The-Hogs.net - Washington Football Discussion, Redskins to Commanders Era

Deadskins wrote:Royster is the best, pure RB of those on the roster last season.

Maybe I'm missing some context . . . are you including Morris?

Irn-Bru wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Royster is the best, pure RB of those on the roster last season.

Maybe I'm missing some context . . . are you including Morris?

Yes I am. I love Morris, and he is a great RB, but I don't consider his skills as a runner as being as good as Royster's. Royster has better vision and makes quicker cuts. But Morris is a much more durable back, is much harder to bring down, and runs with aggression. That is why I used the word "pure" to describe Royster.

Let us define PURE:

http://espn.go.com/nfl/player/stats/_/i ... an-royster

Stats are cold numbers. 328 yards when healthy??

If that is "pure". I would rather have several VERY UNPURE RBs.

The truth is that our running game has been in the legs of RGIII and Alfred Morris.

Helu and Royster have not contributed even significantly when healthy and obviously next to nothing when hurt. I hope for the best for them but in this Not For Long League, they either produce substantially and very soon during camp and preseason or they are gone.

My bet is that at least one is gone and both will struggle to remain signed.

Helu has been our fastest back for a few years now. He is 6-0 and weighs around 220. He is elusive, presses the soft spot on the stretch play extremely well, and does NOT go down on first contact. He is an excellent receiver. In his rookie season he bested LeSean McCoy by one catch [49-48] and 64 yards [379-315; 7.7 Y/R]. He also ran for 640 yards on 151 carries [4.2 Y/C] and made the all-rookie team. He averages 1 fumble for every 100 touches. As Hogman said, before his injury the only issue was pass pro. I saw definite improvement there. I say a healthy Helu makes this team for sure. Mike drafted competition.



I'm not ready to give up on this guy at all. He is electrifying IF HEALTHY. Big IF, of course.

Deadskins wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Royster is the best, pure RB of those on the roster last season.

Maybe I'm missing some context . . . are you including Morris?

Yes I am. I love Morris, and he is a great RB, but I don't consider his skills as a runner as being as good as Royster's. Royster has better vision and makes quicker cuts. But Morris is a much more durable back, is much harder to bring down, and runs with aggression. That is why I used the word "pure" to describe Royster.

sooo - Royster in your opinion is the 'better' RB ("better vision and makes quicker cuts") - but I also gather that, in your opinion, Morris is not as good a RB as Royster
I just couldn't resist that ....



I have so much fun trying to figure out what your posts are about some times .....

SkinsJock wrote:

Deadskins wrote:

Irn-Bru wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Royster is the best, pure RB of those on the roster last season.

Maybe I'm missing some context . . . are you including Morris?

Yes I am. I love Morris, and he is a great RB, but I don't consider his skills as a runner as being as good as Royster's. Royster has better vision and makes quicker cuts. But Morris is a much more durable back, is much harder to bring down, and runs with aggression. That is why I used the word "pure" to describe Royster.

sooo - Royster in your opinion is the 'better' RB ("better vision and makes quicker cuts") - but I also gather that, in your opinion, Morris is not as good a RB as Royster
I just couldn't resist that ....



I have so much fun trying to figure out what your posts are about some times .....

Better "pure" RB. It's not that difficult a concept.

Redskin in Canada wrote:Helu and Royster have not contributed even significantly when healthy

Not true at all - especially Helu in his rookie year.

http://www.the-hogs.net/forum/viewtopic. ... thy#614871

Deadskins wrote:Yes I am. I love Morris, and he is a great RB, but I don't consider his skills as a runner as being as good as Royster's. Royster has better vision and makes quicker cuts. But Morris is a much more durable back, is much harder to bring down, and runs with aggression. That is why I used the word "pure" to describe Royster.

Naw... Lol.

morris is our best RB by far. He makes quick decisions and goes. Plus he's hard to tackle. No top end speed, but he's the workhorse. Both Royster and Helu take too long to make a decision, which is why they have so many zero gain plays. They are both "faster" than Morris once they get going, but I'll take Morris all day long...

Again, I'm not saying I wouldn't go with Morris as my starter, because I would. But watching film of all three, Royster has the most skills as a "pure" RB.

Deadskins wrote:Again, I'm not saying I wouldn't go with Morris as my starter, because I would. But watching film of all three, Royster has the most skills as a "pure" RB.

Mike is going to keep the players who give him and the team the best chance to win - he WILL NOT keep the "better player" over a player that makes the other players better

Royster, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PLAYER, will ONLY make the team if he gives the team a better chance for success

Deadskins wrote:Again, I'm not saying I wouldn't go with Morris as my starter, because I would. But watching film of all three, Royster has the most skills as a "pure" RB.

I know someone who disagrees with you, Mike Shanahan.
Oh, yeah, every RB not named Peterson agree that last year Morris was a better pure RB than them.

skinsfan#33 wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Again, I'm not saying I wouldn't go with Morris as my starter, because I would. But watching film of all three, Royster has the most skills as a "pure" RB.

I know someone who disagrees with you, Mike Shanahan.
Oh, yeah, every RB not named Peterson agree that last year Morris was a better pure RB than them.

