Michael or Rawls

[SeAhAwKeR4life]

Dang - Pete just said on radio that Rawls will be out A FEW WEEKS after what they discovered recently, about the damage to his fibula.

The problem with this kinda thing is it can end a career. You guys all over Rawls tip, just don't get that A. he was uninjured when he had his glory, B. he was behind a different offensive line, C. C-Mike is vastly improved and was always expected to be better than Rawls, being a second rounder versus the UDFA.

So I just don't get the irrational C-Mike hate. Sure he tends to want to go down easy, but that can be good as it might keep him healthy. He has the talent to be a feature back. Maybe Rawls does too, or maybe that leg is gonna end his career, but to continually harp on that Rawls is so much better, when it was under totally different circumstances is irrational at best and borderline delusional at worst. :roll:

Fans forming an opinion about Rawls based on several starts as it compares to that of Michael, who doesn't have an amazing history here (whether it be last year under different circumstances or not) doesn't seem all that delusional to me.

Honestly don't understand the need for the tone in the post or the eye roll that comes with it.

Because there isn't enough evidence to definitively say Rawls is better than Michael. I get that everyone wants a bruiser like Marshawn, but in the long run, only a full season with each starting, or getting the bulk of carries will tell us who is the better back. There just isn't a solid basis to definitively say. I'm not even arguing that Michael is better, but so far so good. Why would you wanna sit a back who is playing as well as C-Mike is?


I'm just railing against all this "Rawls is vastly superior and there is no question about it", it's just ludicrous on it's face.

 

[LeftHandSmoke]

For me it's not a binary case of "is A better than B" at RB, it's more a question around if we will have two or more good backs for the season instead of just the one we have for now. And the longer T Rawls is out, the longer it may take him to get back into a good groove - we should probably hope that AC and Magee begin to get good reps and playing time in the meantime since the season clock is going to keep ticking the weeks down during TR's hopeful recovery.

 

[Laloosh]

For me it's not a binary case of "is A better than B" at RB, it's more a question around if we will have two or more good backs for the season instead of just the one we have for now. And the longer T Rawls is out, the longer it may take him to get back into a good groove - we should probably hope that AC and Magee begin to get good reps and playing time in the meantime since the season clock is going to keep ticking the weeks down during TR's hopeful recovery.

See bolded. That's my take...

Watching the running plays from the LA game, he made mistakes. In one case, he had a decent hole up the middle but tried to bounce it outside (into two unblocked defenders). I think it'll take some time for him to shake the rust off. Better than Michael or not, we know that he's capable of really good things. Just needs to get healthy and get the reps.

Who the coaches want to start doesn't matter to me. I just don't want to rely on Alex Collins to keep drives alive when the starting RB needs a breather.