com. The same applies to personnel within teams and seasons. How about Max Starks 2008? Seems like they got that one wrong coming out of training camp.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-08-2009, 06:34 PM
:doh:

FACT: Record with Moore as the starter....2-2
FACT: Record with Parker as the starter....9-2

Statistical analysist of those facts tell me that ....are you ready.... wait for it.....wait for it.....We averaged more wins with Parker in the backfield....since 9>2.

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-08-2009, 06:37 PM
Again, I point to what Moore HAS done as a feature back in the NFL, not what I speculate he might be.

What Mewelde Moore HAS done is be a 5 year backup RB in the NFL, a productive runner and pass catcher, but never a feature back.

YOU ABSOLUTELY SPECULATE what he might be. You openly campaign here for your fellow Tulane Alum to be the starter when he has never been deemed worthy of being a feature back in his 5 years in the NFL. He has been placed behind or released in favor of Parker, Mendenhall, Chester Taylor, Adrian Peterson, Nafua Tahi, Artrose Pinner, Michael Bennett.

Moore hasnt been a starter yet in the NFL and starting the downside of his career now. All Willie Parker HAS DONE is started on 2 super bowl teams, been selected a pro bowl player and three 1200 yard + rushing seasons.

You speculate that Moore could be a starter and assert that he should be..........yet you ignore that Willie Parker IS the #3 all time rusher for the Pittsburgh Steelers.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-08-2009, 06:41 PM
Really?...then why was 50% of our total losses last year, with a "pass-catching" back, who only started 4 games total?

With Moore as the starter we were 2-2.
With Willie as the starter we were 9-2.

Doesnt the facts alone point towards the Steelers being better with Parker in the backfield? I would think those 2 losses had something to do with Big Ben throwing 1 TD vs 7 INTs in those two games. So I would suggest that 2-2 had something to do with Big Ben throwing 50% of his INTs in those 2 games but that is your opinion.

Moore had 94 yds (vs NYG) and 105 yds (vs IND) in those games. Parker only had 3 bigger yardage games all season.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-08-2009, 06:47 PM
What Mewelde Moore HAS done is be a 5 year backup RB in the NFL, a productive runner and pass catcher, but never a feature back.

YOU ABSOLUTELY SPECULATE what he might be. You openly campaign here for your fellow Tulane Alum to be the starter when he has never been deemed worthy of being a feature back in his 5 years in the NFL. He has been placed behind or released in favor of Parker, Mendenhall, Chester Taylor, Adrian Peterson, Nafua Tahi, Artrose Pinner, Michael Bennett.

Moore hasnt been a starter yet in the NFL and starting the downside of his career now. All Willie Parker HAS DONE is started on 2 super bowl teams, been selected a pro bowl player and three 1200 yard + rushing seasons.

You speculate that Moore could be a starter and assert that he should be..........yet you ignore that Willie Parker IS the #3 all time rusher for the Pittsburgh Steelers. No, I am taking the games where Moore has been the feature back and added them up. No he has never gotten the opportunity to stretch it out consistently but those are coaching decisions, not Moores fault, and often players need the opportunity.

You are correct that Moore was behind some stiffs in Minnesota but I think that has to do with not so bright coaches (the same guy who said that Tarvaris Jackson was ahead of Donovan McNabb) moreso than anything else. Tiki Barber was once behind Charles Way and Leshon Johnson...so what does that mean?

Really what I want to understand is what if Moore is as good as his numbers as a feature back, and why doesnt anyone want to find out.

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-08-2009, 06:50 PM
The same applies to personnel within teams and seasons. How about Max Starks 2008? Seems like they got that one wrong coming out of training camp.

WOW........now this is right up my alley and gonna bore the regulars to death!!!

I am just guessing that you have never played offensive line, coached it or even watched Starks closely to see how he plays, but instead follow his "sacks allowed stats" :rofl:

Starks was drafted with the label by many scouts as an underachiever. "He looks like Tarzan, but plays like Jane" was the thought of many. He started in 2005 because Oliver Ross left and there was no depth. Starks lost his job in 2007 and 2008 to Colon because he is lazy, hasnt developed a decent kick slide yet, has poor hand placement and has lapses in intensity. The only thing helping Max Starks is his sheer size and fact the Steelers have not drafted a suitable replacement.

They got it right coming out of camp as both Colon and Smith outperformed Starks. Fact is, Trai Essex got the Start over Starks in place of Smith because he was more athletically suited to match up with Paul Spicer's speed. Starks is a better run blocker than Essex and then got the start the rest of the season.

Again, evaluation, not statistics determines who starts in football.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-08-2009, 06:50 PM
What Mewelde Moore HAS done is be a 5 year backup RB in the NFL, a productive runner and pass catcher, but never a feature back.

YOU ABSOLUTELY SPECULATE what he might be. You openly campaign here for your fellow Tulane Alum to be the starter when he has never been deemed worthy of being a feature back in his 5 years in the NFL. He has been placed behind or released in favor of Parker, Mendenhall, Chester Taylor, Adrian Peterson, Nafua Tahi, Artrose Pinner, Michael Bennett.

Moore hasnt been a starter yet in the NFL and starting the downside of his career now. All Willie Parker HAS DONE is started on 2 super bowl teams, been selected a pro bowl player and three 1200 yard + rushing seasons.

You speculate that Moore could be a starter and assert that he should be..........yet you ignore that Willie Parker IS the #3 all time rusher for the Pittsburgh Steelers.
To sum that up, I think what HAS happened is nothing more than WP getting an opportunity, where Moore has not.

I think that if Moore had the same number of carries, yes I think he would have more yards and pro bowls.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-08-2009, 06:53 PM
WOW........now this is right up my alley and gonna bore the regulars to death!!!

I am just guessing that you have never played offensive line, coached it or even watched Starks closely to see how he plays, but instead follow his "sacks allowed stats" :rofl:

Starks was drafted with the label by many scouts as an underachiever. "He looks like Tarzan, but plays like Jane" was the thought of many. He started in 2005 because Oliver Ross left and there was no depth. Starks lost his job in 2007 and 2008 to Colon because he is lazy, hasnt developed a decent kick slide yet, has poor hand placement and has lapses in intensity. The only thing helping Max Starks is his sheer size and fact the Steelers have not drafted a suitable replacement.

They got it right coming out of camp as both Colon and Smith outperformed Starks. Fact is, Trai Essex got the Start over Starks in place of Smith because he was more athletically suited to match up with Paul Spicer's speed. Starks is a better run blocker than Essex and then got the start the rest of the season.

Again, evaluation, not statistics determines who starts in football. Absolutely agree, but at the end of the day the line played better once Starks got comfortable and settled into the spot later in the year.

I agree that Starks is a ridiculous underachiever but that does not change the fact that the run game was better with him in there, despite what happened at practice.

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-08-2009, 06:59 PM
Really what I want to understand is what if Moore is as good as his numbers as a feature back, and why doesnt anyone want to find out.

NO, I think you have decided that Moore is better than Parker and should be a feature back, despite 5 seasons of NFL coaches thinking otherwise.

If the Steelers coaches say Moore has earned the #1 RB job this season, I will trust their decision. I don't even believe Mewelde Moore thinks he can be a starter in the NFL, I havent heard him say it.

If Moore thought he could be a starter, he could have chose to goto Chicago, Cincinatti, Seattle or some other place that needed a RB last season. Instead he chose to goto Pittsburgh where they needed a 3rd down back. Why do you think that is?? Probably because he knows what kind of a RB he is.

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-08-2009, 07:06 PM
I think that if Moore had the same number of carries, yes I think he would have more yards and pro bowls.

And.........that is the kind of dillusional attitude which makes me realize that this discussion has no further value.

If Moore was so good, the Vikings never would have gone and got Chester Taylor, nor would they have needed to draft Adrian Peterson. Then the Bears would have snagged up Moore after seeing him play the past 4 seasons in their division........but instead they drafted unproven rookie Matt Forte to be their feature back.

You keep saying you want to understand, yet when faced with the reality of the situation, you refuse to listen. Sometimes it feel good to stop banging your head :banging:. This is one of those times.

Buh bye.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-08-2009, 07:09 PM
NO, I think you have decided that Moore is better than Parker and should be a feature back, despite 5 seasons of NFL coaches thinking otherwise.

