PDA

View Full Version : RB core ratings



GreenBaySlackers
07-07-2004, 02:33 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/story/2555938
we are sitting at #5 8) but bad news, the pack takes #1! :pale:

GreenBaySlackers
07-07-2004, 02:38 PM
Check out the QB list too, sheesh these people love the pack!

purplehorn
07-07-2004, 02:45 PM
Ahman Green
Najeh Davenport
Tony Fisher
Dahrran Diedrick
Walter Williams

I give credit where credits due Green had a great
year and should this year as well, but the other no
names here? Just a little biased? Reminds me I
haven't read the funny papers today

Bohunk
07-07-2004, 03:41 PM
They were good, but hell, the Vikes were ranked 3rd in the NFL in passing, GB 16th. The Vikes were the number 1 rated offense last year, GB 4th.

packmanxxxi
07-07-2004, 03:59 PM
"Bohunk" wrote:

They were good, but hell, the Vikes were ranked 3rd in the NFL in passing, GB 16th. The Vikes were the number 1 rated offense last year, GB 4th.

Gb finished 1st, the Vikings 2nd

VikemanX84
07-07-2004, 05:02 PM
"packmanxxxi" wrote:

"Bohunk" wrote:

They were good, but hell, the Vikes were ranked 3rd in the NFL in passing, GB 16th. The Vikes were the number 1 rated offense last year, GB 4th.

Gb finished 1st, the Vikings 2nd

In total offense? No. The vikings were number one.

dart18
07-07-2004, 05:31 PM
vikeman is correct in the total offense category, also the Rb and QB team ratings were a bit off in my opinion. GB as a team do not have a better running game, Ahman is better than ours but none of their others are of any, dare i say, substance.

LosAngelis
07-07-2004, 05:42 PM
I might beg to differ (and I don't do that too often). Honestly, I would feel very condident if Green went down this year. Fisher has proven himself to be very dependable, and Davenport (once he gets his sh*t out of the closet) is probably the RB of the future.

I don't know if I'd place the Pack at #1. Green has taken a lot of licks and is definately at or past his prime years, but I'd definately hold them at least even the Vikings three. I actually see a lot of similarities (Davenport/Smith, Fisher/Williams) with Green having an edge right now over Bennett.

VKG4LFE
07-07-2004, 05:58 PM
I have to agree with you los, but I really don't think green has taken too many licks. I think he gives more punishment than he takes. I hate the fact that he is a packer because he is good and one of the best at finishing off his runs! It looks like a lot of the times he is running after people to put the hut on them instead of the other way around!!

briboy75
07-07-2004, 07:18 PM
what is the link for the QB list?

VKG4LFE
07-07-2004, 07:20 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/story/2491416

There you go, briboy!

packmanxxxi
07-07-2004, 09:25 PM
I meant to say the Pack finidhed first in the division... the Vikings second.. that is the ONLY stat that matters.

And of course people on this site wouldnt agree... but you talk about the Packers "no-namers".... umm, look at your own team....

superior230bartime
07-07-2004, 11:54 PM
"purplehorn" wrote:

Ahman Green
Najeh Davenport
Tony Fisher
Dahrran Diedrick
Walter Williams

I give credit where credits due Green had a great
year and should this year as well, but the other no
names here? Just a little biased? Reminds me I
haven't read the funny papers today

You obviously have no clue or have never seen any of the GB backups play. Davenport is a fucking bulldozer with some speed and rarely is tackled by the first man. Tony Fisher is also very capable both as a rusher and receiver. As a backup tandem they are every bit as good if not better than Onterrio and Moe. They both, along with Ahman, averaged more than 5 yards per carry last year. Of course, this also says a lot about the packers o-line which you guys also like to discredit. As far as number one offense, Vikes were number one in yards but if you go with the stat that matters(points) the Packers were better along with 4 other teams.

