Jump to content

Lorenzo Neal gets cut


hooknladder
 Share

Recommended Posts

This guy has been a beast for a long time.....

 

 

 

 

One of the premier fullbacks of his era may be out of teams to block for.

 

The Raiders announced Wednesday they have released Lorenzo Neal to make roster room for safety Rashad Baker.

 

Neal, 38, was part of an effective running game in Baltimore last year, but the Ravens didn't make an effort to re-sign him. The Chargers cut the affable four-time Pro Bowler after the 2007 season; Neal has been a part of eight different NFL organizations after getting drafted by New Orleans in 1993.

 

The release is a surprise, but Neal was never expected to start for the Raiders. Oren O'Neal will clear the way for Justin Fargas, Darren McFadden, and Michael Bush.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I would think that Lorenzo will end up somewhere this season. :wacko:

I hope so. He's been a great player and has shown stellar leadership qualities for every team he's played for.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

There is a part of me that would have liked to see him in a Ravens uniform again this year, but I'm not surprised the he's not.

 

McLain will move to a more pure FB position and Rice and Willis, who both will have ample time in the backfield, will be just as well off.

 

Neal was a hugh blocker, but it seems like a FB needs to have some ball hamdling skills and me thinks that LMcL is better suited than an aging Neal.

 

I think that the OAK RB's get moved down a notch without Neal as I think that DM, JF and MB could have all benefited from lining up behind / next to Neal.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

O'Neal blows. He has done absoluteley nothing to deserve this roster spot, but for some reason the coaching staff loves him.

Another terrible front office move to bring in an Al Davis player (Baker)

 

 

:wacko:

 

All-Pro and a SHOULD be HOF'er.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Didn't a lot of people here use him as a reason for an improved run-game this year? Do y'all bump the OAK RBs down? (I already had them low)

Absolutely. I was hoping to grab McFadden in IBL, but I missed out on him. I don't regret missing him anymore. Even if he blows up, I wouldn't have targeted him without Neal.

 

I will, indiscriminately, bump up the RBs on any team he lands on.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how often (by % of plays) that Neal was on the field?

 

I see the big blocking fullback as a part-time player of limited utility, so I never understood the mystique surrounding Neal. Plenty of RBs get plenty of yards without FBs. Most offenses don't even use one to any significant degree. I always thought it silly to award a Probowl spot to a fullback when there are only a couple of guys who play the position with any regularity.

 

Nobody gets excited by a tightend that can really block, do they?

 

But I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong. :wacko:

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Does anyone know how often (by % of plays) that Neal was on the field?

 

I see the big blocking fullback as a part-time player of limited utility, so I never understood the mystique surrounding Neal. Plenty of RBs get plenty of yards without FBs. Most offenses don't even use one to any significant degree. I always thought it silly to award a Probowl spot to a fullback when there are only a couple of guys who play the position with any regularity.

 

Nobody gets excited by a tightend that can really block, do they?

 

But I'll be the first to admit that I'm wrong. :wacko:

:D

Blocking is something that is certainly a hard statistic to keep track of, especially when you can't factor in how much the backs do on their own.

In addition to his handful of Pro-Bowls, he has been named the NFL's best blocking FB by Sporting News and other magazines several times.

 

In his 16 active seasons, he spent his first as a halfback. The next three seasons at FB for the Saints, the run game didn't do much. But after that, the next 11 seasons he was the starting fullback for a 1,000 yard rusher every year (Murrell, Dunn, George, Dillon, Tomlinson) up until he arrived in Baltimore. (Which still put up 1,000 yards, just not with one single rusher)

 

I know that doesn't answer your question much, but I think if you're in a supporting role like fullback and those are the numbers being put up you're going to get significant recognition.

Now, could Lorenzo have gotten lucky by being put in a position to block for very talented backs? Absolutely.

But the fact is, his name comes up multiple times every game he plays in, which is what sets him aside from other blocking FBs imo.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Neal doesn't do anything but block. He doesn't catch passes and he doesn't play special teams, so with O'Neal seemingly back from his knee injury they made room for more versatility on the roster.

 

 

Michael Bush needs someone to set up defenders for him.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to come across as a hater, but I'll live.

