PDA

View Full Version : Toby Gerhart Thread (Read First Post Before Replying)


Pages : [1] 2 3

Shane P. Hallam
01-24-2010, 02:06 PM
Last shot here. We obviously had some issues with the last one. So, a couple of ground rules. These will be ZERO TOLERANCE. Anyone breaking these rules will automatically get a ONE WEEK SUSPENSION. If you can't do it, don't post in here.


Rules:

1. No talk of race. No white this or black that. Discuss Gerhart's merit as a football players. Discuss his statistics, his abilities, his talent, etc. This has nothing to do with the color of his skin. ANY mention of Gerhart or another prospect's race (even as a joke, tongue in cheek, or in seriousness and in good taste,) will be met with one week suspension. I don't care if you are a Team Leader or have one post, it is what it is. You can sit the week out.

2. Don't feed the trolls. Yes, there will be people who register just to try and stir stuff up in this thread. The procedure for this is:
1. Report the Post
2. Ignore it
Don't even quote their post. Don't reply to it. Don't call them names. Even if you reply to a trolls post to tell them how wrong they are, you'll be suspended. Just report and ignore.


Honestly, this a serious deal, and any joke about it won't be taken lightly. Just be on task. If you have questions, PM me. Don't ask here. Don't be a smart ass about it.

tjsunstein
01-24-2010, 02:27 PM
I think he's a second rounder based on talent alone but will fall to the third because of his tweener size/speed.

Am I doing it right?

bored of education
01-24-2010, 02:29 PM
Top 10 pick.

Babylon
01-24-2010, 02:32 PM
I think he's a second rounder based on talent alone but will fall to the third because of his tweener size/speed.

Am I doing it right?

Not sure how he's a tweener. He's 6ft and 235-240. I dont think that is anything but a big back. Speed at that size should be at least average for the NFL.

He's he going to be at the Senior Bowl? havent seen any definitive list.

tjsunstein
01-24-2010, 02:37 PM
Not sure how he's a tweener. He's 6ft and 235-240. I dont think that is anything but a big back. Speed at that size should be at least average for the NFL.

He's he going to be at the Senior Bowl? havent seen any definitive list.

I have speed in there too. I'd be interested in what his timed speed is gonna be. I know someone is gonna say it doesn't matter (Shonn Grenne) but scouts look at it regardless of game film.

EvilNixon
01-24-2010, 02:44 PM
Top end speed and getting through the hole isn't very impressive. Runs upright,but very powerful. late 2nd-mid 3rd IMO.

Babylon
01-24-2010, 02:44 PM
I have speed in there too. I'd be interested in what his timed speed is gonna be. I know someone is gonna say it doesn't matter (Shonn Grenne) but scouts look at it regardless of game film.

If he can run a mid 4.5 at the combine he is going to be right there with guys like Beanie Wells, Lyndale White and Matt Forte.

I have him pencilled in at the #38 pick in Seattle but it's possible he could go earlier. Philly and Detroit would make sense.

Shane P. Hallam
01-24-2010, 02:47 PM
Not sure how he's a tweener. He's 6ft and 235-240. I dont think that is anything but a big back. Speed at that size should be at least average for the NFL.

He's he going to be at the Senior Bowl? havent seen any definitive list.

Hasn't been added yet. There is 1 RB/FB spot left though.

Babylon
01-24-2010, 02:52 PM
Top end speed and getting through the hole isn't very impressive. Runs upright,but very powerful. late 2nd-mid 3rd IMO.

You're right he doesnt have the top end speed but he explodes through a hole.

RaiderNation
01-24-2010, 03:03 PM
Gerhartzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I see him getting picked in the 3rd or maybe 4th. Can be a good power back

brasho
01-24-2010, 03:06 PM
If Eddie George was a 1st round pick, I would think Gerhart should at least b3 a 2nd rounder.

Any reason why Gerhart was removed from the rankings as a HB and onto the rankings as a FB? I don't know that his game would translate well as a RB... though it may have helped out Stephen Davis earlier in his career (a move to FB), I see a lot more Eddie George in him than I do Tommy Vardell.

coordinator0
01-24-2010, 03:13 PM
Top end speed and getting through the hole isn't very impressive. Runs upright,but very powerful. late 2nd-mid 3rd IMO.

Reading that reminds me of Jamal Lewis.

Babylon
01-24-2010, 03:16 PM
Gerhartzzzzzzzzzzzzzz

I see him getting picked in the 3rd or maybe 4th. Can be a good power back

He wont get by the Seattle pick in the second round. I have my sources:)

Babylon
01-24-2010, 03:17 PM
I keep seeing Don Meredith in my mind singing "turn out the lights the party's over".

Sorry wrong thread.

critesy
01-24-2010, 03:24 PM
brandon jacobs minus the height difference.

Babylon
01-24-2010, 03:26 PM
brandon jacobs minus 4 inches. (height wise you sickos)

Dont start down that road, we'll all get in trouble.

niel89
01-24-2010, 04:43 PM
I'm glad that you made some rules so that this topic can be properly talked about.

I really hope he goes to the senior bowl. It would be a great opportunity to compete with some really talented players.

I think that he can also benefit greatly with some good nfl coaching. They can teach him to run a little lower, maybe have him drop a little weight to be more explosive. I think that he can really be a player in the nfl.

Unbiased
01-24-2010, 04:58 PM
Doesn't make sharp-enough cuts to be a featured back in the NFL in my opinion. I think he'll be a power back and get picked around the 3rd round, similar to LenDale White and Michael Bush.

FUNBUNCHER
01-24-2010, 05:14 PM
Gerhart won't make it out of the 2nd round at the latest; his intangibles and work ethic make him the type of player that makes GMs fall in love.

I think it's widely considered that Gerhart is a MUCH better pro prospect than former Cardinal RB Tommy Vardell, (although Vardell ran a 4.48 predraft), still Vardell was the NINTH pick overall in the 1992 draft!!
Huge bust...

Gerhart IMO goes between picks 25 and 50, easily.

And won't bust.

Babylon
01-24-2010, 05:20 PM
Gerhart won't make it out of the 2nd round at the latest; his intangibles and work ethic make him the type of player that makes GMs fall in love.

I think it's widely considered that Gerhart is a MUCH better pro prospect than former Cardinal RB Tommy Vardell, (although Vardell ran a 4.48 predraft), still Vardell was the NINTH pick overall in the 1992 draft!!
Huge bust...

Gerhart IMO goes between picks 25 and 50, easily.

And won't bust.

Correct me if i'm wrong but #38 (Seattle) is between 25 and 50 so good call.

Halsey
01-24-2010, 05:21 PM
I wouldn't bet on Gerhart being a great NFL RB. Yeah, he's big, strong and physical, but so were Ron Dayne and TJ Duckett. He will need to contribute well as a blocker and pass catcher to have a long NFL career.

tjsunstein
01-24-2010, 05:27 PM
I wouldn't bet on Gerhart being a great NFL RB. Yeah, he's big, strong and physical, but so were Ron Dayne and TJ Duckett. He will need to contribute well as a blocker and pass catcher to have a long NFL career.

I was going to bring up TJ Duckett. But, TJ Duckett was about 20 pounds heavier. In terms of style, I see Gerhart similar to Duckett's.

FUNBUNCHER
01-24-2010, 05:31 PM
Ron Dayne made it to the NFL and decided he didn't like to get hit. I can't tell you how many times playing for the Giants he fell down going through the hole because his head was down anticipating a hit.
I have no idea why Duckett didn't become a feature RB after he left Atlanta. Joe Gibbs wasted a 3rd rounder trading for him because he wasn't going to unseat Portis.

In another thread someone first brought up the Eddie George comparison; mid 4.5 speed, excellent vision, upright running style.
A little bit taller/heavier than Gerhart, but to me that's Toby's brother from another mother, ( because as far as I know they're not related!! Don't pinch me Shane!)

No injuries and I would not be surprised if TOby eclipsed 1000 yards rushing his rookie year.

RealityCheck
01-24-2010, 06:27 PM
Will not go past Houston in Round 2.

myinnerself
01-24-2010, 08:04 PM
I like the Michael Bush comparison, that seems right to me.

wordofi
01-24-2010, 09:57 PM
I think Toby Grehart is overrated. He's just big and can run over a few people.

CLong4Heisman
01-24-2010, 10:06 PM
New England trades up in the early second round and takes Toby.

SF Dolphin Fan
01-24-2010, 10:32 PM
I like him, but have a few concerns. He runs high and doesn't get to the edge very quickly. But if a team is looking for a between the tackles guy, you've got to love his ability to pick up those tough yards. He smart, tough and has a lot of heart. As far as what round, I think possibly late 2nd/early third.

ThePudge
01-25-2010, 01:07 AM
Toby Gerhart - RB - Stanford
6'1e 235e 4.55e

The Toby Gerhart discussion project. I love talking about him, and it's helped me form a really powerful opinion on him as a college player and NFL prospect. I like the guy, I thought he was the most deserving Heisman Trophy candidate, I think he'll be a good NFL player, and I think if you put him in a situation where he's taking 20-25 carries a game, then he can be a 1000-1200 yard back. The problem is, current NFL trends don't point to Gerhart getting that chance to be an every down feature back. No matter who you are, it's tough not to question Toby's ability to break the big run and it's tough not to question his ability as a receiver out of the backfield.

Those looking for a sugar-coated, 100% positive evaluation of Toby Gerhart (or of any prospect) are better off looking elsewhere. I think he's a high round selection, a Running Back prospect first and foremost, and if he lands in the right situation, I fully believe he's a player who should enjoy a high level of personal success in the NFL and a guy who will make his team very happy. That said, I don't see him as an elite combination of size, speed, agility, strength, and character. He certainly has his strengths, and man are they NFL friendly strengths; however, there's some evidence out there, both statistically and obtained by film study, to question his ability to be an every down back at this new faster, tougher, more cerebral level.

There's plenty to like about the Stanford Senior. Gerhart was the best running back in college football a year ago, and it's no secret how he gets his work done. This is a back meant for between the tackles, with a violent temperament and running style. The upper and lower body strength Gerhart shows off on a down to down basis, and amount of endurance and relentlessness he shows through the 4th quarter, is real testament to his athleticism. What stands out most about Toby is his exceptional balance. Whether while making a cut, at a stationary position, or running with a full head of steam, he's just a tough guy to get on the ground. At full speed, Gerhart uses vision to find small cutback lanes and creases in the defense, never goes down at first contact, and will fight for extra yards, finishing every run. His feel for the position and ability to think on the move are what have me convinced he'll be a solid NFL player at the Running Back position.

The biggest obstacle I see for Gerhart, as a first round draft prospect would be current NFL trends which lean toward a two or three back scheme, keeping legs fresh and getting different skill-sets on the field. For runners with a deficiency in physicality/power/balance, this scheme can go a long way to mask some faults, allowing a player to succeed at a high level, and the same could be said of players with average burst/speed/receiving experience. I don't see Toby as a game-breaker. For a back considered elite and complete by many, he didn't hit many home runs with only 2 runs of over 40 yards during his 2009 campaign. Now, he doesn't have to be, no one says that's his only option at the next level.

A lack of great acceleration/burst, a lack of a true second gear and breakaway speed, a lack elusiveness in the open field, and inexperience as a receiver may point to a different role in the NFL than every down, feature back. I'm not saying FB, I'm not saying H-B, I'm saying I expect a team with a stable of backs to add Gerhart as a missing piece. This could be the Chiefs to complement their young back Jamaal Charles, perhaps the Eagles to provide a change of pace to LeSean McCoy/Brian Westbrook, or maybe the Texans to add some muscle along side Steve Slaton. These are all examples, and I feel like he'd really flourish in a role like that. A one-cut ZBS scheme would be ideal for a runner with the decisiveness and vision Gerhart possesses.

I would say I view Toby Gerhart as a Mid 2nd-Early 3rd Round value at this point. We still have the Combine to go, and we'll see if he makes an appearance in Mobile this week. By draft day, we could be looking at a different stock of course.

Pros
+ Exceptional Balance
+ Surprising Vision and feel for the RB position
+ Tremendous Power with excellent upper and lower body strength
+ Terrific Production vs. top competition
+ Ability to carry the load
+ Decisive North-South back
+ Wears on defenses, doesn't slow down in the 4th Quarter
+ Very athletic, could play two sports professionally
+ Excellent football character; Smart with a tireless work ethic

Cons
- Not overly elusive, doesn't make a lot of guys miss in the open field
- Lacks a true second gear and home-run speed
- Doesn't have an explosive burst, average acceleration
- Struggles to accelerate out of hard cuts and contact
- Unproven out of the backfield as a receiver
- Has a very upright running style, doesn't change his pad level fluidly in and out of cuts and contact
- Minor durability questions after missing 2007 season due to knee injury

YAYareaRB
01-25-2010, 01:19 AM
I think Toby Gerhart is the one of the only backs that can be a true #1 guy in a one back system. I know for a fact though he would flourish in a two back system. He's faster than your average power back and can bang with the best of them. His knee injuries definitely give me a scare though

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-25-2010, 07:28 AM
I like Tobez a lot. First round? Idk. That said I would trade kNOwshon for him

YAYareaRB
01-25-2010, 10:28 AM
He's going 1st day for sure! I wish the Titans would take him. He would be way more productive than LenWHALE

ThePudge
01-25-2010, 10:37 AM
He's going 1st day for sure! I wish the Titans would take him. He would be way more productive than LenWHALE

Don't forget, this is Roger Goodell's NFL. 1st Day = 1st Round. I think Gerhart's a safe bet to go in the top three rounds though, if that's what you meant there.

With Chris Johnson coming off a 2,000 yard season, I don't know how much the Titans need to tinker with their running game.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
01-25-2010, 11:11 AM
I thought first day was top 2 rounds now? Did he change it again? **** Roger Baddell.

ThePudge
01-25-2010, 11:22 AM
I thought first day was top 2 rounds now? Did he change it again? **** Roger Baddell.

Yep. Thursday night 1st Round. 2nd-3rd on Friday and 4th-7th on Saturday. I'm sure there's links out there with the exact times, but for now this should do. I really don't like anything that man does for the NFL.

brat316
01-25-2010, 11:49 AM
Nah this way there can be more trades then ever.

ThePudge
01-25-2010, 12:19 PM
Nah this way there can be more trades then ever.

And when 7 PM rolls around and the draft starts, I'm sure we'll know the Top 10 selections as well. No question, to the fans and/or draft attendees, this sucks.

stephenson86
01-25-2010, 12:51 PM
40 posters banned over/under? lol

but in all seriousness I see toby gerhart as a 1st and 2nd down back in a run orientated offense, he reminds me of rashard mendenhall a bit with his north south mentality, but i think rashard has slightly more wiggle in his game

TheSlinger
01-25-2010, 02:08 PM
And when 7 PM rolls around and the draft starts, I'm sure we'll know the Top 10 selections as well. No question, to the fans and/or draft attendees, this sucks.

Is this really any worse than anticipating the picks all day only for it to be spoiled five minutes in advance when they show the prospects talking on their damn phones?

brat316
01-25-2010, 02:33 PM
40 posters banned over/under? lol

but in all seriousness I see toby gerhart as a 1st and 2nd down back in a run orientated offense, he reminds me of rashard mendenhall a bit with his north south mentality, but i think rashard has slightly more wiggle in his game

Mendy plays soft, for a guy with a big body he doesn't really plow through whimpy tackles.

stephenson86
01-25-2010, 03:51 PM
Mendy plays soft, for a guy with a big body he doesn't really plow through whimpy tackles.

he did his rookie season, this year he looked happy to lay some wood

BBIB
01-25-2010, 09:22 PM
I think he will be drafted a lot lower than he should be because of timed speed and lack of school prestige in much the same way the guy who won the Doak Walker the year before him in Shonne Greene was overlooked.

ALP1987
01-25-2010, 09:55 PM
For me its simple. 2nd to 3rd round pick that if given the right situation could be very productive. Average Speed, Great Strength, Balance and Vision but is a power back that would probably be best served in a system that uses 2 backs.

For me the list of teams that would be great for Gerhart goes like this.

Patriots - Starter that can do what Maroney can't...Pick up the first down when needed.

Texans - Slaton has some fumbling problems and the other backs are just average. Gerhart comes in as the main back and Slaton is the scat or Slaton fixes his issues and Gerhart is the change of pace.

Redskins - Portis seems to be falling apart and Mike Shanahan could make the most of Gerhart's abilities. Actually could be his best fit to have true success in the NFL.

Chargers - LT is done and could be a good combo if Sproles stays. They like high character guys and Gerhart fits that mold.

Giants - Jacobs seems to be done. I don't know how but he managed to go from a dominate power back to a 3.7 YPC joke. If he does make a comeback next season you have 2 good power backs. Forget Thunder and Lightning. How about Thunder and even more Thunder. Thats a true Pain Train.

Seahawks - Would be a nice fit but Pete has passed over him once before.

descendency
01-26-2010, 02:03 AM
New England trades up in the early second round and takes Toby.

The Patriots are not going to trade up when Bill Belichick will just find another aging RB that hits free agency with something to prove (that his career isn't over and that they can win a Super Bowl)... see LaDainian Tomlinson.

A super talent like a Dexter McCluster or CJ Spiller would be nice though. A little Darren Sproles or CJ would be nice.

Babylon
01-26-2010, 01:09 PM
For me its simple. 2nd to 3rd round pick that if given the right situation could be very productive. Average Speed, Great Strength, Balance and Vision but is a power back that would probably be best served in a system that uses 2 backs.

For me the list of teams that would be great for Gerhart goes like this.

Patriots - Starter that can do what Maroney can't...Pick up the first down when needed.

Texans - Slaton has some fumbling problems and the other backs are just average. Gerhart comes in as the main back and Slaton is the scat or Slaton fixes his issues and Gerhart is the change of pace.

Redskins - Portis seems to be falling apart and Mike Shanahan could make the most of Gerhart's abilities. Actually could be his best fit to have true success in the NFL.

Chargers - LT is done and could be a good combo if Sproles stays. They like high character guys and Gerhart fits that mold.

Giants - Jacobs seems to be done. I don't know how but he managed to go from a dominate power back to a 3.7 YPC joke. If he does make a comeback next season you have 2 good power backs. Forget Thunder and Lightning. How about Thunder and even more Thunder. Thats a true Pain Train.

Seahawks - Would be a nice fit but Pete has passed over him once before.

Irrelevant really. The Trojans recuited Jake Locker to play safety now Pete says he's the best QB out there.

golota
01-26-2010, 01:23 PM
He and Colt McCoy are training together at a facility in Orange County for the NFL combine. They have the same sport agent. Thats likely why they didnt play in the Senior Bowl.
Gerhart apparently thinks the combine results will have a big impact on his draft stock.

umphrey
01-26-2010, 01:28 PM
Late first. Every football scout in America is watching tape on him. He's one of the most notable prospects in the draft and there is going to be a team that really likes him and wants to lock him up. I think that will happen late in the first or maybe early second by a team that is looking to add half of a RBBC.

RedVision
01-26-2010, 05:32 PM
He and Colt McCoy are training together at a facility in Orange County for the NFL combine. They have the same sport agent. Thats likely why they didnt play in the Senior Bowl.
Gerhart apparently thinks the combine results will have a big impact on his draft stock.

My opinion is that Toby saw that no real FB had been invited and that he would have to line-up mostly as a FB during the senior bowl week, like Anthony Dixon is doing right now.

brat316
01-26-2010, 05:50 PM
Compared to the other Rb that are going to move up in the draft I think Toby is just going to drop down in the second round.

I thought Toby would be a late first round pick, but after looking at the other Rb, I just think him and Best are a lock for the second round.

Spiller is in the first, and the other 2 running backs that people forget about is Matthews and Dwyer.

Also lets remember that only 32 players can go in the first round, so if Toby does go in the first what team would take him? Over say more complete backs like Matthews or Dwyer.

LizardState
01-26-2010, 07:55 PM
The Michael Bush comparison is valid.

Speaking of which the Raiders could take him in the early 2nd, they're not at all happy with the lack of development McFadden has shown & his awful ball control issues, & Gerhart is a local hero in the SF Bay Area.

thenewfeature06
01-26-2010, 08:03 PM
The Michael Bush comparison is valid.

Speaking of which the Raiders could take him in the early 2nd, they're not at all happy with the lack of development McFadden has shown & his awful ball control issues, & Gerhart is a local hero in the SF Bay Area.

First of all we got 3 backs who all are capable of being starters with good blocking that is.. and secondly Al Davis isn't that good of a draft-er

MidwayMonster31
01-26-2010, 08:42 PM
How's Gerhart's pass blocking?
Also, I think that if he does well catching the ball that he can make it as a 3rd down/ short yardage back.

CC.SD
01-26-2010, 09:08 PM
The Patriots are not going to trade up when Bill Belichick will just find another aging RB that hits free agency with something to prove (that his career isn't over and that they can win a Super Bowl)... see LaDainian Tomlinson.


Grumble grumble.

niel89
01-26-2010, 09:11 PM
How's Gerhart's pass blocking?
Also, I think that if he does well catching the ball that he can make it as a 3rd down/ short yardage back.

I would say that his pass pro is a strength. His size is a real advantage here. You raise a good point about being a third down player. Laron Mclain (though very different prospects) is used in a way that I think would be effective for Gehart. He is on the field on a good amount of plays lined up in the back field or as a wing and occasionally goes out for a pass. Gerhart could also contribute in a similar fashion.

CC.SD
01-26-2010, 09:14 PM
I would say that his pass pro is a strength. His size is a real advantage here. You raise a good point about being a third down player. Laron Mclain (though very different prospects) is used in a way that I think would be effective for Gehart. He is on the field on a good amount of plays lined up in the back field or as a wing and occasionally goes out for a pass. Gerhart could also contribute in a similar fashion.

