Is this as bad as it sounds?
It is a stat I have not seen reported for other backs. There is nothing to compare it to. It sounds bad, though.On 19.2% of his runs, according to NFL.com, Gordon was stuffed for zero or negative yards.
Is this as bad as it sounds?
It is a stat I have not seen reported for other backs. There is nothing to compare it to. It sounds bad, though.On 19.2% of his runs, according to NFL.com, Gordon was stuffed for zero or negative yards.
It's one of five. Sounds about right for an NFL back, but a little concerning for a back running behind a Wisconsin oline against a full spectrum of college-level run defenses....
That sounds high to me for an NFL back, but, as I wrote above, I have nothing to compare it to.Originally Posted by smuggler
There was no QB on the Badgers who could complete a pass with any consistency. If you want to put 8 in the box and force Melvin to bounce outside good QBs in the NFL will audible to a pass and torch the D. Wisconsin couldn't do that.
But Rodgers leads the league in frumpy expressions and negative body language on the sideline, which makes him, like Josh Allen, a unique double threat.
-Tim Harmston
I hope Gordon has a great career but my sense is that he's over-rated some. He'll be dependent on having a good line to excel in the NFL. Get him some space to get going and he's great. Make him elude a tackler early and he's below average there.
He did have good shuttle times, average 3-cone and a disappointing 40 at the combine. He'll likely improve the 40 at his pro day.
I don't think the Packers will have a chance to draft him, which I'm frankly hoping for because RB is the least of their needs so hopefully someone else drops to them.
Yes, Melvin (and RB Cory Clement) was basically all Bucky had last year. Besides no QB Wisconsin didn't have a decent WR either. Their QB Stave is horrendous. He is a big kid but throws a poor pass and never looks off his receivers. It was a miracle they won as many games as they did.
Is there one RB in the NFL that is good behind a crap Oline?
Swede: My expertise in this area is extensive. The essential difference between a "battleship" and an "aircraft carrier" is that an aircraft carrier requires five direct hits to sink, but it takes only four direct hits to sink a battleship.
Point taken. I'd take Eddy over most in making someone miss in traffic.
Eddie Lacy? I know the composition has changed, but three years ago the Packer O-line was not perceived well in either run blocking or pass protection. Now, it seems to be well thought of for both.
Maybe they weren't as bad as some perceived 3-4 years ago?
Maybe they aren't as good as some see them now?
Maybe a guy like Lacy makes the difference?
That is why its hard to project him. Unless its late game and his team is running out the clock, he won't face 11 in the box with run blitzing like he did versus Ohio State.
Badgers also had tough time with quick D Tackles and gave up a lot of tackles for loss on penetration.
The only way to tell might be to compare him year over year with different interior O line. The Badger O line is not what it once was.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
I think both Lacy and Starks go forward after contact more often than Gordon, though like Starks (unlike Lacy) he usually doesn't take a direct hit. Actually, Starks isn't a bad comparison for running style. A bit upright, great first step. Gordon is better on the edge though. If MG3 could run the zone one cut like Starks, he will do well.
MG3 has more shake too.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Not in my book. I can't predict success in the NFL with any accuracy, but I know that this was the worst combination of QB and receiver (TE included) play I have seen from Wisco since Alvarez turned the corner. More importantly, I am willing to bet that the stat is a product of several games where the OL got worked over badly. This year's OL was not one of their best. Granted, they have a pretty high bar from years past.
I don't recall many instances thinking MG missed a hole. I think he will be a good back, but don't expect him to break NFL records. In today's game RBs just don't matter as much as they used to.
Starks is a very straight line runner in comparison. MG has outstanding vision and takes great angles in tight spaces. Not sure who has better 40 time, but MG sure looks a lot faster on the field. They do both run upright a bit, but MG seems to get low more often and drive the legs when making contact.
Starks' 40 = 4.5
Gordon's 40 = 4.52
And yet, there are games where they can't consistently get a good push up front for Eddie, and he has to do a lot of the work himself. Now, is that the line's fault, or Eddie not always being able to read the holes and cut back lanes consistently?
Do you think a running back can improve his vision, or ability to read and react to running lanes?
"Everyone is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts." -Daniel Patrick Moynihan
Lacy rumbles like a tank once he gets going, but he is a slow starter. He also doesn't have breakaway speed. I see Gordon as a runner with the vision and ability to break tackles of Demarco Murray but with a lot more speed. Any runner is better with a good O Line, obviously. The quality of the O Line makes more difference with a runner like Lacy than with a runner of like Gordon. Bottom line, though, there is no "runner like Gordon" playing football right now. He's the best I've seen since O.J.
Maybe Gordon will be a good one in the NFL, but Wisconsin backs have had too much of a history of being overrated. Still we'll probably get to see him a couple of times a year, in purple.
Fire Murphy, Gute, MLF, Barry, Senavich, etc!
that's just silly. There were several running backs in the Big Ten near Gordon's level.
"Never, never ever support a punk like mraynrand. Rather be as I am and feel real sympathy for his sickness." - Woodbuck
Well, Mike Freeman is on board the Gordon train.
http://bleacherreport.com/articles/2...ext-beast-mode1. "Marshawn Gordon"
If there was one thing I heard repeatedly from scouts I trust while covering the NFL Scouting Combine, it was this: The player who isn't a quarterback who can transform an offense, almost overnight, is Wisconsin running back Melvin Gordon.
Though I tend to think this is smoke from at least one of his sources. Gordon, even if he is viewed as guaranteed to make it big, is more Murray than Lynch.
Bud Adams told me the franchise he admired the most was the Kansas City Chiefs. Then he asked for more hookers and blow.
Not since Barry Sanders.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote