Kenyan Drake giving it to Mitch

[Solar7]

The Cards made it very clear, (even to the media and the fans) that they were checking the tires on Drake to see if he was going to be a long term solution. That is why the others didn't get much of an opportunity. You could come up with the same argument in the other direction if we traded for Drake, but then played DJ and Chase for those 4 games.

Okay, I should have quoted less of the paragraph, then.

However, over the next four games, all losses, Drake carried the ball 52 times for 170 yards (3.3 ave.) and 0 TDs.

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Okay, I should have quoted less of the paragraph, then.

However, over the next four games, all losses, Drake carried the ball 52 times for 170 yards (3.3 ave.) and 0 TDs.

Again, the Cards were testing out Drake. Maybe they learned what they needed to know about him. Maybe they didn't. Who knows.

They weren't going to know what they had in him, if they give the others the ball.

 

[BritCard]

That's some element, I guess, but at the end of the day, I don't see where Mitch is wrong.

He pretty adeptly points out my biggest issue with Drake:

However, over the next four games, all losses, Drake carried the ball 52 times for 170 yards (3.3 ave.) and 0 TDs. In that interim both Chase Edmonds and David Johnson were now back from injuries, yet Johnson was relegated to 17 carries for 42 yards (2.5 ave.) and 0 TDs and Edmonds, who rushed for 126 yards on 27 carries (4.7 ave.) and 3 TDs versus the Giants in Week 7, was only handed the ball 9 times (16 yards) for the rest of the season.

For some reason, everyone ignores this stretch. He was abysmal. People cut him from fantasy rosters in a year starved for RB production. No, stats aren't the only thing that matters, but he just wasn't a contributor. Then he comes in and steps it up against a reeling Browns team missing their best DL player. I can't complain about his game against Seattle.

We're wasting a pick on a player who might be as good as gone for the money, for three meaningless good games. A player who could be cost controlled over the years, and hopefully develop. If we re-sign him, a 5th. If not, a 6th. No, these picks normally don't pan out, but they definitely sometimes are part of a rotation or special teams that build the belly of the roster. Heck, one of these picks could be a part of a trade up for a better player that will be part of our future.

And now we have a man who wants to get paid above all else.

You can't really pick and choose which games count. His overall production was great.

And let's not forget he did it all while having to cram a playbook, not knowing his team mates, etc etc

No problem with the trade, and neither did Mitch when it was made. He was all over it.

 

[Solar7]

Again, the Cards were testing out Drake. Maybe they learned what they needed to know about him. Maybe they didn't. Who knows.

They weren't going to know what they had in him, if they give the others the ball.

I have no problem with who got the ball, or who didn't. I don't think Drake did a great job with the ball.

You can't really pick and choose which games count. His overall production was great.

And let's not forget he did it all while having to cram a playbook, not knowing his team mates, etc etc

No problem with the trade, and neither did Mitch when it was made. He was all over it.

His overall production sucked. Three good-to-great games mean nothing if in your other five, you were a non-factor. Which he was.

We're arguing about DJ Humphries being mediocre in other threads with the tape to show it... go back and look at Drake in the same light.

Drake's a complementary back, which is fine. It's not how he wants to be paid. I know I've said I wouldn't pay him one or two million, but that's mostly because of how much money we have invested in the position. I don't think he's better than Chase Edmonds, and I'm not a big Edmonds fan.

The guy is getting wildly overvalued.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

Paying one RB top money is a questionable strategy. To throw more money at RB considering all the other major holes would be a ridiculous mismanagement of assets.

Would anyone here throw more than 6M per year to Drake?

 

[dreamcastrocks]

Paying one RB top money is a questionable strategy. To throw more money at RB considering all the other major holes would be a ridiculous mismanagement of assets.

Would anyone here throw more than 6M per year to Drake?

I doubt it. That wasn't the point of the article or our discussion though.

 

[Jetstream Green]

Are we winning the Super Bowl next year, because that's the question if one does not throw decent money at Drake and rather feels a wack need to plug all the holes for this immediate run if you by some strange chance say yes. It's not gong to take DJ stupid money to sign Drake for a few more years... a few more years when DJ is not on the roster and having the cap space then for a legit run if everything with Murray goes as plan, and our defense is up to par

 

[Timm Rosenbach]

I think this tweet says more about “Mitch” than Kenyan Drake

 

[Solar7]

Are we winning the Super Bowl next year, because that's the question if one does not throw decent money at Drake and rather feels a wack need to plug all the holes for this immediate run if you by some strange chance say yes. It's not gong to take DJ stupid money to sign Drake for a few more years... a few more years when DJ is not on the roster and having the cap space then for a legit run if everything with Murray goes as plan, and our defense is up to par

No, we're not winning the SB this year, which is why signing Drake to a contract to be our starting RB is absurd, if you ask me. Make it work with DJ, Edmonds, and a draft pick or cheap 3rd stringer. If that draft pick isn't the long term answer, you shed DJ's contract, and sign or draft a true game changer to pair with Kyler.