See this is the problem with Gerhart, because no team is going to give up a premium pick for a Laron McClain clone. Edging closer to the FB zone which is not where Gerhart wants to be if he wants to get that cash money.

Mr. Goosemahn
01-26-2010, 09:19 PM
I think the recent play of Shonn Greene could help his situation. While they might not be similar players. Greene constantly got tagged as not having elite speed and he's doing great now.

Seeing how Greene went as the first pick of the third round, and he wasn't garnering the attention that Gerhart is getting right now (at least I think he wasn't...), Gerhart could go much earlier. Late second at worse sounds about right for me right now, but I think some team will take him early-mid second.

With the way he tore it up this year, someone will think really highly of him. Kind of like Mendenhall, who was being discussed here some a couple posts back. He only played well for one year and was taken as the 23rd pick, and some said he slid.

As a prospect, I do think the Michael Bush comparisons are fitting.

niel89
01-26-2010, 09:27 PM
See this is the problem with Gerhart, because no team is going to give up a premium pick for a Laron McClain clone. Edging closer to the FB zone which is not where Gerhart wants to be if he wants to get that cash money.

I don't think that Gerhart is like McClain though. I was just trying to say even though he may not be an established pass catcher, he still can be a valuable third down player.

CC.SD
01-26-2010, 09:52 PM
I think the recent play of Shonn Greene could help his situation. While they might not be similar players (and this has nothing to do with race and whatnot), Greene constantly got tagged as not having elite speed and he's doing great now.

Seeing how Greene went as the first pick of the third round, and he wasn't garnering the attention that Gerhart is getting right now (at least I think he wasn't...), Gerhart could go much earlier. Late second at worse sounds about right for me right now, but I think some team will take him early-mid second.

With the way he tore it up this year, someone will think really highly of him. Kind of like Mendenhall, who was being discussed here some a couple posts back. He only played well for one year and was taken as the 23rd pick, and some said he slid.

As a prospect, I do think the Michael Bush comparisons are fitting.

I think Michael Bush comparisons are very solid. Shonn Greene, well he probably will do a lot for slowish RBs but he is still a tough player for me to judge simply because the Jets O-line has really been overwhelming teams. They have perfectly negated his biggest weakness. Having said that, he is still a huge boon to guys like Toby if only because it is showing that in the right system, production is not an issue and domination is a serious possibility for these kinds of backs.

Not that he's the first one. But drafting is all about recent trends.

I don't think that Gerhart is like McClain though. I was just trying to say even though he may not be an established pass catcher, he still can be a valuable third down player.

ah, got it. That is definitely true.

GoRavens
01-26-2010, 09:52 PM
- I don't like the Michael Bush comparison at all. Bush is more nimble, and taller (which gives him an awkwardly high running style) He can catch the ball, and make people miss. Gerhart is a north south pounder, that can drag the pile, and should undoubtedly have a successful NFL career. His work ethic, and aggressive, power style will make him a solid complement for a quicker back. (Teams like the Texans, Chiefs, Patriots & Seahawks seem to be like the best fit for his game)
- Garhart has been said to run between a (4.5 - 4.6), which will probably get him drafted in the 2nd round.
I'd honestly compare him to Jerome Bettis, a beast in college that will successful evolve his game in the NFL

LonghornsLegend
01-27-2010, 09:28 AM
With the way he tore it up this year, someone will think really highly of him. Kind of like Mendenhall, who was being discussed here some a couple posts back. He only played well for one year and was taken as the 23rd pick, and some said he slid.

Mendy had incredible workout numbers across the board, I doubt Gerhart will be able to time as well as he did. If he does then he'll get consideration to be a 1st rounder, but Mendy showed he was a 1st rounder with some of his physical skills during the combine and pro days.

FUNBUNCHER
01-27-2010, 09:58 AM
I love me some Toby, but he's nothing like Jerome Bettis except for both of them being big powerbacks.

Bettis was a freak because he had the cutting ability and lateral quickness of a 210 RB, which sadly Gerhart lacks. I bet during his final years in Pittsburgh, Bettis could barely break a 4.88 in the 40; it was his vision, quick feet and power that made him a productive RB well into his 30s.

YAYareaRB
01-27-2010, 10:03 AM
I think Gerhart is faster than Bettis

IndyColtScout
01-27-2010, 10:31 AM
I don't think he's a top 30 player but if your a team around that range (end of 1st) and want to add some depth and power to your running game then he's probably going to be a solid addition. I don't see him being a great player because the blocking skills of an Alstott aren't there. Probably going to be an effective player for a 5 year block.

YAYareaRB
01-27-2010, 10:35 AM
I don't think he's a top 30 player but if your a team around that range (end of 1st) and want to add some depth and power to your running game then he's probably going to be a solid addition. I don't see him being a great player because the blocking skills of an Alstott aren't there. Probably going to be an effective player for a 5 year block.

Could you see him on the Colts?

LizardState
01-27-2010, 11:01 AM
Laron Mclain (though very different prospects) is used in a way that I think would be effective for Gehart

I don't think that Gerhart is like McClain though. I was just trying to say even though he may not be an established pass catcher, he still can be a valuable third down player.

Forgot to add that Justin Fargas is too beat up to continue carrying the load for the Raiders or take up McFadden's slack like his 2 turf toes his rookie yr . Lately they've been going with whichever of their 3 backs is the healthiest as all 3 have been intermittently missing games with injuries, hence the need for new blood like Gerhart.

About McClain, I know a little something about him as he came from my program. He was the top-ranked FB in his draft yr & caught the eye of Ozzie Newsome who also was an Alabama celeb player. He played that exclusively for the Ravens, then was converted to RB & actually led the league in rushing for awhile. All the pundits wondered why there weren't more FBs converted to RBs after McClain's success when the answer was right in front of them: FB is an almost extinct position on many NFL teams anymore, going away largely due highpriced RBs in a cap era. A decade opr so before every team had a FB-led offense & they got > 4-5 carries per yr, not so much anymore, they're situational lead blockers only.

SKim172
01-27-2010, 12:17 PM
What concerns me most about Gerhart - and I said this before the season started - is that he doesn't naturally and fluidly lower his pads. He runs really upright for a big guy. He got away with it in college because of his sheer size, but he never really showed that he could do it consistently. I'm not saying he can't do it, but I haven't seen it.

This is a draft with a lot of big backs here, and a good scouting department would take that into consideration when deciding on Gerhart. At the very least, Gerhart will be a decent big back with a role in the running game - but you can get those later on (Blount, Dixon). That puts his floor fairly low - maybe a 3rd.

So the question is, how high is Gerhart's ceiling?

FUNBUNCHER
01-27-2010, 12:31 PM
The thing is with Gerhart, you can watch him for an entire game and be impressed but maybe not blown away, then you look at his stat sheet and he ran for 150 and 3 TDs.

IMO he's better than Blount, Dixon and most of the other big backs in this draft because more than any player he has a very clear understanding of what his strengths/weaknesses are.
He's not a 4.4 waterbug and doesn't try to run like one. You don't see Toby trying to juke corners or put spin moves on Dlineman.
See the hole, hit the hole, cut and go.

Honestly, I think nearly all of the top 5-6 big RBs, even 'FB' Gerhart(!) will be integral components of several team's rushing attacks.

So much so, in fact, that we could see NFL team rushing totals increase and scoring to slightly decrease as teams begin to emphasize dominating time of possession instead of outscoring their opponents.

You wanna beat an aerial offense like NO, Arizona, or Indy?? Keep Manning, Brees and Warner on the sideline by running the football and eating up the clock.

yourfavestoner
01-27-2010, 12:55 PM
Eh...I don't buy the Michael Bush comparison at all. Michael Bush is in the "big backs who think they're scatbacks" grouping with Ron Dayne, and Lendale White.

nicker
01-27-2010, 02:18 PM
The thing is with Gerhart, you can watch him for an entire game and be impressed but maybe not blown away, then you look at his stat sheet and he ran for 150 and 3 TDs.

IMO he's better than Blount, Dixon and most of the other big backs in this draft because more than any player he has a very clear understanding of what his strengths/weaknesses are.
He's not a 4.4 waterbug and doesn't try to run like one. You don't see Toby trying to juke corners or put spin moves on Dlineman.
See the hole, hit the hole, cut and go.

Honestly, I think nearly all of the top 5-6 big RBs, even 'FB' Gerhart(!) will be integral components of several team's rushing attacks.

So much so, in fact, that we could see NFL team rushing totals increase and scoring to slightly decrease as teams begin to emphasize dominating time of possession instead of outscoring their opponents.

You wanna beat an aerial offense like NO, Arizona, or Indy?? Keep Manning, Brees and Warner on the sideline by running the football and eating up the clock.

I think this is an excellent post. With todays game everyone is airing it out, and to keep up with this the defensive lines and LB's are getting a little bit smaller and faster to try and keep up with the offense's speed on the field. If a team can build a massive powerful Oline and get a couple of good solid power backs they can really control the ball and keep those great offenses off the field.
That being said I think Gerhart is very similar to Jamaal Lewis, He always keeps his feet moving and runs fairly upright, He doesn't have the size of lewis or quite the speed. He's a poor man's Jamaal lewis. He's got a little bit better vision though I think and his cuts are a little better, maybe a mixture of Matt Forte and Jamaal lewis. I really like him, but IMO he's not a first rounder.

Babylon
01-27-2010, 02:33 PM
What concerns me most about Gerhart - and I said this before the season started - is that he doesn't naturally and fluidly lower his pads. He runs really upright for a big guy. He got away with it in college because of his sheer size, but he never really showed that he could do it consistently. I'm not saying he can't do it, but I haven't seen it.

This is a draft with a lot of big backs here, and a good scouting department would take that into consideration when deciding on Gerhart. At the very least, Gerhart will be a decent big back with a role in the running game - but you can get those later on (Blount, Dixon). That puts his floor fairly low - maybe a 3rd.

So the question is, how high is Gerhart's ceiling?

I think if you watch a fair amount of footage of his carries you will notice when he senses contact he does lower the pads, he isnt tall to start with so we're not talking Eric Dickerson upright but i think lowering the pads isnt an issue.

As for his ceiling i think he can be a feature back and get you the 1200 yds a year, as for his draft ceiling, laste 1st to mid-2nd.

IndyColtScout
01-28-2010, 10:22 AM
Could you see him on the Colts?

I wouldn't be against it because the Colts could use some power in the run department, but Addai is still under contract next season and Brown was just a 1st round pick, so my guess is the Colts look in another direction.

Iamcanadian
01-28-2010, 11:07 AM
Well, Mayock's ranking just came out and he isn't even among his top 6 RB's. IMO, we are looking at a 3rd rounder at best and to go that high, he will have to run at least a 4.60 at the combine and show the ability to learn to block otherwise, he could take a real nose dive on draft day.
Mike Hart of Michigan was a great college RB but he will never be a feature RB in the pros and Gerhart is facing the same results.
All the talk about round 1 is a joke.

nhlkdog411
01-28-2010, 11:32 AM
Well, Mayock's ranking just came out and he isn't even among his top 6 RB's. IMO, we are looking at a 3rd rounder at best and to go that high, he will have to run at least a 4.60 at the combine and show the ability to learn to block otherwise, he could take a real nose dive on draft day.
Mike Hart of Michigan was a great college RB but he will never be a feature RB in the pros and Gerhart is facing the same results.
All the talk about round 1 is a joke.

Mike Hart was a barely 200 pound back and slower than Gerhart.

DaBrowns41
01-28-2010, 11:49 AM
He hasn't shown me anything special except that he's a hard runner running behind one of the top FB's and top run blocking offensive lines in the nation.

early to mid 3rd rounder with all the other talent in this draft. Take that to the bank.

YAYareaRB
01-28-2010, 12:23 PM
Wow, I like how Stanford's FB and O-Line just became one of the nation's best in order to disregard what Toby has done this season.

iowatreat54
01-28-2010, 12:46 PM
Wow, I like how Stanford's FB and O-Line just became one of the nation's best in order to disregard what Toby has done this season.

It's kinda like how every defense he faced was top 10 against the rush. People have been exaggerating both ways ever since the season ended.

FUNBUNCHER
01-28-2010, 02:09 PM
No one is implying Toby played against top 10 rush Ds all season, but for most part teams he played against gave up single game high rushing totals when they played against Stanford.

And had Oklahoma given up 100+ yards to any rusher this season before they played the Cardinal in their bowl game??

Stanford's offense is one dimensional when you stop Gerhart; do that and they have problems moving the ball on the ground or vertically.

And Stanford's Oline is solid, not great. I doubt there's even one solid pro prospect in that starting unit.

Nalej
01-28-2010, 02:10 PM
Well, Mayock's ranking just came out and he isn't even among his top 6 RB's. IMO, we are looking at a 3rd rounder at best and to go that high, he will have to run at least a 4.60 at the combine and show the ability to learn to block otherwise, he could take a real nose dive on draft day.
Mike Hart of Michigan was a great college RB but he will never be a feature RB in the pros and Gerhart is facing the same results.
All the talk about round 1 is a joke.


Mayock's a joke. While ^^^ might be true I still don't take anything Mayock says seriously.
It's Mel Kiper, Scott Wright or bust for me

iowatreat54
01-28-2010, 02:29 PM
No one is implying Toby played against top 10 rush Ds all season, but for most part teams he played against gave up single game high rushing totals when they played against Stanford.

And had Oklahoma given up 100+ yards to any rusher this season before they played the Cardinal in their bowl game??

Stanford's offense is one dimensional when you stop Gerhart; do that and they have problems moving the ball on the ground or vertically.

And Stanford's Oline is solid, not great. I doubt there's even one solid pro prospect in that starting unit.

I'm just saying everyone is really exaggerating some things when discussing Toby. I think like half the defenses he faced were in the bottom half of the country against the run. There were a couple between 20-50, a couple more between 50-70, and then 5 or 6 at 70 or below, including 2 at 115+.

I like Toby as a RB, but both sides of the argument need to stop being so unrealistic. He didn't have an all world supporting cast, and he didn't face the anywhere near the toughest defenses. Both are somewhere in the middle, but that doesn't take away from how he produced.

Nalej
01-28-2010, 02:33 PM
I'm just saying everyone is really exaggerating some things when discussing Toby. I think like half the defenses he faced were in the bottom half of the country against the run. There were a couple between 20-50, a couple more between 50-70, and then 5 or 6 at 70 or below, including 2 at 115+.

I like Toby as a RB, but both sides of the argument need to stop being so unrealistic. He didn't have an all world supporting cast, and he didn't face the anywhere near the toughest defenses. Both are somewhere in the middle, but that doesn't take away from how he produced.



Are those D rankings legit?
'cause I remember a dispute about the defenses that both Toby and Ingram went up against and I remember Stanford played some very good D's ... but better then the D's Ingram went up against.
Just saying- check your stats for sure before throwing out these claims

iowatreat54
01-28-2010, 02:39 PM
Are those D rankings legit?
'cause I remember a dispute about the defenses that both Toby and Ingram went up against and I remember Stanford played some very good D's ... but better then the D's Ingram went up against.
Just saying- check your stats for sure before throwing out these claims

http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2009&rpt=IA_teamrushdef&site=org&div=IA&dest=O

Oklahoma is top 10, ASU is top 20, Cal 23, Oregon St. 25, Arizona 29, USC 39, Oregon 42, UCLA 59, Washington 64, Wake Forest 82, ND 89, Washington St. 117, San Jose St. 119.

So yes, he faced several good rush defenses. He also faced a couple average ones. He also faced a handful of really bad ones.

Like I said, I don't want to take away from his production because it was great, but it wasn't like he faced top defenses every game.

Nalej
01-28-2010, 03:02 PM
I think that statement is obvious. Name one player who played against a top D each and every week?

iowatreat54
01-28-2010, 03:10 PM
I think that statement is obvious. Name one player who played against a top D each and every week?

Oh, I'm not saying there is. I was just stating that both sides of the Toby argument have tended to exaggerate.

I don't know the stats for all RBs, so Toby certainly could have faced the toughest defenses collectively compared to other RBs, but that doesn't mean he faced top defenses every game, or even most games, as a lot of people imply.

I want Toby to get drafted into a similar situation to Shonn Greene, where he won't be counted on to produce right away because of a star RB ahead of him, but will be able to come in at certain points and show he can produce. I really think the best thing for him is a situation like that, where it will take a year or two without high expectations to adjust and prove himself.

Nalej
01-28-2010, 03:12 PM
Aight, fair enough. I agree with your above statement.

iowatreat54
01-28-2010, 03:19 PM
Aight, fair enough. I agree with your above statement.

Yea, sorry, I really like Toby as a running back. I love power runners who don't dance around, just hit holes and go. I think he can succeed at the next level as a RB, and hope he does.

That said, this argument tends to polarize towards people over exaggerating how good or bad he is. He was incredibly productive, against some good defenses and some bad, so the collective average of defenses faced is somewhere in the middle of the rankings.

He is incredibly strong and secures the ball well (I think), but as some people have said he runs very tall, which could be a problem in the NFL. He also prolly doesn't have a ton of quickness or timed speed, but his game speed is good enough to succeed as a stronger back.

The one problem I have is that despite being able to recognize holes and making the right decisions, he really doesn't cut very well and lacks typical foot quickness in making those cuts that you like to see on RBs. Now, that might now matter if he makes up for it by being a power runner with secure hands.

He's not a great all around RB, but he is definitely an excellent power runner. That is why I think more teams will overlook him to take the more versatile RBs with a lot of potential.

Nalej
01-28-2010, 03:27 PM
Yea, sorry, I really like Toby as a running back. I love power runners who don't dance around, just hit holes and go. I think he can succeed at the next level as a RB, and hope he does.

That said, this argument tends to polarize towards people over exaggerating how good or bad he is. He was incredibly productive, against some good defenses and some bad, so the collective average of defenses faced is somewhere in the middle of the rankings.

He is incredibly strong and secures the ball well (I think), but as some people have said he runs very tall, which could be a problem in the NFL. He also prolly doesn't have a ton of quickness or timed speed, but his game speed is good enough to succeed as a stronger back.

The one problem I have is that despite being able to recognize holes and making the right decisions, he really doesn't cut very well and lacks typical foot quickness in making those cuts that you like to see on RBs. Now, that might now matter if he makes up for it by being a power runner with secure hands.

He's not a great all around RB, but he is definitely an excellent power runner. That is why I think more teams will overlook him to take the more versatile RBs with a lot of potential.


You have given out too much Reputation in the last 24 hours, try again later.

I agree with that as well. I love physical down hill backs witht good vision.
I agree that he doesn't excell with his foot quickness (cutbacks) but he isn't bad in my eyes.
He's one of those runners who's movements are so slight and may be underrated due to the nature of his style.
I don't think he should start right away like you said but if he gets to sit behind a stud for a couple years- it would do him wonders

niel89
01-28-2010, 03:33 PM
Are those rankings from the end of the season? Its possible that some of those run defenses are ranked lower because Gerhart had such good games on them.

I do like the respect for the stanford oline and Owen Marecic though. The are a great unit. Marecic should be a great FB prospect when he comes out. They certainly make holes, but it really just allows Gerhart to showcase what he really has. Against the Sooners they had trouble but Gerhart still had a good statistical game.

Babylon
01-28-2010, 03:53 PM
No one is implying Toby played against top 10 rush Ds all season, but for most part teams he played against gave up single game high rushing totals when they played against Stanford.

And had Oklahoma given up 100+ yards to any rusher this season before they played the Cardinal in their bowl game??

Stanford's offense is one dimensional when you stop Gerhart; do that and they have problems moving the ball on the ground or vertically.

And Stanford's Oline is solid, not great. I doubt there's even one solid pro prospect in that starting unit.

They have 2 freshman O-lineman that are going to be real good, Martin and Decastro. The thing with Stanford is they loaded up for the run, they'd pull the TE and lead with the FB. What stood out to me is they would frequently run Gerhart on 3rd and 6 or 7, he wont get that luxury at the next level. I still like him around pick #38.

nhlkdog411
01-28-2010, 04:17 PM
yes, undoubtedly, the 113 yards he put on san jose state caused them to plummet in rankings. they were probably a top 5 run defense other than that HUGE game.
:rolleyes:

Right because clearly he wasn't referring to USC and Oregon dropping lower to 39 and 42 respectively after he put up 178 and 223 on them, he MUST have been referring solely to the weakest team on the schedule, not ANY of the good ones.

golota
01-28-2010, 04:38 PM
In an interview with ESPN radio last month Gerhart mentioned that he expects to run a high 4.4 to low 4.5 time at the combine.

If he is able to get under 4.5, will that affect his draft position at all?
If so, where would he get drafted?

Babylon
01-28-2010, 05:05 PM
In an interview with ESPN radio last month Gerhart mentioned that he expects to run a high 4.4 to low 4.5 time at the combine.

If he is able to get under 4.5, will that affect his draft position at all?
If so, where would he get drafted?

I dont see him at under 4.5 at the combine but if it were to happen those late in round 1 might take a closer look, teams like San Diego, New England and Philly.

CC.SD
01-28-2010, 05:25 PM
do you honestly think that putting 223 on oregon dropped them that substantially? they gave up, on average 236 rushing yards per game. and 178 against USC? zomg, 5 whole yards over their average. i'm sure they were the top rushing defense in the nation, minus gerhart.

i'm sure usc was like, the 38th best rushing defense, if they'd played anyone other than gerhart.

but hey, feel free to NOT spend 6 seconds thinking about what you're saying. i'm sure it's much easier to get mock offended.

http://i638.photobucket.com/albums/uu106/Scarjaka/joker-clap.gif

I dont see him at under 4.5 at the combine but if it were to happen those late in round 1 might take a closer look, teams like San Diego, New England and Philly.

