Pats Draft Rd.4/120: RB Rhamondre Stevenson

djbayko

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jul 18, 2005
16,190
Los Angeles, CA
From the highlight tape, he seems to have great burst but not top end speed. Perfectly fine for a back.
Yeah, there were several times in that highlight reel where I said to myself that another back might have gone the distance instead of being tackled from behind. On the other hand, those other backs might not have been in those positions in the first place since he's breaking tackles left and right.
 

jmcc5400

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Sep 29, 2000
3,187
Being a power running team is great but the Ravens and Titans - the best power teams in the league - haven’t been able to get past KC.

The Pats are gonna have to be able to throw at some point.
Y'know who has been able to get past KC?

Did anyone else see this pick and go "wtf, a running back?" only to see the reaction of @SMU_Sox and change their mind immediately?
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
13,659
Seriously hoping SMU goes .500 on the Sooner picks -- totally right about Stevenson and couldn't-be-more-wrong about Perkins.
SMU is really good at this, but nobody gets them all right (or else SMU would be making a lot of money with an NFL team right now). I agree - hope he's wrong about Perkins, because I want that guy to be a wrecking machine for the Pats.
 

EL Jeffe

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2006
1,065
This one I'm very much with SMU on; Stevenson is a stud. If he were wired like Najee Harris, he'd have been a late 1st, early 2nd type of pick. As it is, he's a big man with nice feet and soft hands. Great in the screen game (which suits Mac well), capable in pass pro, and he's not a fun guy to tackle. I love him in the mix with Harris and Sony (who aren't the most durable guys). He's a good enough ST player (led Oklahoma in kick coverage tackles in 2019) to be on the active roster, putting Bolden in jeopardy. Really good upside here; I don't know that he'll have a 10 year career with his size, but they should get good rookie contract value out of him.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,264
I'm sure Stevenson is a good RB.....


I still hate the pick. RBs are interchangable parts, I'd much rather have gotten someone like Rochell, McPhearson, Wallace or Darden there and then just picked up Kylin Hill at 242, I think the gap in RB talent is tiny, there have been more than enough teams recently to get similar production from UDFA, 7th rounders and vet min guys as they got from Premium backs to support the idea that the RB is only a small part of your running game success and investing in a RB is pointless. (see JAX last year as a prime example).
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
31,919
Melrose, MA
Being a power running team is great but the Ravens and Titans - the best power teams in the league - haven’t been able to get past KC.

The Pats are gonna have to be able to throw at some point.
I think that rumors of the Pats becoming a power running team are greatly exaggerated.

But consider this.

They now have 2 TEs who can receive and block. (On the down side, neither one is Gronk. But on the positive side, neither one is a headcase and murderer.) I think we may be headed back to that time when the Pats can go to multiple TE sets that they can run or pass out of. Those were some good offensive years.
 

RetractableRoof

tolerates intolerance
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 1, 2003
3,670
Quincy, MA
Based only on the clips folks have already posted in thread.

We've got a shiny new QB with no dents, dings or rust spots. Whether he plays this year or next - if he's the real deal we don't want him getting broken trying to QB sneak for a couple of yards, or on the goal line. So, drafting a RB with a reputation as a 3 down back, who can a) block and keep said QB upright, and b) be that short yardage battering ram and c) also be the relief valve or take a screen pass or 3... seems like worth a small (4th round) investment. This round is also where BB will often take a shot and overdraft a special teams player if he is going to - and if Stevenson fills part of that role as well, then he is a 4 down back. Seems like he might be worth a bit of a premium if the scouting/film work is accurate. Definitely a BB pick, I hope he (and @SMU_Sox) is right.

Think of the TE package BB/Josh have at their disposal and how many teams won't be able to match up with that. Add in a freight train at RB, and DBs on other teams are going to want to be excused from class when the Patriots are on the schedule. With health, this could be fun to watch develop.
 

E5 Yaz

Transcends message boarding
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Apr 25, 2002
70,922
Oregon
I love the second highlight in the video package. he squares his shoulders and starts moving, and No. 32 (I think it is) of the defense starts to throw a shoulder into him, thinks better of it and spins away from the tackle
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,862
Maine
Reminds me of Old BB Binkie Marcel Reese. With some work....maybe he can become a little better WR and be a FB, H Back that we can use in the 2 TE Set with Sony/Harris.