If the Steelers coaches say Moore has earned the #1 RB job this season, I will trust their decision. I don't even believe Mewelde Moore thinks he can be a starter in the NFL, I havent heard him say it.

If Moore thought he could be a starter, he could have chose to goto Chicago, Cincinatti, Seattle or some other place that needed a RB last season. Instead he chose to goto Pittsburgh where they needed a 3rd down back. Why do you think that is?? Probably because he knows what kind of a RB he is. Now I think you are the one speculating.

He signed with the Steelers before they drafted Mendenhall and every 2nd RB in the NFL will at least get a chance to play.

As for what he has done in 5 years, Moore has gotten 15+ touches in 14 games in his career and he has averaged 123 yds/game in those 14 games. (What I do not understand is why no coach/fan wants to see what would happen if he got 15 touches every game)

Willie Parker has gotten 15+ touches 48 times in his career and has topped 123 yards....exactly 14 times. When you add up all the dud games Parker has had, the average is much lower.

tony hipchest
06-08-2009, 07:14 PM
2004- redshirt
2005- 1420 tot yds/5td. sb champ and record setting run
2006- 1716 tot yds/16 td. pro-bowl
2007- 1480 tot yds/2 td. pro-bowl and lead leader in rushing til injury.
2008- 804 tot yds/5 td. sb champ

and UFN wants to replace this as an experiment to see if moore is any good as a full time starter? thats the type of management that gets people fired.

i have just as much faith in moore as UFN does. ive followed him his whole career and realize his potential. unfortunately his potential in pgh is as a back up and 3rd down back.

this aint the raiders.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-08-2009, 07:15 PM
I would think those 2 losses had something to do with Big Ben throwing 1 TD vs 7 INTs in those two games. So I would suggest that 2-2 had something to do with Big Ben throwing 50% of his INTs in those 2 games but that is your opinion.

Moore had 94 yds (vs NYG) and 105 yds (vs IND) in those games. Parker only had 3 bigger yardage games all season.

OHHHHH....so it would be silly to take stats out of context? Without considering the variables that go into those stats?

(Now....Think about it)

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-08-2009, 07:22 PM
2004- redshirt
2005- 1420 tot yds/5td. sb champ and record setting run
2006- 1716 tot yds/16 td. pro-bowl
2007- 1480 tot yds/2 td. pro-bowl and lead leader in rushing til injury.
2008- 804 tot yds/5 td. sb champ

and UFN wants to replace this as an experiment to see if moore is any good as a full time starter? thats the type of management that gets people fired.

i have just as much faith in moore as UFN does. ive followed him his whole career and realize his potential. unfortunately his potential in pgh is as a back up and 3rd down back.

this aint the raiders. unfortunately the 2005 and 2006 Willie Parker are irrelevant here. I was confused about usage of the 2008 Mewelde Moore and the 2008 Willie Parker.

As for what Moore would have done given the same opportunity, no one knows.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-08-2009, 07:25 PM
OHHHHH....so it would be silly to take stats out of context? Without considering the variables that go into those stats?

(Now....Think about it) I get it, and I had taken that into account.

Feel free to take all of the variables and contingencies into account and give me one proof point that says that the Steelers offense was better in 08 with WP.

tony hipchest
06-08-2009, 07:37 PM
unfortunately the 2005 and 2006 Willie Parker are irrelevant here. I was confused about usage of the 2008 Mewelde Moore and the 2008 Willie Parker.

.actually its not. im sure youve heard phrases such as earning your keep and proving your worth.

you may not be familiar with the rooney way, but loyalty means something. theres an old adage in football that has been thrown to the wayside, and is rarely adhered to- "you dont lose your job due to injury".

just because all the other owners will jump off a bridge doesnt mean the rooneys will.

willie and ben came into this league together and all they did was win superbowls and set team and league records.

"if it aint broke, dont fix it". everything youre talking about is trying to fix something that aint broke. this isnt about willie homerism. its about the ends justifying the means.

lamberts-lost-tooth
06-08-2009, 07:39 PM
I get it, and I had taken that into account.

Feel free to take all of the variables and contingencies into account and give me one proof point that says that the Steelers offense was better in 08 with WP.

Because even with Willies injuries and our porous o-line, Willie has a proven and earned reputation as a "big play" back.

This kept defenses honest, making them respect the run and opening the passing game for ben and our recievers. Defenses couldnt "cheat" and drop back into coverage with the fear that Willie would break a long one.

With Moore you have a dependable workhorse who will ground out some yardage, but defenses will gamble on traditional "passing downs" and allow short yardage running gains, if the payoff is that they can make you one dimensional and dictate your offense.

steelreserve
06-09-2009, 05:18 AM
Yes, guys were brought in to compete and Parker beat them out. The reason for that is that he is a very good RB. You say Parker was forced into the short yardage role, but I remember Davenport basically getting that job in 2007. If the 250lb dumptruck could not find a hole to run, how was anybody else.

Parker is basically a guy that will run on 1st and 2nd down. Davenport and Moore were both brought in to be 3rd down backs and get some carries. That is what they had been doing for the past 2 seasons.

A "big back" seems to be what you think we need and I think that it all starts up front. Any decent running back can get 1st downs behind a solid blocking o line and good blocking FB.........whether he is 210bs or 250lbs.

OK, first, I think it's not so much that Parker "beat out" guys like Davenport, Barlow and Russell. It's that Parker was the better option because we kept bringing in guys who were either longshots or turned out to have serious shortcomings of their own. The competition he's faced at running back has been piss-poor for a few years, and only finally got a little better when Moore came along.

And I don't necessarily think what we need is a "big" back -- whether we're talking about complementing Parker or replacing him. Even just a well-rounded back will do. Basically, someone we could leave out there for a series or two in a row, on a regular basis, who has a different skill set. That way, we make defenses adjust and guess what we're going to do next.

A big power back is one obvious answer to that, because that's the most obvious thing Parker is lacking. But a Brian Westbrook-type who can catch screen passes or go in motion out wide would be another option. So would a good general-purpose back in the mold of Fred Stewart or Clinton Portis.

Obviously, I'm not saying we should get those specific guys, and I'm not saying our second back has to already be an NFL starter either. The key is that we get someone who's generally solid and USE HIM CONSISTENTLY in our gameplan, not have whoever is starting be in on every series and the other guy only comes in for one play at a time.

steelreserve
06-09-2009, 05:24 AM
Because even with Willies injuries and our porous o-line, Willie has a proven and earned reputation as a "big play" back.

This kept defenses honest, making them respect the run and opening the passing game for ben and our recievers. Defenses couldnt "cheat" and drop back into coverage with the fear that Willie would break a long one.

With Moore you have a dependable workhorse who will ground out some yardage, but defenses will gamble on traditional "passing downs" and allow short yardage running gains, if the payoff is that they can make you one dimensional and dictate your offense.

I don't know about that. My theory is that with Parker, defenses are pretty confident that they can play the pass and if they guess wrong, they're more than likely to stop the run anyway. And if they stack 8 guys in the box, they can stop the run whenever they choose.

I don't really see many defenses guarding against the big play on our ground game. Most NFL defenses have enough overall speed and smarts to prevent many "big-play" long runs from happening in any case unless they're either unlucky or someone makes a brilliant play or a brilliant call. It only happens a couple of times a year for the average team. That's like constantly guarding against the alley-oop in basketball. You can't worry too much about that; you just have to trust that your guys know what they're doing enough to prevent it.

DACEB
06-09-2009, 07:05 AM
I've admired FWP's determination and work ethic for the years he's been a Steeler. He's a great leader by example. Unfortunately Moore is to the team that which I believed FW would become, an excellent 3rd down specialist. FW has worked every year to make himself a better back, and I wouldn't be disappointed if he stayed with the team.

Dino 6 Rings
06-09-2009, 09:43 AM
give me one proof point that says that the Steelers offense was better in 08 with WP.


Willie Parker was the Starter in the Super Bowl.

The Steelers WON the Super Bowl. That's all the Proof you need.

steelreserve
06-10-2009, 05:28 AM
Willie Parker was the Starter in the Super Bowl.

The Steelers WON the Super Bowl. That's all the Proof you need.

Yeah, and Trent Dilfer was the starter on a winning Super Bowl team too. Does that mean the Ravens were perfect at quarterback? Or if you want to make it more personal, did Super Bowl XXX mean you'd consider Larry Brown one of the long-term elite DBs of the league?

