PDA

View Full Version : Davis Tracking for Over 1,200


TEXANS84
12-06-2005, 01:23 PM
Current Domanick Davis stats:

Attempts: 208
Yards: 837
TD: 2
Rec: 32
Yards 287
TD Rec: 3
Fumbles: 1

Projected end of the year stats:

Attempts: 277
Yards: 1,116
TD: 3
Rec: 43
Yards: 383
TD Rec: 4
Fumbles: 1

You gotta give the guy some credit, he's done a heck of a job protecting the football this year. Only one fumble in 12 games where as he lost 4 fumbles in the first two games last year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6437

eriadoc
12-06-2005, 01:34 PM
He did have the four fumbles in the first two games, and the SD loss was tough to take, But he did go the last 14 games of the season without a fumble. DD does a pretty good job taking care of the football. Anyone that handles the ball that much is going to cough it up a few times and on a couple of those four from last year, it was just a good play by the defense getting the ball out.

This is a down year for the team, which affects everyone's stats, but DD has done a solid job, IMO.

Coach C.
12-06-2005, 01:42 PM
DD is the next Tiki Barber. He is a small guy that had fumbling problems, but is a threat receiving and rushing. He shakes off countless tackles and makes something out of nothing. The guy is a talent and probably the best pick that Casserly has made. I base that on AJ and DRob being no brainers. I remember when people wanted Charles Rogers my my how soon we forget.

TexanFanInCC
12-06-2005, 01:57 PM
DD is the next Tiki Barber. He is a small guy that had fumbling problems, but is a threat receiving and rushing. He shakes off countless tackles and makes something out of nothing. The guy is a talent and probably the best pick that Casserly has made. I base that on AJ and DRob being no brainers. I remember when people wanted Charles Rogers my my how soon we forget.

the downside to DD is that he doesnt have the breakaway speed like Tiki Barber. 1,100 yds is good, but until he starts putting up 1,300+, then we can compare him to tiki.

HardKnockTexan
12-06-2005, 02:04 PM
the downside to DD is that he doesnt have the breakaway speed like Tiki Barber. 1,100 yds is good, but until he starts putting up 1,300+, then we can compare him to tiki.


What he said... I'm a big DD fan but he just doesnt have the speed to be one of the elite backs in the NFL. I've never seen him break away from the LOS and end a play in the endzone.

Coach C.
12-06-2005, 02:07 PM
That is why I said the next Tiki. The first 5 years that Tiki was in the league his highest rushing total was 1006 and he has been over 1300 yds 3 times(I am including this year). So Davis will become one of those rare backs that has had 1000+ yrds in his first three seasons. I compare him to Tiki cause size, stature, speed, and multifaceted ability make them very similar. They also have very similar run styles.

rmartin65
12-06-2005, 02:17 PM
DD is good, but nothing special. I am not suprised that he is going to get over 1,000.

Kaiser Toro
12-06-2005, 02:17 PM
• Barber had runs of 57 and 59 yards on Sunday, increasing his career total of runs 50 yards or longer to eight. That is believed to be a Giants record. Barber’s eight runs of at least 50 yards ties him for fifth among active players.

http://www.giants.com/news/eisen/story.asp?story_id=10588

TexanFanInCC
12-06-2005, 02:20 PM
That is why I said the next Tiki. The first 5 years that Tiki was in the league his highest rushing total was 1006 and he has been over 1300 yds 3 times(I am including this year). So Davis will become one of those rare backs that has had 1000+ yrds in his first three seasons. I compare him to Tiki cause size, stature, speed, and multifaceted ability make them very similar. They also have very similar run styles.

DD and tiki do not compare in terms of speed, and that is why tiki is who he is. his speed is the reason why he is an elite back, and domanick doesnt have that. yes, their running styles are similar, but DD couldnt break off a 50 yd run to save his life.

Coach C.
12-06-2005, 02:27 PM
His rookie season he had rushes of 50 and 51 yd. Domanick Davis has had runs of over 20+ 5 times or more in each season he has been in the league. I think we are arguing a moot point here though. I am not saying that Domanick is a fast back, because he is not he is quick. I am saying that he does break long runs and does it as consistently as almost every other back in the league.

MightyTExan
12-06-2005, 02:28 PM
I thought he had a 40 or 50 yd run in the last game?

Runner
12-06-2005, 02:30 PM
I thought he had a 40 or 50 yd run in the last game?

His long run was 29 yards - it just took so long for him to get there it seemed like 50.

THAT WAS JOKE!

Double Barrel
12-06-2005, 02:52 PM
A 1,000+ yard rusher on a 1-11 team. It just goes to show how misleading stats can be most of the time.

DD's potential is why I don't think they'll draft Bush. Too much money would be tied up with one position, and we have way too many holes to fill at the moment that are much more pressing concerns.

HardKnockTexan
12-06-2005, 03:09 PM
A 1,000+ yard rusher on a 1-11 team. It just goes to show how misleading stats can be most of the time.

DD's potential is why I don't think they'll draft Bush. Too much money would be tied up with one position, and we have way too many holes to fill at the moment that are much more pressing concerns.

We have a lot of money tied up in just about every offensive posstion and nearly every defensive possition. Our offensive line is overpaid. So with your philosophy that means no drafting a left tackle. Our linebackers are overpaid so that means no AJ Hawk.

I hope when it comes down to the draft our top priority isnt saving money.

tulexan
12-06-2005, 03:47 PM
DD's potential is to get somewhere between 1000 and 1200 yards per season plus a couple hundred receiving yards. Reggie Bush's potential is to get 2000 total yards per season. I would take Reggie Bush's potential even if we have a servicable back. That is like saying "we don't need Alex Rodriguez because we have Adam Everett".

Hervoyel
12-06-2005, 03:56 PM
Domanick Davis gets around 1,100 yards every year. I'd get more excited about it if it really made the Texans any better.

It doesn't so I'm not.

Domanick Davis is the Houston Texans version of the Oilers Tim Smith, albeit playing RB instead of WR. He has roughly the same effect on the win column as Smith had and he gets the same "Wow he must be really good!" kind of numbers.

JDizzle
12-06-2005, 04:01 PM
DD's potential is to get somewhere between 1000 and 1200 yards per season plus a couple hundred receiving yards. Reggie Bush's potential is to get 2000 total yards per season. I would take Reggie Bush's potential even if we have a servicable back. That is like saying "we don't need Alex Rodriguez because we have Adam Everett".

That's not even close to being the same. A-Rod is a proven superstar at the pro level. Reggie Bush has yet set foot on an NFL field.

tulexan
12-06-2005, 04:10 PM
Really is 1,100 that impressive? That averages out to about 69 yards per game. A starting running back will generally get around 20 carries a game which means you have to average 3.45 yards per carry. I know he in fact is averaging more than that (around 83 yards per game and 4 yards per carry) but that is because he gets injured every year.

tulexan
12-06-2005, 04:11 PM
That's not even close to being the same. A-Rod is a proven superstar at the pro level. Reggie Bush has yet set foot on an NFL field.

Wait one year.

Double Barrel
12-06-2005, 04:15 PM
We have a lot of money tied up in just about every offensive posstion and nearly every defensive possition. Our offensive line is overpaid. So with your philosophy that means no drafting a left tackle. Our linebackers are overpaid so that means no AJ Hawk.

I hope when it comes down to the draft our top priority isnt saving money.

ahhh, but the flaw in your logic is that the o-line is not giving us anything near what a 1,100 yard RB gives us at his relative position.

You are making an assumption about my philosophy. If DD was making his jack but only rushing for 500 yards, your comparison would be valid. But it appears that our linemen are being overpaid for what we get in return.

I hope saving money is not a top priority, too. And that includes hiring coaches, or we'll end up back at the same place we find ourselves now.

JDizzle
12-06-2005, 04:18 PM
I don't think it's impressive at all, but that IS the only bright spot on offense this season.

Carr Bombed
12-06-2005, 04:20 PM
What kind of philosophy is that? "He is good, but we don't win, so draft someone else?" If only the Peyton Mannings, LaDanian Tomlinsons, and Shaun Alexanders of this league had been subjected to that kind of thinking when their teams weren't the up-and-coming powerhouses they are today. When you are losing, you look to rid yourself of the people who aren't helping you to win. Now how does Davis factor into that qualifier? That makes a lot of sense.

Calm down dude. When those players were in their 3rd year they were in or on their way to the playoffs not holding a 1-11 record onto one of the worst seasons in nfl history, plus one of them is a 2 time mvp possibly on his way to his third and the other guys on the list are up for the reward to. Those guys are elite DD is not. A 1-11 record, which is only going to get worse makes you very realistic, the fact is that after this year No ones and I repeat NO ONES job is safe. The thing that no ones talking about is how many times has a back gone over a 1000 yards and only had 2 rushing tds. I bet only a handful of times.

Double Barrel
12-06-2005, 04:24 PM
It's not that 1,000 yards is supposed to be "impressive", but more of a standard to indicate the presence of a running game. Obviously, like I mentioned before, 1,100 yard RB means nothing on a 1-11 team.

You can't really speak of impressive until you hit the 1,500 yard mark. But even that may become the norm and we have to use 2,000 yards as our mark.

tulexan
12-06-2005, 04:31 PM
I don't even consider 1,000 yards being an indicator of the presence of a running game. A player should be able to get 68 yards on 20 carries. I would say that 1,280 is a benchmark for a running game because that averages out to 80 yards per game. If you run the ball 20 times and get 80 yards it's not great but it is ok. Ideally you would like to have a guy who is closer to 5 yards per carry. I don't see Davis capable of ever averaging 5 yards per carry because I don't think he has the speed to break the long ones to counter act all of the stuffs at the line of scrimmage.

JDizzle
12-06-2005, 04:32 PM
Wait one year.

So he's going to be a lock for the HOF after his first season? Interesting.


I find it odd that there aren't more Leinart homers popping up given Carr's horrible season AND contract situation. To me, that would make more sense than ditching Davis - who has accounted for a big chunk of our offense since his rookie year - and drafting Reggie Bush.

I'm not jumping on the Leinart or Bush bandwagon, I'm just pointing out that the Leinart scenario would make more sense given the circumstances.

Kaiser Toro
12-06-2005, 04:34 PM
So he's going to be a lock for the HOF after his first season? Interesting.


I find it odd that there aren't more Leinart homers popping up given Carr's horrible season AND contract situation. To me, that would make more sense than ditching Davis - who has accounted for a big chunk of our offense since his rookie year - and drafting Reggie Bush.

I'm not jumping on the Leinart or Bush bandwagon, I'm just pointing out that the Leinart scenario would make more sense given the circumstances.

It makes no sense actually. I think many would agree that they do not want to invest first pick money in a QB again.

Carr Bombed
12-06-2005, 04:40 PM
Yeah plus some people are starting to have questions about Matt. Hes already had to have surgery and everytime his team almost lost this year it wasn't him that won, but bush stepping up in the clutch and carrying his team across the finish line, hell even the game winning td Matt scored against the irish Bush had to push him in. Plus with him playing with the best talented players in the country theres a reason why he isn't going first

MorKnolle
12-06-2005, 04:47 PM
Calm down dude. When those players were in their 3rd year they were in or on their way to the playoffs not holding a 1-11 record onto one of the worst seasons in nfl history, plus one of them is a 2 time mvp possibly on his way to his third and the other guys on the list are up for the reward to. Those guys are elite DD is not. A 1-11 record, which is only going to get worse makes you very realistic, the fact is that after this year No ones and I repeat NO ONES job is safe. The thing that no ones talking about is how many times has a back gone over a 1000 yards and only had 2 rushing tds. I bet only a handful of times.

According to NFL archives, in Tomlinson's third season the Chargers went 4-12 and ended up with the first pick in the draft. Sure he put up 1645 rushing yards (5.3 yards per carry), 725 receiving yards, and 17 total TDs, but how did that help his team win? They were the worst in the league during his best statistical season. The next season he had 1335 rushing yards (3.9 ypc), 441 receiving yards, 18 total TDs and they're 12-4 and back in the playoffs. It appears that RBs don't have to put up their best statistical seasons in order for their team to win and that there might be some other factors involved, and he only averaged 3.9 yards per carry that year too, so a RB doesn't have to average 5+ yards per carry to be effective and for their team to win.

tulexan
12-06-2005, 04:52 PM
So he's going to be a lock for the HOF after his first season? Interesting.


I find it odd that there aren't more Leinart homers popping up given Carr's horrible season AND contract situation. To me, that would make more sense than ditching Davis - who has accounted for a big chunk of our offense since his rookie year - and drafting Reggie Bush.

I'm not jumping on the Leinart or Bush bandwagon, I'm just pointing out that the Leinart scenario would make more sense given the circumstances.


No I'm not saying that he will be a lock for the HOF after one year. But I do believe that after 1 year he will have a lot more total yards and touchdowns than Dominack Davis did his rookie year. If our line can create holes for Davis to have 20 and 30 yard runs, those will be 60 and 70 yard runs for Reggie Bush. And those long runs for Davis that gave us zero touchdowns would have been touchdowns for Bush. I've never seen a guy that once he gets around the corner he is gone.

infantrycak
12-06-2005, 04:53 PM
ahhh, but the flaw in your logic is that the o-line is not giving us anything near what a 1,100 yard RB gives us at his relative position.

IMO your points have been excellent. There are two significant reasons why DD is and should be viewed in the light of putting up stats less than he otherwise would--(1) the OL--yes, the run blocking is better than the pass blocking, but that is kind of like saying you would rather fornicate a sheep than a pig--neither one is an attractive proposition, and (2) the circumstances of his runs--i.e. not getting any in blow-outs, or being the focus of the D as teams dare the Texans to throw this year.

infantrycak
12-06-2005, 04:59 PM
No I'm not saying that he will be a lock for the HOF after one year. But I do believe that after 1 year he will have a lot more total yards and touchdowns than Dominack Davis did his rookie year. If our line can create holes for Davis to have 20 and 30 yard runs, those will be 60 and 70 yard runs for Reggie Bush. And those long runs for Davis that gave us zero touchdowns would have been touchdowns for Bush. I've never seen a guy that once he gets around the corner he is gone.

Absolutely Bush will rip off some home-runs in the NFL, but the ability is overrated and can't be compared directly to DD. The plays where DD gets 10+ are not automatic TD's or even long runs for Bush. Look back just to this last weekend. DD lived not off of out running NFL caliber players around the corner (someone name the last RB who consistantly does this in the NFL by the way) he did it by moves inside and running over multiple players to get 10+ yds. That is the way of the NFL--breaking tackles to get consistantly to the 2nd level where pure open speed field counts. The 64K question is whether Bush can break the tackles up the middle to consistantly move the chains and get to where he can display his speed. He may, but he certainly hasn't shown that ability at USC where LenDale White has the entire middle of the field as his responsibility.

TEXANS84
12-06-2005, 05:01 PM
According to NFL archives, in Tomlinson's third season the Chargers went 4-12 and ended up with the first pick in the draft. Sure he put up 1645 rushing yards (5.3 yards per carry), 725 receiving yards, and 17 total TDs, but how did that help his team win? They were the worst in the league during his best statistical season. The next season he had 1335 rushing yards (3.9 ypc), 441 receiving yards, 18 total TDs and they're 12-4 and back in the playoffs. It appears that RBs don't have to put up their best statistical seasons in order for their team to win and that there might be some other factors involved, and he only averaged 3.9 yards per carry that year too, so a RB doesn't have to average 5+ yards per carry to be effective and for their team to win.

Good post.

But, you could also spin it this way as well: Both Shaun Alexander (1388, 4.9) and Edgerrin James (1347, 4.4) are #1 and #2 respectively in rushing this season. Ironically both teams that they play for have the best records in each of their teams conference.

