Buckhalter Down!! - Fantasy Football Cafe 2014 Fantasy Football Cafe


Return to Football Talk

Buckhalter Down!!

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby Tiki » Sat Aug 21, 2004 1:52 pm

KingGhidra wrote:
maddog60 wrote:
bagobonez wrote:That's exactly the thing. Westbrook IS too small to carry the full load. I mean, when has he EVER carried the full load?


You ever look at the listed height and weight of running backs? Here's a short list of current NFL running backs with similar or less size to them as Westbrook. A few of these guys might object to being too small to carry a full load.

Westbrook: 5'10" 205

Barber: 5'10" 200
Bennett: 5'11" 211
Dunn: 5'9" 180
M. Faulk: 5'10" 211
Garner: 5'10" 190
Griffin: 5'7" 195
Martin: 5'11" 210
Portis: 5'11" 205
Suggs: 6'0" 205

Now Barber gets criticized for his fumbling, Faulk for his history of injuries, but in general except for Dunn and Griffin, there's been no real worry about the size of these running backs. Yet, somehow Westbrook is definitely too small. When Marshall Faulk who is the same height, but only 6 pounds bigger has had one of the best careers as a full-time running back, it seems pretty silly to say Westbrook is too small to carry the ball 300 times.

Now, yes, one might come to the conclusion that those 6 pounds matter, because it makes Faulk bulkier, and able to withstand more punishment. Then look at Clinton Portis (consensus fantasy first rounder and 2 time Denver full time RB), who is one inch taller than Westbrook, but the same weight. By that logic, he's less bulky, less able to withstand punishment (albeit only slightly), yet he's not too small to carry the full-time load either.


We'll find out soon enough what Mr. Westbrook can handle. I think he'll be fine personally.
i think he can handle more then everyone thinks, Last year had he a cluth Punt/Kickoff return to help win a important game, adn thats very hard. I think he can definatly carry like marshell could.
Keep it lit.
Tiki
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Graphics ExpertMock(ing) DrafterPick 3 ChampionSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 7020
Joined: 25 Nov 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: '08 DOM-35.

Postby CC » Sat Aug 21, 2004 1:59 pm

I would say durability is a problem, not because he is small, just because he seems to be injury prone.
Image
I ain't no suit-wearin' businessman like you... you know I'm just a gangsta I suppose... - Avon Barksdale
CC
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe WriterCafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterEagle EyeSweet 16 SurvivorLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 11079
Joined: 30 Dec 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: The Big House.

Postby Impressionable » Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:06 pm

KingGhidra wrote:
maddog60 wrote:
bagobonez wrote:That's exactly the thing. Westbrook IS too small to carry the full load. I mean, when has he EVER carried the full load?


You ever look at the listed height and weight of running backs? Here's a short list of current NFL running backs with similar or less size to them as Westbrook. A few of these guys might object to being too small to carry a full load.

Westbrook: 5'10" 205

Barber: 5'10" 200
Bennett: 5'11" 211
Dunn: 5'9" 180
M. Faulk: 5'10" 211
Garner: 5'10" 190
Griffin: 5'7" 195
Martin: 5'11" 210
Portis: 5'11" 205
Suggs: 6'0" 205

Now Barber gets criticized for his fumbling, Faulk for his history of injuries, but in general except for Dunn and Griffin, there's been no real worry about the size of these running backs. Yet, somehow Westbrook is definitely too small. When Marshall Faulk who is the same height, but only 6 pounds bigger has had one of the best careers as a full-time running back, it seems pretty silly to say Westbrook is too small to carry the ball 300 times.

Now, yes, one might come to the conclusion that those 6 pounds matter, because it makes Faulk bulkier, and able to withstand more punishment. Then look at Clinton Portis (consensus fantasy first rounder and 2 time Denver full time RB), who is one inch taller than Westbrook, but the same weight. By that logic, he's less bulky, less able to withstand punishment (albeit only slightly), yet he's not too small to carry the full-time load either.


We'll find out soon enough what Mr. Westbrook can handle. I think he'll be fine personally.


Same. Westbrook is a good back, he may not be a workhorse where you can just dump him the ball 30 times a game, but he will be the featured back and play a competent role this season.
[[Placeholder]]
Impressionable
Special Teams Staff
Special Teams Staff

User avatar

Posts: 150
Joined: 7 Aug 2004
Home Cafe: Football

Postby goleafsgo96 » Sat Aug 21, 2004 2:22 pm

So is there a new update on buckhalter's status?
Image
Chris Leak-QB-Florida Gators
goleafsgo96
General Manager
General Manager

Mock(ing) DrafterLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 2879
Joined: 23 Dec 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: bitter about missing the playoffs

Postby TheRawDAWG » Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:00 pm

maddog60 wrote:
bagobonez wrote:That's exactly the thing. Westbrook IS too small to carry the full load. I mean, when has he EVER carried the full load?


You ever look at the listed height and weight of running backs? Here's a short list of current NFL running backs with similar or less size to them as Westbrook. A few of these guys might object to being too small to carry a full load.

Westbrook: 5'10" 205

Barber: 5'10" 200
Bennett: 5'11" 211
Dunn: 5'9" 180
M. Faulk: 5'10" 211
Garner: 5'10" 190
Griffin: 5'7" 195
Martin: 5'11" 210
Portis: 5'11" 205
Suggs: 6'0" 205

Now Barber gets criticized for his fumbling, Faulk for his history of injuries, but in general except for Dunn and Griffin, there's been no real worry about the size of these running backs. Yet, somehow Westbrook is definitely too small. When Marshall Faulk who is the same height, but only 6 pounds bigger has had one of the best careers as a full-time running back, it seems pretty silly to say Westbrook is too small to carry the ball 300 times.

