Ray Rice versus Marshall Faulk and others

**Tucking** · 09-28-2011, 04:20 PM

Originally Posted by HoustonRaven

Who is saying Rice is not an elite RB?!?!

i was the first to state Rice was just as good as Faulk through his current age and better than Westbrook. I brought this up cuz a couple of Posters where saying Westbrook was one of the best weapons in the NFL during his time and that Rice is not considered one of the best weapons in the NFL today. Im getting ragged on by pretty much everybody for saying Rice is better than Westbrook ever was and compared him to Faulk instead of other RBs. Luke then comes in and saves the day with all the stats and what not and people shut up haha. gotta love the good ol sunspot

**LukeDaniel** · 09-28-2011, 04:37 PM

Originally Posted by Tucking

i was the first to state Rice was just as good as Faulk through his current age and better than Westbrook. I brought this up cuz a couple of Posters where saying Westbrook was one of the best weapons in the NFL during his time and that Rice is not considered one of the best weapons in the NFL today. Im getting ragged on by pretty much everybody for saying Rice is better than Westbrook ever was and compared him to Faulk instead of other RBs. Luke then comes in and saves the day with all the stats and what not and people shut up haha. gotta love the good ol sunspot

The sad part with that board is that even after you throw a zillion statistics at the nitwits there showing them exactly how wrong they are, they change their tune and go with the whole "stats aren't everything defense". I won't claim to be as good at grading players as FilmStudy, but I do spend a lot of time researching all areas of sports (hobby of sorts) and that has made me pretty darn good at reciting stats and various facts. It seemed like I was, to use a Biblical term, casting my pearls before swine over there.

**somedumbguy** · 09-28-2011, 04:46 PM

From a yardage standpoint, Rice is on a comparable pace with Faulk. Will he have Faulk's longevity, who knows...

However, we live in an age where opinions of football players are shaped by ESPN highlights and fantasy football stats and Faulk with the greatest show on turf was a touchdown machine. I hope I am wrong on this, but I doubt Rice will ever have 18 rushing TD's in a year like Faulk did. Faulk also had an ability to make people miss in the open field that was not quite Barry Sanders, but still jaw dropping and great for weekly highlights. Rice make people miss, gains a ton of yards, but very rarely makes a safety break their ankles in a way that makes you wonder if he is triple jointed.

All this being said, Rice has the ability to put together multiple seasons where he has over 2000 yards from scrimage. He has already done it once, which was one more than Faulk had at this point in his career, and I am glad as hell he is a Raven.

**somedumbguy** · 09-28-2011, 04:49 PM

Originally Posted by Tucking

i was the first to state Rice was just as good as Faulk through his current age and better than Westbrook. I brought this up cuz a couple of Posters where saying Westbrook was one of the best weapons in the NFL during his time and that Rice is not considered one of the best weapons in the NFL today. Im getting ragged on by pretty much everybody for saying Rice is better than Westbrook ever was and compared him to Faulk instead of other RBs. Luke then comes in and saves the day with all the stats and what not and people shut up haha. gotta love the good ol sunspot

At this point in his career, Rice is certainly a lot more durable than Westbrook. It always seemed like he was injured, even in his best years.

**LukeDaniel** · 09-28-2011, 05:29 PM

Originally Posted by somedumbguy

However, we live in an age where opinions of football players are shaped by ESPN highlights .

Overall, excellent post. I would, however, disagree with this one statement.

I think we live in an era that defined moreso than ever by the sabermatician/stathead. Blyleven's induction proves that. Sports fans seem to form more of their opinions off of data and less off of that vague "eye test" that was used in the past. I don't know too many people who even watch Sports Center anymore. The media's influence on the minds of America is at an all-time low. There are media avenues like this one where we can discuss football with no needed assistance from media members. We, as sports fans, don't need to be told who is better than who. We have the resources to do that on our own.

There was a time no more than 10 years ago, when Lynn Swann got into the HOF because of his highlight reels made on the biggest stage and due in no part whatsoever to his statistical accomplishments (which were very run-of-the mill). Those days are likely gone for good.

Go and look at Harold Jackson and Stanley Morgan's stats sometimes and compare them side-by-side to those of Swann. It's embarrassing that Swann is in and those two are not. Yet, that was the era that existed even just a decade ago. Media controlled what we believed. The average fan in Omaha Nebraska might never have heard of Morgan or Jackson. Meanwhile, a far inferior WR in Swann is being mentioned as a potential HOFer just because of his blind luck in playing for a dynasty. Fantasy football has actually helped in this area. It's given a window for us as fans to appreciate the statistical brilliance of someone like Andre Johnson---a dominant player on a team that has yet to appear in the playoffs. It allows us to appreciate Maurice Jones-Drew even though he toils for (perhaps) the least visible NFL team. I think the average fan needs the media less and less to know who's good and who isn't. I think there is also so much data out there right now that the "I know more than you because I'm a media member and you aren't" type of Mike Preston "journalists" can't get away with their ridiculousness nearly as easily as they could in the past.

