One flaw I hold Fisher accountable for is his tendency to overestimate certain players, usually on offense, and usually because they seem to offer the allure of big plays or pronounced physical match-up advantages.
Like Cook. Or Richardson. Quick, not in terms of who he is but why they drafted him high.
There’s some buzz out there saying the Rams prefer Cunningham over Stacy.
Cunningham could surprise me but I don’t buy it. Not that I think he’s bad, or is a Richardson. I just don’t think he is as good as Stacy.
What Cunningham offers is the allure of big plays. More long runs.
Stacy offers less of that, but at the same time his attributes are solid. As solid as he is physically. He has tremendous vision, very nice feet, great balance, strength, and perseverance. He makes his own yards. But you don’t count on him for break-out runs
Until I see Cunningham provide the basic every-carry production you are more or less promised to get with Stacy, I would say that if they ARE favoring BC over ZS, it’s a potential mistake.
Now, it’s true that Stacy does get banged up. Given that, yeah, you need a good rotation of backs–both to take the load off of ZS and to replace him when he gets nicked.
So it’s not that I think ZS should get all the carries. What I do think is that favoring BC over him is a miscalculation.
And of course, there’s a chance I will have to take all that back and re-write my evaluation of BC. But still…as it stands right now, I am a bit suspicious of the idea that BC could supplant Stacy.