| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
I Am Rodgers
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 6403
Location: New Jersey
|
 Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:30 am Post subject: |
 |
|
|
Curious question palmy. What do you consider Sproles and Rodgers? Do you consider them starting RBs? Those seem to be the molds most similar to Harris. Even though neither is a bell cow, I consider them both starters just because of how effective they are. I'd say our situation more closely resembles that of NO, with much less talent at the position.
_________________
| ChaRisMa wrote: | | I thought I was the only one adding three inches. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
spilltray
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 8656
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:31 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I Am Rodgers wrote: | | Curious question palmy. What do you consider Sproles and Rodgers? Do you consider them starting RBs? Those seem to be the molds most similar to Harris. Even though neither is a bell cow, I consider them both starters just because of how effective they are. I'd say our situation more closely resembles that of NO, with much less talent at the position. |
In terms of reps and roster, neither is really a starter. There are other #1 options ahead of both.
_________________
| Wilfred wrote: | | Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
GreenGold12
Joined: 28 Feb 2009
Posts: 2122
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I Am Rodgers wrote: | | Curious question palmy. What do you consider Sproles and Rodgers? Do you consider them starting RBs? Those seem to be the molds most similar to Harris. Even though neither is a bell cow, I consider them both starters just because of how effective they are. I'd say our situation more closely resembles that of NO, with much less talent at the position. |
Don't see Harris as being in that mold despite size similarities. Pretty different players if you ask me.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
I Am Rodgers
Joined: 19 Jan 2009
Posts: 6403
Location: New Jersey
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 12:47 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| spilltray wrote: | | I Am Rodgers wrote: | | Curious question palmy. What do you consider Sproles and Rodgers? Do you consider them starting RBs? Those seem to be the molds most similar to Harris. Even though neither is a bell cow, I consider them both starters just because of how effective they are. I'd say our situation more closely resembles that of NO, with much less talent at the position. |
In terms of reps and roster, neither is really a starter. There are other #1 options ahead of both. |
Sproles led his team in offensive snaps by 60 over the next closest runningback while missing a few games with a broken hand. Rodgers finished 12 offensive snaps behind Turner but was seeing very little play to start the year. With a full offseason I can see Harris in those game molds and seeing close to 30-35% of the offensive snaps. Rodgers was at 44% and Sproles 40%.
_________________
| ChaRisMa wrote: | | I thought I was the only one adding three inches. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
palmy50
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 12556
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:05 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| GreenGold12 wrote: | | I Am Rodgers wrote: | | Curious question palmy. What do you consider Sproles and Rodgers? Do you consider them starting RBs? Those seem to be the molds most similar to Harris. Even though neither is a bell cow, I consider them both starters just because of how effective they are. I'd say our situation more closely resembles that of NO, with much less talent at the position. |
Don't see Harris as being in that mold despite size similarities. Pretty different players if you ask me. |
Sproles is a MUCH different player, for sure. His game is all about what he can do in space. The run game side of Rodgers is very close. But he is clearly much further along in the passing game.
_________________
 |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MM
Joined: 25 Dec 2008
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:09 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
harris is just short, he is plenty strong and explosive. look at his legs and butt. he has a very thick lower body, with a low center of gravity. he is shifty and explosive, and has good power for his size. At 200 lbs, he is big enough. In fact he has more mass than other big time RBs who weigh around the same but have a few inches on him.
Basically, I disagree with what I see as a traditionalist view of RBs a lot of scouts have (and I believe Thompson/McCarthy have had, to the Packers detriment over the last several years).
Harris is the exact type of RB the GB offense needs, in my opinion. Very surprised Jacksonville kept the very-average Rashad Jennings over him, instead of keeping him as a near clone of their star RB.
