View Full Version : Position battles: AFC South
06-29-2004, 02:42 PM
Domanick Davis vs. Tony Hollings, running back
Davis burst onto the scene as a rookie fourth-round pick last year when he rushed for more than 1,000 yards, despite missing the first part of the season with an injury. Davis has already gone on record as saying 2,000 yards is his goal this year. But Hollings might have something to say about that. The Texans took him in the supplemental draft last summer with the idea he could be a back of the future. He was coming off knee surgery, so they knew it would take some time. Hollings flashed at times when he did get on the field last season, and could be more of an every-down back than Davis.
Edge: Davis. Been there, done that.
Opening-day starter: Davis. It's not going to be easy taking away his carries.
It will be intresting to see how the RB position unfolds by mid-season.
06-29-2004, 03:31 PM
I didn't realize how ugly DD was until I saw that award photo. I guess God gave him talents in other areas.
06-29-2004, 03:59 PM
Think that DD will probably end up being more durable than most people believe. Hollings may end up being an outstanding back (I sure hope so!) but the job will stay with DD as long as he is producing with at least similar numbers from last year.
I think pre-season we will get to see the potential of Hollings. Hollings is going to try and showcase himself to establish his postion and game ability firmly in the minds of the coaching staff.
Just curious but what are the lengths of Davis and Hollings contracts?
06-29-2004, 04:02 PM
I really think that we will simply use Hollings and Davis in packages depending on the nature and strength of the opposing defense each week with DD as the starter. Some games may feature Hollings more and some may feature Davis more if Hollings becomes the back the Texans and Casserly believed he would mature to when they first picked him. We can use the strength of each back to exploit the weakness in the individual opponents defense.
06-29-2004, 04:29 PM
Vin...that's pretty much where I think this could go over the course of the season. That was one of the reasons I was curious about the contract lengths of the Hopefully Dynamic Duo. Normally when your stable of RBs includes more than one starting quality back they will force the management thru free agency to make a decision and let one go.
06-29-2004, 04:54 PM
J-Man, I believe that they both signed 4 year contracts (I know Hollings did), so they will be restricted FA's after 2006.
I agree with Vinny that who gets the carries a certain game will depend on the opposing defense. For example, DD will probably gets most of the snaps against Cover 2 teams because he is a reliable dump off target. Hollings will probably play aginst teams that like to run blitz so he can burn them long with his unbelievable speed.
06-29-2004, 05:12 PM
J-Man, I believe that they both signed 4 year contracts (I know Hollings did), so they will be restricted FA's after 2006.
Restricted free agency only applies to players that have less than four accrued years in the NFL so once their contracts are up, they will both be unrestricted free agents. Look for extensions based on performance after this year or 2005.
06-29-2004, 05:14 PM
I thought it was 4 years and less because last year the Browns only wanted to give their picks 4 year contracts because they wanted them to be restricted so if they turned out any good they could get something in return. I guess I was wrong...
RFA is less than 4 years. UFA is 4 years or more.
DD will qualify for RFA after the '05 season (he signed a 3 year deal).
Hollings will qualify for UFA after the '06 season if he's still on the team and continues to meet the service requirement (he signed a 4 year deal).
Hollings didn't strike me as having great vision between the tackles last year. Cutback or inside burst was not in his repertoire. That was probably due to his hesitance to fully exercise the knee which I fully understand so he gets the benefit of the doubt. This year he needs to show that he is more than a toss-sweep guy. I seriously hope that he emerges as the legit RB threat that the Texans and all of us are hoping for.
06-29-2004, 10:15 PM
I think the Texans will develope both of them and then trade the one they think isnt going to be the starter.
06-29-2004, 11:20 PM
I think the Texans will develope both of them and then trade the one they think isnt going to be the starter.I dont see why you would trade either RB because the RB position is one of the toughest positions on the body and with one wrong plant of the leg, a guy could be lost for an extended amount of time. DD hasnt proven, college or NFL, that he can last an entire season. You cant comment on Hollings' durability yet.
Panthers arent trading Deshaun Foster
Falcons arent trading Warrick Dunn
Colts arent trading Dominic Rhodes
Bengals took Chris Perry in the first round even though they had Rudi Johnson
Bears have A-Train and Thomas Jones
Jags took Greg Jones in the 2nd round and have a pro bowler in Fred Taylor
Larry Johnson is getting paid big bucks to sit on the bench in KC
You have to have 2 good backs.
06-30-2004, 09:02 AM
I guess this is the first time team we had pretty good depth at rb. Are there any 2-back sets in our reptoire? Do y'all think we would add them to the mix? I like Hollings and I think he's going to prove he was worth the investment. 2 good backs fihting it out is a good problem.
06-30-2004, 11:11 AM
I guess this is the first time team we had pretty good depth at rb. Are there any 2-back sets in our reptoire? Do y'all think we would add them to the mix? I like Hollings and I think he's going to prove he was worth the investment. 2 good backs fihting it out is a good problem.I could see a couple of splitback formations with Hollings and Davis in, that would really stretch the defense and keep them on the heels, guessing.
06-30-2004, 02:15 PM
I totally agree that it would be ideal having two viable stud RBs. My earlier point was that if you aren't the featured back and you have starter quality talent you will want your agent working overtime on gathering offers from teams that need a starter RB when FA eligibility time comes around.
