Austin Ekeler-What a Mack contact could look like

[EastStreet]

23 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Thats not exactly whole story. He has only had 4 games with 20 touches, got hurt early vs the jags and missed the next two games then had to play the bucs had the top run defense followed by the saints where we got blown out. All that effected his game

All RBs have "stories" over the entire season. As far as touches.... He was #9 in carries, and #5 in team run plays per game. So plenty of opportunity. Sure he played vs a tough run D on occasion, all RBs have to over the course of a season. He also played against several teams that were awful vs the run. Houston (1st game) for instance was bottom 10 vs the run, and Mack laid an egg. It typically all washes out over the course of a season. We played 3 teams in the top 10 rush D. We played 7 teams that were bottom 10. Should we subtract for the imbalance of bad rush Ds? 

[CR91]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

All RBs have "stories" over the entire season. As far as touches.... He was #9 in carries, and #5 in team run plays per game. So plenty of opportunity. Sure he played vs a tough run D on occasion, all RBs have to over the course of a season. He also played against several teams that were awful vs the run. Houston (1st game) for instance was bottom 10 vs the run, and Mack laid an egg. It typically all washes out over the course of a season. We played 3 teams in the top 10 rush D. We played 7 teams that were bottom 10. Should we subtract for the imbalance of bad rush Ds? 

 

and how many were stacked boxes because no one was scared of Brissett

[EastStreet]

23 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

and how many were stacked boxes because no one was scared of Brissett

I've read/heard a couple articles that teams after the first 3rd of season started defending us by personnel, not by numbers. In other words, they didn't stack often, but they left their run guys in on the DL more than normal, and stayed in their bases more on passing downs. I'll see if I can find the stats or articles/podcast. Give me a few minutes. 

[EastStreet]

38 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

and how many were stacked boxes because no one was scared of Brissett

Keep in mind these are only stats for Mack's carries, not all Colts snaps.

 

Average Defenders in the Box: 6.7 (#26)

Stacked Front Carry Rate: 17.4% (#31) for 4.4 YPC

Base Front Carry Rate: 38.5% (#28) for 3.5 YPC

Light Carry Rate: 44.1% (#26) for 5.2 YPC

 

For comparison, Henry's same stats below. I used Henry as we're in the same division (playing many of the same teams), and not many respected Tannehill either.

 

Average Defenders in the Box: 6.8 (#19)

Stacked Front Carry Rate: 22.4% (#14) for 3.8 YPC

Base Front Carry Rate: 39.9% (#24) for 5.3 YPC

Light Carry Rate: 36.3% (#41) for 4.8 YPC

 

So given the difference, while teams didn't respect either QB, they respected Henry a more than Mack. Huge difference in Base YPC.

 

Couldn't find the podcast where they talked about personnel (staying with run D on the DL and LBs), but I'll look more in a bit.

[CR91]

11 minutes ago, EastStreet said:

Keep in mind these are only stats for Mack's carries, not all Colts snaps.

 

Average Defenders in the Box: 6.7 (#26)

Stacked Front Carry Rate: 17.4% (#31) for 4.4 YPC

Base Front Carry Rate: 38.5% (#28) for 3.5 YPC

Light Carry Rate: 44.1% (#26) for 5.2 YPC

 

For comparison, Henry's same stats below. I used Henry as we're in the same division (playing many of the same teams), and not many respected Tannehill either.

 

Average Defenders in the Box: 6.8 (#19)

Stacked Front Carry Rate: 22.4% (#14) for 3.8 YPC

Base Front Carry Rate: 39.9% (#24) for 5.3 YPC

Light Carry Rate: 36.3% (#41) for 4.8 YPC

 

So given the difference, while teams didn't respect either QB, they respected Henry a more than Mack. Huge difference in Base YPC.

 

Couldn't find the podcast where they talked about personnel (staying with run D on the DL and LBs), but I'll look more in a bit.

 

What was Henry's box in the playoffs

[EastStreet]

19 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

What was Henry's box in the playoffs

doesn't break it out. 

here's one of the sites I use for advanced stats. they added the box stats this year which is nice.

https://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/derrick-henry/#!#metrics

[shasta519]

Ekeler is almost a year older...but he's been in the league the same amount of time and has been the better/more valuable/more productive RB. 