Sigh good point but I hope he is not a Charger.

nhlkdog411
01-28-2010, 05:39 PM
do you honestly think that putting 223 on oregon dropped them that substantially? they gave up, on average 236 rushing yards per game. and 178 against USC? zomg, 5 whole yards over their average. i'm sure they were the top rushing defense in the nation, minus gerhart.

i'm sure usc was like, the 38th best rushing defense, if they'd played anyone other than gerhart.

but hey, feel free to NOT spend 6 seconds thinking about what you're saying. i'm sure it's much easier to get mock offended.

Except those yards your talking about are the yards gained by entire teams not strictly one back, and the entire point of the original post was that there were teams Stanford played that had more highly regarded rushing defenses before they played Gerhart and Stanford, which is certainly at least a valid point. Stanford ran for 325 yards against USC, and Toby himself ran for more than their season average that according you you was 173. Hmm.....if their average for the year was 173 and they gave up 325 that one game, you think that might have had some influence in dragging that average up to that point?

niel89
01-28-2010, 06:07 PM
In an interview with ESPN radio last month Gerhart mentioned that he expects to run a high 4.4 to low 4.5 time at the combine.

If he is able to get under 4.5, will that affect his draft position at all?
If so, where would he get drafted?

I think that a low 40 time would help him, but not that much. No one really expects a great 40. I think the agility drills and the passing drills are much more vital for him. If he can prove he has more agility explosion then previously thought, that could really help him out.

nhlkdog411
01-28-2010, 06:42 PM
you think you might make some attempt to quantify that to prove your point, or would you rather just keep speaking hypothetically?

or maybe we should consider san jose state's 9 total rushing yards and its effect on their final ranking?

Are you serious? You don't see how 325 rushing yards against would raise the average due to it clearly being a statistical outlier?

edit. You seriously neg repped me 300+ for my last post? hahaha

CC.SD
01-28-2010, 06:43 PM
/\ Did you know you guys inspired me to create a thread in the OT forum?

yourfavestoner
01-28-2010, 06:55 PM
/\ Did you know you guys inspired me to create a thread in the OT forum?

**** you, I can't even view the OT forum.

CC.SD
01-28-2010, 07:03 PM
**** you, I can't even view the OT forum.

umm...why? Strict moral standards?

jared
01-29-2010, 01:19 AM
do you honestly think that putting 223 on oregon dropped them that substantially? they gave up, on average 236 rushing yards per game. and 178 against USC? zomg, 5 whole yards over their average. i'm sure they were the top rushing defense in the nation, minus gerhart.

i'm sure usc was like, the 38th best rushing defense, if they'd played anyone other than gerhart.

but hey, feel free to NOT spend 6 seconds thinking about what you're saying. i'm sure it's much easier to get mock offended.

Oregon gave up 236 rushing yards, on average, per game. Really? Hmm, let's just see what two different college stats sites have to say about that:
http://web1.ncaa.org/mfb/natlRank.jsp?year=2009&rpt=IA_teamrushdef&site=org&div=IA&dest=O
http://www.cfbstats.com/2009/leader/national/team/defense/split01/category01/sort01.html

Geez, that's funny, both of those sites say Oregon gave up, on average, 128.69 rushing yards per game, not 236... Hmm, and what about USC??? Well, ZOMG! it turns out their average is 128.5, not 173, as you said. I think that's kind of a big difference from what you said, isn't it? But I guess that would have taken more than 6 seconds of your time to verify before you decided to make up stats in a sorry attempt to be a sarcastic jerk.


"you think you might make some attempt to quantify that to prove your point, or would you rather just keep speaking hypothetically?

or maybe we should consider san jose state's 9 total rushing yards and its effect on their final ranking?"

-njx9


What does San Jose State have to do with anything? Aren't good defenses supposed to shut down crappy teams??? Every big time team in the NCAA played a cupcake on their schedule. All of them are factored into those teams' respective rankings (e.g. Texas' ranking is helped by the fact that they beat up poor Baylor). What does that have to do with Gerhart???

But just to indulge your asinine point by "quantify"ing some things, let's pretend that USC did not play Stanford or SJSU (the two statistical outliers).

1666 rushing yards allowed, minus 325 (Stanford) and minus 9 (SJSU) = 1332 rushing yards allowed. Now, let's divide that by 11 games (instead of 13), and we come up with 121.09 yards. Well what do you know? That's enough to move USC from 39th best rush defense in the country to 30th. That's kind of a big shift. A lot bigger than 1 place. Like you said. Now, if we ignore your completely worthless point about SJSU, USC would have been the 23rd best rush D if they hadn't played Stanford. If Oregon hadn't played Stanford, they'd be ranked 26th, instead of 42nd ({1673-254}/12=118.25).

Pretty "substantial", wouldn't you say?

FUNBUNCHER
01-29-2010, 01:44 AM
Gerhart would make a great tandem with LeSean McCoy in Philly.
It's about time to give Donovan a real RB to run play action.

JoeFerg
01-29-2010, 01:18 PM
Gerhart reminds me a lot of Eddie George. He won't be as good as Eddie George but he has the same kind of running style. Gerhart could find a role on a team that has another option at tailback, be a 3.5 yards a carry average guy and make an impact for a few years.

golota
01-29-2010, 04:31 PM
Gerhart reminds me a lot of Eddie George. He won't be as good as Eddie George but he has the same kind of running style. Gerhart could find a role on a team that has another option at tailback, be a 3.5 yards a carry average guy and make an impact for a few years.

If he goes in the third round as many Experts are predicting, he could turn out to be a Huge bargain.
In any other year, when can you get the Doak Walker winner/almost Heisman winning RB who at 235 pounds can run a 4.5-4.6 40 in the third round??

He may bust in the nfl. But if he turns out to be Riggins/Bettis power/speed back it will be the steal of the century.

Babylon
01-29-2010, 05:17 PM
If he goes in the third round as many Experts are predicting, he could turn out to be a Huge bargain.
In any other year, when can you get the Doak Walker winner/almost Heisman winning RB who at 235 pounds can run a 4.5-4.6 40 in the third round??

He may bust in the nfl. But if he turns out to be Riggins/Bettis power/speed back it will be the steal of the century.

I wonder how many in here have ever seen John Riggins but they are very similar. Riggins would survey the line of scrimmage then explode through the hole, of course he had a great line in front of him and the team's committment to run the ball. Those two things you dont see with every team these days.

brasho
01-29-2010, 05:55 PM
If he goes in the third round as many Experts are predicting, he could turn out to be a Huge bargain.
In any other year, when can you get the Doak Walker winner/almost Heisman winning RB who at 235 pounds can run a 4.5-4.6 40 in the third round??

He may bust in the nfl. But if he turns out to be Riggins/Bettis power/speed back it will be the steal of the century.

I know one time the Doak Walker award winner was about 225 and ran a sub 4.5 40... and he was drafted in the 7th round by Detroit. Anyone for a little Lucas Staley memories? I thought Lucas was pretty talented but far more fragile than that. Detroit always found a way to draft guys that were constantly hurt in college and damaged goods coming into the pros and then scratch their heads why everyone on their roster was hurt.

brasho
01-29-2010, 05:58 PM
I wonder how many in here have ever seen John Riggins but they are very similar. Riggins would survey the line of scrimmage then explode through the hole, of course he had a great line in front of him and the team's committment to run the ball. Those two things you dont see with every team these days.

I don't know... Riggins was such a plodder. To watch him run was like watching a guy chop down a tree. An inch here, an inch there, an inch here. When he ran he really wasn't much of a fighter (for extra yards), he was a faller (forward) and a pusher.

Riggins almost always got at least 2-3 yards per carry just from his body lean, he ran hard, he shuffled his feet instead of high-stepped and he protected himself well. You don't appreciate a guy like Riggins until he's gone. How many guys can you guarantee that if you hand him the ball 2X that you will get a 3rd down and less than 5?

I think Gerhart runs a little higher, has a bit more pop in his pads, doesn't have the lean of Riggins, and runs with higher knees. I said before he reminded me of Eddie George and I'm still thinking that's the closest guy. Riggins had a long career, George's was fairly short, I think Gerhart will have a similar longevity to his career as George.

golota
01-29-2010, 06:09 PM
I know one time the Doak Walker award winner was about 225 and ran a sub 4.5 40... and he was drafted in the 7th round by Detroit. Anyone for a little Lucas Staley memories? I thought Lucas was pretty talented but far more fragile than that. Detroit always found a way to draft guys that were constantly hurt in college and damaged goods coming into the pros and then scratch their heads why everyone on their roster was hurt.

Yea,

I wasnt surprised Staley dropped in the draft due to injuries. But, when he finally got more healthy , he did ok in preseason with the LIons. I was surprised that when he was cut that no other team picked him up because he was more healthy and running ok.

yourfavestoner
01-29-2010, 06:14 PM
Gerhart reminds me a lot of Eddie George. He won't be as good as Eddie George but he has the same kind of running style. Gerhart could find a role on a team that has another option at tailback, be a 3.5 yards a carry average guy and make an impact for a few years.

You know what, that's the best comparison I've heard so far. +rep to you!

yourfavestoner
01-29-2010, 06:15 PM
umm...why? Strict moral standards?

I posted a picture of my medicine and the world stopped turning for a day.

FUNBUNCHER
01-29-2010, 06:35 PM
I don't know... Riggins was such a plodder. To watch him run was like watching a guy chop down a tree. An inch here, an inch there, an inch here. When he ran he really wasn't much of a fighter (for extra yards), he was a faller (forward) and a pusher.

Riggins almost always got at least 2-3 yards per carry just from his body lean, he ran hard, he shuffled his feet instead of high-stepped and he protected himself well. You don't appreciate a guy like Riggins until he's gone. How many guys can you guarantee that if you hand him the ball 2X that you will get a 3rd down and less than 5?

I think Gerhart runs a little higher, has a bit more pop in his pads, doesn't have the lean of Riggins, and runs with higher knees. I said before he reminded me of Eddie George and I'm still thinking that's the closest guy. Riggins had a long career, George's was fairly short, I think Gerhart will have a similar longevity to his career as George.

Brasho, IMO Riggo was more of a pounder, not a plodder in the last years of his career with the Skins. He definitely wasn't a 'plodder' with the Jets, he just didn't have the opportunities to run the ball in NY.

If I could give a comparison, it would be like imagining a slightly slower Brandon Jacobs playing behind the best Oline in football. Gibbs threw the football to set up the run primarily, with a little play action deep throws mixed in.

When the SKins had the lead in the 4th quarter, it was called the Riggo drill; 3 consecutive run plays to pick up a first down. Nothing fancy, just hat on hat, try to stop it.

Gerhart on a team like KC or Miami could really be something special. But part of me thinks he could end up with the Eagles.

Babylon
01-29-2010, 06:37 PM
I don't know... Riggins was such a plodder. To watch him run was like watching a guy chop down a tree. An inch here, an inch there, an inch here. When he ran he really wasn't much of a fighter (for extra yards), he was a faller (forward) and a pusher.

Riggins almost always got at least 2-3 yards per carry just from his body lean, he ran hard, he shuffled his feet instead of high-stepped and he protected himself well. You don't appreciate a guy like Riggins until he's gone. How many guys can you guarantee that if you hand him the ball 2X that you will get a 3rd down and less than 5?

I think Gerhart runs a little higher, has a bit more pop in his pads, doesn't have the lean of Riggins, and runs with higher knees. I said before he reminded me of Eddie George and I'm still thinking that's the closest guy. Riggins had a long career, George's was fairly short, I think Gerhart will have a similar longevity to his career as George.

My memory of Riggins was a little differant, i thought he was good at moving the pile but could also flash some speed when he got to the next level of the defense, he was a 9.6 100 yard guy while in HS.

iowatreat54
01-29-2010, 06:53 PM
I wonder how many in here have ever seen John Riggins but they are very similar. Riggins would survey the line of scrimmage then explode through the hole, of course he had a great line in front of him and the team's committment to run the ball. Those two things you dont see with every team these days.

Helloooo, New York Jets. Seriously, that is one of the reasons someone like Shonn Greene was able to have such a large impact.

If Toby were to be put into a similar environment, strong OL with a dedication to a power running offense, than he can absolutely be a star. However, the problem, as Babylon mentions, is that there really aren't many teams that qualify in that category. The NFL has shifted away from power running and building strong, pro-rushing OLs.

This is why I see teams downplaying or passing on Toby. Not because he won't be good, but because their teams aren't built for the type of player he is. Let's all be honest, Toby isn't the type of back that will succeed no matter what team or situation he is drafted into.

ALP1987
01-30-2010, 10:18 AM
Helloooo, New York Jets. Seriously, that is one of the reasons someone like Shonn Greene was able to have such a large impact.

If Toby were to be put into a similar environment, strong OL with a dedication to a power running offense, than he can absolutely be a star. However, the problem, as Babylon mentions, is that there really aren't many teams that qualify in that category. The NFL has shifted away from power running and building strong, pro-rushing OLs.

This is why I see teams downplaying or passing on Toby. Not because he won't be good, but because their teams aren't built for the type of player he is. Let's all be honest, Toby isn't the type of back that will succeed no matter what team or situation he is drafted into.


I don't get this at all. Why cant he succeed in the right situation? He has power, balance, vision and football smarts. The knock is he doesn't have great speed but again a RB like Shonn Green or even a FB like Ravens Le'Ron McClain proved speed isn't everything in today's NFL.

There cant be 32 Pro Bowl RBs in the NFL every year so there has to be the Greats (Chris Johnson & AP), The Goods (Steven Jackson, MJD, Thomas Jones, Gore) and then there's the other guys that are good but are not the elite (Ryan Grant, Marion Barber, Rashard Mendenhall).

So why cant Gerhart be in position to be one of the Good backs or just one of the other guys? I'm not saying he is going to lead the NFL in rushing yards but why cant he put up 1000+ yards with 7+ TDs and average 3.9-4.1 YPC?

Whats holding him back?

Babylon
01-30-2010, 11:44 AM
I don't get this at all. Why cant he succeed in the right situation? He has power, balance, vision and football smarts. The knock is he doesn't have great speed but again a RB like Shonn Green or even a FB like Ravens Le'Ron McClain proved speed isn't everything in today's NFL.

There cant be 32 Pro Bowl RBs in the NFL every year so there has to be the Greats (Chris Johnson & AP), The Goods (Steven Jackson, MJD, Thomas Jones, Gore) and then there's the other guys that are good but are not the elite (Ryan Grant, Marion Barber, Rashard Mendenhall).

So why cant Gerhart be in position to be one of the Good backs or just one of the other guys? I'm not saying he is going to lead the NFL in rushing yards but why cant he put up 1000+ yards with 7+ TDs and average 3.9-4.1 YPC?

Whats holding him back?

I think in some people's minds if you arent Jim Brown then you musnt be any good. The guy should at least be thought of in the same light as Matt Forte, Lyndale White and Shon Greene based on size/speed/production and area he possibly could be drafted. Given the right situation he could be better than that.

DaBrowns41
01-30-2010, 02:32 PM
Wow, I like how Stanford's FB and O-Line just became one of the nation's best in order to disregard what Toby has done this season.

Maybe if you watched the games, you'd see the holes he was running behind.

I'm just sayin'.

HotRod35
01-31-2010, 01:25 PM
Doesn't make sharp-enough cuts to be a featured back in the NFL in my opinion. I think he'll be a power back and get picked around the 3rd round, similar to LenDale White and Michael Bush.

With all due respect, I don't understand where this whole thing about not making sharp enough cuts comes from. The man is 235 pounds; he is a power back with excellent, speed, and explosion.

I don't expect him to make the same kind of cuts that say a CJ Spiller makes. But he makes extremely effective cuts for a power back.

I is a fact that Gerhart makes outstanding cuts and often makes more than one on a single play; most importantly, there are numerous examples of clips, where after making a cut the defender is lying on the ground. I am talking D-1 Corners and Safeties literally lying on the ground; not because they got run over, (there are those as well) but because Gerhart made a cut in the open field and the defender gets caught out of position, due to Gerhart's speed, and cutting ability.

Honestly, for all you guys that don't think Gerhart makes good cuts, please show me any clips of big power running backs making better cuts. Please show me the Dwyer cuts, that are clearly better and more effective. Show me the Dixon cuts that are clearly better and more effective. Show me the Benie Wells cuts that are clearly better and more effective.

For the record, I have looked at every clip I could find of the players mentioned above and every clip I can find of Gerhart. After careful review, simply put, I find no film evidence of any of these players, consistently making better, or more effective, cuts than Gerhart. None. If you have some I would like to see it.

So, again, with all due respect if you are going to make this claim, please offer some evidence to back it up. I am not trying to be a jerk, but I can find multiple clips of Gerhart, leaving multiple defensive players on the ground, on a single run. I can find no clips of any power back consistently making better or more effective cuts.

I can show you a clip of Gerhart, making a corner miss in the open field, followed immediately by him making a second cut and leaving the safety on the ground! That is two DBs in the open field, that a 235 pound running back uses his agility, and explosive speed to out "juke" two DBs, back, to back on one play.

Please show me the clips of Dwyer, Dixon, Wells, or any other power back making comparable plays, and which the cuts are sharper, or more effective.

Babylon
01-31-2010, 02:08 PM
Post removed.


I wouldnt put a ton of stock into people on this site saying he's a 3rd rounder having much of an impact on what scouts see in the guy. I could say he's a late 1st that doesnt mean squat does it?

ThePudge
01-31-2010, 02:27 PM
So tell me why, if he can cut with the best of them, has power, speed, production, etc. he is rated only a third round prospect??
I can only think of one reason, but wont say it.

I agree with this statement to an extent. HotRod, with your analysis of Gerhart concluding that Toby is a flawless RB prospect, I take it you believe he'll be off the board in the first 10-15 picks. Surely, a player of his elite production and physical tools can't drop too far. No way he can fall out of the first with all that ability.

Babylon, I understand your points and it's the coaches/GMs that make the final call (and it only takes one), not the fans. You're high on the guy, and that's fine as everyone will have a different opinion of the draft class. Still, I'm a bit tired of Gerhart not being allowed to have holes in his game. If he's perfect, and you're unable to accept any bad with the good, then it should be easy to say confidently he's a first round pick. Right now, I see a fairly biased analysis of the player while draft implications are not being covered (perhaps purposely).

HotRod35
01-31-2010, 02:40 PM
Compared to the other Rb that are going to move up in the draft I think Toby is just going to drop down in the second round.

I thought Toby would be a late first round pick, but after looking at the other Rb, I just think him and Best are a lock for the second round.

Spiller is in the first, and the other 2 running backs that people forget about is Matthews and Dwyer.

Also lets remember that only 32 players can go in the first round, so if Toby does go in the first what team would take him? Over say more complete backs like Matthews or Dwyer.


I am not saying you are wrong about where he will go in the draft. But what is the basis, for the quote: "Over say more complete backs like Matthews or Dwyer."

I really like Matthews, though there is some question with regard to the level of competition, but as I have noted before, when he played against good schools he produced. He just didn't get to play against that many. Right behind Gerhart he was the most consistent RB in the country last year. This is a feather in his cap and one that Gerhart does not get enough credit for. Having said all that, what supports the claim that he is a more "complete" back?

Much is often made of Gerhart having something to prove in the passing game as a receiver; I don't as it is a factor of the offensive scheme under Harbaugh. People who make this claim over-look he was the 4th leading receiver, on the team this year, even though he caught less passes than his freshman year when he ranked 7th or 8th. The man as a life long baseball player has excellent hand eye coordination and catches what is thrown to him and in a fluid manner.

Having said that, he caught 24 passes the last two years vs 19 for Matthews, and just 13, for Dwyer.

For the record, Gerhart, caught 15 in his freshman season, when he was not the starter. His total placed him 2nd among RBs as A. Kimble was 1st, with 19. So the top two RBs caught 34 passes on a 1-11 team BH. Under Harbaugh (AH) the top two receiving backs totaled just 19, a drop off of 44%. This is not a lack of receiving skill by TG, it is a scheme.

Also, for the record, Benie Wells caught just 15 passes his whole career, which is the same amount Gehart totaled his freshman season, when he ws not the starter. I may be wrong but I don't remember people going on and on about Wells needed to prove something with respect to catching the ball. It certainly didn't keep him from being a 1st round draft choice.

I am curious what makes, Mathews, Dywer, and Wells more "complete" backs? What am I missing?

Babylon
01-31-2010, 03:09 PM
I agree with this statement to an extent. HotRod, with your analysis of Gerhart concluding that Toby is a flawless RB prospect, I take it you believe he'll be off the board in the first 10-15 picks. Surely, a player of his elite production and physical tools can't drop too far. No way he can fall out of the first with all that ability.

Babylon, I understand your points and it's the coaches/GMs that make the final call (and it only takes one), not the fans. You're high on the guy, and that's fine as everyone will have a different opinion of the draft class. Still, I'm a bit tired of Gerhart not being allowed to have holes in his game. If he's perfect, and you're unable to accept any bad with the good, then it should be easy to say confidently he's a first round pick. Right now, I see a fairly biased analysis of the player while draft implications are not being covered (perhaps purposely).

Seems like we've been down this road before. And again i will admit to him having holes in his game. He isnt a take it to the house guy, may have trouble staying completely healthy because of his running style and i still want to see his hands. I dont have a problem with him going late 1st, i'm not pig headed enough to say he should go early to mid 1st because i dont think it's warranted. Try remembering what i've said about the guy before you go off half cocked on the subject.

ThePudge
01-31-2010, 03:29 PM
Seems like we've been down this road before. And again i will admit to him having holes in his game. He isnt a take it to the house guy, may have trouble staying completely healthy because of his running style and i still want to see his hands. I dont have a problem with him going late 1st, i'm not pig headed enough to say he should go early to mid 1st because i dont think it's warranted. Try remembering what i've said about the guy before you go off half cocked on the subject.