It may not take "stupid" money to sign Drake, but it's going to take the kind of contract that all but guarantees he's our starting RB. I don't want to be in a standard Keim situation where we're looking at replacing this guy AND eating the dead money again in a year or two.

Again, that's all based on my opinion that the guy isn't a reliable starting RB, and we have much bigger problems at hand than RB.

 

[wa52lz]

That's some element, I guess, but at the end of the day, I don't see where Mitch is wrong.

He pretty adeptly points out my biggest issue with Drake:

However, over the next four games, all losses, Drake carried the ball 52 times for 170 yards (3.3 ave.) and 0 TDs. In that interim both Chase Edmonds and David Johnson were now back from injuries, yet Johnson was relegated to 17 carries for 42 yards (2.5 ave.) and 0 TDs and Edmonds, who rushed for 126 yards on 27 carries (4.7 ave.) and 3 TDs versus the Giants in Week 7, was only handed the ball 9 times (16 yards) for the rest of the season.

For some reason, everyone ignores this stretch. He was abysmal. People cut him from fantasy rosters in a year starved for RB production. No, stats aren't the only thing that matters, but he just wasn't a contributor. Then he comes in and steps it up against a reeling Browns team missing their best DL player. I can't complain about his game against Seattle.

We're wasting a pick on a player who might be as good as gone for the money, for three meaningless good games. A player who could be cost controlled over the years, and hopefully develop. If we re-sign him, a 5th. If not, a 6th. No, these picks normally don't pan out, but they definitely sometimes are part of a rotation or special teams that build the belly of the roster. Heck, one of these picks could be a part of a trade up for a better player that will be part of our future.

And now we have a man who wants to get paid above all else.

Was he really abysmal? One of those games he was 16-67 4.19 yds a carry vs SF, I think we'd all agree that inst abysmal.

-Tampa 10-35 3.5 ypc against the #1 rush D that gave up 3.3 yds per carry. Of those 10 carries 9 were on first and 10 (10, 4, -6, 0, 3, 4, 0, 0,3) and there was only one drive where he carried the ball more then once, that was the drive that ended with the pick on the TB 8 in the 4th, Drake carried 3 times (17, 0,0). To me it seems like game plan vs a good rush D had more to do with his numbers then him being abysmal.

-LA 13-31 2.38 YPC vs #9 YPC D at 4.1. He had 7 carries over 5 drives before the game was 34-0 @8:28 to go in the 3rd (1, 4, 3, 3, -1, 9, 2). Last 6 carries were spread over the final 21 mins including 4 carries on the last 2 drives (0, 2, 2, 1). Again, to me it seems like his usage and game flow impacted his ability to have a good game, He's getting 1 carry a drive its hard to get things going.

-Pitt 11-37 3.36 vs #3 YPC D at 3.8. He ran the ball 7 times over 4 drives in the first half (5, 0, -1, 4, 2, 2, 10) and four times in the 2nd half over 3 drives (3, 9, 3, 0)

To me that hardly seems abysmal given the quality of the run D's, game planning (TB) and game flow (LA). Like I said above I think its hard to get going getting one carry a drive, when your offense inst doing anything (LA+Pit)

 

[Syracusecards]

Won’t we end up with our draft pick back via compensatory pick if he moves on elsewhere? I don’t see the risk. Without Drake, KK might have still been trying 5 WR combos. Drake gave him a weapon to tweak his offense with and see that a solid running game is possible

 

[Jetstream Green]

No, we're not winning the SB this year, which is why signing Drake to a contract to be our starting RB is absurd, if you ask me. Make it work with DJ, Edmonds, and a draft pick or cheap 3rd stringer. If that draft pick isn't the long term answer, you shed DJ's contract, and sign or draft a true game changer to pair with Kyler.

It may not take "stupid" money to sign Drake, but it's going to take the kind of contract that all but guarantees he's our starting RB. I don't want to be in a standard Keim situation where we're looking at replacing this guy AND eating the dead money again in a year or two.

Again, that's all based on my opinion that the guy isn't a reliable starting RB, and we have much bigger problems at hand than RB.

And of course my opinion he's a game changer in this offense because he did change the outlook of more than one game which was beyond average, so yeah under that pretext my approach makes sense

 

[Solar7]

Was he really abysmal? One of those games he was 16-67 4.19 yds a carry vs SF, I think we'd all agree that inst abysmal.

-Tampa 10-35 3.5 ypc against the #1 rush D that gave up 3.3 yds per carry. Of those 10 carries 9 were on first and 10 (10, 4, -6, 0, 3, 4, 0, 0,3) and there was only one drive where he carried the ball more then once, that was the drive that ended with the pick on the TB 8 in the 4th, Drake carried 3 times (17, 0,0). To me it seems like game plan vs a good rush D had more to do with his numbers then him being abysmal.

