Quote:
Originally Posted by Raider_Demon
I dont understand how these guys rate players on such obvious opnion based analyisis. Like this qoute " his body type isn't ideal for his position in the professional ranks " 6' 2 and 210 isnt a suitable body type for a runningback ? Last time I checked that was pretty much the dycast for a RB in the NFL. How long has he been in the NFL ? 1 year I belive and he suffered a injury in the first part of the season. Hype far exceeds the results. How many rookies make it the first year out. 1 in 100 , 1 in 200.
You're looking at a slightly bigger and tougher Reggie Bush. McFadden is a more capable NFL runner, especially in this offense, and he may not catch quite as many passes, but risk is high because of injury concerns and inconsistent performances. DO they actually pay these guys for this. They sound like politicians. Contradictions galore. It never amazes me how little fact and more opinion these analysis are.
|
How is he off? You can be 6'2'' and 210 and have all the weight in your gut. Fact is, he has thin legs for a RB, and runs upright. His injury risk is higher because of that. It's probably where they get the Reggie Bush comparisons, because they're both really fast, can catch it out of the backfield, and always injured
Not to mention his feet look like they've been stuck in a meet grinder and roasted over an open flame, according to teammates and coaches last year.
He's a 4th round FFB RB because of the risk factor, in addition to the fact that the Raiders don't score many TD's. I feel the analysis is pretty spot on.