Maximum Grilled Steelers Forum
Oct 23, 2014 at 15:13 *
Welcome, Guest. Please login or register.

Login with username, password and session length
  Home   Forum   Help Calendar Media Login Register  
Pages: [1]   Go Down
Author Topic: Running game - roles  (Read 441 times)
Brownstains can suck my Member

Karma: 1406
Offline Offline

Posts: 733

« on: Aug 30, 2009 at 11:56 »

Do any of you think Mewelde Moore is the best back we have? Any chance he supplants Parker early in the season? I really do think he was no worse than the Steelers' co-MVP on the offensive side of the ball last year. Parker is seeming like a one-hit wonder and I think most of us agree that Mendenhall has been a waste thus far.

Also, would the Steelers try to trade Parker if Moore takes the no. 1 spot, and if so, what do you think they'd try to get for him?

Tell 'em...Large Marge sent ya! Bwhahahaha
Brownstains can suck my Member

Karma: 484
Offline Offline

Posts: 847

« Reply #1 on: Aug 30, 2009 at 15:01 »

I still don't understand why everyone thinks Willie is done. He was banged up last season. He wasn't really healthy until the Divisional Round, and in that game he ripped San Diego for damn near 150 yards. The guy can still play, and I think he'll prove it to everyone this year.

"The duty of the comedian is to find out where the line is drawn, and cross it deliberately."-George Carlin
Brownstains can suck my Member

Karma: 1221
Offline Offline

Posts: 546

« Reply #2 on: Aug 30, 2009 at 15:08 »

I think the only reason MM has been any more productive than FWP or Mendenhall over the last year is that MM got most of his good runs in passing sets - i.e. draws out of 3-wide sets.  Were MM trying to run out of running sets he would fare just as poorly as anyone else.

Our lack of a running game is not a function of the running back, whomever that might be.  It is a function of a lack of push up front.

For example, if you look a the splits of FWP and MM things don't look so good for MM.  In 3rd and shorts MM has a 2.1 YPC; FWP has a 4.2 APC (but only because he broke a long one).  When each runs behind a FB, MM averaged a 3.4 - FWP a 3.2.  In 3 WR sets MM averaged a 5.6 YPC (on 44 carries); FWP averaged 3.9 YPC on 62 carries.

This last stat is the only reason MM looked any better - he is just humble MM, someone defenses don't pay attention to.  Heck, maybe Arians used this lack of respect a bit.  In any event, there is no reason to think MM is capable of doing any better than FWP or Mendenhall.

I don't need no stinking avatar!
Old School Member

Karma: 1469
Offline Offline

Posts: 1,837

« Reply #3 on: Aug 30, 2009 at 19:00 »

Moore was a spectacular fill-in last year when FWP and Mendenhall both went down with injuries, he's easily the most versatile back of the 3, but he's not an every down back (he started to fizzle after his hot start last year).  No way Moore starts over Parker other than because of injury.  And I know Mendenhall hasn't looked great yet, but are we really ready to give up on a guy who has barely had a chance to establish himself in the league?  Sure he's had fumbling issues and sure he's been a disappointment, but had he played the entire season last year I think things would have ended up differently.  You don't simply give up on someone with Mendenhall's pedigree.  Give the kid some time, and remember, he's playing against an awful offensive line (though they did protect Ben very well in the Buffalo game).

'Oh, my, James Harrison is not going to the White House, he must be a devil worshiper!'
Big Virgil
Old School Member

Karma: 3768
Online Online

Posts: 3,250

« Reply #4 on: Aug 30, 2009 at 20:17 »

I would love to see Redman with the 1st team O running against a 1st team D.  I'm inclined to think that right now Redman would be ahead of Mendenhall on the depth chart.

Looks like you've been missing a lot of work lately.
I wouldn't say I've been *missing* it, Bob.
Pages: [1]   Go Up
Jump to:  

Powered by MySQL Powered by PHP Powered by SMF 1.1.20 | SMF © 2013, Simple Machines
SimplePortal 2.3.6 © 2008-2014, SimplePortal
| Sitemap
Valid XHTML 1.0! Valid CSS!