Demps and a 7th traded for LeGarrette Blount
- Thread starter jsinger121
- Start date
For a guy that was going to be cut, Demps to Blount makes sense.
Blount has been on the market for a while: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/18/bucs-trying-to-trade-legarrette-blount/
Blount has been on the market for a while: http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/03/18/bucs-trying-to-trade-legarrette-blount/
He isn't good. His pass pro is one of the most pathetic things I've seen.
No harm trying to catch lightening in a bottle when the cost is so low.
No harm trying to catch lightening in a bottle when the cost is so low.
@RossTuckerNFL: "We'll trade you our slow guy who shows up late for your fast guy that doesn't show up at all"”
I like it. He's a first and second down guy. He's tough. He's insurance for Ridley, as Vereen takes the Woodhead role. I am not sold on Boldin. If he sucks he is gone.SouthernBoSox said:
Just don't expect production, because he sucks.ShaneTrot said:
I'm actually impressed they got anything for him.
I thought LB would be a stud coming out of college. He's been dogs hit. But a seventh and demps? Why not.
He has rushed for 1939 yards in 3 years at 4.6 yd/carry. Not bad, behind a not so great o-line in Tampa (ranked 18th in 2012 by Profootbalfocus.com). Doug Martin who was fantastic averaged 4.6 yards/carry.Old Fart Tree said:
My friend is a Bucs fan and Calls him La'Blount....I am on board. Probably good if an on field fight breaks out...
I guess it's alright since Demps was never really going to be an asset anyways. At the very least Blount might truck over some dudes.
DreamShake said:
He is more of the hurdling type...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=E7Ka2iDGAWA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=eHkKX1G8LE0
I remember seeing that live in TV and thinking the guy got what he deserved and probably less than would be expected, yapping at Blount, of all people, after a loss like that.Beomoose said:
Who knows if he'll stick since he doesn't play ST and might be an attitude case, but he's good insurance if Ridley gets hurt or starts dropping the ball again.
No. I can't speak to his abilities in run blocking, because I don't think he's ever done it. But he's pretty terrible in pass pro and if he's never been able to consistently catch the ballcout of the backfield. He's also horrible in short yardage.soxfan121 said:
He was 13 in RB DYAR (14th in DVOA) in 2010. In 2011 he was 24th/28th. His career YPC is 4.6. So, at least in terms of running the ball, he has the upside of being above-average. Doesn't mean he's good in other areas, but there is at least some reason to believe he's a good runner.
IMHO they're not bringing him in to be a blocker, he's coming in as a short yardage guy and with luck, hopefully more. He's a horse with some legit running skills. If healthy and in shape, I expect BB to get a lot out of this guy.soxfan121 said:
Yes, but he sucks in short yardage. Maybe it's the TB line that sucks and Blount is ok, but for me, as long as we cut him in camp before any significant money counts against the cap, I'm ok with the deal. Nevertheless, it's a curious one but so marginal as to not realy be an issue.Montana Fan said:
You could have played as him in the most recent version. I used him as a returner and 3rd down back. Wasn't worth it as he fumbled way too much.Turrable said:
Yea, this. Blount should absolutely be a beast in short yardage. He's enormous and his tremendous power. But he isn't. In fact he's pretty horrific in short yardage. Logically it doesn't make sense, but its true. He's bad at it.Bleedred said:
Bleedred said:
I was wondering what his "success rate" is...I recall a lot of conversation about Maroney, and how he was always frustrating, but rarely lost yards, so on a 1st down play running him was something like a pass play: could get a nice gain, might end up with 2nd and 10. At least, that was the argument (along with the notion that he protected the ball well).
Where does LeBlo stand on that issue?
I'm trying to find some stats, but I have limited time at work...