It IS possible to win a Super Bowl and still have weaknesses, you know. It doesn't mean you were perfect, you just played better than anyone else.

Dino 6 Rings
06-10-2009, 12:39 PM
Yeah, and Trent Dilfer was the starter on a winning Super Bowl team too. Does that mean the Ravens were perfect at quarterback? Or if you want to make it more personal, did Super Bowl XXX mean you'd consider Larry Brown one of the long-term elite DBs of the league?

It IS possible to win a Super Bowl and still have weaknesses, you know. It doesn't mean you were perfect, you just played better than anyone else.

Oh come on Steel, I disproved his "stats analysis" and then he wants more Proof.

I know very well that Willie didn't have a great Super Bowl. But the Cardinals were playing run first and pretty much dared Ben to beat them all game. This guy never considers anything else but Numbers. Never thinks about the Weather, about the actual Defense we are playing. Finds a reason to discount every single Parker Stat that could be seen as positive and then Fluffs up every single Moore stat as if its Gospel.

I was just playing around with the Proof thing.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-10-2009, 02:11 PM
Oh come on Steel, I disproved his "stats analysis" and then he wants more Proof.

I know very well that Willie didn't have a great Super Bowl. But the Cardinals were playing run first and pretty much dared Ben to beat them all game. This guy never considers anything else but Numbers. Never thinks about the Weather, about the actual Defense we are playing. Finds a reason to discount every single Parker Stat that could be seen as positive and then Fluffs up every single Moore stat as if its Gospel.

I was just playing around with the Proof thing. uh, I don't think so.

You have not refuted any stat and I have openly invited you to do so. All you have been able to do is cite that WP being the starter in the Super Bowl is evidence of his being the best RB, which as Steelreserve pointed out, is a flawed suggestion.

You can keep disparaging numbers, but numbers are also called facts.

Again, I ask if you can point to any fact (or analysis thereof) that says that the Steelers offense was better with Parker in 2008.

steel9guy
06-12-2009, 01:50 AM
If WIllie is running behind Frank Summers maybe he will do decent but my opinion has always been right running back wrong team.

steelreserve
06-12-2009, 03:54 AM
Oh come on Steel, I disproved his "stats analysis" and then he wants more Proof.

I know very well that Willie didn't have a great Super Bowl. But the Cardinals were playing run first and pretty much dared Ben to beat them all game. This guy never considers anything else but Numbers. Never thinks about the Weather, about the actual Defense we are playing. Finds a reason to discount every single Parker Stat that could be seen as positive and then Fluffs up every single Moore stat as if its Gospel.

I was just playing around with the Proof thing.

Well, OK .. it's probably just that one of my pet peeves about ANY player is when people use the argument of "Well, we won the Super Bowl and he was the starter, so we must be doing something right." You hear that a lot also from people who defend Max Starks. I mean, seriously, if that's one of the top reasons anyone can come up with in favor of a guy, is he REALLY any good?

Anyway, I know with Parker there's more to it, and there are certain ... challenges ... when trying to argue with one of the other major anti-Parker members in this thread. And I honestly haven't even been following the back-and-forth between him and the others because it really just goes in circles. As an admitted Parker Hater myself, I think he's mostly making the rest of us look bad.

So I guess the bottom line is, don't think I'm trying to personally call you a moron or anything. I've just heard the starting-in-the-Super-Bowl argument a lot of times from people a lot less knowledgeable, so I guess it kind of jumps out atme.

Preacher
06-12-2009, 06:40 AM
Well, OK .. it's probably just that one of my pet peeves about ANY player is when people use the argument of "Well, we won the Super Bowl and he was the starter, so we must be doing something right." You hear that a lot also from people who defend Max Starks. I mean, seriously, if that's one of the top reasons anyone can come up with in favor of a guy, is he REALLY any good?

Anyway, I know with Parker there's more to it, and there are certain ... challenges ... when trying to argue with one of the other major anti-Parker members in this thread. And I honestly haven't even been following the back-and-forth between him and the others because it really just goes in circles. As an admitted Parker Hater myself, I think he's mostly making the rest of us look bad.

So I guess the bottom line is, don't think I'm trying to personally call you a moron or anything. I've just heard the starting-in-the-Super-Bowl argument a lot of times from people a lot less knowledgeable, so I guess it kind of jumps out atme.

Thing is S-R...

You really aren't a Parker Hater... You hate the offensive scheming that makes him a feature back. If we ran a dual backfield, or cut him back to 50-60 percent of the carries, you would probably have no problem with him, until he slowed down or started fumbling.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-12-2009, 12:39 PM
And I honestly haven't even been following the back-and-forth between him and the others because it really just goes in circles. As an admitted Parker Hater myself, I think he's mostly making the rest of us look bad. if you have not followed the conversation how can you have an opinion as to which argument has merit?

MACH1
06-12-2009, 12:43 PM
:yawn::yawn::yawn:

Dino 6 Rings
06-12-2009, 03:41 PM
uh, I don't think so.

You have not refuted any stat and I have openly invited you to do so. All you have been able to do is cite that WP being the starter in the Super Bowl is evidence of his being the best RB, which as Steelreserve pointed out, is a flawed suggestion.

You can keep disparaging numbers, but numbers are also called facts.

Again, I ask if you can point to any fact (or analysis thereof) that says that the Steelers offense was better with Parker in 2008.

Your numbers are Disputed because you're Numbers indicate that Ben is the 23rd Best QB in the NFL.

You lost, clearly.

Dino 6 Rings
06-12-2009, 03:43 PM
The stat of the Steelers 8-2 with Willie as the Starter and 2-2 with Moore, shows you we excel as a....wait for it....TEAM....when Willie Parker is the Starting Running Back.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-12-2009, 04:05 PM
Your numbers are Disputed because you're Numbers indicate that Ben is the 23rd Best QB in the NFL.

You lost, clearly. I never used any such number and I do not remember saying anything about the QB position at all.

What i have compared is the difference on the Steelers offense in 08 between Moore and Parker.

Doesnt matter which stat you check....yards per game, yards per carry, 1st downs, points, total offense, each one shows that the Steelers had a significantly better offense when Moore is on the field.

I am asking someone to provide any evidence to the contrary. I am not imparting an opinion (although my opinion should be obvious) I am merely stating facts. I realize that most of you and, more importantly, Mike Tomlin feel differently, but the stats don't lie.

MACH1
06-12-2009, 07:06 PM
:yawn::yawn::yawn:

steelreserve
06-12-2009, 07:57 PM
if you have not followed the conversation how can you have an opinion as to which argument has merit?

I've followed this exact same debate often enough to know how it goes, and skimmed through enough of it this time to see it headed the same way. I mean, I think you've got the right basic idea, but when you keep coming back to such a continuous flood of stats regardless of whether or not the situation calls for them, people think it's overkill or nitpicking.

Don't get me wrong -- I believe your side of the argument, but I can also see why your style comes off as pretty abrasive to a lot of people.

steelreserve
06-12-2009, 08:03 PM
Thing is S-R...

You really aren't a Parker Hater... You hate the offensive scheming that makes him a feature back. If we ran a dual backfield, or cut him back to 50-60 percent of the carries, you would probably have no problem with him, until he slowed down or started fumbling.

Hmm, that's probably right ... so does this mean I'm now an "Arians sucks" troll? :flap:

Preacher
06-12-2009, 09:04 PM
Hmm, that's probably right ... so does this mean I'm now an "Arians sucks" troll? :flap:

:troll: :laughing:

No, there are definitely things I would like to see Arians do differently as well. What just bothers me is when people post like it is an absolute fact whatever they say. Obviously those closer to the situation are doing things differently so it isn't an "absolute fact."

Examples such as "We must sign Peezy" or "we must sign BIg Red" have shown of late NOT to actually be fact.

Some people don't like the style of football Arians calls. That's okay. It is those who want to go back to the old style thinking that we can win more games that I laugh at, because we tried it numerous times in Cowher's tenure, and it didn't work.

No, with a OL in its second year, a new RG to hopefully help cement that side, and consistancy through training camp, this year we may see a distinct difference in the offense. Though I doubt we will see a varied running attack, and yes, I want that too.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-12-2009, 11:04 PM
I've followed this exact same debate often enough to know how it goes, and skimmed through enough of it this time to see it headed the same way. I mean, I think you've got the right basic idea, but when you keep coming back to such a continuous flood of stats regardless of whether or not the situation calls for them, people think it's overkill or nitpicking.