I wasn't addressing you actually, but rather HotRod. I was using your name as an example of a developed and complete opinion on Toby Gerhart. I agreed that it only take one decision-maker, and that's certainly not the fans. I can see how that could throw you off, but the meat of my post was directed toward HotRod and I brought your name into the picture to illustrate an opinion on Gerhart I respected. He's the one that will not let Toby have a flaw, and he hasn't actually stepped forward and made statements relating to the draft itself. Let's not go turning compliment into insult here.

HotRod35
01-31-2010, 03:37 PM
I agree with this statement to an extent. HotRod, with your analysis of Gerhart concluding that Toby is a flawless RB prospect, I take it you believe he'll be off the board in the first 10-15 picks. Surely, a player of his elite production and physical tools can't drop too far. No way he can fall out of the first with all that ability.

Babylon, I understand your points and it's the coaches/GMs that make the final call (and it only takes one), not the fans. You're high on the guy, and that's fine as everyone will have a different opinion of the draft class. Still, I'm a bit tired of Gerhart not being allowed to have holes in his game. If he's perfect, and you're unable to accept any bad with the good, then it should be easy to say confidently he's a first round pick. Right now, I see a fairly biased analysis of the player while draft implications are not being covered (perhaps purposely).

"HotRod, with your analysis of Gerhart concluding that Toby is a flawless RB prospect, I take it you believe he'll be off the board in the first 10-15 picks."

Pudge: One more time allow me to set the record straight: I think you make some very valid posts on this site, far better than most. But this is more than once that you have stated that I claim "Toby is a flawless RB". Please let's at least get this one thing straight, I have never said, wrote, or thought in my sleep, that Toby, or Gerhart, or Toby Gerhart is a "flawless" back.

Moreover, I am on record as stating: that I can understand why someone would pick a CJ Spiller, over a Gerhart, though I would not. I can make a reasonable argument, that Spiller is a better pick, and have support for that conclusion.I don't make that argument, but it is a reasonable one.

What I don't understand, is when people make outrageous claims, which either state, or imply, a lack of athleticism, on Gerhart's part, or that he has some other imagined flaw, when clearly he is one of the best all around Athletes, coming out this year, and there is a wealth of evidence disproving certain claims, such as lack of speed.

I also don't understand, and will take exception to people claiming things like:

1) he doesn't make sharp cuts........ When he makes very effective cuts

2) He doesn't make people miss........ Where there is clip after clip of him leaving Corners, Safeties, and other defenders lying on the ground after he makes a cut in the open field

3) He is not fast to the hole..........When there is clip after clip of him running right by linebackers and other defenders coming to the "hole"

4) He lacks receiving skills........When he was the 4th leading receiver on the team and caught more passes, than Wells, Matthews, and Dwyer, as just three examples of RBs that people are not concerned about

5) He is too slow for the NFL.......When all the available information clearly point to a 40 time of around 4.5; plenty fast enough for a 235lb RB

6) He is not as good of a prospect as Anthony Dixon.........He runs faster, jumps higher, is stronger, and more productive than Dixon; He ran faster, jumped higher, and was stronger, and more productive than Dixon out of high school too, yet Dixon, as now, was rated higher

I could go on, but I think you get my point. I disagree with you on Gerhart's speed to the hole, and his ability to make people miss. I tend to agree with you on this top end speed, which is not bad but not his strength.

You cling to the notion that Gerhart is significantly lacking as a pro prospect, because of his lack of runs over 40 yards. I think you do this because it is one of the very few stats, in which Gerhart is not clearly ahead of almost every other RB coming out this year.

You make no mention of the fact that youare talking about the difference of 3 or 4 palys in a season of 250- to 350 runs. The difference between the number of 40 yard plus plays for Gerhart, Vs any power back is well less than 1% of all the plays, where they run the ball, much less than all the offensive plays in a season.

Its nice to make a 70 yard run, but it almost never happens for anyone. It is simply not a big enough factor to favor one back over another, unless all other factors are equal. And they are not equal are they? Gerhart is significantly superior to any other running back coming out this year, in almost every single category of consequence for a running back.

One more thing, you make much hay out of 40 yard plus runs, but you never want to mention 10+ yard runs. These are significantly more numerous and I argue of far more consequence than 40+ yard runs. I think I am correct in stating that while Gerhart does not lead the nation in 40+ yard runs, he does lead the nation in 10+ yard runs. He is not simply a short yardage guy, or a just between the tackles runner. The evidence is clear to this fact.

Moreover, in addition to leading the nation in total runs over 10 yards, he led the nation in touchdown runs over 10 yards. Again, some want to make the argument that he scored all those TDs because they gave it to him on the goal line all the time. Not true; not a fact; the fact is he scored on more runs over 10 yards than any back in the nation. More than Spiller, more than Matthews, more than Dwyer, more than Dixon, and more than Ingram, for that matter.

I have never said he was "flawless" He is not flawless, but the facts show that what ever he is, it is pretty dam good.

ThePudge
01-31-2010, 04:02 PM
I have never said he was "flawless" He is not flawless, but the facts show that what ever he is, it is pretty dam good.

It's reasonable. Hopefully you can take what I'm saying without hostility, because I don't hold that attitude at all... what I'm trying to do is attempt to dig at you, bait you into discussion on things Toby doesn't do well, and take a look under the microscope (the NFL microscope.) What I'm trying to pry from you is your opinion of things he doesn't do as well, and points of concern for NFL evaluators. I'm also trying to see where you think he'll be drafted in April.

It's obvious we've both evaluated the film, we've evaluated in different ways, saw different things, and hold different opinions. That's ok, but now I'm trying to get the full opinion. You've had to be defensive, as people have your favorite RB in the class lower on their boards. Still, I want you to go on the offensive. I'm a coach, I have a Top 15-20 pick, you're a scout tell me why I shouldn't take Gerhart.

Babylon
01-31-2010, 04:07 PM
It's reasonable. Hopefully you can take what I'm saying without hostility, because I don't hold that attitude at all... what I'm trying to do is attempt to dig at you, bait you into discussion on things Toby doesn't do well, and take a look under the microscope (the NFL microscope.) What I'm trying to pry from you is your opinion of things he doesn't do as well, and points of concern for NFL evaluators. I'm also trying to see where you think he'll be drafted in April.

It's obvious we've both evaluated the film, we've evaluated in different ways, saw different things, and hold different opinions. That's ok, but now I'm trying to get the full opinion. You've had to be defensive, as people have your favorite RB in the class lower on their boards. Still, I want you to go on the offensive. I'm a coach, I have a Top 15-20 pick, you're a scout tell me why I shouldn't take Gerhart.

I think because Gerhart was somehow off the radar screen before this year he is having to prove he can play as opposed to a lot of guys who are having to prove they cant play.

ThePudge
01-31-2010, 04:19 PM
I think because Gerhart was somehow off the radar screen before this year he is having to prove he can play as opposed to a lot of guys who are having to prove they cant play.

See, I was a Gerhart fan his Junior season when he was splitting time with Kimble. His talent really comes through when you watch him play and it's obvious he's strong, natural, and athletic enough to play RB at the NFL level. Still, I have looked at his situation and have tried to come up with reasons he can't play and won't be drafted high. There's definitely some things there to look at, and another main factor would be NFL Running Back trends. It's going to be fun to talk about Gerhart and see what kind of interest/vision NFL teams have for him.

Babylon
01-31-2010, 04:26 PM
See, I was a Gerhart fan his Junior season when he was splitting time with Kimble. His talent really comes through when you watch him play and it's obvious he's strong, natural, and athletic enough to play RB at the NFL level. Still, I have looked at his situation and have tried to come up with reasons he can't play and won't be drafted high. There's definitely some things there to look at, and another main factor would be NFL Running Back trends. It's going to be fun to talk about Gerhart and see what kind of interest/vision NFL teams have for him.

Good point there on what teams have planned for him. They will have to invision him as a feature back and not just writing him off as a FB type. I remember Vermeil at the combine sort of laughing off Brian Leonard because he didnt look the part. Not to drift into taboo territory here but teams are going to have to see him fitting the part or he isnt going to make it.

FUNBUNCHER
01-31-2010, 04:53 PM
Man, I secretly hope Toby drops to the 3rd after Shanahan has drafted his OT and QB, and GM Bruce Allen pulls the trigger on him.
Gerhart could run for 1400 yards as a rookie in the SKins new ZBS run offense.
Unfortunately Toby has a number of hurdles to overcome in the minds of HCs and GM, both real and theoretical.
Until he proves what he can do against the big boys, there are some in the NFL who will not assume Gerhart has the talent and skillset to be a quality NFL RB until he proves that he is.

Babylon
01-31-2010, 05:05 PM
Man, I secretly hope Toby drops to the 3rd after Shanahan has drafted his OT and QB, and GM Bruce Allen pulls the trigger on him.
Gerhart could run for 1400 yards as a rookie in the SKins new ZBS run offense.
Unfortunately Toby has a number of hurdles to overcome in the minds of HCs and GM, both real and theoretical.
Until he proves what he can do against the big boys, there are some in the NFL who will not assume Gerhart has the talent and skillset to be a quality NFL RB until he proves that he is.

Just give him #44 there and get some hogs to block for him. Do the whole retro thing.

HotRod35
01-31-2010, 06:04 PM
I'm just saying everyone is really exaggerating some things when discussing Toby. I think like half the defenses he faced were in the bottom half of the country against the run. There were a couple between 20-50, a couple more between 50-70, and then 5 or 6 at 70 or below, including 2 at 115+.

I like Toby as a RB, but both sides of the argument need to stop being so unrealistic. He didn't have an all world supporting cast, and he didn't face the anywhere near the toughest defenses. Both are somewhere in the middle, but that doesn't take away from how he produced.

I know a lot of people do not think there is anything special about Gerhart, and I respect that you think people are exaggerating. But I love it when we have some numbers, to look at. People make all kinds of speculations, without bothering to look at many facts, if any at all, in some cases.

I have looked at facts, and a lot of numbers, and that is exactly why I am so bullish on Toby Gerhart.

The numbers speak for themselves; whether people want to believe it or not we are talking about a running back that has been special. He has not been average or anything close to it. In fact based on production he has been a very special back indeed.

You may all sorts of reasons to suspect he may not be “special” at the next level. But you simply don’t have very many facts to back that up; at least not based on production numbers. Well there is Pudge’s all everything number: runs over 40 yards, that for him seems to trump all.

I took at the run defenses Gerhart faced this season, their rankings; the number of yards they gave up; and what Gerhart did against them as compared to their averages.

I then took it one step further and compared his results against, the best run defenses, to a reasonably similar back, that most everyone thinks is superior to Gerhart. This way we can compare something closer with respect to apples to apples. How did Gerhart fare against the best run defenses he faced, Vs how another running back did against the same type of competition. Seems fair; I hope.

It is my intent that this represents an objective analysis and a comparison based on the manifestation of play on the field. That is, as represented by the facts as recorded, based on actual stats.

The player I choose to compare Gehart’s numbers to: Jonathan Dwyer of Ga. Tech. I did so because of the relative size and because this is a running back that many feel is significantly superior to Gerhart.

For a starting point there are 120 FBS teams, so I looked at what each player did against teams ranked in the top 60 or the top one-half of college football.

Simply put, I will tell you that while I expected Gerhart’s numbers to be better, I was surprised by how much superior they were. I am not exaggerating when I say they are not even close:

Gerhart faced 8 teams ranked in the top 60, or put another way, 62% of the teams he faced were some of the better teams, in the nation defending against the run. Gerhart rushed for 100 yards or more against 7 of the eight or 88%; His best game came against Oregon, when he rushed for 223 yards, ranked 42nd; the lone exception was 96 against Oregon St. ranked 25th.

These 8 teams, ranked in the top 60, averaged giving up 118 yards rushing per game. That is total rushing against all running backs, QBs and anyone else for that matter, per game. Gerhart produced a mind boggling 1,150 yards against these 8 teams, ranked in the top one-half against the run. Accordingly, Gerhart averaged 144 yards per game, against better than average run defenses. That is, Gerhart, alone, out produced the average total team production against these same defenses by 22%.

No, nothing special here folks.

Now let’s look at Dwyer, who most are projecting as a sure No.1 and usually the 2nd best running back available.

Dwyer faced 5 teams ranked in the top 60, or put another way, just 36% of the teams he faced were some of the better teams in the nation defending against the run. Dwyer rushed for 100 yards or more against just 1 of the five or 20%. His best game was 158 yards against North Carolina, ranked 10th; his worst was 7 yards against Miami, ranked 32; in total he rushed for 50 yards or less against 3 of the 5 teams.

These 5 teams, ranked in the top 60, averaged giving up 119 yards rushing per game. That is, total rushing against all running backs, QBs and anyone else for that matter per game. Dwyer produced a moderate 329 yards against these 5 teams ranked in the top one-half against the run. Accordingly, Dwyer averaged 66 yards per game, against better than average run defenses. That is, Dwyer out produced the average team production against these same defenses by -44%. Please note that is a minus.

To recap:

Number of teams ranked in the top one-half faced during 2009:

Gerhart: 8; (62%)
Dwyer: 5; (36%)

Number of 100 yard plus rushing games against teams in the top one-half:

Gerhart: 7 of 8 (88%)
Dwyer: 1 of 5 (20%)

Average total rushing, per game, allowed by top one-half opponents:

Gerhart Opponents: 118 yards
Dwyer Opponents: 119 yards

Average individual rushing production Vs teams ranked in the top one-half;

Gerhart: 144 yards per game
Dwyer: 66 yards per game

Percentage comparison of Individual rushing Vs Team Totals:

Gerhart: Plus (+) 22% Vs Team Average against all players
Dwyer: Minus (-) 44% Vs Team Average against all players

No, nothing to see here; certainly nothing special about Toby Gerhart.

For the record, I think Dwyer is an outstanding prospect. I am saying that based on play on the field it is a tad bit difficult to see how he is head and shoulders above Gerhart.

HotRod35
01-31-2010, 06:26 PM
I'm just saying everyone is really exaggerating some things when discussing Toby. I think like half the defenses he faced were in the bottom half of the country against the run. There were a couple between 20-50, a couple more between 50-70, and then 5 or 6 at 70 or below, including 2 at 115+.

I like Toby as a RB, but both sides of the argument need to stop being so unrealistic. He didn't have an all world supporting cast, and he didn't face the anywhere near the toughest defenses. Both are somewhere in the middle, but that doesn't take away from how he produced.

I am not trying to pick on you, but you are not even close in your statistics regarding Gerhart, Vs run defenses.

Fact: 8 or 62% of his opponents ranked in the top 1/2, or 60
Fact: 7 or 54% of his opponents ranked in the top 42, or top 35% of all teams
Fact: 6 or 50% of his opponents ranked in the top 40, or top 1/3 of all teams.

You are correct that 2 were terrible against the run, that being Washington State at 117 and San Jose State at 119.

I will put the number of teams Gerhart faced, in the top one half, against any other running back in the country.

Most importantly, I will put his production against top run defenses in the country, up against any other running back in the country. Period.

I have not researched every back in the nation, but since Gerhart averaged 144 yards against teams ranked in the Top 1/2 of college football, I feel very safe in stating the following:

Toby Gerhart out produced any other running back in the nation, against the top run defenses in the country period.

That is true whether or not they are in the draft or not, and it certainly includes Mark Ingram.

Every single running back; on every single team; in the country; period.

HotRod35
01-31-2010, 06:52 PM
Oh, I'm not saying there is. I was just stating that both sides of the Toby argument have tended to exaggerate.

I don't know the stats for all RBs, so Toby certainly could have faced the toughest defenses collectively compared to other RBs, but that doesn't mean he faced top defenses every game, or even most games, as a lot of people imply.

I want Toby to get drafted into a similar situation to Shonn Greene, where he won't be counted on to produce right away because of a star RB ahead of him, but will be able to come in at certain points and show he can produce. I really think the best thing for him is a situation like that, where it will take a year or two without high expectations to adjust and prove himself.

That is a fair statement.

I think there are some interesting comparisons between Gerhart and Greene. But like I have stated before, I think the biggest question marks for Greene from what I know is as follows:

1) he had just one outstanding year
2) There were some off the field question, regarding school etc.
3) He was considered a 4.6+, 40 guy

Still with all that he was drafted early in the 3rd correct? Some have Gerhart going mid to late in the 3rd, or later. But look at his situation as directly compared to the negatives asserted against Greene:

1) Toby broke the single season record at Standford twice; and he had a decent year for a freshman on a very bad team. Not good numbers unless you take into account how bad the team was. He played just three seasons, and part of one game his sophomore season.
2) no off-field questions here, as everything points to a model student athlete, dedicated to sports and academics at a high level. The one an only question would have been baseball, but he has answered that one.
3) there is simply no credible evidence that points to anything but a well below 4.6 forty, and the evidence available points to a 4.5. He is faster than Greene.

I understand and appreciate what you have said about exaggeration, but I think you will agree that I have, attempted, and respectfully so, to address the issues and questions regarding Gerhart with Facts and some logical reasoning.

HotRod35
01-31-2010, 07:13 PM
Yea, sorry, I really like Toby as a running back. I love power runners who don't dance around, just hit holes and go. I think he can succeed at the next level as a RB, and hope he does.

That said, this argument tends to polarize towards people over exaggerating how good or bad he is. He was incredibly productive, against some good defenses and some bad, so the collective average of defenses faced is somewhere in the middle of the rankings.

He is incredibly strong and secures the ball well (I think), but as some people have said he runs very tall, which could be a problem in the NFL. He also prolly doesn't have a ton of quickness or timed speed, but his game speed is good enough to succeed as a stronger back.

The one problem I have is that despite being able to recognize holes and making the right decisions, he really doesn't cut very well and lacks typical foot quickness in making those cuts that you like to see on RBs. Now, that might now matter if he makes up for it by being a power runner with secure hands.

He's not a great all around RB, but he is definitely an excellent power runner. That is why I think more teams will overlook him to take the more versatile RBs with a lot of potential.

I think you make some good points, however, I respectfully suggest that a number of the faults or limitations you state are more conjecture rather than fact. I do think you are very correct in your last sentence.

Allow me to address a few other comments:

"He was incredibly productive, against some good defenses and some bad, so the collective average of defenses faced is somewhere in the middle of the rankings."

With all due respect you are wrong in the last part of the quote. Please see my earlier post regarding Gerhart's production against better run defenses. He is not in the middle of the rankings.

He averaged 144 yards against 8 teams ranked in the top 1/2 in the nation against the run. You can see in my earlier post that other runners like Dwyer faced no where near as many better teams and were no where near as successful. Dwyer averaged just 66 yards against teams 5 teams in the top 1/2.

Gerhart actually produced more yards, alone, (by more than 20%) against the top teams he faced, as compared to what they averaged giving up against entire teams.

Dwyer, as a comparison, averaged 40% less production compared to total team production against better run defensive teams . In fact, against teams ranked in the top 1/2 against the run Gerhart out produced Dwyer by 78 yards, per game, or over 118% more yards, per game!

That is simply not average.

Regarding the following quote: "he really doesn't cut very well." Beauty may, indeed, be in the eye of the beholder, but in an earlier post today I challenged anyone.

Please, to those of you who do not think Gerhart makes good cuts: Show me the clips of any other big runner, Dwyer for example, or Dixon or even Benie Wells, where they make consistently better and more effective cuts in the open field than Gerhart. I have looked for them and simply can not find them.

I stand by that statement.

bored of education
01-31-2010, 07:19 PM
Just because of the amount of work HotRod35 has put in to his posts about Toby Gerhart it makes me believe that Gerhart will be the 2nd coming of christ. I think Toby will run in between 4.51-4.55, nothing on video can substantiate what someone may run. But regardless of his 40 time, Gerhart's film lends me to believe he will be a 2nd round pick. I like that he attacks the hole, and can break through a hole and get to the 2nd level while breaking several tackles. Is he a game changer, I don't think so. not many RBs are. He will be a very good player for someone and wil be drafted in the 2nd round.

niel89
01-31-2010, 07:29 PM
Thank you for bringing a logical and well thought out argument.

HotRod35
01-31-2010, 07:33 PM
do you honestly think that putting 223 on oregon dropped them that substantially? they gave up, on average 236 rushing yards per game. and 178 against USC? zomg, 5 whole yards over their average. i'm sure they were the top rushing defense in the nation, minus gerhart.

i'm sure usc was like, the 38th best rushing defense, if they'd played anyone other than gerhart.

but hey, feel free to NOT spend 6 seconds thinking about what you're saying. i'm sure it's much easier to get mock offended.

"they gave up, on average 236 rushing yards per game"

Sorry but you are incorrect. According to my research Oregon gave up an average of 128.69 yards per game. Gerhart, alone, hung 223 yards on them.

Regarding Gerhart's impact on his opponent's averages and rankings. There is some truth to that. Take Oregon for example, they averaged surrendering 128.7 yards per game, which ranked them 42 in the country. Without Gerhart's production, which was 85% more than they averaged giving up to entire teams, their rushing yielded drops to 120.8 yards per game.

That is quite a difference. If they had not faced Gehart, they would have ranked 30th instead of 42nd.

Looked at another way Gerhart, alone, increased their average yield by 8 yards a game.

bored of education
01-31-2010, 07:54 PM
Please do not put Beanie Wells and Toby Gerhart in the same sentence unless it involves Toby giving Beanie a sponge bath.

niel89
01-31-2010, 07:55 PM
Please do not put Beanie Wells and Toby Gerhart in the same sentence unless it involves Toby giving Beanie a sponge bath.
Beanie loves R-jobs not sponge baths

iowatreat54
01-31-2010, 07:55 PM
Just because other big backs don't make good cuts or can change directions quickly doesn't mean anything in my argument.