-LA 13-31 2.38 YPC vs #9 YPC D at 4.1. He had 7 carries over 5 drives before the game was 34-0 @8:28 to go in the 3rd (1, 4, 3, 3, -1, 9, 2). Last 6 carries were spread over the final 21 mins including 4 carries on the last 2 drives (0, 2, 2, 1). Again, to me it seems like his usage and game flow impacted his ability to have a good game, He's getting 1 carry a drive its hard to get things going.

-Pitt 11-37 3.36 vs #3 YPC D at 3.8. He ran the ball 7 times over 4 drives in the first half (5, 0, -1, 4, 2, 2, 10) and four times in the 2nd half over 3 drives (3, 9, 3, 0)

To me that hardly seems abysmal given the quality of the run D's, game planning (TB) and game flow (LA). Like I said above I think its hard to get going getting one carry a drive, when your offense inst doing anything (LA+Pit)

I do appreciate the breakdown.

We can make all of the excuses that we want... he didn't produce. I'd be all on board with this if the majority of his games were great, but they weren't. I don't know what else to say here besides that if you want to break down these plays and make excuses, I could fundamentally go break down each play in his good games and tell you why they weren't on him playing well. (To be clear, I do think he was playing well in those games, but I could mention big holes on each play, give credit to the line, etc.)

I just have a hard time accepting that he didn't play well because he played against good defenses or his offense wasn't going. That's kinda his job - to play well against good teams, to play well and provide a spark when others aren't. That's functionally the knock on the team as a whole - outside of the Seahawks, we only won against teams that were in complete disarray. That doesn't make us good.

 

[DVontel]

Ending the season with 5.2 YPC on 123 attempts & 8 TDs despite “not producing” is absolutely fascinating.

 

[Chris_Sanders]

Changed his avatar to the Cardinals. He is staying

 

[GatorAZ]

Congrats @Mitch you’re famous.

 

[ASUCHRIS]

I doubt it. That wasn't the point of the article or our discussion though.

Perish the though of adding *gasp* another idea!

 

[Solar7]

Ending the season with 5.2 YPC on 123 attempts & 8 TDs despite “not producing” is absolutely fascinating.

Jonas Gray and his 201 yard, four touchdown game say hello. Just like Kenyan Drake's production this year. And that's considering we had Chase freaking Edmonds run for 100 yards and 3 TDs in a game.

You're doubling down on a guy who has had 4 seasons to prove himself, but has provided five 100 yard rushing games in 62 active games. You blame it all on Gase, but he had 7 games without Gase to prove himself this season. He didn't. No one wanted him - for a reason. The production just isn't there. The people who disregard his history and think that he's better now, for some unclear reason, are basically living this Simpsons moment:

You must be registered for see images attach

 

[Solar7]

This also mirrors the discussion about Kliff Kingsbury. It boils down to saying that he wasn't very good before, but here's a bunch of excuses for him, and why he's going to be good now because he's ours.

I can't believe there's even an argument about these guys not being able to win or produce on the field because they're secretly really really good and it's someone else's fault that they didn't do their jobs.

 

[DVontel]

Jonas Gray and his 201 yard, four touchdown game say hello. Just like Kenyan Drake's production this year. And that's considering we had Chase freaking Edmonds run for 100 yards and 3 TDs in a game.

You're doubling down on a guy who has had 4 seasons to prove himself, but has provided five 100 yard rushing games in 62 active games. You blame it all on Gase, but he had 7 games without Gase to prove himself this season. He didn't. No one wanted him - for a reason. The production just isn't there. The people who disregard his history and think that he's better now, for some unclear reason, are basically living this Simpsons moment:

You must be registered for see images attach

Isn’t Drake’s former franchise the same franchise that didn’t want a DPOY candidate up in Pittsburgh?

We’re beating a dead horse with Gase. I’ll keep it short. I think he’s a pathetic coach & person. Just like he did with Tannehill, Jarvis, & Parker, he’s going to hold back Darnold. I wish you would also see that. But I cannot change your mind for you.

You’re the only person that would ever say that’s not “good production”. This is also the fact he did it without knowing the full playbook.

I don’t know what else, man.

 

[slanidrac16]

That's some element, I guess, but at the end of the day, I don't see where Mitch is wrong.

He pretty adeptly points out my biggest issue with Drake:

However, over the next four games, all losses, Drake carried the ball 52 times for 170 yards (3.3 ave.) and 0 TDs. In that interim both Chase Edmonds and David Johnson were now back from injuries, yet Johnson was relegated to 17 carries for 42 yards (2.5 ave.) and 0 TDs and Edmonds, who rushed for 126 yards on 27 carries (4.7 ave.) and 3 TDs versus the Giants in Week 7, was only handed the ball 9 times (16 yards) for the rest of the season.

