Jump to content

Brian Billick said Devonte Freeman is best all around RB in NFL right now, needs to be a 350 touch guy


gazoo
 Share

Recommended Posts

2 hours ago, Factz said:

It's not about the stats, i can very easily process how a NT helps the defense without putting up stats, heck i can process how Levine Toilio helps the offense when he's on the field.

I'm simply showing you that the notion that Leonard Hankerson had anything but a minimal effect on the offense is simply crazy. Just about anyone reciever could've stepped into the offense and did what Leonard Hankerson did last year. That's why he can't hold down a job, he's as replaceable as it gets.

You guys are severely overrating any impact he had. You can try and throw out insults and talk high and mighty about not understanding the process and making a fool of yourself, when in reality that's quite the irony.

It's actually one of the most simpleton things I've read here in awhile by folks who should know better.....Hankerson goes down, Falcons start losing, it must be Hankerson. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 325
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

27 minutes ago, HEIST said:

And ftr I agree that Hank's role in our offense is important but not important enough to cause the dramatic shift that we saw. If he was that guy, I think we would've happily paid him his cheap salary rather than throwing a ton of money at Sanu. He wasn't in our future plans.

 

Like.. the offense was actually scary good those first few weeks of the season. I doubt it'll reach that level with Sanu who is a better player than Hankerson and should play that role better at the least. Was just a lot of overachieving going on in general.

 I understand how you would feel that way but the offense did shift without him in the lineup. It had nothing to do with his hands just his presence in knowing the offense vs a roddy that didn't know the offense and was no longer the roddy of old.

 

Look at the 5-0 start with Hank vs the 3-8 remainder without him? A #2 that simply knows what he's doing and at least forces the defense to respect him on the field changes the way your #1 is played. In other words roddy was never doubled anymore because you could single cover him while Julio was bracketed by 3 guys. Makes a huge difference when the field is cut in half for your qb.

 

Having Sanu will open the field up again. I don't believe for one second an offense with Julio Jones is overachieving. It hasn't since Matt was a rookie so why did it last year? Again, it wasn't about his hands  it's about the presence on the field. These numbers were definitely affected by the drop off in #2 play.

 

Most of Matt's int's came from targeting Roddy so that in itself says they weren't on the same page. At least Matt and Hank were. And sometimes a player gets old af in one year. Maybe after he was hurt he just lost the desire to play or lot it or both. 

image.jpeg

Link to comment
Share on other sites

5 minutes ago, gazoo said:

It is utterly painful to see some posters unable to grasp, while insisting they do grasp, the simple concepts laid out before their eyes in such masterfully detail in the previous pages.

 

What concepts have been laid out that prove Hankerson is the guy you claim he is?
There is absolutely no logical information that can be posted to prove Hankerson himself had such a big impact on the offense.

The importance of the WR2 spot in this offense is clearly evident, but the importance of Hankerson is not.

If Hankerson himself was anywhere near the player you think he is, and is capable of having anywhere near the impact you think he had last year, then he wouldn't find himself on the brink of never playing another down in the NFL at the age of 27. Bottom line.

And if you can't see that then i really don't know...

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, HEIST said:
49 minutes ago, TheFatboi said:

 I understand how you would feel that way but the offense did shift without him in the lineup. It had nothing to do with his hands just his presence in knowing the offense vs a roddy that didn't know the offense and was no longer the roddy of old.

 

Look at the 5-0 start with Hank vs the 3-8 remainder without him?

image.jpeg

You guys tickle me with this concept..,,

 

Not sure why you were comparing 1st 5 games with last 11, Hankerson was hurt halfway in game 7.....also, 4 of first 5 games were against woeful NFCE, a conference with a collective record of 26-38. Finally, wheels were coming off before Hank went down, even when winning, as evidence by loss against a bad New Orleans  defense and ecked out 10-7 win against woeful Titans ....,,.

hank was let go by Falcons, let go by patriots, and now let go by bills. A WR won't last in nfl if they can't catch the football. Hank was one of the worst WRers in football last year....

 

Edited by Vandy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

14 minutes ago, gazoo said:

It is utterly painful to see some posters unable to grasp, while insisting they do grasp, the simple concepts laid out before their eyes in such masterfully detail in the previous pages.