**LukeDaniel** · 09-28-2011, 05:31 PM

Originally Posted by somedumbguy

At this point in his career, Rice is certainly a lot more durable than Westbrook. It always seemed like he was injured, even in his best years.

Westbrook had 1200 yards from scrimmage through his age 24 season. Rice, not even including his 13 games remaining this year, already has 400% more than that amount. There's simply no comparison between the two.

**#1 Jets Fan** · 09-28-2011, 06:33 PM

Originally Posted by LukeDaniel

Westbrook had 1200 yards from scrimmage through his age 24 season. Rice, not even including his 13 games remaining this year, already has 400% more than that amount. There's simply no comparison between the two.

Did you think that right off the top of your head.:) Sorry couldn't help myself...:)

**alienrace** · 09-28-2011, 06:50 PM

Originally Posted by LukeDaniel

Nobody with their head on straight.

There were a lot of people on the Sun message board who said getting Rice a new contract shouldn't be a priority because he was not an every-down back and was not an elite back. Some people compared him to a lesser version of Brian Westbrook (laughable idea). I posted this just to show exactly what he's accomplished here in 3 1/4 years. As Ravens fans, we might be watching one of the all-time greats.

You have to realize that the Sun boards are just littered with trolls anymore at this point.

**BigBob** · 09-28-2011, 07:10 PM

Here is an interesting fact I came across today:

RB Ray Rice ranks fourth in the NFL with 409 total yards from scrimmage. He has amassed 23 games of at least 100 total yards since 2009, which leads all players in the NFL.

One additional thought: McFadden leads the NFL with 477 total yards on 72 touches (6.5 YPT). Rice has 409 on 54 touches (7.6 YPT).

**goodandfast** · 09-28-2011, 08:54 PM

Originally Posted by #1 Jets Fan

I'm not saying he doesn't know his stuff but this is the internet and it very easy to look up stuff.

But despite that ease, very few people are actually willing to do it. When you put in the effort to compile stats, etc. you not only have a very academic understanding of the game (meaning you engage the game in a way that is more than observational) but you are also able to provide very real insight that is no less valid than getting paid by ESPN to do the same thing. In fact, because the individual is doing it for his own enjoyment as opposed to for a paycheck, it is likely more valid than anything a major network would pay for.

**The Excellector** · 09-28-2011, 09:08 PM

In a way, I feel bad for Maurice Jones-Drew, who I do think is a better runner than Ray Rice. However, since he is currently stuck in Jacksonville, he will not get the accolades that he deserves. Ray Rice is certainly the best all-purpose RB in the league right now. Then, I would say that he is a top 3 runner.

**goodandfast** · 09-28-2011, 09:17 PM

Originally Posted by LukeDaniel

Overall, excellent post. I would, however, disagree with this one statement.

I think we live in an era that defined moreso than ever by the sabermatician/stathead. Blyleven's induction proves that. Sports fans seem to form more of their opinions off of data and less off of that vague "eye test" that was used in the past. I don't know too many people who even watch Sports Center anymore. The media's influence on the minds of America is at an all-time low. There are media avenues like this one where we can discuss football with no needed assistance from media members. We, as sports fans, don't need to be told who is better than who. We have the resources to do that on our own.

There was a time no more than 10 years ago, when Lynn Swann got into the HOF because of his highlight reels made on the biggest stage and due in no part whatsoever to his statistical accomplishments (which were very run-of-the mill). Those days are likely gone for good.

Go and look at Harold Jackson and Stanley Morgan's stats sometimes and compare them side-by-side to those of Swann. It's embarrassing that Swann is in and those two are not. Yet, that was the era that existed even just a decade ago. Media controlled what we believed. The average fan in Omaha Nebraska might never have heard of Morgan or Jackson. Meanwhile, a far inferior WR in Swann is being mentioned as a potential HOFer just because of his blind luck in playing for a dynasty. Fantasy football has actually helped in this area. It's given a window for us as fans to appreciate the statistical brilliance of someone like Andre Johnson---a dominant player on a team that has yet to appear in the playoffs. It allows us to appreciate Maurice Jones-Drew even though he toils for (perhaps) the least visible NFL team. I think the average fan needs the media less and less to know who's good and who isn't. I think there is also so much data out there right now that the "I know more than you because I'm a media member and you aren't" type of Mike Preston "journalists" can't get away with their ridiculousness nearly as easily as they could in the past.

I agree with what you are saying in principle, though I think that you maybe miscast the average (casual) fan in too positive a light (in terms of football knowledge). The average fan, IMO, continues to absorb whatever ESPN releases as gospel, however, the stathead football fan is new and enjoys a growing population. I would suggest that people like you and me and many other posters here who take a real interest in the game as a phenomenon (ie. a vested interest in the intricacies therein) are not your average fan. Your average fan, IMO doesn't finish out a Fantasy Football season when they start losing because they aren't willing to do that leg-work.

I agree that they need the media less, however I would argue that despite that, the average fan still relies on the media for their sports information just as the average citizen relies on the media to form their political opinions. In both cases, the data is available, the question is who cares enough to study it for themselves?