 

So this seems like a good sticking point for the Colts imo.

[funktacious2]

I've always been a Mack fan. He was the the guy I wanted the year we got him (because I obviously didn't want to spend an early pick one a RB). And so I was very ecstatic we got him. Now, he's blossomed into one of the better backs in league and I'm glad we have him. That said, I would STILL be hesitant to pay him more than 7‐8mil a year. We are definitely a top team to have cap space to take care of one of our own, even a RB, I agree with most. Good RBs are not as hard to find as other positions. And Mack has not been immune to injuries that often affect RBs. I would prefer to proceed with caution, If we do give him a bigger contract, as a fan, I'll be pretty happy though.

[CR91]

4 hours ago, EastStreet said:

doesn't break it out. 

here's one of the sites I use for advanced stats. they added the box stats this year which is nice.

https://www.playerprofiler.com/nfl/derrick-henry/#!#metrics

 

Regardless of what the colts decide to pay Mack, there is no way he should get less the Ekeler. He is not a workhorse like Mack is.

[EastStreet]

15 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Regardless of what the colts decide to pay Mack, there is no way he should get less the Ekeler. He is not a workhorse like Mack is.

And Mack is not nearly as productive as Ekeler (yrd fr LoS). In the time Ekeler did run, he ran better (AVG) than Mack, and did it from behind a far inferior OL. You can't automatically assume Ekeler could not handle the carries that Mack would with similar output if he had Indy's OL. 

 

It's an imperfect comparison. We can only glean what the stats say. 

Regardless, wouldn't give him a long term deal at 10M/year. I'm still salty over giving Funch 10M a year for a handful of catches lol... 

[CR91]

1 minute ago, EastStreet said:

And Mack is not nearly as productive as Ekeler (yrd fr LoS). In the time Ekeler did run, he ran better (AVG) than Mack, and did it from behind a far inferior OL. You can't automatically assume Ekeler could not handle the carries that Mack would with similar output if he had Indy's OL. 

 

It's an imperfect comparison. We can only glean what the stats say. 

Regardless, wouldn't give him a long term deal at 10M/year. I'm still salty over giving Funch 10M a year for a handful of catches lol... 

 

How is he more productive? Because he was part of the passing game? He's a scatback. He works in space. He's not gonna get 20 carries between the tackles.

[EastStreet]

50 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

How is he more productive? Because he was part of the passing game? He's a scatback. He works in space. He's not gonna get 20 carries between the tackles.

He had 400 more yards from scrimmage, and that's more production. 

 

He was not seen as a scat back in college or coming into the league. Smaller, but has a lot more power than typical scatbacks. Wisenhunt before he left, and Lynch later, said they saw Ekeler as a well rounded RB capable of between the tackle carries. I know, I know... Reich and Ballard said that about Hines too, but Ekeler has a lot more power than Hines. I recall him having some great YAC (as a RB, not receiver) when he played us.

[CR91]

1 hour ago, EastStreet said:

He had 400 more yards from scrimmage, and that's more production. 

 

He was not seen as a scat back in college or coming into the league. Smaller, but has a lot more power than typical scatbacks. Wisenhunt before he left, and Lynch later, said they saw Ekeler as a well rounded RB capable of between the tackle carries. I know, I know... Reich and Ballard said that about Hines too, but Ekeler has a lot more power than Hines. I recall him having some great YAC (as a RB, not receiver) when he played us.

 

He's still used mostly as a scatback.

[indykmj]

10 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

How is he more productive? Because he was part of the passing game? He's a scatback. He works in space. He's not gonna get 20 carries between the tackles.

 

 But what IS the value of '20 carries between the tackles' these days ? Or for that matter, 20 

 carries by a particular RB period ?

 

 Aside from helping facilitate play-action opps and maybe helping burn clock with a large 

 lead in Q4, I don't see it (and no, I don't care if the OL wants to 'run the damn ball'...).  

 

 I'd go $5M per year for 3 years max to resign Mack. If he doesn't take it, out with the old and 

 in with the new.  

[CR91]

4 hours ago, indykmj said:

 

 But what IS the value of '20 carries between the tackles' these days ? Or for that matter, 20 

 carries by a particular RB period ?

 

 Aside from helping facilitate play-action opps and maybe helping burn clock with a large 

 lead in Q4, I don't see it (and no, I don't care if the OL wants to 'run the damn ball'...).  