Doesn't surprise me that Pittsburgh let him go, despite him being more talented than everyone they have save for maybe a healthy Mendenhall. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
palmy50
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 12556
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I Am Rodgers wrote: | | spilltray wrote: | | I Am Rodgers wrote: | | Curious question palmy. What do you consider Sproles and Rodgers? Do you consider them starting RBs? Those seem to be the molds most similar to Harris. Even though neither is a bell cow, I consider them both starters just because of how effective they are. I'd say our situation more closely resembles that of NO, with much less talent at the position. |
In terms of reps and roster, neither is really a starter. There are other #1 options ahead of both. |
Sproles led his team in offensive snaps by 60 over the next closest runningback while missing a few games with a broken hand. Rodgers finished 12 offensive snaps behind Turner but was seeing very little play to start the year. With a full offseason I can see Harris in those game molds and seeing close to 30-35% of the offensive snaps. Rodgers was at 44% and Sproles 40%. |
I feel ya, but understand that those two bring games to the table that work for them to get those reps on those teams. Those two are on a different level than Harris right now in terms of passing/3rd down value. Harris might be on par with both in terms of pure running ability but has just flat out never been used the way those two have in the past and needs that development in the passing game if he is to truly shine in this Packers pass heavy system.
_________________
Last edited by palmy50 on Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:12 am; edited 1 time in total |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
spilltray
Joined: 09 Jan 2006
Posts: 8656
Location: Green Bay, WI
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| I Am Rodgers wrote: | | spilltray wrote: | | I Am Rodgers wrote: | | Curious question palmy. What do you consider Sproles and Rodgers? Do you consider them starting RBs? Those seem to be the molds most similar to Harris. Even though neither is a bell cow, I consider them both starters just because of how effective they are. I'd say our situation more closely resembles that of NO, with much less talent at the position. |
In terms of reps and roster, neither is really a starter. There are other #1 options ahead of both. |
Sproles led his team in offensive snaps by 60 over the next closest runningback while missing a few games with a broken hand. Rodgers finished 12 offensive snaps behind Turner but was seeing very little play to start the year. With a full offseason I can see Harris in those game molds and seeing close to 30-35% of the offensive snaps. Rodgers was at 44% and Sproles 40%. |
That's just it. Harris is a LONG way off from Sproles in the passing game, what about carries? This season Sproles was #3 behind Ingram (156), Thomas (106) and Sproles had 48. Now yes Sproles had a good number of catches too, but even if you total touches, Ingram had 162, Thomas had 144, and Sproles had 123.
However you want to cut it, he isn't a clear cut #1 RB there, by any means. He's a 3rd down RB in a very pass heavy offense.
_________________
| Wilfred wrote: | | Memory is like the Packers when they are behind by two touchdowns in the 4th quarter... It comes back. |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
palmy50
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 12556
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:23 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| MM wrote: | harris is just short, he is plenty strong and explosive. look at his legs and butt. he has a very thick lower body, with a low center of gravity. he is shifty and explosive, and has good power for his size. At 200 lbs, he is big enough. In fact he has more mass than other big time RBs who weigh around the same but have a few inches on him.
Basically, I disagree with what I see as a traditionalist view of RBs a lot of scouts have (and I believe Thompson/McCarthy have had, to the Packers detriment over the last several years).
Harris is the exact type of RB the GB offense needs, in my opinion. Very surprised Jacksonville kept the very-average Rashad Jennings over him, instead of keeping him as a near clone of their star RB.
Doesn't surprise me that Pittsburgh let him go, despite him being more talented than everyone they have save for maybe a healthy Mendenhall. |
1) The first thing in bold there is what matters though.
2) I very much so view Harris as a poor mans MJD. That's his game! Fact is, that's a very poor man. Both have many of the same flaws. But MJD's a click above Harris in just about every way. MJD is truly just short. If he was a few inches taller and you looked at him on paper you would view him as a freak. That's a sub 4.4 guy right there. That's not Harris. Harris looks every bit the part on paper outside the body, but he is not a freak.
3) I can tell you first hand that the Steelers camp is more than happy with Chris Rainey. Wanted that mold for a host of reasons and found the right man for the job!
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MM
Joined: 25 Dec 2008
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:43 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| palmy50 wrote: | | MM wrote: | harris is just short, he is plenty strong and explosive. look at his legs and butt. he has a very thick lower body, with a low center of gravity. he is shifty and explosive, and has good power for his size. At 200 lbs, he is big enough. In fact he has more mass than other big time RBs who weigh around the same but have a few inches on him.
Basically, I disagree with what I see as a traditionalist view of RBs a lot of scouts have (and I believe Thompson/McCarthy have had, to the Packers detriment over the last several years).