Don't get me wrong -- I believe your side of the argument, but I can also see why your style comes off as pretty abrasive to a lot of people. Fair enough.

Thanks for the feedback.

The Duke
06-13-2009, 11:55 AM
I am asking someone to provide any evidence to the contrary. I am not imparting an opinion (although my opinion should be obvious) I am merely stating facts. I realize that most of you and, more importantly, Mike Tomlin feel differently, but the stats don't lie.

The day the steelers rely on stats to build their team is the day they become the oakland raiders. at least I know that's NEVER gonna happen

could happen to the skins though....

sherlock
06-13-2009, 01:27 PM
This is a great thread.
Illuminating, insightful and well argued by both sides.......you guys rock!!
For what it`s worth I think Willie will have a real good season because last year he was in all honesty, probably just ok and has alot to prove to his detractors.
Stats show he had an average 2008 but as has been pointed out,stats aren`t everything....defense aside, the Steelers had pretty poor ratings all round and they won the SB.
For me, Willie on his day is a fantastic RB and has that certain spark and magic which make his `average` days all the more frustrating.
He`s not the power-back as he was often asked to be last season,he`s a speedster and hopefully this asset will be utilized more in 2009.

Preacher
06-13-2009, 07:09 PM
You know,

I went back and watched the SB again. Willie actually had a GREAT game. His short runs were for first downs. He turned nothing into something a few times. He blocked well. The times he was caught in the backfield? Well, he was meeting up with two OR THREE guys in red shirts. There is NO ONE that can run through that.

The Duke
06-13-2009, 08:35 PM
You know,

I went back and watched the SB again. Willie actually had a GREAT game. His short runs were for first downs. He turned nothing into something a few times. He blocked well. The times he was caught in the backfield? Well, he was meeting up with two OR THREE guys in red shirts. There is NO ONE that can run through that.

but preacher, he had a 2.8 average!! Moore had a 6.0 average in the game, if he had more carries he'd be way over 100 yards!! :rolleyes:

It's amazing the stuff that's never reflected in the stats

Well, he was meeting up with two OR THREE guys in red shirts

hell, that happens almost t every game!!

Preacher
06-13-2009, 08:49 PM
LOL... didn't want to re-inflame the debate. I was just a little taken aback by just how good a game he really did have. How he was picken his way through crowds and run through some tackles.

Boomerang
06-13-2009, 08:53 PM
Willie contributed to the SB win as much as all the guys and still has a lot to offer the team.:tt02:

Dino 6 Rings
06-14-2009, 01:47 PM
Moore is a career 3rd down back and back up. Parker had years of 1200 yard seasons a record setting SB run, and broke a playoff rushing record set by Franco Harris...

not sure why there is even a debate other than somebody wants to cut down the Super Bowl Champs and their Starting Running back to make himself feel better.

Shoved his stats right back down his throat and he still comes back for more.

LVSteelersfan
06-14-2009, 02:42 PM
Look, FWP was a steal as an undrafted free agent. He has been good for the team - considering the longer TD run in Super Bowl history helped seal the deal on that game. ANY player who was a key part in winning a ring is to be valued. That being said, FWP is not that great. And, when he is in the game, they tend to play call really crappy. That's not WP's fault, but it's still true. I am so sick of WP runs up the middle, in a single back formation, wasting so many plays, making it so much harder for Ben - having to throw on obvious passing downs. I won't be heart broken if WP leaves. I don't know if he will ever have a full, productive year again, and if he does this year, it could easily be his last (making it happen for contract season).

Bingo. Willie is a one dimensional back who can't catch or run a proper screen play if his life depended on it. He telegraphs the screen play, takes his eyes off the ball and usually drops the pass or gets nailed behind the line of scrimmage almost every time. Look what happened when Moore was put in the same situation. He catches the ball, actually jukes his way to missed tackles, and makes huge yardage more often than not. Not saying he is a feature running back, but has more upside than FWP with a terrible Oline. If the Oline was better at run blocking, then it would be a whole nother story because Willie would have holes to hit and be long gone. WIth this Oline, Willie is mediocre at best when running him up the middle constantly. I hope to God Mendenhall pans out with those moves he showed in college and doesn't develop fumbleitis like in the preseason last year.

Rek
06-14-2009, 04:51 PM
Agreed.

Time for the resident Willie Parker fanboy to give his 2 cents.

Willie will be back next year if he has an injury-free season and/or he has over 1,000 yards rushing. Why? Moore is not a 1,000 yard back and does not have the speed Parker does to get to the outside or the power Mendy has to run in between the tackles. Sure he's great in short intervals, but I don't feel Moore is the caliber of back that it takes play all game, almost every down.

Right now, it's Parker and Mendenhall and will be next year. Parker isn't going anywhere if he can stay healthy and productive.

Rek
06-14-2009, 04:58 PM
Bingo. Willie is a one dimensional back who can't catch or run a proper screen play if his life depended on it. He telegraphs the screen play, takes his eyes off the ball and usually drops the pass or gets nailed behind the line of scrimmage almost every time. Look what happened when Moore was put in the same situation. He catches the ball, actually jukes his way to missed tackles, and makes huge yardage more often than not. Not saying he is a feature running back, but has more upside than FWP with a terrible Oline. If the Oline was better at run blocking, then it would be a whole nother story because Willie would have holes to hit and be long gone. WIth this Oline, Willie is mediocre at best when running him up the middle constantly. I hope to God Mendenhall pans out with those moves he showed in college and doesn't develop fumbleitis like in the preseason last year.

Allow me to point out the problems with your argument.

1) Parker was thrown to less than 5 times all of last season compared to the 20-30 times 2 years ago. How can you make a judgment on how a player catches when he has had so few chances. (Are you saying Limas Sweed can't catch?)

2) How many times has Moore and Russell been stuffed at the goal line or in 3rd/4th and 1 situations? Parker should not be met by 2 LBs in the backfield as soon as he's handed the ball.

3) Basically, you are criticizing a running back's ability because of a crappy O-Line and suggesting that Moore would be a better fit because he doesn't lose AS MANY yards because of said O-Line. I have an idea, let's focus on the guys upfront before we criticize the backs.

steelreserve
06-14-2009, 07:37 PM
Willie will be back next year if he has an injury-free season and/or he has over 1,000 yards rushing. Why? Moore is not a 1,000 yard back and does not have the speed Parker does to get to the outside or the power Mendy has to run in between the tackles. Sure he's great in short intervals, but I don't feel Moore is the caliber of back that it takes play all game, almost every down.

See, the thing is, Parker probably WILL have 1,000 yards if he stays healthy next year. So could Moore or Mendenhall if they started most of the time.

Have you seen the teams we're playing next year? It looks like it's going to be a cakewalk for whatever RB can stay healthy. Parker could probably put up 1,000 yards in 6 games against some of those creampuffs -- as could the other backs -- but trust me, when it comes time to play the Ravens or the Patriots in the playoffs, it'll be right back to 29 yards on 16 carries.

Basically, my point is, I hope we don't let ourselves be fooled by the upcoming "breakout season" our RBs and the offensive line are about to have because of shitty opponents. Hell, even Starks could look good against this competition. My fear is that we'll let ourselves think certain players are more valuable than they actually are and throw way too much money at them or keep them around too long, then smack ourselves in the face two years later when we have to play the good teams again.

Rek
06-14-2009, 08:13 PM
See, the thing is, Parker probably WILL have 1,000 yards if he stays healthy next year. So could Moore or Mendenhall if they started most of the time.

Have you seen the teams we're playing next year? It looks like it's going to be a cakewalk for whatever RB can stay healthy. Parker could probably put up 1,000 yards in 6 games against some of those creampuffs -- as could the other backs -- but trust me, when it comes time to play the Ravens or the Patriots in the playoffs, it'll be right back to 29 yards on 16 carries.

Basically, my point is, I hope we don't let ourselves be fooled by the upcoming "breakout season" our RBs and the offensive line are about to have because of shitty opponents. Hell, even Starks could look good against this competition. My fear is that we'll let ourselves think certain players are more valuable than they actually are and throw way too much money at them or keep them around too long, then smack ourselves in the face two years later when we have to play the good teams again.

Very intelligent argument.

