PDA

View Full Version : Jahvid Best vs Joe McKnight?


katnip
04-11-2010, 01:29 AM
Both are speedsters. And both have a history of being injured (I'm an ACC 'Canes guy)? So who would you rather have?

I'd take Best. As even though he's suffered some major injuries. He looks more explosive.

Thumper
04-11-2010, 01:32 AM
I'm taking Best every single time in this match-up. Best is on CJ Spiller's level of explosiveness but injury concerns are keeping him down. McKnight is fast and all but he is so soft running the ball and really lanky, I think he would be a much better WR than RB.

BaLLiN
04-11-2010, 01:35 AM
Best, if he hadn't had this freak injury he'd most likely be going mid/late first.

Flyboy
04-11-2010, 10:16 AM
Give me Jahvid Best.

Malaka
04-11-2010, 12:04 PM
Best was the best offensive weapon on Cal and carried that team, whereas Joe McKnight wasn't even the best RB on his own team, that would be Stafon Johnson before the injury.

FUNBUNCHER
04-11-2010, 12:09 PM
Both are speedsters. And both have a history of being injured (I'm an ACC 'Canes guy)? So who would you rather have?

I'd take Best. As even though he's suffered some major injuries. He looks more explosive.

McKnight isn't even in the same solar system with Best when it comes to flat out, pure speed.

McKnight is an elusive runner, but unless he commits to building up his body and gaining about 20#, he'll be strictly a 3rd down RB in the pros.

Although built the same as Jamaal Charles, McKnight is nowhere near as durable or tough.

Brent
04-11-2010, 12:11 PM
Best is best. I hope the Niners take him in the second.

batsandgats
04-11-2010, 01:10 PM
Best was the best offensive weapon on Cal and carried that team, whereas Joe McKnight wasn't even the best RB on his own team, that would be Stafon Johnson before the injury.

McKnight wasn't even the best runningback on his team in high school. David Seeman was the starting rb and had 1349 rushing yards 10 ypc 15 tds. Now McKnight was a better all purpose threat if you combine receiving/rushing/special teams/defense but that didn't really translate to college like people thought it would (he was supposed to be the next Reggie Bush at USC). He was shut down in the state championship game and Seeman was named the MVP. Darryl Brister also had more rushing yards than McKnight that year. John Curtis is a machine, some of the best blocking I have ever seen.

If I had to choose between the two, id pick Best. I think McKnight can be a good player that can be used a variety of ways in the NFL, but I dont think he will be great at any of those things. 8 to 10 touches a game at most.

TACKLE
04-11-2010, 01:11 PM
Best, if he hadn't had this freak injury he'd most likely be going mid/late first.

Exactly. It's Best and its not even close at all.

parcells
04-11-2010, 01:25 PM
The single biggest difference between them is how "sudden" Best can be. He can being going full speed, stop, change direction and being moving in another direction in a cocaine heartbeat. If it weren't for the injury concerns (which are huge IMO) he'd be considered the best back in this draft, even ahead of Spiller. I look at best and see someone who to me is clearly a better prospect than Chris Johnson was if only there wasn't the concussion problem. He's not the most physical back, but his speed and agility are amazing. I watch him move and am reminded of Barry Sanders or Gale Sayers.

I wouldn't be surprised for him to have a Gale Sayers type of career where he quickly becomes one of the best backs in the league only to have injuries limit him to playing a few years. He makes for a fascinating prospect. McKnight simply represents a lot of hype that never had near the expected level of production.

Babylon
04-11-2010, 01:31 PM
The single biggest difference between them is how "sudden" Best can be. He can being going full speed, stop, change direction and being moving in another direction in a cocaine heartbeat. If it weren't for the injury concerns (which are huge IMO) he'd be considered the best back in this draft, even ahead of Spiller. I look at best and see someone who to me is clearly a better prospect than Chris Johnson was if only there wasn't the concussion problem. He's not the most physical back, but his speed and agility are amazing. I watch him move and am reminded of Barry Sanders or Gale Sayers.

I wouldn't be surprised for him to have a Gale Sayers type of career where he quickly becomes one of the best backs in the league only to have injuries limit him to playing a few years. He makes for a fascinating prospect. McKnight simply represents a lot of hype that never had near the expected level of production.

You didnt just go there did you?

FUNBUNCHER
04-11-2010, 02:29 PM
Gale Sayers???????


No. No. No.

Fine if you think Best will have a brilliant, but injury shortened NFL career, but that doesn't come close to the impact Sayers' brief stint had on the NFL.

Sayers is STILL the most electrifying player some oldheads have ever seen play in the NFL.

I think I know what you were trying to say, Parcells, but it came out all kinds of wrong!!LOLOL

EndZoneDB
04-12-2010, 11:15 AM
I think the question should be ...

If your team needs a RB, long with other positions, which would you rather have, Best in the 2nd or McNight in the 3rd.

I'll use Buffalo as an example. Would you rather have...

Best (2nd), Troup (3rd)
Cody (2nd), McNight (3rd)

So I guess the question for me would be "is the difference between Best and McNight so great that taking Best in the second is worth it?"

yourfavestoner
04-12-2010, 11:25 AM
Best>any RB in this class if it wasn't for injury concerns.