FOX Sports: Best RB Packages

SmootSmack · 07-07-2004, 11:01 PM

Skins at #11

http://msn.foxsports.com/story/2555938

skinsfanthru&thru · 07-07-2004, 11:31 PM

I think we should be a bit higher than 11th but Minnesota and St. Louis should be at #1 and #2 with the slight edge going towards Minnesota.

itvnetop · 07-08-2004, 12:55 AM

Yeah, if Faulk is healthy, they're pretty damn lethal with Gordon and super-rook Jackson. All three can catch out of the backfield well too.

Carnage · 07-08-2004, 01:58 AM

I'd say that the Bills and Steelers were seriously underated.

skinsfanthru&thru · 07-08-2004, 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carnage

I'd say that the Bills and Steelers were seriously underated.

steelers r kinda on the bubble cuz bettis,even though he's a tough son of a gun, is definitely in a decline. I had similar thoughts about the bills, but I know I for one need proof Mcgahee is back to full strength before I think about rating them too high. plus henry, like ahman green, fumbles a lot and that should lower their value atleast a little.

That Guy · 07-08-2004, 02:24 AM

wow, the bengals do have a pretty good picture at RB... i wish we kept watson, he's not a superstar, but he's solid...

the rankings do seem a bit off (i'd think the saints would be above the iggles, among other things), but i guess 9 of 32 isn't so terrible... considering we were competing for last place before portis came to town

Big C · 07-08-2004, 04:06 AM

bengals are too high. Rookie backup, and rudi johnson had a decent year, 4.4 or 4.6 average, not quite 1,000 yards, hes a good back dont get me wrong, but i think they are a little too high. I like how the cowboys are so low...hehehe

That Guy · 07-08-2004, 05:34 AM

yeah, i agree with the cowboys, and skins at 11, i must of been smoking crack when i said 9, sorry... eeb-kab (error exists between keyboard and brain... old IT dept slang)

cpayne5 · 07-08-2004, 09:40 AM

I think the Bills should have been a bit higher.

Drift Reality · 07-08-2004, 10:37 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carnage

I'd say that the Bills and Steelers were seriously underated.

I'm not entirely sure I agree with you regarding the Steelers. Duce Staley is certainly a solid back, but Jerome Bettis is 50% what he used to be. If he averages more than 3.3/carry I think I'd be surprised.

I think he should be relegated to short yardage/goal line situations at this point in his career, a la Gerald Riggs in '91.

saden1 · 07-08-2004, 02:18 PM

Bills should be a bit higher but who would you move down? I vote for the EAGLES!

Who thought it would be this tough to rank running backs?

Big C · 07-08-2004, 02:20 PM

Eagles should move down. theyre running backs are overrated. Neither of their running backs are stars, they are solid.

memphisskin · 07-08-2004, 03:29 PM

I like that we're 11, but I hope we play like top 5. I predict Betts is going to have a big impact, 7-10 tds.

Carnage · 07-08-2004, 03:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Drift Reality

I'm not entirely sure I agree with you regarding the Steelers. Duce Staley is certainly a solid back, but Jerome Bettis is 50% what he used to be. If he averages more than 3.3/carry I think I'd be surprised.

I think he should be relegated to short yardage/goal line situations at this point in his career, a la Gerald Riggs in '91.

Even if that's true, is there a better short yardage runner in the game today?

SmootSmack · 07-08-2004, 04:00 PM

It's remarkable, though I suppose not surprising, to see teams with Emmitt Smith and Eddie George at the bottom of the rankings. Seems like only yesterday they were the league's elite

07-08-2004, 09:40 AM	#9
cpayne5 Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 3,807	I think the Bills should have been a bit higher. __________________ "It's not about what you've done, but what's been done for you."

07-08-2004, 04:00 PM	#15
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	It's remarkable, though I suppose not surprising, to see teams with Emmitt Smith and Eddie George at the bottom of the rankings. Seems like only yesterday they were the league's elite __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

07-07-2004, 11:01 PM	#1
SmootSmack Uncle Phil Join Date: Feb 2004 Posts: 45,256	FOX Sports: Best RB Packages Skins at #11 http://msn.foxsports.com/story/2555938 __________________ You're So Vain...You Probably Think This Sig Is About You

07-07-2004, 11:31 PM	#2
skinsfanthru&thru Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Richmond, VA Age: 44 Posts: 3,813	I think we should be a bit higher than 11th but Minnesota and St. Louis should be at #1 and #2 with the slight edge going towards Minnesota.

07-08-2004, 12:55 AM	#3
itvnetop Playmaker Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Los Angeles, CA Age: 47 Posts: 3,007	Yeah, if Faulk is healthy, they're pretty damn lethal with Gordon and super-rook Jackson. All three can catch out of the backfield well too.

07-08-2004, 01:58 AM	#4
Carnage Special Teams Join Date: Mar 2004 Posts: 473	I'd say that the Bills and Steelers were seriously underated.

07-08-2004, 02:24 AM	#6
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	wow, the bengals do have a pretty good picture at RB... i wish we kept watson, he's not a superstar, but he's solid... the rankings do seem a bit off (i'd think the saints would be above the iggles, among other things), but i guess 9 of 32 isn't so terrible... considering we were competing for last place before portis came to town

07-08-2004, 04:06 AM	#7
Big C Mr. Brightside Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Leesburg, VA Age: 38 Posts: 4,453	bengals are too high. Rookie backup, and rudi johnson had a decent year, 4.4 or 4.6 average, not quite 1,000 yards, hes a good back dont get me wrong, but i think they are a little too high. I like how the cowboys are so low...hehehe

07-08-2004, 05:34 AM	#8
That Guy Living Legend Join Date: Jun 2004 Location: VA Age: 42 Posts: 17,553	yeah, i agree with the cowboys, and skins at 11, i must of been smoking crack when i said 9, sorry... eeb-kab (error exists between keyboard and brain... old IT dept slang)

07-08-2004, 02:18 PM	#11
saden1 MVP Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Seattle Age: 45 Posts: 10,069	Bills should be a bit higher but who would you move down? I vote for the EAGLES! Who thought it would be this tough to rank running backs?

07-08-2004, 02:20 PM	#12
Big C Mr. Brightside Join Date: Mar 2004 Location: Leesburg, VA Age: 38 Posts: 4,453	Eagles should move down. theyre running backs are overrated. Neither of their running backs are stars, they are solid.

07-08-2004, 03:29 PM	#13
memphisskin Impact Rookie Join Date: Feb 2004 Location: Nashville, TN Age: 53 Posts: 960	I like that we're 11, but I hope we play like top 5. I predict Betts is going to have a big impact, 7-10 tds.

FOX Sports: Best RB Packages

Locker Room Main Forum