But the thing that annoys me about most fans is that they only look at stats and rushing yards. They need to remember that having 16-20 carries for 30-40 yards is GREAT because it eats up the clock and keeps the defense off track and they will get tired from blocking and hitting. We don't need a RB that hits the home-run every time. Eat the clock, pound the ball, bounce to the outsides when you can, etc.

That sets up more manageable 3rd and 3's and 3rd and 2's which is why we have Heath, 3 exceptional wide-outs, screens, etc. The Steelers do not have to always run up the yards and try to pound it on short-yard situations.

LVSteelersfan
06-16-2009, 01:16 AM
Allow me to point out the problems with your argument.

1) Parker was thrown to less than 5 times all of last season compared to the 20-30 times 2 years ago. How can you make a judgment on how a player catches when he has had so few chances. (Are you saying Limas Sweed can't catch?)

2) How many times has Moore and Russell been stuffed at the goal line or in 3rd/4th and 1 situations? Parker should not be met by 2 LBs in the backfield as soon as he's handed the ball.

3) Basically, you are criticizing a running back's ability because of a crappy O-Line and suggesting that Moore would be a better fit because he doesn't lose AS MANY yards because of said O-Line. I have an idea, let's focus on the guys upfront before we criticize the backs.

I did not say Moore should replace Willie. I said he should have been used more on those second downs that Willie kept getting stuffed on because he can run a screen play very well. . Willie was thrown the ball 5 times BECAUSE HE SUCKS at catching the ball. He telegraphs the screens. I realize the Oline sucks but Willie is ONE DIMENSIONAL. Period. End of story. We need to change that to ramp the offense up a bit. Moore is not the whole answer. I hope Mendenhall is. I don't hate Willie. I just don't think he is that good as an overall back.

El-Gonzo Jackson
06-16-2009, 01:46 AM
Complaining about Parker and screen plays is incorrect. Look back to the 05 season, watch the DVD and see how well he ran screens.

The screen pass is de-emphasized in the current system and the O line coach possibly does not block it up well. Look at the screens the Cardinals ran last season. One thing Russ Grimm does well is draw up how to block a screen pass.

Justano
06-16-2009, 11:00 AM
Willie Parker was one of the fastest running backs in the league.... i think that if he can get some blocking and stay healthy he will have a good year and he would probably be staying in pittsburgh...

steelreserve
06-16-2009, 01:45 PM
Very intelligent argument.

But the thing that annoys me about most fans is that they only look at stats and rushing yards. They need to remember that having 16-20 carries for 30-40 yards is GREAT because it eats up the clock and keeps the defense off track and they will get tired from blocking and hitting. We don't need a RB that hits the home-run every time. Eat the clock, pound the ball, bounce to the outsides when you can, etc.

That sets up more manageable 3rd and 3's and 3rd and 2's which is why we have Heath, 3 exceptional wide-outs, screens, etc. The Steelers do not have to always run up the yards and try to pound it on short-yard situations.

I don't know about that. It seems like when Parker's not on his game, those 16-20 carries for 30-40 yards end up being a lot of 3rd-and-9's or 3rd-and-11's, with a couple of marginally helpful 8-yard runs sprinkled in randomly throughout the rest of the game. Then Ben drops back on third-and-long with the defense playing PASS PASS PASS, and by the third quarter we've given up entirely on running the ball and we're passing 80% of the time instead, and why do you think we end up with so many sacks?

Now, if Parker really WAS getting us into 3rd-and-3 consistently, that'd be helpful and I wouldn't be bitching so much. But I think he's too streaky to do that when used as the feature back. Take any 10 attempts, and his rushing yardage doesn't go 3-4-3-4-2-6-1-5-4-5, more like 0-0-1-0-10-0-1-4-10-2-0. That makes our offense jerky and uncoordinated, and puts us in predictable situations where the defense can really tee off on us.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-16-2009, 02:32 PM
I don't know about that. It seems like when Parker's not on his game, those 16-20 carries for 30-40 yards end up being a lot of 3rd-and-9's or 3rd-and-11's, with a couple of marginally helpful 8-yard runs sprinkled in randomly throughout the rest of the game. Then Ben drops back on third-and-long with the defense playing PASS PASS PASS, and by the third quarter we've given up entirely on running the ball and we're passing 80% of the time instead, and why do you think we end up with so many sacks?

Now, if Parker really WAS getting us into 3rd-and-3 consistently, that'd be helpful and I wouldn't be bitching so much. But I think he's too streaky to do that when used as the feature back. Take any 10 attempts, and his rushing yardage doesn't go 3-4-3-4-2-6-1-5-4-5, more like 0-0-1-0-10-0-1-4-10-2-0. That makes our offense jerky and uncoordinated, and puts us in predictable situations where the defense can really tee off on us. This is an excellent post. While running plays in general are good (some positive yardage w/ little chance of turnover being better than an incompletion/sack/turnover), getting 2 yards per carry is a wasted down. As Steelreserve noted, that puts you in 3rd and 6 each time and limits what you can do on offense and the number of 1st downs achieved. As the Bucs and Ravens have proven, it is extremely hard to win in the NFL playing *not to lose*, which is what conceding 2 ypc is.

On another note, 1000 yards is not all impressive. In the age of RBBC, there were still 16 RBs that had 1000 yards in 08. 1000 yards for a feature back is 62.5 yards per game.

Dino 6 Rings
06-16-2009, 04:12 PM
Pretty sure we were only 2-2 with Moore as the starter and 8-2 with Parker as the starter. Pretty sure we went 3-0 in the post season with Parker as the starter.

Those are stats that can't be denied. Unlike the fluff and puff stats that I already proved to be out of whack earlier in this thread and back when I did a play by play break down of individual games when this whole "bench parker for moore" nonsense started.

steelreserve
06-16-2009, 07:31 PM
Another humdinger I just spotted on the board - because of our "cupcake schedule," it will be impossible to accurately evaluate any players and their worth to the team this year whatsoever, apparently.

THANK GOD none of these people actually call the shots on this team.

That's not quite what I said. Maybe the post came off like that because it was full of half-serious projections. But do you REALLY think the quality of competition has nothing do to with how good you'll look by comparison?

Last year at this time, it was doom and gloom all around because we got stuck with the toughest schedule in the league, and that was going to affect our performance negatively. So now that we're playing a relatively weak schedule, it's unreasonable to think the opposite? And yeah, if we add a few more blowout wins, there's going to be ample opportunity for some guys to pad their stats.

Anyway, we'll see who's right about that at the end of the season. 10-to-1 someone on our team runs for 1,000 yards, unless there's an injury exactly in week 8.

Psyychoward86
06-16-2009, 11:42 PM
This is an excellent post. While running plays in general are good (some positive yardage w/ little chance of turnover being better than an incompletion/sack/turnover), getting 2 yards per carry is a wasted down. As Steelreserve noted, that puts you in 3rd and 6 each time and limits what you can do on offense and the number of 1st downs achieved. As the Bucs and Ravens have proven, it is extremely hard to win in the NFL playing *not to lose*, which is what conceding 2 ypc is.

On another note, 1000 yards is not all impressive. In the age of RBBC, there were still 16 RBs that had 1000 yards in 08. 1000 yards for a feature back is 62.5 yards per game.

And the statistical 'hore is at it again :coffee:

fansince'76
06-17-2009, 01:03 AM
That's not quite what I said. Maybe the post came off like that because it was full of half-serious projections. But do you REALLY think the quality of competition has nothing do to with how good you'll look by comparison?

Last year at this time, it was doom and gloom all around because we got stuck with the toughest schedule in the league, and that was going to affect our performance negatively. So now that we're playing a relatively weak schedule, it's unreasonable to think the opposite? And yeah, if we add a few more blowout wins, there's going to be ample opportunity for some guys to pad their stats.

Anyway, we'll see who's right about that at the end of the season. 10-to-1 someone on our team runs for 1,000 yards, unless there's an injury exactly in week 8.

It's OK - Willie will be gone after this season due to salary demands and/or age issues anyway. Then you can find someone else to rail endlessly against. :coffee:

Preacher
06-17-2009, 01:31 AM
T As Steelreserve noted, that puts you in 3rd and 6 each time and limits what you can do on offense and the number of 1st downs achieved. As the Bucs and Ravens have proven, it is extremely hard to win in the NFL playing *not to lose*, which is what conceding 2 ypc is.
.


Hmmm.... So.... Let's look at Jerome Bettis.

