Sankey

[JCBRAVE]

I think Greene is gone next year. At that point we should have Sankey as the primary back with McCluster as the change of pace guy. Good chance they carry Antonio Andrews as a primary backup. Jackie Battle or whomever they use as a fullback could get some short-yardage/goal line opportunities in some situations. 

Greene's under contract thru 2015, he's played well enough to come back.

[Cyrus]

Greene's under contract thru 2015, he's played well enough to come back.

 

He'll only have about $830K in dead money. They'll save $2.4M~ by cutting him. No reason to keep him with Sankey on the roster.

[JCBRAVE]

He'll only have about $830K in dead money. They'll save $2.4M~ by cutting him. No reason to keep him with Sankey on the roster.

Greene is playing well though, why dump a productive player? Not as if we have extra to spare..

[IsntLifeFunny]

Sankey is the best of Greene and McCluster combined, and after yesterday he showed he needs to be our offenses focal point. I hope the coaches see it this way too and up his workload. Locker might actually look good with a complete RB beside him.

Lol

[chef]

If Greene is healthy and his play next year appears that it will be on par with what he has show thus far, I'd keep him around, even if he is the "back up."  Don't think that really matters.  And though he may continue as the starter, Sankey has earned himself a nice share of touches as long as he keeps this up.

 

Outside of that (injury/poor play), about the only reason I'd dump him would be if they took a flier on a later round RB and seemed to have struck gold.

 

I don't love the guy be when healthy he has value, just a limited ceiling.

[OILERMAN]

One caution was Sankey got almost all of his yards from run in the shotgun down 19-0

 

I thought he looked good but I think that does matter a bit

[NashvilleNinja]

The majority of the time, when triplets are referenced, it's usually QB/RB/WR. How about Mett/Wright/Sankey or even Mett/Hunter/Sankey?

Last time, I thought of the Titans and triplets was McNair/George/Sanders. After Sanders' rookie season, I really thought they would be our Aikman/Smith/Irvin trio.

Sanders? As in Chris Sanders? As in that guy who never saw hook that he couldn't straighten into a go route?

When I think of Mac in a triplet I think of Mac/George/Mason

[cenj]

Greene is a slow plodding bruiser who get banged up every game. You can't count on him being healthy, and his skillset is easily replaceable.

 

Put the $2.5M towards a pass rusher and draft a short-yardage bruiser in the 5th-6th round next year. We already spent a 2nd on Sankey and have $2-3M/year in McCluster. Those guys should be getting the bulk of the carries next year.

Edited September 22, 2014 by cenj

[Btowner]

Sanders? As in Chris Sanders? As in that guy who never saw hook that he couldn't straighten into a go route?

When I think of Mac in a triplet I think of Mac/George/Mason

Yes. Chris Sanders after his rookie year. He had over 800 yds receiving, 9 TDs and 23.5 YPC  while only starting 11 games. 

 

Little did I know, a jam or any pattern that wasn't a go route would derail his career. With Mason, it was a pleasant surprise, He didn't really make a splash until his 4th year.

 

I don't recall any WR under Fisher having the type of explosive down field plays like Sanders in their rookie years. Can anyone think of another rookie WR in Titan's history with better numbers than Sanders?

Edited September 23, 2014 by Btowner

[NashvilleNinja]

Greene is playing well though, why dump a productive player? Not as if we have extra to spare..

If Sankey and McCluster are taking the touches there is no point unless Greene also plays ST. There are only 53 total roster spots, and of those only 46 are active on game day. There is no point in keeping Greene, especially at his salary, in the role of spare tire.

[chef]

Greene is a slow plodding bruiser who get banged up every game. You can't count on him being healthy, and his skillset is easily replaceable.

 

Put the $2.5M towards a pass rusher and draft a short-yardage bruiser in the 5th-6th round next year. We already spent a 2nd on Sankey and have $2-3M/year in McCluster. Those guys should be getting the bulk of the carries next year.

 

 

If we need the money to use toward a key player, cut him.  If we can upgrade, cut him.

 

Otherwise he could still be a valuable vet depth/goal line/short yardage back.

 

But yeah, I am less concerned about the slow plodding part than the fact he always gets dinged up if not knocked out.