 

It's utterly painful to see some posters not only not grasp, but take to their dying graves even when proven wrong, Leonard hankerson's exaggerated value to Falcons offense 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

55 minutes ago, TheFatboi said:

 I understand how you would feel that way but the offense did shift without him in the lineup. It had nothing to do with his hands just his presence in knowing the offense vs a roddy that didn't know the offense and was no longer the roddy of old. Look at the 5-0 start with Hank vs the 3-8 remainder without him? A #2 that simply knows what he's doing and at least forces the defense to respect him on the field changes the way your #1 is played. In other words roddy was never doubled anymore because you could single cover him while Julio was bracketed by 3 guys. Makes a huge difference when the field is cut in half for your qb. Having Sanu will open the field up again. I don't believe for one second an offense with Julio Jones is overachieving. It hasn't since Matt was a rookie so why did it last year? Again, it wasn't about his hands  it's about the presence on the field. These numbers were definitely affected by the drop off in #2 play. Most of Matt's int's came from targeting Roddy so that in itself says they weren't on the same page. At least Matt and Hank were. 

I wasn't impressed with Roddy last year (on or off the field) so I can see where you're coming from. And to a point I agree, but there were more parts to it than losing Hank. 

I do believe the offense was overachieving a good bit. I mean we had a cobbled together OLine, a journeyman-esque guard playing center for the first time, and despite that a RB that many on here had disregarded as JAG starts busting off 3 TD performances. We were averaging over 30 points a game during that time. Very hard to do over the course of a season without transcendent QB play. Cam (MVP season... they also overachieved a bit. It'll be really hard to repeat 15 wins regardless), Brady, Rodgers, Brees, Manning are the only ones to pull this off in the last 5 years. But Matt wasn't very special with 6 TD and 4 INT in that span. As the season went on you started to see some regression back to the mean (Outside of Julio who was always gonna be ridiculous in this offense). Now that we've upgraded to a true center and a better #2, the offense should be more consistent if anything.

Edited by HEIST
Link to comment
Share on other sites

58 minutes ago, Vandy said:

It's actually one of the most simpleton things I've read here in awhile by folks who should know better.....Hankerson goes down, Falcons start losing, it must be Hankerson. 

Name one person that has said Leonard Hankerson is the ONLY reason for the Falcons offensive struggles and I'll call you a liar. I'm dead serious. None one person has said Hankerson is THE reason the Falcons offense went to crap. Not one. But he's one of the many long list off issues that reared up. I blows my mind how a good poster like you can revert to this kind of **** posting.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Falconsfan567 said:

Name one person that has said Leonard Hankerson is the ONLY reason for the Falcons offensive struggles and I'll call you a liar. I'm dead serious. None one person has said Hankerson is THE reason the Falcons offense went to crap. Not one. But he's one of the many long list off issues that reared up. I blows my mind how a good poster like you can revert to this kind of **** posting.

Speaking of ******** posting....Where did I say anyone Said Hankerson was the ONLY reason?

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

33 minutes ago, Vandy said:

 

We beat 2 playoff teams in that 5-0 start. Is that better? So 2 out of the 5 teams we beat were playoff teams. One of them was the woeful NFCE champion redskins that we had to win with an OT int. Y'all tickle me about records. That means jack in the NFL because on any given Sunday you can lose.

 

Regardless of who we played look at the points per game we put up? And then look at the 3-8 points per game?  And some of those loses were against teams whose records were as good or worse than the "woeful" nfce opponents. Until one of you can come with a reason that makes sense for the offensive fall then I'll oblige. Until then men lie...women lie...numbers don't. And the numbers say the offense was more effective WITH hankerson than without. PERIOD!!!

 

Prove me wrong and I'll shut up!! You can't. Because there is no combination of numbers AFTER him that says we played at the same output. It's really simple bro. And nobody is saying that dude is the sole reason but Tha fact of the matter is there wasn't anybody BEHIND him to take pressure off Matt and Julio. Prove me wrong in that theory as well????????????

 

Hardy was learning the playbook, Roddy wasn't sh*t last year, Hester was hurt, Williams was too slow and small, Weems, same thing. What other wr did we have that could BOTH stretch the field and draw coverage away from Julio????????? Forget all the black n white. I'm talking about the chess match of football. When you meet me in the middle there you'll understand where I'm coming from. 

