Jump to content

2019 ROT


DreamKid
 Share

Recommended Posts

On 7/18/2019 at 10:12 PM, DreamKid said:

I work in a creative field so it's important to me that the distinction is made. I'm with you though, the guy did a good job. 

Not in a creative field, but I do a lot of data-viz, so I feel you.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 7/18/2019 at 10:12 PM, DreamKid said:

To clarify, the work was done by Chase Stuart. Just in case you're under the impression it was me. Sometimes directly copying Raven relevant material from articles can make that a point of confusion. I always include a link when it's someone else's work. I work in a creative field so it's important to me that the distinction is made. I'm with you though, the guy did a good job. 

Bingo, and Chase referenced this specifically in the full article you can access through the link.

-How about at least 10 yards? The Cowboys star gained 10 or more yards on 13% of his rushes; Barkley did it on 12% of his carries. How about 15+ yards? Elliott hit that mark on 8.2% of his carries, while the Giants start did it on 7.7% of his rushes. So how in the world did Barkley finish the season with a higher yards per carry average? Because Elliott rushed for 20+ yards on just 4% of his carries, while Barkley did it on 6% of his carries. More importantly, Elliott’s longest run was 41 yards, while Barkley had runs of 46, 50, 51, 52, 68, 68, and 78. That’s how, despite Elliott pretty much “winning” at each distance, he lost the YPC battle. Even if Elliott had big runs more often, Barkley’s big runs were really big runs.-

And this gets to the question posed by the Ravens for their data analytics job posting ("Do runningbacks matter?").  Which of these guys would you rather have?  While for a team, it would seem that what Zeke is doing is more valuable: consistent chunks of yardage leading to more first downs.  The question becomes, though, how much of that success is attributable to a superior OL?  Is the home run ability the part that the RB is really contributing? 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 hours ago, sp6488 said:

And this gets to the question posed by the Ravens for their data analytics job posting ("Do runningbacks matter?").  Which of these guys would you rather have?  While for a team, it would seem that what Zeke is doing is more valuable: consistent chunks of yardage leading to more first downs.  The question becomes, though, how much of that success is attributable to a superior OL?  Is the home run ability the part that the RB is really contributing? 

It is a classic debate, the grinder (Emmitt Smith) vs the boom-or-bust back (Barry Sanders). 

From what I saw from Barkley, he just had a bad O-line so he was forced to be elusive and take chances dancing around. But, if he had a great O-line, he has the body type who could churn out 8-10 yards easy on most holes. I think physically and athletically, Barkley is in a class by himself. 

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • 2 weeks later...

We know. We know. Kenneth Dixon is a super talented do it all beast at running back. And all the reports say this season he's in great shape and already flashing that big time ability.

However.....as all Ravens' fans know, it's never meant to be with Dixon.

1-the-crucible-quotes.gif

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Justice Hill and Kenneth Dixon, despite having fairly different overall games, possess very similar running styles. Hill is obviously more speed oriented and Dixon more power, but they both make brilliant use of jump cuts and lean on the stiff arm.

.

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

11 minutes ago, RavensfanRD said:

So we carrying 4 RB's?

I think it could come down to the wire on that decision. Does someone offer us a pick for a player? Are the most talented at the position healthy? Who do we need to ensure is locked on the 53 as far as the other positions on the team go? Etc etc.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

9 hours ago, RavensfanRD said:

So we carrying 4 RB's?

 

8 hours ago, DreamKid said:

I think it could come down to the wire on that decision. Does someone offer us a pick for a player? Are the most talented at the position healthy? Who do we need to ensure is locked on the 53 as far as the other positions on the team go? Etc etc.

So consideration #1, as mentioned, is health.  If one of the top-4 is nicked up, then we likely carry 3 (with the 4th on PUP or IR depending on severity) due to roster squeeze at other positions.

Consideration #2 IMO is spot safety (for lack of better term).  Ingram and Hill are locks for various reasons (contract, control, established ability/potential, etc.). So Dixon and Edwards are the ones who actually have to think about whether their spot is safe.

Consideration #3 IMO is what another team is willing to offer and for who (to potentially attempt to pry them away from us).  Every team had a shot at Edwards last season and he went undrafted. It's very possible that opinions have changed, but some may not think he would work in a more traditional offense. Dixon, on the other hand, has a more traditional skill set that other teams may really like if they have an injury in camp or don't like their RB group.

Consideration #4 is what we have to potentially backfill.  I think Delance Turner is a more apt replacement for Dixon than Edwards in terms of style and what he would contribute to the offense. Even though Edwards wasn't highly prized last offseason (he lasted on our practice squad for several weeks as well), I think he gives us a really nice ability to wear down opposing defenses, grind out clock, and make consistent positive yards.  I think he could be our "boa constrictor," just squeezing the opponent to death when we have a lead late in a game.

Ultimately I would put money on us carrying 4 backs, but the considerations above make it something like 70-30 in my mind.

  • Like 1
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I personally think there's a bit more of a question as to whether we carry 5 or 6 WR.  The top-4 are set in Hollywood, Boykin, Snead and Moore, but then there's a lot of similarly-situated options.  I think Scott has the most upside of the remaining guys and gives the team another big, athletic target.  If they go 6, then Roberts would be the natural next guy IMO due to his ability to be a slot.  We would essentially have two downfield speed guys (Hollywood, Moore), two big, athletic targets (Boykin, Scott) and two slot guys (Snead, Roberts).

This is definitely a decision point, though, given what we do or need at other positions.  I am starting to question how McSorley fits on this roster as currently constructed.  That said, 3 QBs may make sense given the offense we'll be running and it would be a plus if one could contribute in other areas.  If Trace can play ST, then he may make guys like Bethel and Trawick more expendable.  I dunno, though.

Edited by sp6488
Link to comment
Share on other sites

That and RG3 is too injury prone to be our only backup to Lamar. With Trace on the roster, we could continue to run our offense exactly the same way with RG3 as we would run with Lamar as we still have a competent backup QB.

In terms of RB, I think we only carry 3 RBs. We’ve got Turner to be our backup RB that we would pull up to the active roster in the event of injury.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

×
×
  • Create New...