Only 2 run for Warren vs Falcons

He is statistically up in that discussion... but only because he gets a top 3 workload. He's a volume/stat stuffer, and the ONLY thing he has that he does better than average is statistics. I am cool disagreeing, because I just don't see anything redeeming in his game. He's just wildly mediocre just like Edmunds was. Definitely not a massive bust or anything, just not at all what we hoped for. It appears our coaches and FO feel pretty similarly to me (except we picked up Edmunds' 5th year and not Najee's, so maybe they liked Terrell more than Naj).

If Najee doesn't land in a perfect spot this offseason (good team that is willing to give him the volume he needs to put up decent numbers) I wouldn't be all that surprised if the next couple years of Najee's career look a lot like Terrell's. All it takes is a year where he isn't the feature back and going 150 carries for 560 yards and 2 TD's, the following year will see less usage and then a RB 3 who doesn't play ST's is just done. Cut.

I expect we will find someone in the draft or someone much cheaper in FA that is just as good. We won't miss him.

 

1. We picked up Terrell's 5th year option and then let him walk. We didn't pick up Harris' option and seem poised to let him walk. This is a bad example from you because it makes my argument not yours.
2. We haven't seen Harris play on another team. That team will have not invested a first round pick in him, so they are less likely to put up with his normal 3.nothing YPC as long as we did
3. I'd love to play against a team that had Harris as their lead back. Our defense would have a fine time against him. I'd expect a vintage 13 carry 45 yard "Najee special".

 

Well said. We are lacking a legitimate 3rd WR, hoping Roman pans out. How did you think Muth played? I think we need more out of him.

 

LoL. So you are arguing hypothetical against my real what has actually happened. LoL GREAT argument. LoL.

 

He played well

If Fields would have thrown to him more when he was open he would have been better

 

Not really.

1. We -in reality- picked up Terrell Edmunds 5th year option, and -in reality- offered him a 1 year contract to come back for year 6 which he declined to join the Eagles. We passed on Najee's option, and haven't offered him a deal yet. You essentially argued against yourself here.
2. I mentioned that we haven't seen Harris on another team, so we don't know if he will get cut or not... was this really a point? There is no way to argue against this without it being hypothetical.
3. Since you said "we picked on Edmunds when we played him", again we have yet to play a game against a team with Harris on it (since, you know, he is still on our team). There is also 0 way to argue this without it being hypothetical.

You can't make two points that can't be argued with anything other than hypotheticals, then try to dunk on me for arguing a hypothetical.

 

I am sure we will look for a trade around the deadline if our season is looking good. Denver might be more willing to deal Sutton at the deadline after losing a bunch of games. Adams is another one that might be on the move.

 

It's simple don't argue if You can only do it Hypothetical. I didn't. What I said actually happened.....not some fantasy You have made up.
But hey spin it as You like.....Be you.

 

Showcase Harris for the trade deadline.
Bank it.

 

Yeah, because guys will be lining up to get trucked by Najee like AJ Terrell did .

 

Oh man, Najee trucked a 190 lb corner! Linebackers and D-Linemen alike are shivering in fear...

 

He has done the same to Myles Garrett

 

if we are .500 or below, then yes - maybe.

 

Your opinion fails to take into account many of the factors that have affected Harris's production. It ignores the poor offensive line play. It ignores the poor quarterback play. It ignores the incompetent offensive coordinator. Yes, has the advantage of volume, but he also has all of those disadvantages holding down his numbers.

You are also ignoring some of his other strengths. One is ball security, an area where he has a big edge on just about every runner in the league, including Warren. Another is the way he has performed in the biggest moments. He has played his best games late in seasons when the team was fighting for playoff berths. Look what he did against the Raiders and Ravens at the end of the 2022 season. Look at how he finished in 2023. When Warren had to spend most of that rainy night in Baltimore on the bench because he couldn't hold on to the ball, Harris ran for 112 yards and caught five passes for 21 more.

The comparison of the way the team handled their fifth-year options is invalid and misleading for two reasons. One is that it was Colbert making the decision in the case of Edmunds, Khan doing it with Harris. Both were players drafted by Colbert. Do I need to explain why that matters?

The other reason is the positions they play. Safeties have longer careers than running backs, so fifth-year options, extensions, and second contracts are more likely to pay off.

Edmunds had one strength. Durability. He was well below average and almost never made a big play. Seriously, other than the time the Broncos left him open on a safety blitz, can you think of a clutch play Edmunds made?