06-30-2004, 02:20 PM
I dont see the problem with DD as the starter, and if he goes down then use Hollings.
06-30-2004, 02:31 PM
Unless a team has two solid backs they will be looking hard for another back. No sense in trading a good back unless you are bringing one in....and in that case, what's the point?
06-30-2004, 04:35 PM
I like the idea of a two back set. In my honest opinion, I really like what the Bills plan to do with Henry and Magahee. It'll be interesting to see how that plays out over the course of the season. Of course it will be interesting to see how DC decides to use DD and Hollings also. Perhaps a split back set with three WRs, and either DD or Hollings moving to the slot. Tough for a LB to cover either of those guys.
06-30-2004, 06:00 PM
Can't say that I am a big fan of the 2 back set as a steady formation. Once in a great while, perhaps, but not often. I personally am impressed with our FBs - Baxter and especially Norris. I like the FB leading the RB (2 back formation), but not 2 feature type backs in the same backfield. Defenses usually react so quickly to that, there is nothing to guess about. And neither DD or Hollings can block as well as say - Norris.
With that said, I look for Davis to dominate the touches from the backfield regardless of who we are playing. He is no fluke, or flash in the pan. He can run tough, has great instincts, is quick as lightning, and will give any defense problems that he faces. I also think he is more tough than he gets credit for. Behind Norris, I look for the Dominator to be the key to our successful offense next year. As far as Hollings - he will be a nice change of pace back, and will give DD needed "breathers". We are fortunate to have both RBs. Tony H. may actually become the featured back one day. But I wouldn't look for it to happen next season.
07-01-2004, 04:17 PM
Quick question. Why does everyone think Tony is going to fly by DD on the depth chart? It just seems like alot of people are high on Tony even though he hasnt done much.
07-01-2004, 04:21 PM
I am high on Hollings, but I dont think he will 'fly' by DD. Hollings has a lot to prove, but he has good size and great speed.
07-01-2004, 04:30 PM
Tony Wells....errr...Hollings runs too upright and is brought down too easily to ever supplant DD. DD is a RB. Hollings is a DB who has 4 college games worth of RB experience, and limited NFL carries. IMO if his knee was 100%, he should have been in Rhein or Frankfurt this year learning how to be an NFL RB and challenging McCoo for the rushing title. He has a long way to go before he is an NFL caliber RB. Just the same it always tickles me to see people say, " I love Hollings", especially when they had never heard of them until the supplemental draft, and couldn't pick him out of a police line up. :rolleyes: Shine on...
07-01-2004, 06:47 PM
I'm more optimistic about Hollings than you are Ediddy. The one thing we have never had is pure speed out of the backfield and we still would not have any if not for Hollings. He has a nice gliding style and is deceptively fast. He eats up yards quickly and is a home run threat when he gets a step and an angle on someone. I like what I have seen in Hollings so far and I really didn't expect to see a physical style back when he was running right off the late stages of rehab. I'm going to judge TH by what he shows me in this camp and on the field now in his second season after the surgery. Iím pretty excited about the combination of Davis and Hollings myself.
07-06-2004, 08:20 AM
What about the other backs? especailly Wells?
What do people think of Mack last year?
Wells will probably be third string, and Mack is a goner.
07-06-2004, 11:54 AM
DD will rule the day.
07-06-2004, 12:06 PM
Does anyone else remember who the other guy was in TC last year that had a similar style of running like Hollings but he just didn't make the team? He was pretty quick also. Or does anyone remember the little guy we had in Camp the inaugural season who had a bowling ball style of running? The guy was short but he could scoot, and he just didn't make the club because of his size.
07-06-2004, 01:01 PM
You're thinking of Michael Basnight.
I'm guessing he's thinking of Jonas Lewis and Michael Jenkins.
Michael Basnight was one of the 10 original Texans plucked from free agency back in December '01 but I don't believe he ever made it to a training camp.
07-06-2004, 06:06 PM
Tony Wells....errr...Hollings runs too upright and is brought down too easily to ever supplant DD.
runs upright..sometimes holds the ball wrong...dosent always pick the right hole...poor leg drive. but then what did u expect from a runningback with 4 games experience on a collegiate level. he is not a polished product ,but we knew that when we got him.
in comparision to davis, hollings was brought down easily (as were numerous other starting nfl backs). needless to say the injury was a factor as was the inability to train in the offseason in normal fashion. im also more then willing to think he ran "tentivley" in fear of reaggrivating his injury.
bottom line is he has his problems ,but he has a very high celling
i think the idea of sending hollings to nfl europe is a bad one particularly because of his injury. why risk it? he needed to spend his first offseason in an nfl training program ,and there are 5 preseason games.
i did know his name but not much else about him. and no, i still couldnt pick him out in a police lineup.
If Hollings can just hold on to the ball, not second guess himself due to his previous injury and hit the hole full speed, we'll see alot of good things out of him. He'll have alot more confidence in himself this year being back at 100 % and hopefully he's worked on holding on to the ball. If all this comes together DD and TH will wreak havoc on defenses and it's going to happen the first time TH comes in the game because the defense won't be expecting much out of him and TH is gonna blow right by them just like DD did last year.
vBulletin® v3.7.2, Copyright ©2000-2014, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.