Harris is the exact type of RB the GB offense needs, in my opinion. Very surprised Jacksonville kept the very-average Rashad Jennings over him, instead of keeping him as a near clone of their star RB.
Doesn't surprise me that Pittsburgh let him go, despite him being more talented than everyone they have save for maybe a healthy Mendenhall. |
1) The first thing in bold there is what matters though.
2) I very much so view Harris as a poor mans MJD. That's his game! Fact is, that's a very poor man. Both have many of the same flaws. But MJD's a click above Harris in just about every way. MJD is truly just short. If he was a few inches taller and you looked at him on paper you would view him as a freak. That's a sub 4.4 guy right there. That's not Harris. Harris looks every bit the part on paper outside the body, but he is not a freak.
3) I can tell you first hand that the Steelers camp is more than happy with Chris Rainey. Wanted that mold for a host of reasons and found the right man for the job! |
We'll see. I tend to think he's quite a bit closer to MJD than you do. If MJD is faster it isn't by much. I think MJD is harder to bring down, but that's because his center of gravity and lower body strength is truly freakish. But Harris is no slouch in that regard and is of a similar mold. And I think Harris is actually laterally quicker and possibly more explosive. We will see, but I think it's a lot closer than the poor-man's talk. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
justo
Joined: 05 Aug 2012
Posts: 9105
Location: Hood River, Oregon
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:49 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
I feel like some people haven't seen Rodgers enough. Dude will truck you at that size. He's so freaking strong and compact for his height:weight. Sproles is more like a suped up, smaller, Reggie Bush IMO.
_________________
| jfinley88 wrote: | | Woke up in the shower wearing a frog costume with the nipples cut out and my face painted like a tiger |
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
palmy50
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 12556
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:55 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| justo wrote: | | I feel like some people haven't seen Rodgers enough. Dude will truck you at that size. He's so freaking strong and compact for his height:weight. Sproles is more like a suped up, smaller, Reggie Bush IMO. |
YUP, Rodgers is a much better comparison in terms of running style. Harris can "truck" ya also if he builds up a head of steam. Fact is, Rodgers also has the value in the passing game that makes him a clear value lean over Harris at this point.
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MM
Joined: 25 Dec 2008
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 1:59 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
Ray Rice would be an ideal fit in this team, in my opinion, and I see similarities. I prefer Rice to MJD, but they are of a similar mold, and I think Harris is cut from a similar cloth. For what its worth, J.Rodgers is as well, and he isn't on their level, and so ultimately, I see it as how you view the player himself more than I do the "type" of player in this case.
Will be interesting to see how it shakes out. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
MM
Joined: 25 Dec 2008
Posts: 220
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:02 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| palmy50 wrote: | | justo wrote: | | I feel like some people haven't seen Rodgers enough. Dude will truck you at that size. He's so freaking strong and compact for his height:weight. Sproles is more like a suped up, smaller, Reggie Bush IMO. |
YUP, Rodgers is a much better comparison in terms of running style. Harris can "truck" ya also if he builds up a head of steam. Fact is, Rodgers also has the value in the passing game that makes him a clear value lean over Harris at this point. |
In terms of Harris vs. Rodgers, Harris has a clear lean in burst and long speed, in my opinion, and I see him as overall the better and more dangerous runner. Harris has also showed glimpses of very impressive vision and patience, and then taking it when it's there. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
palmy50
Joined: 26 Nov 2006
Posts: 12556
|
| Posted: Fri Jan 04, 2013 2:11 am Post subject: |
|
|
|
| MM wrote: | Ray Rice would be an ideal fit in this team, in my opinion, and I see similarities. I prefer Rice to MJD, but they are of a similar mold, and I think Harris is cut from a similar cloth. For what its worth, J.Rodgers is as well, and he isn't on their level, and so ultimately, I see it as how you view the player himself more than I do the "type" of player in this case.
Will be interesting to see how it shakes out. |
You lost me a bit with that one. Rice is a much different type of player. Rice is a much better football player than athlete. Lives and dies with his instincts. About as complete as they come. No weak spots in Rice's game at all. Every bit as good inside as he is outside. Man is truly hell to gameplan for. Trust me!
_________________
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
|
|
|
Powered by phpBB © 2001, 2005 phpBB Group
|
FAQ
Register
Profile
Log in to check your private messages
Log in
