Panthers will listen to trade offers for Jonathan Stewart

[ausbacker]

You mentioning how many RBs had more carries than him in a single year is totally irrelevant. Mileage implies that he has played for a noteworthy period of time that is likely going to be a large chunk of his overall total when it's all said and done. For this not to be true he'd have to be one of the best RBs of all time. 725 carries is over half the amount of carries that very successful RBs usually have. Even if it was only a third it still drives down his value. Yards is irrelevant, it's how many times he's been hit or tackled that matters obviously.

Which is more valuable a a car with 10k miles or a car with 50k? A car with 50k still can be productive so by your logic it has no mileage right? would you pay the same price?

You're still dodging the point, especially considering 2011 numbers were presented to you. Here is the number of backs who have been over 250 carries since Stewart has been in the NFL

2008 - 13
2009 - 09
2010 - 11
2011 - 12

Compared to other Running Backs, especially the elite/workhorse backs who have been carrying in excess of 250 times per season, does Stewart have mileage or is the more reasonable suggestion he has considerably less than those who carry on average more per season than Stewart? That's my point, comparatively he's fresh.

Make a point with some facts if you could. You're arguing about tackling. I couldn't care less for that if he's been managed with his carries and has a high level of production.

 

[TyronePoole]

You're still dodging the point, especially considering 2011 numbers were presented to you. Here is the number of backs who have been over 250 carries since Stewart has been in the NFL

2008 - 13
2009 - 09
2010 - 11
2011 - 12

Compared to other Running Backs, especially the elite/workhorse backs who have been carrying in excess of 250 times per season, does Stewart have mileage is is the more reasonable suggestion he has considerably less than those who carry on average more per season than Stewart.

Make a point with some facts if you could. You're arguing about tackling. I couldn't care less for that if he's been managed with his carries and has a high level of production.

ugh. Carries = tackles first of all (though that would have been obvious). It's not how far they've run that determines how long a RB lasts lol.

second, that's a laughable way to present a statistical argument. You really don't see the flaw in singling out how many RBs in each single year had more carries than Stewart? That has nothing to do with how many total carries he has had.

I have no idea what this means:

Compared to other Running Backs, especially the elite/workhorse backs who have been carrying in excess of 250 times per season, does Stewart have mileage is is the more reasonable suggestion he has considerably less than those who carry on average more per season than Stewart.

so you are saying that Stewart has less mileage than those who have more mileage than him :confused2:

You are basically just arguing against a straw man. Stewart has the 31st most carries of all active NFL players. Guess which way that number is trending. If you think that doesn't decrease his value to the Patriots (amongst the other factors I listed that you chose to ignore) you are delusional.

 

[ausbacker]

ugh. Carries = tackles first of all (though that would have been obvious). It's not how far they've run that determines how long a RB lasts lol.

second, that's a laughable way to present a statistical argument. You really don't see the flaw in singling out how many RBs in each single year had more carries than Stewart? That has nothing to do with how many total carries he has had.

I have no idea what this means:



so you are saying that Stewart has less mileage than those who have more mileage than him :confused2:

You are basically just arguing against a straw man. Stewart has the 31st most carries of all active NFL players. Guess which way that number is trending. If you think that doesn't decrease his value to the Patriots (amongst the other factors I listed that you chose to ignore) you are delusional.

It's obvious that you're fairly simple so I'll break it down for you so you can understand.

Jonathan Stewart's mid range level of carries ensures that your mileage debate is null and void given his comparative level of performance compared to the workhorse backs.

For four years in a row, Stewart has carried the ball to a mid level tier. When you make the implication that someone has mileage, you are making a statement that they have carried the load for a prolonged period of time ala Chris Johnson, Maurice Jones-Drew, Ray Rice, Adrian Peterson. These guys have mileage and run the risk of slowing dramatically at some point.

My argument is simple, compared to those who carry and have continued to carry the football, Stewart has been managed well with an excellent level of performance, one which I could easily part with a second round pick. The fact that he doesn't have the mileage or statistics of those above him should ensure that his contract demands are more reasonable than those above him.

 

[TyronePoole]

I see in addition to beating this straw man to death we've resorted to large font and insults.

You win, he has no mileage. Goodnight.

 

[Joker]

Hey, good morning!!

what'd I miss???

