Don't Cut DW!

[MHS831]

.(

If we're talking which back gives us the best bang for our buck you have to go with DWILL. Even though DWill is 29 he will last much longer than Stew as a feature back. It's well known Stew is injury prone and has been since we drafted him. He only has been healthy for as long as he has because he split carries with Dwill and Dwill got the majority over the years. The last time Dwill went on IR was because of a ankle sprain during a lame duck season. I'm pretty sure he could of came back later that year if the team was actually playing to win. I don't get why it's so hard for CRa and a few others to see that Dwill is way more explosive. The only reason his numbers are so low is because of his limited number of carries per game, dumb play calls and poor o-line. CRA acts like Jstew has been rushing over 100 yards a game all season. I also don't downplay Dwills last game because it was against the worst D in the league. I dont feel like researching, but can anyone tell me how many other backs rushed for over 200 yards against them this season?

Monzta, good points. My position is basically based on a few "stereotypes" by looking into NFL history.

DWill will be on the wrong side of 30 next year. I looked at some productivity charts for some of the biggest names in the NFL at RB--Edge James, and others like him. It was amazing how their numbers dropped after hitting 30. I think we need to look at RB productivity by not referring to what DW has done (he is one of my favorite Panthers all-time), but by what he might do.

I just have devalued the role of a RB in our offense. I think the QB is the primary piece and all 5 offensive linemen are next. Next, WR. I even think TE is more important than RB. Since we live in the era of the salary cap and we have been forced to choose (Marty Hurney), I think we are better off with a stud offensive line (protects Cam, better blocking for RB) and average, efficient RBs than stud RBs behind Hangarter and Bell. Heck, the Packers found a RB selling cars in Florida and he had a great game last week,

Thanks for responding. There is no right answer. While Edgerin James and many others hit the 30 wall, Emmit Smith and Marshall Faulk ran through it.

[panthers55]

.(

Monzta, good points. My position is basically based on a few "stereotypes" by looking into NFL history.

DWill will be on the wrong side of 30 next year. I looked at some productivity charts for some of the biggest names in the NFL at RB--Edge James, and others like him. It was amazing how their numbers dropped after hitting 30. I think we need to look at RB productivity by not referring to what DW has done (he is one of my favorite Panthers all-time), but by what he might do.

I just have devalued the role of a RB in our offense. I think the QB is the primary piece and all 5 offensive linemen are next. Next, WR. I even think TE is more important than RB. Since we live in the era of the salary cap and we have been forced to choose (Marty Hurney), I think we are better off with a stud offensive line (protects Cam, better blocking for RB) and average, efficient RBs than stud RBs behind Hangarter and Bell. Heck, the Packers found a RB selling cars in Florida and he had a great game last week,

Thanks for responding. There is no right answer. While Edgerin James and many others hit the 30 wall, Emmit Smith and Marshall Faulk ran through it.

Part of that is because usually only very good backs make it past 30 without being cut. There is really a decline in production beginning at 26 which for most backs is the same time they are coming off their rookie contracts are a number are not being retained or replaced by younger cheaper guys. Those that make it beyond that are in 2 categories, those who are heavily used and consistent and those who average less than 150 carries. The guys who average fewer carries are actually less productive. The reason is that most guys not productive never make it to 30. Guys who are actually have a history of being very productive end up playing to 32 or 33.

Problems with these studies include the fact that traditionally most teams had 1 back who got all the work meaning that we don't have much data on teams sharing backs like we do. Most teams who employ a 2 back system don't keep both of them beyond their rookie contracts. Secondly, the decline often starts earlier so the decline between 29-30 is not that precipitous. third, productive backs in their late 20s are most likely to stay productive into their early thirties.

[MHS831]

Problems with these studies include the fact that traditionally most teams had 1 back who got all the work meaning that we don't have much data on teams sharing backs like we do. Most teams who employ a 2 back system don't keep both of them beyond their rookie contracts. Secondly, the decline often starts earlier so the decline between 29-30 is not that precipitous. third, productive backs in their late 20s are most likely to stay productive into their early thirties.

Yeah, I thought about the impact having two backs might have. The wear and tear of one back who gets 20 carries over 16 games is a lot of pounding.....Just saw the Chud hiring on TV... Shocker!!!