Quote:
For the 100th time who said Jones was a great back? Who said he was even an elite back? I said great SEASONS. If there isn't anything to measure if he was great in 2004 and 2005 how can you say he wasn't? You change your point every other post. Jones was ranked 9th out of 147 backs which would put him in the top 6% of the league. It's my opinion and I'm sure a lot people would agree that he had back to back great seasons. I back mine up with #'s and facts and you back yours up with nothing but your opinion. Jones was traded by the Cardinals and the Bucs wanted to re-sign him but the Bears offered a starting job and more money. I've asked you what you consider a great year and you still can't tell me. How many RB's had a great year in your opinion? What type of numbers would a back have to have in order for you to consider his season great?
1)You're seriously comparing Jones' performance to ALL other NFL running backs--not just the starters--to make the claim that he had great seasons? Why stop there? Why not compare him to college, high school and Pop Warner backs, too? That way, Jones would be in the top .001% of all running backs. By your logic, Kyle Orton had a good season last year because he would rank in the top 25% of all NFL QBs. I guess we should start him over Grossman and Griese, right? For that matter, the last-ranked NFL starting QB and running back should never be replaced because they're always statistically superior to the league's backups, right? Your argument obviously undercuts itself here.
2)Your claim that the Bucs had a high opinion of Jones because they coveted him as a backup is equally surreal. The fact that they didn't think he was starting material obviously means that didn't think he was that good.
3)I haven't changed my points. First, I said Jones's stats aren't great. They're not. In 2005, he ranked 10th in TDs, 9th in yards and 5th in YPC. The rankings of 9 and 10 mean he's above average for a starter. And above average is great only by your diminished standards. The #5 ranking for YPC is impressive, but again, it's way behind the league leaders and doesn't stand out historically as a great number--and neither do Jones's rushing yards or TDs. I haven't introduced any further statistics into the debate because I don't need to do so. Jones' numbers aren't great from a historical or single-season perspective.
But as I've said, I don't think stats tell the full story. The Bears had a tremendous run-blocking O-line last year and Jones did not take advantage of his opportunities to the extent that the NFL's elite backs would. He amply demonstrated that he possesses 0 elite running back skills. That's my opinion, but apparently it's shared by the Bears--because they're trying to replace him, just like Arizona and Tampa did.
4)You've argued in other posts that Jones isn't a top running back because he has ONLY had two great seasons and therefore hasn't proven himself on a long-term basis. Let's examine that premise. What if Jones had consecutive 1800- or 2000-yard seasons(instead of his 2004 and 2005 totals)? Would you still rank him as less than a top 3 back? Not likely. But you won't rank Jones better than 10 right now because his performance relative to his peers hasn't actually been great over the past two seasons. So it's not the short time frame (of two seasons) that's preventing you ranking Jones as an elite back; rather, it's his less than stellar performance within that time frame that's shaping your opinion.
Login
Register
FAQ
Search