 

:wacko:

Blocking is something that is certainly a hard statistic to keep track of, especially when you can't factor in how much the backs do on their own.

In addition to his handful of Pro-Bowls, he has been named the NFL's best blocking FB by Sporting News and other magazines several times.

 

In his 16 active seasons, he spent his first as a halfback. The next three seasons at FB for the Saints, the run game didn't do much. But after that, the next 11 seasons he was the starting fullback for a 1,000 yard rusher every year (Murrell, Dunn, George, Dillon, Tomlinson) up until he arrived in Baltimore. (Which still put up 1,000 yards, just not with one single rusher)

 

I know that doesn't answer your question much, but I think if you're in a supporting role like fullback and those are the numbers being put up you're going to get significant recognition.

Now, could Lorenzo have gotten lucky by being put in a position to block for very talented backs? Absolutely.

But the fact is, his name comes up multiple times every game he plays in, which is what sets him aside from other blocking FBs imo.

 

Those are some pretty talented backs. Its pretty difficult for me to attribute those 1,000 yard seasons to Neal. I'm willing to bet that those guys put up 1,000 yards before Neal joined the team and again after he left it (unless age played a factor - George maybe?). Show me where he "took" a mediocre back to a 1,000 yards and maybe you're saying something. Show me regular and substantial before/after dropoffs.

 

Setting aside the numbers of plays that Neal is on the field (I'd still like to see that number), does/did Neal really make the offense better when he was on the field. The game becomes more one dimensional with him in it. There's a reason why he isn't on the field for a majority of snaps.

 

Anyways, the guy has played with 7 teams, and I believe that he has been released/waived by at least 5 of them. Do you outright release valuable players? Certainly you should at least get something in return?

 

That type of player has value, maybe a lot of value, in certain circumstances. But those are limited circumstances. I think that the absence of powerblocking FBs, certainly those that see any substantial playing time, in the NFL proves this.

 

There is certainly a romantice aspect to the "bulldozer" FB running over a LB. But take that away, and what do you have - a part-time lineman. He may be the greatest part-time lineman in the history of the world, but as I see it, there ain't no way that a part-time lineman gets into the HOF. I think that's crazy talk.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

I'm going to come across as a hater, but I'll live.

 

 

 

Those are some pretty talented backs. Its pretty difficult for me to attribute those 1,000 yard seasons to Neal. I'm willing to bet that those guys put up 1,000 yards before Neal joined the team and again after he left it (unless age played a factor - George maybe?). Show me where he "took" a mediocre back to a 1,000 yards and maybe you're saying something. Show me regular and substantial before/after dropoffs.

 

Setting aside the numbers of plays that Neal is on the field (I'd still like to see that number), does/did Neal really make the offense better when he was on the field. The game becomes more one dimensional with him in it. There's a reason why he isn't on the field for a majority of snaps.

 

Anyways, the guy has played with 7 teams, and I believe that he has been released/waived by at least 5 of them. Do you outright release valuable players? Certainly you should at least get something in return?

 

That type of player has value, maybe a lot of value, in certain circumstances. But those are limited circumstances. I think that the absence of powerblocking FBs, certainly those that see any substantial playing time, in the NFL proves this.

 

There is certainly a romantice aspect to the "bulldozer" FB running over a LB. But take that away, and what do you have - a part-time lineman. He may be the greatest part-time lineman in the history of the world, but as I see it, there ain't no way that a part-time lineman gets into the HOF. I think that's crazy talk.

 

Excellent post.

 

Neal is a great blocker, but the HOF talk is absurd... there have been great all around fullbacks like John L. Williams that were crushing blockers as well as being capable of leading their team in rushing and receptions, and he was recognized as a great traditional FB in his day... most probably don't know who he is now, and I don't ever recall mention of the HOF... offensive skill players have to put up all-timey #'s for that kinda consideration. In a similar argument, I've run into many Steeler fans who believe Ward is a HOF lock because he's been a good receiver and one of the great blocking WR's...

 

Anyhow, the big lose for the Raiders is Neal's veteran leadership, which they're very short on everywhere, and on offense in particular.

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

 Share

  • Recently Browsing   0 members

    • No registered users viewing this page.
×
×
  • Create New...

Important Information