Kenneth Gainwell

That’s nice

See the parts in red and show me where I ever said/claimed/suggested any of this

Or are you arguing with Mac and mistakenly responded to me

I purely and simply stated statistical facts no more no less and one opinion on moving back in the draft

 

Do you really believe gainwell is here to replace harris? Wow.

 

I believe the point was that the roster is weaker than it was a year ago. They lost Harris and all they have added at running back is Gainwell. That is a big net loss.

 

Look at the numbers cited on the thread. Yes, he can. He has been. Ask Jets fans.

 

Sutton has been trash the last two seasons, I don't care what the numbers say I think Echols can be an upgrade.

 

Apple/orange comparison. Majority of Echols snaps were covering outside. Sutton was in the slot.

 

No. He's insurance against injury for Warren. The Steelers will draft a RB.

 

we need slot help and have for years now. having depth capable of playing all over the secondary is a good move no matter what. watts is a guy that can be moved as well but until these younger players get seasoned these types of moves are valuable. just like our new D-lineman, and herbig for the o-line or scharping on the o-line last year, i think gainwell falls into that range too. not your top tier starter but guys that have started and not killed a team. these types are valuable when needed.

 

Fringe guys need to stay on the fringe. If you count on them starting, you are in trouble. The Steelers went into this offseason more cap room than most other teams in the league, yet they are counting on scraps like Echols rather than adding quality starters.

 

Don’t know if it’s happening but it’d be a mistake to go to a run first offense.

Barkley had success because Brady turned all the NFL defenses into pass defenses(put a DB in place of the thumper MLBer, bench a DL and put in a slot corner, draft CBs that don’t have to tackle, etc).

as defenses start to go back to more run stoppers, barley/henry offenses will be less successful.

 

No, I was re-stating my argument to Mac with you because I'd already responded back to him when you entered and mostly reiterated the things that he'd stated earlier that I'd addressed with that response. So I figured we might be here:

 

I would hope not, but I'm citing where we are currently. I didn't think we'd be here waiting on Rodgers to make a decision to know if we have a QB1. I didn't think we'd go into the season last year without picking up a capable WR2. But here we are.

I imagine they're planning on drafting a RB to fill the room. Stresses the draft though considering their needs and no second-round pick. If that falls through they'll have to settle for what's left in FA. That just seems risky. They could have looked at a Dobbins or Chubb (provided medicals checked out). Or, if they prefer less risk, Dowdle was there, or they could have swung the deal the Vikings did for Mason (swapping this year's fifth for their sixth and given them next year's sixth).

All of those backs have shown better production than Gainwell, and are IMO a better compliment to Warren. And they still could have run the same plan heading into the draft

 

as said in many article's, gainwell's game is as a 3rd down back catching passes out of the backfield and his very good blocking ability in pass protection. his rushing is secondary. there will be a better back for those duties. jonathon ward is back and so is shampklin. they seem to like those two. warren will see the biggest amount of snaps and they are looking at several RB's in this draft class. i don't think it stresses the draft at all. jaun thornhill was just signed as some safety depth. sounds like they are bringing loudermilk back as well. he did play better last year. we won't have to draft a WR this year which eliminates that position. looks to me like o-line, QB, RB and probably a young guy added as a DB and DL. RB, QB, DL, and o-line are pretty deep in this draft. so is safety.

 

Ward and Shampkin are practice squad fodder. They need another back.

 

Leave it alone, he's either Najee, Najee's dad, Najee's agent or loves his sub-4.0 ypc RBs that dance east and west until they get tackled.

Najee being durable, that might actually be a con and not a pro thining about it. That means he stays in the game when we need an RB capable of making a big play or converting a 3rd and 5 run or screen.

 

If you want to make a point, perhaps start with showing some respect for the views of those who disagree with you. There are plenty of folks who think highly of Harris, some here and quite a few experts who thought he was an excellent signing for the Chargers. He was held back a great deal by the poor offense around him the last four years, yet was still the only back to play every game in that span and the only back to run for over 1,000 yards every season.

 

Gainwell is not the workhorse replacement for Najee.


Gainwell is a good signing for the RB room. He does all of the things you ask a RB to do and does them well.

What Gainwell does best is move those chains. It may be only 3/4/5 yards but he is good at it. Every team needs that guy.


I'm not comparing Gainwell to Warren or Patterson at this point. Just what he has shown to this point in his career when he's been on the field.

 

hope he just does his last name

 

I agree Warren should have had more carries and more on 1st and 2nd

 

just a glimps.

https://www.endava.com/insights/art...s-of-drafted-players-vs-undrafted-free-agents

https://www.cbssports.com/nfl/news/undrafted-free-agents-making-big-impact-in-nfl/

https://www.nfldraftbuzz.com/articl...-of-NFL-Draft-Picks-and-Undrafted-Free-Agents

 

sort of in a way.

everyone knew we were running 1st 2nd down
hmm hard to say if it would be different
maybe

 

It's undeniable that there's talent in the UDFA pool, but the authors (one of whom in the first article, Major Bottoms, Jr., may have missed their calling in another industry) are making it seem more prevalent than it is. This passage from the CBS article is a good example:

Looking at each statement:

1. That 20% of starters in the league got their start as UDFAs is respectable. But the flip side is that the other 80% is comprised of the approximately 256 players who are drafted each year (this can be drilled down even further, see #2). So, a much larger contingent of starters comes from a much smaller pool - the article notes 622 UDFAs were signed the previous year; there were probably ~2,000 to choose from.

2. That 16% of the UDFAs signed made opening day rosters is also notable, but again, about 55% of the much smaller drafted pool make it as well. Drawing lines there though diminishes the drop-off in retention just within the draft's seven rounds. Practically all first-rounders make their rosters, 90-95% of second and thirds, and 70% of fourth and fifth round picks. In the sixth and seventh rounds things drop off, with only 10-15% making the cut.

3. This is just an error in math or typo. While 98 of 622 is 16%, adding 33 makes it 131 of 622, or 21%.

 

He is not, change of pace back. Will have limited carries.