Welcome, Guest
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Will Doug Martin be one of the last RB's drafted in the first round? « previous next »
Page: 1 2 3

Boid Fink

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 54325
Offline
#30 : May 20, 2014, 11:48:14 AM

If Sims can pan out to be a 4 ypc back lick Pittman was, who can block like he means it, and can catch like a receiver, he is WELL worth the investment, IMO.


Skull and Bones

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23246
Offline
#31 : May 20, 2014, 11:52:04 AM

If Sims can pan out to be a 4 ypc back lick Pittman was, who can block like he means it, and can catch like a receiver, he is WELL worth the investment, IMO.
agreed.  Don't hate the pick.  But he probably isn't Matt Forte as a runner.


Booker Reese

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8121
Online
#32 : May 20, 2014, 12:00:41 PM

Did you watch much Pittman at Fresno State?

More than a smattering of clips, no.

But I can tell you from watching Mike Pittman play in the pros that a) he wasn't an instinctive runner; b) lacked vision; c) didn't have great balance. Those are traits - you don't learn to have vision in the pros, and you don't become instinctive.  Heck, he was once described as having the vision of Mr. Magoo, and often ran right up the back of his blockers.

He was a great blocker and a great pass catcher, and he was valuable to the Bucs. Will Sims be as valuable to this team? I don't know - but he's a much more natural runner than Pittman was. Sorry if you can't see that.

 

Skull and Bones

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23246
Offline
#33 : May 20, 2014, 12:05:39 PM

He might be but all I'm saying is every RB in the pros was very good in college but that doesn't mean they will all be great runners in the pros.  Just a little early for me to say he's better.


Booker Reese

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8121
Online
#34 : May 20, 2014, 12:09:22 PM

He might be but all I'm saying is every RB in the pros was very good in college but that doesn't mean they will all be great runners in the pros.  Just a little early for me to say he's better.

Exactly, which is why I'm looking at traits and ignoring the side show of college stats.

Feel Real Good

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 27704
Online
#35 : May 20, 2014, 12:26:09 PM

I think you're both right. While it's widely accepted Pittman had poor vision and wasn't a natural runner, he still had a 10-year career and put up numbers comparable to most running backs that have "vision". It's not easy to have as good a career as he did whether you have vision or not.

FRG is the most logical poster on this board.  You guys just don\'t like where the logical conclusions take you.

Boid Fink

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 54325
Offline
#36 : May 20, 2014, 12:36:58 PM

If Sims can pan out to be a 4 ypc back lick Pittman was, who can block like he means it, and can catch like a receiver, he is WELL worth the investment, IMO.
  But he probably isn't Matt Forte as a runner.
Most likely, no.

But then again, not many are.


Booker Reese

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8121
Online
#37 : May 20, 2014, 12:40:46 PM

I think you're both right. While it's widely accepted Pittman had poor vision and wasn't a natural runner, he still had a 10-year career and put up numbers comparable to most running backs that have "vision". It's not easy to have as good a career as he did whether you have vision or not.

A couple of things...

- his trump card was his single-minded pursuit of daylight when he saw it, and his general athleticism. It's why he was so successful in draw situations - easy recognition - and why he was used almost exclusively as a 3rd down back once we got Caddy. It's why Denver pursued him late in his career to run in their ZBS.

- Whenever he was asked to be the bell cow, he was pretty much a failure. His "best" season as the lead back came in 2004, but that's only if you look at conventional stats (4.2 ypc). When you adjust for things like defenses, he rated much worse. Football Outsiders ranked him as the 37th best back (DYAR); 36th if you prefer (DVOA), with a success rate of just 43% (34th overall).

- He carved out a nice career because he was great at 2 out of the 3 things he needed to do to stay in the pros and was able to transform his role.  A comparable, more high profile player might be Keith Byers, who went from big-time college running back, who like Pittman was basically a sub-4.0 running back when asked to carry 100+ times, but turned into arguably the best blocking RB of his day and a valuable weapon as a  receiver. 

CalcuttaRain

*
Hall of Famer
******
Posts : 20091
Online
#38 : May 20, 2014, 01:21:58 PM

I think you're both right. While it's widely accepted Pittman had poor vision and wasn't a natural runner, he still had a 10-year career and put up numbers comparable to most running backs that have "vision". It's not easy to have as good a career as he did whether you have vision or not.

A couple of things...

- his trump card was his single-minded pursuit of daylight when he saw it, and his general athleticism. It's why he was so successful in draw situations - easy recognition - and why he was used almost exclusively as a 3rd down back once we got Caddy. It's why Denver pursued him late in his career to run in their ZBS.

- Whenever he was asked to be the bell cow, he was pretty much a failure. His "best" season as the lead back came in 2004, but that's only if you look at conventional stats (4.2 ypc). When you adjust for things like defenses, he rated much worse. Football Outsiders ranked him as the 37th best back (DYAR); 36th if you prefer (DVOA), with a success rate of just 43% (34th overall).

