Future Running Back? Ranking our backfield.

[RussJames]

There's been some discussion going on lately concerning our backfield and who should be #2 behind Beast and eventually take over as the starting RB. I believe a slight majority think Michael is the future, although with just 3 preseason games under his belt, it may be a bit too early to judge. He certainly has got the skills it's just a matter of getting down the technique and staying healthy for him.

There're a few Turbin-ites out there and while I don't think he's a starting caliber half back for the Seattle Seahawks, I do believe he would do great for a more pass heavy team. With his exceptional pass blocking and receiving, a team like New Orleans or Indianapolis seem perfect for him. For the moment, though, he's an ideal 3rd down back for us.

Ware and Coleman have a lot of work to do if they plans on being starting caliber FB/RB. I'd say Coleman has a better chance at being more of a traditional fullback and Ware could come in as a RB/FB or even H-back type of player. (Btw, I still have high hopes for a return of the man, the myth, the legend, that is Mike Rob...)

Anyways, out of pure boredom, I figured I'd take a more systematic approach to ranking our backfield. Some of this is based on tape, some is based on the word of coaches, some is based on stats/combine, and some is just personal opinion.

----Speed----
1. Michael
2. Turbin
3. Lynch
4. Coleman
5. Ware

----Agility----
1. Michael
2. Lynch
3. Ware
4. Turbin
5. Coleman

----Vision----
1. Lynch
2. Turbin
3. Michael
4. Ware
5. Coleman

----Footwork----
1. Lynch
2. Michael
3. Ware
4. Turbin
5. Coleman

----Hands---- edit
1. Turbin
2. Lynch
3. Ware
4. Michael
5. Coleman

----Blocking---- edit
1. Coleman
2. Turbin
3. Lynch
4. Ware
5. Michael

----Lower Strength----
1. Lynch
2. Michael
3. Coleman
4. Ware
5. Turbin

----Upper Strength----
1. Turbin
2. Lynch
3. Michael
4. Coleman
5. Ware

----Special Team----(not counted in OVERALL)
1. Coleman
2. Ware
3. Michael
4. Turbin
5. Lynch

----OVERALL----
1. Lynch - 15
2. Turbin - 21
3. Michael - 21
4. Ware - 31
5. Coleman - 32

 

[edogg23]

So why did you rank Michael last in hands? He looked like he was the best catching RB we have from what I saw in the preseason.

 

[nsport]

I think Coleman is the real deal as well... wouldn't sell him off as a blocking fullback at all.

 

[Hawkintent]

I think Lynch is an amazing blocker. He saved Wilson several times last season. Great form too not just getting in the way.

 

[DavidSeven]

Yeah, I don't think Coleman and Ware have been on the field enough to prove they are better blockers than Lynch. Just because they have taken reps at FB doesn't mean they are de facto great blockers. From what I can tell, Lynch is excellent at picking up pass rushers. Might be the best blocker of the group, and that's what separates him from everyone else. He's a complete back in every sense.

 

[Hawks46]

I don't know how accurate any of this will be if Michael, Ware and Coleman haven't played a down in the NFL that counts yet.

Or put another way: let's rank these guys after they've ALL actually played NFL starters. For more than once for 5 minutes.

 

[RussJames]

@edogg... Because of a single 1 handed catch on a screen pass? Don't get me wrong it was a nice grab, but he only had 2 other catches throughout the preseason. Every other back on our team had more catches than him this preseason. If you look back to his college years he wasn't particularly known for his receiving skills and when you compare him to our others backs, he's definitely not in the top 3 in that category. Although, I would say he's probably better than Coleman for now...

@nsport... Coleman's the closest thing we have to a "traditional fullback" at the moment. He's definitely got some skills in other department though and could be a diamond in the rough, but when you compare him to our other backs, well...

@Hawkintent & David... I was probably a bit harsh on him in that regard. I don't think he's the best blocker of the group, but you guys are right that he should at least be higher than Ware and maybe even Coleman.

I edited a couple rankings to match the suggestions...

 

[edogg23]

@edogg... Because of a single 1 handed catch on a screen pass? Don't get me wrong it was a nice grab, but he only had 2 other catches throughout the preseason. Every other back on our team had more catches than him this preseason. If you look back to his college years he wasn't particularly known for his receiving skills and when you compare him to our others backs, he's definitely not in the top 3 in that category. Although, I would say he's probably better than Coleman for now...

@nsport... Coleman's the closest thing we have to a "traditional fullback" at the moment. He's definitely got some skills in other department though and could be a diamond in the rough, but when you compare him to our other backs, well...