That would Run some people over.
 

simplyeric

Member
SoSH Member
Feb 14, 2006
13,737
Richmond, VA
Whoever coined the term ‘bully ball’ seems to be spot on. Pats are building a beast.
I'm coming around to the idea that it's not so much "bully ball" as it is almost a form of jiu jitsu. Bully ball to me would be like "this is what we're going to do, and you either stop me or you don't". What BB has done in the past, and I think will try to do here, is to use the opponent's approach against them. If they come in heavy, we'll split out receivers and use a TE or RB for pass protect. If they come in light, we come in heavy and bully them. Flood the zone, isolate man coverage, etc. Obviously all teams do that to some extent, but BB has a track record of setting up rosters and groupings and pace of game such that he can get the D to commit, and then continue to use the inertia of their attack against them.
40783
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
6,251
New York City
I'm sure Stevenson is a good RB.....


I still hate the pick. RBs are interchangable parts, I'd much rather have gotten someone like Rochell, McPhearson, Wallace or Darden there and then just picked up Kylin Hill at 242, I think the gap in RB talent is tiny, there have been more than enough teams recently to get similar production from UDFA, 7th rounders and vet min guys as they got from Premium backs to support the idea that the RB is only a small part of your running game success and investing in a RB is pointless. (see JAX last year as a prime example).
I take your point, but the exact same argument could have been made regarding the Pats' selection of James White around this same spot in 2014, and that one turned out pretty well. I think the "investing in a RB is pointless" argument has some kernels of truth to it but gets overplayed.

I think it's definitely true that spending a lot in terms of trade assets or cap space on a RB is dumb, but that actually may make taking solid RBs in the draft more important, not less. Think about all of the production the Pats have got over the years from guys like White, Vereen, Ridley, Maroney, Michel, and now Harris - none of those guys were consistent All-Pros or anything but that's a good amount of production that they would have had to make up if they didn't draft those guys, and it seems like a bit of a stretch to suggest that in each of those cases they could have replaced the drafted players with "UDFA, 7th rounders and vet min guys" and gotten the same production.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,264
I take your point, but the exact same argument could have been made regarding the Pats' selection of James White around this same spot in 2014, and that one turned out pretty well. I think the "investing in a RB is pointless" argument has some kernels of truth to it but gets overplayed.

I think it's definitely true that spending a lot in terms of trade assets or cap space on a RB is dumb, but that actually may make taking solid RBs in the draft more important, not less. Think about all of the production the Pats have got over the years from guys like White, Vereen, Ridley, Maroney, Michel, and now Harris - none of those guys were consistent All-Pros or anything but that's a good amount of production that they would have had to make up if they didn't draft those guys, and it seems like a bit of a stretch to suggest that in each of those cases they could have replaced the drafted players with "UDFA, 7th rounders and vet min guys" and gotten the same production.
I think you could have gotten White's equivalent later, but also... I've said in other posts, if a RB is also an elite receiver I'm more willing to entertain him in the pre-150 picks, because that's not the same skillset. Stevenson is not an elite mismatch receiver like White was. He isn't going to flare out and run routes. To me a guy like Stevenson what are you hoping for... Blount? Who was UDFA and signed for almost vet min several times?
I look at the long list of UDFA and late round pick RBs who had success (Blount, Foster, Anderson, Jackson, Lindsay, Mostert, Carson, Robinson, Aaron Jones, Murray) and I see a position where you're not getting value if you use a pick early for a RB who is primarily a runner.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,260
New York City
I think you could have gotten White's equivalent later, but also... I've said in other posts, if a RB is also an elite receiver I'm more willing to entertain him in the pre-150 picks, because that's not the same skillset. Stevenson is not an elite mismatch receiver like White was. He isn't going to flare out and run routes. To me a guy like Stevenson what are you hoping for... Blount? Who was UDFA and signed for almost vet min several times?
I look at the long list of UDFA and late round pick RBs who had success (Blount, Foster, Anderson, Jackson, Lindsay, Mostert, Carson, Robinson, Aaron Jones, Murray) and I see a position where you're not getting value if you use a pick early for a RB who is primarily a runner.
But an awful lot of UDFA and late round running backs actually really suck. You can sometimes get a blount but you can't count on it.