Hervoyel
12-06-2005, 05:02 PM
What kind of philosophy is that? "He is good, but we don't win, so draft someone else?" If only the Peyton Mannings, LaDanian Tomlinsons, and Shaun Alexanders of this league had been subjected to that kind of thinking when their teams weren't the up-and-coming powerhouses they are today. When you are losing, you look to rid yourself of the people who aren't helping you to win. Now how does Davis factor into that qualifier? That makes a lot of sense.

It's not a philosophy it's a simple observation. Domanick Davis is a nice back but nothing to get excited about. Davis gets a thousand yards and the Texans go 5-11. Davis gets a thousand yards and the Texans go 7-9. Davis gets a thousand yards and the Texans go 1-11 (so far) and his thousand yards, while nice to look at, amount to (as has already been stated) about 70 yards per game. That's nothing to get excited about. Defenses do not stay up the night before the game worrying that Domanick Davis is going to run wild all over them and they never will. Anyone who says they made a point of shutting down DD after defeating the Texans is being polite. Nothing more.

An important point to make is that the Texans are losing (as you say) and that you should look to rid yourself of players who are not helping you to win. Explain to me how Davis getting 1,100 yards for the past three seasons has helped the Texans to win?

When will you people get this through your heads? The Texans in 2002 got approximately the same useless thousand yards out of James Allen and Jonathan Wells combined and nobody was talking about how our running game was good enough. Sure we didn't have a "thousand yard back, Whoooo Hoooo!" on our team but they got a 1048 yards. The next year we got one more win and Davis ran for 1031 yards.

Yes his average was better than the guys who carried the rock the year before.

Yes the team as a whole ran the ball better (1398 yards)

No having one guy get those yards didn't change much of anything. The next year the team got better. Davis ran for a whole 157 more yards than he did the year before. That translated into one more win. Jonathan Wells could have done that if he hadn't had the stink of the 2002 season running game clinging to him.

I don't care about this anymore. You know how I feel about this and I know how you feel about it. We can both walk away from this conversation with the thought in our heads that you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink.

HJam72
12-06-2005, 05:13 PM
The shame of it is that Davis' 70 yds. per game has done more to help this team this year than anyone else, but you've made your point for sure, and he doesn't block worth a darn either. 1000 yds. is nothing at all to brag about in a 16 game season, but, at the same time, it IS adaquate and we have other positions that are NOT adequate at all. Right now, I have no idea what is best....except to fire as many coaches and GMs as possible.

tulexan
12-06-2005, 05:15 PM
Defenses do not stay up the night before the game worrying that Domanick Davis is going to run wild all over them and they never will. Anyone who says they made a point of shutting down DD after defeating the Texans is being polite. Nothing more.

That is a great point. Defenses do not have to game plan around him. I have yet to see a team make a point to completely shut him down like the way that the Eagles did to LaDanian Tomlinson. Once we have a back like that (Reggie Bush), we will be able to exploit our other weapons (AJ and Carr) and have more success. I don't see teams putting 8 in the box like they did to Jamal Lewis when he had his freakish year. They let him have his yards and then jog up and tackle him. He is good, but he will always be what he is, a run of the mill middle of the pack running back. Nothing more, nothing less.

gg no re
12-06-2005, 05:35 PM
What's the point of gameplanning against a specific player with this predictable offense.

The Texans offense is always dump off, roll out, and dive. You don't need to shut down a player when you got the playbook in front of you.

run-david-run
12-06-2005, 07:15 PM
the downside to DD is that he doesnt have the breakaway speed like Tiki Barber. 1,100 yds is good, but until he starts putting up 1,300+, then we can compare him to tiki.
He has also missed two games, that factors in, if he plays the rest of the games and plays as well as last week, he could get about 1200 yds plus 250 receiving. Not too bad against a constant 8-man box...

keyfro
12-06-2005, 07:17 PM
am i the only that isn't impressed with a runningback in this league running for just over 1000yds anymore...i'm sorry the number to reach these days is closer to 1,500yds...that's when you've arrived as a runningback in my mind...when you are in the top 5 or 6 backs in the nfl in rushing

Fiddy
12-06-2005, 07:20 PM
That is a great point. Defenses do not have to game plan around him. I have yet to see a team make a point to completely shut him down like the way that the Eagles did to LaDanian Tomlinson. Once we have a back like that (Reggie Bush), we will be able to exploit our other weapons (AJ and Carr) and have more success. I don't see teams putting 8 in the box like they did to Jamal Lewis when he had his freakish year. They let him have his yards and then jog up and tackle him. He is good, but he will always be what he is, a run of the mill middle of the pack running back. Nothing more, nothing less. I've been saying this for 2 years and was named a "Davis hater" by quite a few people...

It feels good to be right once in awhile :D

run-david-run
12-06-2005, 07:20 PM
Really is 1,100 that impressive? That averages out to about 69 yards per game. A starting running back will generally get around 20 carries a game which means you have to average 3.45 yards per carry. I know he in fact is averaging more than that (around 83 yards per game and 4 yards per carry) but that is because he gets injured every year.
OH MY GOD!!!! You want to get Reggie Bush, a guy that averages less then 15 carries a game, and your argument for this is that our RB, who gets about 25 per game in Pendry's crappy offense, is injured to often!!! Can you imagine what this would do to Bush's body, who is far leaner then DD and would break down far more often.

run-david-run
12-06-2005, 07:23 PM
I don't even consider 1,000 yards being an indicator of the presence of a running game. A player should be able to get 68 yards on 20 carries. I would say that 1,280 is a benchmark for a running game because that averages out to 80 yards per game. If you run the ball 20 times and get 80 yards it's not great but it is ok. Ideally you would like to have a guy who is closer to 5 yards per carry. I don't see Davis capable of ever averaging 5 yards per carry because I don't think he has the speed to break the long ones to counter act all of the stuffs at the line of scrimmage.
Thats the whole point. Gettting one run of 60 yds isnt going to help your team win if all of your other runs are for practically no gain or small gains. Though Bush might average closer to 5yds per carry (LT averaged 3.9 last year), it would be so inconsitent that it would not really help the team throughout the game. He gets one big one every 20 carries, but for the other 19 he would prbably go nowhere because he cant run between the tackles!!!:brickwall

tulexan
12-06-2005, 07:29 PM
What 8-man box is he constantly facing? The only person that the defenses aim to take out of the game is Andre Johnson because he is our only big playmaker.

run-david-run
12-06-2005, 07:32 PM
That is a great point. Defenses do not have to game plan around him. I have yet to see a team make a point to completely shut him down like the way that the Eagles did to LaDanian Tomlinson. Once we have a back like that (Reggie Bush), we will be able to exploit our other weapons (AJ and Carr) and have more success. I don't see teams putting 8 in the box like they did to Jamal Lewis when he had his freakish year. They let him have his yards and then jog up and tackle him. He is good, but he will always be what he is, a run of the mill middle of the pack running back. Nothing more, nothing less.
Good god!!! You say that teams dont plan for DD, but they do for LT? Why? Becasue of the numbers they are capable of putting up, right? I mean, LT will just dominate you, in fact last year, he had about 1700 yds from scrimage, incredible!! Too bad we will never get that production from our running back....oh wait, DD also happned to have 1776 yd from scrimage last year. Please tell me why defensense would plan for LT but not DD, if they put up the same numbers...:brickwall
Just because you dont see DD's runs on SportCenter dosnt mean anything..:brickwall

tulexan
12-06-2005, 07:33 PM
Actually those big runs do help because he scores touchdowns. Go look at my post in Leinart Or Bush...?Who's more valuable???. Reggie Bush's average touchdown is from 31.9 yards out. I also never said that Reggie Bush should be our only back. I think he should be mixed in all over the place either with Dominack Davis or Jonathan Wells.

run-david-run
12-06-2005, 07:33 PM
What 8-man box is he constantly facing? The only person that the defenses aim to take out of the game is Andre Johnson because he is our only big playmaker.
Yeah, they have absoultley no respect for our passing game, they just double AJ and leave the other recivers in single coverage, leaving the other safety to help out with run support...

run-david-run
12-06-2005, 07:37 PM
Actually those big runs do help because he scores touchdowns. Go look at my post in Leinart Or Bush...?Who's more valuable???. Reggie Bush's average touchdown is from 31.9 yards out. I also never said that Reggie Bush should be our only back. I think he should be mixed in all over the place either with Dominack Davis or Jonathan Wells.
yeah he scores, but its one per game (in the pros, dont expect too many more 500yd games here). The other runs where its a simple dive up the middle and there is no cutback lane, he isnt going anywhere. DD consitently gets 4-5 runs per carry, he donst have the big runs to bump up his average, but he still is around 4, that tells you he acctually gains 4 per carry, not 1, 2 ,1 0,1,3, 54,1, 10....like Bush would

There is no way our offense could sustain the drives on which Bush dosnt break through...

Then you also want to invest $40M in a player who will not be an everydown back..while having a player earning 25M sit on the bench and spell the guy getting 40M... great cap management...

tulexan
12-06-2005, 07:41 PM
Good god!!! You say that teams dont plan for DD, but they do for LT? Why? Becasue of the numbers they are capable of putting up, right? I mean, LT will just dominate you, in fact last year, he had about 1700 yds from scrimage, incredible!! Too bad we will never get that production from our running back....oh wait, DD also happned to have 1776 yd from scrimage last year. Please tell me why defensense would plan for LT but not DD, if they put up the same numbers...:brickwall
Just because you dont see DD's runs on SportCenter dosnt mean anything..:brickwall


Because LaDanian Tomlinson is a touchdown threat every time he touches the ball. Once he gets past the linebackers he is gone. Once Domanick Davis gets past the linebackers, he can be chased down by defensive tackles. If you actually think that Domanick Davis is even comparable to LaDanian Tomlinson, then you have reached a new level of homerism. That is like comparing Drew Bennett to Marvin Harrison.

tulexan
12-06-2005, 08:01 PM
yeah he scores, but its one per game (in the pros, dont expect too many more 500yd games here). The other runs where its a simple dive up the middle and there is no cutback lane, he isnt going anywhere. DD consitently gets 4-5 runs per carry, he donst have the big runs to bump up his average, but he still is around 4, that tells you he acctually gains 4 per carry, not 1, 2 ,1 0,1,3, 54,1, 10....like Bush would

There is no way our offense could sustain the drives on which Bush dosnt break through...

Then you also want to invest $40M in a player who will not be an everydown back..while having a player earning 25M sit on the bench and spell the guy getting 40M... great cap management...

Believe it or not, but he does score more than once a game. The only reason why he didn't score more is because he had to share time with LenDale White and that he breaks so many long runs that he has to rest.

Have you ever even watched Reggie Bush play? His carries aren't anything like that. He does get stuffed occasionally, but what running back doesn't. This is what I've seen from him. Him jumping over players that are trying to tackle him and remaining at full speed and balanced, players trying to tackle him but only can rip his shoe off and he still gets 15 yards. Players trying to tackle him but only can rip his sleeve off, he had a 50 yard run. Players trying to tackle him but he makes them fall over after faking them out. He is 6'0 200 right now. By the time the season starts, he will probably be around 210 or 215.

Domanick's consistent 4 yards per carry hasn't been scoring any touchdowns this year. And like Reggie Bush, Domanick Davis also gets stuffed at the line of scrimmage a lot. In fact I remember during that Rams game we couldn't sustain our lead because we couldn't rely on Domanick's consistent running to eat time off the clock. We also couldn't rely on Domanick's consistent running against the Seahawks when he had 18 carries for 40 yards.

keyfro
12-06-2005, 08:10 PM
all i needed to see of reggie bush's play was the play he made on the entire ucla defense when he hurdled on defender starting about the 8 yardline and landed into the endzone...he hurdled a 6'2'' jarrod page and ended up 3 yds into the endzone...the man is hybrid of sanders and dorsett...he will be just like marshall faulk...a hall of fame runningback...that's the end of discussion because DD is just like so many backs in this league...he'll barely break a 1,000yds every year but he won't make those jaw dropping plays whether that's running over people or juking them

eriadoc
12-06-2005, 08:36 PM
am i the only that isn't impressed with a runningback in this league running for just over 1000yds anymore...i'm sorry the number to reach these days is closer to 1,500yds...that's when you've arrived as a runningback in my mind...when you are in the top 5 or 6 backs in the nfl in rushing

Alexander never had 1500 yards rushing until last year and he was considered elite prior to that. Roger Craig topped 1500 yards once in his career and broke 1000 yards only 3 times total in his 11-year career.

I understand your point, and sure, 1000-yard seasons don't have the luster they had during the era of a 14-game schedule. But YPC average is as good an indicator of running than anything else. In the case of Craig (and most likely DD), getting 1000 yards on the ground wasn't a priority. Getting a combined 1500 yards was more important to the 49ers and that doesn't make Roger Craig any less of a great RB. There are different ways of getting from Point A to Point B, but so many people have this ideal of a 1500-yd ground gainer that gets 80-yd streaking TDs stuck in their head. It all depends on how your team utilizes you. Obviously, our team feels like utilizing DD in the passing game is making good use of his talents and given the results, I'd tend to agree.

eriadoc
12-06-2005, 08:37 PM
...the man is hybrid of sanders and dorsett...he will be just like marshall faulk...a hall of fame runningback...

Personally, I think he has a much better chance of being the next Eric Metcalf or Dave Meggett.

gg no re
12-06-2005, 09:08 PM
he'll barely break a 1,000yds every year but he won't make those jaw dropping plays whether that's running over people or juking themYes! I thought I was the only person who didn't consider Curtis Martin to be a good back!

I agree with you! Yes!

FTW!

PapaL
12-06-2005, 09:26 PM
am i the only that isn't impressed with a runningback in this league running for just over 1000yds anymore...i'm sorry the number to reach these days is closer to 1,500yds...that's when you've arrived as a runningback in my mind...when you are in the top 5 or 6 backs in the nfl in rushing

I with you one this one. 62.5 yards average for 16 games isnt much. 1500 yards is almost 94 yards a game. Anyone know the winning % of a team rushing for 100 yards a game? Bet its a whole lot more then 63 yards.

infantrycak
12-06-2005, 10:15 PM
am i the only that isn't impressed with a runningback in this league running for just over 1000yds anymore...i'm sorry the number to reach these days is closer to 1,500yds...that's when you've arrived as a runningback in my mind...when you are in the top 5 or 6 backs in the nfl in rushing

Well that certainly got a following.

How about this though--according to that standard ZERO RB's have arrived over the last two years. 5 backs reached 1500 yds in 2004, none of them were 1500 yd backs in 2003. But what about prior to that? 6 backs reached 1500 yds in 2003, two of them were 1500 yd backs in 2002. One of those was Portis who clearly was a back in an ideal system or he wouldn't have made it on his own. 4 backs reached 1500 yds in 2002, only one reached 1500 yds in 2001 (Holmes)--only 2 backs reached 1500 yds in 2001. I guess only LT has arrived as a RB.

Hervoyel
12-06-2005, 10:18 PM
He has also missed two games, that factors in, if he plays the rest of the games and plays as well as last week, he could get about 1200 yds plus 250 receiving. Not too bad against a constant 8-man box...


Right next to my statement that Davis always gains around 1,100 yards I should have added that Davis always misses a couple of games because that's automatic too and will always provide people with the "what if" scenario to use in discussions like this one.

Taking the games Davis didn't play in and working up what his numbers "woulda, coulda, shoulda" been is an excercise in futility because the day that Davis starts 16 games and is, for the most part healthy for all of them will never come. There will always be a game or two missing that would have been the game where he got the yards to make a difference.

tulexan
12-06-2005, 10:19 PM
1500 is the benchmark for elite players. Like I said earlier 1280 is what I consider a quality back because that is averaging about 80 yards per game.

infantrycak
12-06-2005, 10:21 PM
1500 is the benchmark for elite players. Like I said earlier 1280 is what I consider a quality back because that is averaging about 80 yards per game.

