Lions could have the best group of RBs.

[tpaulus_2]

Kreton -- we are both Lions fans. The only difference is..............you think the Lions are much better than they actually are and I see the Lions as the team who is 11-21 over the last two years.

I have no problem saying Detroit had great production from the running back position. At the same time -- 7 fumbles lost and 14 dropped passes is ATROCIOUS and takes them completely out of the c onversation as the best group in theNFL.

I have no problem saying our OL was much better this past year. I'm just not foolish enough, like TP, to try and talk about them as if they are one of the best OL in the NFL.

You see -- you believe the Lions could sit on their current roster and be a super bowl contender. Actual fans who look at the Lions without the honolulu blue sunglasses, looks at a team that has many areas they need to upgrade and speak out about those areas.

Once you said the Lions were basically drafting for depth this year -- you lost all credibility to me.

The problem there is that they were one of the best OL units in the league last year. I know it would pain you way too much to ever admit that, so you're still in denial, but the numbers are there to support it. Whether or not you like it (and obviously you don't because you're still sticking your head in the sand to avoid the obvious) it's still the truth.

This is exactly why people get sick of your shit, btw. We're talking about RBs and you went out of your way to re-hash an argument from months ago.

Generally I'm fine with debating and realize that there's two sides to every disagreement, and the truth generally lies somewhere in the middle. However, you're simply flat-out wrong on this one, and that's not something I generally ever post. I may disagree, but rarely enough to tell someone that their stance is wrong... this time, however, the evidence is crystal clear- we had a top-5 O-line last year.

I'm sure you'll keep arguing this one (since you went through the trouble to bring it up, I can only assume that means that you're fishing, like you're prone to do, and wanted a response), but it's very obvious that you're misguided on this particular topic.

Not trying to come across as a dick to the other posters by acting like "I'm right and you're wrong," but this is a case where it would seem your being negative just to be negative. Our o-line was awesome last year, no bones about it. Hopefully they play that well, or even better, again this year...

 

[RhojiF]

I think the best RB group--and has proven it--is the Eagles:

LeSean McCoy
Bryce Brown
Darren Sproles

 

[tpaulus_2]

So leading the league in fumbles lost as a running back is a weak ass point?

Not in and of itself, no.

But that's all you got. You're not interested in the actual numbers, or how often he turned it over compared to other offensive players. Nope, you found something negative you can latch onto and there's no way in hell you're going to let go.

The difference between us is that I can admit that Bush and Bell had ball security issues and they need to work on them without going into "Chicken Little/Sky is falling" mode. You, however, can't seem to find any agreeable middle ground. For you it's "He led the league in fumbles, he sucks, don't care how many yards he had."

Basically you want something to complain about and this feeds you desire, which is fine, but at this point you're adding nothing to the conversation except for more dissension. I've broken the numbers down well beyond the 4 turnovers that you keep hanging your hat so proudly on, and you want nothing to do with any of that.

Honestly I think you're probably happier having Bush lead the league in fumbles than you would be if he won the rushing title because it gives you something to bitch about. I just don't get it... glad I'm not wired that way. I don't know what I'd do if I hated my favorite team as much as you do...

 

[tpaulus_2]

I love how trustme makes a very positive original post about the running backs and it still turns into a debate, lol.

Where is this supposed "very positive" post?

 

[tpaulus_2]

I did. And Id still like to know which players I give a pass to.

No dice there. You just went with the generic "Any playoff team" which is usually what people offer up when asked who/what team is better than the Lions.

 

[tpaulus_2]

GVSU -- it doesn't matter what i say. unless you believe the Lions can do no wrong, every pick up is a great addition, every draft pick is a winner and the reason the Lions have been 11-21 the last two years is everyone's fault with the exception of the actual players -- you aren't a real fan.

I give up -- I will just join the sunshine and rainbow gang. I will cross my fingers that Bush and Bell have 7 more fumbles and 14 more dropped passes in 2014, as it is an excellent trade off for their production.

Detroit has the best RBs in football. The best Offensive Line. The best WR. The best 1-2 combo for WR. The best Defensive Line. Am I missing anything? WOW -- i feel so much better now.

What a bitch.

Don't anyone dare disagree with all MikeD's negativity, otherwise he throws these little temper-tantrums. I'm not sure I've been able to post a stat in the last year that paints any of our players in a positive light without you, at some point, using it as a total over-exaggeration. Every time we talk about a player or group being a top-5 or top-10 you inevitably go into twelve year old mode and start throwing arround "best this" or "greatest ever that" like someone other than you actually said it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again now- if your points are the rock-solid undeniable truth like you expect us all to believe without question, then why do you constantly have to resort to all this sensationalism bullshit like the post above? Why can't your side of the debate stand on it's own without having to over-exaggerate whatever I post in an attempt to discredit me? That seems to be your m.o. when faced with something you can't refute- "What's that? PFF had Bell ranked in the top 10 overall for RBs last year? Yep, you're right T-Paul, our RBs were the best to ever play the game last year!lol" Sound familiar? Because that's pretty much exactly what you do. None of us are allowed to compare players with the rest of the league without you eventually pulling pretty much that exact stunt...

