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


Return to Football Talk

Buckhalter Down!!

Moderator: Football Moderators

Postby TheRawDAWG » Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:35 am

34=Sweetness wrote:
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.



Hey I was just pointing out this list of guys that was supposed to disprove the theory of small backs getting injured was full of holes. But I'm sure if I were to put out a list of guys over 6', 220 it probably wouldn't look so bloody.
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 34=Sweetness » Sun Aug 22, 2004 8:44 am

Fred Taylor is 6-1, 234 Lbs and he was hurt early in his career. Eddie George is hurt constantly, but he still plays. The big guys may take the punishment early and be good, but they really drop off later. The younger quicker backs dont take nearly the pounding an Eddie George or a Jerome Bettis has. I thought King Ghidra did a chart where he saw that taller backs got hurt more then shorter ones, so maybe he knows more?
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 KingGhidra » Sun Aug 22, 2004 11:37 am

Everyone make fun of DraftDodger when you see him. He drafted Buckhalter in the MIKL.


Image

:-b :-b


For those of you who followed my height vs injury thread, you'll note Buckhalter was a tall 6-0.

8-o 8-o
KingGhidra
General Manager
General Manager

Cafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 4303
Joined: 3 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Postby maddog60 » Mon Aug 23, 2004 10:44 am

TheRawDAWG wrote: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.


My point was that backs of his size have made significant fantasy impacts. In his prime, Faulk was king. Portis is still one of the few elite RBs. These guys don't usually get hammered with the "He's too small to last a full season" arguments for the most part, but that's all people ever seem to have to say about Westbrook.

Barber: Nice switch tactics reply, but until you prove that his fumbling is directly linked to his size, I dont care if Fumblina turns the ball over 20 times a game. Point is, since becoming a feature RB he's missed 2 games in 4 years, and that was the year he was splitting carries with Dayne. So, he does prove that a back that size can be the featured back.

Bennett: Agreed that his injury gives pause for concern, but he seems to be a consensus pick over Westbrook. Why? Westbrook's size as an injury concern? That would be rather silly. I think now with Buckhalter out of picture, Westbrook gains a slight advantage, but if there's no reason to worry about Bennett's size (I've never heard it brought up in discussion here), then why Westbrook's?

Dunn: Despite actually getting the too small argument as well, Dunn completed 15 games in 5 of his 7 seasons (13 and 11 in the others). He's only recently started to show up as a major injury concern, but has managed a full RB career despite his supposed size disadvantage.

M. Faulk: Yes, we all know about Faulk and his injury concerns. We all also know they have nothing to do with his size. He's been a featured RB for 10 years now, and the only time he didn't play nearly a full season was last year. If that's the mark for the wear and tear necessary to injure a RB of Westbrook's size, that's fine. I'll wait 6 years, then worry.

Garner: He falls under the same clause as Faulk, he's old. His size isn't the reason for injury concern. And at his size, he posted 8 seasons with 14 or more games, only 2 with significant injury (10 games only).

Martin: Martin has missed a total of 4 games in 10 years. Well, not everyone is Brett Favre.

Portis: Do I really need to explain why I mentioned him? How many people are concerned about his size? Compared to concern over his move to Washington? The loss of Jansen? Yeah, Portis could show up weighing in at 180 and he'd still be a 1st round pick (not that such a drastic change wouldn't spark debate).

If you think those RBs are injury riddled, check out the bigger tier of RBs (I'm going to get into the statistics because this post is already too long): Bettis, Buckhalter, Stephen Davis, Staley, Taylor, A-Train, Wheatley.

The point is, Westbrook's size does not make him injury prone. His position, RB, does however.
maddog60
Hall of Fame Hero
Hall of Fame Hero

User avatar
Fantasy ExpertCafe RankerMock(ing) Drafter
Posts: 9758
Joined: 18 Sep 2003
Home Cafe: Football

Previous

Return to Football Talk

Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 2 guests

cron
Forums Articles & Tips Start & Sit Sleepers Rankings Leagues


Get Ready...
The 2014 NFL season kicks off in 17:28 hours
(and 35 days)
2014 NFL Schedule


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