Well evidently there is only 1 elite RB in the league right now then if you are talking about repeat, much less consistant performance. Pretty silly to set the elite status at a level which has never been achieved for 3 years running, IMO.

Kaiser Toro
12-06-2005, 10:32 PM
but that is kind of like saying you would rather fornicate a sheep than a pig--neither one is an attractive proposition

There is a time and place for that and it is called College Station. :tomato: Thank you I will be here all night.

infantrycak
12-06-2005, 10:33 PM
There is a time and place for that and it is called College Station. :tomato: Thank you I will be here all night.

Hey now--he was just helping that sheep across the fence.

Hervoyel
12-06-2005, 10:43 PM
Well evidently there is only 1 elite RB in the league right now then if you are talking about repeat, much less consistant performance. Pretty silly to set the elite status at a level which has never been achieved for 3 years running, IMO.


I see what you're saying but I have to think that not every "elite" player is going to have an "elite" season every year. In any given year there are usually only a couple of backs for whom everything falls into place and they perform well enough to be at the top of the rushing stats. I think the capability of busting out 1,500 yards and doing it at least once and preferably a couple of times is kind of the sign of an elite RB.

A franchise back I would accept as being able to generate that 1,280-1,300 yards on a regular basis. This should be expected out of these backs.

Beneath that group you find the guys who are legitimate starters. They're the group that Davis fits in with. Get you a thousand yards, stay healthy most of the year, and contribute to the team. Some of them have long careers and some of them only have a season or two before they're replaced but the one thing these guys have in common is that they are always going to be the object of talks just like this one. Every time their team looks to be within a whiff of being able to upgrade their position this exact debate is going to start among their fans.

Fans of teams with elite backs just live in fear that their star is someday going to retire or their team will let them walk (the dreaded "retired as a Cardinal" picture pops up). Fans of teams with franchise backs just hope that the guys career lasts long enough to make some good runs at a Super Bowl and that the team assembles enough of a team around him to get it done.

Fans with teams starting servicable running backs just look with envy at the guys on top. Even if they're winning they secretly crave an upper tier running back. Sure the Patriots won a Super Bowl with Antowain Smith. It didn't stop them from getting Corey Dillon's name on a contract when they had the chance though did it? Of course it didn't and nor should the presence of Domanick Davis stop the Texans from drafting Reggie Bush if they think he really is a once every ten years kind of talent.

infantrycak
12-06-2005, 10:55 PM
A franchise back I would accept as being able to generate that 1,280-1,300 yards on a regular basis. This should be expected out of these backs.

Much more reasonable standard IMO. The only caveat I would have here is as with everything else the team around the player has to be judged for positive or negative influence. For example, it is pretty clear now that Portis was not the be all and end all on any team--just on the Broncos. Elsewhere he is a franchise RB.

Of course it didn't and nor should the presence of Domanick Davis stop the Texans from drafting Reggie Bush if they think he really is a once every ten years kind of talent.

Folks get me wrong on DD. I agree he is a solid RB who if the timing/cap/draft issues align can and should be upgraded. On the other hand, IMO the he sucks crowd urge to run him down in order to justify upgrading him is silly. May be a complete misjudgment on my part, but I don't see the once in a decade RB in Bush. When I look at LT run I see a great RB. When I see Bush run, I see a great open field runner--particularly in the man among men context of college ball. Open field runner and RB aren't the same position IMO. Plus there is the cap. But that has been discussed elsewhere.

Kaiser Toro
12-06-2005, 10:59 PM
Much more reasonable standard IMO. The only caveat I would have here is as with everything else the team around the player has to be judged for positive or negative influence. For example, it is pretty clear now that Portis was not the be all and end all on any team--just on the Broncos. Elsewhere he is a franchise RB.



Folks get me wrong on DD. I agree he is a solid RB who if the timing/cap/draft issues align can and should be upgraded. On the other hand, IMO the he sucks crowd urge to run him down in order to justify upgrading him is silly. May be a complete misjudgment on my part, but I don't see the once in a decade RB in Bush. When I look at LT run I see a great RB. When I see Bush run, I see a great open field runner--particularly in the man among men context of college ball. Open field runner and RB aren't the same position IMO. Plus there is the cap. But that has been discussed elsewhere.

Good stuff. Since we are already knee deep in this rathole, I thought I would just throw it on the table that Adrian Peterson is the best back I have seen in a long time.

Hervoyel
12-06-2005, 11:39 PM
Much more reasonable standard IMO. The only caveat I would have here is as with everything else the team around the player has to be judged for positive or negative influence. For example, it is pretty clear now that Portis was not the be all and end all on any team--just on the Broncos. Elsewhere he is a franchise RB.

Oh absolutely I agree with that.

An offense is either going to run or throw the ball when it's snapped and they had damned sure better be able to do one or the other with enough proficiency that they can "likely" advance the ball on any given play. Either you're a running team first or a passing team first. Used to be that everyone went by the "rule" that you had to establish the run to "open up" the pass though I don't know what in the world that meant because plenty of teams do the exact opposite of that.

Regardless I look at the Texans and I see that they are nowhere near being able to pass at will on other teams. On the other hand they can run some and when the line is playing well (which should be something of a constant by this point but that's a rant about Capers & Co. for another thread) they can run Davis for well over a hundred yards. I've been as guilty as anyone of saying that defenses "give" Davis his yards and that's not really fair. It's not like they're spotting him 5 yards before they bother to try and bring him down or anything like that. He runs hard and the line run blocks well.

I see Bush in that same scenario and I think we've got a team that can run first and open up the pass. I see Bush in DD's place and I see a running game that's far more dangerous than anything we've had up until now.

It's all about whether the Texans see that though. they'll probably trade down, twice, and draft another DE soon to be OLB from Eastern West Idaho Potato College or something and collect a half dozen 3rd round picks in the process (all in next years draft) that Charlie will trade away for various malcontents and underachievers who just need better coaching up to be all they can be.

tulexan
12-07-2005, 12:09 AM
Don't you think there must be something to Bush if everyone is saying that he has the potential to be one of the greatest? Not just USC fans or other fans in general, but people who really know football (former players, scouts, coaches) everyone is saying that he is going to be a highly productive professional player. I haven't heard any experts say that he will not succeed because he can't run inside. I also don't believe that he will never be able to run inside. He has improved every single year and is really working on his inside running.

Davis is a good serviceable back, but are you telling me that if you had the choice between Dominack Davis and Reggie Bush you would pick Dominack Davis? I know it would be a lot of money at one position, but if you think of it as him playing multiple positions you are spreading the hit across the board. Let's say he makes about $8 million a year (which i don't think he will). You could say that $4 million is for RB, $3 million is for WR, and $1 million is for PR.

gg no re
12-07-2005, 12:41 AM
Not everyone is saying he has potential to be one of the greatest.

My uncle Phil, who was an ex-NFL practice squad member, tells me all the time how Reggie doesn't have potential. I refuse to believe him, but he does prove your statement incorrect.

MorKnolle
12-07-2005, 07:08 AM
Aside from arguing the "everyone thinks he'll be great" because you can always find someone that won't, as a #1 pick in the draft Bush is most likely going to get a 5 year, $45 million or so contract, even if the base salary is backloaded he will earn at least $7 million his first year, and I would not want my franchise RB/WR, whatever he is on full-time punt return where he is more likely to get hurt. Maybe that's just me though.

JDizzle
12-07-2005, 07:48 AM
Don't you think there must be something to Bush if everyone is saying that he has the potential to be one of the greatest? Not just USC fans or other fans in general, but people who really know football (former players, scouts, coaches) everyone is saying that he is going to be a highly productive professional player. I haven't heard any experts say that he will not succeed because he can't run inside. I also don't believe that he will never be able to run inside. He has improved every single year and is really working on his inside running.

Davis is a good serviceable back, but are you telling me that if you had the choice between Dominack Davis and Reggie Bush you would pick Dominack Davis? I know it would be a lot of money at one position, but if you think of it as him playing multiple positions you are spreading the hit across the board. Let's say he makes about $8 million a year (which i don't think he will). You could say that $4 million is for RB, $3 million is for WR, and $1 million is for PR.

That's what you call hype. I'm not sure if you roamed the boards 2 years ago, but there was a similar over-hyping going on with Sean Taylor. You'd hear comparisons to Ronnie Lott and Steve Atwater constantly. Only then everyone wanted to trade "whatever it took" in order to move up. We ended up drafting D-Rob and tossing the rest of our 1st day picks away on an unproductive OLB. Go figure.

Texas_Thrill
12-07-2005, 08:34 AM
I was a Sean Taylorite and I admit am much happier with DROB but that's hindsight. Playing wise Sean Taylor has been a very good safety just the offfield u have to watch out for. Whooooo shot ya. lol

I think having two good backs would benefit us well honestly. I mean it would allow us a lot of flexibility on offense with formations and such.

But honestly can we really even decide on this until we figure out who are coach is going to be. I mean if we get a light up the scoreboard kind of coach then bush makes sense. If we get a grind it out bill cowher type then ferguson makes more sense and keep the DD, J wells combo.

We are getting way ahead of ourselves when we don't know what kind of coach or philosophy he wants to mold the team into.

Texans_Chick
12-07-2005, 08:57 AM
Absolutely Bush will rip off some home-runs in the NFL, but the ability is overrated and can't be compared directly to DD. The plays where DD gets 10+ are not automatic TD's or even long runs for Bush. Look back just to this last weekend. DD lived not off of out running NFL caliber players around the corner (someone name the last RB who consistantly does this in the NFL by the way) he did it by moves inside and running over multiple players to get 10+ yds. That is the way of the NFL--breaking tackles to get consistantly to the 2nd level where pure open speed field counts. The 64K question is whether Bush can break the tackles up the middle to consistantly move the chains and get to where he can display his speed. He may, but he certainly hasn't shown that ability at USC where LenDale White has the entire middle of the field as his responsibility.


Exactly. That's where I am at with this. Wish it were a only a 64K question.

Really interested to see how Bush plays against Texas.

DD had a really nice game last week. Agree with the posters that say that you can like DD but still can be interested in what Bush can do for you.

MorKnolle
12-07-2005, 09:30 AM
I was a Sean Taylorite and I admit am much happier with DROB but that's hindsight. Playing wise Sean Taylor has been a very good safety just the offfield u have to watch out for. Whooooo shot ya. lol

I think having two good backs would benefit us well honestly. I mean it would allow us a lot of flexibility on offense with formations and such.

But honestly can we really even decide on this until we figure out who are coach is going to be. I mean if we get a light up the scoreboard kind of coach then bush makes sense. If we get a grind it out bill cowher type then ferguson makes more sense and keep the DD, J wells combo.

We are getting way ahead of ourselves when we don't know what kind of coach or philosophy he wants to mold the team into.

Actually if we got a truly-Cowher type that wanted to grind it out on the run, Ferguson would not be the best choice because he isn't that good of a run blocker, he's more of a pure pass-blocker. Someone like Winston, McNeil, Joseph, or one of the other, bigger OL would be a better choice in that case.

PapaL
12-07-2005, 11:46 AM
We also have to remember here that Bush could end pulling a Willis McGahee and get injured in the championship game. While chances are good he will come out, not certain yet. Were we not suppose to draft Willis instead on AJ had it not been for the injury? So who would you prefer Willis or DD?

Coach C.
12-07-2005, 11:52 AM
I would prefer Willis before injury and DD now, because DD is more than just a running back.

rafterticket
12-07-2005, 11:54 AM
What he said... I'm a big DD fan but he just doesnt have the speed to be one of the elite backs in the NFL. I've never seen him break away from the LOS and end a play in the endzone.

DD reminds me of Emmitt Smith. I am not saying he is the heir apparrent to the rushing record - just saying his style and speed are similar. Also, no one really thought he was the guy early in his career, either. Emmitt had to hold out the second year the Cowboys beat Buffalo to get the contract he deserved.

Put a great line and a decent TE in front of DD, and he could be amazing. Right now he's only darn good.

Grid
12-07-2005, 01:50 PM
This thread is such a load of horse ****.

Edgerrin James longest run this season is 33 yards.
Thomas Jones is 42
Rudi Johnson is 26
Willis McGahee is 27
Julius Jones is 25
LaMont Jordan is 26
Deuce MacAllister is 26
Priest Holmes is 35
Brian Westbrook is 31


and Domanick Davis' longest was 44 yards.. not 29.

Davis is ranked as 12th in the league with an average of 20.8 carries a game for 83.7 yards.


You people are incredible.. seriously. You dont think our lack of a passing game has an effect on the number of long runs Davis gets? How often do we go down field? almost never. Carr has NO time in the pocket... which means he has NO time to throw for 20+ yards.. which means the opposing defense has no reason to drop back.. which means that Davis isnt gonna get many 20+ yard carries. Elementary freakin logic.

Comparing him to Tiki Barber? Barber is great.. and he does have better break away speed.. but Davis has better cut back ability..better power running.. and is better at breaking tackles. And how many TDs did Davis have last year?


WE...DO...NOT...NEED...A...NEW..RB... the only reason to take Bush is if you subscribe to the idea that he will be one of the greatest RBs of all time, and so you cant afford NOT to take him. I dont beleive that. I think he COULD be great.. or he COULD be a bust.. or..most likely..he will be a pretty good RB but not the best.

This whole "he doesnt have break away speed" is just a BAD excuse to try and get the player you are convinced will be the second coming of jesus christ. Davis gets yards.. he may not get them in 70 yard chunks..but he gets em well enough..and will do even better when we have a passing game.

I am absolutely amazed that Houston Texan "fans" would turn on one of our best and hardest working players because they have a man crush on a college player. Im not one to point fingers and claim other people arent "real" fans.. but its real hard not to in this case. Davis has worked damn hard for us and has gotten better EVERY SEASON.. he has never had an ego, or a bad attitude.. he is exactly the kind of player that you WANT on your team.. a hard worker who makes plays and understands its about the team, not the individual.

Come draft day.. I think we would do alot better for ourselves by trading down a few spots to someone who needs Bush.. pick up a couple more first day picks... and grab ourselves an elite LT.

The man-love for Taylor was bad..and the worshipping of Derrick Johnson was annoying.. but the difference then was that we were looking at elite college prospects to fill a weakness in our team.. this Bush crud is just unforgivable. After the effort that Davis has put into this team.. if we replace him now when we have SO MANY more important needs.. I hope he leaves the first chance he gets. That would just be a knife in his back from our organization... it shows a complete lack of loyalty towards our players. We are supposed to be a classy organization that takes care of, and is loyal, to our players... that would go completely against that.

That would just be unforgivable.. id be so disgusted with our front office if that happened.

tulexan
12-07-2005, 02:11 PM
How many touchdowns does Davis have?

Our workhorse needs to be getting into the endzone and this year he is showing that he can't do it. Dominack Davis is a good running back. I'm not saying that we should get rid of him, I think that our team could use another playmaker because we have such an anemic offense. Luckily for us we are at the top of the draft right now and have a chance to get one of the best playmakers to enter the draft in several years. I think both Davis and Bush would benefit from playing with each other and we would have the chance to have one of the best running attacks in the NFL (especially if Kubiak is our coach).

infantrycak
12-07-2005, 02:20 PM
Our workhorse needs to be getting into the endzone and this year he is showing that he can't do it.

This is the kind of statement that just looks like someone bashing DD to justify another play, say maybe drafting Bush, or at least ignoring reality wilfully. DD has 2 TD's this year on the ground (plus 3 in the air). AJ has one TD--does that prove he can't do it? Hey, Bradford has 3, maybe the Texans should promote him to #1 because he has proven more than anyone else on the team that he can do it. Seriously, try taking a slight step back from the active bashing campaign and looking back to just last year where the O as a whole functioned semi-decently and you find DD tied for 4th most rushing TD's by a RB last year.

Runner
12-07-2005, 02:41 PM
Seriously, try taking a slight step back from the active bashing campaign and looking back to just last year where the O as a whole functioned semi-decently and you find DD tied for 4th most rushing TD's by a RB last year.