 

[RobBase]

The difference between us is that I can admit that Bush and Bell had ball security issues and they need to work on them without going into "Chicken Little/Sky is falling" mode.

Also, Mike never burned down his neighborhood blowing up a mattress with 5 gallons of gasoline.

Just for us keeping track.

 

[tpaulus_2]

I think the best RB group--and has proven it--is the Eagles:

LeSean McCoy
Bryce Brown
Darren Sproles

Now that Blount is moving on from the Pats I'll buy the Eagles having the best group.

Who else, though?

I think San Diego has a nice bunch with Matthews, Woodhead, and now Brown. The Packers with Lacey, Franklin, and Starks are pretty impressive. The Panthers gotta still be up there, I'd think. San Fran has a good group, especially if Lattimore pays off. Seattle has a very good 1 through 3 with Lynch, Turbin, and Michael...

Thoughts?

 

[Kreton]

What a bitch.

Don't anyone dare disagree with all MikeD's negativity, otherwise he throws these little temper-tantrums. I'm not sure I've been able to post a stat in the last year that paints any of our players in a positive light without you, at some point, using it as a total over-exaggeration. Every time we talk about a player or group being a top-5 or top-10 you inevitably go into twelve year old mode and start throwing arround "best this" or "greatest ever that" like someone other than you actually said it.

I've said it before and I'll say it again now- if your points are the rock-solid undeniable truth like you expect us all to believe without question, then why do you constantly have to resort to all this sensationalism bullshit like the post above? Why can't your side of the debate stand on it's own without having to over-exaggerate whatever I post in an attempt to discredit me? That seems to be your m.o. when faced with something you can't refute- "What's that? PFF had Bell ranked in the top 10 overall for RBs last year? Yep, you're right T-Paul, our RBs were the best to ever play the game last year!lol" Sound familiar? Because that's pretty much exactly what you do. None of us are allowed to compare players with the rest of the league without you eventually pulling pretty much that exact stunt...

I pay for pff and for the record I believe they do the best job at ranking players. They don't cherry pick stats to make a player look better or worse then he is. They look at the full body of work when that player is on the field and rank them based on how well they do everything they are supposed to.

They done assume bush is great because he had a thousand yards, or that he crap because he fumbled 5 times. They look at it all. Even blocking, broken tackles, catches drops, etc.

We had the 8th best and 21st best RBs last year per the best resource available. With 32 teams that is very impressive.

 

[broncosmitty]

No dice there. You just went with the generic "Any playoff team" which is usually what people offer up when asked who/what team is better than the Lions.

If you'd rather, I can list them all? Hell Ill do it anyway,.... Didn't feel it was needed, as we all know who made the playoffs. But here we go: Seattle, Denver, NE, San Fran, Im now including GB since they were better at running the ball statistically in every way and Id much rather have Lacey, Cincy, Carolina, Kansas City, Sandy Eggo, PHILLY, that's 10. Indy too, even with TRich was a huge disappointment. And New Orleans last year, but without Sproles Ill leave them out. Plus Chicago, Minny, Buffalo and Ill go ahead and list the Texans too, since they clearly are better at running the ball. I think that's 15, leaving your precious duo smack dap in the middle. Talented sure, that's what professional are in general. (I left Arizona off, guess it was good that I listed every playoff individually after all.). Ooops, forgot the Titans, so 16th.

 

[broncosmitty]

Now that Blount is moving on from the Pats I'll buy the Eagles having the best group.

Who else, though?

I think San Diego has a nice bunch with Matthews, Woodhead, and now Brown. The Packers with Lacey, Franklin, and Starks are pretty impressive. The Panthers gotta still be up there, I'd think. San Fran has a good group, especially if Lattimore pays off. Seattle has a very good 1 through 3 with Lynch, Turbin, and Michael...

Thoughts?

Keep going....

 

[tpaulus_2]

If you'd rather, I can list them all? Hell Ill do it anyway,.... Didn't feel it was needed, as we all know who made the playoffs. But here we go: Seattle, Denver, NE, San Fran, Im now including GB since they were better at running the ball statistically in every way and Id much rather have Lacey, Cincy, Carolina, Kansas City, Sandy Eggo, PHILLY, that's 10. Indy too, even with TRich was a huge disappointment. And New Orleans last year, but without Sproles Ill leave them out. Plus Chicago, Minny, Buffalo and Ill go ahead and list the Texans too, since they clearly are better at running the ball. I think that's 15, leaving your precious duo smack dap in the middle. Talented sure, that's what professional are in general. (I left Arizona off, guess it was good that I listed every playoff individually after all.). Ooops, forgot the Titans, so 16th.

So you're just going by the list of total rushing output then? Not the actual talent of the RBs on the roster, or the depth?

Some of those teams definitely had a better overall group than we did, but some of them did not. I see several teams on that list that have 1 great lead back, and not really anything else behind that.

I think your inexplicable dislike for Joique Bell is tainting your ability to be objective here...

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

"He led the league in fumbles, he sucks, don't care how many yards he had."

