Lions could have the best group of RBs.

[themuzzer]

My odds are increased....That's called Risk Management and coaches understand that.

 

[tpaulus_2]

No fumbles are acceptable, but a certain amount are going to happen for any RB. No INTs are acceptable, but a certain amount are going to happen for any QB. No drops are acceptable, but a certain amount are going to happen for any WR/TE. No missed field goals are acceptable, but every kicker is going to miss some. No missed tackles are acceptable, get where I'm going...

What we have is a pair of RBs who both were outside the acceptable limits of putting the ball on the turf, but not nearly often enough to undo their offensive contributions.

 

[tpaulus_2]

When you take the snap, and throw the ball.....That's two touches and two chances for a turnover........You are a teacher do the math.

I think either your counting skills need work or you need to watch how a QB handles the football. If the ball is leaving and re-entering his hands between the time he takes the snap and when he actually throws it, he's doing something very wrong.

 

[Microwahevo]

Bush led the NFL, by a large margin, for drop % for players with 50+ catches at 11.3%. He was also tied for the most fumbles by a RB with 2 other guys.

Leading those two statistics will never be an acceptable trade off.

I'd like to see the passes the statisticians used to consider them drops. There were quite a few swing passes that were laser beams at Bush last year. Some were not even on target yet they hit his hands somehow. If they consider those "drops", then I can't agree with that percentage.

 

[broncosmitty]

Smitty, would you be one of those coaches who gives certain athletes a pass when they make mistakes? Lol. I've never seen you rip some of the other players.

Like who? Im critical of Stafford.(Catch a lot of grief for it. You know this.) Call CJ out for losing games(At Chicago, multiple times. People usually tell me to fuck off or shut up or to get real. Since hes the best blah blah blah. He drops a lot of passes he should catch, people dont like to hear about any of them. He has immunitty to criticism it seems.)Think our receiving corps is pathetic. Durham is not NFL caliber. Hes a security blanket. Nate gets hurt buying dinner. (Gone, doesnt matter). Broyles never played enough for me to be critical. Pat Edwards is scared. No problem with Ogletree. I thoughg Titus was talented as hell. Great rookie season, went crazy, I was last to accept it. Im open about Fauria not being a capable starter since he can't block. He's also slower than people think leaving him as an underneath option. Schef's a fuckface, he gone. I like Pettigrew, since he's a well rounded TE. Won't tell you he's never dropped more passes than he should. He didn't last year though. But Im not overly critical of BP. There's a guy I wish the sunshine and rainbow crew would sprinkle some homer dust on. Dickerson is worthless. I have nothing bad to say about Reif, Sims or BigLar. Waddle could be a serious diamond in the rough. Kind of player that could save Mayhew's career. And Ravioli can eat shit and die for all I care. (That wasn't very nice. He can eat shit and retire, that's better.) Am I missing anyone? Oh yeah, Jason Fox. Fuck him. Fuck our sexual predator hillbilly quarterback coach too. Kellen Moore has a noodle arm, don't want to leave that out.

 

[themuzzer]

What we have is a pair of RBs who both were outside the acceptable limits of putting the ball on the turf, but not nearly often enough to undo their offensive contributions.

There ya go.....You just answered what this thread is about......Next subject and in only took a few pages.....Wish all threads were this fast.

 

[Microwahevo]

Who's talking about Stafford? Let's stick to the topic here and focus on Bell and Bush.

To be fair, you and others were/are comparing them to elite qbs. Stafford isn't elite(let's not get into that again), but he's referencing him bc he did have his fair share of turnovers.

I agree though that the fumbles do need to get controlled. Remember Bush also had some fumbles he didn't lose. Some went right back into his hands while a couple others went out of bounds, luckily.

I love what Reggie does to help this offense, but his fumbles need correcting. And that doesn't discount his other contributions IMO.

 

[broncosmitty]

No fumbles are acceptable, but a certain amount are going to happen for any RB. No INTs are acceptable, but a certain amount are going to happen for any QB. No drops are acceptable, but a certain amount are going to happen for any WR/TE. No missed field goals are acceptable, but every kicker is going to miss some. No missed tackles are acceptable, get where I'm going...

