Gordon vs Coleman

[xwalker]

The concerning thing about Coleman is that he has a bad tendency of stopping his legs from moving when he has contact with defenders. In a lot of ways, he is a Darren McFadden clone in terms of style, but without the elite gear.

Yes, when I reviewed Coleman, I envisioned the 2014 version of McFadden having similar success if he replaced Coleman at Indiana.

 

[Bullflop]

Theres very little chance Gordon will be there at 27.

I agree 100% -- and that's why I noted he'd be unavailable.

 

[theogt]

I agree 100% -- and that's why I noted he'd be unavailable.

Yeah I misread your post while on mobile.

 

[superonyx]

It's hard to get too excited about any of the backs coming out. I keep reading how deep this draft is at RB. However it seems like a slowish group of backs without much burst. The draft looks like a group of backs that are already buried on most teams benches. I see Joseph Randle looking as good as many of these guys.

 

[Bullflop]

Yeah I misread your post while on mobile.

No biggie. Happens to the best of 'em.

 

[Beast_from_East]

It's hard to get too excited about any of the backs coming out. I keep reading how deep this draft is at RB. However it seems like a slowish group of backs without much burst. The draft looks like a group of backs that are already buried on most teams benches. I see Joseph Randle looking as good as many of these guys.

Gurley is the only back that looks "special"................that's probably why there are rumors going around that he may go in the top 10 since his knee checked out.

 

[Spectre]

Gordon is far better than Coleman. In 4-5 years, the latter name will be completely forgotten, imo, if not sooner.

 

[superonyx]

Gurley is the only back that looks "special"................that's probably why there are rumors going around that he may go in the top 10 since his knee checked out.

I will say that I do not trust my evaluation of backs from college to the pro game. When I watch Gurley I don't feel like he is showing anything special. I know most disagree and I will say that they are probably right. I don't know why he doesn't really stand out in my eyes. He actually reminds me of Marshawn Lynch in his style. The current Lynch not the younger faster lynch. He doesn't seem to show much body control, burst, change of direction, stop and start ect...of course neither does Lynch yet he is considered one of the best backs in the game. The problem I have with Gurley is that he has never made it through a season since high school. I feel that injury prone college players turn into injury prone pro players.

But like I said before...I don't trust my eyes at all with college backs.
I thought Mark Ingram would be the next Emmitt Smith..haha.

 

[ccb04]

I like both...but Coleman has been a pet cat of mine for quite some time.

While he led the nation in long TD runs...he also finished 4th in the nation in yards gained after contact, with Gurley and his teammate Chubb being 2 of the 3 ahead of him.

The 2014 Michigan game showed he can gain the 'dirty' yards. Against the nation's #15 rush defense, Coleman carried the ball 27 times for 108 yards...with his long run being 17 yards. The Wolverines played on IU's side of the LOS for most of the day, yet Coleman lost only 4 yards. Coleman also managed the performance despite Indiana losing it's starting QB, and that game being among the ones in which he played with a broken bone in his foot. How bad was the QB play? Indiana had just 10 1st downs in the game...all of them rushing. He did however have what I believe was his worst game ball security wise, losing 2 fumbles. The 2nd one he tripped coming through the hole and was hit in the back of the head/neck area by Frank Clark.

 

[Alexander]

Coleman has definitely moved up my draft board. I would take him over Gordon now.

Not a chance I ever do that.

The only appeal that Coleman has for me is that he is likely to last past 27. And even then I have to start weighing his pros and cons versus Ajayi and even Duke Johnson and I cannot say he wins on all counts.

His balance is not good, he feasted on either tired or backup defenses to hit huge runs to pad his numbers.

He has the size/speed/ratio things you want but when you look at the totality of his work versus Gordon's, it is not even close for me.

If you are the type that thinks that this line just blows up holes each and every time and he can score from anywhere, I can see the attraction. Once the hole is free and clear, he can explode. But that kind of every down success is a lot to ask, even with this OL. At times the RB has to do his own work.

I just do not see the patience needed for what we do, he is not decisive. That is what made Murray successful. He developed the patience and feel to play off of the long developing blocks. If they were not there, he had the power and balance to take what was there and get four yards. Ask Coleman to do that and he is a bust waiting to happen.

 

[burmafrd]

it amuses me watching the Gordon homers trying to distract people from the simple fact that with a much superior O line and overall team, Gordon could not outdo Coleman. And considering how often Indiana had to throw because they were behind in the game versus the limited number of times Wisconsin had to do the same, that is something else that the Gordon homers seem to not want to talk about. And add to that the simple fact that most of the season coleman had a bad foot and STILL GAINED 2000 yards.
Tired defenses? IF Indiana faced any tired D's it was because Coleman wore them out

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

I'd rather have Yeldon.

