Rod Smith or Thomas Rawls

[scutterhawk]

Whose better of the two? And who do you think will get C-Mike's spot? I know Rawls may be more explosive, but I like Smith. He has very sure hands.

We seen a lot more of Smith that Rawls, but it appeared to me as though Rawls runs with a lot of punch, (kind of like Lynch)
Either way, I think we need to see a little more from both playing against 1st team Defenders before going off the deep end

 

[peppersjap]

I'd go with Rawls... he fits the mold more and Smith is a bit too tall for what the Seahawks are looking for in a running back.

Pete went on a full explanation about this a few years back if anyone has that link.

Dickerson was a bit tall as well, Rams should have cut him

Rod Smith isn't Eric Dickerson.

Thank you! It is amazing how anyone would compare this guy to Eric Dickerson ( after a meaningless drive in a meaningless game against players who will not be in the league in a couple of weeks )who is one of the greatest RB's ever! I am a huge Seahawk fan and I had never even heard of Rod Smith until that drive.

 

[hawknation2015]

I am more eager to see Rod Smith on Friday than I am to see Turbin, Michael, or Rawls. I feel like I have a good understanding of those three backs. Turbin is a good blocker and receiver but is not that great after contact. Rawls seems like a slower version of Turbin. Michael is a dynamic runner who doesn't follow his blockers very well and can't hang on to the football. I'm just curious to see what Smith can do.

 

[BASF]

No man named Rod Smith should play for the Seahawks. Too many flashbacks.

 

[legend38]

Rod Smith reminds me of Leonard Weaver.

 

[Ozzy]

I'm with the scientist. I don;t think either are even remotely close to CMike and the media is running with the idea that they will cut Michael. I still think they view Michael as the future. Probably not the smartest guy in the RB room but unreal talent. I might be the last .net guy on board with Michael but I'm going to ride it out so I can rub it in everyone's nose. :sarcasm_on:

 

[onanygivensunday]

There's no way that Michael will be the feature RB when Marshawn hangs 'em up... no way imo.

He doesn't protect the rock... he's too impatient... he's a very questionable blocker... he's just not the bell cow that Pete covets.

I believe that Pete and John will address that need in the 2016 draft.

 

[Grahamhawker]

There's no way that Michael will be the feature RB when Marshawn hangs 'em up... no way imo.

He doesn't protect the rock... he's too impatient... he's a very questionable blocker... he's just not the bell cow that Pete covets.

I believe that Pete and John will address that need in the 2016 draft.

If not, than yes, Hawks will need to draft "that back". I haven't seen enough of Smith or Rawls to truly assess, but right now Cmike looks better than either, ball security lapse aside.

 

[Boom84]

I like Rawls and he seems to be the more physical runner, but there is still more to be seen here as his opportunities from the backfield were limited.

Rod Smith has some traits which are intriguing, particularly his size (length) and natural ability catching the football. His traits are similar to Matt Forte and Shane Vereen, although he can't be compared to those players yet.

I'm honestly curious to see more of these two backs as Christine Michael will just never seem to get going and the team could get a late round draft pick for him.