- He carved out a nice career because he was great at 2 out of the 3 things he needed to do to stay in the pros and was able to transform his role.  A comparable, more high profile player might be Keith Byers, who went from big-time college running back, who like Pittman was basically a sub-4.0 running back when asked to carry 100+ times, but turned into arguably the best blocking RB of his day and a valuable weapon as a  receiver.

So is there a player who is a good comparison to Sims and what he does well?

Show the bravest of the brave kids that you have their back.  Go to http://www.childrenscancercenter.org/

Just check out the site or maybe like them on Facebook . .  or Share the site on Facebook, re-tweet one of their tweets.  Not everyone can give money to support this great cause, but its easy to give 10 seconds of your time to help spread the word about The Children\\\\\\\'s Cancer Center

The Anti-Java

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 23370
Offline
#39 : May 20, 2014, 02:36:34 PM

Did you watch much Pittman at Fresno State?

More than a smattering of clips, no.

But I can tell you from watching Mike Pittman play in the pros that a) he wasn't an instinctive runner; b) lacked vision; c) didn't have great balance. Those are traits - you don't learn to have vision in the pros, and you don't become instinctive.  Heck, he was once described as having the vision of Mr. Magoo, and often ran right up the back of his blockers.

He was a great blocker and a great pass catcher, and he was valuable to the Bucs. Will Sims be as valuable to this team? I don't know - but he's a much more natural runner than Pittman was. Sorry if you can't see that.



Agree, I think that is a pretty fair assessment of Mike Pittman.


sig pic by chace1986

PewterReportMC....
\\\\\\\"Java, do you understand this a perfect example of why people beg me to suspend or ban you on a daily basis? Are you actually trying to make a point? Seriously what is the reason for even commenting. In fact why do you even bother coming to the boards? What happened to the intelligent poster from years ago?  A real shame. Like the Bucs yesterday, a wasted effort.\\\\\\\"

Booker Reese

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 8121
Online
#40 : May 20, 2014, 03:10:01 PM

I think you're both right. While it's widely accepted Pittman had poor vision and wasn't a natural runner, he still had a 10-year career and put up numbers comparable to most running backs that have "vision". It's not easy to have as good a career as he did whether you have vision or not.

A couple of things...

- his trump card was his single-minded pursuit of daylight when he saw it, and his general athleticism. It's why he was so successful in draw situations - easy recognition - and why he was used almost exclusively as a 3rd down back once we got Caddy. It's why Denver pursued him late in his career to run in their ZBS.

- Whenever he was asked to be the bell cow, he was pretty much a failure. His "best" season as the lead back came in 2004, but that's only if you look at conventional stats (4.2 ypc). When you adjust for things like defenses, he rated much worse. Football Outsiders ranked him as the 37th best back (DYAR); 36th if you prefer (DVOA), with a success rate of just 43% (34th overall).

- He carved out a nice career because he was great at 2 out of the 3 things he needed to do to stay in the pros and was able to transform his role.  A comparable, more high profile player might be Keith Byers, who went from big-time college running back, who like Pittman was basically a sub-4.0 running back when asked to carry 100+ times, but turned into arguably the best blocking RB of his day and a valuable weapon as a  receiver.

So is there a player who is a good comparison to Sims and what he does well?

I don't think the comparison to Forte is all that crazy (we can only hope he turns out to be as good a player), though Forte wasn't involved as much of the passing game at Tulane as Sims.

Stylistically - he reminds me a bit more of Arian Foster, though I'm not going to pretend he's as good a running back. It's just that they both look a little similar when they run (both are fairly upright).

The QB of the Future

****
Starter

Posts : 535
Offline
#41 : May 20, 2014, 06:38:06 PM

I think the premiere athletes are just going to stop playing RB , because there is no payoff and no longevity to the position.

Why would the next Adrian Peterson play RB ? If I was that guy I'd be asking my highschool coach to play either wr or corner instead.

: May 20, 2014, 06:45:54 PM The QB of the Future


GoldsonAges

******
Hall of Famer

Posts : 6804
Offline
#42 : May 20, 2014, 06:54:06 PM

I think the Matt Forte comparison is a good one.


He has a similar running style.

Mike Glennon
6\' 7\" 220 pounds.
6\' 6\" 210
6\' 5\" 200
6\' 4\" 190 6\' 3\" 180 6\' 2\" 170 6\' 1\" 160  6\' 0\" 150 How does he compare to your favorite QB?
Page: 1 2 3
Pewter Report  >>  Boards  >>  The Red Board (Moderators: 3rd String Kicker, PRPatrol)  >>  Topic: Will Doug Martin be one of the last RB's drafted in the first round? « previous next »
:

Hide Tools Show Tools