 

[FuzzyLumpkins]

it amuses me watching the Gordon homers trying to distract people from the simple fact that with a much superior O line and overall team, Gordon could not outdo Coleman. And considering how often Indiana had to throw because they were behind in the game versus the limited number of times Wisconsin had to do the same, that is something else that the Gordon homers seem to not want to talk about. And add to that the simple fact that most of the season coleman had a bad foot and STILL GAINED 2000 yards.
Tired defenses? IF Indiana faced any tired D's it was because Coleman wore them out

Gordon had the second highest rushing total in college history. You can bias the stats and wave your hands but it doesn't detract from that.

 

[Alexander]

it amuses me watching the Gordon homers trying to distract people from the simple fact that with a much superior O line and overall team, Gordon could not outdo Coleman. And considering how often Indiana had to throw because they were behind in the game versus the limited number of times Wisconsin had to do the same, that is something else that the Gordon homers seem to not want to talk about. And add to that the simple fact that most of the season coleman had a bad foot and STILL GAINED 2000 yards.
Tired defenses? IF Indiana faced any tired D's it was because Coleman wore them out

It amuses me that "Coleman homers" try to use stats to distract from what your eyes should tell you. I have seen countless threads on here comparing his production (stats) to Gordon's. And Indiana did not throw because they were behind. They were in shotgun a lot of the time and that is where a lot of Coleman's better runs came from.

I do not get why you are so defensive and trying to turn it into a polarizing argument. They are two different players, one that will go far before the other on pretty much anyone credible's scale. If it were anywhere as close as you think it is, Coleman would be getting a lot more credit than he is. Frankly, he is not.

I am far from a "Gordon homer". I even have a little fright due to the Wisconsin back thing, as illogical as it seems. But if I am picking between the two, Coleman loses. Every time.

 

[endersdragon]

I've said all along if I can somehow get Coleman with our 2nd, I'd take it all day vas Gordon in the 1st.
Really, I think both would do fine in our scheme, with our, and our passing game. Most backs would.

No way does Coleman get to 60. With how many teams really need a RB but are unlikely to get one in the first (teams like the Jets, Vikings (if Peterson is indeed traded/released... even if he isn't he isn't long for MN, possibly Chargers, Jags, Rams, etc.) I highly doubt he gets to 45. That's largely why I think trying to wait until 60... or even worse 87 is just crazy and shouldn't even be thought of if the value is there at the previous spot.

 

[gimmesix]

Here's the thing about Coleman, he ran almost exclusively out of the shotgun and either ran a sweep or read option most of the time. When you watch his game highlights (not just highlight compilations, but full games), he shows very little elusiveness in the hole. Because of the read option or sweep, and Coleman's speed, he had alot of big plays where he burst straight ahead through a wide lane. Except for those plays, I see a RB who runs tall and slows down in order to make defenders miss in the hole. I just dont know how Coleman's game translates to the NFL.

This is essentially my concern. I didn't express it the same way or as well as you have, though.

 

[Manwiththeplan]

it amuses me watching the Gordon homers trying to distract people from the simple fact that with a much superior O line and overall team, Gordon could not outdo Coleman. And considering how often Indiana had to throw because they were behind in the game versus the limited number of times Wisconsin had to do the same, that is something else that the Gordon homers seem to not want to talk about. And add to that the simple fact that most of the season coleman had a bad foot and STILL GAINED 2000 yards.
Tired defenses? IF Indiana faced any tired D's it was because Coleman wore them out

If you look at the game stats in the OP, Coleman has more carries and the ypc are less than a yard apart. The major difference is the Ohio State game which was a cluster **** from the start.

 

[Zekeats]

If we can't get Coleman in a slight trade down would you take him at 27.
I'm thinking he wont last to the 60 slot

YES. If you could get the best RB in the draft at 27 you should do it!

 

[Beast_from_East]

I will say that I do not trust my evaluation of backs from college to the pro game. When I watch Gurley I don't feel like he is showing anything special. I know most disagree and I will say that they are probably right. I don't know why he doesn't really stand out in my eyes. He actually reminds me of Marshawn Lynch in his style. The current Lynch not the younger faster lynch. He doesn't seem to show much body control, burst, change of direction, stop and start ect...of course neither does Lynch yet he is considered one of the best backs in the game. The problem I have with Gurley is that he has never made it through a season since high school. I feel that injury prone college players turn into injury prone pro players.

But like I said before...I don't trust my eyes at all with college backs.
I thought Mark Ingram would be the next Emmitt Smith..haha.

Yea, durability is the only concern with Gurley................if we somehow get him (which we wont barring a trade up), we will need to rest him from time to time and not run him into the ground like we did Murray.

 

[Fredd]

Two different games, this is simply not true at all. Gordon faced a stacked box against Ohio St. in a blowout and Coleman played against a nickel/base all day in a close game. Coleman also had a 95 yard run (untouched great block).

Neither back did squat when hit behind the line of scrimmage. I like both backs but comparing backs by their Ohio St. stats is lacking insight.

I did say that I didn't watch the game, right? but, the stats are SO opposite of each other...you would think that OSU would have adjusted if he was still ripping off 6 ypc (without a 95 yard run)