 

[ausbacker]

Hey, good morning!!

what'd I miss???

Not much Joker, Rex likes feet, Tebow is a Jet, they still suck, just the usual.

 

[BTTA]

Hey, good morning!!

what'd I miss???

Just that most of us need to completely revise how we evaluate NFL talent.

millzy
Rookie

Join Date: Nov 2011
Posts: 21

Does anyone even have madden 12 on this forum? that trade would never even work, Ridleys rating in the game is like 77, stewarts is 85. That trade would never go down, I would like stewart, I watched him a lot when he was on oregon but I still think were good with Ridley more then him

 

[Dillon46]

Good God, since when the hell do the GM's of the league decide if a trade is feasible by what a freakin' video game correlates to it..............well unless if you're Tannenbaum.

Besides sign me up for Stewart he languishes on their roster now, and he reminds of Dillon re-incarnated.......even though the "stiff-arm" from Corey is legendary(Sam Adams where are you)........I think a 3rd could do the trick maybe pony up a 2013 4th or 5th to sweeten only if needed.

 

[pork3]

Hey, good morning!!

what'd I miss???

Marry me.

-Jamman

 

[supafly]

Part of me is all for it, aus. You make a decent point that the offense would be practically limitless.

Then again, the other part says that the contract would likely be too much, that Belichick doesn't tend to want to pay much at RB (Taylor 2009 be damned at 2 yrs/ 5 million), and that as long as Brady's in the game we will be a primarily throwing team; meaning a RB of Stewart's caliber probably wouldn't gain enough touches to truly be worth it.

I think your point of him having a bit less wear and tear at a pretty reasonable age still of 27 has merit. He may end up making another team very happy for the next 3-4 yrs.

 

[supafly]

Good God, since when the hell do the GM's of the league decide if a trade is feasible by what a freakin' video game correlates to it..............well unless if you're Tannenbaum.

Besides sign me up for Stewart he languishes on their roster now, and he reminds of Dillon re-incarnated.......even though the "stiff-arm" from Corey is legendary(Sam Adams where are you)........I think a 3rd could do the trick maybe pony up a 2013 4th or 5th to sweeten only if needed.

I was thinking a 3rd too, but the compensation probably wouldn't be the issue, it would be the higher pay.

God forgive me for posting a link to the Bleacher Report, but here is the first article that came up on a Google search. It states a (fan's) case for Stewart going to the Steelers, which actually makes a lot of sense.

What doesn't make much sense is his perceived draft pick compensation, which he states is a low 1st/high 2nd.

Regardless, with our RBBC, our tendancy to pass more than about 60%+ of the time (it was more balanced in 2010, albeit slightly), and the 2 young/cheap rookies, it would seem as though he probably won't be coming here.

Although I suppose one never 'really' knows what BB is going to do though.

http://bleacherreport.com/articles/1118236-nfl-rumors-jonathan-stewart-would-be-great-addition-to-steelers-backfield

 

[Bostonian1962]

I would trade a 2nd for Stewart, and's then trade Stewart and two number's 1 straight up for Adam Seward! Let's do it!

 

[stevedogc]

Last season Ahmad Bradshaw signed a 4 yr, 18 mil. contract with 9 mil gaurenteed and a 5 mil signing bonus. I think that is around the type of contract Stewart should be getting. Both Bradshaw and Stewart have had similar careers. Never a full time starter, although productive when on the field. Prior to the contract Bradshaws numbers were 529 carries for 2558 yards, 4.84 ypc, 17 tds, 75 rec, 575 yards, 7.6 ypr, 1 td. Stewarts career numbers are 725 carries for 3500 yardsd, 4.83 ypc, 26 yds, 81 rec, 702 yards, 8.7 ypr, 3 td.
Very similar.

Problem is we have no idea what Stewart is looking for. If he is looking to hit the open market, he wont get a big contract is he stays on the Panters. To many carries to be split up. It may also hurt his trade value if he refuses to sign a deal for any team looking to trade for him. As was stated earlier in the thread, if he is francished next season, you're looking at around 8 mil. Along with his 1.3 mil hit this season is 2 years, 9.3 mil. Which is the around the average Bradshaw got. If he has a great 2012 and refuses to play under the franchise tag, then he could be traded and easily recoup the draft pick.

