ThisHis ascension up the depth chart has more to do with the quality of the roster than his talent.
ThisHis ascension up the depth chart has more to do with the quality of the roster than his talent.
Different players. Mack is a pure runner. A plugger. Not a receiver. Clement is fine outta the backfield.Mack is a decent NFL RB. Better than having Clement who is just a utility back.
Did he have an average number of carries? This is a dishonest argument. There are probably 50 RBs that are about equal. The Cardinals had Conner and....no one else really.I am going to semantics this a bit. He is a replacement level player with no real upside. Not a top 64 RB in the league. He had 84 yards rushing last year in 8 games which was 132nd in rushing yards. That doesn't equate to average.
True, but he is an actual NFL RB who has broken the 1000 yard mark in his career at least. The same cannot be said for many NFL backs.His ascension up the depth chart has more to do with the quality of the roster than his talent.
Absolutely. Mack is a decent NFL back up, but more of an old school RB. Clement has value as a utility player.Different players. Mack is a pure runner. A plugger. Not a receiver. Clement is fine outta the backfield.
I believe carries are allocated by talent. If he couldn't earn them on two teams last year, it is likely that he just isn't that talented. Could he get more yards with more carries...probably. But that doesn't make him "average". He is just a guy who has a proven track record of being just a guy.Did he have an average number of carries? This is a dishonest argument. There are probably 50 RBs that are about equal. The Cardinals had Conner and....no one else really.
True, but he is an actual NFL RB who has broken the 1000 yard mark in his career at least. The same cannot be said for many NFL backs.
Sort of. Sometimes it's other things like knowing the scheme.I believe carries are allocated by talent.
Are you 100% familiar with both situations? I'm not.If he couldn't earn them on two teams last year, it is likely that he just isn't that talented.
Which is more than like 50% of the backs in the league. He should help some.Could he get more yards with more carries...probably. But that doesn't make him "average". He is just a guy who has a proven track record of being just a guy.
The Tanner Vallejo of RBs part II.Sort of. Sometimes it's other things like knowing the scheme.
Are you 100% familiar with both situations? I'm not.
Which is more than like 50% of the backs in the league. He should help some.
Tanner Vallejo never had a season equivalent to Mack's 1000 yard season. Let's not be ridiculous.The Tanner Vallejo of RBs part II.
Mack's 1000 yard season was three years ago. This will be the 4th season since. The team that he did it for let him go. He isn't that player anymore. He is the equivalent of Tanner Vallejo right now. Replacement level, veteran player with no upside.Tanner Vallejo never had a season equivalent to Mack's 1000 yard season. Let's not be ridiculous.
OMG this is ridiculous. I wasn't wrong on Williams either. He was fine last year until he was put on injured reserve.Krang on Darrell Williams
I wasn't bullish on the Cardinals RB room prior to this move, but I think Williams can spot start and produce quality reps off the bench.
The alternative is unproven players....so this is a good move.
###
Tanner Vallejo of RBs is better than the Johnny Rutledge of RBs.
I usually respect your comments, but you're way off base. This is a guy who stole a ton of snaps from a 1st round back.
###
I do as well and I find it comical how even decent signings around here get massive scrutiny.
He's signing to be a vet backup. He has a ton of experience.
###
Dude, you are making the same argument for Marlon Mack that you made for Darrell Williams. That decent, vet backup with experience who netted 102 yards on 21 attempts. Don't fall for the same trick twice.
Call me when Tanner Vallejo even approaches a 100 tackle season. Stop. You're being silly.Mack's 1000 yard season was three years ago. This will be the 4th season since. The team that he did it for let him go. He isn't that player anymore. He is the equivalent of Tanner Vallejo right now. Replacement level, veteran player with no upside.
"I wAsN't WrOnG oN wIlLiAmS." In 6 games he averaged 3.5 carries and 17 yards per game. Totally fine. Exactly the numbers you want your vet RB to get with all of the experience he brings. Come on.OMG this is ridiculous. I wasn't wrong on Williams either. He was fine last year until he was put on injured reserve.
The amount of scrutiny for back up players on this board is maddening.
Next scrub up.xc_hide_links_from_guests_guests_error_hide_media
Williams was mostly hurt last year."I wAsN't WrOnG oN wIlLiAmS." In 6 games he averaged 3.5 carries and 17 yards per game. Totally fine. Exactly the numbers you want your vet RB to get with all of the experience he brings. Come on.
Not praise. Just saying it's better than adding a reject from West Texas A&M. Geebus you are cranky.&
Probably as maddening as the praise for replacement level NFL signings in August.
Well it’s a good thing we signed someone durable like Mack instead!Williams was mostly hurt last year.
lol...no, the backup RB didn't produce, and got hurt. Lets not revise history. Williams was ineffective for 6 games, and got hurt making him unavailable for the rest. He was never a solid or decent or any type of productive player for the Cardinals.Williams was mostly hurt last year.
"ErMaGhErD, tHe BaCkUp Rb WhO gOt HuRt DiDnT puuuurdouce!$@_#
Not praise. Just saying it's better than adding a reject from West Texas A&M. Geebus you are cranky.
What is decent and average to you?lol...no, the backup RB didn't produce, and got hurt. Lets not revise history. Williams was ineffective for 6 games, and got hurt making him unavailable for the rest. He was never a solid or decent or any type of productive player for the Cardinals.
And when it comes to players like Williams and Mack, "decent" and "average" is praise.