No, they are most definitely not the same guy.

 

Harris has never averaged something that could be characterized as "3.nothing" yards per carry. He averaged 3.9 yards per carry in a bad offense as a rookie. He averaged 3.8 per carry in his second season, mostly because he played half the year with a foot injury that slowed him considerably. He averaged 4.1 per carry in 2023.

If you have to start making up false statistical information to sell your point, that makes it very likely you are wrong.

 

With an eye on the future, they might also be looking to develop some of those other running backs. They didn't take Najee's 5th year, so they have to be thinking about that. I also suspect that Warren is not 100%.

 

Patterson is 33. I doubt developing him is a factor.

 

You just said what I meant though? "3.nothing" is a figure of speech was meant to show that he averages less than 4 yards per carry... which is a very low average for a runner that is considered a "good" player by most around the league. It wasn't an indication that I somehow believe that he averages 3.0 YPC when I have his actual stats at my fingertips. His first and second years in the league he had averages below 4, and his career average is below 4. It's not like he had a statistically anomalous season that pulled his career average down either. The only statistical anomaly is the two uncharacteristically large games he had to finish 2023 that prevented him from yet another sub 4 average season (as he was yet again under 4YPC in 2023 going into week 17 at 3.96 YPC) as he ended the season with 4.05 YPC. Harris is a career 3.nothing back... It's who he is and who he will continue to be. He's also been a 1,00 yard back... and he will be again, if we give him a high enough volume to get it. It should take about 260 carries to get there.

I said a figure of speech term and you somehow twisted it to mean something else, then attacked what you assigned its meaning to. That isn't what I meant. I'm certainly not making up false statistical information like you imply.

 

1. Yes, these are true. Football is a team game and a lot of things can affect performance of a single individual player. It goes both ways too though, right? Would you not conclude that Edmunds' usage in the box and in the slot as a higher determining factor as to why he didn't make as many plays as someone like Minkah? He was specifically utilized to do the things we didn't want Minkah to have to do, which freed him up to be the playmaking ball hawk that he is. Look at last season when we had a more "playmaker" style player in Kazee next to Minkah. It forced Minkah to have to do a lot more work in the box and in the slot, which limited his opportunities for turnovers and massive plays. It isn't to imply that sacks or TFL's aren't big plays, but they don't stick out like the flashy interception.

2. Yes, ball security is a strength... but it isn't nearly as important as vision, explosion, receiving out of the backfield, etc. It isn't a massively huge issue to me since Warren prior to the Ravens game fumbled at a less than average clip for NFL RB's. Its not like we have a guy with a massive fumbling issue and comparing it to the ball security of LeVeon Bell. Its certainly nice to have, but I'd rather have a better back that fumbled a little bit more. As for the big game thing... they are all big games. It is certainly nice that 4 of his career 6 100 yard games have come in the final 2 weeks of the season across his career, but we might be in a situation where we have the playoffs clinched before weeks 17 or 18 had he run for 100 yards in week 6 instead of taking 13 carries for 38 yards like he's so prone to do. You also conveniently leave out his postseason record, where he has a career 24 carries for 66 yards, 4 receptions for 14 yards, and 0 TD's... These are the BIGGEST games, and he's been invisible each time.

3. Yes, the options are handled by different GM's, this is true. I don't think it is misleading or invalid to point out that one option was picked up and one wasn't though... Again, lots of other things at play (positional depth, cost of player, cap space, etc.), but it isn't an intentionally misleading statement. Its just what it is.

4. This is also true, however... the big time backs get those contracts. Henry, McCaffrey, Chubb, Barkley, Taylor, all these dudes got their big payday from their team because their play on the field warranted it. Harris' simply hasn't. We could've had Harris for 7 million on a one year deal. That would make him the 11th highest paid RB in AAV. We very obviously don't think he is a top 11 back (and tbh we probably don't think he's especially close, since a slight overpayment is often acceptable when dealing with one of your own), which you seem to imply that he easily is.

5. Yes, durability is a strength. Its a lesser strength (like ball security), and far less preferable than coverage ability, ball skills, tackling ability, etc.... but a strength nonetheless.

6. I guess this is better worded as "same caliber". They aren't the same guy, but they are certainly similar caliber players when looking at each of their careers in Pittsburgh. Mediocre to below average players at their respective positions that were (and will be in Harris' case) all too easy to replace.

