Pringle was getting all the snaps down the stretch. Is he in the doghouse? (I'm only partially asking because I started him in fantasy thinking he'd get some looks with Watkins out)
Seems like he's regressed a lot this season, unfortunately... [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
The reality is the NFL has this thing called personnel packages.
Sure but I don't think a 2nd round WR should need to be in specific packages or be only able to replace one player in an offense. I can understand him not being as physical or being able to block like Watkins. That's fine. But the fact that he still seems to only be able to run a few routes and jet sweeps packages sucks. I'm happy that he's liable to make big plays every once in a while but I'd trade that in all day for consistency and for him to be a true threat in the offense. [Reply]
Originally Posted by -King-:
Sure but I don't think a 2nd round WR should need to be in specific packages or be only able to replace one player in an offense. I can understand him not being as physical or being able to block like Watkins. That's fine. But the fact that he still seems to only be able to run a few routes and jet sweeps packages sucks. I'm happy that he's liable to make big plays every once in a while but I'd trade that in all day for consistency and for him to be a true threat in the offense.
That's just the thing.
The number of snaps Hardman is getting is DIRECTLY related to running the ball.
Since nobody seems to want to accept this fact, here's some food for thought.
Week 1 - Texans - 32 passes, 34 rushes
Hardman - 19 total snaps, 11 on pass plays, 8 on run plays
Robinson - 33 total snaps, 17 on pass plays, 16 on run plays
Week 2 - Chargers - 47 passes, 22 rushes
Hardman - 46 total snaps, 32 on pass plays, 14 on run plays
Robinson - 43 total snaps, 33 on pass plays, 10 on run plays
Week 3 - Ravens - 42 passes, 31 rushes
Hardman - 27 total snaps, 20 on pass plays, 8 on run plays
Robinson - 41 total snaps, 24 on pass plays, 17 on run plays
Week 4 - Patriots - 29 passes, 25 rushes
Hardman - 25 total snaps, 15 on pass plays, 10 on run plays
Robinson - 23 total snaps, 15 on pass plays, 8 on run plays
Week 5 - Raiders - 43 passes, 20 rushes
Hardman - 47 total snaps, 33 on pass plays, 14 on run plays
Robinson - 47 total snaps, 34 on pass plays, 13 on run plays
Week 6 - Buffalo - 27 passes, 46 rushes
Hardman - 29 total snaps, 19 on pass plays, 10 on run plays
Robinson - 69 total snaps, 27 on pass plays, 42 on run plays
(incidentally Robinson had more snaps than Tyreek Hill against the Bills, which further proves my point)
The stats are pretty freaking clear. I'm 100% correct about this. [Reply]
Originally Posted by htismaqe:
That's just the thing.
The number of snaps Hardman is getting is DIRECTLY related to running the ball.
Since nobody seems to want to accept this fact, here's some food for thought.
Week 1 - Texans - 32 passes, 34 rushes
Hardman - 19 total snaps, 11 on pass plays, 8 on run plays
Robinson - 33 total snaps, 17 on pass plays, 16 on run plays
Week 2 - Chargers - 47 passes, 22 rushes
Hardman - 46 total snaps, 32 on pass plays, 14 on run plays
Robinson - 43 total snaps, 33 on pass plays, 10 on run plays
Week 3 - Ravens - 42 passes, 31 rushes
Hardman - 27 total snaps, 20 on pass plays, 8 on run plays
Robinson - 41 total snaps, 24 on pass plays, 17 on run plays
Week 4 - Patriots - 29 passes, 25 rushes
Hardman - 25 total snaps, 15 on pass plays, 10 on run plays
Robinson - 23 total snaps, 15 on pass plays, 8 on run plays
Week 5 - Raiders - 43 passes, 20 rushes
Hardman - 47 total snaps, 33 on pass plays, 14 on run plays
Robinson - 47 total snaps, 34 on pass plays, 13 on run plays
Week 6 - Buffalo - 27 passes, 46 rushes
Hardman - 29 total snaps, 19 on pass plays, 10 on run plays
Robinson - 69 total snaps, 27 on pass plays, 42 on run plays
(incidentally Robinson had more snaps than Tyreek Hill against the Bills, which further proves my point)
The stats are pretty freaking clear. I'm 100% correct about this.
So...Robinson has more snaps even when just accounting just pass snaps? I don't get how this helps your point. [Reply]