I sure miss that offense we ran last year, and I admit that I was all for mixing in some 3 and 5 step drop type pass plays this year. I didn't realize how good we had it then.

Last year we could run and pass adequately during the same game in a lot of cases. We thought it was boring and predictable then, but look what we have now. Now we damn near celebrate if we get a rare 100 yards rushing from an RB, throw 2 deep balls a game, or score more than two touchdowns. What was our net passing yards in that game against Indy this year - 6 or 8 yards or something? But we did cut down on sacks that game - we're improving!

Could it be that part of Palmer's problem this year is that he was made to change away from his offense and install something he wasn't comfortable with? Apparently our players aren't comfortable with it either.

To think we did all this to protect the QB, who was then getting sacked at a record pace the first few games this year. Now we've castrated the offense in the name of max protect and are still nowhere near what we were last year.

This post isn't to place blame on any unit or player on the field for this season's debacle on offense. The problems are obviously deeper than that.

Now somebody may break out some stats and "prove" we haven't regressed, but it seems the old saying is true, even for a pro football offense - absence makes the heart grow fonder.

keyfro
12-07-2005, 02:51 PM
we i'm going to offer a scenario which is the main reason i am all for the texans selecting reggie bush...you have carr under center...bush and davis split in pro formation...two receivers one tight end...ok...the defense crowds the line of scrimage...so carr seeing this audibles and reggie bush takes off to the slot...and davis lines up behind carr...in this scenario we still have a really good runningback back there to run the ball if the defense changes into a pass defense...or we have bush in the slot who is just as good as a reciever as he is a runningback where carr can easily to a quick slant to him and watch him do his thing

eriadoc
12-07-2005, 02:54 PM
we i'm going to offer a scenario which is the main reason i am all for the texans selecting reggie bush...you have carr under center...bush and davis split in pro formation...two receivers one tight end...ok...the defense crowds the line of scrimage...so carr seeing this audibles and reggie bush takes off to the slot...and davis lines up behind carr...in this scenario we still have a really good runningback back there to run the ball if the defense changes into a pass defense...or we have bush in the slot who is just as good as a reciever as he is a runningback where carr can easily to a quick slant to him and watch him do his thing

Yeah! They could even redo the ESPN commercial and have Carr, Bush, and DD all lined up in the I-formation with no O-line.

Grid
12-07-2005, 03:54 PM
we could even trade up and get Adrian Peterson.. line him up at TE.. then we put in Wells at QB, Morency at Center, Hollings at WR... grab a few more RBs this year and throw them out there too.. that way we can insure that we always have the ball in an RBs hands.. making it veritably impossible for us not to score a touchdown on every play.

OR.. we can just get some freaking Olinemen for once and try having a FULLY functioning offense. Its crazy...but it just might work.

MorKnolle
12-07-2005, 03:59 PM
How many touchdowns does Davis have?



How many times has the offense been in a position to score, and when there how many times have they given Davis a legitimate chance at scoring a TD? Drafting Bush isn't going to mean we will magically have two 50+ TDs every game just because he's fast. Look how many wildly fast WRs the Saints have (Donte Stallworth, Devery Henderson, Michael Lewis, Az-Zahir Hakim, not to mention Joe Horn in there too) and look how little they score when they have no OL to block for a running game or protect the QB and when their defense can't get off the field to give the ball back to their offense?

tulexan
12-07-2005, 04:26 PM
The Saints have their own issues. They have a bad quarterback, Donte Stallworth has never lived up to his potential and doesn't have good hands, the Beer Man is starting to get a little old and is like a Dante Hall (good return man but not a great receiver), Az Hakim had one good year in his career (1999 with the Rams, but who didn't) and is a #3 receiver at best, Devery Henderson doesn't get to play much because he is in the same boat as Az Hakim, and Joe Horn is a route running WR not really a speed guy. They also don't have Deuce McAlister playing this year who is by far their best player.

I would say that the Texans haven't really had a problem moving the ball, but once they get to the red zone or just outside of the red zone, they can't capitalize on the short field. That is why we have so many field goals. They don't have any playmakers besides Andre Johnson that can spread the defense out and open the field up. This is where a playaction would be really good because if we had someone who the defense would bite on playactions for, it would open up our slot receivers and allow us to move the ball easier. That is a big factor in the Colts success. They use the playaction more than anyone. I'm sure Dominack is a great guy and a model team player, but this is a business and when you have a chance to upgrade to a player who is much better than what you currently have and are in need of another play maker, then you take him no questions asked.

There are three things that you can do, 1) trade Dominack Davis for what ever you can get for him, take the cap hit because next year is another rebuilding year anyways. 2) keep Davis and trade him next season because 2007 is an uncapped year due to the CBA. 3) keep Davis and have a good one-two punch of Davis and Bush.

rmartin65
12-07-2005, 05:01 PM
Davis just is not fast enough to be a serious threat.

edo783
12-07-2005, 05:02 PM
I wish he was faster, he would be deadly.

If he were, we wouldn't have gotten him. Would have went sooner in the draft.

infantrycak
12-07-2005, 06:50 PM
Davis just is not fast enough to be a serious threat.

Signed,

Blair Thomas, Darrell Thompson, Steve Broussard, Rodney Hampton and Dexter Carter.

Grid
12-07-2005, 07:14 PM
not fast enough my ***.

this speed issue is being blown WAY WAY WAY out of proportion. His speed is GOOD ENOUGH... the important thing is that he gets good yardage.. if he is a good RB he will get in the endzone either way.

You give him a good passing attack to keep the defense honest.. and he may not wow you with 70 yard runs.. but he will pick up great yardage with his cutback ability, and his power running.

screw speed.. ill take tried and true positive yardage.

real
12-07-2005, 07:32 PM
speed this speed that...look DD is mediocre and his stats show it...he's 15th in rushing which is is about..mediocre....he's averaging 4.0 yards per carry...mediocre...in the top 15 there is only one player averaging less than he and that is lamont jordan....

gg no re
12-07-2005, 08:13 PM
LDT averaged 3.9 ypc last year. He's pretty damn mediocre.

real
12-07-2005, 08:19 PM
are you saying DD is equal to or better than LT......
no i didn't think you were...who is dd equal to ? how many starting running backs is he better than ? or as good as ? ...Look DD is average... he's not better or as good as many starting running backs...there are some backups that would give him a run for his money...

gg no re
12-07-2005, 09:03 PM
You do know that you can't use the Denver RB staff to support that argument.

Wolf
12-07-2005, 09:47 PM
sorry to say. DD is an average back.. other teams DC do not fear him. they do not gameplan around him to stop him.. they gameplan around AJ . plain and simple. I like DD but he does not strike fear into a defense

vtech9
12-07-2005, 10:02 PM
My thoughts on this follow along the same paths as Grid. I have one question for all of you that think Davis can't compare with other RB's like Tiki, LT, Edge, and others. How do you think these other RB's would do running behind our OL?

mean mark8
12-07-2005, 10:17 PM
sorry to say. DD is an average back.. other teams DC do not fear him. they do not gameplan around him to stop him.. they gameplan around AJ . plain and simple. I like DD but he does not strike fear into a defense
I'm sorry but do you really think any defensive coordinators really need to gameplan for anyone or anything in regards to the Texans offense? Here's the gameplan: stop the run to the left, stop the 7 yard out or 7 yard slant pattern, and stop the rollout to the right by Carr. My 4 year-old can come up with a defensive "gameplan" to shut down our O. Don't blame DD for the stupidity of our offensive scheme, all 4 plays of it.

infantrycak
12-07-2005, 10:19 PM
sorry to say. DD is an average back.. other teams DC do not fear him. they do not gameplan around him to stop him.. they gameplan around AJ . plain and simple. I like DD but he does not strike fear into a defense

All evidence to the contrary this year. If the passing game was not dysfunctional, yes every team would game plan AJ (of course this year it is and most teams have game planned DD, not AJ)--shocker, he is a #3 overall pick and in anything but a dysfunctional O should be a top 3 AFC WR every year. That means every single team is going to game plan against him unless the Texans get a top 1 or 2 rusher. So let's say they do--does that make AJ an average WR because teams are now focusing on the RB?--of course not. Balanced, overall effective O wins games.

Wolf
12-07-2005, 10:20 PM
I give ya that on our playcalling, but a 7 yard slant to AJ can turn into a TD.. AJ is a gamebreaker ... DD isn't and teams know that.

I personally .. when I see DD with the ball don't get the feeling that he can take it to the distance.. with AJ I do get that feeling that something special can happen

Wolf
12-07-2005, 10:21 PM
All evidence to the contrary this year. If the passing game was not dysfunctional, yes every team would game plan AJ (of course this year it is and most teams have game planned DD, not AJ)--shocker, he is a #3 overall pick and in anything but a dysfunctional O should be a top 3 AFC WR every year. That means every single team is going to game plan against him unless the Texans get a top 1 or 2 rusher. So let's say they do--does that make AJ an average WR because teams are now focusing on the RB?--of course not. Balanced, overall effective O wins games.
very very true .. I just see that teams double AJ because the Texans have nothing else

infantrycak
12-07-2005, 10:23 PM
I give ya that on our playcalling, but a 7 yard slant to AJ can turn into a TD.. AJ is a gamebreaker ... DD isn't and teams know that.

I personally .. when I see DD with the ball don't get the feeling that he can take it to the distance.. with AJ I do get that feeling that something special can happen

AJ is a potential/underutilized star, but teams worry about DD when playing the Texans. Over three years--AJ 11 TD's, DD 27 TD's. Doesn't take away from AJ (he is vastly underutilized), but reality is teams are much more likely to get beat by DD.

Wolf
12-07-2005, 10:29 PM
AJ is a potential/underutilized star, but teams worry about DD when playing the Texans. Over three years--AJ 11 TD's, DD 27 TD's. Doesn't take away from AJ (he is vastly underutilized), but reality is teams are much more likely to get beat by DD.
you may be absolutely right on that.. but I have a feeling teams look at the texans and say " who will beat us" and it is AJ so they double AJ and know they can single coverage DD in the flats and he isn't going to beat us.. for 2 years I have felt that teams "give" us that option .. knowing Carr looks to AJ and immediately dumps to DD.. I just think they give us DD because his YAC couldn't compare to AJ .. AJ can break it open..

I am thinking more of the lines of who can be a superstar if utilized correctly and who (and nothing taking away from them) is making the most out of their talents (and OL)

tulexan
12-07-2005, 10:53 PM
My thoughts on this follow along the same paths as Grid. I have one question for all of you that think Davis can't compare with other RB's like Tiki, LT, Edge, and others. How do you think these other RB's would do running behind our OL?


LT had a terrible OL for the first 3 years of his career and he averaged 2048 total yards and 14 touchdowns per year.

MorKnolle
12-07-2005, 11:08 PM
speed this speed that...look DD is mediocre and his stats show it...he's 15th in rushing which is is about..mediocre....he's averaging 4.0 yards per carry...mediocre...in the top 15 there is only one player averaging less than he and that is lamont jordan....

15th in the entire league is only mediocre? And with our poor offensive line and teams stacking the box to stop the run?

tulexan
12-07-2005, 11:15 PM
15th is mediocre. There are 32 teams and he is ranked 15th. I guess technically the most mediocre is Cadillac Williams because he is ranked 16th out of 32 starters, but I would say give or take 4 is in the mediocre range. And again they aren't stacking the box to stop the run, they are stacking the AJ to stop our best player.

Grid
12-07-2005, 11:16 PM
apparently logic doesnt enter the equation. When you are wearing Reggie Bush tinted glasses.. every other RB sucks.

gg no re
12-07-2005, 11:19 PM
I'm wearing Reggie Bush tinted glasses right now, and I can tell you this: Eric Metcalf and Dave Meggett were WRONGED.

tulexan
12-07-2005, 11:29 PM
apparently logic doesnt enter the equation. When you are wearing Reggie Bush tinted glasses.. every other RB sucks.


Actually it seems logic doesn't enter the equation when you have homer and texas tinted glasses. Because I know that if Reggie played for any Texas team there would be no question about his skills.

MorKnolle
12-07-2005, 11:33 PM
speed this speed that...look DD is mediocre and his stats show it...he's 15th in rushing which is is about..mediocre....he's averaging 4.0 yards per carry...mediocre...in the top 15 there is only one player averaging less than he and that is lamont jordan....

LDT averaged 3.9 ypc last year. He's pretty damn mediocre.

are you saying DD is equal to or better than LT......
no i didn't think you were...who is dd equal to ? how many starting running backs is he better than ? or as good as ? ...Look DD is average... he's not better or as good as many starting running backs...there are some backups that would give him a run for his money...

The Art of Silly Arguments 101:

1) A single statistic is chosen that "proves" Domanick Davis is not a good RB, in this case that he is 14th out of the top 15 rushing RBs in yards per carry.

2) An example of one of the best two RBs in the league, in this case LaDanian Tomlinson, is brought up that contradicts this "proof" of Davis' inadequacy, as Tomlinson averaged fewer yards per carry last year than Davis is this year.

3) Angry comment shot back that person who pointed out discrepancy in the single, "all-telling" statistic, is completely wrong and is claiming that a good RB is better than one of the two best RBs in the league. This response is formed because his own logic is used against him, in this case that Davis has a higher ypc average than LT did last year, and by the original poster's logic would mean that Davis is better than Tomlinson, when in fact it is merely posted to point out the fallacy of trying to make a claim about the lack of overall skill of one player based on a single statistic.

4) Argument generally persists, not yet in this case, until participants become so exhausted with it that they give up trying to make a logical case or until the entire point of the argument is completely lost in the exchange and forgotten.

Take notes kids, this is the key to becoming a good politician.

eriadoc
12-08-2005, 12:09 AM
I just love how when you point out all the stats that clearly point to DD being among the top RBs in the NFL (check this thread (http://www.houstontexans.com/fan_zone/messageboards/showthread.php?p=218345#post218345)) the argument is "Stats lie", yet when trying to make a (very weak) case against DD, they pull out stats. It's great.

Oh, and the comments about DD breaking one and taking it to the house - Pick a RB, any RB. Go look up the stats and see how many runs over 20 yards they have. Then compare DD. Then go ahead and check 60-yarders just for fun. Yeah, there might be a few backs that can do it, but it just simply doesn't happen that often. And by the way, we have a running back on the roster with the speed to break one long at any time - Hollings. We see where that's gotten him.

Napa Auto Parts
12-08-2005, 12:45 AM
If DD is as good as some of his supporters say we should have no problem getting a 1st rounder for him. unless GM'S around the league think differently of him.

Kaiser Toro
12-08-2005, 07:32 AM
Actually it seems logic doesn't enter the equation when you have homer and texas tinted glasses. Because I know that if Reggie played for any Texas team there would be no question about his skills.

Once again time will tell. You may be right as I feel Peterson is the best thing since sliced bread, because I have seen him many times. I have only seen Bush against Pac 10 teams.

infantrycak
12-08-2005, 08:30 AM
LT had a terrible OL for the first 3 years of his career and he averaged 2048 total yards and 14 touchdowns per year.

Terrible?--compared to a non-Texan standard evidently. Folks around here are trying to act like the Texan OL is not too bad--(for the 2nd half of last season it was approaching a top half run blocking OL and what happened by the way?). That would make the San Diego OL look like an all pro set. Yeah there is a difference between run blocking and pass blocking but it isn't so great that an OL which gave up 27 sacks in 2001, 24 sacks in 2002, 29 sacks in 2003, and 19 sacks in 2004 (99 sacks in 4 years) has ANY reason to be called terrible in conjunction with an OL which has given up 216 sacks in 3.75 years. If San Diego was terrible, what the heck is that?

Simple question--would DD's stats be better behind a good OL (say like many of the elite RB's have) such as Seahawks, Denver, Kansas City, Indy?