 

 I'd go $5M per year for 3 years max to resign Mack. If he doesn't take it, out with the old and 

 in with the new.  

 

Ask the 49ers or the Ravens

[ty4atd]

10 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

Ask the 49ers or the Ravens

Both of those teams used multiple backs and haven't invested much draft or financial capital into the RB position. 

[CR91]

32 minutes ago, ty4atd said:

Both of those teams used multiple backs and haven't invested much draft or financial capital into the RB position. 

 

Mark Ingram is the sole RB mostly. I'm not counting Jackson. 49ers paid both Coleman and McKinnon. Molstret is next

[ty4atd]

31 minutes ago, CR91 said:

 

Mark Ingram is the sole RB mostly. I'm not counting Jackson. 49ers paid both Coleman and McKinnon. Molstret is next

Ingram averaged 13.5 carries a game and Edwards 8.3 so not exactly a workhorse and Coleman was the least productive RB for the 49ers behind Molstret and Brieda while McKinnon didn't even play.

[CR91]

10 minutes ago, ty4atd said:

Ingram averaged 13.5 carries a game and Edwards 8.3 so not exactly a workhorse and Coleman was the least productive RB for the 49ers behind Molstret and Brieda while McKinnon didn't even play.

 

You said investment not production

[ty4atd]

1 minute ago, CR91 said:

 

You said investment not production

Baltimore gave Ingram 5 million a year so a small investment while the backs that SF did invest in they got no added production, adding someone other that Coleman and or both McKinnon would have helped the team more. 

[ty4atd]

What Baltimore did is what most in this topic have posted a RB on, get a short term cheap FA and a comitee with late round/udfa backs.

[indykmj]

18 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

Ask the 49ers or the Ravens

  SF paid them as ' free agents' and that run game is a function of Shanahan's brilliance as a 

  play designer/caller (Reich pales by comparison). No way they'd pay any of those guys big

  $$ to  resign them.

 

  BALT's run game is a function of Jackson. The RB is largely a plug and play position in that 

  offense.

   

[CR91]

11 hours ago, ty4atd said:

Baltimore gave Ingram 5 million a year so a small investment while the backs that SF did invest in they got no added production, adding someone other that Coleman and or both McKinnon would have helped the team more. 

 

Coleman didn't give them production? Did you watch the 49ers? Breda didn't even play on most occasions. It was either Coleman or Molstret

[CR91]

4 hours ago, indykmj said:

  SF paid them as ' free agents' and that run game is a function of Shanahan's brilliance as a 

  play designer/caller (Reich pales by comparison). No way they'd pay any of those guys big

  $$ to  resign them.

 

  BALT's run game is a function of Jackson. The RB is largely a plug and play position in that 

  offense.

   

 

So? An investment is an investment. Ingram was a main clog in that offense

[chad72]

3 yrs. $25 mil. with $16 mil. guaranteed is the ceiling of what I expect Mack to get now. Just my 

[aaron11]

2 hours ago, CR91 said:

Ingram was a main clog in that offense

he only averaged 13 carries per game.  not what i would call a low number but thats not considered high in the nfl.  mack probably would not accept what hes making either, the deal would be done by now if so 

[ty4atd]

4 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

Coleman didn't give them production? Did you watch the 49ers? Breda didn't even play on most occasions. It was either Coleman or Molstret

No more than Breida did in games Coleman missed and Coleman lost touches as the season went on.

4 hours ago, CR91 said:

 

So? An investment is an investment. Ingram was a main clog in that offense

A very small investment half of what you would offer Mack.

[DownHillRunner]

The truth is, Mack is going to command more than what he is worth. He's a good running back he's not a great running back. Running backs command more than what they worth even though the position isn't valued like it used to be. Mack's yards per carry dropped from 4.7 in 2018 to 4.4 in 2019. If he wants $11-13 million a season he's going to have to raise that average to 4.9 - 5.1 in my opinion. He should also work on his pass catching ability as well. I like Marlon Mack but 10+ million is a reach for him. 

 

 

Mack is asking for Todd Gurley type money when he's not near the back Todd Gurley is. Before anyone says Todd Gurley is on the decline; his offensive line with the Rams has a lot to do with his decline.