I have never once said that Gerhart is a bad back, worse than any other back (why you bring up Dwyer and his production I have no idea), or anything of that nature.

The fact of the matter is he doesn't make cuts well. That's not to say that he should because he's a bigger, power back, only that he doesn't. When you look at complete backs, they have strength and the ability to cut/change direction quickly. That is my point. Gerhart is a power back, not a completely rounded back. Does that mean he can't be good? Not at all, he can still be very good. All it means is that he has flaws in his game that drop his stock. Even if he was the best RB in the class, it doesn't necessarily mean he should be taken highly because of it.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason you to bring up Dwyer in response to my points. At no point did I ever compare Gerhart to Dwyer, or any other back for that matter, nor did I say Gerhart's production wasn't impressive. Like I just said, just because Gerhart out performed other backs does not mean he is a great prospect. Even if it makes him a better prospect than all other backs, that doesn't mean he should be drafted highly. It could mean it's a weak crop of RBs.

If you contest that Gerhart can make cuts, that's fine and your opinion. I think you agree that he can't because he's a bigger back, which I agree with, and have stated my opinion. It just doesn't make sense to me to introduce a comparison to another player that I never brought up, or even to contest why Toby should be thought of higher.

Now, if you say Toby is the top back but agree that he won't be taken early, then I agree with you. As to my earlier statement, does anyone really believe Toby or any back in this draft could go to a team like the Rams, Lions, Raiders, etc. (pretend they don't have any RB) and succeed immediately? That's what I meant in terms of him not being able succeed in every opportunity.

HotRod35
01-31-2010, 08:18 PM
It's reasonable. Hopefully you can take what I'm saying without hostility, because I don't hold that attitude at all... what I'm trying to do is attempt to dig at you, bait you into discussion on things Toby doesn't do well, and take a look under the microscope (the NFL microscope.) What I'm trying to pry from you is your opinion of things he doesn't do as well, and points of concern for NFL evaluators. I'm also trying to see where you think he'll be drafted in April.

It's obvious we've both evaluated the film, we've evaluated in different ways, saw different things, and hold different opinions. That's ok, but now I'm trying to get the full opinion. You've had to be defensive, as people have your favorite RB in the class lower on their boards. Still, I want you to go on the offensive. I'm a coach, I have a Top 15-20 pick, you're a scout tell me why I shouldn't take Gerhart.

Pudge: I am glad to hear that you are not coming at me with hostility. I didn't think that, but it is good to hear. Hopefully, you don't think I have responded with hostility either. I would hope the things that I have said, and my posts reflect, that I do my research and I back up what I say with facts.

I appreciate your entire response as quoted above. Like I said before, your posts are far better than average; they are well written and thought out.

Regarding, your premise, in general I don't tend to think along those lines. I am more of a the "glass is half full" type of guy. I will put some thought into it though.

One thing I try to do in my business and personal life is to think, and judge people and events, with an open mind. Most importantly though is that I try to be consistent in my arguments and positions, and how I view things and the world in general.

In other words, I think you owe it to yourself, and others, not to argue one way, one minute, and argue a different way, then next minute. Especially if doing so is to your advantage and it is the only reason you are taking opposite positions.

Just be consistent in your arguments. I don't think, your position should depend, as they say on "who's ox is being gored". If you saw some one stab the ox, you know why there is blood in the street.

I am not saying that you have not been. But there are a number of people who argue many things about Gerhart, but don't take the same position with other players. I just think that is wrong, and I say so.

Having said all that, I have spent for more time on here today, than I should. But I will give what you say some thought. If you are truly interested that is.

Off the top of my head, I will say this, I think Toby Gerhart is the best back coming out this year. I find it difficult to argue the superiority of any other big back, without being nit picky. That is, I think he is the best Power Style running back coming out.

I think he has been special every step of his career. Does that guarantee anything in the pros? No, but it is what we have to go on today.

Now, like I said, I think you can make all kinds of arguments regarding Spiller, but he is a very different type of back. I think there are all kinds of arguments you can make to favor Spiller over Gerhart. A lot of that though, goes to what type of offense do you run and what is your current player personnel situation.

HotRod35
01-31-2010, 08:32 PM
yes, and if you'd read my response all of 2 posts later, you would've seen where i admitted i'd gotten my numbers wrong. as well as my counter to the rest of your argument. sometimes it pays to read a thread before jumping on that reply button.

Sorry, if it seemed I was attacking you, I was not. I read the other statements but I have read a lot of stuff today. So I didn't remember, any correction; after doing some research, I remembered your stat, and knew it was wrong by a wide margin, that is why it stuck out in my mind. If that is wrong I apologize.

Nothing I said in my post though is incorrect, as far as I know. And I think the premise is interesting, which is another reason why I went back to it.

You do have to admit, though, it was a pretty big error, and I had just done some research on the run defenses Gerhart faced. Accordingly, that is why I went back to that post.

I am sorry, if I offended you. I was just pointing out the the quote was incorrect. I tried to do so in a respectful manner. I didn't call you names or say you were this or that. I simply stated "sorry you are wrong" and then made the correction.

HotRod35
01-31-2010, 09:03 PM
Just because other big backs don't make good cuts or can change directions quickly doesn't mean anything in my argument.

I have never once said that Gerhart is a bad back, worse than any other back (why you bring up Dwyer and his production I have no idea), or anything of that nature.

The fact of the matter is he doesn't make cuts well. That's not to say that he should because he's a bigger, power back, only that he doesn't. When you look at complete backs, they have strength and the ability to cut/change direction quickly. That is my point. Gerhart is a power back, not a completely rounded back. Does that mean he can't be good? Not at all, he can still be very good. All it means is that he has flaws in his game that drop his stock. Even if he was the best RB in the class, it doesn't necessarily mean he should be taken highly because of it.

Furthermore, there is absolutely no reason you to bring up Dwyer in response to my points. At no point did I ever compare Gerhart to Dwyer, or any other back for that matter, nor did I say Gerhart's production wasn't impressive. Like I just said, just because Gerhart out performed other backs does not mean he is a great prospect. Even if it makes him a better prospect than all other backs, that doesn't mean he should be drafted highly. It could mean it's a weak crop of RBs.

If you contest that Gerhart can make cuts, that's fine and your opinion. I think you agree that he can't because he's a bigger back, which I agree with, and have stated my opinion. It just doesn't make sense to me to introduce a comparison to another player that I never brought up, or even to contest why Toby should be thought of higher.

Now, if you say Toby is the top back but agree that he won't be taken early, then I agree with you. As to my earlier statement, does anyone really believe Toby or any back in this draft could go to a team like the Rams, Lions, Raiders, etc. (pretend they don't have any RB) and succeed immediately? That's what I meant in terms of him not being able succeed in every opportunity.

Iowa: With all due respect I think you are being a little sensitive. That is not meant to be a jab at you, just an observation.

For starters you write: "Just because other big backs don't make good cuts or can change directions quickly doesn't mean anything in my argument."


Respectfully, I think it means a great deal to your argument. At least in terms of comparing him to other running backs.

I would agree if you had wrote, that "he doesn't make good cuts but neither does any other big back coming out this year, so I don't think he should be drafted high, because all the RBs are weak and there is strength in other positions." That can be argued; I may not agree but it can be argued.

I am sorry, if I misunderstood you, I thought we, or in this instance you, and me, in my response, we were comparing him to other running backs.

My point is that when discussing Gerhart I truly think people have unrealistic ideas on what a 235 pound running back is suppose to look like when he makes a cut. I know this, his cuts are very effective, and there is plenty of proof of that, all over the net.

Respectfully, regarding this quote: "It just doesn't make sense to me to introduce a comparison to another player"

I never wrote that you thought anything of Dwyer one way or the other. I did state that plenty of people have him ranked ahead of Gerhart.

More importantly though you did state to the effect that Toby's production against run defenses was in the middle of the pact, or something like that ( I can't pull up the quote now).

I was trying to show that, factually, that is not the case; rather his numbers are superior to other running backs' production against the better run defenses. Is that not true, based on the facts as I presented them?

Instead of just throwing his stats out there I wanted to compare him to a running back that is very highly thought of. Was that not a reasonable thing to do?

I chose to compare him to Dwyer, I never wrote that you thought one way or the other about Dwyer. I think I was clear about this. I said "I wanted to compare him to another runner who was generally considered to be better than Gerhart" or something to that effect.

I hope I didn't offend you by wanting to offer up facts, regarding my opinion, and to offer up a comparison, to prove that Gerhart's production was not in the "middle" as I thought you were stating. If that is not what you meant, then I am sorry.

But nothing in my analysis, was meant to offend you.

Moreover, do you not think contrasting Gerhart's production, against better run defenses, to Dwyer's production against similar competition is not, in and of itself eye opening? I think the level of difference in production is staggering.

I am focused on Gerhart, relative to other running backs, and especially big backs. It that is not valid, when considering where he will be drafted then I respectfully disagree.

HotRod35
01-31-2010, 09:13 PM
i wasn't offended by your post. i was annoyed that you made the same argument another poster had already made that i'd responded to literally two posts later. if the thread is tl;dr, you should stick to the part(s) you have read thoroughly.

Again with all due respect: what if anything in my post is not factual?

I am stating that I did not make my correction of your post to offend you? I think I started my post by writing: "sorry".

But you seem to be attacking me for pointing out a gross error on your part. The fact that someone else already corrected you, does not make any statement of mine wrong.

But again, I am extending you an olive branch. Please accept, my apology as I hereby state, the following:

I corrected a gross inaccuracy on your part, and wish for the record to reflect that you had, in fact, already addressed this issue before my post.

HotRod35
01-31-2010, 09:20 PM
Just because of the amount of work HotRod35 has put in to his posts about Toby Gerhart it makes me believe that Gerhart will be the 2nd coming of christ. I think Toby will run in between 4.51-4.55, nothing on video can substantiate what someone may run. But regardless of his 40 time, Gerhart's film lends me to believe he will be a 2nd round pick. I like that he attacks the hole, and can break through a hole and get to the 2nd level while breaking several tackles. Is he a game changer, I don't think so. not many RBs are. He will be a very good player for someone and wil be drafted in the 2nd round.

I trust that was a light hearted dig at me, as it did give me a chuckle. I don't disagree with your post, in general. I do think he has the ability to be a game changer, but that is somewhat subjective. Much of that, as with the potential of his career will depend on the team, coach, and system.

For the record, I do not think Gerhart is the "2nd Coming". lol, I think he is pretty good though.

bored of education
01-31-2010, 09:38 PM
I trust that was a light hearted dig at me, as it did give me a chuckle. I don't disagree with your post, in general. I do think he has the ability to be a game changer, but that is somewhat subjective. Much of that, as with the potential of his career will depend on the team, coach, and system.

For the record, I do not think Gerhart is the "2nd Coming". lol, I think he is pretty good though.


A game changer is subjective. By game changer I meant a Jamaal Charles, Chris Johnson type who can break of 50 yard runs with out blinking. I see Toby as more of a grinder who near the end of a game could break off a run of that nature. Like you said it will really depend on the system and team that drafts him then how they utilize him.

HotRod35
01-31-2010, 10:34 PM
Please do not put Beanie Wells and Toby Gerhart in the same sentence unless it involves Toby giving Beanie a sponge bath.

Bored: Oh my!

Sorry but I can't resist, how about chewing on these numbers with regard to Gerhart and Wells (no sponge bath included):

I thought it would be interesting to compare Wellís career with Gerhartís career. It was an interesting exercise, to see just how close the numbers were. So here goes:

Total Career Games; rushes; yards; YPC:

Wells: 36 Games; 585 Carries for 3,282 YDS; (5.8 YPC);
Gerhart: 38 Games; 671 Carries for 3,522 YDS; (5.2 YPC);

Average yards rushing per game; total Touchdowns and TDs per game:

Wells: 93.9 yards rushing per game over career; 30 TDs; (0.8/Gm)
Gerhart: 92.7 yards rushing per game over career; 43 TDs; (1.1/Gm)

Number of games at 100 yards plus; 150 yards plus; and 200 yards plus:

Wells Games at: 100 yrds, 17 (47%); 150 yrds, 4 (11%); 200 yrds, 2 (7%)
Gerhart Games at: 100 yrds, 20 (53%); 150 yrds, 4 (11%); 200 yard, 3 (8%)

As stated, I thought the results of the comparisons were very interesting.

I also know that Gerhart played on a really bad team his freshman year and Wells battled some injuries affecting one or more seasons. Accordingly, I thought it would be interesting to look at the best 12 games each had, throughout their respective careers. Here is the result:

Best 12 Games, in career, regardless of which year, rushes; yards; YPC:

Wells: 12 Games; 300 Carries for 1,894 YDS; (6.3 YPC);
Gerhart: 12 Games; 301 Carries for 1,906 YDS; (6.3 YPC);

Best 12 games, avg. yards rushing; total Touchdowns and TDs per game:

Wells: 157.8 yards rushing per game (best 12); 15 TDs; (1.3/Gm)
Gerhart: 158.8 yards rushing per game (best 12); 28 TDs; (2.3/Gm)

Notes: Wellís 12 best games, came against 11 BCS teams. They included 7 games from 2007 and 5 games from 2008, indicating a bit of productivity drop off.

Gerhartís best 12 games came against 10 BCS teams; one less than Wells, but a pretty good comparison. One came from 2007 and it was the only game he played, indicating lost promise for that season; 4 came from 2008 and 7 came from his final year, indicating increasing productivity. In fact, 5, of the 12, came from November 2009.

These numbers were compiled before the Sun Bowl, so adding this game would slightly increase Gerhartís per game average and slightly decrease his YPC. The game against Oklahoma would replace the October 2009 Arizona game and give him 10 more total yards. It would also mean that 6 of his best 12 career games came during the last 6 games of his career.

I think it is amazing just how close all the numbers are. It also points out just what a scoring machine Gerhart became.

How about the comparison of the best 12 games? One had 300 carries and the other 301; they were just 12 yards total between the two, and they both averaged 6.3 YPC.

I know you are not a believer but I really thought the numbers were amazingly similar.

TitansCJftw
01-31-2010, 10:40 PM
numbers and stats always tell the whole story especially with gerhartz not watching the player or anything like that ;)

HotRod35
01-31-2010, 10:53 PM
numbers and stats always tell the whole story especially with gerhartz not watching the player or anything like that ;)

For the record, I don't think stats "always tell the whole story" I think I have been on record before about that.

That is why I like to point out that for several years Gerhart had the highest Baseball SPARQ rating ever, and that he scored well with in the 98th percentile for every single event, that purports to measure Speed, Power, Agility, Reaction, and over all Athleticism.

Oh wait is that a "stat" too?:eek:

Seriously, you are not suggesting that one should not look at actual results on the playing field when attempting to measure the caliber of a player are you?:)

TitansCJftw
01-31-2010, 11:15 PM
i was speaking to you're comparison to wells but hey! lets talk about baseball! LOL

iowatreat54
02-01-2010, 01:49 AM
Iowa: With all due respect I think you are being a little sensitive. That is not meant to be a jab at you, just an observation.

For starters you write: "Just because other big backs don't make good cuts or can change directions quickly doesn't mean anything in my argument."


Respectfully, I think it means a great deal to your argument. At least in terms of comparing him to other running backs.

I would agree if you had wrote, that "he doesn't make good cuts but neither does any other big back coming out this year, so I don't think he should be drafted high, because all the RBs are weak and there is strength in other positions." That can be argued; I may not agree but it can be argued.
No, see I've never compared him to any other back in this draft. Ever. I made an assessment of his style of playing, in which I believe he does not make quick cuts/changes in direction. I won't claim to have watched a lot of film, but I have seen numerous videos of him from this past year. He hits holes and has vision, but his cuts are slow. He does not change direction quickly.

That's not to say other backs are better, it's just my assessment of Gerhart. As a power back, it's not that big of a deal, but he is not an all around great back, imo.

Respectfully, regarding this quote: "It just doesn't make sense to me to introduce a comparison to another player"

I never wrote that you thought anything of Dwyer one way or the other. I did state that plenty of people have him ranked ahead of Gerhart.

More importantly though you did state to the effect that Toby's production against run defenses was in the middle of the pact, or something like that ( I can't pull up the quote now).
I said that the defenses he faced, if averaged, were at like 55. That's at about half way for D1. Now, I know that doesn't tell the whole story, but my point was he played some good defenses and some truly terrible defenses. He was more productive, from what you said, against the good defenses, but again, I never said he wasn't.

My point was to clarify that he wasn't facing all, or even a majority, of rush defenses that were good. He faced prolly an equal amount of good and bad defenses, with a couple average. That was my point.

I was trying to show that, factually, that is not the case; rather his numbers are superior to other running backs' production against the better run defenses. Is that not true, based on the facts as I presented them?

Instead of just throwing his stats out there I wanted to compare him to a running back that is very highly thought of. Was that not a reasonable thing to do?

I chose to compare him to Dwyer, I never wrote that you thought one way or the other about Dwyer. I think I was clear about this. I said "I wanted to compare him to another runner who was generally considered to be better than Gerhart" or something to that effect.

I hope I didn't offend you by wanting to offer up facts, regarding my opinion, and to offer up a comparison, to prove that Gerhart's production was not in the "middle" as I thought you were stating. If that is not what you meant, then I am sorry.

But nothing in my analysis, was meant to offend you.
I'm not offended at all. I actually think you have presented a well thought out argument for Toby. My point, in response to you, is that you completely twisted my original post. I never brought up that I thought Gerhart wasn't productive or wasn't a good back, in fact, I even specified that I really like him as a feature back because of his running style.

Furthermore, I brought up what I viewed to be his strengths and weaknesses as a runner. Again, it has absolutely nothing to do with any other backs in the draft, I never mentioned any other backs. I stated what I liked and thought were his best attributes, and also what I thought were his weaknesses and why teams might pass him over.

Moreover, do you not think contrasting Gerhart's production, against better run defenses, to Dwyer's production against similar competition is not, in and of itself eye opening? I think the level of difference in production is staggering.

I am focused on Gerhart, relative to other running backs, and especially big backs. It that is not valid, when considering where he will be drafted then I respectfully disagree.
Like I said, I like Gerhart as a running back. However, I don't think this is a very strong class of running backs. That's not to say I may be wrong or that they won't succeed, but as prospects this class really doesn't seem to measure up to other classes.

Having said that, my point was that even if Gerhart is regarded as the top or 2nd back in this draft, that doesn't mean he deserves to be taken high. I made the comment that I don't believe Gerhart is a player who will be successful no matter where he's drafted and I stand by that. The type of runner Gerhart is, he needs a decent OL in front of him and prolly a better than average QB. Like someone said, Gerhart isn't a big play threat. He will grind it out, getting consistent yardage. That's a great quality, however, it's pretty useless if you are down late in the game.

If Gerhart went to someone like the Raiders or the Ram (assuming he's their #1 back for argument's sake), he would likely be decent for the first half until his team was out of it and then see his carries diminish greatly. For a runner like Gerhart, he needs the consistent amount of carries. He isn't likely to hit those 50 or 60 yard runs early on every game.

I know I got a little carried away, but I wanted to make my point clear so my post wasn't misunderstood.

I like Gerhart as a running back. I originally stated that he has faced both good and bad defenses, not to take away from his production or to compare him to any other back. I haven't really looked at the other backs too much besides Gerhart, but I do know that this class is relatively weak for the position. If Gerhart is near the top of the class, I still don't think that makes him a legitimate target for a team that needs to fill their #1 spot at RB. I maintain that he needs the right situation in order to see success on the field early in his career.

Warpig
02-01-2010, 01:22 PM
Toby Gerhart = Jacob Hester = Brian Leonard = FB/H-Back

Babylon
02-01-2010, 01:26 PM
Toby Gerhart = Jacob Hester = Brian Leonard = FB/H-Back

You forgot Owen Schmitt and Heath Evans.

Warpig
02-01-2010, 01:33 PM
You forgot Owen Schmitt and Heath Evans.

I went with Hester and Leonard because those two guys were touted as being able to play TB at the next level after putting up great numbers in college as a TB, yet never got much of a chance to be "the" guy in the NFL and were quickly relegated to bench fodder.

ALP1987
02-01-2010, 05:20 PM
I went with Hester and Leonard because those two guys were touted as being able to play TB at the next level after putting up great numbers in college as a TB, yet never got much of a chance to be "the" guy in the NFL and were quickly relegated to bench fodder.

Both were also FBs in College. Hester his first few seasons at LSU and Leonard his last at Rutgers. Gerhart has never played the Fullback position. That's what he has on the other 2. They could be looked at as future FBs because they played the position before but Gerhart has been a RB since pee-wee football.

Gerhart is a totally different player then the other 2. Leonard (6'1" 230) is fast (4.49) but lacks vision, heart, strength and ability while Hester (5'11" 235) is smaller and slower (4.62) than Gerhart. He displays a similar power running style but aside from that there are no other Physical Ability Similarities.


Also Hester cant be knocked too much because he has averaged 4.2 YPC so far in his career and has actually looked good while running from the RB position. There is also talk of him playing RB next season for the Chargers in a combo with Sproles (if hes still there).

CC.SD
02-01-2010, 05:29 PM
Also Hester cant be knocked too much because he has averaged 4.2 YPC so far in his career and has actually looked good while running from the RB position. There is also talk of him playing RB next season for the Chargers in a combo with Sproles (if hes still there).


This conversation is veering a little too close to the ban line, but I think Hester can be held up as an example of a guy who was switched to FB who probably should not have been. He is certainly no blocker (although not atrocious enough to get the boot) and has not displayed any explosion. the 4.2 YPC is kind of an illusion given that most of his carries are in garbage time. Terrific on special teams though.