Looking at the 2017 draft 13 backs have rushed for 1,000 yards. Jones and Carson were picked late the others were all picked pre-150. Most of the 12 backs picked after 150 carried for 500 yards or fewer in their careers.
2018 8 backs picked after 150, none with a thousand rushing yards in their career.
2019 13 backs picked after 150, none have a thousand yards, only two have 500.
2016, 2 out of 11 have a thousand career yards (Howard who I'm including was the 150th pick and Alex Collins)

4 out of 45 picks over a five year span is not a great success rate.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,377
Mansfield MA
I think you could have gotten White's equivalent later, but also... I've said in other posts, if a RB is also an elite receiver I'm more willing to entertain him in the pre-150 picks, because that's not the same skillset. Stevenson is not an elite mismatch receiver like White was. He isn't going to flare out and run routes. To me a guy like Stevenson what are you hoping for... Blount? Who was UDFA and signed for almost vet min several times?
I look at the long list of UDFA and late round pick RBs who had success (Blount, Foster, Anderson, Jackson, Lindsay, Mostert, Carson, Robinson, Aaron Jones, Murray) and I see a position where you're not getting value if you use a pick early for a RB who is primarily a runner.
Stevenson was pick 120 in a terrible draft. We're not talking about Leonard Fournette in the top 5 here.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,264
Stevenson was pick 120 in a terrible draft. We're not talking about Leonard Fournette in the top 5 here.
Yeah it's not terrible, I just think it is a poor use of the pick relative to the players available at other positions.

But an awful lot of UDFA and late round running backs actually really suck. You can sometimes get a blount but you can't count on it.

Looking at the 2017 draft 13 backs have rushed for 1,000 yards. Jones and Carson were picked late the others were all picked pre-150. Most of the 12 backs picked after 150 carried for 500 yards or fewer in their careers.
2018 8 backs picked after 150, none with a thousand rushing yards in their career.
2019 13 backs picked after 150, none have a thousand yards, only two have 500.
2016, 2 out of 11 have a thousand career yards (Howard who I'm including was the 150th pick and Alex Collins)

4 out of 45 picks over a five year span is not a great success rate.
An awful lot of RBs picked 50-150 sucked too though, and I think total yards for a career isn't a great metric because teams try to justify assets used on picks by playing guys instead of cutting bait, where an UDFA you just cycle to the next one (and pick up a vet FA you know can do the job for cheap to compete). The argument isn't... UDFA and 6th/7th rounders are better. It's that UDFA, late round and very cheap vets abound and plugged into a good running game have success (remember a lot of the teams that have bad results with late picks have bad results with early picks too) at a higher rate than other positions, like WR where draft position more directly correlates to success.
 

Shelterdog

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Feb 19, 2002
13,260
New York City
Yeah it's not terrible, I just think it is a poor use of the pick relative to the players available at other positions.


An awful lot of RBs picked 50-150 sucked too though, and I think total yards for a career isn't a great metric because teams try to justify assets used on picks by playing guys instead of cutting bait, where an UDFA you just cycle to the next one (and pick up a vet FA you know can do the job for cheap to compete). The argument isn't... UDFA and 6th/7th rounders are better. It's that UDFA, late round and very cheap vets abound and plugged into a good running game have success (remember a lot of the teams that have bad results with late picks have bad results with early picks too) at a higher rate than other positions, like WR where draft position more directly correlates to success.
I'm not convinced that draft position is more directly correlated to success at WR than at RB--do you have any evidence of that?

Total yards is imperfect, sure, but sometimes there's this idea floating around that adequate running backs grow on trees. There are a lot fewer decent fifth-seven round and UDFA picks playing than people think.

At the end of the day you're spending a mid round pick on a guy who appears to have rare balance and feet for his size so maybe he can do some things out there that are marginal improvement from the UDFA you might otherwise be using. It strike me as a reasonable use of a pick for a team that's going to be run heavy.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,377
Mansfield MA
An awful lot of RBs picked 50-150 sucked too though, and I think total yards for a career isn't a great metric because teams try to justify assets used on picks by playing guys instead of cutting bait, where an UDFA you just cycle to the next one (and pick up a vet FA you know can do the job for cheap to compete). The argument isn't... UDFA and 6th/7th rounders are better. It's that UDFA, late round and very cheap vets abound and plugged into a good running game have success (remember a lot of the teams that have bad results with late picks have bad results with early picks too) at a higher rate than other positions, like WR where draft position more directly correlates to success.
Is the bolded proven?