purplehorn
07-08-2004, 10:46 AM
Time to get the clouds out of your eyes sb. Both
you backups combined did not have the yards
as our third and goal back Moe Williams and lets
not even try to compare with the rookie Smith.
Your boys are ok but can not and I repeat can not
compare to the Viking core. So wake up and smell
the Purple.

muchluv4smoot
07-08-2004, 12:12 PM
"superior230bartime" wrote:

"purplehorn" wrote:

Ahman Green
Najeh Davenport
Tony Fisher
Dahrran Diedrick
Walter Williams

I give credit where credits due Green had a great
year and should this year as well, but the other no
names here? Just a little biased? Reminds me I
haven't read the funny papers today

You obviously have no clue or have never seen any of the GB backups play. Davenport is a fucking bulldozer with some speed and rarely is tackled by the first man. Tony Fisher is also very capable both as a rusher and receiver. As a backup tandem they are every bit as good if not better than Onterrio and Moe. They both, along with Ahman, averaged more than 5 yards per carry last year. Of course, this also says a lot about the packers o-line which you guys also like to discredit. As far as number one offense, Vikes were number one in yards but if you go with the stat that matters(points) the Packers were better along with 4 other teams.



Correct me if I am wrong, but I believe a teams d has a lot to do with how many points a team scores. If we would have had the #1 d last year, you can't seriously say we wouldn't have scored many many more points. You guys had a better d, thus scored more points. Our d had a hard time getting the other teams offense off the field, thus our offense was on the bench without a chance to score. Sorry, but scoring offense isn't what really matters when comparing 2 offenses. It matters most for wins, but not when deciding which offense is better. I don't beilieve that totals yards is the best way to determine the best offense, but it is a better measure IMO. You need to look at more than just total yards or points, to figure out which offense is better.


As far as RB's go, I would have to give us the edge over Gren bay, but not by a big margine. I am sure the pack were #1 because they did have the #1 rush offense in the NFL last year, but that doesn't mean they have the best RB's. Their offensive line had a lot to do with their rushing last year, and they did have the best O-line in the league last year. We didn't even have our pro bowl RB for most of last year, and he wasn't 100% form the few games we did have him, yet we were still able to run the ball well.

Yes, green is better than benett, I don't think anyone is trying to argue this. I would definately take Moe over fisher, and onterrio over davenport, and also throw in mewelde moore and we have a very talented RB corp. Green bay does have a good one, but probably were only rated #1 because of their rushing last year.

While I agree with you Los that our RB's are close, I think the vikes do have the edge in talent, and the pack have the edge in o-line.

sdvikefan
07-08-2004, 12:13 PM
Well everybody here is biased and I admit I think the Vikings have a
better total backfield than the Packers. But I wouldn't put either team at the top spot.

Truth is the Chiefs deserve to be there. Neither Ahman Green or Michael Bennett is quite at the
level of Priest Holmes who is probably the second most consistent RB in the league (after Tomlinson). They have awesome potential with Larry Johnson who hasn't proven himself
simply because...well they have the High Priest and right now he's healthy. But if he goes
down I think Johnson and Blaylock, who stepped in for Priest a few times and did very well last year, are more than enough depth to keep the Chiefs explosive running game going.

And I would put the Rams ahead of the Packers but probably right behind the Vikes. Say what you want about Marshall Faulk he is still better than most RBs in the league. Adding Steven Jackson was a huge pickup for them and could make an immediate impact. Lamar Gordon, like Moe Williams, is more than able to handle the load if asked as he showed last year several times.

muchluv4smoot
07-08-2004, 12:25 PM
"VKG4LFE" wrote:

http://msn.foxsports.com/story/2491416

There you go, briboy!



The QB ratings aren't bad, except for the panthers at 4??? Sorry but no way they are anywhere near #4.

The packers do have one of the leagues best backups now, in couch. They are ranked correctly. I would move the vikes up ahead of the chiefs and move the panthers down to 10, making the vikes #5.

superior230bartime
07-08-2004, 12:36 PM
"purplehorn" wrote:

Time to get the clouds out of your eyes sb. Both
you backups combined did not have the yards
as our third and goal back Moe Williams and lets
not even try to compare with the rookie Smith.
Your boys are ok but can not and I repeat can not
compare to the Viking core. So wake up and smell
the Purple.