FUNBUNCHER
02-01-2010, 05:36 PM
Bah, Leonard runs more like a FB, north/south, and really doesn't have the vision of a RB. But he is a good athlete.

There's really no comparison between Gerhart and Leonard from a football standpoint.

ALP1987
02-01-2010, 05:43 PM
This conversation is veering a little too close to the ban line, but I think Hester can be held up as an example of a guy who was switched to FB who probably should not have been. He is certainly no blocker (although not atrocious enough to get the boot) and has not displayed any explosion. the 4.2 YPC is kind of an illusion given that most of his carries are in garbage time. Terrific on special teams though.

Yeah need to use kid gloves. Mr Warpig decided to lump the 3 together which is just insane. They are 3 totally different players with different styles. Leonard is the better athlete of the 3 but Gerhart is the better RB.

On the subject of his draft stock i would again say he is a 2nd round guy that could move into the late 1st with a great combine or fall to the mid 3rd with a bad one. I don't think he will be a superstar in the NFL but he will be a good productive player that will do many things for his team.

Xenos
02-01-2010, 11:29 PM
This conversation is veering a little too close to the ban line, but I think Hester can be held up as an example of a guy who was switched to FB who probably should not have been. He is certainly no blocker (although not atrocious enough to get the boot) and has not displayed any explosion. the 4.2 YPC is kind of an illusion given that most of his carries are in garbage time. Terrific on special teams though.
The problem with Hester is that his blocks lack the power that Lo Neal and Tolbert brings. However, what he lacks in power he makes up for consistency, which is why he's in a lot of LT's goal line runs. Tolbert is obviously the opposite in that he lacks that consistency but has Lo Neal's power. If anyone one of those two can fix their individual weakness then we have a better shot at a running game next year.

yourfavestoner
02-02-2010, 10:34 AM
LoZo's retirement was a big reason for the drop off in SD's running game huh?

gsoturf
02-10-2010, 07:15 PM
That video was very amateurish all I heard for 10 minutes was Gerhart has slow cuts and cant out run linebackers from someone who sounds like they had never picked up a football in their life.

gsoturf
02-10-2010, 07:17 PM
Both were also FBs in College. Hester his first few seasons at LSU and Leonard his last at Rutgers. Gerhart has never played the Fullback position. That's what he has on the other 2. They could be looked at as future FBs because they played the position before but Gerhart has been a RB since pee-wee football.

Gerhart is a totally different player then the other 2. Leonard (6'1" 230) is fast (4.49) but lacks vision, heart, strength and ability while Hester (5'11" 235) is smaller and slower (4.62) than Gerhart. He displays a similar power running style but aside from that there are no other Physical Ability Similarities.


Also Hester cant be knocked too much because he has averaged 4.2 YPC so far in his career and has actually looked good while running from the RB position. There is also talk of him playing RB next season for the Chargers in a combo with Sproles (if hes still there).

Leonard lacks heart really? How do you measure that? The guy had two shoulder surgerys while with the Rams and is now producing every chance he gets with the Bengals.

zachsaints52
02-11-2010, 09:02 AM
Toby Gerhart = Jacob Hester = Brian Leonard = FB/H-Back

Im pretty sure what Gerhart had to do by himself Hester and Leonard didn't. Leonard had Rice, while Hester was part of a five-man rotation with Keiland Williams, Trindon Holliday, Charles Scott, and Richard Murphy.

Addict
02-11-2010, 09:25 AM
expert analysis. i'm glad you shared contradictory information and argued your side well.

it's cool though. ad hom attacks on the person presenting the information are always FAR better than actual arguments. i mean, why bother actually having to come up with intelligent discussion when you can just play character assassin.

props to you, big guy. props to you.

if it's good enough for politicians it's good enough for us, dammit!

RealityCheck
02-11-2010, 10:08 AM
Proof that this board doesn't like Gerhart at all:

We're on the bottom of the 3rd round in our mock, and Toby is still there.

yourfavestoner
02-11-2010, 10:31 AM
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2009/writers/phil_taylor/12/02/white.rushers/toby-gerhart7.jpg
=
http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/fls/17300/graphics/m-footbl/no27-george-eddie.jpg

Babylon
02-11-2010, 11:15 AM
Proof that this board doesn't like Gerhart at all:

We're on the bottom of the 3rd round in our mock, and Toby is still there.

Proof that some on the board dont like him. Scott has him going to Houston in the second. I'm thinking Seattle in the second.

zachsaints52
02-11-2010, 11:17 AM
I love him, but I was gonna take him in the 4th to the Browns but SOMEONE had to talk :P

SenorGato
02-11-2010, 11:25 AM
Gerhart's a fine RB prsopect...I'd have no problems with the Jets taking him if we didn't already have Greene.

'cuse-213
02-11-2010, 11:31 AM
http://i2.cdn.turner.com/si/2009/writers/phil_taylor/12/02/white.rushers/toby-gerhart7.jpg
=
http://www.ohiostatebuckeyes.com/fls/17300/graphics/m-footbl/no27-george-eddie.jpg

I love the Eddie comparison

senormysterioso
02-11-2010, 11:36 AM
If he makes it to the 3rd the Packers need to grab him for sure.

yourfavestoner
02-11-2010, 11:38 AM
I love the Eddie comparison

Ya, it's perfect. Even the way they're standing and running the ball in those pictures, they look like the exact same player.

RealityCheck
02-11-2010, 11:39 AM
If he makes it to the 3rd the Packers need to grab him for sure.
You guys need more of a speed back like Mathews or Best. But if he's there in the 3rd, that's a huge steal.

batsandgats
02-11-2010, 02:51 PM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vXyTCJ2yTP8
Toby Gerhart's greatness.

I think at best he could be like Steven Jackson and at worst would be like Ryan Grant. Hes probably going to run in the 4.5 range which is plenty of speed for a halfback at the NFL level.

batsandgats
02-11-2010, 02:54 PM
I think Toby Gerhart is the one of the only backs that can be a true #1 guy in a one back system. I know for a fact though he would flourish in a two back system. He's faster than your average power back and can bang with the best of them. His knee injuries definitely give me a scare though

PCL injuries are the least serious for runningbacks, doesn't affect their ability to cut or anything like that and it has the least likely chance of reoccuring out of all knee injuries.

ALP1987
02-11-2010, 03:26 PM
PCL injuries are the least serious for runningbacks, doesn't affect their ability to cut or anything like that and it has the least likely chance of reoccuring out of all knee injuries.

Yeah and he also proved that his knee is stable and fine. Hes played 2 full seasons and has rushed 553 total times so his knee shouldn't be a concern.

This issue with this topic is simple. No one wants to meet in the middle. You have the Gerhart fans that's opinions range from saying he will be great, a game changer or a good back in the NFL while the Gerhart haters are saying he will be a bust or a goal line back or even worse a Fullback.

I don't think he will be a star but i don't think he will be a Bust/Fullback either. I think he will be on par with the average RBs in the NFL. He can get the job done. He will get 3.9-4.1 YPC with 1000+ yards and 7+TDs a season. Whats wrong with being a top 15 Back or top 20 in the NFL? It's not like hes going to be a high 1st round pick so his production (if it is just league average) would be worth it.

Babylon
02-11-2010, 03:45 PM
Yeah and he also proved that his knee is stable and fine. Hes played 2 full seasons and has rushed 553 total times so his knee shouldn't be a concern.

This issue with this topic is simple. No one wants to meet in the middle. You have the Gerhart fans that's opinions range from saying he will be great, a game changer or a good back in the NFL while the Gerhart haters are saying he will be a bust or a goal line back or even worse a Fullback.

I don't think he will be a star but i don't think he will be a Bust/Fullback either. I think he will be on par with the average RBs in the NFL. He can get the job done. He will get 3.9-4.1 YPC with 1000+ yards and 7+TDs a season. Whats wrong with being a top 15 Back or top 20 in the NFL? It's not like hes going to be a high 1st round pick so his production (if it is just league average) would be worth it.

4 ypc for 20 carries a game is going to give you about 1280 yds for the year. If he is indeed a 2nd or 3rd round pick i think that is excellant value there. Plus you're getting a model citizen. What's not to like really?

gsoturf
02-11-2010, 03:47 PM
expert analysis. i'm glad you shared contradictory information and argued your side well.

it's cool though. ad hom attacks on the person presenting the information are always FAR better than actual arguments. i mean, why bother actually having to come up with intelligent discussion when you can just play character assassin.

props to you, big guy. props to you.

What do you want me to say? That he does make cuts fast? That he can outrun linebackers when they don't have the angle? That he led the nation in rushing? That he was 2nd in the heisman? I mean there isn't much I can say to a video that consists of one cliche' after another.

Yes, Gerhart isn't a speed demon.. But league history is filled with guys like Gerhart who have done very well as starters. What makes you think he can't be just as effective as an Eddie George, Steven Jackson or Mike Alstot?

ALP1987
02-11-2010, 04:27 PM
did you seriously just suggest that being a fullback is WORSE than being a bust? it might be time for some perspective.

Yes i did. I'm a fan of Gerhart an would rather him atleast get the chance to be a RB in the NFL (even if he has the chance to become a bust) rather than him being drafted as a Fullback and being used to block.

gsoturf
02-11-2010, 04:31 PM
an actual analysis of some of his plays, highlighting your opinion would probably have been a start. otherwise, it's just a case of plugging your ears and saying "nu-uh!"



when did i ever say he won't/can't be?

You never did. I was directing that mostly to the creater of the video and doubters in general. I should have made that clearer.

batsandgats
02-11-2010, 04:38 PM
I would also rather see Gerhart play halfback or nothing in the NFL. No he won't wind up working at McDonalds. He has a degree in mechanical engineering and also has BASEBALL to fall back on. Why would I want to see him being used as a lead blocker, a position that he himself says he doesn't want to play? I want to see him playing the position he loves to play and was successful at in college not something he doesnt like...

gsoturf
02-11-2010, 04:40 PM
wow. yeah, i too would rather see players i like suck completely and be chucked out of the league, than see them enjoy a long career. i mean, greg jones NEVER touched the ball in 2004 as a fullback. i wish he'd just ended up working at mcdonalds.

I get what he is trying to say.. If you're a fan of a guy at RB why would you want him to play another position? I mean as far as him doing well personally, yes it's nice to see him start as a fullback, but as a fan of him as a RB I wanna see him play RB.

AntoinCD
02-11-2010, 04:40 PM
This issue with this topic is simple. No one wants to meet in the middle. You have the Gerhart fans that's opinions range from saying he will be great, a game changer or a good back in the NFL while the Gerhart haters are saying he will be a bust or a goal line back or even worse a Fullback.

Lol proof that Laurence Maroney is better than Jim Brown

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
02-11-2010, 04:48 PM
did you seriously just suggest that being a fullback is WORSE than being a bust? it might be time for some perspective.

I now feel like I can look my father in the eye again, despite me not becoming a pro football player, hell, at least I'm not a fullback.

gsoturf
02-11-2010, 04:53 PM
the myth of the worthless fullback is a fun one. mike alstott's listed position was fullback. isn't that exactly the type of role you want gerhart to have? sure, he might have to do some blocking. chris johnson has to do some blocking on occasion, too.

and there's nothing wrong with wanting him to play RB. but him busting out of the nfl because he can't play the position is certainly worse than if he becomes a great player at a different position. just ask hines ward.

I disagree with him saying that he would rather see him bust, but seeing him play Tail Back would be much more exciting as a fan of his. Jim Brown was also a full back... but as we know in todays NFL teams either don't have full backs at all or they are lead blockers, mostly.

ALP1987
02-11-2010, 05:02 PM
the myth of the worthless fullback is a fun one. mike alstott's listed position was fullback. isn't that exactly the type of role you want gerhart to have? sure, he might have to do some blocking. chris johnson has to do some blocking on occasion, too.

and there's nothing wrong with wanting him to play RB. but him busting out of the nfl because he can't play the position is certainly worse than if he becomes a great player at a different position. just ask hines ward.

Again i said i would rather him get the chance to play RB in the NFL and become a bust rather than a team drafting him with the sole purpose of being a Fullback. This way at least he was given the chance to succeed at his position rather than making the switch to a battering ram. I would much rather him be drafted as a RB and have a successful career but i think it would be a waste of his talents to draft him as a Fullback and not give him a chance to succeed at his natural position...

batsandgats
02-11-2010, 05:03 PM
I now feel like I can look my father in the eye again, despite me not becoming a pro football player, hell, at least I'm not a fullback.


I would lose respect for him if he didn't insist on playing halfback. The Raiders wanted Michael Bush to play fullback and he didn't want to and openly said it. Mike Bell didn't want to play fullback and the team thought he would do better there, he said he didnt want to and got fat. He has been doing quite well with the Saints.
Toby Gerhart should do the same thing and insist on being a halfback, like Mike Bell he might not be in the right situation or evaluated properly, espescially since he doesn't want to play fullback.

Its not like playing in the NFL is the biggest acheivement you can have in life. He also can play baseball and wind up a star there, or he could fall back on his degree, marry his swimmer girlfriend and live a fulfilling life that way. He has other things to fall back on if teams want to play him at fullback, whatever makes him happy. From his interviews, he wouldn't be happy playing as a lead blocker.

gsoturf
02-11-2010, 05:03 PM
Again i said i would rather him get the chance to play RB in the NFL and become a bust rather than a team drafting him with the sole purpose of being a Fullback. This way at least he was given the chance to succeed at his position rather than making the switch to a battering ram. I would much rather him be drafted as a RB and have a successful career but i think it would be a waste of his talents to draft him as a Fullback and not give him a chance to succeed at his natural position...

I agree with you.

gsoturf
02-11-2010, 05:43 PM
peyton hillis may have been a different player coming out, but i see nothing wrong with his career path. drafted as a fullback, played there well, but then got the chance to play halfback and played extremely well there. if josh mcdaniels wasn't an idiot, he'd probably be sharing carries with buckhalter and we'd have drafted someone with actual talent instead of bustorama. at the same time, i don't see anything wrong with him telling teams he has no interest in playing fb and would rather play hb. *shrug*

I never understood why Hillis didn't get more carries. Seemed to play very well last year as a part time starter. Maybe he will get a chance somewhere else, but it's obviously not Denver.

ALP1987
02-11-2010, 06:32 PM
peyton hillis may have been a different player coming out, but i see nothing wrong with his career path. drafted as a fullback, played there well, but then got the chance to play halfback and played extremely well there. if josh mcdaniels wasn't an idiot, he'd probably be sharing carries with buckhalter and we'd have drafted someone with actual talent instead of bustorama. at the same time, i don't see anything wrong with him telling teams he has no interest in playing fb and would rather play hb. *shrug*

Yeah....He didn't play much FB with the Broncos the first season. He was inactive for like 6 games and then had that one game with the 8 catches (i think it was 8) for something like 145+ yards. He then did nothing the next game until the Broncos lost their 5th or 6th RB to injury.

He came in and showed he could play the position of RB. He racked up 120+ yards against the Jets D which was ranked #1 in rushing defense at the time and hadn't allowed over 80 yards rushing in a game before Hillis. He did very well....and then McD came in and put him on the bench.

I guess that's what 68 carries for 343 yards 5.0 YPC) and 5 rushing TDs in 3 Games starting gets you.

nhlkdog411
02-11-2010, 08:13 PM
peyton hillis may have been a different player coming out, but i see nothing wrong with his career path. drafted as a fullback, played there well, but then got the chance to play halfback and played extremely well there. if josh mcdaniels wasn't an idiot, he'd probably be sharing carries with buckhalter and we'd have drafted someone with actual talent instead of bustorama. at the same time, i don't see anything wrong with him telling teams he has no interest in playing fb and would rather play hb. *shrug*

We've argued about Hillis in the past but this is a damn good post on Hillis..as for Gerhart, I agree with some people that he should be outspoken against being a fullback because his best fit is at HB but at the same time as others have said, he DOES have baseball to fall back on if someone tries to force him into a role he doesn't desire.

Babylon
02-12-2010, 11:04 AM
We've argued about Hillis in the past but this is a damn good post on Hillis..as for Gerhart, I agree with some people that he should be outspoken against being a fullback because his best fit is at HB but at the same time as others have said, he DOES have baseball to fall back on if someone tries to force him into a role he doesn't desire.

End of the day if he's capable of being a RB on some team they arent going to force him to play FB. I think where he gets drated will give people an idea how he is perceived. If he were to drop to the 4th or 5th round the hand writing is on the wall. I really dont see that happenening.

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
02-12-2010, 11:25 AM
but you still harbor secret dreams of becoming a ginger... you might be able to look at him in the chin now, but the eye is probably still some ways off.

Lies. I'd rather be dead like a lump on a log, than red in the head, like the dick of a dog.

Shane P. Hallam
02-12-2010, 12:55 PM
Lies. I'd rather be dead like a lump on a log, than red in the head, like the dick of a dog.

And this thread has reached a new low...

K Train
02-19-2010, 03:14 PM
Being considered a "tweener" RB/FB hes tough to compare. i think hes a very physical downhill runner and can compare favorably to Laron Mcclain or Hillis, hes not so much a tweener in the same mold as leonard or hester who are more 3rd down pass receiving options than runners or blockers.

Hes not the best blocker but blocking gets better with a paycheck....i think he will at worst be a very good short yardage back

batsandgats
02-20-2010, 02:55 AM
at best Barber/Jackson like, at worst Ryan Grant like, not a tweener at all

WCH
02-20-2010, 06:13 AM
Ryan Grant is a 1200 yard rusher. He's posted 3,412, in 37 starts. I think that we can do a tad bit worse for Gerhart's "worst" outcome.

FUNBUNCHER
02-20-2010, 09:25 AM
Ryan Grant is a 1200 yard rusher. He's posted 3,412, in 37 starts. I think that we can do a tad bit worse for Gerhart's "worst" outcome.

It's just batsandgats opinion, that Gerhart will only be but so bad in the NFL.

Grants impresses me with better long speed than Gerhart, but unlike Gerhart, Grant is strictly a pure north/south runner with poor feet and balance, not a slasher like Gerhart.

Gerhart's pure running ability is severely underrated by most folks analyzing his game, IMO. Guys who can do work between the tackles are rare and invaluable, and clearly Gerhart has that kind of worth to some NFL team.

RyanBraun8
02-20-2010, 11:17 AM
Ryan Grant is a 1200 yard rusher. He's posted 3,412, in 37 starts. I think that we can do a tad bit worse for Gerhart's "worst" outcome.

Ryan Grant and Toby have nothing in common..... at all. So what Grant does as a rusher has nothing to do with the possible outcome of Gerhart's "worst" outcome. You can use Jamal Lewis, Shonn Greene or any other NFL power back but you cant pick a one cut, ZBS, Slasher back.

I think Gerhart is a solid 2nd-early 3rd round pick. Any team who wants to run a 2 back thunder/lightning type offense will get a gem. Not many RB's run with the power and balance that he does. I see him as a LeDale White type of guy (prior to throwing away his career by trying to get skinny to compete with CJ).

batsandgats
02-20-2010, 12:58 PM
Ryan Grant and Toby have nothing in common..... at all. So what Grant does as a rusher has nothing to do with the possible outcome of Gerhart's "worst" outcome. You can use Jamal Lewis, Shonn Greene or any other NFL power back but you cant pick a one cut, ZBS, Slasher back.

I think Gerhart is a solid 2nd-early 3rd round pick. Any team who wants to run a 2 back thunder/lightning type offense will get a gem. Not many RB's run with the power and balance that he does. I see him as a LeDale White type of guy (prior to throwing away his career by trying to get skinny to compete with CJ).

Comparing him to Grant wasn't saying Grant is terrible, just thats how good I think Toby is so FUNBUNCHER was right, that it was my opinion, is that his production at worst would be on a Grant level. Why not compare him to Grant? Not saying they are similar but Toby ran in a zbs at Stanford and thats where he would be a best fit at in the NFL, somewhere like Green Bay, their run blocking scheme fits a one or two cut and burst to the hole powerback very well which is pretty much what Toby is. Its where he would fit best, a zbs where he can make a quick cut or two and quickly read where the hole will be, he is very descisive in his cuts and hits the hole a lot quicker than most people give him credit for, maybe a place like Denver before the new coach decided that he wanted to change the blocking scheme that doesn't fit any of their linemen or backs.

So maybe going to the Redskins where Shanahan is now? Although I could see a team like the Texans picking him up and have him split carries with Slaton. Not saying he wouldn't succeed on a team that isn't using a zbs (I think he would do well in either scheme) but I think thats where he would be the most successful. People think of him being a big runner means that he wouldn't fit in that system but I think his style is perfect for it.

I guess to give a comparison or a recent big back that had success in a zbs is Peyton Hillis who avgd 5 ypc 5 tds the 4 or 5 games he started. I think Hillis would still be having success at tailback if Shanahan were still there.

Toby is a little bit smaller than Hillis but I think he has more speed/agility, but the main difference is Hillis was a fullback in college and knows how to block. K Train, that is what puts someone in the "tweener" category (although he did prove he could be a successful tailback in the NFL).

Toby has never been a lead blocker in his entire career, the only blocking he has done is for his quarterback in pass protection. So he is not a tweener at all. The same thing with Jacob Hester, he was considered a tweener because he was a mostly fullback until his senior season when he rushed for 1000+ yards. Brian Leonard was also considered a tweener because he blocked for another back his senior season.