The twenty-five games between 1998 and 2003 (after which he ceased being the starter) where he rushed for under 3.0 yards a carry means he sucked too... and we were just playing not to lose right?
That means 25 out of 96 or 1/4 of the time, Bettis CAUSED us to lose the game since he wasn't rushing for over 3 yards a carry, right?

But wait... this is Jerome THE GOD Bettis. I thought he NEVER was brought down before rushing for 3+ yards.

Fact of the matter is, Jerome had 1 out of every 4 games where he couldn't pull it together and get a decent rush going, if 3 yards per rush is the standard. I don't know about you, but I would rather have someone like Willie that is also bad say, 1 out of 4 games, but has the ability to be a difference maker EVERY game.

_________________

This is such a fun game you get to play with stats!!!

Now on to reality. Jerome was an excellent running back. Willie is a very good back in a very different mold. We are no longer a "3 yards and a cloud of mediocrity" football team. We NEVER one a AFCCG with that kind of game. However, we DID win two SB's with a passing-big run threat offense.

I don't know about anyone else, but in my book 2 > 0 .

Rek
06-17-2009, 11:07 AM
It's OK - Willie will be gone after this season due to salary demands and/or age issues anyway. Then you can find someone else to rail endlessly against. :coffee:

We should make a friendly wager on that because I have a feeling Willie Parker will be a Steeler next year. :thumbsup:

Rek
06-17-2009, 11:12 AM
That's not quite what I said. Maybe the post came off like that because it was full of half-serious projections. But do you REALLY think the quality of competition has nothing do to with how good you'll look by comparison?

Last year at this time, it was doom and gloom all around because we got stuck with the toughest schedule in the league, and that was going to affect our performance negatively. So now that we're playing a relatively weak schedule, it's unreasonable to think the opposite? And yeah, if we add a few more blowout wins, there's going to be ample opportunity for some guys to pad their stats.

Anyway, we'll see who's right about that at the end of the season. 10-to-1 someone on our team runs for 1,000 yards, unless there's an injury exactly in week 8.

I actually like your way of thinking and I tend to agree with you and Psycho the most on this board, but I don't see what you're seeing with this. The odds of FWP running over 1,000 yards is almost guaranteed and it won't be because of the competition, it will be because he will stay healthy all year and actually play every game.

Everybody thinks he sucks because of too many games with 40-50 yards. Um...he missed 5 games last year and still had damn near 800 yards rushing against, as you said, the HARDEST schedule. Even if he would've "sucked" and got 40 yards in each of those games he missed, he would've hit 1,000.

Washed Up?
Too Old?
Not Very Good All-Around As A RB?

Yeah I think not. :coffee:

steelreserve
06-17-2009, 12:26 PM
I actually like your way of thinking and I tend to agree with you and Psycho the most on this board, but I don't see what you're seeing with this. The odds of FWP running over 1,000 yards is almost guaranteed and it won't be because of the competition, it will be because he will stay healthy all year and actually play every game.

Everybody thinks he sucks because of too many games with 40-50 yards. Um...he missed 5 games last year and still had damn near 800 yards rushing against, as you said, the HARDEST schedule. Even if he would've "sucked" and got 40 yards in each of those games he missed, he would've hit 1,000.

You look at the "damn near 800 yards" Parker gained against such a tough schedule, and you know what? Almost 500 of those yards came in 4 GAMES. Against teams that had a combined record of 24-40. In the rest of his games, he had 317 yards on 109 carries. THAT'S TWO THIRDS OF HIS SEASON AT 2.9 YARDS PER CARRY AND 45 YARDS PER GAME, which is shitty by any standard. But for some reason, people ignore that and point to his total season yardage stats to prove their point that he's productive ... THEN turn around and accuse guys like me of not knowing what we're talking about because we "ignore stats to prove our point." Unbelievable -- especially when the answer is right there starting you in the f***ing face the whole time.

So I guess what I'm saying is that any team with a good defense is capable of shutting Parker down whenever they choose to do so. But against teams like the Bengals and Browns, he'll routinely gain 150 yards This means that at the end of the season, he'll have a nice-looking total yardage number and everyone will go gaga over it, but in reality, half his games were such abominations that he slowed down the entire offense. His bad games are just terrible; he doesn't average 3-something yards like most RBs on an off day, he averages 1 or 2, and it kills us. And that happens in the big games against good teams, and if it wasn't for Ben and the defense constantly making the big plays to bail us out, I shudder to think what would happen. I'm f***ing sick of enduring that garbage, especially when it would've been so easy to fix.

Anyway, back to the original point ... you take out the NFC East and AFC South from our schedule, and replace them with the NFC North and AFC West, and what do you think will happen? Plenty more chances for Parker to pad his stats against shitty teams when it doesn't matter, and come off looking like he "still" has what it takes, when he never actually had it in the first place. I only hope if he has good fantasy football stats, it convinces some other team to overspend on him and finally bring this experiment to a merciful end.

steelreserve
06-17-2009, 12:37 PM
It's OK - Willie will be gone after this season due to salary demands and/or age issues anyway. Then you can find someone else to rail endlessly against. :coffee:

Doubtful. I don't remember any player, Walter Abercrombie included, who ever pissed me off as much as this. When Parker is gone, the problem is over, and probably most of the bitching I'll do will be about things like the Max Starks contract if they don't fix that.

I'm sorry this is such a sore subject for you that you had to take it to the bitch-about-people-sort-of-behind-their-back-but-not-really-behind-their-back forum (http://forums.steelersfever.com/group.php?groupid=3), but christ, man, I really don't think I tend to indulge in the kind of thoughtless crap you usually make fun of there. :coffee:

Seeing as how tempers are high again and this really isn't going to solve anything, I am now exiting the Parker discussion and ignoring him for a time, and moving on to other subjects.

Dino 6 Rings
06-17-2009, 01:00 PM
Hey Steel...I get you're not a Parker fan, that's cool. My argument is that Moore isn't the answer to replace Parker as the Starter for an entire season. Mendy might be the eventual replacement, but being broken his rookie year isn't a good start.

Parker is better than Amos or Fu ever were when it comes to "replacing" Bettis. He keeps the defense very honest because of his big play capability. That's an option that we don't get with Moore as the starter. Teams didn't need to focus on our Run game as the primary threat when Moore was in the game, but with Parker, teams had no idea when he'd have a carry for 1 yard, carry for -1 yard, carry for 58 yards. That's the kind of thing he offers, for good or bad, that Moore didn't offer.

We'll see how he does this season splitting carries with Mendy. I have a feeling we are going to be more like the 2007 Giants with our Running game this year, with Split Carries for our Backs. Our Passing game is going to be off the cuff good this season, I feel it in my bones, the Running Game will be good too with the tandem backs of Parker, Mendy, Moore and Summers on short yardage. I'm looking foward to it.

But Parker is better than Moore. That's the only thing I will continue to argue.

steelreserve
06-17-2009, 01:22 PM
Hey Steel...I get you're not a Parker fan, that's cool. My argument is that Moore isn't the answer to replace Parker as the Starter for an entire season. Mendy might be the eventual replacement, but being broken his rookie year isn't a good start.

...

But Parker is better than Moore. That's the only thing I will continue to argue.

Oh, on that, I agree ... Moore definitely isn't the answer to be the every-down running back, and neither was Davenport before him, or any of the other clowns we've brought in to "compete" with Parker. For several years, we've had a roster full of specialty backs (Parker included) and no one back that's well-rounded. So I wish we'd either use an offense that rotates the specialty backs effectively -- both game-to-game and within a game, which is difficult -- or get one guy who will actually work as a decent all-purpose back. He doesn't even have to be a great all-purpose back, just decent. I hope Mendenhall turns out to be that guy; we'll see.

Anyway, now I really AM leaving the Parker discussion; couldn't resist chiming in one last time since it was addressed to me and of a rather more benign nature as far as this topic goes.

Rek
06-17-2009, 01:47 PM
Oh, on that, I agree ... Moore definitely isn't the answer to be the every-down running back, and neither was Davenport before him, or any of the other clowns we've brought in to "compete" with Parker. For several years, we've had a roster full of specialty backs (Parker included) and no one back that's well-rounded. So I wish we'd either use an offense that rotates the specialty backs effectively -- both game-to-game and within a game, which is difficult -- or get one guy who will actually work as a decent all-purpose back. He doesn't even have to be a great all-purpose back, just decent. I hope Mendenhall turns out to be that guy; we'll see.