Actually -- What I said is -- PRODUCTION WISE they were one of the top groups in the NFL. Which u CONTINUALLY skip over. I followed it up after Bronco posted about the turnovers and dropped passes that this is the reason they wouldn't be in the conversation as the best group.

 

[tpaulus_2]

Actually -- What I said is -- PRODUCTION WISE they were one of the top groups in the NFL. Which u CONTINUALLY skip over. I followed it up after Bronco posted about the turnovers and dropped passes that this is the reason they wouldn't be in the conversation as the best group.

Fair enough.

It's just how big of an issue the ball security was that we disagree on then.

I think it's only a moderate problem right now- something that needs to be fixed, but not a huge deal based on a single season. If we're having this same conversation next offseason, then a pattern has developed, and I'll be far more concerned.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

I've said it before and I'll say it again now- if your points are the rock-solid undeniable truth like you expect us all to believe without question, then why do you constantly have to resort to all this sensationalism bullshit like the post above? Why can't your side of the debate stand on it's own without having to over-exaggerate whatever I post in an attempt to discredit me? That seems to be your m.o. when faced with something you can't refute-

You mean like resorting to compare a QB's interception rate to a RB's fumble rate?!?! That is one of the most foolish attempts to justify the fact the Lions fumble the ball and dropped passes at an extraordinary rate last year, that you could possibly make up.

Then you pull imaginary numbers out of the air and say RBs were extra safe with the ball this past year and that is why Bush was 1st and Bell was tied for 2nd in fumbles lost. When I point out how wrong you are and give you facts -- you ignore it and carry on.

Like I said -- i'm with you now. I see the light finally The Lions are going to be the 2nd team ever to be undefeated in 2014. We have a top 10 secondary, as long as you skew the numbers a bit. The best defensive line. One of the top pairs of safeties, as Ihedbigo is a huge upgrade over Delmas. The best Offensive Line and the best 1-2 combo at WR, to go with the best RB group.

If it wasn't for coaching issues and the schemes -- Detroit would have been super bowl bound already. Has nothing to do with talent. Kreton has already stated and I couldn't agree more -- We are basically drafting for depth this year.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

It's just how big of an issue the ball security was that we disagree on then.

I now agree with you -- 7 fumbles lost by the running backs is not a big deal. They may have led the NFL in this category, but when you compare them to elite QB's interception rate. It isn't a big deal.

 

[broncosmitty]

So you're just going by the list of total rushing output then? Not the actual talent of the RBs on the roster, or the depth?

Some of those teams definitely had a better overall group than we did, but some of them did not. I see several teams on that list that have 1 great lead back, and not really anything else behind that.

I think your inexplicable dislike for Joique Bell is tainting your ability to be objective here...

Then take out the teams you think are less than the Lions and tell me why. (Our receiving corps is awful aside from CJ. Other than the Bears, off the top of my head, there aren't any teams Id trade them for on account of we have the best receiver. Bush and Bell aren't top tier guys IMO. They can and will produce, but Id rather have AP, Lynch, Jamaal Charles or Forte (among others) with scrubs than two decent guys that put the ball on the turf. Depth is one thing, but depth usually doesn't cancel out elite level talent, not at one position anyway.). What would you like me to go off other than YPC, total yards, fumbles, touchdowns and such? Hope?

 

[tpaulus_2]

You mean like resorting to compare a QB's interception rate to a RB's fumble rate?!?! That is one of the most foolish attempts to justify the fact the Lions fumble the ball and dropped passes at an extraordinary rate last year, that you could possibly make up.

Then you pull imaginary numbers out of the air and say RBs were extra safe with the ball this past year and that is why Bush was 1st and Bell was tied for 2nd in fumbles lost. When I point out how wrong you are and give you facts -- you ignore it and carry on.

Like I said -- i'm with you now. I see the light finally The Lions are going to be the 2nd team ever to be undefeated in 2014. We have a top 10 secondary, as long as you skew the numbers a bit. The best defensive line. One of the top pairs of safeties, as Ihedbigo is a huge upgrade over Delmas. The best Offensive Line and the best 1-2 combo at WR, to go with the best RB group.

If it wasn't for coaching issues and the schemes -- Detroit would have been super bowl bound already. Has nothing to do with talent. Kreton has already stated and I couldn't agree more -- We are basically drafting for depth this year.

So what you're saying here, without actually saying it, is that you're out of ammo, that your argument has run its course?

Nobody ever said these things you're sensationalizing, and it makes you look pretty foolish when I just called you out for doing this very thing a few posts ago, and you're already right back at it.

At least I'm trying to debate things you (and others) actually post, rather than having to manufacturer a bunch of mularky to try to discredit your point of view.

If you had a legitimate argument you wouldn't have to keep making up things I never said.

 

[tpaulus_2]

I now agree with you -- 7 fumbles lost by the running backs is not a big deal. They may have led the NFL in this category, but when you compare them to elite QB's interception rate. It isn't a big deal.

You still can't tell me why it's ok for QBs to throw a certain amount of INTs, but RBs don't get a certain amount of fumbles?

 

[broncosmitty]

You still can't tell me why it's ok for QBs to throw a certain amount of INTs, but RBs don't get a certain amount of fumbles?

He did several times. So did muzz.