 

ANY of you prove me wrong?? With numbers backing you up!! Cause I can GUARANTEE coaches noticed this issue. They just ain't gonna say it on the media because it would undermine the rest of the wr's. There is an X's and O's game going on that's more than what you see on tv and at the game. Was Dallas the same without Dez? We're we the same when Roddy had that high ankle sprain? HD did his thing but he still ain't Roddy because Roddy presented a different kind of threat. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

46 minutes ago, Falconsfan567 said:

So you're post that I quoted isn't saying that? Sure reads that way.

Nope. What I have said and continue to say is how the loss of Hankerson has been greatly exaggerated both as to the Falcons slide after our fast start and more to the point of this thread, why Freeman's YPC production went south 2nd half of year. Hank was IMO awful even when we were winning. 

Did it have some impact in our passing game? Sure, but not  because of a fried roddy replacing bad- hands Hank....roddy did as well as Hank did, contrary to what all the navel gazers around here thinks.... but  more because hardy was not ready to step up behind Roddy. That's the production we lost in passing game.....we did not have a competent #3 WR anymore 

But that drop off is not why offense went as bad as it did .... that was clearly (to me) more a QB who no longer had the good running game masking his struggles in the scheme more  than it was a #2 WR issue .....

 

 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

2 minutes ago, Vandy said:

Nope. What I have said and continue to say is how the loss of Hankerson has been greatly exaggerated both as to the Falcons slide after our fast start and more to the point of this thread, why Freeman's YPC production went south 2nd half of year. Hank was IMO awful even when we were winning. 

Did it have some impact in our passing game? Sure, but not  because of a fried roddy replacing bad- hands Hank....roddy did as well as Hank did, contrary to what all the navel gazers around here thinks.... but  more because hardy was not ready to step up behind Roddy. That's the production we lost in passing game.....we did not have a competent #3 WR anymore 

But that drop off is not why offense went as bad as it did .... that was clearly (to me) more a QB who no longer had the good running game masking his struggles in the scheme more  than it was a #2 WR issue .....

I don't disagree that there were issues that had a greater impact than losing Hank. The center position also got worse too. So many of these fumbles are blamed on Ryan when they were the results of bad snaps. Also didn't help there was a spike in penalties and the fumble issues of the running backs suddenly popped up too. There were a ton of reasons for the sudden drop off in offensive production in addition to Ryan just stinking it up at times. But the thing is Ryan's play went from solid to terrible or vice versa in the same game. The Colts game is a good example of that. For 3 quarters he played great and then pissed the bed in the 4th quarter and gave the game away.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

1 hour ago, TheFatboi said:

We beat 2 playoff teams in that 5-0 start. Is that better? So 2 out of the 5 teams we beat were playoff teams. One of them was the woeful NFCE champion redskins that we had to win with an OT int. Y'all tickle me about records. That means jack in the NFL because on any given Sunday you can lose.

 

Regardless of who we played look at the points per game we put up? And then look at the 3-8 points per game?  And some of those loses were against teams whose records were as good or worse than the "woeful" nfce opponents. Until one of you can come with a reason that makes sense for the offensive fall then I'll oblige. Until then men lie...women lie...numbers don't. And the numbers say the offense was more effective WITH hankerson than without. PERIOD!!!

 

Prove me wrong and I'll shut up!! You can't. Because there is no combination of numbers AFTER him that says we played at the same output. It's really simple bro. And nobody is saying that dude is the sole reason but Tha fact of the matter is there wasn't anybody BEHIND him to take pressure off Matt and Julio. Prove me wrong in that theory as well????????????

 

Hardy was learning the playbook, Roddy wasn't sh*t last year, Hester was hurt, Williams was too slow and small, Weems, same thing. What other wr did we have that could BOTH stretch the field and draw coverage away from Julio????????? Forget all the black n white. I'm talking about the chess match of football. When you meet me in the middle there you'll understand where I'm coming from. 

 

ANY of you prove me wrong?? With numbers backing you up!! Cause I can GUARANTEE coaches noticed this issue. They just ain't gonna say it on the media because it would undermine the rest of the wr's. There is an X's and O's game going on that's more than what you see on tv and at the game. Was Dallas the same without Dez? We're we the same when Roddy had that high ankle sprain? HD did his thing but he still ain't Roddy because Roddy presented a different kind of threat. 