@Hawkintent & David... I was probably a bit harsh on him in that regard. I don't think he's the best blocker of the group, but you guys are right that he should at least be higher than Ware and maybe even Coleman.

I edited a couple rankings to match the suggestions...

Yeah I think that 1 handed catch is what was sticking in my mind. Nice rankings an thread idea.

 

[RussJames]

I don't know how accurate any of this will be if Michael, Ware and Coleman haven't played a down in the NFL that counts yet.

Or put another way: let's rank these guys after they've ALL actually played NFL starters. For more than once for 5 minutes.

No need to be a stickler dude. They've all played at least three or four years of college as well. You don't need to play against NFL caliber teams to measure things like speed, agililty, footwork, hands, and lower/upper body strength. I agree that attributes like blocking, vision, and special teams might require some time in the NFL to get a true read of, but beside that I think I was fair in ranking the backfield the way I did.

And yeah, let's rank these guys again once they've played actually NFL starts. Maybe opinions will have changed by then.

 

[chris98251]

I think you underated Ware a lot on the strength attributes, he isn't a bruiser becasue he is weak and fits more the Lynch mold then either Turbin or Michael if you ask me, he has great hands as well. But tryijng to sort out a stable of backs like we have right now isn't easy, they all bring strong attributes.

 

[pmedic920]

I definitely think we have some talent coming up behind Lynch, but I'm not sure we even have our next guy yet.

 

[Hawks46]

I don't know how accurate any of this will be if Michael, Ware and Coleman haven't played a down in the NFL that counts yet.

Or put another way: let's rank these guys after they've ALL actually played NFL starters. For more than once for 5 minutes.

No need to be a stickler dude. They've all played at least three or four years of college as well. You don't need to play against NFL caliber teams to measure things like speed, agililty, footwork, hands, and lower/upper body strength. I agree that attributes like blocking, vision, and special teams might require some time in the NFL to get a true read of, but beside that I think I was fair in ranking the backfield the way I did.

And yeah, let's rank these guys again once they've played actually NFL starts. Maybe opinions will have changed by then.

I'm not trying to be a stickler, but the preseason or college isn't indicative of NFL performance. If it was, no 1st rounders would ever bust. I can see if you're trying to rate them now, then wait until the end of the season to see how right/wrong we were, but I didn't read that into your post.

 

[McGruff]

I think you underrate Michael and Coleman in almost every area. Coleman's biggest strength is his hands, and Michael is better out of the backfield and as a blocker.

Lynch is by far our best blocker, though.

 

[hawker84]

I think Michael is the best all around back on the team. He should be #2 and should eventually take the starting reigns when Lynch is gone.

JMO

 

[hawk45]

I'm on the bandwagon for Michael as the future feature back. But I'm going to cry when Lynch is no longer our beast out there. He's the guy who's kept the team trucking during the Pete/JS years, obviously punctuated by the run against the Saints. I love, love, LOVE a guy who gets positive yardage even when he gets nailed behind the LOS.

 

[Rocket]

Campers... a great rookie pre-season does not portend a great rookie year.
Nor does it suggest a great career.

Let's not be hasty. Patience.
Let's wait a game or 8, ok?

 

[OreIdahawk]

After watching both backs play in college and the pros, I'd have to say that Turbin is faster than Michael. He's not as agile as Michael but his straight line speed is better IMO.

 

[McGruff]

Campers... a great rookie pre-season does not portend a great rookie year.
Nor does it suggest a great career.

Let's not be hasty. Patience.
Let's wait a game or 8, ok?

Boooooorinnggggg!

 

[RussJames]

Campers... a great rookie pre-season does not portend a great rookie year.
Nor does it suggest a great career.

Let's not be hasty. Patience.
Let's wait a game or 8, ok?

I don't think anybody here has claimed that one of our rookie running backs is going to have a great season let alone a great career. It's all conjecture at this point, but, when you see some of the things Michael did at Texas A&M translate to the NFL preseason, it's hard to imagine him not having a good career (barring injuries, of course). Like I said earlier you don't need an NFL caliber opponent to measure things like speed, agility, hands, footwork, and upper/lower body strength. Plus, what's a Hawks forum without conjecture?

 

[RussJames]

After watching both backs play in college and the pros, I'd have to say that Turbin is faster than Michael. He's not as agile as Michael but his straight line speed is better IMO.

It's very, very, very close. At the combine Turbin ran a 4.42 40yd, Michael ran a 4.43 40yd. How does that translate to the playing field? I actually think Michael looks slightly faster but that probably just comes down to his elite explosiveness, agility, and acceleration. Either way it's very close and I think I'd give the extremely slight edge to Michael...