Yeah, great argument. Moe was your starting running back for half the year while Bennett was out. You got me there Purplehorn.

dan3ski
07-08-2004, 01:00 PM
Alot of what i feel a qb should be is a leader first and foremost and so far I have yet to see leadership from Culpepper. Yes he is abetter athelete then the panthers qb but it was his leadership on the field that got them to the big dance.

ItalianStallion
07-08-2004, 01:13 PM
Getting a good average as a starting running back is alot harder than averaging more than 5 when you onl go in 5-10 plays a game bartime. When Onterrio burns of back to back 140 yard games (with 4 tds) as a starter, and Moe fills in for half the year as a starter and the offense doesn't miss a beat, I think that is considerably more impressive than Davenport putting together a handful of good runs (when not tired) for Ahman. I think our offense has proven it can still put a great running game together no matter who starts, I don't think the Packers can claim the same thing.

ItalianStallion
07-08-2004, 01:18 PM
danski it is amzing how much credit a qb gets, considering the Panthers Defense and running game are the main reasons they got to the superbowl. Jeez give culpepper a defense that doesn't get a TD against them every 2 drives and we will be in the bowl.

purplehorn
07-08-2004, 02:24 PM
"superior230bartime" wrote:


Yeah, great argument. You got me there Purplehorn.

Yeah? (thanks sb) I guess I'm just good at stuff like that 8)

purplehorn
07-08-2004, 02:45 PM
Oh yeah, before you GBers embarass yourself
more Culpepper had more yards and better
yrds per carry than your bottom feeder backs.

Just the facts, and nothin but the facts.

purplepat
07-08-2004, 03:51 PM
Frankly, this rating isn't worth getting into a pissing contest over. As far as Larry Johnson and Steven Jackson are concerned, they only have potential and haven't proved a thing in the NFL yet. If Holmes or Faulk goes down, the Chiefs and Rams could be in a world of hurt. Now, I think the top 3 RBs of both the Vikings and Packers are well proven players, and all six are capable of carrying the load if someone ahead of them goes down. I can concede that the Packers should be rated ahead of the Vikings right now if only for the fact that Ahman Green is such an awesome back now. That in itself is enough to give the Packers a SLIGHT edge.

muchluv4smoot
07-08-2004, 04:08 PM
"dan3ski" wrote:

Alot of what i feel a qb should be is a leader first and foremost and so far I have yet to see leadership from Culpepper. Yes he is abetter athelete then the panthers qb but it was his leadership on the field that got them to the big dance.



It is also a ranking of all the QB's on each team, and not just the starter. Daunte VS delhomme, isn't even close. Then they have old man peete and chris weinke??? Sorry but they don't have a good group of QB's, especially not the 4th best. That is like saying them ravens had one of the best groups of QB's when they won the super bowl with dilfer. They are ranking the best group of QB's, so you need to be able to look at what each QB would do in the same offense with the same players. Same with the RB's and that is why I say the vikes backs are better than the packs. The packs RB's are good, but have a great O-line, much better than ours. I also don't like the chiefs being up that high. Priest is the best in the NFL, but lj looked average at best last year. They will deserve to be higher if johnson can prove he can do something as a starter, like onterrio and moe did last year. Same can be said for the packers and fisher. I believe davenport has started a few games(i think 2 years ago) and done well, so he is somewhat proven.

The ranking is for best group of RB's and we have the most RB's who have proven to be good starters. I think they are putting to much weight on each teams #1 RB. Yes, priest and ahman are much better than bennett, but we are 4 deep with good RB's. I bet if priest, green, and bennett all got injured, our rushing production would drop the least with our 2nd and 3rd RB's.

sdvikefan
07-08-2004, 04:12 PM
"purplepat" wrote:

If Holmes or Faulk goes down, the Chiefs and Rams could be in a world of hurt. .

