(09-03-2017, 06:34 PM)TheO-LineMatters Wrote:

(09-03-2017, 06:16 PM)jessepeck1213 Wrote: I disagree. Langford has averaged a half a yard less per carry than yeldon over their 2 years in the league. And he has done it behind a far better offensive line in chicago.
Yeldon in a also a decent reciever out of the backfield. He's far superior to Langford in terms of pass protection, which is his biggest asset to us right now. And on top of that he's 2 years younger and has more upside. Also knows all of our protections and the offense. I'll stop there, but you get the point by now. That would be a pretty asinine decision.

Langford is a far superior receiver to Yeldon. In fact, I would estimate that Langford is one of the better pass catching RB's in the NFL. He is a better receiver than a runner, but he is coming off an ankle injury which drastically caused his numbers to fall off last year. I look at the potential for big plays from him out of the backfield as a receiver and that is something we've lacked for a very long time. As far as Yeldon having more upside, nothing could be further from the truth. Yeldon has peaked. He is what he is, a below average runner with an extremely low ceiling. It's time to cut the cord.
"
One area where the general consensus seems to think Langford excelled is as a receiver. Considering he was limited to 22 receptions as a rookie, this doesn’t make a ton of sense. Langford’s 40 targets were 29th most at the position, yet his eight drops were most. His 26.67 percent drop rate was worst in the NFL among 57 qualified backs. For perspective, Danny Woodhead and Theo Riddick tied for the position lead with 80 receptions each and they combined for six drops. Langford, who caught 22 passes, dropped eight on his own."

Please tell me more about how great of a receiver he is.