Runner
12-08-2005, 08:46 AM
(for the 2nd half of last season it was approaching a top half run blocking OL and what happened by the way?).

Well, we ran best behind Pitts and Wand last year,* perceptions and reputation of Wade and Weigert put aside. If we leave that combination out there maybe we would have remained a successful running team, like our coaches seem to want. Pendry couldn't leave Wand out there though, since he was the scapegoat for all of last year's problems. The line's performance on all fronts certainly plummetted this year.

This is the problem with judging the line or a player by one metric, in this case sacks. It has led to our current situation - we are giving up fewer sacks than the record setting pace at the beginning of the year (WOW! Great improvement!), but we have reduced the offense to the point that it is barely capable of putting points on the board. It certainly can't put enough points up to win games for this team.


*Somebody posted a detailed post breaking down last season's running game earlier in the year, it may have been infantrycak.

BigBull17
12-08-2005, 08:55 AM
I'm sorry but do you really think any defensive coordinators really need to gameplan for anyone or anything in regards to the Texans offense? Here's the gameplan: stop the run to the left, stop the 7 yard out or 7 yard slant pattern, and stop the rollout to the right by Carr. My 4 year-old can come up with a defensive "gameplan" to shut down our O. Don't blame DD for the stupidity of our offensive scheme, all 4 plays of it.

Dont forget the 5th play, 2 step sack...

vtech9
12-08-2005, 09:21 AM
The stat that I am most interested in seeing, is how well Davis stacks up against other RB's in the league in yards after initial contact.

gg no re
12-08-2005, 09:45 AM
If DD is as good as some of his supporters say we should have no problem getting a 1st rounder for him. unless GM'S around the league think differently of him.Ask The Colts GM and the Seahawks GM what they were offered for James and Alexander.

MorKnolle
12-08-2005, 09:59 AM
If DD is as good as some of his supporters say we should have no problem getting a 1st rounder for him. unless GM'S around the league think differently of him.

No one trades a first round pick for a RB, for that matter very few trades are made in the NFL. Corey Dillon, probably one of the top 5 RBs in the league at the time, was traded for the last pick in the 2nd round a couple years ago. Teams are not willing to trade off a first round pick for a player, and usually it would require a player great enough that the other team would not be willing to offer. It just doesn't happen in the NFL.

The stat that I am most interested in seeing, is how well Davis stacks up against other RB's in the league in yards after initial contact.

I would be interested to see this statistic as well. Do they post that anywhere?

Doug
12-08-2005, 10:15 AM
DD was a 4th round pick (if I remember correctly) and has been more than what I thought he would ever turn out to be. I sit up on the couch every time he gets the ball just to see what he's going to do because I enjoy watching him run and the way he goes about it, his feet never stop. So many times I've watched him run into a pile and think, man it's either a no gain or 1 yarder, then he pops his head out the other side of the pile for a 3 or 4 yard gain. He's constantly made something out of nothing and to me that's more important than a speedy back who needs a gaping hole (Which you don't get often with this Oline) to run through to get a 99 yard td (Enters Sarcasm). Let's face it, with this lines inconsistant run blocking and pass blocking we need someone who can help carry the load and he does that. The argument is constantly made that if Carr had time to throw the ball imagine what he could do and I believe the same could be said for DD as far as run blocking is concerned. We have games where he's got holes and cut back lanes all day but then there's times that he would need a sledge hammer to break through the wall in front of him. This is a good kid and in my opinion a great back for this team. Every time I hear or read someone interview him and ask a quetion on how he feels about something his response is always, "I'll do whatever this team needs me to do to make us a better team and help us win". If our line shapes up and we actually start having a passing game you will see DD turn 1300 yards or more in a season. Will he break off a 60 yard run and take it to the house? Probably not, but he will be consistant and he'll help get us where we need to be. Sometimes I think fans expect everyone on their team to be a highlight reel and that's just not going to happen.

eriadoc
12-08-2005, 10:49 AM
DD was a 4th round pick (if I remember correctly) and has been more than what I thought he would ever turn out to be. I sit up on the couch every time he gets the ball just to see what he's going to do because I enjoy watching him run and the way he goes about it, his feet never stop. So many times I've watched him run into a pile and think, man it's either a no gain or 1 yarder, then he pops his head out the other side of the pile for a 3 or 4 yard gain. He's constantly made something out of nothing and to me that's more important than a speedy back who needs a gaping hole (Which you don't get often with this Oline) to run through to get a 99 yard td (Enters Sarcasm). Let's face it, with this lines inconsistant run blocking and pass blocking we need someone who can help carry the load and he does that. The argument is constantly made that if Carr had time to throw the ball imagine what he could do and I believe the same could be said for DD as far as run blocking is concerned. We have games where he's got holes and cut back lanes all day but then there's times that he would need a sledge hammer to break through the wall in front of him. This is a good kid and in my opinion a great back for this team. Every time I hear or read someone interview him and ask a quetion on how he feels about something his response is always, "I'll do whatever this team needs me to do to make us a better team and help us win". If our line shapes up and we actually start having a passing game you will see DD turn 1300 yards or more in a season. Will he break off a 60 yard run and take it to the house? Probably not, but he will be consistant and he'll help get us where we need to be. Sometimes I think fans expect everyone on their team to be a highlight reel and that's just not going to happen.


What he said.

eriadoc
12-08-2005, 10:54 AM
I would be interested to see this statistic as well. Do they post that anywhere?

I did some searching and evidently, STATS, Inc. tracked it and published it for one year (1998), but they have not since. Nonme of the standard statistics sites track this stat, even though they track some pretty outlandish stats.

In 1998, some of the names that popped out at me from the top 10 were Natrone Means (led the league with something like 2.76 YAC avg), Jamal Anderson (was his 1800-yd. season, Terrell Davis, Emmitt Smith, and Barry Sanders. The range of the top 10 was roughly 2.15 YAC average to 2.76, FWIW.

There are times when DD does very well with the YAC, and for the most part, I think he's pretty good at breaking arm tackles and squirting forward between defenders to get that extra yard or two. There are other times where he'd have to have a sledgehammer, as the above poster said. DD gets pretty good YAC, but he gets it differently than someone like Bettis.

Hervoyel
12-08-2005, 11:10 AM
Actually it seems logic doesn't enter the equation when you have homer and texas tinted glasses.

Actually combination homer and texans tinted glasses don't exist. That's a common misconception that people have. To date nobody has been able to combine the two in a small emough packed to work with glasses.

Right now the the closest you can get is a big ol' helmet with a "Homer Visor" (patent pending) that trails about ten foot of cables and prevents the wearer from not only seeing things but also renders them incapable of hearing the truth. They're available at Acadamy and Oshmans.

As big and awkward as they are I thought they would never sell but then I come on to this board and from the look of things they are obviously doing a booming business.

gg no re
12-08-2005, 11:14 AM
I don't get it.

tulexan
12-08-2005, 11:50 AM
Actually combination homer and texans tinted glasses don't exist. That's a common misconception that people have. To date nobody has been able to combine the two in a small emough packed to work with glasses.

Right now the the closest you can get is a big ol' helmet with a "Homer Visor" (patent pending) that trails about ten foot of cables and prevents the wearer from not only seeing things but also renders them incapable of hearing the truth. They're available at Acadamy and Oshmans.

As big and awkward as they are I thought they would never sell but then I come on to this board and from the look of things they are obviously doing a booming business.

My bad, but people have those.

gg no re
12-08-2005, 01:04 PM
My homer visor is small and compact, and fits in my pocket.

Doug
12-08-2005, 01:04 PM
Call it what you will but I don't see how either side is right or wrong. One person states their opinion then backs it up with stats , then a person with a difference in opinion states theirs and backs it up with stats. You can claim people aren't listening to the truth yet there's truths from both sides just difference in opinions on how the truths are used. Once people make up their opinion (mind) and feel they've justified why it is what it is it's hard to sway them any other way.

Hervoyel
12-08-2005, 01:12 PM
Call it what you will but I don't see how either side is right or wrong. One person states their opinion then backs it up with stats , then a person with a difference in opinion states theirs and backs it up with stats. You can claim people aren't listening to the truth yet there's truths from both sides just difference in opinions on how the truths are used. Once people make up their opinion (mind) and feel they've justified why it is what it is it's hard to sway them any other way.

So true. The one thing that's important is that whether you think the Texans should tank every game to get Reggie Bush or win out, turn the corner, and trade down for more picks is that pretty much everyone here (with the exception of the odd troll from time to time) wants the Texans to improve. We just have different ideas about how to make that come to pass.

And also I'm right....all of you other guys who don't agree with me are wrong.

:neener:

Grid
12-08-2005, 02:12 PM
Ive got nothing against Bush.. I want that #1 pick as bad as the biggest Bush groupie.. I just want it for different reasons.

We dont NEED another RB.. thats a fact..not an opinion. We are NOT hurting at RB.. Davis and Wells do their job well and will do even better when the rest of our offense functions properly. The ONLY reason to get Bush is because A) you have a man-crush on him, or B) You feel that he is the next Barry Sanders.

With option A.. there is no amount of logic that would change your mind. Stats, facts, team loyalty, nothing will pry your mind from the thought of your boy in Steel Blue and Battle Red. Option B though.. I would think that these people would understand that there is no "sure thing" in the draft.. and it would be a reckless move to waste a #1 pick on a RB when it is probably the ONE position on our team that there is really NO reason to draft anyone at.

I want the #1 pick so that we can seduce some team that needs a QB or RB to trade the farm to us so they can get Lienart or Bush... thus allowing us to grab a number of players on the first day..and increase our chances of getting a playmaker at a position where we really need one.

Porky
12-08-2005, 02:14 PM
I think the biggest lesson of this thread is this. Stats are for losers. This isn't baseball people. Try watching the games with objectivity, and it will tell you everything you need to know. and not just Texans games. Want to know why LT and DD don't compare? Watch the freaking games. I don't need an encyclipedia to tell me the sun is orange, I just go out and look at it.

How many of you have even looked at Bush critically? Or do you mimic what all the so-called experts say? He can't run between the tackles huh. How come almost every carry he had last week was between the tackles? He isn't big or strong enough? Well, how come I saw him dragging piles of guys 5 yards down the field, breaking tackles left and right, etc. He isn't durable. How many times has he been injured again? He can only carry the ball a max of 15 times a game. Ever heard of Lendale White, a likely 1st round pick? This goes on and on, but I tire easily, so I will leave you with these famous parting words of Conficous- Man who fly upside down have crack up.

Grid
12-08-2005, 02:18 PM
Watching games has shown me that DD is a more than servicable back for this team.. and that we need to look at players we actually need.

Doug
12-08-2005, 02:25 PM
The only reason you say it's a fact is because it's YOUR opinion. LOL ...Sorry I thought that was funny.

I happen to agree with you Grid. I like Reggie Bush but I just don't see the need for him other than extra draft picks, not to mention the fact that we have capable backs without the big price tag and are established NFL players.

infantrycak
12-08-2005, 02:26 PM
Simple question--would DD's stats be better behind a good OL (say like many of the elite RB's have) such as Seahawks, Denver, Kansas City, Indy?

Funny how this question hangs out there unanswered even by the Luddites who just know what they see.

Of course the run, run, pass people didn't need any stats or encylopedias either--would have proven them demonstrably wrong.

tulexan
12-08-2005, 02:28 PM
You shouldn't look at Reggie Bush as just a RB. If this was DeAngelo Williams or Laurence Maroney I would agree with you that we don't need him, but Reggie Bush is more than just a RB. He is an offensive playmaker. He is kind of like what Ted Ginn Jr. was last year. You spread him out over various positions on offense and special teams and he gives you explosive speed and touchdown potential. You can play him at RB, you can play him in the slot, you can play him out wide, you can play him on punt returns, or you can play him on kick returns. He is a swiss army knife kind of player that you can use almost everywhere. We have only a few playmakers on this team and a bad offense. All indications are that we are going to try to be a more offensive oriented team next year, so why not add arguably one of the best offensive weapons to come out of the draft in ten or more years. We can solidify our offensive line and our defense through the rest of the draft and free agency. We can't add a playmaker like Reggie Bush through the rest of the draft and free agency.

cadahnic
12-08-2005, 02:28 PM
Infantry I am going to go with yes they would be better. One we would be winning more games and would not have to result to as much passing in the later quarters and as I watch Larry Johnson not get hit until he has already gained two or three yards I wonder what if.

infantrycak
12-08-2005, 02:33 PM
you can play him on punt returns, or you can play him on kick returns. He is a swiss army knife kind of player that you can use almost everywhere.

Good idea, let's yank Mathis (at league minimum) from KR's where he averages 30.8 ypr and put in Bush at $9+ mil to average 17 ypr like he does this year in college. You know the thing about swiss army knives?--they do tons of stuff, and none of it as well as the real tools they are trying to replace.

tulexan
12-08-2005, 02:35 PM
You don't need to have one guy back there returning kicks. In fact most have two guys (one on the left, one on the right)

Grid
12-08-2005, 02:42 PM
With Mathis' production.. id rather just leave him out there to shag all the kicks.

Runner
12-08-2005, 02:42 PM
I hope everyone braces themselves when draft day comes along. A lot of this "draft Bush because Davis isn't good enough vs. trade the pick and get a tackle and a tight end for Davis to work with" talk is going to come to a halt like it hit brick wall if and when the Texans draft for defense.

eriadoc
12-08-2005, 02:43 PM
We can solidify our offensive line and our defense through the rest of the draft and free agency.

This is where you are completely wrong, and it's a shame that this viewpoint keeps getting thrown out there like it's reality. There was a thread (from Vinny, I believe) that listed all the available offensive linemen coming out in free agency this year. ONE (1) of them is a starting left tackle, and that's LJ Shelton. The same LJ Shelton that the Cardinals gave up on and the same LJ Shelton that we evidently passed over in favor of Victor Riley. He plays for the Browns this year and I'd be very surprised if they made a concerted effort to re-sign him. I made a post a couple weeks ago that showed every starting left tackle in the NFL this year and with a couple exceptions, all the teams that have a good offense have a left tackle that they drafted in the first round. The few exceptions were teams that are either grooming their LT of the future at RT this year, got lucky on a later round pick, or their offense sucks. The two notable quality left tackles that were taken after the first round are Matt Light, NE (out injured, but very good) and Marvel Smith, PIT. So this notion that we can fix the line in free agency or later in the draft is wrong. Sure, we might get lucky and find our future left tackle in the second round or later, but history shows that it doesn't happen that often.

Sometimes you just have to make smart football decisions and forego the flashy picks. This team needs a tackle that can play either tackle position WAY more than they need a running back. History shows that franchise-grade tackles come out of the first round.

infantrycak
12-08-2005, 02:49 PM
I hope everyone braces themselves when draft day comes along. A lot of this "draft Bush because Davis isn't good enough vs. trade the pick and get a tackle and a tight end for Davis to work with" talk is going to come to a halt like it hit brick wall if and when the Texans draft for defense.

If the Texans stay at #1, by all means they should take Bush--he is the bpa at that spot. Don't know of any D player that would be worth the #1 pick.

stevo3883
12-08-2005, 02:54 PM
the one thing i hate is people who sit there and tell people theyre wrong when all they are going off of is their opinion. thats all anyone is going off of, opinions.


Its my opinion that Bush could help this team more than a rookie LT could. At hb Bush and Davis would split carries, hopefully reducing davis' constant injuries, while keeping bush fresh for his huge runs. Bush is also versatile and can help in the passing game by taking pressure off AJ by lining in the slot.


you can sit and deny it all u want, but the fact remains that this offense is weak, very weak. our wr's are still going to be bad, LT or no.

this team needs playmakers, even the most anti-bush can proly agree to that. we have no one the defense fears other than AJ. Bush would finally give us another threat, something teams would acutally have to respect.


Bush could open up the passing game, and would improve the running game, more than a rookie LT could.