If his cost is the 62nd overall pick and we could sign him up for 4 yrs 18-20 mil total, I'd do it. He would bring a whole new dynamic to the offense. Then use the rest of the draft on the defense/

 

[Dillon46]

I was thinking a 3rd too, but the compensation probably wouldn't be the issue, it would be the higher pay.

God forgive me for posting a link to the Bleacher Report, but here is the first article that came up on a Google search. It states a (fan's) case for Stewart going to the Steelers, which actually makes a lot of sense.

What doesn't make much sense is his perceived draft pick compensation, which he states is a low 1st/high 2nd.

Regardless, with our RBBC, our tendancy to pass more than about 60%+ of the time (it was more balanced in 2010, albeit slightly), and the 2 young/cheap rookies, it would seem as though he probably won't be coming here.

Although I suppose one never 'really' knows what BB is going to do though.

NFL Rumors: Jonathan Stewart Would Be Great Addition to Steelers' Backfield | Bleacher Report

Him to the Squeelers would make perfect sense from what they'd use him for and what his talents would offer.....

The contract may be too much but then, maybe its just me, but the last time New England won it all was when they could control the clock with the best of them. Antowain Smith and Dillon were awesome at grinding out the games in the 3rd and 4th quarters when they had the lead. Stewart has that ability plus Dillon's deceptive breakaway speed....I guess I'm a sucker for old-school backs.

I'll never forget the 2004 AFC Divisional Game when how we were going to stop the invincible Colts Offense........Game strategy, Solid Defense and a healthy dose of Dillon pummeling the Colt's D-Line while limiting Peyton's snaps did the trick.......Its kinda the same M.O. other teams do to us in the playoffs now.

 

[danmateus]

I don't think it's a coincidence that we haven't won a Super Bowl since we last had a real rb threat in Dillon.
Defensive teams will never lose sleep planning for RB by committee.

 

[Sciz]

I don't think it's a coincidence that we haven't won a Super Bowl since we last had a real rb threat in Dillon.
Defensive teams will never lose sleep planning for RB by committee.

Which team WITH an elite RB has won a Super Bowl since then?

 

[danmateus]

Which team WITH an elite RB has won a Super Bowl since then?

I've never understood that argument because how many of those teams had the star qb to go along with the rb? So just because we have a star QB means we should settle for less? How about making Brady's job a lot easier. You mean to tell me that if didn't have a RB like a Dillon the last few years it wouldn't have made a difference? This is the mistake all teams make in this era. They get an elite RB and go cheap on the QB and the team with the great QB goes cheap at RB. All i know is this. The Giants wouldn't be able to pin their ears back if they had to worry about defending a REAL rushing threat.

 

[strngplyr]

I don't think it's a coincidence that we haven't won a Super Bowl since we last had a real rb threat in Dillon.
Defensive teams will never lose sleep planning for RB by committee.

You think Dillon had more to do with it than our defense?

 

[TyronePoole]

I've never understood that argument because how many of those teams had the star qb to go along with the rb? So just because we have a star QB means we should settle for less? How about making Brady's job a lot easier. You mean to tell me that if didn't have a RB like a Dillon the last few years it wouldn't have made a difference? This is the mistake all teams make in this era. They get an elite RB and go cheap on the QB and the team with the great QB goes cheap at RB. All i know is this. The Giants wouldn't be able to pin their ears back if they had to worry about defending a REAL rushing threat.

maybe there's a reason why teams with star QBs don't have stub RBs, unless you hit on one in the later rounds of the draft it's not worth the resources

 

[Deus Irae]

I've never understood that argument because how many of those teams had the star qb to go along with the rb? So just because we have a star QB means we should settle for less? How about making Brady's job a lot easier. You mean to tell me that if didn't have a RB like a Dillon the last few years it wouldn't have made a difference? This is the mistake all teams make in this era. They get an elite RB and go cheap on the QB and the team with the great QB goes cheap at RB. All i know is this. The Giants wouldn't be able to pin their ears back if they had to worry about defending a REAL rushing threat.

Ok, your original premise was about having the elite RB/RB threat. That premise was shot to hell. Instead of a "my bad, but hey..." or anything along those lines, you try turning this into "You're all mean people because you don't want Brady to have help" argument. Come on, new guy. Bring something better to the table.

Having a top level player at any position is always a bonus. Having a top level player at running back is simply not crucial in today's game.