I wish they would invite Randle El to the party. And I agree Parker was underrated by many Steeler fans. He was a good back, not great, but real good.
Array title="zulater has a reputation beyond repute">
I wish they would invite Randle El to the party. And I agree Parker was underrated by many Steeler fans. He was a good back, not great, but real good.
"A man's got to know his limitations."
Panthers .. .Bengals ... Chiefs ... Browns ... Panthers ... Chiefs ... Bengals ... Chiefs ... get the idea? everyone looks incredible against teams like that.Originally Posted by GodfatherofSoul
Yes - M. Smith, Hartings and Faneca were all Pro Bowlers, and not 5 years before Parker's time or anything like that.
I'd give your second point some credit if Parker only had trouble against the Ravens, but he sucked against any team that was halfway decent. You know how the Bengals didn't beat anyone with a winning record last year but still made the playoffs and everyone thought they were good based on the numbers? That was Parker's whole career.
If we'd won two Super Bowls in spite of Walter Abercrombie, that still wouldn't make him a very good RB either.
See you Space Cowboy ...
The o-line of the steelers were horrible in 2006 .... In fact, almost the entire team was awful in 2006, but Parker had 1494 yards and 13 TD! Parker was always a threat for a big play and it did scare the opposing team
Parker was not good against good defense??? .... it's a big myth(Super bowl XL!)!
Go look at his game stats from that year. He got almost a third of his yards from two games, against New Orleans (#23 run defense) and Cleveland (#29). The rest he had 7 decent games and the other 7 went 11/20, 14/57, 20/47, 16/46, 10/22, 22/61, 13/29.
So yeah, he piled up a season's worth of stats in a few games, then was so bad that he jeopardized the entire offense for almost half the season. That basically shows me a guy who's too inconsistent to depend on, and a huge liability. It's the same exact way that even when he was having a "good" game, he was a liability because most of his yards came on a few big plays. More than half the time, he would jeopardize the drive with a series of 0- and 1-yard gains. It's no wonder we sucked that year.
First of all, Seattle was not a good defense that year; they were in the bottom half overall and #22 against the run.
Second, he had one lucky run in that game, where he was fortunate enough that the offensive line opened such a huge hole that Butterbean could've run through it. The rest of the game he had 18 yards on 9 carries - or in other words pretty typical of what masquerades as a "big performance" for him when he was actually hurting the team for 95% of the game.
I still cannot believe how many people there are who make fun of "all the fantasy football know-it-alls" and also claim Parker was a good running back. That guy was probably the #1 example all-time of a player who put up good fantasy football numbers and filled out a stat sheet but was terrible in practical football terms. There's a reason he was out of the league as soon as we found a decent RB to replace him.
See you Space Cowboy ...
Go look at his game stats from that year. He got almost a third of his yards from two games, against New Orleans (#23 run defense) and Cleveland (#29). The rest he had 7 decent games and the other 7 went 11/20, 14/57, 20/47, 16/46, 10/22, 22/61, 13/29.
So yeah, he piled up a season's worth of stats in a few games, then was so bad that he jeopardized the entire offense for almost half the season. That basically shows me a guy who's too inconsistent to depend on, and a huge liability. It's the same exact way that even when he was having a "good" game, he was a liability because most of his yards came on a few big plays. More than half the time, he would jeopardize the drive with a series of 0- and 1-yard gains. It's no wonder we sucked that year.
Yes, he had some less good game, but the opponents were only focused to stopped Parker, since Roethlisberger was awful in 2006......It is not always easy to play well when your QB is bad
Without Parker in 2006, the Steelers would have ended the season with a record of 5-11 or 6-10.....The steelers was terrible in 2006
The Seahawks were 5th against the run in 2005First of all, Seattle was not a good defense that year; they were in the bottom half overall and #22 against the run.
Second, he had one lucky run in that game, where he was fortunate enough that the offensive line opened such a huge hole that Butterbean could've run through it. The rest of the game he had 18 yards on 9 carries - or in other words pretty typical of what masquerades as a "big performance" for him when he was actually hurting the team for 95% of the game.
First, the run of Parker was not lucky....Yes, the o-line was unbelievable on this play, but without the speed of Parker, it was not a TD....Without this long run, the Steelers have maybe lost this super bowl
And the long runs of Parker has often had a big impact on the team...The game against the Saints in 2006 is a good example....Yes, Parker was inconsistent, but he was a game changer..And I hate when I hear that Parker was nothing without its long run...It's like saying that Barry Sanders was nothing without its long run
There's a reason he was out of the league as soon as we found a decent RB to replace him.
The reason why that Parker is out of the league, it's because that Parker was not the same playmaker after his injury against the Rams
lol sorry i appreciate Parker a crap ton for what he's done for us, but he kind of was a pseudo-elite runningback in his prime. It really was excruciatingly rare to see him do well against a good team
they had this video on the steeler website
http://www.steelers.com/video-and-au...8-e3352de893e3
http://www.steelers.com/video-and-au...ame=Interviews
"Until one has loved an animal a part of one's soul remains unawakened."
--Anatole France
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote