Warpath

Warpath (http://www.thewarpath.net/forum.php)
-   Redskins Locker Room (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/)
-   -   FOX Sports: Best RB Packages (http://www.thewarpath.net/redskins-locker-room/1703-fox-sports-best-rb-packages.html)

SmootSmack 07-07-2004 10:01 PM

FOX Sports: Best RB Packages
 
Skins at #11

[url]http://msn.foxsports.com/story/2555938[/url]

skinsfanthru&thru 07-07-2004 10:31 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 07-07-2004 11:55 PM

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 12:58 AM

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

skinsfanthru&thru 07-08-2004 01:02 AM

[QUOTE=Carnage]I'd say that the Bills and Steelers were seriously underated.[/QUOTE]

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 01:24 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 03:06 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 04:34 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 08:40 AM

I think the Bills should have been a bit higher.

Drift Reality 07-08-2004 09:37 AM

[QUOTE=Carnage]I'd say that the Bills and Steelers were seriously underated.[/QUOTE]

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 01:18 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 01:20 PM

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

memphisskin 07-08-2004 02:29 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 02:42 PM

[QUOTE=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.[/QUOTE]

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

SmootSmack 07-08-2004 03:00 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


All times are GMT -4. The time now is 06:01 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.7
Copyright ©2000 - 2014, vBulletin Solutions, Inc.
This site is not officially affiliated with the Washington Redskins or the NFL.

Page generated in 0.08844 seconds with 8 queries

Search Engine Friendly URLs by vBSEO 3.2.0 RC5

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 20 21 22 23 24 25