What don't you understand about the highlighted sentence? Shanahan and I agree. Your second sentence shows you don't understand the concept of "pure" RB skills.

SkinsJock wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Again, I'm not saying I wouldn't go with Morris as my starter, because I would. But watching film of all three, Royster has the most skills as a "pure" RB.

Mike is going to keep the players who give him and the team the best chance to win - he WILL NOT keep the "better player" over a player that makes the other players better

Royster, JUST LIKE ANY OTHER PLAYER, will ONLY make the team if he gives the team a better chance for success

Obviously. Which is why I've been saying that Royster and Jamison will be battling for the final roster spot. I think Helu will be replaced by Thomas.

Deadskins wrote:I think Helu will be replaced by Thomas.

Rong.

Heluuuuuuuuuu.. can't be replaced wit Thomaaaasssss.. it just sounds stupid.

Helu will be back, primarily because we need a cooooooollllleeeeyyyyy replacement.

langleyparkjoe wrote:

Deadskins wrote:I think Helu will be replaced by Thomas.

Rong.

Heluuuuuuuuuu.. can't be replaced wit Thomaaaasssss.. it just sounds stupid.

Helu will be back, primarily because we need a cooooooollllleeeeyyyyy replacement.

I hadn't considered that.

Scottskins wrote:morris is our best RB by far. He makes quick decisions and goes. Plus he's hard to tackle. No top end speed, but he's the workhorse. Both Royster and Helu take too long to make a decision, which is why they have so many zero gain plays. They are both "faster" than Morris once they get going, but I'll take Morris all day long...

*Double post*

Scottskins wrote:morris is our best RB by far. He makes quick decisions and goes. Plus he's hard to tackle. No top end speed, but he's the workhorse. Both Royster and Helu take too long to make a decision, which is why they have so many zero gain plays. They are both "faster" than Morris once they get going, but I'll take Morris all day long...

Yep. The "purest" RB is the one who makes the most yards for us and puts the most points on the board.

Don't really think there is any competition here on who that player is.

I don't care if the dude runs a 10.5 in the 40...all that matters is that yards are gained and points are scored. Our current starting RB does that better than all of them.

Let me try and explain what I mean by purity as it pertains to RBs. Purity has to do with vision (seeing holes before they appear) and elusiveness (making tacklers miss). Being able to run through tackles is not a RB skill, so much as it is a product of physical power. Speed is a component of elusiveness, but it is also not a skill, so much as a physical characteristic.

Deadskins wrote:Let me try and explain what I mean by purity as it pertains to RBs. Purity has to do with vision (seeing holes before they appear) and elusiveness (making tacklers miss). Being able to run through tackles is not a RB skill, so much as it is a product of physical power. Speed is a component of elusiveness, but it is also not a skill, so much as a physical characteristic.

You are in soooooo much trouble with a bad example that the more you post, the more you sink.

You like Royster and his style, we get that. BEST at anything? Stats would show wouldn't they? Elusiveness would pay off in yards would it not? Vision would pay off in yards, would it not?

Having the vision to find a tight spot among tackles is not a RB skill?

We definitely do not share "purity" or what makes a good RB at all.

Redskin in Canada wrote:

Deadskins wrote:Let me try and explain what I mean by purity as it pertains to RBs. Purity has to do with vision (seeing holes before they appear) and elusiveness (making tacklers miss). Being able to run through tackles is not a RB skill, so much as it is a product of physical power. Speed is a component of elusiveness, but it is also not a skill, so much as a physical characteristic.

You are in soooooo much trouble with a bad example that the more you post, the more you sink.

You like Royster and his style, we get that. BEST at anything? Stats would show wouldn't they? Elusiveness would pay off in yards would it not? Vision would pay off in yards, would it not?

Having the vision to find a tight spot among tackles is not a RB skill?

We definitely do not share "purity" or what makes a good RB at all.

Just because you don't understand the concept, doesn't make me wrong. When Royster was healthy, he averaged 5.9 YPC. I'd say that's statistical proof of my assessment. Barry Sanders, and Gail Sayers would be examples of the highest "purity" of RBs. I love John Riggins, and he was one of the greatest Redskins RBs of all time, but he wasn't in the top ten in terms of purity, as I've defined it for you.

People are giving Deadskins a hard time here, but I do believe I know what he's trying to say, without actually being able to define it myself.

What's more, I think the rest of you can understand, but are just yanking his chain.

But at the end of the day, I'll take the most effective running back over the best "pure" running back, every single time.

UK Skins Fan wrote:at the end of the day, I'll take the most effective running back over the best "pure" running back, every single time.

Me too.

Irn-Bru wrote:We really are improving the depth of this team.

Small point, but Hankerson over Morgan? I would be surprised if he can pull that off, but I guess one could argue that he needs to if he wants to be on this team 2-3 years from now.

I think Leonard is on the verge of being hard to keep on the sideline. Morgan is solid but doesn't make plays. He may have reached his ceiling. Even in college he was a low TD guy. I think Hankerson offers more upside. A good offseason makes him the guy IMO

I think morris actually has pretty good vision. It may be more of a patience thing though. I've watched all the games a lot, and he seems to wait a second for the hole and then immediately hits it. I think that if morris did have top end speed, he be close to Peterson. But he doesn't lol...