I think there are two advantages to drafting a RB reasonably highly: 1) the vast majority of RB production is on rookie contracts; history is littered with RB who were good their first 4-5 years and completely washed up thereafter. 2) it's a position where rookies can contribute right away, so you can get 4-5 years of value instead of having to waste a redshirt year. I don't love a RB super-high, like top of the first round high, but I don't mind after that. I'd rather use some draft capital on a RB than pay a RB on his second contract.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,264
Is the bolded proven?

I think there are two advantages to drafting a RB reasonably highly: 1) the vast majority of RB production is on rookie contracts; history is littered with RB who were good their first 4-5 years and completely washed up thereafter. 2) it's a position where rookies can contribute right away, so you can get 4-5 years of value instead of having to waste a redshirt year. I don't love a RB super-high, like top of the first round high, but I don't mind after that. I'd rather use some draft capital on a RB than pay a RB on his second contract.
I'll see if I can find it, but a while back someone pulled all the WRs and the success rate was something like 50% rds 1-2 then dropped each round after.

Edit- here is one, it's a little out of date, I think there is an update somewhere: https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round
 

OurF'ingCity

Member
SoSH Member
Apr 22, 2016
6,251
New York City
I'll see if I can find it, but a while back someone pulled all the WRs and the success rate was something like 50% rds 1-2 then dropped each round after.
Overall draft position may directly correlate to WR success more (or it may not - would need to see the numbers), but we know it hasn't for the Pats. Other than Deion Branch, their best WR picks during the BB era have been David Givens (7th round) and Edelman (also 7th round). Literally every other WR draft pick they have made has been a moderate to total failure (unless you count Slater, I guess), despite the fact that they have picked, I believe, the exact same number of RBs in the first four rounds over that span as WR.

So, while I don't know this is actually what the Pats are thinking (as noted to date they have drafted about the same number of RBs and WRs during the BB era), it would be reasonable for them to look at that history and conclude that RBs are safer picks because even ones that are quasi "busts" like Laurence Maroney will give you more value than a corresponding quasi "bust" WR like, say, Aaron Dobson.

And going off of what SN says above, I think it would also be reasonable to focus more on RBs than WRs in the draft because RBs tend to provide their value early in their careers, whereas it is easier to find a veteran WR later in his career that can give you good value (edit: think Welker, Amendola, David Patten, Chris Hogan, etc.).
 

EL Jeffe

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 30, 2006
1,065
For pick 120, I think Stevenson provides plenty of value. First, with the 17 game season and Sony/Harris's durability issues, have a 3rd lead back is important. Even more so if Mac is your QB, as the designed QB runs will be replaced with traditional RB carries. Next, Stevenson profiles as a core ST; he led OU in kickoff coverage tackles in 2019 when he backed up Sermon - there's definitely added value there. Finally, while he's not a mismatch receiving threat, he does have soft hands, shows good feel/instincts on screens and his (limited) route tree, and has been successful in pass pro. I've got zero issues with the Stevenson pick.
 

BaseballJones

ivanvamp
SoSH Member
Oct 1, 2015
13,659
This is what I use:

https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round

Running Backs
The position has been devalued over the years but the statistics still show that it is better to draft early if you are looking for a starter.
  • Of the 207 players drafted 33 have become starters for half their careers. This gives an indication that there is a lot of Running Back By Committee (RBBC).
  • There is a very high bust rate for RBs. The first round gives you a 58% chance of finding a starter followed by 25% in the second, 16% in the third, 11% in the fourth, 9% in the fifth, 6% in the sixth and 0% in the 7th.
  • If you rank the rounds by the total RBs drafted you find that the greatest number are drafted in the 7th, followed by the 4th, 6th, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, and 5th.

Wide Receiver
WR has at least had success in every round. That said, the numbers are really that great and the bust factor in the first round is tied for the worst overall.
  • Of 317 selected, only 74 have become starters for at least half their careers.
  • The first round success rate is 58% and the second round is almost as good at 49%.
  • The third round has the second highest number of receivers drafted with 52 but only a 25% success rate.
  • If you are ranking the rounds by numbers drafted, you would go 7th, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 2nd, 1st and 5th.
  • The fifth round actually has a higher success rate (16%) than the fourth round (12%). The sixth is at 9% and the seventh is 5%.
  • On average, four WRs are taken in the first round and then you see an average of five per round for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 6th rounds.
 