Both Holmes and Faulk were out at times last year with injuries and their teams still clinched first round byes in the playoffs. It didn't hurt their rushing game any. Now could the Chiefs survive a loss of Holmes as long as we did with Bennett? No way to know unless it happens but when looking at the depth of their roster at RB they have one guy who came in for Priest a few times last year and did well and another first round draft pick who will more than likely succeed. Same for the Rams...in fact Faulk was banged up quite a few times last year and Gordon I thought did a very good job.

purplehorn
07-08-2004, 04:38 PM
"sdvikefan" wrote:

"purplepat" wrote:

If Holmes or Faulk goes down, the Chiefs and Rams could be in a world of hurt. .

Both Holmes and Faulk were out at times last year with injuries and their teams still clinched first round byes in the playoffs. It didn't hurt their rushing game any. Now could the Chiefs survive a loss of Holmes as long as we did with Bennett? No way to know unless it happens but when looking at the depth of their roster at RB they have one guy who came in for Priest a few times last year and did well and another first round draft pick who will more than likely succeed. Same for the Rams...in fact Faulk was banged up quite a few times last year and Gordon I thought did a very good job.

What you smokin SD? I know 289 yards is alot in a season but :roll:
Gordon?

muchluv4smoot
07-08-2004, 04:39 PM
"sdvikefan" wrote:

"purplepat" wrote:

If Holmes or Faulk goes down, the Chiefs and Rams could be in a world of hurt. .

Both Holmes and Faulk were out at times last year with injuries and their teams still clinched first round byes in the playoffs. It didn't hurt their rushing game any. Now could the Chiefs survive a loss of Holmes as long as we did with Bennett? No way to know unless it happens but when looking at the depth of their roster at RB they have one guy who came in for Priest a few times last year and did well and another first round draft pick who will more than likely succeed. Same for the Rams...in fact Faulk was banged up quite a few times last year and Gordon I thought did a very good job.




I agree about the rams. They do have a really good backfield, but i have to disagree with the chiefs. Johnson never impressed me at all last year. The guy was a 1st round pick and didn't look as good as our 4th round pick. Also, priest holmes started every game for the chiefs last year. Their second leading RB had 112 yards. The vikes 2nd and 3rd backs are much more proven.

sdvikefan
07-08-2004, 04:52 PM
purplehorn: he was not their starting RB! his job was to keep the rams running game going when faulk was out and he did that.

muchluv: you're right i guess i thought holmes didn't start a couple games last year because of a hip injury. anyway that's a good point the vikings are much more proven behind bennett especially after last year. It would be interesting to see if the Chiefs could keep up their offensive pace without Holmes but I think if Blaylock and Johnson share carries they could. Just my opinion though.

purplehorn
07-08-2004, 05:06 PM
SD I just thought it was funny you mention Lamar
Gordon. 77 carries for 298 yards in 10 games
4 of those he started. That is not good, not
good at all sorry.

muchluv4smoot
07-08-2004, 05:09 PM
"sdvikefan" wrote:

purplehorn: he was not their starting RB! his job was to keep the rams running game going when faulk was out and he did that.

muchluv: you're right i guess i thought holmes didn't start a couple games last year because of a hip injury. anyway that's a good point the vikings are much more proven behind bennett especially after last year. It would be interesting to see if the Chiefs could keep up their offensive pace without Holmes but I think if Blaylock and Johnson share carries they could. Just my opinion though.



I do think the chiefs would still be a decent rushing team if holmes got hurt, mostly because they have one of the best o-lines in the game. I just think their rushing production would definately go down quite a bit, same for the pack and ahman, whereas our rushing attack wouldn't drop much without bennett. But again, you have to look at the RB's all in the same offense and with the same players. The pack and chiefs have the best O-lines in the game, which makes their RB's look better than ours do behind our O-line(which isn't bad, but not a top O-line).