There is nothing about Gerhart that makes him a tweener. He is the 3rd all time high school rushing leader, Doak Walker award winner (nations best halfback), broke pac 10 rushing td record I believe, 1800+ yards 27 tds his senior season an was recently timed at 4.43 which would probably translate to in the 4.5 range ( at the worst) electronically. Put up 100+ yards against a USC defense that had 8 defenders drafted (a 9th one this year in Mays), they only allowed one other 100 yard rusher (Rodgers when Rey M had a sprained knee) Jahvid Best only put up 30 against that defense. Blount had 9 attempts for ZERO yards. 2 of those guys went to the pro bowl (not as alternates, first choices) and one that was also considered for DROY, this was his junior season before Stanford had anything resembling a passing attack and teams stuffed 8 or 9 in the box constantly (we've all seen the Sun Bowl and what Tavita Pritchard is capable of, well, not capable of) and Toby broke a Stanford rushing record that year, with no passing attack.

If he had spent time as a lead blocker I could see him being called a tweener, but he didnt and hes a pure halfback at this point. Just because someone is a big and powerful runner doesn't mean they can play fullback.

Draft King
02-20-2010, 01:59 PM
Comparing him to Grant wasn't saying Grant is terrible, just thats how good I think Toby is so FUNBUNCHER was right, that it was my opinion, is that his production at worst would be on a Grant level. Why not compare him to Grant? Not saying they are similar but Toby ran in a zbs at Stanford and thats where he would be a best fit at in the NFL, somewhere like Green Bay, their run blocking scheme fits a one or two cut and burst to the hole powerback very well which is pretty much what Toby is. Its where he would fit best, a zbs where he can make a quick cut or two and quickly read where the hole will be, he is very descisive in his cuts and hits the hole a lot quicker than most people give him credit for, maybe a place like Denver before the new coach decided that he wanted to change the blocking scheme that doesn't fit any of their linemen or backs. So maybe going to the Redskins where Shanahan is now? Although I could see a team like the Texans picking him up and have him split carries with Slaton. Not saying he wouldn't succeed on a team that isn't using a zbs (I think he would do well in either scheme) but I think thats where he would be the most successful. People think of him being a big runner means that he wouldn't fit in that system but I think his style is perfect for it. I guess to give a comparison or a recent big back that had success in a zbs is Peyton Hillis who avgd 5 ypc 5 tds the 4 or 5 games he started. I think Hillis would still be having success at tailback if Shanahan were still there. Toby is a little bit smaller than Hillis but I think he has more speed/agility, but the main difference is Hillis was a fullback in college and knows how to block. That is what puts someone in the tweener category (although he did prove he could be a successful tailback in the NFL). Toby has never been a lead blocker in his entire career, the only blocking he has done is for his quarterback in pass protection. So he is not a tweener at all. The same thing with Jacob Hester, he was considered a tweener because he was a mostly fullback until his senior season when he rushed for 1000+ yards. Brian Leonard was also considered a tweener because he blocked for another back his senior season. There is nothing about Gerhart that makes him a tweener. He is the 3rd all time high school rushing leader, Doak Walker award winner (nations best halfback), broke pac 10 rushing td record I believe, 1800+ yards 27 tds his senior season an was recently timed at 4.43 which would probably translate to in the 4.5 range ( at the worst) electronically. Put up 100+ yards against a USC defense that had 8 defenders drafted (a 9th one this year in Mays), they only allowed one other 100 yard rusher. 2 of those guys went to the pro bowl (not as alternates, first choices) and one that was also considered for DROY, this was his junior season before Stanford had anything resembling a passing attack and teams stuffed 8 or 9 in the box constantly (we've all seen the Sun Bowl and what Tavita Pritchard is capable of, well, not capable of) and Toby broke a Stanford rushing record that year, with no passing attack. If he had spent time as a lead blocker I could see him being called a tweener, but he didnt and hes a pure halfback at this point.

The enter button is your friend.

batsandgats
02-20-2010, 02:20 PM
sorry, is that better? im not good at deciding where to make paragraphs

ALP1987
02-21-2010, 09:26 PM
Great article about Gerhart. He again says hes going to run the 40 in under 4.5 (He actually says he runs a 4.43 which would be crazy for his size).

Heres the best part of the interview.

"Most projections have Gerhart (6-1, 235) going in the second or third round. Because of doubts about his breakaway speed, some draft pundits see his NFL future at fullback.

"I want to play running back and be the feature back," said Gerhart.

Gerhart said he has run a 4.43 in the 40-yard dash at Stanford. To make his case for being a primary back, he may have to duplicate it, or even improve on it, by the time of the NFL draft, April 22-24.

"Once I post some good times I think things will settle out," Gerhart said.

"I can't wait to go out there and turn some heads at the combine."

Heres the full link.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/colleges/topstories/stories/021910dnspodoaklede.3f54464.html

MichaelJordanEberle (sabf)
02-21-2010, 09:30 PM
Ryan Grant is a 1200 yard rusher. He's posted 3,412, in 37 starts. I think that we can do a tad bit worse for Gerhart's "worst" outcome.

Still not the most outrageous thing said about a RB prospect on here. Saying Reggie Bush wasn't worlds better than Brian Westbrook was blasphemy. Saying it was stupid to think he'd be as good as Faulk made some people look at me like wtf.

Babylon
02-22-2010, 01:04 PM
Great article about Gerhart. He again says hes going to run the 40 in under 4.5 (He actually says he runs a 4.43 which would be crazy for his size).

Heres the best part of the interview.

"Most projections have Gerhart (6-1, 235) going in the second or third round. Because of doubts about his breakaway speed, some draft pundits see his NFL future at fullback.

"I want to play running back and be the feature back," said Gerhart.

Gerhart said he has run a 4.43 in the 40-yard dash at Stanford. To make his case for being a primary back, he may have to duplicate it, or even improve on it, by the time of the NFL draft, April 22-24.

"Once I post some good times I think things will settle out," Gerhart said.

"I can't wait to go out there and turn some heads at the combine."

Heres the full link.
http://www.dallasnews.com/sharedcontent/dws/spt/colleges/topstories/stories/021910dnspodoaklede.3f54464.html

I'm not sure him posting an outrageous time at the combine is going to make much differance and i dont think he will actually. On what seems to be an average track at the combine i expect him to be a mid 4.5 guy and that would be good for him. If he were to post in the 4.4s the responses would be he doesnt play that fast and is not a shake and bake guy.

George Lippard
02-22-2010, 01:11 PM
I don't care what 40 he runs. He doesn't have breakaway speed, film don't lie. Runs too high, little lateral agility.

He falls forward, I'll give him that.

I have a problem identifying what he'll bring to the table for an NFL team that they can't find elsewhere at a lesser cost.

ThePudge
02-22-2010, 01:17 PM
I don't care what 40 he runs. He doesn't have breakaway speed, film don't lie. Runs too high, little lateral agility.

He falls forward, I'll give him that.

I have a problem identifying what he'll bring to the table for an NFL team that they can't find elsewhere at a lesser cost.

Keep telling it like it is man. He may run a 4.45, but it doesn't mean jack **** to someone who has seem him on film. He's not a home run hitter, he runs high and lacks elite agility & speed. I really wouldn't be surprised to see him time high, but it'll make little difference to me what he runs between 4.45 and 4.6. Film doesn't lie.

Babylon
02-22-2010, 02:05 PM
Keep telling it like it is man. He may run a 4.45, but it doesn't mean jack **** to someone who has seem him on film. He's not a home run hitter, he runs high and lacks elite agility & speed. I really wouldn't be surprised to see him time high, but it'll make little difference to me what he runs between 4.45 and 4.6. Film doesn't lie.

The nice thing about evaluating players is two people can see two differant things. I see a guy who makes quick cuts, doesnt go down with initial contact and gets to the second level of the defense as fast as anyone (50 runs over 10 yds). I do agree with your assessment that his combine time is pretty irrelevant.

FUNBUNCHER
02-22-2010, 02:28 PM
The nice thing about evaluating players is two people can see two differant things. I see a guy who makes quick cuts, doesnt go down with initial contact and gets to the second level of the defense as fast as anyone (50 runs over 10 yds). I do agree with your assessment that his combine time is pretty irrelevant.

Count me in the camp that believes Gerhart is a 'special' RB, with a special skillset and a unique ability to matriculate the ball downfield.
He's far from a JAG and he didn't trip and stumble his way to 1800+ yards and 27 TDs last season.
Nowadays, very few RBs rate a 1st round grade since it appears that there is more depth at the position across college football than anywhere else.

That said, I expect guys to look back on the 2010 draft and say, " well I guessed I missed on THAT guy.":rolleyes:

EDIT: If Gerhart runs better than 4.49, I think he instantly becomes a more attractive pro prospect as a powerback over the more heavily lauded names available.

Morton
02-22-2010, 03:00 PM
I can't wait to see how this guy does in the NFL. I mean, he was in flat-out beast mode in college. I'll be shocked if he replicates that kind of domination at the next level, but I think I'll also be shocked if he doesn't make some kind of impact either.

batsandgats
02-22-2010, 03:36 PM
so now a 240 pound back has to be a homerun hitter in order to be selected high? Hes not a Chris Johnson type back. Hes not going to have the agility of someone like Barry Sanders, what big runners do? Id say he is almost identical to Dwyer who has the same amount of 60+ yard runs, 2, Dwyer had one against Jacksonville State and Florida State. Id say Toby has the slight edge in power. Its pretty hard to rank one over the other looking at "the film". I don't understand what the lesser cost is, Toby looks to be going later than Dwyer, so an NFL team would be able to get something similar for a lesser cost. Unless they want to get someone like Toby later in the draft, but that player would have a little less talent, Anthony Dixon, who to me seems like a poor man's Gerhart, but will still wind up being a good back in the NFL, I just don't think he is on the same level as Gerhart, he also runs very upright.

And So what if he runs upright? Peterson runs upright, Brandon Jacobs runs upright, even the prospect Ryan Mathews runs a bit upright, Larry Johnson ran upright and had a few great years. Felix Jones tends to run upright at times, Wells ran a bit upright at times, Maroney for the Pats runs upright. If teams don't like it, its not like he won't be coachable in the NFL, there have been upright runners who have changed their style and still had success.

I agree the film dont lie, but I guess some people see differently and are more likely reading/hearing their anaylsis from someone else instead of trying to breakdown/looking at the tape for themselves and believing their own eyes. Do you have actual game film? Did you watch him play Stanford? or did you just watch someone else attempt to break down a Gerhart highlight video? What other prospects have you evaluated that have turned out to match what you have said about them? Toby has good agility/very descisive in his cuts. Like when he put up over 100 on a USC defense that had 8 defenders drafted, these weren't run of the mill defenders, guys like Cushing (pro bowl) Matthews (pro bowl) Rey M (consdired for DROY), before Stanford had Andrew Luck or any passing attack so the box was constantly stacked. I think the the Oline was down to only two Guards that had any experience. USC defense only allowed 1 other 100 yard rusher, Rodgers when Rey M had a sprained knee. Toby has proven he can do well against NFL level defenders on a team that has very little talent. Its not like he was surrounded by a bunch of 4 and 5 star athletes at Stanford, it would be like someone from Vanderbilt going over 1100 in the SEC. Stanford was 1-11 before Toby and I dont think they had a 1000 yard rusher for over a decade before him, he didn't gain those yards rumbling and stumbling like some people would have you believe.

people think Toby is just a bruiser that runs people over, but thats not his style at all. He is very agile/quick/fast for a powerback, very descisive at making his cuts and hitting the hole. He only runs someone over as a last resort to gain 2 or 3 yards, you dont gain 1800 yards that way. He got it by being very slippery. People think they have a tackle on him but he is deceptively shifty and fast that they wind up barely getting a hand on him which he can easily slip through, thats exactly what he does on his first 60 yard run, making several defenders miss, but somehow he isn't agile. You can also see his speed looking at "the film" where he outruns the OSU db for 50 yards, or the CAL db can't catch up with on a 61 yard run, or Taylor Mays taking around 20 to 30 yards to get up with him even though he has an angle.

For a player that seemed to lack so much agility, he sure did magically find the hole countless times and was able to weave in and out of defenders and had a ton of runs in the 10 to 30 yard range. Oh wait I forgot Stanford had a magical line that could part the sea. The school known for producing 1000 yard runners every year, even though his 1100 yards his junior season broke a Stanford single season record. And when they put in his backup for the Notre Dame game, who supposedly had such a horrible run defense that "any player could run through", he only averaged like 2 ypc with the same blocking on 12 carries.

Ray Rice was also underrated by draft gurus like Kiper and McShay who both had Darren McFadden, Rashard Mendenhall, Felix Jones, and Jonathan Stewart over Ray Rice, and to the looks of it, Id say Ray Rice has performed the best out of all of those guys. He only had what, 2000+ yards receiving/rushing last season? sometimes the experts get it wrong. They even had those guys rated above Chris Johnson who has definetly performed better than those guys.

ThePudge
02-22-2010, 04:00 PM
Post

So he'll go high then? 1st Round?

Also...

http://i.cdn.turner.com/si/2009/writers/ann_killion/12/02/gerhart/toby-gerhart-p1.jpg
Toby Gerhart - RB - Stanford
6'1e 235e 4.55e
#6 RB - #57 Overall

I like the guy, I thought he was the most deserving Heisman Trophy candidate, I think he'll be a good NFL player, and I think if you put him in a situation where he's taking 20-25 carries a game, then he can be a 1000-1200 yard back. The problem is, current NFL trends don't point to Gerhart getting that chance to be an every down feature back. No matter who you are, it's tough not to question Toby's ability to break the big run and it's tough not to question his ability as a receiver out of the backfield.

I think he's a high round selection, a Running Back prospect first and foremost, and if he lands in the right situation, I fully believe he's a player who should enjoy a high level of personal success in the NFL and a guy who will make his team very happy. That said, I don't see him as an elite combination of size, speed, agility, strength, and character. He certainly has his strengths, and they are NFL friendly strengths; however, there's some evidence out there, both statistically and obtained by film study, to question his ability to be an every down back at this new faster, tougher, more cerebral level.

There's plenty to like about the Stanford Senior. Gerhart was the best running back in college football a year ago, and it's no secret how he gets his work done. This is a back meant for between the tackles, with a violent temperament and running style. The upper and lower body strength Gerhart shows off on a down to down basis, and amount of endurance and relentlessness he shows through the 4th quarter, is real testament to his athleticism. What stands out most about Toby is his exceptional balance. Whether while making a cut, at a stationary position, or running with a full head of steam, he's just a tough guy to get on the ground. At full speed, Gerhart uses vision to find small cutback lanes and creases in the defense, never goes down at first contact, and will fight for extra yards, finishing every run. His feel for the position and ability to think on the move are what have me convinced he'll be a solid NFL player at the Running Back position.

The biggest obstacle I see for Gerhart, as a first round draft prospect would be current NFL trends which lean toward a two or three back scheme, keeping legs fresh and getting different skill-sets on the field. For runners with a deficiency in physicality/power/balance, this scheme can go a long way to mask some faults, allowing a player to succeed at a high level, and the same could be said of players with average burst/speed/receiving experience. I don't see Toby as a game-breaker. For a back considered elite and complete by many, he didn't hit many home runs with only 2 runs of over 40 yards during his 2009 campaign. Now, he doesn't have to be, no one says that's his only option at the next level.

A lack of great acceleration/burst, a lack of a true second gear and breakaway speed, a lack elusiveness in the open field, and inexperience as a receiver may point to a different role in the NFL than every down, feature back. I'm not saying FB, I'm not saying H-B, I'm saying I expect a team with a stable of backs to add Gerhart as a missing piece. This could be the Chiefs to complement their young back Jamaal Charles, perhaps the Eagles to provide a change of pace to LeSean McCoy/Brian Westbrook, or maybe the Texans to add some muscle along side Steve Slaton. These are all examples, and I feel like he'd really flourish in a role like that. A one-cut ZBS scheme would be ideal for a runner with the decisiveness and vision Gerhart possesses.

I would say I view Toby Gerhart as a Mid 2nd-Early 3rd Round value at this point. We still have the Combine to go, and we'll get plenty of info there. By draft day, we could be looking at a different stock of course.

Pros
o + Exceptional Balance
o + Surprising Vision and feel for the RB position
o + Tremendous Power with excellent upper and lower body strength
o + Terrific Production vs. top competition
o + Ability to carry the load
o + Decisive North-South back
o + Wears on defenses, doesn't slow down in the 4th Quarter
o + Very athletic, could play two sports professionally
o + Excellent football character; Smart with a tireless work ethic

Cons
o - Not overly elusive, doesn't make a lot of guys miss in the open field
o - Lacks a true second gear and home-run speed
o - Doesn't have an explosive burst, average acceleration
o - Struggles to accelerate out of hard cuts and contact
o - Unproven out of the backfield as a receiver
o - Has a very upright running style, doesn't change his pad level fluidly in and out of cuts and contact
o - Minor durability questions after missing 2007 season due to knee injury

I do all my own work on the draft and you're not changing my opinion with statistics and the same opinions I've been talking against for the past two-three months almost.

batsandgats
02-23-2010, 11:41 AM
So a powerback has to be considered elite and complete by having runs over 40 yards? not to mention those 2 runs over 40 yards were actually over 60 yards. He had one run that was close to 40, 39 yards. But I wouldn't expect you to include that because even though you claim to like him, It seems like in your posts you dislike him with subtle little things and saying things like "Keep telling it like it is man. He may run a 4.45, but it doesn't mean jack **** "

I would say big plays for a back like Toby are 20+ yard plays, which he has 14runs of 20+ yards, 11 of those were 25+ yards (thats 1/4th of the football field). Not to mention the countless runs he had 15-19 that I didn't include.

50 runs of over 10 yards shows that he has an elite burst of speed/acceleration. 10 yards = 1st down, in college and in the NFL. Would I rather a runner who had one big play and then a bunch of runs for little or no gain but averaged 4 to 5 ypc because of the one big play? or would I rather have a guy who has multiple runs that are 10 to 20 yards? Id take the guy who can get a first down more consistently and rarely gets tackled for a loss.

Your write up of Anthony Dixon is almost similar to what Toby is "Still, some people don’t notice the occasional speed, burst, and agility Dixon possesses as well as vision, and a bit of elusiveness in the open field. He’s a patient, north-south, cutback runner who always falls forward" but I guess you have him ranked 2 spots higher than Toby because "he's one of those guys that just has 'it' for me." Maybe like how some people fail to notice Dixon's speed/burst/agility, you didn't notice the speed, burst and agility Toby had while he was rushing for 1800 yards in the PAC 10?

Maybe its the 5 runs of 40 yards that Dixon has, 3 coming against Middle Tennessee, Houston and Vanderbilt even though the first thing you mention is him playing in a major conference (Vanderbilt hasn't done squat in the SEC). Is that why the cutoff is at 40? because Dixon doesn't have any 60 yard runs and Toby has 2, but you seem to notice the speed/agility/elusiveness Dixon has but not Toby. I guess Toby just doesn't have "it" for you, because no matter what he does it doesnt mean "jack ****"

Dixon seems to have some experience with pass receiving having 56 career receptions, but Toby is unproven with 39 career receptions (having played one less season than Dixon and wasn't a starter his first year), 2 starting seasons, and you find it tough not to question his ability to be a receiver out of the backfield? and Dixon is proven? Yeah no favoritism in your write ups at all. Toby has more receiving yards than Dixon last season and has made the most out of every pass his way and averaged 14.3 ypc compared to Dixon's 6.8

I agree that Toby would do best in a zbs, but like you think Dixon could be able to be a feature back in the NFL beacuse he has "it" I think Toby has the ability to be a feature back in the NFL, because I think he has "it". Ive watched him at Norco and I watched him at Stanford, the guy is a machine and will succeed as the feature guy on any level.

From the looks of it, your write ups look like you watched more film of Dixon than Gerhart, as you mention his first career game and you don't mention any of Gerhart's games. Is the Pac 10 not considered a major conference? Like you remembering Dixon's first game, I remember Toby breaking off a 40 yard run (the big play you talk about, that you don't think he can do at the next level) against a USC defense that had 8 defenders drafted, a 9th one in Mays this year. He weaved in an out of guys like Cushing, Matthews and Rey Malaugua, all guys doing well in the NFL.

As for his knee injury, its not even an issue, it was partially torn PCL which is totally different from ACL, its the least serious for a runningback and very unlikely to cause problems later on like an ACL injury.

Toby is very similar to Dixon, they both played in big conferences but they were both on crappy teams and were not surrounded by loads of talent, so the fact that they were both able to have great seaons shows that they are both extremely talented. Toby was able to carry his team on his back and get them to their first bowl game in a long time, they were 1-11 when he committed to Stanford. Id say that would give him the "it" factor. He should be a late 1st round/early 2nd round pick and I would say Dixon is 2nd round/early 3rd at the latest.

Toby would actually do better as a feature back rather than someone in a 2 or 3 back system coming in occasionally, he gets into a groove and gets better as the game goes along. Having him only come in once in a while wouldn't be utilizing his talent to the fullest. I could see him splitting carries with a smaller faster back but by no means should be on a team that does runningback by committee, like a team such as the Saints. Like you said I think the Texans splitting carries with Slaton would be a great fit. Im not trying to change your opinion with statistics, Im saying rewatch the film because I think you didn't pick up on Toby's occasional speed, burst, and agility and a bit of elusiveness in the open field like you did for Dixon.

YAYareaRB
02-23-2010, 11:57 AM
I disagree. I think Toby would be great in a 2-back system. Someone to by the lightning to his thunder.

Morton
02-23-2010, 12:09 PM
I disagree. I think Toby would be great in a 2-back system. Someone to by the lightning to his thunder.

This.

I will be surprised if Toby doesn't find a niche in a two- or three-back system somewhere in the NFL.

And that's not really a knock on him as a player either - more and more teams are moving to the 2/3 back system, regardless of whether one of their running backs has the potential to be a true #1 every-down back. Look at the Vikings with Chester Taylor and Adrian Peterson.