Sure, on any given Sunday you can lose, but it's not the same, and you know it. Let's not play games, we got off to a fast start against some weak teams. We got exposed as season wore on when competition got better and we didn't/couldn't adjust. 

You're right, numbers don't lie, but it's how you evaluate them is where you and I disagree.....because those numbers  say the same  with C Mike person when he got injured as they did with WR Hank, even more so....

i understand fully where you are coming from my friend, I'm just saying you and the gang are overstating the Hank  case ....he was awful, the 'bad' things that came later were coming with or without him 

Amd as  far as what coaches know, what we know is Quinn et al let Hankerson go, as did belechick's pats, and now have the Rex Ryan bills. All 3 teams in desperate need of WRers let him go....  something tells me the coaches who actually make a living  evaluating players  don't think much of him either. Sorry, but to me that 'proves' Hank's value more than anything you or I can argue over.  You're a smart football guy, but we all overthink some of this stuff, and I'm still gonna go with them in evaluating Hankerson over a poster here. 

 

 

Edited by Vandy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

28 minutes ago, Falconsfan567 said:

I don't disagree that there were issues that had a greater impact than losing Hank. The center position also got worse too. So many of these fumbles are blamed on Ryan when they were the results of bad snaps. Also didn't help there was a spike in penalties and the fumble issues of the running backs suddenly popped up too. There were a ton of reasons for the sudden drop off in offensive production in addition to Ryan just stinking it up at times. But the thing is Ryan's play went from solid to terrible or vice versa in the same game. The Colts game is a good example of that. For 3 quarters he played great and then pissed the bed in the 4th quarter and gave the game away.

I agree, it was a culmination of several factors as you've outlined. Never was a Joe Hawkey guy, but letting him go was a head scratcher that came back to bite them (Quinn/shanny/TD) later on in season. 

Back to the thread, I also think freeman wore down as season went on was a huge factor, which is why I think Teco sharing carries with free will be huge. But more than anything, when this scheme begins to  clicks in  MR's head this offense will be dangerous again. 

Edited by Vandy
Link to comment
Share on other sites

I do not agree with 300+ touches. That said, I do believe that he should get 2/3rds of the carries. Even watching just one week of preseason it is pretty obvious that Freeman is the work horse and Coleman is the show pony.

Nothing wrong with show ponies. They can fly, and they look pretty doing it. However, for the grunt work, your gonna want to ride that workhorse.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

4 hours ago, Factz said:

What concepts have been laid out that prove Hankerson is the guy you claim he is?
There is absolutely no logical information that can be posted to prove Hankerson himself had such a big impact on the offense.

The importance of the WR2 spot in this offense is clearly evident, but the importance of Hankerson is not.

If Hankerson himself was anywhere near the player you think he is, and is capable of having anywhere near the impact you think he had last year, then he wouldn't find himself on the brink of never playing another down in the NFL at the age of 27. Bottom line.

And if you can't see that then i really don't know...

That's the entire point. Hankerson isn't anything special, but he played a role that is very important to us. When he went down we had no speed outside JJ, which crippled us. Nobody thinks Hankerson is some amazing player, but his role is, and when we lost that it hurt us. Why do you think we brought in so many WR's with speed this offseason? It's no coincidence. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

7 hours ago, falcndave said:

I do not agree with 300+ touches. That said, I do believe that he should get 2/3rds of the carries. Even watching just one week of preseason it is pretty obvious that Freeman is the work horse and Coleman is the show pony.

Nothing wrong with show ponies. They can fly, and they look pretty doing it. However, for the grunt work, your gonna want to ride that workhorse.

300 plus touches is not a lot. 300 touches is only 18.75 touches per game. That's not a lot for a running back that is used as much in the passing game as Freeman. I mean if you say 15 carries and 4 receptions that's only 19 touches. If you get Coleman 10 carries and 3 receptions that's only 13 touches. That's 32 touches per game combined. I want to see more use out of our running backs. I don't want Matt Ryan throwing it 600 plus times in 2015.

The average NFL offense gets around 60 offensive snaps per game. I want to get back to no more than 30 pass attempts per game for Ryan. ideally we'd throw it 25 times per game and rush it 35 times per game. That's winning football. Since 2008 the Falcons are a perfect 14-0 when Matt Ryan attempts 25 or fewer pass attempts per game. They're 28-4 when he attempts 30 or fewer passes per game. On the other end of the spectrum they're a lousy 15-31 when Ryan attempts more than 40 passes in a game. Less is more!!