 

Barkley didn't get his big payday from his team; he got his in free agency .

 

No, 3.nothing implies that his average is closer to three than four. It's like the line from Rudy. "You're five-foot-nothing! 100 and nothing (pounds)!" It doesn't imply that the guy is 5-11, 199 pounds, which would have been decent size for some positions at the time. The use of 3.nothing does not accurately reflect what Harris has done. It is not an attempt to portray him accurately.

The worst part of your argument is implying that his best games somehow don't count. That Harris has played his best when the games count the most, when the team is fighting for a playoff berth, is a good thing not a negative.

 

1. That isn't a bad point about Fitzpatrick, but his lack of big plays last season weren't just due to him playing more in the box. He played a significant part of the season with a broken hand. The lack of health cut until his playmaking ability, too. Box safeties do still have opportunities to make big plays. Edmunds almost never made them. He has terrible ball skills. Even when he is in the right position, he never seems to make the play in coverage.

2. You are underestimating ball security, especially the ability to do it in poor weather conditions. In case you didn't notice, the Steelers play outdoors and often in poor weather.

3. Whether it is intentional or not, the statement was misleading due to the difference in the positions and that different general managers were making the moves.

4. There is a lot of room between elite and mediocre. That Harris isn't quite on a level with McCaffrey, Henry, Chubb, Taylor or Barkley does not make him mediocre. He is still among the top 10 in the league.

5. I wasn't pointing to Harris's durability as a big factor, though it was an issue Sunday when he was ready to go at 100 percent and Warren was not. I was simply pointing out the one strong attribute Edmunds has in his favor.

 

It really doesn't man, again, its a figure of speech. It isn't an attempt to portray anything. I'm 5'10'' and been called "5 foot nothing". I am sorry that your interpretation of my words skews the way you see them, but that isn't my fault. Its yours.

I also never argued that it was bad. Actually my exact words were "It is certainly nice that 4 of his 6 career 100 yard games have come in the final 2 weeks of the season across his career". Not sure why you are claiming otherwise when it is literally in writing that I said the opposite of what you claim I did. The whole point that I am trying to make is that it would be nice if our former First-Round Pick RB had more than a single digit number of good games across his 54 career games played, but that just isn't the world we live in.

 

No, it is the reasonable way to interpret 3.nothing. Maybe you didn't intend for it to be misleading, but it is.

In the past and in this discussion, you have raised the idea that he averaged under 4.0 yards per carry for the season if you remove those one or two games, which is silly. Those games count. If anything, they are more important.

If you think the number of good games he has had is in single digits, I strongly question your judgement on the topic.

 

1. Health had something to do with it for sure, but he is best in the open field and he was asked to do a lot more than that due to our personnel. I consider Kyle Dugger to be an elite box safety and he has 9 picks, 2.5 sacks, 3 FF, and 17 TFL and is in his 5th year. Edmunds has 6 picks, 7.5 sacks, 1 FF, and 17 TFL and is in his 7th year (5 of which he was a starter). Again, Dugger makes more plays, but there is a limited capacity due to the role they play.

2. No, I'm not. Things like running vision, the ability to break loose if you hit a big run, efficiency in your carries, blocking, etc. all are way higher on the list of things to have. Ball security is nice, but to act like it is more important than things that actually pertain to being a good back is wrong. Its also not like he never fumbles either. He's fumbled 6 times in his career. Again, he's had a ton of carries, so he fumbles a good bit less than average, but its not like he's an iron trap either.

3. It isn't. It is a factual statement that was made to show correlation between how two player's options were handled. You took it as a misleading one, but it isn't. It is just what happened.

4. He isn't. If he were a top 10 back, we'd be happy to pay him the 11th highest salary in the league on a one year deal. We chose not to. I don't think we view him as anywhere near a top 10 back, and we are correct in our assessment. His volume makes him look better statistically than what he puts on the field. Even the NFL media (of which I think he gets a bit overrated by) consistently rank him outside the top 15 backs in the league (some outside the top 20). His stats make him look like a good back, but the film doesn't. The people who rank him by his abilities and not his stats view him as a bottom half starter in the league. That is truly what he is. I agree that there is a considerable amount of room between elite and mediocre, Najee just doesn't exist in that space. I'd consider someone who is starting quality, but a bottom tier starter to be a "mediocre" player. That is where I would have ranked Terrell Edmunds during his time as a Steeler, and its exactly the same boat that Najee is in currently...

5. Fair enough.