I know there are a lot of factors involved but as much as I like Stacy and have a good impression of him, his numbers were a bit lacking overall. 3.9 ypc was a surprise to me. I would have bet money he was over 4.0 and it made me wonder if he simply looked good in comparison to the other guys?One thing they didn't mention was the fact that Stacey would get dinged up almost every game. It wasn't anything major but it would force him to miss some snaps. That's another big reason I think they did this.
I know there are a lot of factors involved but as much as I like Stacy and have a good impression of him, his numbers were a bit lacking overall. 3.9 ypc was a surprise to me. I would have bet money he was over 4.0 and it made me wonder if he simply looked good in comparison to the other guys?
One thing they didn't mention was the fact that Stacey would get dinged up almost every game. It wasn't anything major but it would force him to miss some snaps. That's another big reason I think they did this.
Yeah. I think the 3 road division games ate into his average. Particularly the last game against Seattle (15 yards on 15 carries).I know there are a lot of factors involved but as much as I like Stacy and have a good impression of him, his numbers were a bit lacking overall. 3.9 ypc was a surprise to me. I would have bet money he was over 4.0 and it made me wonder if he simply looked good in comparison to the other guys?
Obviously, the hope is that once Bradford comes back that defenses won't be able to key on Stacy as much but even in the Carolina game, his ypc was pretty low. Compared to Richardson, Stacy looked all-world but it's sobering to think that as good as he played, maybe he isn't as good as perceived.I think there might be some skewed stats somewhere.; Like a bad game that brought the average way down or the fact that everyone knew we couldn't pass the ball so Stacey's production went down. I agree, the 3.9 seems low.
I know there are a lot of factors involved but as much as I like Stacy and have a good impression of him, his numbers were a bit lacking overall. 3.9 ypc was a surprise to me. I would have bet money he was over 4.0 and it made me wonder if he simply looked good in comparison to the other guys?
Obviously, the hope is that once Bradford comes back that defenses won't be able to key on Stacy as much but even in the Carolina game, his ypc was pretty low. Compared to Richardson, Stacy looked all-world but it's sobering to think that as good as he played, maybe he isn't as good as perceived.
I don't disagree and hope that is truly the case. I'd hate for Stacy to become a flash in the pan and not really have been as good as he seemed. Not predicting anything like that, especially with all the circumstances, the stats were just unexpected.No, he really was that good. If you take out a few games where like Arizona and Seattle go all in on stopping Stacy because they didn't have to worry about Clemens, his average goes way up.
Next year, with Sam in the game and Robinson blocking for him, he should be very effective.
In the Carolina game, for example, their defense DID key in on Stacy and do everything to stop him, and he was still churning out a few yards in 8-10 man boxes, and if you noticed that was Sam's best game, the passing offense was really clicking, it looked top 10, we just made too many mistakes like dropped passes, INTs, and tripping penalties. So if teams do everything to stop Stacy, there are consequences.
I don't disagree and hope that is truly the case. I'd hate for Stacy to become a flash in the pan and not really have been as good as he seemed. Not predicting anything like that, especially with all the circumstances, the stats were just unexpected.
I actually liked Cunningham better than Stacy in the few touches he got.