Anyway, now I really AM leaving the Parker discussion; couldn't resist chiming in one last time since it was addressed to me and of a rather more benign nature as far as this topic goes.

Dude, don't get mad about it. The differences of opinions are what makes this board work. I love discussing topics that a lot of people don't agree with. Don't think of it as everyone ganging up on you. I'm a diehard Willie supporter, you make great arguments against him that I respect, it's all good, no worries.

steelreserve
06-17-2009, 01:55 PM
Dude, don't get mad about it. The differences of opinions are what makes this board work. I love discussing topics that a lot of people don't agree with. Don't think of it as everyone ganging up on you. I'm a diehard Willie supporter, you make great arguments against him that I respect, it's all good, no worries.

I just feel that on the subject of Parker, sometimes tempers flare, and that's colored by the fact that in the past, there have been a lot of jerks who basically just taunt and post inflammatory stuff that really doesn't do anything but piss people off. And then people get angry and call each other trolls until someone gets banned. The same thing happens with the anti-Ben threads.

So basically, when it looks like things might be approaching that point, I tend to think the best thing to do is just let it be and take myself out of the conversation until it cools down and nobody's all fighty (myself included). We are, after all, all rooting for the same team.

Rek
06-17-2009, 02:17 PM
I just feel that on the subject of Parker, sometimes tempers flare, and that's colored by the fact that in the past, there have been a lot of jerks who basically just taunt and post inflammatory stuff that really doesn't do anything but piss people off. And then people get angry and call each other trolls until someone gets banned. The same thing happens with the anti-Ben threads.

So basically, when it looks like things might be approaching that point, I tend to think the best thing to do is just let it be and take myself out of the conversation until it cools down and nobody's all fighty (myself included). We are, after all, all rooting for the same team.

Understood man, it's all good.

LVSteelersfan
06-17-2009, 04:22 PM
I am of the opinion that Willie is a one dimensional back whose one dimension is fantastic if the Oline can break a hole open for him. Speed is great is utilized correctly. If not, it is like slamming against a brick wall because Willie basically seems to have no cutback moves if the blocking doesn't pan out. He can't catch worth crap. He is a serviceable blocker. Not the worst back in the world but certainly not the best. We need the two or three back punch that the Giants used last year. Keep em guessing. If we could use the two back tandem of Parker and Mendenhall for that one/two punch, I might start liking Parker again like I did in 2005.

fansince'76
06-17-2009, 07:16 PM
Doubtful. I don't remember any player, Walter Abercrombie included, who ever pissed me off as much as this. When Parker is gone, the problem is over, and probably most of the bitching I'll do will be about things like the Max Starks contract if they don't fix that.

I'm sorry this is such a sore subject for you that you had to take it to the bitch-about-people-sort-of-behind-their-back-but-not-really-behind-their-back forum (http://forums.steelersfever.com/group.php?groupid=3), but christ, man, I really don't think I tend to indulge in the kind of thoughtless crap you usually make fun of there. :coffee:

Seeing as how tempers are high again and this really isn't going to solve anything, I am now exiting the Parker discussion and ignoring him for a time, and moving on to other subjects.

I stand by what I said, and like I've said there, I'll also say here - I don't say anything in there I wouldn't say out on the open board. However, since it's been dragged out here nonetheless, I kept it off the open board originally because I'm personally sick of the argument and also because Parker's probably going to be gone after this season anyway, once again due to salary demands and/or age issues. Likewise, I'm sorry it angered you enough to bring it up here. And likewise, this'll be the last time I bring it up.

steelreserve
06-17-2009, 07:29 PM
Fair enough. This is one subject that is NEVER going to end with everyone agreeing on, although I usually can't help keeping at it when someone brings it up again.

I wonder what it'll be like around here when Parker finally is gone, whenever that is? People will have nothing to fight about.

Rek
06-17-2009, 08:01 PM
Fair enough. This is one subject that is NEVER going to end with everyone agreeing on, although I usually can't help keeping at it when someone brings it up again.

I wonder what it'll be like around here when Parker finally is gone, whenever that is? People will have nothing to fight about.

They should bring back Davenport or Staley. Then everything can agree they both pretty much suck. :chuckle:

Dino 6 Rings
06-17-2009, 08:24 PM
:chuckle::chuckle::chuckle::chuckle:

I'll be sure to bring it back up in July and toss logs onto the fire once again:sofunny:

Steel_12
06-17-2009, 08:37 PM
And herein you prove that there is a prevailing homer attitude towards Willie Parker around here. The numbers do not back up your statement, and its further ridiculous to think that it is easier to play defense against a RB who is a threat as a receiver or that they simply weren't paying attention to Moore (who finished 2nd in yards from scrimmage on the season for the Super Bowl winning team).

In the 5 games Mewelde Moore got 15+ touches, Steelers scored 25 ppg
In the other 11 games, The Steelers scored 20 ppg

In the 4 games Moore started, he averaged 90 yds rushing/gm AND 20 yds rec/gm (Thats 110 yds/game to reinforce)

In the 11 games Wilie Parker started, he averaged 72 yds rushing/gm and 1 yd rec/gm

The facts are pretty clear--- yards and points went up significantly when Moore was on the field.

Not hating or flaming ust pointing out what I thought was obvious.

I agree with all of your posts in this thread...

X-Terminator
06-18-2009, 12:39 AM
I wonder what it'll be like around here when Parker finally is gone, whenever that is? People will have nothing to fight about.

Pfft, you're a Steelers fan. There will ALWAYS be something to fight about. I mean, how many franchises have fans who aren't happy even after winning the Super Bowl?

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-18-2009, 12:45 AM
Hey Steel...I get you're not a Parker fan, that's cool. My argument is that Moore isn't the answer to replace Parker as the Starter for an entire season. Mendy might be the eventual replacement, but being broken his rookie year isn't a good start.

Parker is better than Amos or Fu ever were when it comes to "replacing" Bettis. He keeps the defense very honest because of his big play capability. That's an option that we don't get with Moore as the starter. Teams didn't need to focus on our Run game as the primary threat when Moore was in the game, but with Parker, teams had no idea when he'd have a carry for 1 yard, carry for -1 yard, carry for 58 yards. That's the kind of thing he offers, for good or bad, that Moore didn't offer.

We'll see how he does this season splitting carries with Mendy. I have a feeling we are going to be more like the 2007 Giants with our Running game this year, with Split Carries for our Backs. Our Passing game is going to be off the cuff good this season, I feel it in my bones, the Running Game will be good too with the tandem backs of Parker, Mendy, Moore and Summers on short yardage. I'm looking foward to it.

But Parker is better than Moore. That's the only thing I will continue to argue.

The last time Willie Parker had a run of more than 34 yards was in December of 2006. Further, Willie Parker has SIX runs of more than 40 yards in his career (+1 in the Super Bowl).

But the bottom line is thats 1 long run every 192 carries for his career, so no, defenses are not gameplanning against something that happens about once a season, maybe twice a season.

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-18-2009, 12:46 AM
I agree with all of your posts in this thread... Wow, ONE person sees it my way. :applaudit:

SteelCityMan786
06-18-2009, 12:50 AM
Pfft, you're a Steelers fan. There will ALWAYS be something to fight about. I mean, how many franchises have fans who aren't happy even after winning the Super Bowl?

I think all 32 NFL, 30 NHL, 30 NBA, and 30 MLB. Basically no level fans. It's like you have said before XT. Certain team fans think the best year is when your team goes undefeated and wins the title every year.

tony hipchest
06-18-2009, 12:58 AM
so no, defenses are not gameplanning against something that happens about once a season, maybe twice a season. youre new to football, huh? if theyre not gameplanning for it, how are they even capable of stopping it?

:tap:

lemme guess, theyre not gameplanning for ben either since he never throws for 300 yards in a game, takes a multitude of sacks, and always loses when he has to throw more than 20 times...

:sofunny:

i hope teams continue to "not gameplan" = 6 sb championships and counting.... :toofunny:

MACH1
06-18-2009, 12:58 AM
The last time Willie Parker had a run of more than 34 yards was in December of 2006. Further, Willie Parker has SIX runs of more than 40 yards in his career (+1 in the Super Bowl).