Runner
12-08-2005, 03:02 PM
If the Texans stay at #1, by all means they should take Bush--he is the bpa at that spot. Don't know of any D player that would be worth the #1 pick.

I don't know of one either. What I really expect is for them to trade the pick for a proven defensive player and a later first rounder (and maybe some later round picks). However, that is just my opinion based on nothing.

I believe that the defense is in worse shape than the offense, and a good coach can do more to improve the offense than the defense. I guess that translates to that I think both units are poorly coached but the offense has more talent.

cadahnic
12-08-2005, 03:07 PM
Runner I do agree that they will likely trade down in order to pick up a first next year and a second or third this year. If they can really swindle someone they might be able to grab some fourths this year and next. kinda like an Eli deal eventhough I cannot imagine someone wanting Bush since unlike Eli he cannot create for himself.

tulexan
12-08-2005, 03:10 PM
the one thing i hate is people who sit there and tell people theyre wrong when all they are going off of is their opinion. thats all anyone is going off of, opinions.


Its my opinion that Bush could help this team more than a rookie LT could. At hb Bush and Davis would split carries, hopefully reducing davis' constant injuries, while keeping bush fresh for his huge runs. Bush is also versatile and can help in the passing game by taking pressure off AJ by lining in the slot.


you can sit and deny it all u want, but the fact remains that this offense is weak, very weak. our wr's are still going to be bad, LT or no.

this team needs playmakers, even the most anti-bush can proly agree to that. we have no one the defense fears other than AJ. Bush would finally give us another threat, something teams would acutally have to respect.


Bush could open up the passing game, and would improve the running game, more than a rookie LT could.

Finally, someone with some sense

eriadoc
12-08-2005, 03:12 PM
the one thing i hate is people who sit there and tell people theyre wrong when all they are going off of is their opinion. thats all anyone is going off of, opinions.


Its my opinion that Bush could help this team more than a rookie LT could. At hb Bush and Davis would split carries, hopefully reducing davis' constant injuries, while keeping bush fresh for his huge runs. Bush is also versatile and can help in the passing game by taking pressure off AJ by lining in the slot.


you can sit and deny it all u want, but the fact remains that this offense is weak, very weak. our wr's are still going to be bad, LT or no.

this team needs playmakers, even the most anti-bush can proly agree to that. we have no one the defense fears other than AJ. Bush would finally give us another threat, something teams would acutally have to respect.


Bush could open up the passing game, and would improve the running game, more than a rookie LT could.


Well, OK, I can go with that. Perhaps I worded it a bit harshly. My opinion, however, is that we've had poor line play for the duration of this franchise's existence. I think most would agree with me. My research (and you can go check it if you like) shows that getting a franchise-caliber LT is going to take a 1st-round pick, barring some unforeseen circumstance. Since a rookie LT is not going to help this team, when exactly do you propose we go out and draft our left tackle? Or perhaps you think that we should go after one in free agency. If so, go ahead and go back and look at how many solid left tackles have left their team in the last 20 years. They don't, unless they are no longer effective. There is one exception I can think of - Willie Roaf. He left the Saints, who tought (along with most of the rest of the league) that his career was over due to injury. I believe it was Roaf who failed a physical for the Texans and Boselli passed, go figure.

The point is, you have to draft and develop a tackle at some point. Every single year there is going to be a player that fans are going to want more than a left tackle. Who the heck wants to watch a left tackle? Until these fans get it in their head that football is won and lost on the offensive and defensive line, they'll never understand this viewpoint. If we had Reggie Bush on this team for the duration of this season, we'd still be 1-11. OK, maybe I'll give you 2-12 on some freak run that he'd make, getting the game winning TD or something. Our team sucks because our offensive line is not, and never has been good. A better offensive line would have such an incredible trickle-down effect, we'd be leaps and bounds better than we are. Fix the O-line starting in the off-season and get some coaches in here that can utilize the talent we have and we will be on the cusp of a playoff spot.

Draft Bush, and we'll still be missing that LT that we need like Walter Jones, Orlando Pace, Jon Ogden, Tarik Glenn, John Tait, Levi Jones, Luke Petitgout, Tra Thomas, Bryant McKinnie, etc. None of those names make the SportsCenter highlights, but those are the guys that win football games. You hear about Shaun Alexander, but it's really Walter Jones, R. Tobeck, and Hutchinson paving the way for him.

Hervoyel
12-08-2005, 03:14 PM
That's why I advocate taking Bush with pick #1 and then trading back up into the first to get one of the LT's much like we did to get Babin after we selected Dunta Robinson.

That only makes sense if you do not believe that our team is anywhere near as bad as it appears right now. If, like myself you think that our primary problem is not necessarily personnel or personnel aquisition but rather coaching and player development then you aren't looking at this draft as a "must leverage our position to fill 8-10 holes right away kind of draft.

The thing is I don't draft Reggie Bush to return kicks or punts. I draft Reggie Bush to be my starting RB because I believe that he is (as Grid said in option B) the next amazing running back that you will be kicking yourself forever over letting get away.

Only time will tell if I'm right but in my nightmare world I see the Texans making a trade with Tennessee where we "fleece" them of their first day picks and then watch Reggie Bush run all over us for the next ten years. That is of course a worst case scenario but if the Texans pass on him and all of the people talking "next Gayle Sayers" kind of hype are proven right then I'll be sick to my stomach and so will many of you.

You either believe he's going to be great or you don't and until he proves it either way there's really no difference between those who think he's going to be the next Barry Sanders and those who have a man crush on him. Choices A and B are identical for all practical purposes until he "walks the walk" in the NFL.

cadahnic
12-08-2005, 03:15 PM
OK so Bush is the number 1 pick at let's make it cheap and say 40M. He is going to play WR for us not to mention situational RB and maybe 3rd down back. He is then going to return kicks and punts, putting a great returner in Mathis even farther down on the bench. Then at 5'11" 190-195 he is going to hold up to all this work. This is not an opinion but just an observation of what the Bushians want out of Reggie Bush. Look I think he is a great college back(not the best playmaker in 5 years though) but no one guy can turn around a franchise other than a stud QB.

tulexan
12-08-2005, 03:18 PM
No you draft Bush with the first pick and then draft either Jonathan Scott, Marcus McNeil, Winston Justice, or any other of the extremely deep Tackles this year. Or you could go for a guard like Max Jean Gilles or Davin Joseph. Just like last year was the year of the running back and the year before was the year of the wide receiver, this is the year of the OL.

gg no re
12-08-2005, 03:18 PM
I think Denver would make a good supportive case. They lose and gain more 1000 yard backs in five seasons than some other franchise during their existence, yet they've always found a way to maintain a healthy running game.

eriadoc
12-08-2005, 03:20 PM
That's why I advocate taking Bush with pick #1 and then trading back up into the first to get one of the LT's much like we did to get Babin after we selected Dunta Robinson.

That only makes sense if you do not believe that our team is anywhere near as bad as it appears right now. If, like myself you think that our primary problem is not necessarily personnel or personnel aquisition but rather coaching and player development then you aren't looking at this draft as a "must leverage our position to fill 8-10 holes right away kind of draft.

Now see, I can get behind this idea. If you think Eric Winston, for instance, is still going to be available somewhere around 20, then grab Bush and trade up. I have nothing against Bush at all - I just know that this team needs OT, OG, CB, safety, and a LB way before it needs a running back. Given that he's supposed to be this awesome talent, I can understand wanting to take him where he's available - just not at the expense of the future of the team. You have to fix this O-line and Winston or Ferguson would start at tackle for this team next year; I have no doubt.

Of course, then you have Casserly trading away his next 73 picks to get back into the first round, but that's a different discussion.

cadahnic
12-08-2005, 03:22 PM
gg I know you are not about to bring up the fact that Denver has a solid O-line and that is why they are successful cause that may take away from some of the Bush steam. It is strange that on the poll for Bush or trade down so we can fill some of the glaring holes(which coaching cannot fix) the latter of the options prevailed.

Hervoyel
12-08-2005, 03:22 PM
OK so Bush is the number 1 pick at let's make it cheap and say 40M. He is going to play WR for us not to mention situational RB and maybe 3rd down back. He is then going to return kicks and punts, putting a great returner in Mathis even farther down on the bench. Then at 5'11" 190-195 he is going to hold up to all this work. This is not an opinion but just an observation of what the Bushians want out of Reggie Bush. Look I think he is a great college back(not the best playmaker in 5 years though) but no one guy can turn around a franchise other than a stud QB.

Not in my world. In my world he's my starting RB who can be sent into the slot and may, from time to time see a couple of plays at WR. Anyone saying "Reggie Bush need to be returning kicks for us" must have stopped watching the Texans when the losing started getting heavy and missed Jerome Mathis. I wouldn't sit him down for anything.

I expect the Texans to put some more meat on his frame and I would be content to leave it to their judgement as to how much more he can weigh and still be effective. I don't think 210-215 is out of the question but we'll have to wait and see.

Kaiser Toro
12-08-2005, 03:24 PM
I believe that the defense is in worse shape than the offense, and a good coach can do more to improve the offense than the defense. I guess that translates to that I think both units are poorly coached but the offense has more talent.

I respectfully do not agree. I think we have a nice mix of speed, youth, talent and veterans. A new philosophy, in my opinion, will go much further on the defensive side of the ball. I think our offensive woes go much deeper.

eriadoc
12-08-2005, 03:25 PM
No you draft Bush with the first pick and then draft either Jonathan Scott, Marcus McNeil, Winston Justice, or any other of the extremely deep Tackles this year. Or you could go for a guard like Max Jean Gilles or Davin Joseph. Just like last year was the year of the running back and the year before was the year of the wide receiver, this is the year of the OL.

IF any of those guys mentioned grade out to be a starting left tackle, then sure, do that. As I said above, very few left tackles come from anywhere lower than the first round and this is a fact that anyone here can easily verify at drafthistory.com with a little bit of research. As far as guard goes, we need one, but not as bad as we need a tackle. There are plenty of guards that come from the middle rounds. Tackles with good feet are just not that common.

cadahnic
12-08-2005, 03:26 PM
Eriadoc you are one of my new Board homies. You brought up the fact that Winston should be our target. He locks down the bookends and then we can use FA and current players to solidify the inside. We then have a line. Then the rest of the draft we shore up our porous defense and add a playmaker later in the draft. Think about this say we get Arizona, NO, or Detroit next year pick in the trade down. Then we could possibly have two high to mid picks for next year. Wait there is a couple of RBs in college now that are sophmores that will be called the best in years. AP comes to mind. Then if the pundits really want a RB we have two first rounders to entice someone to play for him next year. Give me a legitimate Runner comparable to Shaun Alexander and LT over a fast scat back that is a jack of some trades.

Runner
12-08-2005, 03:28 PM
I respectfully do not agree. I think we have a nice mix of speed, youth, talent and veterans. A new philosophy, in my opinion, will go much further on the defensive side of the ball. I think our offensive woes go much deeper.

Interesting.

I had no doubt that there would be disagreement though. That is why this board is going to be brutal come draft day and with every free agent signing or Texan player cut.

eriadoc
12-08-2005, 03:32 PM
I am not really Anti-Bush. I just know that this team's trench play, along with a few coaching issues, are the biggest reasons this team is so bad. If we could have our cake and eat it too, then I'd be ecstatic. I don't see it happening that way, which means you have to make a choice and if we continue to try and build from the outside and continue to try and use other teams' linemen leftovers, we'll continue to lose. I'd like to be in a position where upgrading DD is really a concern, but we're not. Upgrading OT, OG, maybe center, maybe safety, for sure LB, for sure cornerback ... these are all more important at this point, IMO.

Hervoyel
12-08-2005, 03:36 PM
Of course, then you have Casserly trading away his next 73 picks to get back into the first round, but that's a different discussion.

Yeah, you have to watch Casserly because he can get a little weird on you in a hurry but the idea I think is sound. Originally I was thinking more along the lines of trading Domanick in that deal (again, stay with me on this because I admit you have to be entirely sold on Bush to think this makes sense) and maybe getting out with Davis, your #2 and one of your #3's which would still leave you with 3 day one picks (two first rounders and a third rounder) but considering the deal Davis just got from the Texans that isn't going to happen.

Now it's more of a thing where we come out of day one with two players in all likelyhood unless we can give the other team a 3 in next years draft or something along those lines. Casserly seems good at collecting picks so the idea of trading a future draft choice doesn't bother me too much. We always seem to collect one or two extra picks every year. Plus in this version you do get to keep Domanick Davis.

eriadoc
12-08-2005, 04:03 PM
I respectfully do not agree. I think we have a nice mix of speed, youth, talent and veterans. A new philosophy, in my opinion, will go much further on the defensive side of the ball. I think our offensive woes go much deeper.

Interesting.

I had no doubt that there would be disagreement though. That is why this board is going to be brutal come draft day and with every free agent signing or Texan player cut.

Maybe I am a bit too optimistic, but I think you're both right. I don't think the offense or defense is that far away from being respectable. On offense, get an OT and hope Pitts can play the other tackle spot and maybe a guard or center (depends on Hodgdon and Wiegert). We're not too bad on skill position players - DD is a solid back, if not as spectacular as some would like, AJ/Gaffney/Mathis/Armstrong brings a nice blend of talents to the field, Morris is fine at FB. We do need a TE badly. But really, two legitimate players would go a long way to fixing the offense (well, and new coaches, but that's a given). On defense, there is a nice combination of youth and speed, but they have been misdirected to a point and locker room leadership, for what it's worth, has been lacking. Add a safety and corner, and a LB because Wong's not going to be 100%, and defense can be effective, with proper scheming.

These moves should get us back to the middle of the pack and put the players in position to make plays and show their true talent. That will determine how much higher than mediocre we might be.

MorKnolle
12-08-2005, 04:23 PM
I think the biggest lesson of this thread is this. Stats are for losers. This isn't baseball people. Try watching the games with objectivity, and it will tell you everything you need to know. and not just Texans games. Want to know why LT and DD don't compare? Watch the freaking games. I don't need an encyclipedia to tell me the sun is orange, I just go out and look at it.


Technically the sun isn't orange, and if you've really been looking at it then you probably then you probably are blind or at least have impaired vision. Anyways, that had nothing to do with the rest of the thread.

stevo3883
12-08-2005, 04:27 PM
Maybe I am a bit too optimistic, but I think you're both right. I don't think the offense or defense is that far away from being respectable. On offense, get an OT and hope Pitts can play the other tackle spot and maybe a guard or center (depends on Hodgdon and Wiegert). We're not too bad on skill position players - DD is a solid back, if not as spectacular as some would like, AJ/Gaffney/Mathis/Armstrong brings a nice blend of talents to the field, Morris is fine at FB. We do need a TE badly. But really, two legitimate players would go a long way to fixing the offense (well, and new coaches, but that's a given).



well, say we draft some olinemen, they arent going to be very good next year, or the year after that. myabe by year 3 well have an alright line, but well still have the same mediocre skill players.

our WR situation is pretty bad, the beginning of the year we thought we had good depth, but it turned out to be a bunch of #3 or #4 receivers and no #2 guy.

eriadoc
12-08-2005, 04:49 PM
well, say we draft some olinemen, they arent going to be very good next year, or the year after that. myabe by year 3 well have an alright line, but well still have the same mediocre skill players.

our WR situation is pretty bad, the beginning of the year we thought we had good depth, but it turned out to be a bunch of #3 or #4 receivers and no #2 guy.

Well, again, all I really have to go by (any of us, really) is history. History shows that when tackles are taken in the first round, they often end up starting for the team that drafted them their first year, often at RT. With a year or two, they've moved to LT and they really start to get their feet under them. If our rookie tackle is better than Victor Riley then we've already upgraded without him even learning the nuances of the position. And I think that's very realistic. All the same, you have to start that three year process at some point, right? I have yet to see a better suggestion. The only alternative anyone mentions is free agency, but there are no tackles available in free agency this year, or for that matter, most of the past 20 years. Good teams are not built overnight and this team will be no different. Our current head office has already sacrificed out first four years of building by crafting this team from the outside-in. I'll give you Peyton, Edge, Harrison, and Bush with this offensive line and although they'd likely be better than our top4 offensive players, they would not make the playoffs.

