Justin Fargas: How Good Is He?

How good is Justin Fargas?

Things we can agree on: Fargas is fast.  He came out of nowhere last year to have a productive season, rushing for 1009 yards on 222 carries while starting seven games.  Fargas runs hard, doesn't avoid contact, keeps to himself, and seems like a great teammate.  He waited patiently until he received his chance, then made the most of it.

We can also agree that dating back to college, Fargas has rarely gone an entire season without missing games due to injury.  That said, if Fargas stays healthy next year, he can have another productive season in Oakland's one-cut running scheme.

What we may not agree on: Fargas is an average running back.  We can break this down two ways—through stats, or through observation.  Let's begin with the numbers.  Fargas started each game between weeks ten and 15.  He had zero rushes over 30 yards.  These were his yards-per-rush averages: 3.5, 2.7, 6.3, 4.4, 3.8, and 3.4.  We lost four of those games, with three of them (vs Bears, at Vikings, vs Colts) being non-blowouts.

During that stretch, Fargas had a 4+ yards-per-carry average only against the Broncos and the Chiefs.  Denver ranked 30th against the run last season, the Chiefs 28th.  Fargas also had that monster game early in the season against the Dolphins, who ranked 32nd (dead last) against the run.  He averaged 4.1 yards per carry as a starter, and 3.9 during December.  His longest reception was for 17 yards.

So the numbers say that Fargas got fat stats against some very bad run defenses.  Now that's not his fault, he did what he should have done against them.  But other than decent games against the Titans and Texans, Fargas didn't accomplish much that would be described as overly impressive.  We know the system takes average backs and helps them produce above-average numbers, so consider that when addressing Fargas' stats last season.

For example, Lamont Jordan would have finished the season with about 1,200 yards had he started every game.  Would we be pining for his return, or would we say "yeah, that was nice, but in this system, we can get a 1,500 yard rusher."

Even Dominic Rhodes was impressive in his late-season 100-yard games against two very tough defenses—Jacksonville's and San Diego's.  Yet I doubt most of us would be satisfied with him as a starter.  So while Fargas' cumulative numbers look solid, his consistency, game-changing long plays, and pass-catching numbers were sorely lacking and allows us to at least contemplate exploring a better alternative.

What did our eyes tell us?  Well, we saw Fargas running hard and making good cuts, getting to the outside often, and running well against some soft defenses.

Unfortunately, we also saw very little ability to make defenders miss, or ability to generate yards after contact.  We saw Fargas' upright running style, lack of vision, and lack of wiggle expose himself to numerous highlight-level de-cleater hits.  We saw a guy with average to below-average hands who only once had more than three catches in a game.  We saw some 15 and 20-yard rushes, but only one run longer than 30 yards all season.

Do we count on Fargas to churn out more 100-yard games next season against the Patriots, Ravens, Jets, Bills, Panthers, Bills, and Bucs?  This would remind me of the way we just assumed that our defense would be great last year due to our returning all starters from a "top-eight" defense in 2006.  One should always look to improve every area of a team, regardless of what transpired the previous season.

So what's the plan next year?  We split the carries at something of a 15-10-5 level between Fargas, Bush, and Rhodes.  This assumes that Bush will be the pre-leg break beast we saw at Louisville.  But what if he's lost a step or that lateral quick-feet ability that made defenders grasp at the Autumn Wind?

Then he's just an average grinder, nothing too special.  So while I like Fargas as much as the next guy, I am not going to pretend that the running back position can not be improved upon.  And when you're dealing with a position that will touch the ball 30 times a game, I think we can all agree it's one that needs to be consistently evaluated and improved.

Whether you think McFadden could give us the first great mutli-threat runner since Charlie Garner and post 1,800 all-purpose yards in the Oakland system, or feel that Darren is over-hyped, let's not pretend that we're rock solid at the running back position and would be wasting a pick if Al Davis decides to gamble a little on one of the few draft talents this year that could become a legitimate super star.

Can he stop the run?  Of course not.  Can a quality run-plugging DT be found in round four or in post-June free agency?  Probably a lot more easily than a runner who over the span of three seasons destroyed Georgia, USC, Auburn, Tennessee, Alabama, Missouri, South Carolina, and LSU all at least once.

Again, this isn't to knock Fargas, or to suggest that we shouldn't draft a defensive tackle.  Instead my intent is to simply point out that there is room for improvement at the running back position—improvement that would help us score more points, rest the defense longer, and win a few more games.

We were complacent with what we thought was a great highly-ranked defense in 2006.  I won't blame Davis if he learned from that mistake and simply drafts the best talent available regardless of position at the four-spot in two weeks.