Now, yes, one might come to the conclusion that those 6 pounds matter, because it makes Faulk bulkier, and able to withstand more punishment. Then look at Clinton Portis (consensus fantasy first rounder and 2 time Denver full time RB), who is one inch taller than Westbrook, but the same weight. By that logic, he's less bulky, less able to withstand punishment (albeit only slightly), yet he's not too small to carry the full-time load either.



Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't most of those backs injury riddled? Portis missed games the last couple years. We all know about Marshall. Dunn and Bennett have both missed significant time, Garner too. Suggs and Griffin have never been fulltime backs so who knows if they can handle the pressure put on their bodies. And Tiki, well Tiki doesn't get hurt but he makes up for it by fumbling the ball. Martin is the only guy on this list that is reliable enough to play every game every year. I think you actually proved BOBs point more than your own. Just my 2 cents on the matter.
So they weren't the best...and may have ended the worst. SO WHAT!
TheRawDAWG
Head Coach
Head Coach

User avatar

Posts: 1599
Joined: 16 Feb 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Up in Canada

Postby VaderFin » Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:15 pm

Suggs was hurt pretty bad in college so he has an injury history as well.
VaderFin
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSweet 16 SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 7030
Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: In my Tie Fighter blowing up Rebels

Postby IRON CHEF » Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:38 pm

Where are you guys ranking Westbrook now? Is he a worthy of being in the company of the common RBs of the 2nd and early 3rd rounds?
Image

...some know me as pomplona's finest...
IRON CHEF
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar

Posts: 3408
Joined: 30 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: waiting for the playoff push...

Postby VaderFin » Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:39 pm

IRON CHEF wrote:Where are you guys ranking Westbrook now? Is he a worthy of being in the company of the common RBs of the 2nd and early 3rd rounds?



Personally, I wouldn't take him in the 2nd but would definitely look at him in the third.
VaderFin
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Cafe RankerMock(ing) DrafterSweet 16 SurvivorCafe Blackjack Weekly WinnerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 7030
Joined: 10 Jun 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: In my Tie Fighter blowing up Rebels

Postby 34=Sweetness » Sat Aug 21, 2004 6:46 pm

TheRawDAWG wrote:
maddog60 wrote:
bagobonez wrote:That's exactly the thing. Westbrook IS too small to carry the full load. I mean, when has he EVER carried the full load?


You ever look at the listed height and weight of running backs? Here's a short list of current NFL running backs with similar or less size to them as Westbrook. A few of these guys might object to being too small to carry a full load.

Westbrook: 5'10" 205

Barber: 5'10" 200
Bennett: 5'11" 211
Dunn: 5'9" 180
M. Faulk: 5'10" 211
Garner: 5'10" 190
Griffin: 5'7" 195
Martin: 5'11" 210
Portis: 5'11" 205
Suggs: 6'0" 205

Now Barber gets criticized for his fumbling, Faulk for his history of injuries, but in general except for Dunn and Griffin, there's been no real worry about the size of these running backs. Yet, somehow Westbrook is definitely too small. When Marshall Faulk who is the same height, but only 6 pounds bigger has had one of the best careers as a full-time running back, it seems pretty silly to say Westbrook is too small to carry the ball 300 times.

Now, yes, one might come to the conclusion that those 6 pounds matter, because it makes Faulk bulkier, and able to withstand more punishment. Then look at Clinton Portis (consensus fantasy first rounder and 2 time Denver full time RB), who is one inch taller than Westbrook, but the same weight. By that logic, he's less bulky, less able to withstand punishment (albeit only slightly), yet he's not too small to carry the full-time load either.



Correct me if I'm wrong but aren't most of those backs injury riddled? Portis missed games the last couple years. We all know about Marshall. Dunn and Bennett have both missed significant time, Garner too. Suggs and Griffin have never been fulltime backs so who knows if they can handle the pressure put on their bodies. And Tiki, well Tiki doesn't get hurt but he makes up for it by fumbling the ball. Martin is the only guy on this list that is reliable enough to play every game every year. I think you actually proved BOBs point more than your own. Just my 2 cents on the matter.
The only RBs that aren't injury riddled are the ones on the bench. RBs take a pounding. Remember, you cant count receptions as much as carries because on receptions he will usually run out of bounds instead of getting nailed.
ImageImage
34=Sweetness
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Mock(ing) DrafterPick 3 Weekly WinnerSweet 16 Survivor
Posts: 4738
Joined: 21 Apr 2004
Home Cafe: Football
Location: AKA CubsFan7724

Postby The Great Gambini » Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:30 am

Haven't been in here all week, hadn't even heard about this injury! Shows how much time I have to spend on the football field, instead of sitting here, reading about it.
Image

'Twas a fun year, fellas.
The Great Gambini
General Manager
General Manager

User avatar
Cafe RankerLucky Ladders Weekly Winner
Posts: 3654
Joined: 11 Nov 2003
Home Cafe: Football
Location: Title Town - 3 state chamionships in 5 years!

PreviousNext

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 5 guests

Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 11:00 hours
(and 39 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


  • Fantasy Football
  • Article Submissions
  • Privacy Statement
  • Site Survey 
  • Contact