There are a couple different measures, but in 2011 Blount's success rate was 36.9% (62nd out of 80 RBs) per Advanced NFL Stats, 47% (23rd of 51) per FO. For reference, this year Ridley was 46.1% / 55%, Doug Martin was 39.7% / 48%. So Blount is nothing special by this measure.simplyeric said:
Doug Martin ran fine in short yardage last year. Blount is terrible in short yardage.Bleedred said:
Well, it looks like I'm a bigger sucker for the belief in Belichik than you fellas. BB was the DC for the Giants in 1990 so you can't attribute OJ Anderson's resurgence to him but he saw what Parcells got out of a supposedly washed up Anderson. Please know that I recognize Anderson's success before joining the Giants and that Blount doesn't have that behind him the last few years but I guess I'm a total mark for the shit Belichik tries and wouldn't be surprised if he got what talent Blount has, out of him.
Blount is a very talented runner, and, given that Demps wasn't going to play for this team, I don't mind the move one bit. If he sticks, great; if not, oh well.
I don't see how this hamstrings them w/r/t Abraham. Their rookie pick allotment shouldn't be very high, after all, and Fells is probably a goner.
I don't see how this hamstrings them w/r/t Abraham. Their rookie pick allotment shouldn't be very high, after all, and Fells is probably a goner.
I see that angle, but I just don't see a role for Blount on the team either outside of as an expensive insurance policy against a Ridley injury. Im not sure he's better than Brandon Bolden, and he's expensive as hell for a backup running back. Just a headscratcher to me, think I'd rather have cut Demps and kept the pick and the cap room.Tony C said:
I'm still trying to figure out if this is Bill helping Schiano out or the other way around. It's possible it's a win-win like the Talib deal ended up being. Tampa obviously didn't need Blount anymore but I'm not sure the Pats did either, but likely talking to Schiano and Chip Kelly on this guy, you'd have to think Bill has made a fairly well informed decision. I'm not sure I agree with it, but we'll soon find out.
Stitch01 said:
Are people really this down on Blount? Not sure he's better than Brandon Bolden, really? He's been at times extremely productive, he looked like a future star at one point down there in Tampa before everything bottomed out. He's had some good YPC stats but Tampa got Freeman going and tried to turn into more of a passing team. I'm not saying he's likely to be a diamond in the rough, but how can you not love taking a flyer on a guy with some NFL success for a player who it looked like was never going to play for the Pats again at all?
Well, Bolden was certaintly the more productive of the two in 2012 and running back shelf lives can be short. Its not like Blount is a factor in the passing game, or good at short yardage. Looking at all of that, Id have a hard time saying Blount is definitely the better player going forward. Not saying there's zero chance he can help, it just seems to me like there are better ways to tie up a million dollars plus of cap room (even temporarily) given there's an entrenched starter, an entrenched 3rd down back, and its a position where the Pats have successfully plugged in UDFA guys pretty regularly.
LeGarrette Blount takes $1 million pay cut:
Makes the trade more palatable, though I still think it's questionable whether or not Blount makes the team. He's big but not as strong as you would think; he's slow; he fumbles; and he's basically useless in the passing game. I remember reading quotes from Greg Cosell and Andy Benoit after his rookie year that pretty much trashed Blount. Their film study revealed a player who looked much worse than his stats would indicate His performance the past two seasons would seem to back them up. Plus there's the fact that he's a knucklehead.
I guess it's nice to have someone to compete with Bolden for the 4th RB spot, but I would give the edge to Bolden at this point. But whatever. Demps clearly wasn't going to do anything for this team once he said he wanted to run track. If this isn't really costing them much money, then why the hell not.
Makes the trade more palatable, though I still think it's questionable whether or not Blount makes the team. He's big but not as strong as you would think; he's slow; he fumbles; and he's basically useless in the passing game. I remember reading quotes from Greg Cosell and Andy Benoit after his rookie year that pretty much trashed Blount. Their film study revealed a player who looked much worse than his stats would indicate His performance the past two seasons would seem to back them up. Plus there's the fact that he's a knucklehead.
I guess it's nice to have someone to compete with Bolden for the 4th RB spot, but I would give the edge to Bolden at this point. But whatever. Demps clearly wasn't going to do anything for this team once he said he wanted to run track. If this isn't really costing them much money, then why the hell not.
BB -- "We got good value in trade." http://profootballtalk.nbcsports.com/2013/05/04/belichick-says-patriots-got-good-value-in-blount-trade/
Well considering Demps was dead to you, I'd agree.
Well considering Demps was dead to you, I'd agree.