Jump to content
  • Welcome!

    Register and log in easily with Twitter or Google accounts!

    Or simply create a new Huddle account. 

    Members receive fewer ads , access our dark theme, and the ability to join the discussion!

     

We're Better Without Stewart


1989

Recommended Posts

It's not so much a J-Stew problem as much as it is a fact of football. Very few running backs can just dominate from the first carry. Most need about 10-15 to really get rolling, and by 20-30, they are running very hard and picking up solid yardage. Make Stew the feature back, and I'm sure you get similar results. Tolbert is our exception because he is just so damn hard to bring down and we use him pretty sneakily at times.

Regardless, that is getting resolved soon, because we're losing one or both of them. I don't care what we do or who is on the field as long as we win.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

It's not so much a J-Stew problem as much as it is a fact of football. Very few running backs can just dominate from the first carry. Most need about 10-15 to really get rolling, and by 20-30, they are running very hard and picking up solid yardage. Make Stew the feature back, and I'm sure you get similar results. Tolbert is our exception because he is just so damn hard to bring down and we use him pretty sneakily at times.

Regardless, that is getting resolved soon, because we're losing one or both of them. I don't care what we do or who is on the field as long as we win.

Healthy?

Williams is better without Stewart

Stewart is better without Williams

And if Tolbert got the chance he would be better without either

All goes back too many RBs isn't a good thing.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Healthy?

Williams is better without Stewart

Stewart is better without Williams

And if Tolbert got the chance he would be better without either

All goes back too many RBs isn't a good thing.

So...you agree? Because that is a shorter version of what I just said. Too many RBs isn't so much the issue as it is too many "true feature backs" is the issue. Most teams have a stable, but that stable usually consists of a feature back with a power back and a scat back as the backups who come in for situation downs.

Dump Stew or Williams, make the remainder "the guy", and you still have Tolbert and Barner (who may or may not find his niche in this offense). Still a good backfield to have, and you get the same/better productivity.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

So...you agree? Because that is a shorter version of what I just said. Too many RBs isn't so much the issue as it is too many "true feature backs" is the issue. Most teams have a stable, but that stable usually consists of a feature back with a power back and a scat back as the backups who come in for situation downs.

Dump Stew or Williams, make the remainder "the guy", and you still have Tolbert and Barner (who may or may not find his niche in this offense). Still a good backfield to have, and you get the same/better productivity.

I've been banging that drum for years.....

Link to comment
Share on other sites

um, there is nothing to judge Barner on at this point...

and Ginn almost turned a KO over

Ginn was pretty much downed. Barner made a stupid decision to let the ball bounce instead of just catching it in the first place.

I've seen more than enough of Barner. He has gotten more oppturtunity than Joe Adams last season. Barner is not the answer. I do not know what the obsession with the kid is all about. Just another Chip Kelly's kid.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ginn was pretty much downed. Barner made a stupid decision to let the ball bounce instead of just catching it in the first place.

I've seen more than enough of Barner. He has gotten more oppturtunity than Joe Adams last season. Barner is not the answer. I do not know what the obsession with the kid is all about. Just another Chip Kelly's kid.

Ginn play was a near disaster.

Barner has 5 rush attempts on runs designed for a FB bruiser into trash piles. That would be like throwing Derrick Anderson out there and give him 5 zone read plays were a throw isn't an option and claiming you have seen enough he sucks as a backup QB

Barner may suck. We haven't been given the chance to see is that is true yet

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Ginn play was a near disaster.

Barner has 5 rush attempts on runs designed for a FB bruiser into trash piles. That would be like throwing Derrick Anderson out there and give him 5 zone read play were a throw isn't an option and claiming you have seen enough he sucks as a backup QB

That's a dumb comparison.

Barner is so unuseful that even the Jets knew we were goin to throw the ball with Barner in the backfield yesterday. The Jets didnt even bite on it.

Quit the Barner talk until he prove something. You wouldn't want to watch Barner's highlights this season as a Panther. Pretty disgusting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

That's a dumb comparison.

Barner is so unuseful that even the Jets knew we were goin to throw the ball with Barner in the backfield yesterday. The Jets didnt even bite on it.

Quit the Barner talk until he prove something. You wouldn't want to watch Barner's highlights this season as a Panther. Pretty disgusting.

Pretty sure i am not doing any Barner talking....

Just pointing out the ones saying he sucks haven't seen enough to claim such

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On paper we're better but that's not really fair to Stewart since he was just knocking off the rust of not seeing any game action for almost a year before he got hurt again. 

 

It is clear that the more opportunities you give DeAngelo the better he gets, so if/when Stewart returns we need to carefully consider how we divide the workload to get the most out of both these guys. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Archived

This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.


×
×
  • Create New...