Cellar-Door

Member
SoSH Member
Aug 1, 2006
22,264
This is what I use:

https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round

Running Backs
The position has been devalued over the years but the statistics still show that it is better to draft early if you are looking for a starter.
  • Of the 207 players drafted 33 have become starters for half their careers. This gives an indication that there is a lot of Running Back By Committee (RBBC).
  • There is a very high bust rate for RBs. The first round gives you a 58% chance of finding a starter followed by 25% in the second, 16% in the third, 11% in the fourth, 9% in the fifth, 6% in the sixth and 0% in the 7th.
  • If you rank the rounds by the total RBs drafted you find that the greatest number are drafted in the 7th, followed by the 4th, 6th, 2nd, 3rd, 1st, and 5th.

Wide Receiver
WR has at least had success in every round. That said, the numbers are really that great and the bust factor in the first round is tied for the worst overall.
  • Of 317 selected, only 74 have become starters for at least half their careers.
  • The first round success rate is 58% and the second round is almost as good at 49%.
  • The third round has the second highest number of receivers drafted with 52 but only a 25% success rate.
  • If you are ranking the rounds by numbers drafted, you would go 7th, 3rd, 4th, 6th, 2nd, 1st and 5th.
  • The fifth round actually has a higher success rate (16%) than the fourth round (12%). The sixth is at 9% and the seventh is 5%.
  • On average, four WRs are taken in the first round and then you see an average of five per round for the 2nd, 3rd, 4th, and 6th rounds.
I thought I saw an update somewhere, and the RB success rate had gone up in late rounds (probably partially because RBs are not drafted as highly over recent years so guys who went 3rd or 4th when a lot of RBs went early now go 5th or 6th) and WRs had stratified (likely because the opposite has happened and WRs get drafted higher now). Maybe it was on a podcast though, because I can't seem to find an article on it.
 

Super Nomario

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 5, 2000
13,377
Mansfield MA
My sense (and I haven't studied it either) is that the late-round hit rate for RB isn't really any better than other positions, but it stands out more because RBs can play right away, so you get rookie late-round picks and UDFAs contributing almost immediately (like James Robinson last year or Phillip Lindsay a couple years ago) while late-round / UDFAs at other positions usually take a season or two to earn a larger role (like, say, Jonathan Jones or Malcolm Butler here in NE). But I think that's less about it being easier to find late RBs and more about the immediacy which RBs can contribute versus other positions. Except for QB/LT/Edge rusher, it is not hard to put together a laundry list of day three picks / UDFAs who had good-to-great NFL careers, at any position.
 

Deathofthebambino

Drive Carefully
SoSH Member
Apr 12, 2005
34,884
If this kid is as good a blocker as he appears, and is willing to step in and lay people out, I wouldn't mind seeing him get some run at FB when Johnson gets his inevitable injury. Have him lead for Sony/Harris, and/or put him back there in a 2 RB set with White, and man, he's just another weapon to add. You have to defend the inside handoff because he can actually run with the ball, and while you're looking there, he's laying someone out and opening a hole for one of the other guys.
 

OnTheBlack

lurker
Dec 23, 2020
75
If this kid is as good a blocker as he appears, and is willing to step in and lay people out, I wouldn't mind seeing him get some run at FB when Johnson gets his inevitable injury. Have him lead for Sony/Harris, and/or put him back there in a 2 RB set with White, and man, he's just another weapon to add. You have to defend the inside handoff because he can actually run with the ball, and while you're looking there, he's laying someone out and opening a hole for one of the other guys.
Would love to see a Swiss Army knife FB like he could maybe be. Block, run, catch. That’s a very valuable piece. A rook to the TE Castle.
 

YTF

Member
SoSH Member
If this kid is as good a blocker as he appears, and is willing to step in and lay people out, I wouldn't mind seeing him get some run at FB when Johnson gets his inevitable injury. Have him lead for Sony/Harris, and/or put him back there in a 2 RB set with White, and man, he's just another weapon to add. You have to defend the inside handoff because he can actually run with the ball, and while you're looking there, he's laying someone out and opening a hole for one of the other guys.
This and if he has decent hands he's going to be very valuable when you consider how BB likes guys with multiple talents.
 

BigJimEd

Member
SoSH Member
Jan 4, 2002
3,251
I'll see if I can find it, but a while back someone pulled all the WRs and the success rate was something like 50% rds 1-2 then dropped each round after.