But the bottom line is thats 1 long run every 192 carries for his career, so no, defenses are not gameplanning against something that happens about once a season, maybe twice a season.

And the Buss busted off 40 yarders on a weekly basis. :doh:

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-18-2009, 01:28 AM
And the Buss busted off 40 yarders on a weekly basis. :doh: What does Bettis have to do with this?

tony hipchest
06-18-2009, 01:31 AM
What does Bettis have to do with this?


pssst...

answer the question before you go asking ones of your own.

youre new to football, huh? if theyre not gameplanning for it, how are they even capable of stopping it?



lemme guess, theyre not gameplanning for ben either since he never throws for 300 yards in a game, takes a multitude of sacks, and always loses when he has to throw more than 20 times...



i hope teams continue to "not gameplan" = 6 sb championships and counting....

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-18-2009, 01:31 AM
youre new to football, huh? if theyre not gameplanning for it, how are they even capable of stopping it?

:tap:

lemme guess, theyre not gameplanning for ben either since he never throws for 300 yards in a game, takes a multitude of sacks, and always loses when he has to throw more than 20 times...

:sofunny:

i hope teams continue to "not gameplan" = 6 sb championships and counting.... :toofunny:
Defenses gameplan against tendencies not things that happen 1 out of every 192 times. The Steelers had more flea-flickers in 2008 than Willie Parker long runs so does that mean that defenses were gameplanning against the flea-flicker too?

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-18-2009, 01:49 AM
pssst...

answer the question before you go asking ones of your own. ok. Your bringing up Bettis had nothing to do with the comment, since the discussion revolved around Willie Parker being a big-play threat, to which I replied that he had not had a big play since the 06 season.

MACH1
06-18-2009, 09:44 AM
:yawn::yawn::yawn:

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-18-2009, 04:15 PM
:yawn::yawn::yawn: so, to make sure I have this right, you added a comment that was irrelevant to the conversation, were called out on that and are now feigning indifference?

Wanted to make sure I had that right. :noidea:

MACH1
06-18-2009, 04:17 PM
:yawn::yawn:

tony hipchest
06-23-2009, 09:13 PM
Defenses gameplan against tendencies not things that happen 1 out of every 192 times. The Steelers had more flea-flickers in 2008 than Willie Parker long runs so does that mean that defenses were gameplanning against the flea-flicker too?
so just to be clear... it is your contention that teams dont gameplan to stop clinton portis breaking off a long run since he hasnt had one in more than 2 years?

and since campbell didnt throw an interception in like his first 192 pass attempts last season, teams didnt gameplan to pick him off?

do i got this right?

do teams just cancel out half the game planning when they face the redskins and call it an early week?

what kind of fantasy football world do you live in?

have you ever heard of the "wildcat" offense and how it is spreading just because of how it effects teams game planning regardless if its run once out of every 192 plays?

UltimateFootballNetwork
06-23-2009, 10:27 PM
so just to be clear... it is your contention that teams dont gameplan to stop clinton portis breaking off a long run since he hasnt had one in more than 2 years?

and since campbell didnt throw an interception in like his first 192 pass attempts last season, teams didnt gameplan to pick him off?

do i got this right?

do teams just cancel out half the game planning when they face the redskins and call it an early week?

what kind of fantasy football world do you live in?

have you ever heard of the "wildcat" offense and how it is spreading just because of how it effects teams game planning regardless if its run once out of every 192 plays?

Actually, I firmly believe that Clinton Portis has lost his fifth gear and is no longer the open field threat he was early in his career. But unlike Willie Parker, Portis is a very complete football player (best blocking RB in the NFL) and is still a pro-bowler even though he does not have that extra gear.

tony hipchest
06-23-2009, 10:29 PM
Actually, I firmly believe that Clinton Portis has lost his fifth gear and is no longer the open field threat he was early in his career. But unlike Willie Parker, Portis is a very complete football player (best blocking RB in the NFL) and is still a pro-bowler even though he does not have that extra gear.youre dodging the question.

and unlike portis, parker will find that extra gear when healed.

rick723
06-23-2009, 11:10 PM
This was a question asked to Bouchette during a chat. It made me think what if Willie does have a better season than Mendy?

Please don't roast me like you guys do every other time I ask a Wille P question.

You two for a penny, nickle and dime, jive time, mother jumping, granny dodging Mo fo.... Haha just had to since you said no. If any of you guys my age played little league in Leetsdale, you will remember "Pouch" never knew his last name, he coached the Giants and always had the field ready. I added the mo-fo. Pouch never swore around us.

Dino 6 Rings
07-01-2009, 12:54 PM
youre dodging the question.

and unlike portis, parker will find that extra gear when healed.

Bump, Knock Knock!!!

:flap:

UltimateFootballNetwork
07-01-2009, 02:16 PM
Bump, Knock Knock!!!

:flap: I am dodging the question? Actually, I was ignoring it because its not worthy of a response, but here you go...

No I do not think that Clinton Portis will ever regain that extra gear. But depdening on how quickly his speed falls off, he will still be a good running back for a few years at least because he is the most complete RB in the game. He is the best blocking RB in the league...by far...and has hands out of the backfield (WP is a good blocker, but not great, and WP is a liability as a receiver), and no less than HOF Coach Joe Gibbs, who coached HOF RB John Riggins, said that Portis is THE toughest RB he has ever seen in the NFL.

But I will fill you in on a little bad news for the Willie Parker faithful who think that he will be returning to his form of 3-4 years ago now that he will be turning 29 during the season. Parker was dangerous in space when he had his extra gear, but it has been sporadic at best for 2 years now and at his age it is gone an unlikely to come back.

Please see the following analysis of RBs and the dreaded age of 30. Do the math. RBs dont get better/faster/healthier at 28/29, and without speed, Willie Parker is no better than average. Sorry to be the one to break it to you but if the Steelers are defending their SB they will probably be doing it with a Mendenhall/Moore combo by the end of the season and why I said there is ZERO chance Parker will be re-signed....

http://www.fantasyfootballxtreme.com/2009/05/17/thirty-year-old-running-backs-the-age-of-decline/

Dino 6 Rings
07-01-2009, 02:28 PM
I actually think Parker will sign on for 3 more years at a Home Town discount.

But we'll see.

Too bad Portis ruined his career playing for the Redskins. Kid had a chance to be great, now, he's just collecting a paycheck with no hopes of ever winning a title. Always kind of liked him and his silly costumes. its just Too bad.

steelreserve
07-01-2009, 06:41 PM
But I will fill you in on a little bad news for the Willie Parker faithful who think that he will be returning to his form of 3-4 years ago now that he will be turning 29 during the season. Parker was dangerous in space when he had his extra gear, but it has been sporadic at best for 2 years now and at his age it is gone an unlikely to come back.

Please see the following analysis of RBs and the dreaded age of 30. Do the math. RBs dont get better/faster/healthier at 28/29, and without speed, Willie Parker is no better than average. Sorry to be the one to break it to you but if the Steelers are defending their SB they will probably be doing it with a Mendenhall/Moore combo by the end of the season and why I said there is ZERO chance Parker will be re-signed....

This is one stat I agree with hands-down, no matter which running back you're talking about. I remember seeing some stats on leaguewide 1,000-yard seasons by age over the past two decades, and the attrition rate was downright scary. Once you get to age 30, about two-thirds of the RBs flame out permanently in a given season, and if they make it to 31, another two-thirds of the ones that are left have the wheels fall off. And this is among the truly elite backs in the game; the rest don't even last that long to begin with. Things do not bode well for a 29-year-old speed back who's been plagued with leg injuries his past two seasons, and I doubt we're dumb enough not to know that.

:wave: Thanks for all the memories ...

... well, actually, just that one memory of the long Super Bowl run. The other 14,000 memories of back-to-back 1-yard gains followed by a holding penalty and a sack, I could've done without.

The Definiti0n
07-01-2009, 10:18 PM
I cant believe ninjas is still arguing over this. I started this thread exactly a month ago.

MongoSteeler
07-04-2009, 02:37 AM
What if Willie has a big season? Easy, the Steelers have a good year too and play for another SuperBowl.

Preacher
07-04-2009, 03:36 AM
What if Willie has a big season? Easy, the Steelers have a good year too and play for another SuperBowl.


Goodness, why did THIS thread have to get bumped? We basically have another one just like it running now.

(of course, I just bumped it again by posting in it. :chuckle:)