It's not a sexy, popular choice, but this team has to build their lines up. Once they do that, ANY skill position player will be put into the best position to succed, whether it be Trent Dilfer, Stan Humphries, Jim Plunkett, Steve Young, Drew Bledsoe, etc. The sooner we start that process, the sooner we can get to the business of winning games.

Kaiser Toro
12-08-2005, 04:53 PM
Did anyone notice that Davis is tracking for Over 1,100 yards? :)

Big B Texan Fan
12-08-2005, 05:01 PM
I've been reading all this draft speculation and I've got to say it's all capable of working simply because this draft will have several great players come out of it, unlike last years draft.

The only thing I want to see is that if we do trade down we do it twice. Once down to a team in the 4-8 range in exchange for their 1st of course as well as their #2 and possibly their #3 or #4 or maybe even just the 2nd and then their #1 next year. Then we trade down again to a team in the late teens to early 20's in exchange for their #2 and #3 (or #4). Then we are looking at multiple pix. Don't forget that we've got 2 #3's already this year. Then we'll be in a situation where we could have 7-8 first day pix.

I'm not too worried about who we get, one guy is not going to fix everything. I'm more concerned about getting some new competitive youth in here.

And no more drafting projects from small schools or guys to play out of their collegiate position. That rarely works and we are in no position to doddle around with a guy who we think can linebacker in the pros merely because he was a great DE. I'm not saying that it doesn't work, it's just that we don't have time to groom 4-5 guys to play a new position (Babin,Lord,Peek,Orr,Ochanalu) Orr is pretty good though.

But it would be nice to see Bush in a Texans uniform.

Grid
12-08-2005, 05:36 PM
if you want to get philosophical about it.. sure.. its an opinion. Hell.. there ARE no facts really.. just accepted opinions.

Now.. you say that my comment of "we dont need another RB" is an opinion. Give me one good reason?

Lack of breakaway speed? DD has as much speed as half the other RBs in the league.. and its a proven fact(or opinion) that an RB doesnt need to be able to take it to the house every time he gets the ball to be effective.

So tell me.. if my comment is an opinion.. why is that? Is it because you refuse to think that we dont need Bush, or do you have a REAL reason.

stevo3883
12-08-2005, 08:14 PM
Now.. you say that my comment of "we dont need another RB" is an opinion. Give me one good reason?

.


i already gave a long reason why, jesus christ, did you not even read what i said?

tulexan
12-08-2005, 08:27 PM
IF any of those guys mentioned grade out to be a starting left tackle, then sure, do that. As I said above, very few left tackles come from anywhere lower than the first round and this is a fact that anyone here can easily verify at drafthistory.com with a little bit of research. As far as guard goes, we need one, but not as bad as we need a tackle. There are plenty of guards that come from the middle rounds. Tackles with good feet are just not that common.


What is the difference between a guy who is drafted 32 and a guy who is drafted 33? Nothing. We will most likely have the first and 33rd pick. So why is an OT that is drafted by the Colts or what ever team that is going to be the Super Bowl champs going to be a much better success than a player who is drafted one pick later?

Also, some of these OT's or OG's would be 1st round picks if it weren't such a deep draft for linemen.

By your research about the history of success of linemen and where they were drafted, it would mean that Marcus McNeil would have a better chance of being successful if the Colts picked him instead of a defensive player rather than the Texans picking immediately after them.

I see what you are trying to say that good linemen and left tackles in particular are hard to come by and that the cream of the crop are picked early, but this is an unusually strong linemen draft. Some of the tackles who would be top tackles in other drafts are the 3rd or 4th best this year. Jonathan Scott for example was named to first team all american team and on a lot of draft boards he is behind D'Brick, Winston, McNeil, and Justice. Then behind the tackles you have Max Jean Giles and Davin Thomas at OG.

So we actually could get a playmaker like Bush and add a quality lineman. We could probably trade our two third round picks to get back into the second round and pick up another lineman or a TE.

eriadoc
12-08-2005, 09:03 PM
What is the difference between a guy who is drafted 32 and a guy who is drafted 33? Nothing. We will most likely have the first and 33rd pick. So why is an OT that is drafted by the Colts or what ever team that is going to be the Super Bowl champs going to be a much better success than a player who is drafted one pick later?

Also, some of these OT's or OG's would be 1st round picks if it weren't such a deep draft for linemen.

By your research about the history of success of linemen and where they were drafted, it would mean that Marcus McNeil would have a better chance of being successful if the Colts picked him instead of a defensive player rather than the Texans picking immediately after them.

I see what you are trying to say that good linemen and left tackles in particular are hard to come by and that the cream of the crop are picked early, but this is an unusually strong linemen draft. Some of the tackles who would be top tackles in other drafts are the 3rd or 4th best this year. Jonathan Scott for example was named to first team all american team and on a lot of draft boards he is behind D'Brick, Winston, McNeil, and Justice. Then behind the tackles you have Max Jean Giles and Davin Thomas at OG.

So we actually could get a playmaker like Bush and add a quality lineman. We could probably trade our two third round picks to get back into the second round and pick up another lineman or a TE.


I hope you're right - really, I do. I'd like nothing more than to get Bush AND a left tackle that will play for us for years, just as Pace, Ogden, Jones, etc. do for their respective teams. All I am saying is that if I have to choose only one, I choose left tackle, because it makes the most sense. Bush is the flashy pick, but his odds of being as successful as people are predicting, on this team, are set against him. As to the difference between 32 and 33 ... not much. Most of the left tackles in the league worth mentioning were taken in the top 20. THe really elite ones were taken in the top 10 and they've lived up to the hype. Mandarich was the last top-10 tackle to really bust. Victor Riley or LJ Shelton might be the next closest example, and they were taken at 21 and 22, IIRC.

If a tackle in this draft grades out so well that the team feels like he will be a fixture for years to come, then hey, I'm on board. I just have a sneaking suspicion that won't be the case, however.

vtech9
12-08-2005, 09:48 PM
if you want to get philosophical about it.. sure.. its an opinion. Hell.. there ARE no facts really.. just accepted opinions.

Now.. you say that my comment of "we dont need another RB" is an opinion. Give me one good reason?

Lack of breakaway speed? DD has as much speed as half the other RBs in the league.. and its a proven fact(or opinion) that an RB doesnt need to be able to take it to the house every time he gets the ball to be effective.

So tell me.. if my comment is an opinion.. why is that? Is it because you refuse to think that we dont need Bush, or do you have a REAL reason.
Grid, there is no sense in even trying to talk to these thick-headed numbskulls. We both know that the Texans do not need another RB. We have Davis, Wells, and Morrency, so no matter how nice it would be to have Bush, we have more pressing needs at the moment. On top of that, there is no guarantee that Bush will even come out after this year.

Everyone keeps talking about how great Bush is, but that is against College players. Can he do the same things against faster NFL players? Who knows? Personally, I think I would rather fix the areas that desperately need fixing first.

Remember, Bush is still a Junior and Adrian Peterson is only a Sophomore, so there are choices at RB. Personally, I would rather have "All Day" Peterson than Bush, but that's just me.

Hervoyel
12-08-2005, 10:23 PM
Grid, there is no sense in even trying to talk to these thick-headed numbskulls. We both know that the Texans do not need another RB. We have Davis, Wells, and Morrency, so no matter how nice it would be to have Bush, we have more pressing needs at the moment. On top of that, there is no guarantee that Bush will even come out after this year.

Everyone keeps talking about how great Bush is, but that is against College players. Can he do the same things against faster NFL players? Who knows? Personally, I think I would rather fix the areas that desperately need fixing first.

Remember, Bush is still a Junior and Adrian Peterson is only a Sophomore, so there are choices at RB. Personally, I would rather have "All Day" Peterson than Bush, but that's just me.

It's nice to know that if I don't think what you think vtech9 then I'm a "thick headed numbskull".

HJam72
12-08-2005, 10:55 PM
And what the ****'s wrong with thick-headed numbsculls?!!? :)

Texans_Chick
12-08-2005, 11:29 PM
Well, again, all I really have to go by (any of us, really) is history.

True that. History is a weird thing, tho.

I don't know if their are any Alternative History fans out there. It is a genre of books that looks at historical events and comes up with a fiction of what would have happened if a few things went differently.

You could write all sorts of alternative histories for players drafted in the NFL. (Or any sorts of sports moves--like the Roger Clemens non-arbitration for instance). There are so few players so good that they couldn't be bad no matter what situations they were put in. And then there is luck involved too, both good and bad. Bennie Joppru has no history of injury in college and then gets jinxed when he comes to Houston. Would we be wearing Joppru jerseys had he not been hurt? Prolly not, but you never know.

Here is an interesting history lesson involving the Heisman. There are only four Division I players to gain more than 2,000 rushing yards in a season. They won the Heisman. Two of those players are considered studs and two of those players are considered busts.*

It is a crap shoot. And it is more difficult in the era of the cap, where resources spent on one area mean that they are taken away from other needs.

And there is such a thing as the "observer's paradox." (For further explanation, see this link: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that it can never be known what the outcome would have been if it were not observed. (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html) That once we take the action of picking a player, we don't know what would have happened had we picked otherwise. It is possible that Reggie Bush would be an awesome Texans player, but it could be that he isn't, but might have been some place else.

All that blathering aside, I am looking forward to seeing the performances of the players in the UT-USC matchup.












*Marcus Allen, Mike Rozier, Rashaan Salaam and Barry Sanders

stevo3883
12-08-2005, 11:46 PM
True that. History is a weird thing, tho.

I don't know if their are any Alternative History fans out there. It is a genre of books that looks at historical events and comes up with a fiction of what would have happened if a few things went differently.

You could write all sorts of alternative histories for players drafted in the NFL. (Or any sorts of sports moves--like the Roger Clemens non-arbitration for instance). There are so few players so good that they couldn't be bad no matter what situations they were put in. And then there is luck involved too, both good and bad. Bennie Joppru has no history of injury in college and then gets jinxed when he comes to Houston. Would we be wearing Joppru jerseys had he not been hurt? Prolly not, but you never know.

Here is an interesting history lesson involving the Heisman. There are only four Division I players to gain more than 2,000 rushing yards in a season. They won the Heisman. Two of those players are considered studs and two of those players are considered busts.*

It is a crap shoot. And it is more difficult in the era of the cap, where resources spent on one area mean that they are taken away from other needs.

And there is such a thing as the "observer's paradox." (For further explanation, see this link: the observation or measurement itself affects an outcome, so that it can never be known what the outcome would have been if it were not observed. (http://whatis.techtarget.com/definition/0,,sid9_gci341236,00.html) That once we take the action of picking a player, we don't know what would have happened had we picked otherwise. It is possible that Reggie Bush would be an awesome Texans player, but it could be that he isn't, but might have been some place else.

All that blathering aside, I am looking forward to seeing the performances of the players in the UT-USC matchup.












*Marcus Allen, Mike Rozier, Rashaan Salaam and Barry Sanders

and ricky williams, and ladanian tomlinson, and i believe jj arrington, and i believe ron dayne also

Texans_Chick
12-09-2005, 12:02 AM
and ricky williams, and ladanian tomlinson, and i believe jj arrington, and i believe ron dayne also

Duh on me.

That's what I get for relying on an interesting stat I read on the internet.

Though I suppose those names support the same concept of my original post, I guess.

tulexan
12-09-2005, 12:04 AM
Larry Johnson too

Grid
12-09-2005, 02:25 AM
Yes I read your post Stevo. That isnt much of a reason IMO. You want Bush because you think he would make a bigger impact than a rookie LT would.

Well.. Id say that it is safe to say that next season, it is probably a BETTER possibility that Bush will be more noticable than a rookie LT.. that doesnt make him the better choice for this team though. No RB.. no matter how good.. can carry a team by themselves. LT couldnt do it.. Barry Sanders couldnt do it.. and Bush wouldnt be able to do it. Taking Bush would, in the long run, have LESS positive impact on this team than a good offensive tackle would.

We need an Oline.. will a rookie olineman take longer to develop? yes.. but a good line will be alot more helpful for this offense than Bush could ever hope to be.

If Bush was a peice to the puzzle..I would be all for it.. but he isnt.. Davis fits just fine and we dont need anyone to replace him.

stevo3883
12-09-2005, 02:39 PM
Yes I read your post Stevo. That isnt much of a reason IMO. You want Bush because you think he would make a bigger impact than a rookie LT would.

Well.. Id say that it is safe to say that next season, it is probably a BETTER possibility that Bush will be more noticable than a rookie LT.. that doesnt make him the better choice for this team though. No RB.. no matter how good.. can carry a team by themselves. LT couldnt do it.. Barry Sanders couldnt do it.. and Bush wouldnt be able to do it. Taking Bush would, in the long run, have LESS positive impact on this team than a good offensive tackle would.

We need an Oline.. will a rookie olineman take longer to develop? yes.. but a good line will be alot more helpful for this offense than Bush could ever hope to be.

If Bush was a peice to the puzzle..I would be all for it.. but he isnt.. Davis fits just fine and we dont need anyone to replace him.



ok, i must have missed where a new LT = good line, we'll have to replace a lot mroe than LT to make this a good line.

look at the rams, Pace is a monster LT, does that make the line any better? no. does that make the team any better? not really.

I understand what a great line means to a team, but i also understand you need great skill players to actually score points. and our skill players are nearly as bad as our oline.



how much would you like this: Carr drops back, oh no there is pressure (which will happen with or without dbrick), he scrambles right and dumps it off the Bush in the flat. Bush makes a move on the defender and bam, 50 yard touchdown. thats the kind of thing he brings to the table, amazing talent. DD in that same scenario might get 4 or 5 yards

You need more than 1 player to have a good line, players we can pick up with our later picks. we will have the 33rd pick for christ sake, there is so much depth we can get a tackle this year in the 2nd that any other year wouldve been a top 15 pick.

you act like bush is just another RB, this guy is a game changer. a running back with true elite speed, Portis, tatum bell, warrick dunn, and only Portis is built like a real RB. how rare are good pass blocking left tackles? so rare that you use the #1 or a top 5 pick on one that hasnt been that great against college kids and is rather undersized and has trouble keeping on weight and isnt a very good run blocker...



but please, come back to me with how im wrong and i just dont understand that Ferguson will carry our team better than Bush ever could (biggest joke comment ive ever read)

Grid
12-09-2005, 02:51 PM
Davis might get 4 or 5 yards but Bush would get 50?

Since we cant fix the line with one draft pick we might as well just ignore it?

Pace is a great tackle but the rams Oline isnt the best in the league..therefore tackles arent important?

Bush hasnt taken a snap in the NFL but he is a game changer, better than Portis, Bell and Dunn?

Bush is already an elite NFL RB but all the OTs in the draft are sucky college players?

You do know that this is one of the best OT crops in many years? and maybe the only good one for a few more years?


Whatever.. call this a lame reply if you want but I just cant compete with that kind of blind ignorance.