Edit- here is one, it's a little out of date, I think there is an update somewhere: https://www.arrowheadpride.com/2015/2/20/8072877/what-the-statistics-tell-us-about-the-draft-by-round
Going by that there is a drop off of WR after the first 3 rounds but the 5th round hit rate is higher than 4th for WRs. In general, late round WRs had a higher success rate than RBs. Of course as you said this is a little outdated and I think with these rates teams really need to look a their individual player ratings.

The numbers show us the following outline for finding consistent starters:

1st Round - OL (83%) LB (70%) TE (67%) DB (64%) QB (63%) WR (58%) RB (58%) DL (58%)

2nd Round - OL (70%) LB (55%) TE (50%) WR (49%) DB (46%) QB (27%) DL (26%) RB (25%)

3rd Round - OL (40%) TE (39%) LB (34%) DL (27%) WR (25%) DB (24%) QB (17%) RB (16%)

4th Round - DL (37%) TE (33%) OL (29%) LB (16%) WR(12%) DB (11%) RB (11%) QB (8%)

5th Round - TE (32%) DB (17%) WR (16%) OL (16%) DL (13%) RB (9%) LB (4%) QB (0%)

6th Round - TE (26%) OL (16%) DL (13%) WR (9%) DB (8%) RB (6%) LB (5%) QB (0%)

7th Round - DB (11%) OL (9%) QB (6%) WR (5%) DL (3%) LB (2%) RB (0%) TE (0%)
 

Saints Rest

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
For pick 120, I think Stevenson provides plenty of value. First, with the 17 game season and Sony/Harris's durability issues, have a 3rd lead back is important. Even more so if Mac is your QB, as the designed QB runs will be replaced with traditional RB carries. Next, Stevenson profiles as a core ST; he led OU in kickoff coverage tackles in 2019 when he backed up Sermon - there's definitely added value there. Finally, while he's not a mismatch receiving threat, he does have soft hands, shows good feel/instincts on screens and his (limited) route tree, and has been successful in pass pro. I've got zero issues with the Stevenson pick.
That level of excellence on ST puts Bolden's roster spot the one most in jeopardy. If he could potentially fill the roles of Michel as backup lead back (is that an oxymoron) AND Bolden/Burkhead (as an RB who can play ST), then that is HUGE value from a 4th round pick.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
7,199
Dallas
Stevenson is also in the processes of remaking his body. He lost weight at Oklahoma. There are some guys, like Najee Harris for example, who already are more or less maxed out body/muscle-wise.

You can add quick-twitch speed and long speed with the right training programs. Stevenson is a prime candidate for someone who would benefit even more from an NFL strength and conditioning program than a guy who had already been in a P5 program for years.

Ultimately I think Stevenson will end up between 235-245 which is bigger than most linebackers. I saw one RB this cycle break tackles from defensive linemen. Stevenson. He seems pretty into special teams too - which is fun to see a 240 pound monster truck looking to smoke a returner .

He has some issues with zone concepts right now. He doesn’t run any WR routes yet.

One of things I was mentioning in the slack was that aside from Michael Carter none of the RBs this year really were great fits as receiving backs. Felton is too small at 189 and his testing was atrocious. Gainwell is on the lighter side and had awful agilities. He also was atrocious in pass pro. So when Carter went to the Jets (congrats @luckiestman you all got a gem of an RB and as much as I hate to say this an excellent draft class for the Jets) there not a good option for them.

Another thing was that RB between the tackles type was a sneaky need because in 2022 you’d only have Harris on the roster to do that and they typically have 1-2 RBs who do teams. This gives them both. And at pick 120 in a thin draft class that is good value.
 

DourDoerr

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Oct 15, 2004
2,494
Berkeley, CA
From those highlights, he looks light on his feet and somewhat shifty which seems unusual given his size and strength. I also saw good balance, the ability to steamroll, but also good instincts to ride with a hit, enabling him to stay upright and move upfield. Many times the bigger backs learn just to hammer but it appears RS has more nuance. RB's get hurt and relatively expensive, so Rhamondre (easily the best name on the team already) seems a fine investment for this year and beyond. You need to pay something for talent/skills. Pick 120 seems more than reasonable.
 

Bowhemian

Member
SoSH Member
Nov 10, 2015
3,680
Bow, NH
I haven't seen much, so I can only base this on a few highlight videos: He seems quick to the hole, but also quick to abandon the hole and try to break outside (or back against the flow). This is generally a good strategy in the NFL, as the players are so much faster and can keep you from turning the corner.
When I coached HS, we would tell our RBs to trust the blocks, hit the hole and get 3-4 yards. That's all we asked. Of course, we had the kids who just HAD to try to break every run outside. Sometimes it works, most other times, not so much.
 