For some reason, everyone ignores this stretch. He was abysmal. People cut him from fantasy rosters in a year starved for RB production. No, stats aren't the only thing that matters, but he just wasn't a contributor. Then he comes in and steps it up against a reeling Browns team missing their best DL player. I can't complain about his game against Seattle.

We're wasting a pick on a player who might be as good as gone for the money, for three meaningless good games. A player who could be cost controlled over the years, and hopefully develop. If we re-sign him, a 5th. If not, a 6th. No, these picks normally don't pan out, but they definitely sometimes are part of a rotation or special teams that build the belly of the roster. Heck, one of these picks could be a part of a trade up for a better player that will be part of our future.

And now we have a man who wants to get paid above all else.

Oh boy. So I guess if a running back doesn’t run for 125 yards a game every game he’s a bum. Let’s not take anything else into consideration like falling behind by 20 points and needing to abandon the run.

84,82,44,100,78,28,90,75, 63 =644 yards in the first 9 games of the year. You know who’s stats these are?

Derrick Henry.

drops the mic.

 

[slanidrac16]

I do appreciate the breakdown.

We can make all of the excuses that we want... he didn't produce. I'd be all on board with this if the majority of his games were great, but they weren't. I don't know what else to say here besides that if you want to break down these plays and make excuses, I could fundamentally go break down each play in his good games and tell you why they weren't on him playing well. (To be clear, I do think he was playing well in those games, but I could mention big holes on each play, give credit to the line, etc.)

I just have a hard time accepting that he didn't play well because he played against good defenses or his offense wasn't going. That's kinda his job - to play well against good teams, to play well and provide a spark when others aren't. That's functionally the knock on the team as a whole - outside of the Seahawks, we only won against teams that were in complete disarray. That doesn't make us good.

He’s back. The P.O.D. Aka, the prophet of doom...

 

[Solar7]

Isn’t Drake’s former franchise the same franchise that didn’t want a DPOY candidate up in Pittsburgh?

We’re beating a dead horse with Gase. I’ll keep it short. I think he’s a pathetic coach & person. Just like he did with Tannehill, Jarvis, & Parker, he’s going to hold back Darnold. I wish you would also see that. But I cannot change your mind for you.

You’re the only person that would ever say that’s not “good production”. This is also the fact he did it without knowing the full playbook.

I don’t know what else, man.

Jarvis had his best seasons under Gase. He was a good player then, and a good player now. Parker's "ascension" came with the same staff Kenyan Drake had the opportunity to play for, and didn't do anything with. Tannehill, sure. Drake is a role player, a role player with history.

Oh boy. So I guess if a running back doesn’t run for 125 yards a game every game he’s a bum. Let’s not take anything else into consideration like falling behind by 20 points and needing to abandon the run.

84,82,44,100,78,28,90,75, 63 =644 yards in the first 9 games of the year. You know who’s stats these are?

Derrick Henry.

drops the mic.

Ah, yeah, let's ignore that he had 8 TDs rushing and receiving in those nine games, and more than 100 yards receiving.

Henry had 3 games under 70 yards rushing, one being 69, in 15 games. He was a consistent factor. Drake had 11 in 14. He was not a consistent factor.

Kenyan Drake is a complementary player, simple as that. He was at Alabama, he was with the Dolphins, he is that here.

 

[Buckybird]

I think Walters post is almost dead on. That last game in Seattle when he kept flipping the Manziel $$$ signs “I’m going to the highest bidder”. I can’t blame the kid because this is his 1 shot at payday!!! I just don’t think you can back the Brinks truck up for a pretty much average RB that’s not elite & that also has played well for “a handful of games” during his career. Would I pay him $4 mil for 3 years? Probably, but if Drake wants a longer commitment & more ca$h, I say see ya. I really can’t put to much faith in Keim doing the right thing based on his history.

Solar I’m agreeing with you as well for the most part, so stop the presses lol.

 

[BritCard]

I have no problem with who got the ball, or who didn't. I don't think Drake did a great job with the ball.


His overall production sucked. Three good-to-great games mean nothing if in your other five, you were a non-factor. Which he was.

We're arguing about DJ Humphries being mediocre in other threads with the tape to show it... go back and look at Drake in the same light.

Drake's a complementary back, which is fine. It's not how he wants to be paid. I know I've said I wouldn't pay him one or two million, but that's mostly because of how much money we have invested in the position. I don't think he's better than Chase Edmonds, and I'm not a big Edmonds fan.

The guy is getting wildly overvalued.

There are only 3 games he had poor numbers. Steelers, Rams and Bucs.

All of which have very good D lines and simply proves what I've been saying about our O line not being able to run block vs good D lines.