BTW, just to show the difference in level of play, the Patriots are 38-21 when Tom Brady attempts more than 40 passes in a game. Tom Brady has proven that he can still be highly successful when throwing it that many times per game. Matt Ryan has proven that he cannot be successful when throwing it that many times per game. Give me 30 or fewer pass attempts per game and we're going to win a lot of football games!!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

24 minutes ago, Falconsfan567 said:

300 plus touches is not a lot. 300 touches is only 18.75 touches per game. That's not a lot for a running back that is used as much in the passing game as Freeman. I mean if you say 15 carries and 4 receptions that's only 19 touches. If you get Coleman 10 carries and 3 receptions that's only 13 touches. That's 32 touches per game combined. I want to see more use out of our running backs. I don't want Matt Ryan throwing it 600 plus times in 2015.

The average NFL offense gets around 60 offensive snaps per game. I want to get back to no more than 30 pass attempts per game for Ryan. ideally we'd throw it 25 times per game and rush it 35 times per game. That's winning football. Since 2008 the Falcons are a perfect 14-0 when Matt Ryan attempts 25 or fewer pass attempts per game. They're 28-4 when he attempts 30 or fewer passes per game. On the other end of the spectrum they're a lousy 15-31 when Ryan attempts more than 40 passes in a game. Less is more!!

BTW, just to show the difference in level of play, the Patriots are 38-21 when Tom Brady attempts more than 40 passes in a game. Tom Brady has proven that he can still be highly successful when throwing it that many times per game. Matt Ryan has proven that he cannot be successful when throwing it that many times per game. Give me 30 or fewer pass attempts per game and we're going to win a lot of football games!!

Spot on post. My only comment is I hope Coleman proves his worth so much he gets half those touches. What an awesome 1-2 punch that would be!

Link to comment
Share on other sites

On 8/8/2016 at 0:15 PM, Vandy said:

You hope. Last year, he did 33/400/-0- (as in zero) TDs.....11.9 YPC, same as Roddy's.....

doubt any of that production that "threat" strikes fear into any opposing D

Yes but look at the YAC Vandy.... Sanu was better than Julio.......

Roddy White      Rec 43  Rec Yds 506   YAC 111  YAC % 2.6

Mohamed Sanu      Rec 33  Rec Yds 394    YAC 210  

  YAC % 6.4

Julio Jones       Rec 136 Rec Yds 1,871 YAC 679     YAC % 5.0

Link to comment
Share on other sites

3 minutes ago, GTBF54 said:

Yes but look at the YAC Vandy.... Sanu was better than Julio.......

Roddy White      Rec 43  Rec Yds 506   YAC 111  YAC % 2.6

Mohamed Sanu      Rec 33  Rec Yds 394    YAC 210  

  YAC % 6.4

Julio Jones       Rec 136 Rec Yds 1,871 YAC 679     YAC % 5.0

Pretty impressive GTB, but still could be misleading based on such a small number of catches. 

For the record, I'm not anti-Sanu, I'm hopeful he will be an upgrade over hankerson/Roddy as our #2......I've seen him actually have some monster games (such as when he replaced Green in 2014 and averaged 100 YPG during a 5 game stretch)...he's a big, strong possession type receiver who can block that  I think would fit into this offense well......,just hard to understand why he never was able to put it all together in Cincy........  

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Just now, Vandy said:

Pretty impressive GTB, but still could be misleading based on such a small number of catches. 

For the record, I'm not anti-Sanu, I'm hopeful he will be an upgrade over hankerson/Roddy as our #2......I've seen him actually have some monster games (such as when he replaced Green in 2014 and averaged 100 YPG during a 5 game stretch)...he's a big, strong possession type receiver who can block that  I think would fit into this offense well......,just hard to understand why he never was able to put it all together in Cincy........  

I completely agree. That's where I stand on Sanu as well.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

21 hours ago, Vandy said:

It's actually one of the most simpleton things I've read here in awhile by folks who should know better.....Hankerson goes down, Falcons start losing, it must be Hankerson. 

Except that's not the full story. 

Is it really more simpleton than "Leonard Hankerson is a flawed player therefore he can't play a valuable role in an offense?"

Crappy players make a huge positive difference all the time. 

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share


×
×
  • Create New...