LosAngelis
07-08-2004, 05:15 PM
"purplehorn" wrote:

Oh yeah, before you GBers embarass yourself
more Culpepper had more yards and better
yrds per carry than your bottom feeder backs.

Just the facts, and nothin but the facts.

He also had more a better yards per carry than ALL your backs, purplehorn, and was only 25 yards behind your golden boy, Bennett.

Sorry...I'm not a fan of the offense designed around a rushing quarterback. They don't make SuperBowls and they get hurt way too often.

purplehorn
07-08-2004, 05:41 PM
Had better yards per carry than ALL your backs too
Los.

ItalianStallion
07-08-2004, 07:58 PM
yards per carry only matters as a stat if the player had a significant amount of carries.

hawaiianvike21
07-09-2004, 05:17 AM
Ok so davenport and fisher are decent but why the other two guys?? I havent even heard of them nor do i think they should be included. you can scratch there name off the list.

VKG4LFE
07-11-2004, 12:04 PM
Who cares, we both have good running games. Green is better than Bennett, but our backups play quite a bit more so there stats are better! Our QB runs the ball, yours doesn't. BLAH BLAH BLAH. No viking fan is going to think the packers have a better running attack and no packer fan is going to think the vikings have a better running attack. At least we know one thing. The packers have no one, and I mean no one, that can compare to Randy Moss!! Case closed!

ricky38
07-13-2004, 01:25 PM
"VKG4LFE" wrote:

Who cares, we both have good running games. Green is better than Bennett, but our backups play quite a bit more so there stats are better! Our QB runs the ball, yours doesn't. BLAH BLAH BLAH. No viking fan is going to think the packers have a better running attack and no packer fan is going to think the vikings have a better running attack. At least we know one thing. The packers have no one, and I mean no one, that can compare to Randy Moss!! Case closed!Talent wise we don't have a receiver even close to Moss, character wise I take any of our receivers over Moss. GO PACKERS

GreenBaySlackers
07-13-2004, 02:31 PM
Charector doesnt win football games. While i would rather Randy Moss act like a model citizen, i dont care as long as he doesnt seriously hurt someone. He puts up big numbers, and thats what's important to the average fan (me).

ricky38
07-13-2004, 03:44 PM
Character and hard work does translate into wins. Everyteam needs character guys, ones that don't take plays off, miss practices and ones that give 100% every play. GO PACKERS!!!

purplehorn
07-13-2004, 03:49 PM
"ricky38" wrote:

Character and hard work does translate into wins. GO VIKINGS!!!



Did you mean character, hard work and Vicodin? :D

ricky38
07-13-2004, 04:01 PM
"purplehorn" wrote:

"ricky38" wrote:

Character and hard work does translate into wins. GO VIKINGS!!!



Did you mean character, hard work and Vicodin? :DYeah Farve did have a problem but he overcame it just like your 2 favorite son receivers overcame their problems with drugs and alcohol. Moss and Carter. GO PACKERS!!!!!

VKG4LFE
07-13-2004, 07:38 PM
When was the last time any of your receivers bought a 10,000 dollar computer to help him read defensive schemes and to be able to study other players (on both sides of the ball to make him better)? Moss hasn't been in trouble with the law for a while and he is becoming a great leader on our team. He now leads by doing such as attending mini camps, working hard in the off season and helping the young guys. Granted he has a troubled past, but he is starting to outgrow those problems and he is turing into one of the best character guys on our team. You can have your Drivers, Fergusons, and Walkers, we'll keep the best receiver in the NFL!!

BigEasyViking
07-13-2004, 07:50 PM
The RB list does look a little suspect but not as much as the QB list. The carolina panters are number four? Wow, that ruins the list right there. I mean how do you put the Vikings with Cpepp and Ferotte behind Jake Delhomme(who had a good year but is no Cpepp) and Rodney Pete? Are you serious... That's just stupid! I think that the Eagles are too high too.