If *I* was a coach/GM, even if I had Chris Johnson or Adrian Peterson, I'd still try to find another back to split carries with them, if only because extreme workloads will shorten the lifespan of even the best running back.

ThePudge
02-23-2010, 12:13 PM
So a powerback has to be considered elite and complete by having runs over 40 yards? not to mention those 2 runs over 40 yards were actually over 60 yards. He had one run that was close to 40, 39 yards. But I wouldn't expect you to include that because even though you claim to like him, It seems like in your posts you dislike him with subtle little things and saying things like "Keep telling it like it is man. He may run a 4.45, but it doesn't mean jack **** "

I would say big plays for a back like Toby are 20+ yard plays, which he has 14runs of 20+ yards, 11 of those were 25+ yards (thats 1/4th of the football field). Not to mention the countless runs he had 15-19 that I didn't include.

50 runs of over 10 yards shows that he has an elite burst of speed/acceleration. 10 yards = 1st down, in college and in the NFL. Would I rather a runner who had one big play and then a bunch of runs for little or no gain but averaged 4 to 5 ypc because of the one big play? or would I rather have a guy who has multiple runs that are 10 to 20 yards? Id take the guy who can get a first down more consistently and rarely gets tackled for a loss.

Your write up of Anthony Dixon is almost similar to what Toby is "Still, some people donít notice the occasional speed, burst, and agility Dixon possesses as well as vision, and a bit of elusiveness in the open field. Heís a patient, north-south, cutback runner who always falls forward" but I wouldn't expect you to have him ranked higher than Toby because "I have him graded a bit higher than he's likely to go (Mid Second Round Grade), though he's one of those guys that just has 'it' for me." Maybe like how some people fail to notice Dixon's speed/burst/agility, you didn't notice the speed, burst and agility Toby had while he was rushing for 1800 yards in the PAC 10?

Maybe its the 5 runs of 40 yards that Dixon has, 3 coming against Middle Tennessee, Houston and Vanderbilt even though the first thing you mention is him playing in a major conference (Vanderbilt hasn't done squat in the SEC). Is that why the cutoff is at 40? because Dixon doesn't have any 60 yard runs and Toby has 2, but you seem to notice the speed/agility/elusiveness Dixon has but not Toby. I guess Toby just doesn't have "it" for you, because no matter what he does it doesnt mean "jack ****"

Dixon seems to have some experience with pass receiving having 56 career receptions, but Toby is unproven with 39 career receptions (having played one less season than Dixon and wasn't a starter is first year), 2 starting seasons, and you find it tough not to question his ability to be a receiver out of the backfield? and Dixon is proven? Yeah no favoritism in your write ups at all. Toby has more receiving yards than Dixon last season and has made the most out of every pass his way and averaged 14.3 ypc compared to Dixon's 6.8

I agree that Toby would do best in a zbs, but like you think Dixon could be able to be a feature back in the NFL beacuse he has "it" I think Toby has the ability to be a feature back in the NFL, because I think he has "it". Ive watched him at Norco and I watched him at Stanford, the guy is a machine and will succeed as the feature guy on any level.

From the looks of it, your write ups look like you watched more film of Dixon than Gerhart, as you mention his first career game and you don't mention any of Gerhart's games. Is the Pac 10 not considered a major conference? Like you remembering Dixon's first game, I remember Toby breaking off a 40 yard run (the big play you talk about, that you don't think he can do at the next level) against a USC defense that had 8 defenders drafted, a 9th one in Mays this year. He weaved in an out of guys like Cushing, Matthews and Rey Malaugua, all guys doing well in the NFL.

As for his knee injury, its not even an issue, it was partially torn PCL which is totally different from ACL, its the least serious for a runningback and very unlikely to cause problems later on like an ACL injury.

Toby is very similar to Dixon, they both played in big conferences but they were both on crappy teams and were not surrounded by loads of talent, so the fact that they were both able to have great seaons shows that they are both extremely talented, except Toby was able to carry his team on his back and get them to their first bowl game in a long time, and Dixon didn't. Id say that would give him the "it" factor. He should be a late 1st round/early 2nd round pick and I would say Dixon is 2nd round/early 3rd at the latest.

Toby would actually do better as a feature back rather than someone in a 2 or 3 back system coming in occasionally, he gets into a groove and gets better as the game goes along. Having him only come in once in a while wouldn't be utilizing his talent to the fullest. I could see him splitting carries with a smaller faster back but by no means should be on a team that does runningback by committee, like a team such as the Saints. Like you said I think the Texans splitting carries with Slaton would be a great fit. Im not trying to change your opinion with statistics, Im saying rewatch the film because I think you didn't pick up on Toby's occasional speed, burst, and agility and a bit of elusiveness in the open field like you did for Dixon.

I watched just as much film on Toby and Dixon. Anthony I've liked since his Freshman season, or first college game to be specific; Gerhart I came to like his Junior year, more specifically his first game of the season against Oregon State. They are different players, hence the need for two different scouting reports. There was no bias in that statement that Dixon shows surprising speed and agility in the open field. The stat isn't everything, but Dixon was able to break more big runs and it's one of the reasons I think he might have a bit more potential to be a feature back someday. I know Toby Gerhart falls forward and finds the sticks but he just doesn't do enough to be a team's every-down back, he doesn't threaten as a receiver, he doesn't make the big play (even in college.)

I'll say that Gerhart may be drafted over Dixon in the end, but I like the Mississippi State product as an NFL player. Toby will likely time better than the bulkier Dixon, but on film I think Anthony shows superior speed, and more elusiveness in the open field. Gerhart's been utilized less and less in the passing game as years have gone on (11 rec in 2009) while Dixon has caught 38 balls the last two years. From what I've seen in games, I've concluded that Dixon looks a bit more fluid and comfortable used as a receiver out of the backfield.

I think the team that drafts Gerhart (in the Mid 2nd-Early 3rd) should keep it simple, Zone Blocking Scheme, one-cut and upfield which is where he really excels. Still, I think you need to pair him with another back that can hit the home run and threaten as a receiver. Many would compare him to the Jets' Shonn Greene who came out of college with similar questions, but that would actually be my comparison for Anthony Dixon (3rd Round). I like the upside with Dixon a bit more and think his feature back potential is a bit higher than Stanford's Gerhart. Different opinions, oh well...

ALP1987
02-23-2010, 12:14 PM
Here's a quick TG update. According to MSNBC his lingering injuries from this past season could hurt his stock which is somewhat understandable if it impacts the way he preforms at the Combine but if it doesn't it shouldn't matter because he still has a lot of time to get healthy before the season.. Also alot of media outlets continue to put out false information about his knee injury. I've read alot of "Gerhart tore his ACL in 2007" when that's not true. An ACL is a serious injury but Gerhart tore his PCL in 2007 which is not as bad. Its still a knee injury but its the least worse one. It just seems to me that everyone is just itching to find something that they can use against this guy. Its crazy. Hes not the almighty Tebow so people should chill out.


"Citing two sources, Yahoo's Jason Cole reports that Stanford RB Toby Gerhart's medical checkup at the Scouting Combine will hurt his draft stock.

The physical is reportedly "likely to feature a number of lingering injuries from his hard-running college days." Cole goes on to say that the injuries will be "enough to drop Gerhart out of the first round," but he was never projected that high anyway. It's worth noting that Gerhart tore his ACL in 2007. He was also a 105-game starter on the Stanford baseball team, leaving the 6'1/235-pound outfielder/tailback susceptible to additional wear and tear."

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/35540581/ns/sports-player_news/

ThePudge
02-23-2010, 12:21 PM
Here's a quick TG update. According to MSNBC his lingering injuries from this past season could hurt his stock which is somewhat understandable if it impacts the way he preforms at the Combine but if it doesn't it shouldn't matter because he still has a lot of time to get healthy before the season.. Also alot of media outlets continue to put out false information about his knee injury. I've read alot of "Gerhart tore his ACL in 2007" when that's not true. An ACL is a serious injury but Gerhart tore his PCL in 2007 which is not as bad. Its still a knee injury but its the least worse one. It just seems to me that everyone is just itching to find something that they can use against this guy. Its crazy. Hes not the almighty Tebow so people should chill out.


"Citing two sources, Yahoo's Jason Cole reports that Stanford RB Toby Gerhart's medical checkup at the Scouting Combine will hurt his draft stock.

The physical is reportedly "likely to feature a number of lingering injuries from his hard-running college days." Cole goes on to say that the injuries will be "enough to drop Gerhart out of the first round," but he was never projected that high anyway. It's worth noting that Gerhart tore his ACL in 2007. He was also a 105-game starter on the Stanford baseball team, leaving the 6'1/235-pound outfielder/tailback susceptible to additional wear and tear."

http://nbcsports.msnbc.com/id/35540581/ns/sports-player_news/

Yikes. The medical exams in Indy can hurt a guy's stock far worse than a bad 40 Time, so we'll see what happens here. Lingering knee injuries are not exactly what you want to hear for an upright, physical, power back. I'm not so sure how much he's affected by this 2007 PCL injury, but if this comes up as a red flag at the Combine he could fall to Day Three. We'll see...

FUNBUNCHER
02-23-2010, 12:53 PM
How are people already predicting, (not saying you, Pudge), that Gerhart is going to fail his combine physical when they check out his knees??

1800 yards, 27 TDs, didn't miss a start in 2009, yet somehow Toby's knees are 'questionable', however Suh who I believe had a much more serious knee injury his RS freshman year, and no one as of yet has brought it up as a possibility it may drop his stock at all.

Toby Gerhart = Gerald Riggs, a slower Chris Warren, a healthy William Floyd, Eddie George (with better vision), and Riggo 2.0.

Gerhart goes IMO between picks 28 and 45, higher if his 40 time pleasantly surprises, ( 28 to 32).

Watch teams like the Eagles, Pats, ( think Belichick wouldn't like to have a RB who can pick up 1st downs and take pressure off of Brady??), the Chargers, Seahawks, Miami, AND the SKins.

ALP1987
02-23-2010, 12:56 PM
How are people already predicting, (not saying you, Pudge), that Gerhart is going to fail his combine physical when they check out his knees??

1800 yards, 27 TDs, didn't miss a start in 2009, yet somehow Toby's knees are 'questionable', however Suh who I believe had a much more serious knee injury his RS freshman year, and no one as of yet has brought it up as a possibility it may drop his stock at all.

Toby Gerhart = Gerald Riggs, a slower Chris Warren, a healthy William Floyd, Eddie George (with better vision), and Riggo 2.0.

Gerhart goes IMO between picks 28 and 45, higher if his 40 time pleasantly surprises, ( 28 to 32).

Watch teams like the Eagles, Pats, ( think Belichick wouldn't like to have a RB who can pick up 1st downs and take pressure off of Brady??), the Chargers, Seahawks, Miami, AND the SKins.

Yeah that's what im saying. Its like they are picking at his bones just hoping to find faults. I understand that players are broken down during draft time to find issues (usually issues that can be improved on) but it seems like people are trying to create false problems to pin on this guy.

batsandgats
02-23-2010, 01:06 PM
Yeah I guess we just have different opinions. Not that I don't like Dixon, I think he will be a good back in the NFL.

As for him being in the 2 back system, Im not saying he shouldn't go to a team with a smaller faster back, just that he should be the primary ball carrier in whatever system he is in, and have the smaller scatback come in as a change of pace guy.

As for the knee thing, I doubt anything will come of it, but some teams might be turned off that he wears the knee brace when playing, but if they were to talk to the doctors that evaulate him they will see that its not a problem. The PCL keeps the knee stable in the back the common cause is violent collision (most common cause car crash someones knees hitting the dashboard) He had a partial tear that didn't require surgery, he just rehabbed it until it was fine. Although he has healed from his PCL injury, he uses the brace as security blanket so if when it does get hit again it will remain stable and won't reinjure (very very small chance It would reinjure, its probably as likely to happen to a player who hasn't had a pcl tear [the rarest knee injury for a rb in football, doesn't affect the ability to cut or anything] but I guess he has been playing it extra safe, its more of a mental issue than anything) If it had required surgery then I could see some minor concern but this really shouldn't be an issue.

There were tons of players that went for Toby's knees last season, I remember in the Oregon game he was starting to get pretty upset about it, but his knee remained fine. Could he run without the brace and be fine? yes, but it hasn't affected his ability in college and it was over 2 years ago. I agree that this is just people nitpicking over very minor things. He wouldn't have been able to be a workhorse for the past two years if there were lingering knee injuries, I don't know why sites keep saying it was an ACL. Id say hes no more prone to getting his pcl torn again than any other back in the league getting their first pcl injury.

"PCL which can be healed with time and anti-inflammitories, keeps the knee from hyper-extending" totally different from ACL "A torn ACL is a large setback for a lineman, and can be career ending for a running back. Without a solid ACL, you cannot pivot or cut". It takes much longer for a back to rehab an acl and requires surgery, and when they come back it takes a while for them to trust it.

Babylon
02-23-2010, 01:25 PM
Show me a workhorse running back that doesnt have some lingering health issues. That is why the shelf life of a RB is about 5 years.

GoBucs!
02-23-2010, 04:15 PM
I'm hoping Bucs move Caddy, Ward and/or Graham. Draft McCluster in 2nd and Toby in 3rd

If Bucs can move down in 1st get addl 2nd then 3 - 2nds will be awesome

RealityCheck
02-23-2010, 04:18 PM
I disagree. I think Toby would be great in a 2-back system. Someone to by the lightning to his thunder.
Darren Sproles? Jamaal Charles?

Babylon
02-23-2010, 05:17 PM
Darren Sproles? Jamaal Charles?

Kansas City early second makes more sense than San Diego.

GoRavens
02-23-2010, 05:41 PM
I think Gerhart will be really successful in the NFL. He's a fighter, and he's the toughest runningback in this class. Teams know exactly what he brings to the table; 3-4 tough, hard earned yards each time he touches the ball.. He may not run the fastest 40, but his physical running style will wear down defenses in the 4th quarter.. He could use a quicker, accomplished, scat back, and an aggressive O-line & he'll excel in the NFL. Cash Money $$$
- Chiefs: Gerhart & Charles would be excellent.
- Texans: Slatons quickness & Gerharts power is nice.
- Eagles: With the Eagles passing attack, and McCoys break away ability, Philly would be scary with Gerhart.

RealityCheck
02-23-2010, 05:48 PM
Not that Westbrook left the Eagles... LeSean McCoy and Toby Gerhart would be sweeeeeeet.

Babylon
02-23-2010, 05:49 PM
I think Gerhart will be really successful in the NFL. He's a fighter, and he's the toughest runningback in this class. Teams know exactly what he brings to the table; 3-4 tough, hard earned yards each time he touches the ball.. He may not run the fastest 40, but his physical running style will wear down defenses in the 4th quarter.. He could use a quicker, accomplished, scat back, and an aggressive O-line & he'll excel in the NFL. Cash Money $$$
- Chiefs: Gerhart & Charles would be excellent.
- Texans: Slatons quickness & Gerharts power is nice.
- Eagles: With the Eagles passing attack, and McCoys break away ability, Philly would be scary with Gerhart.

I think you've broken down some of the teams that would be frontrunners for Gerhart. I would probably add the Chargers if he were there in the second and also Seattle.

FUNBUNCHER
02-23-2010, 05:52 PM
With Gerhart's ability to salt away a lead in the 4th quarter and give his D a blow, I think Philly would be a serious SB contender in 2010 with Gerhart in the backfield along with Shady and Mcnabb.

prock
02-23-2010, 05:52 PM
I really think the Eagles will pick up Gerhart. They will have an extra second after trading McNabb to Minny anyway.

YAYareaRB
02-23-2010, 06:23 PM
Gerhart to the Eagles would be sexy

niel89
02-23-2010, 06:29 PM
I would love Toby in Philly. He would be a great addition to their back field.

George Lippard
02-23-2010, 06:30 PM
Delete this post. I didn't say anything wrong, I just don't want to be accused of something I didn't do and/or misinterpreted. There was an Alstott comparison and a Leonard comparison, nothing about skin. Christ.

batsandgats
02-23-2010, 06:31 PM
nothing like Alstott

George Lippard
02-23-2010, 06:32 PM
I agree, Alstott was good.

batsandgats
02-23-2010, 06:33 PM
and Toby is great

George Lippard
02-23-2010, 06:35 PM
If great means sluggish from east to west, lacking a gear, injury prone and technically unsound.

batsandgats
02-23-2010, 06:38 PM
1 fluke pcl injury his sophomore season makes him injury prone? hes been a workhorse for the past 2 seasons. He gained 1800+ yards and won the Doak Walker award by being sluggish and technically unsound? yeah okay sure. You don't know what you are talking about and are just hating on Toby

George Lippard
02-23-2010, 06:41 PM
1 fluke pcl injury his sophomore season makes him injury prone? hes been a workhorse for the past 2 seasons. He gained 1800+ yards and won the Doak Walker award by being sluggish and technically unsound? yeah okay sure. You don't know what you are talking about and are just hating on Toby

What you call a fluke, I call his body failing him.

and by your logic, Tebow should be the best player in NFL history.

Babylon
02-23-2010, 06:49 PM
What you call a fluke, I call his body failing him.

and by your logic, Tebow should be the best player in NFL history.

No RB would get a clean bill of health if they were looked at close enough. Gerhart didnt have any trouble with a heavy workload this year so i dont think it's an issue.

George Lippard
02-23-2010, 06:50 PM
I catch your drift Babylon (and agree completely) but I see him getting ****** up in the NFL with that high running style.

YAYareaRB
02-23-2010, 06:53 PM
I don't think him and Leonard are alike at all. Brian Leonard has fluidity when he runs. Gerhart is not a fluid runner.

Babylon
02-23-2010, 06:53 PM
I catch your drift Babylon (and agree completely) but I see him getting ****** up in the NFL with that high running style.

I think with the heavy contact these guys take it limits them to around 15-20carries a game. As for his running style his supporters will say he keeps his head up to help him see where he's going and lowers his pads on contact. I guess one can spin this stuff any way they want.

Babylon
02-23-2010, 07:28 PM
[QUOTE=njx9;2031308]so what, you're positing that nfl scouts are paying substantially more attention to gerhart than to any other running back in the last several years? to what end, exactly?



The subject was his injury history, what are you talking about?

batsandgats
02-23-2010, 07:38 PM
so what, you're positing that nfl scouts are paying substantially more attention to gerhart than to any other running back in the last several years? to what end, exactly?



yes, anyone who disagrees with YOU is a 'hater'. that's brilliant. astounding argument.

No, when they make false accusations they are a hater. Did I call Pudge a hater? No he had a sound argument of why he didn't think Toby was a top prospect and I can respect that. Comparing him to a fullback that has nothing in common with him and making up stuff I can't respect, sorry. Nice job of making assumptions of what I think of everybody though. Brilliant.

George Lippard
02-23-2010, 07:39 PM
So he doesn't have an injury history? He doesn't run high?

and the Alstott reference was used to illustrate my point of his poor running style.

batsandgats
02-23-2010, 07:41 PM
Having one injury is much differnet from being injury prone. You also compared him to Brian Leonard, also nothing in common.

George Lippard
02-23-2010, 07:46 PM
Having one injury is much differnet from being injury prone. You also compared him to Brian Leonard, also nothing in common.

He is INJURY PRONE because of his RUNNING STYLE. His way of playing makes him prone to injury. I don't know how many ways I can say it.

I'm making a logical step that isn't uncommon. Scott Wright did the same thing with Berry in his scouting report yesterday. You can have a relatively clean bill of health like Berry who, AFAIK, didn't miss a game (and had one minor surgery, like Toby) and still be considered injury prone.

The "body failing him" comment was in jest. Take everything I say with a grain of salt.

batsandgats
02-23-2010, 07:47 PM
I have made sound arguments, look at all of my posts throughout the thread, long well thought out posts for the most part. Perhaps you should read them before making more assumptions about me. I simply added that comment at the end because I am not going to waste my time on someone who is making crap up.

His body failing him? so him playing two sports and only taking a week off a year means his body is failing him? PCL injuries occur from collisions to a bent knee, not his body failing him at all. Hes been fine for the past 2 years.

He didn't even have real knee surgery, he decided against it and rehabbed it.

how are the comparisons to Mike Alstott and Brian Leonard "in jest" ? what is so amusing about them? please elaborate on this, ID LOVE TO KNOW.

George Lippard
02-23-2010, 07:53 PM
how are the comparisons to Mike Alstott and Brian Leonard "in jest" ? what is so amusing about them? please elaborate on this, ID LOVE TO KNOW.

I believe in self-preservation and that is all I will say. I'd suggest you stop talking about it.

Babylon
02-23-2010, 07:56 PM
i know it's a tough discussion to follow, but i'd expect you could at least keep track of your own comments. either you're implying that gerhart is getting unfair treatment for his 'injury history' or you're suggesting that other 'top' prospects have gotten identical treatment in the recent past. i'm asking you clarify what you mean and why you seem to believe this is the case (given that the first is the more obvious implication).

I dont think Gerhart is getting unfair treatment by scouts, my point was his injury history is probably pretty much in line with most other RBs with his number of career carries.

Personally i think you try to read too much into people's comments.

George Lippard
02-23-2010, 07:59 PM
Babylon, I really enjoy your posts and njx9's posts.

I think njx has the mentality that posters shouldn't have to find some underlying message behind a post and that the entire post is open to scrutiny and you should expect every chink to be exposed. How can an argument be taken seriously if its foundation is fundamentally flawed?

batsandgats
02-23-2010, 07:59 PM
I believe in self-preservation and that is all I will say. I'd suggest you stop talking about it.
I have no clue what your talking about, but for some reason it was funny for you to bring it up? I just want to be let in on the joke because I am not getting it at all. All I am asking is for you to elaborate on a post YOU MADE. You made comparisons to guys he has NOTHING in common with. He runs nothing like them.