[Face]

I'm guessing this is from Matt Waldman (I just read his article). I think it's an unnecessary distinction. Vision as a trait isn't really able to be divided into "man blocking vision" or "zone blocking vision". Vision, as a trait, is really about being able to see the field, anticipate where defenders are going to be and seeing where a defender aren't going to be. In that sense, it doesn't make sense to say that Sankey can see the man blocking really well, or gap blocking well, but doesn't see the zone blocking.

What really divides zone runners vs. man runners is vision, flexibility, quickness (lateral) and short area quickness (explosiveness). All running backs need vision, but those who don't have great vision/anticipation might be better in man-blocking schemes where there's more defined reads (and schemed plays) and they can use their overall power and explosiveness to generate positive plays.

I think the temptation for evaluators is to answer everything, even when they can't (or shouldn't). To say that Sankey is good on particular sets of plays or concept sounds technical and precise, but in reality might not be accurate at all. For those outside the meeting rooms, the particular concept isn't even always clear and it's always possible that a player is being coached to hit a particular gap or stretch the play even even within different concepts. The other risk is to draw too large of conclusions from a very small sample set or to make conclusions from statistical "noise".

Overall I think it's very safe to say that Sankey has very good vision. His overall quickness (lateral and short area) accentuates his vision which gives him the ability to run to green grass at the line of scrimmage and in the open field. I think the most fair criticism is his lack of strength/power and overall size. Personally, I think his other traits make up for these deficiencies, along with his overall technique (Example: pad level - which helps him finish runs even when he's less powerful than the defender).

As for Hill, he fell into the perfect situation. He's in the right scheme with a great run blocking line. He's more of a straight-linish, power back who has some dynamic traits. With the guys up-front he has the ability to move north and south and be productive.

Good post. Yeah I got that from Tom Gower, who I believe quoted Waldman. I thought there was something to it, as I've heard CJ & McFadden have the same trouble for example.

The reviews on Sankey were really all over the place, it was odd. Some loved him, some had him as a 4-5th rounder. He needs to be the featured back going forward. I also think this needs to be a 2 TE base, run first offense.

[Cornrow Wallace]

I don't recall any WR under Fisher having the type of explosive down field plays like Sanders in their rookie years. Can anyone think of another rookie WR in Titan's history with better numbers than Sanders?

 

Britt is the only one who comes close.

[N/A]

What is wrong with Sankey's footwork? What is good footwork for a running back?

 

I asked this because it is being reported that Whisenhunt said footwork is what is holding Sankey back, and he will not get more carries until he corrects it.

 

Blurp:

 

Titans coach Ken Whisenhunt said Bishop Sankey's reps won't increase until he improves his footwork.

Sankey dusted off 61 yards on ten carries and was the Titans' most dangerous player in Sunday's loss to the Bengals, but Whisenhunt is still obsessed with his footwork. "If he can get the attention to detail better, his reps will increase," stated Whisenhunt. As @StopTheVetoing suggested on Twitter, "Maybe they should have drafted Fred Astaire." The 54th overall pick in May's draft, Sankey has 89 yards on 18 carries (4.94 YPC) through three games. He's rotating with Shonn Greene and Dexter McCluster.

[MamlngEnvy]

What is wrong with Sankey's footwork? What is good footwork for a running back?

I asked this because it is being reported that Whisenhunt said footwork is what is holding Sankey back, and he will not get more carries until he corrects it.

Blurp:

Titans coach Ken Whisenhunt said Bishop Sankey's reps won't increase until he improves his footwork.

Sankey dusted off 61 yards on ten carries and was the Titans' most dangerous player in Sunday's loss to the Bengals, but Whisenhunt is still obsessed with his footwork. "If he can get the attention to detail better, his reps will increase," stated Whisenhunt. As @StopTheVetoing suggested on Twitter, "Maybe they should have drafted Fred Astaire." The 54th overall pick in May's draft, Sankey has 89 yards on 18 carries (4.94 YPC) through three games. He's rotating with Shonn Greene and Dexter McCluster.

Footwork should be one of the few things you can scout without reservations right...

Its not like his footwork would he worse now than in college..