Lions could have the best group of RBs.

[Kreton]

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.

He's saying this stuff to get a rise out of you. It's what trolls do. The facts don't lie. Unbiased sources who actually rank these things don't lie. Or maybe the troll thinks I am running pff to make Detroit look Good or something.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

The facts don't lie.

I agree wholeheartedly -- That is why I said, Bush had the most fumbles lost and Bell was tied for the 2nd most fumbles lost. Both facts. I also said Bush led all players with more than 50+ receptions in drop %. Also a fact.

I also stated with 2700 yards from the line of scrimmage -- Detroit's RB group was one of the top tandems in the NFL. Also a fact.

 

[Kreton]

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?

I don't think anyone is saying Bush is better than ap or McCoy or that we would take Bush over many of these guys. However with our system and guys we have availability to Bush is a god option especially with bell. It is a good 1-2 punch and one of the better duos in football.

Also fumbles and drops such. Noone will argue that. But when you look at more than the fumbles and drops you get a much clearer picture. Nothing changes 5 fumbles, they will always be there. But 5 fumbles doesn't make a guy bad. Could he be better? Yes. But don't let the lack of perfection automatically mean bad.

 

[tpaulus_2]

He did several times. So did muzz.

No, he simply said it's a crazy premise.

Some have offered that QBs handle the ball more and are thus prone to more turnovers, which is absolutely true. That's why I offered up how often they turned it over on a per-touch basis.

All I was getting at is that RBs are going to fumble. Bush and Bell both fumbled too much last year, but not at some absurd rate that was nearly enough to undo all of the production they had on offense.

I think years of losing really has "Lionized" a lot of the people who frequent the board. We had our first 1,000 yard back in like ten years last season, and had the first pair of RBs to ever (ever, in the whole history of the NFL) to each catch 50+ passes and have over 500 receiving yards, yet none of that matters because they fumbled the ball 3 or 4 too many times between the two of them.

I know you don't agree that a couple of fumbles per season is acceptable out of a RB, but I'm more realistic than that. It's the NFL, they playing against the best defenders the world has to offer. RBs are going to cough up the ball. Hopefully ours only cough it up about half as often next season.

 

[tpaulus_2]

I agree wholeheartedly -- That is why I said, Bush had the most fumbles lost and Bell was tied for the 2nd most fumbles lost. Both facts. I also said Bush led all players with more than 50+ receptions in drop %. Also a fact.

I also stated with 2700 yards from the line of scrimmage -- Detroit's RB group was one of the top tandems in the NFL. Also a fact.

Bush lost 4 fumbles. Also a fact.

That's one fumble lost every 4 games. Not exactly crippling our offense...

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

I think years of losing really has "Lionized" a lot of the people who frequent the board.

I think you are right, but I believe you are the one "Lionized", by saying it is an acceptable trade off to lead the NFL in lost fumbles.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

Bush lost 4 fumbles. Also a fact.

That's one fumble lost every 4 games. Not exactly crippling our offense...

I agree -- dropped passes didn't hurt the offense either. Detroit should feel lucky he only lost 4 fumbles. Even though the stats tell a different story -- 4 isn't that bad. Maybe next year, he will only lose 3 fumbles.

 

[broncosmitty]

No, he simply said it's a crazy premise.

Some have offered that QBs handle the ball more and are thus prone to more turnovers, which is absolutely true. That's why I offered up how often they turned it over on a per-touch basis.

All I was getting at is that RBs are going to fumble. Bush and Bell both fumbled too much last year, but not at some absurd rate that was nearly enough to undo all of the production they had on offense.

I think years of losing really has "Lionized" a lot of the people who frequent the board. We had our first 1,000 yard back in like ten years last season, and had the first pair of RBs to ever (ever, in the whole history of the NFL) to each catch 50+ passes and have over 500 receiving yards, yet none of that matters because they fumbled the ball 3 or 4 too many times between the two of them.

I know you don't agree that a couple of fumbles per season is acceptable out of a RB, but I'm more realistic than that. It's the NFL, they playing against the best defenders the world has to offer. RBs are going to cough up the ball. Hopefully ours only cough it up about half as often next season.

Re-read the thread man. It was spelled out rather clearly for you.

 

[broncosmitty]

I don't think anyone is saying Bush is better than ap or McCoy or that we would take Bush over many of these guys. However with our system and guys we have availability to Bush is a god option especially with bell. It is a good 1-2 punch and one of the better duos in football.

Also fumbles and drops such. Noone will argue that. But when you look at more than the fumbles and drops you get a much clearer picture. Nothing changes 5 fumbles, they will always be there. But 5 fumbles doesn't make a guy bad. Could he be better? Yes. But don't let the lack of perfection automatically mean bad.

It leaves them middle of the road. There are worse groups. Im glad we aren't Cleveland, Baltimore or St Louis. I don't even know why you guys are trying to debate. I've stated the Lions aren't the best, you both agree.

 

[TrustMeIamRight]

No, he simply said it's a crazy premise.

Some have offered that QBs handle the ball more and are thus prone to more turnovers, which is absolutely true. That's why I offered up how often they turned it over on a per-touch basis.

QBs not only handle the ball every play -- they are throwing the ball all over the field, from screen passes to 60 yard bombs. They also have to deal with getting hit while thrown, getting their arm hit while throwing, forcing throws late in games when they are trailing.

They also have the human error component to deal with. WRs can run the wrong route. The QB could throw it to the wrong spot. WRs may tip a pass up in the air and get it picked off, etc. etc.

RB's are handed the ball and and their job is to hold onto it. They can brace themselves when they are going to get hit. They can cover the ball with two hands and they know teams are going to try and strip the ball from them.

That is why it is silly to try and compare interceptions by a QB to fumbles by a RB.

 

[themuzzer]

I've been Lionized! Woot! That's what 40+ years of Lion Football will do to a lot of Lions fans.....Give it another 10 or 15 years then you too will get your chance to giggle at the youth and there optimism.

 

[Kreton]

It leaves them middle of the road. There are worse groups. Im glad we aren't Cleveland, Baltimore or St Louis. I don't even know why you guys are trying to debate. I've stated the Lions aren't the best, you both agree.

Until this year Baltimore looked like possibly the best duo. Not sure what happened there

 

[themuzzer]

Until this year Baltimore looked like possibly the best duo. Not sure what happened there

Maybe Jim Caldwell being the OC? Hope not but he had input.

 

[Kreton]

Maybe Jim Caldwell being the OC? Hope not but he had input.

Pretty sure that he was the dc

 

[Kreton]

Nope he he was the OC. My bad. Damn I hope not too.

 

[RobBase]

You can tell who all the best players in the NFL are by the Lions logo on their helmets.

 

[Kreton]

You can tell who all the best players in the NFL are by the Lions logo on their helmets.

At the very least you can tell who my favorite players are by their logo.

And you don't need the best players at every position , you need the best group.

 

[lionstop1]

I'm not sure why anyone would say this group wasn't one of the best in the NFL last year. Lions coaches actually believe they can do more than what they did. When I started the thread, I wanted us to look at the group, not individuals. These fumbles we're talking about here doesn't really do anything for the argument to whether they are one of the better groups in football. In fact, I think Lynch had a fumbling problem, along with Peterson but that didn't take anything away from how good they were.

What are we looking at right now if both Bell and Bush fumbled just once on the year? Possibly a better record, a extra td or so?

 

[RobBase]

The Lions were 17th in rushing last year. Not even close to being the best. How did this get to 8 pages?

 

[RobBase]

The Lions RB corps also led the league in fumbles with 19. 7 more than the next worst team. Can we ban TPaul now?