170< 41 45.56%

0<170 49 54.44%

As far as the math goes, the second one is correct. 0 is less than 170. The first one is incomplete. 170 is less than?
[Reply]

Best take so far.
[Reply]

He's not going to get to 170 yards...no way because he's so rarely going to see the field. Realistically, who is he going to replace for playing time?
[Reply]

170 is less than any number that would exceed his average yardage per year.
[Reply]

Ok you need a RB to leak out to the flat Pacheco just went two carries for 3 yards each. You have CEH or Toney who can receive out of the back field. Choose wisely.
[Reply]

Wishing Toney the best of luck out of the backfield.
[Reply]

First team reps and alot of encouragement get him to play good in the PS. If Rice's suspension is short, that's when we flip for for something.
[Reply]

170? Is he even gonna make the team?
[Reply]

I see a lot of wasted movement on his exaggerated cuts.

He flails when he runs routes. It’s very ugly.

He is fast, so there’s that.
[Reply]

I think the exaggerated body motion fools defenders though.
[Reply]

I really do hope to see him used on the boundary more.

Even if he's lining up in the slot, I'd rather see him running wheels from there.

The drags and crossers just don't work for him. He gets too rushed and doesn't watch the ball in. He gets a little jittery when he knows contact is coming as well, IMO.

But on the sideline I think he can do some real work. Keep him outside the hashes and I think he can be damn dangerous for us. Even if that comes from weird shit where he starts in the backfield in the gun and then motions out wide opposite of a bunch or something (and I think that would be a TON of fun).
[Reply]

Fair perspective! But I kind of see the opposite. Let’s use him as a ST weapon and gadget guy IMO, hit him with screens and sweeps and see how he does there.
[Reply]

I think that's the conventional wisdom, yes.

But I look at it the same way as I look at inaccurate QBs. Most people wanna take a QB with iffy accuracy and make him a short passer. I hate that idea. The risk/reward knob isn't where it needs to be.

If your 'reward' from an iffy passer is a 7 yard gain but the risk is he misfires on a pass over the middle or on a short out that a LB or CB jumps and houses, you've got a real problem on your hands. Meanwhile if he's throwing downfield, the reward is a 50 yard gain and the risk is an arm punt.

I think you need a RAZOR accurate passer for a short passing game. I think a deep passing game can work with a more erratic passer. I think most people believe the opposite and most COACHES seem to do the opposite.

So when you have a guy with erratic focus and route running, I think using him for gadget/short plays doesn't provide enough reward for the risk. I think he' as likely to drop a screen pass (that could well be a fumble if it's backwards) or bump a quick hitter up in the air for a CB to snag and take the other way as he is to duff a ball 40 yards downfield.

And if that's the case, gimme the ball 40 yards downfield where a catch is huge and a drop is probably just gonna go OOB.
[Reply]

gaz
[Reply]

It wouldn't surprise me if he goes off for like 80 yards one game on three fantastic plays.

Then he drops a pass the next game and a few snaps later tweaks a hamstring and we don't see him until Week 12, completely phased out.
[Reply]