What we have is a pair of RBs who both were outside the acceptable limits of putting the ball on the turf, but not nearly often enough to undo their offensive contributions.

We lost games because they were incapable of doing their job. Stop making excuses because they're Lions.

 

[broncosmitty]

Who's talking about Stafford? Let's stick to the topic here and focus on Bell and Bush.

Their turnover per touch rate is on par with elite QBs. They both had good individual seasons that were marred by ball security issues.They need to both reduce the drops and fumbles by at least 50%. That's really about the gist of it.

You brought up interceptions in the first place. I was talking fumbles. He's worth mentioning either way. Since he's guilty of too many of both.

 

[Microwahevo]

He has immunitty to criticism it seems.

And we don't need to add any stars to play opposite him bc, well he's CJ. I'm tired of that remark as well. He can't do everything and it's obvious what our offense looks like without him.

He won't last another 4-5 years if he keeps getting beat up the way he is. We need his replacement(s) now, not in 3 years when he starts to decline. But I digress....

 

[themuzzer]

Golden Tate is no longer a Domer, been loving him in Seattle, I will love him in a Lions uni as long as the new contract doesn't go to his head and he plays the same way he did in Seattle.

 

[tpaulus_2]

We lost games because they were incapable of doing their job. Stop making excuses because they're Lions.

We won games because the were more than capable of doing their jobs. How come that doesn't count?

 

[broncosmitty]

We won games because the were more than capable of doing their jobs. How come that doesn't count?

It counts. Doesn't get them anywhere near "best group of running backs" though. You don't get to lead the lead in drops and fumbles as a duo if you want that distinction.

 

[broncosmitty]

Can anyone name at least 10 better groups of RBs?

Basically every team that made the playoffs(aside from GB even though Id rather have Lacy than either of our guys and they killed us in yardage and avg.)plus Buffalo, Chicago(if you wouldn't rather have Forte I don't know what to say), Minnesotta, Washington and TN. (Green missed a lot of games this year though). I should say the Texans but I've never been a big believer in Foster.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

Their turnover per touch rate is on par with elite QBs.

Why are you continuing to compare RBs to QBs? Did you miss that Bush had the MOST fumbles lost by a RUNNING BACK. Did you miss that Bush had the MOST dropped passes by a RUNNING BACK. Joique Bell was tied for 2nd most fumbles by a RUNNING BACK.

Your argument is -- well they have the same turnover rate as a QB? Think about how silly that argument is.

 

[lionstop1]

I said, our RBs were a big reason why the team was able to move the ball. Nobody replied back. Then, I said, name ten groups better....and nobody responded.

 

[lionstop1]

The entire team was kind of careless with the ball if you ask me. Whether its fumbles, dropped passes, interceptions, not getting interceptions and so forth, they all contribute to losses. No need to focus on one or two players because they all sucked at some point of time.

 

[tpaulus_2]

I said, our RBs were a big reason why the team was able to move the ball. Nobody replied back. Then, I said, name ten groups better....and nobody responded.

No, you got the generic "Basically any playoff team" response. Because playoff teams are always better at any given position group than we are simply because they made the playoffs...

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

No, you got the generic "Basically any playoff team" response. Because playoff teams are always better at any given position group than we are simply because they made the playoffs...

Actually I did respond. I said Production wise -- they were one of the top groups. When you take into consideration they had 7 lost fumbles (with Bush tied for the most and Bell tied for the 2nd most fumbles lost) and they had 14 dropped passes (with Bush leading all running backs).

It kind of puts a damper on the argument of being the best group.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

Their turnover per touch rate is on par with elite QBs.

Why are you continuing to compare RBs to QBs? Did you miss that Bush had the MOST fumbles lost by a RUNNING BACK. Did you miss that Bush had the MOST dropped passes by a RUNNING BACK. Joique Bell was tied for 2nd most fumbles by a RUNNING BACK.

Your argument is -- well they have the same turnover rate as a QB? Think about how silly that argument is.

Figured I would repost this to see how TP will spin it to a positive for the Detroit and how leading the league in fumbles and dropped passes are acceptable trade offs.