Eddie Jurak

Go Leafs Go
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Dec 12, 2002
31,919
Melrose, MA
Greg Bedard keeps dropping Keith Byars as a comp for Stevenson. Do people buy this. Bedard calls Byarns a "do everything" back, but I always thought of him as more of a "jack fo all trades/master of none" back, who, notably, did not accomplish a whole lot when in came to rushing the football. Rushied for over 500 years in only two seasons, carried the ball >100 times only twice, did most of his damage as a receiver out of the backfoed, catching over 600 passes in a 12 year career in a less pass-happy NFL than today.

Some posters here compared him to Legarrette Blount, but he rushed for twice as many yards and mostly was not a receiving threat.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,726
around the way
Greg Bedard keeps dropping Keith Byars as a comp for Stevenson. Do people buy this. Bedard calls Byarns a "do everything" back, but I always thought of him as more of a "jack fo all trades/master of none" back, who, notably, did not accomplish a whole lot when in came to rushing the football. Rushied for over 500 years in only two seasons, carried the ball >100 times only twice, did most of his damage as a receiver out of the backfoed, catching over 600 passes in a 12 year career in a less pass-happy NFL than today.

Some posters here compared him to Legarrette Blount, but he rushed for twice as many yards and mostly was not a receiving threat.
If he's LGBT with slightly better receiver skills, that's a hell of a get. If he's LGBT with Byars receiver skills, none of us will be wearing pants on Sundays.
 

DJnVa

Dorito Dawg
SoSH Member
Dec 16, 2010
45,244
If he's LGBT with slightly better receiver skills, that's a hell of a get. If he's LGBT with Byars receiver skills, none of us will be wearing pants on Sundays.
That assumes we would normally.
 

Captaincoop

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 16, 2005
12,348
Santa Monica, CA
Greg Bedard keeps dropping Keith Byars as a comp for Stevenson. Do people buy this. Bedard calls Byarns a "do everything" back, but I always thought of him as more of a "jack fo all trades/master of none" back, who, notably, did not accomplish a whole lot when in came to rushing the football. Rushied for over 500 years in only two seasons, carried the ball >100 times only twice, did most of his damage as a receiver out of the backfoed, catching over 600 passes in a 12 year career in a less pass-happy NFL than today.

Some posters here compared him to Legarrette Blount, but he rushed for twice as many yards and mostly was not a receiving threat.
If Stevenson is going to run for 500 yards and catch for 500 yards...sign me up right now.
 

bakahump

Well-Known Member
Lifetime Member
SoSH Member
Jan 8, 2001
6,862
Maine
Granted I dont follow other teams like I do the Pats, but they have mastered the "Talk a guy up" without it devolving into "best shape of his life" cliche and platitiudes.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
7,199
Dallas
Think this deserves a bump. I know it was against backups and fringe guys but he was a man amongst boys tonight. His vision, toughness, balance, quick feet, cuts, etc. were on point.
 

bigq

Member
SoSH Member
Jul 15, 2005
7,000
From the highlight tape, he seems to have great burst but not top end speed. Perfectly fine for a back.
Yeah, there were several times in that highlight reel where I said to myself that another back might have gone the distance instead of being tackled from behind. On the other hand, those other backs might not have been in those positions in the first place since he's breaking tackles left and right.
Just going through this thread. He had burst and top end speed on display in his 91 yard TD run last night. Hope we get to see lots more of that.
 

Jimbodandy

Well-Known Member
Gold Supporter
SoSH Member
Jan 31, 2006
5,726
around the way
Just going through this thread. He had burst and top end speed on display in his 91 yard TD run last night. Hope we get to see lots more of that.
Damn right. He used that burst and then lost people. Has some girth to him for sure too. Very encouraging performance.
 

SMU_Sox

queer eye for the next pats guy
SoSH Member
Jul 20, 2009
7,199
Dallas
@Brand Name says “Dodge Rham” which I like. I came up with “Battering Rham”. We need a nickname for the guy. I’ll let her introduce her Dodge Ram puns as they are fire. I think she might have me beat here for this guys nickname.

Once again he’s taking on contact and plowing through it. As @RedOctober3829 mentioned elsewhere it looks like redshirting him doesn’t make a ton of sense.