You are just gonna keep ignoring the fact that Davis is the best player we have on Offense right now, and the only part of our offense that is functioning.. huh? Bush is just that dang good.. his shoes cure cancer and every time he scores a TD god cleanses a damned soul and welcomes them to heaven. Get him on the team quick! he is so good that he will do what LT and Barry Sanders couldnt.. he will put them all to shame.. because he kicked butt in college and it will obviously translate into even BETTER play in the NFL.

gimme some of what youre smokin.

tulexan
12-09-2005, 02:52 PM
I think stevo is right. You shouldn't look at Reggie Bush as just a RB. He is much more than a RB he is a legitimate playmaker on offense. If it were between Dominack Davis and LenDale White, DeAngelo Williams, or Laurence Maroney, I would choose Davis because although they might be potentially better RBs, we have a RB right now. Those guys can't do what Reggie Bush can, which is be used all over the field. I think our potential as an offense with Carr, Johnson, Davis, and Bush would be limitless. We would have a ground game that would rank second to none and a big time receiver with Andre. Plus we could move Reggie into the slot or out wide and take some of the pressure off of Andre on some plays.

stevo3883
12-09-2005, 02:57 PM
Andre Johnson is faster, possibly quicker, and certainly stronger than Bush


lol have you EVER seen bush play? I love AJ, he ran what a 4.35? Bush is every bit that fast in the 40. and game speed he is one of the fastest ive ever seen.

quicker than Bush? Man thats the most ridiculous thing ive ever heard, and you've quickly been relegated into silly delusional homer territory,

Grid
12-09-2005, 02:58 PM
you've quickly been relegated into silly delusional homer territory,


pot. kettle. black.

stevo3883
12-09-2005, 02:59 PM
pot. kettle. black.


do you know even what a homer is?

Grid
12-09-2005, 03:02 PM
someone who loves their team so much that they refuse to see any fault in them.. they will always be the best at everything they do.. and any time they play badly there is a very good excuse for why that proves that their team is still the greatest ever, but was the victim of circumstances beyond their control.


just replace "team" with "player" in that paragraph and you have a perfect definition of you and Bush.

you could also add...

Their player is the best to ever play in the NFL despite never playing against NFL level talent and playing in a system which allowed the player to shine.

stevo3883
12-09-2005, 03:08 PM
do you live in a shack down by the river? have you not seen what everyone in the entire football industry has been saying about this kid?

if it were just the talking heads i wouldnt think twice, but its credible guys calling this kid the best thing theyve ever seen.

but what do they know right? Grid on the Texans message board knows whats really up, Bush is a flop if hes ever seen one, and Dbrick is the next Anthony Munoz, if not better.

infantrycak
12-09-2005, 03:11 PM
how much would you like this: Carr drops back, oh no there is pressure (which will happen with or without dbrick), he scrambles right and dumps it off the Bush in the flat. Bush makes a move on the defender and bam, 50 yard touchdown. thats the kind of thing he brings to the table, amazing talent. DD in that same scenario might get 4 or 5 yards

See here is where you end up looking like a Bush agent rather than someone with any objectivity or knowledge of the Texans. 4 or 5 yds for DD on a dump-off--yeah if he gained half his career average IN THE NFL on dump-off's. Over his career DD averages 8.3 ypr on dump-off's only. On the other hand, Bush over his COLLEGE career averages 50% more at 12.4 on ypr and that includes numerous (see highlight film) instances of long receptions as a WR. Basically, based on feet hitting the ground rather than Bush rah-rah, Bush has not had any significantly better success at dump-offs in college than DD has in the NFL. Oh and wait, the take it a long way theory--Bush has 2 receptions over 20 yds this year in 12 games, DD has 3 over 20 in 10. But hey, the talking heads and their hyperbole must be right, I mean they have never exagerated about the draft before, right?

stevo3883
12-09-2005, 03:22 PM
See here is where you end up looking like a Bush agent rather than someone with any objectivity or knowledge of the Texans. 4 or 5 yds for DD on a dump-off--yeah if he gained half his career average IN THE NFL on dump-off's. Over his career DD averages 8.3 ypr on dump-off's only. On the other hand, Bush over his COLLEGE career averages 50% more at 12.4 on ypr and that includes numerous (see highlight film) instances of long receptions as a WR. Basically, based on feet hitting the ground rather than Bush rah-rah, Bush has not had any significantly better success at dump-offs in college than DD has in the NFL. Oh and wait, the take it a long way theory--Bush has 2 receptions over 20 yds this year in 12 games, DD has 3 over 20 in 10. But hey, the talking heads and their hyperbole must be right, I mean they have never exagerated about the draft before, right?


4 to 5 yards after he catches the ball....


how many dumpoffs has leinart thrown this year? Ill bet its anywhere between 0 and 5.


The fact is Bush doesnt run many screens or get any dumpoffs like he would here.

the guy averages 30 yards per TD, so while that "only has 2 rec over 20 yards" thing might look good, he has around 17 td's averaging 30 yards per.

that obviously shows me a homerun threat if ive ever seen one.

What is DD's average for his 2 rushing touchdowns?

stevo3883
12-09-2005, 03:27 PM
I am going to try this one more time, with a different approach.

Remember a guy named Barry Sanders? His team sucked. Year after everloving year, despite that Barry, behind a ****ty line and as the only offensive option on the team, continually dominated league rushing categories, year after everloving year. Barry wowed everyone time and again and was a regular on the highlight reels.

Is Reggie Bush better than Barry Sanders was? Never mind the inherent chances you take in the draft, obviously we are taking a chance on whoever we draft, so never mind anticipated product versus proven product. The question simply is: Is Reggie Bush better than Barry Sanders was?

Answer me that, and then I will tell you this: I don't want a Barry Sanders on a ****ty team that year after year barely struggles to make the playoffs. I don't want to pay Reggie Bush 50 ****ing million dollars to come be a one-man highlight reel for the Houston Texans, when we could use that pick to make a legitimate advance all across the board, trade it and acquire 2-3 1st and 2nd round picks for this or next year's draft and use it to bolster the rest of our team. I want to improve other positions, since we do after all have that nagging issue of having to field twenty-two players plus subs. I especially, and here is the real, most important kicker, don't want to draft Reggie Bush when we have a perfectly good 1,000-1,200 yds/season back already on our roster.

The ****ing end. We are a 1-11 team with a perfectly good RB and we have other, far more pressing concerns to address this offseason than forking out a quarter of our cap for a primo back who still, at the end of the day, will not be able to block for himself or tackle anyone on defense. Until he learns to fly, I am flat-out not interested.

I am tired of debating this, and instead of calling you an *****, I will simply rest my case on this difference of opinions. You have stated your thoughts, and I mine. Time will prove the victor.


I understand you arent interested, its the pompous attitude you carry when trying to debate something that is irritating. The whole "you're wrong because I KNOW he wont work here"

no one is always right, including you. You dont know what would happen with Bush. WE ARE NOT THE MID 90'S DETROIT LIONS! they were an inept franchise, are we also? are you saying this is the only draft where we'll be able to improve in?


is LT such an important need that you ignore a fantastic player to pursue options that could very possibly turn into busts (the chance of a 2nd & 3rd rounder busting is much higher than a top pick)

infantrycak
12-09-2005, 03:30 PM
4 to 5 yards after he catches the ball...

Facts be damned, full speed ahead--no that would be 7.6 yac for DD, i.e. basically all after the catch.

how many dumpoffs has leinart thrown this year? Ill bet its anywhere between 0 and 5.

The fact is Bush doesnt run many screens or get any dumpoffs like he would here.

So in other words, you pulled a scenario out of a dark spot and got called on it and now are retreating to the but Bush will destroy the NFL on any play defense. Cool. Like I have said elsewhere, if the Texans keep the #1, by all means they should draft Bush, but running down DD and leg humping Bush is unnecessary to making that decision.

stevo3883
12-09-2005, 04:17 PM
This is a perceived list of the top 50 players in the NFL, maybe it can give us an idea just how much of a crapshoot it is to get the best players in the league.



1. Peyton Manning, QB, Colts: 1st round 1st overall

2. Tom Brady, QB, Patriots: 6th round

3. LaDainian Tomlinson, RB, Chargers: 1st round 5th overall

4. Randy Moss, WR, Raiders: 1st round 17th overall

5. Ray Lewis, LB, Ravens: 1st round 27th

6. Marvin Harrison, WR, Colts: 1st round 19th

7. Ed Reed, S, Ravens: 1st round 20thish pick

8. Terrell Owens, WR, Eagles: 3rd round

9. Daunte Culpepper, QB, Vikings: 1sr round 11th overall

10. Donovan McNabb, QB, Eagles: 1st round 2nd overall

11. Clinton Portis, RB, Redskins: 2nd round

12. Champ Bailey, CB, Broncos: 1st round top 10

13. Walter Jones, T, Seahawks: 1st round top 10

14. Richard Seymour, DE, Patriots: 1st round top 10

15. Michael Vick, QB, Falcons: 1st round 1st overall

16. Chris McAlister, CB, Ravens: 1st round 10th pick

17. Tony Gonzalez, TE, Chiefs: 1st round 13th overall

18. Marcus Stroud, DT, Jaguars: 1st round 13th overall

19. Jamal Lewis, RB, Ravens: 1st round 4th overall

20. Priest Holmes, RB, Chiefs: undrafted

21. Chad Johnson, WR, Bengals: 2nd round

22. Dwight Freeney, DE, Colts: 1st round 11th overall

23. Julius Peppers, DE, Panthers: 1st round 3rd overall

24. Torry Holt, WR, Rams: 1st round 6th overall

25. Jonathan Ogden, T, Ravens: 1st round 4th overall

26. Ahman Green, RB, Packers: 3rd round

27. Antonio Gates, TE, Chargers: undrafted (DNP college fball)

28. Kris Jenkins, DT, Panthers: 2nt round

29. Derrick Brooks, LB, Bucs: 1st round 28th

30. Shaun Rogers, DT, Lions: 2nd round

31. Brian Dawkins, S, Eagles: 2nd round

32. Brett Favre, QB, Packers: 1st round

33. Jeremy Shockey, TE, Giants: 1st round 14th

34. Kevin Williams, DT, Vikings: 1st round 10th

35. Todd Heap, TE, Ravens: 1st round 31st

36. Orlando Pace, T, Rams: 1st round 1st overall

37. Steve McNair, QB, Titans: 1st round 4th overall

38. Andre Johnson, WR, Texans: 1st round 3rd

39. Willie Roaf, T, Chiefs: 1st round 8th overall

40. Simeon Rice, DE, Bucs: 1st round 3rd overall

41. Jason Taylor, DE, Dolphins: 3rd round

42. John Henderson, DT, Jaguars: 1st round 9th overall

43. Samari Rolle, CB, Ravens: 2nd round

44. Patrick Surtain, CB, Chiefs: 2nd roound

45. Al Wilson, LB, Broncos: 1st round 31st

46. Deuce McAllister, RB, Saints: 1st round 23rd

47. Brian Urlacher, LB, Bears: 1st round 14th

48. Hines Ward, WR, Steelers:3rd round

49. Takeo Spikes, LB, Bills: 1st round 13th

50.Charles Woodson, CB, Raiders: 1st round 4th overall


so if 40 out of the top 50 were first rounders, and if only a handful of those were in the later half, then doesnt it seem a guy drafted in the top 10 has a much higher chance of being great than anyone drafted in any other round?

stevo3883
12-09-2005, 04:44 PM
i didnt write it, its pete prisco's top 50 players. it didnt take that much work..


and in this one, i am trying to do my "Bush Push" on you.

run-david-run
12-09-2005, 04:46 PM
This is a perceived list of the top 50 players in the NFL, maybe it can give us an idea just how much of a crapshoot it is to get the best players in the league.



1. Peyton Manning, QB, Colts: 1st round 1st overall

2. Tom Brady, QB, Patriots: 6th round

3. LaDainian Tomlinson, RB, Chargers: 1st round 5th overall

4. Randy Moss, WR, Raiders: 1st round 17th overall

5. Ray Lewis, LB, Ravens: 1st round 27th

6. Marvin Harrison, WR, Colts: 1st round 19th

7. Ed Reed, S, Ravens: 1st round 20thish pick

8. Terrell Owens, WR, Eagles: 3rd round

9. Daunte Culpepper, QB, Vikings: 1sr round 11th overall

10. Donovan McNabb, QB, Eagles: 1st round 2nd overall

11. Clinton Portis, RB, Redskins: 2nd round

12. Champ Bailey, CB, Broncos: 1st round top 10

13. Walter Jones, T, Seahawks: 1st round top 10

14. Richard Seymour, DE, Patriots: 1st round top 10

15. Michael Vick, QB, Falcons: 1st round 1st overall

16. Chris McAlister, CB, Ravens: 1st round 10th pick

17. Tony Gonzalez, TE, Chiefs: 1st round 13th overall

18. Marcus Stroud, DT, Jaguars: 1st round 13th overall

19. Jamal Lewis, RB, Ravens: 1st round 4th overall

20. Priest Holmes, RB, Chiefs: undrafted

21. Chad Johnson, WR, Bengals: 2nd round

22. Dwight Freeney, DE, Colts: 1st round 11th overall

23. Julius Peppers, DE, Panthers: 1st round 3rd overall

24. Torry Holt, WR, Rams: 1st round 6th overall

25. Jonathan Ogden, T, Ravens: 1st round 4th overall

26. Ahman Green, RB, Packers: 3rd round

27. Antonio Gates, TE, Chargers: undrafted (DNP college fball)

28. Kris Jenkins, DT, Panthers: 2nt round

29. Derrick Brooks, LB, Bucs: 1st round 28th

30. Shaun Rogers, DT, Lions: 2nd round

31. Brian Dawkins, S, Eagles: 2nd round

32. Brett Favre, QB, Packers: 1st round

33. Jeremy Shockey, TE, Giants: 1st round 14th

34. Kevin Williams, DT, Vikings: 1st round 10th

35. Todd Heap, TE, Ravens: 1st round 31st

36. Orlando Pace, T, Rams: 1st round 1st overall

37. Steve McNair, QB, Titans: 1st round 4th overall

38. Andre Johnson, WR, Texans: 1st round 3rd

39. Willie Roaf, T, Chiefs: 1st round 8th overall

40. Simeon Rice, DE, Bucs: 1st round 3rd overall

41. Jason Taylor, DE, Dolphins: 3rd round

42. John Henderson, DT, Jaguars: 1st round 9th overall

43. Samari Rolle, CB, Ravens: 2nd round

44. Patrick Surtain, CB, Chiefs: 2nd roound

45. Al Wilson, LB, Broncos: 1st round 31st

46. Deuce McAllister, RB, Saints: 1st round 23rd

47. Brian Urlacher, LB, Bears: 1st round 14th

48. Hines Ward, WR, Steelers:3rd round

49. Takeo Spikes, LB, Bills: 1st round 13th

50.Charles Woodson, CB, Raiders: 1st round 4th overall


so if 40 out of the top 50 were first rounders, and if only a handful of those were in the later half, then doesnt it seem a guy drafted in the top 10 has a much higher chance of being great than anyone drafted in any other round?

Looks great, but what about all of the first round picks that cost WAY more then 2nd and 3rd rounders that failed misserably? (Blair Thomas, Andre Ware, Courtney Brown, Joey Harrington, Tim Couch, Charles Rogers to name a few of many.)

We dont need to hve one of the top 50 players in the NFL, we need to have a combination of linemen and playcalling that is good enough for Carr to take a 5 step drop.

infantrycak
12-09-2005, 04:55 PM
Let's compare:

3. LaDainian Tomlinson, RB, Chargers: 1st round 5th overall

11. Clinton Portis, RB, Redskins: 2nd round

19. Jamal Lewis, RB, Ravens: 1st round 4th overall

20. Priest Holmes, RB, Chiefs: undrafted

26. Ahman Green, RB, Packers: 3rd round

46. Deuce McAllister, RB, Saints: 1st round 23rd

I would throw Lewis out at this point, but leave him in--RB's in top 50 half in 1st, half out.

13. Walter Jones, T, Seahawks: 1st round top 10

25. Jonathan Ogden, T, Ravens: 1st round 4th overall

36. Orlando Pace, T, Rams: 1st round 1st overall

39. Willie Roaf, T, Chiefs: 1st round 8th overall

LT's in top 50--100% 1st rounders.

thague
12-09-2005, 05:20 PM
Really is 1,100 that impressive? That averages out to about 69 yards per game. A starting running back will generally get around 20 carries a game which means you have to average 3.45 yards per carry. I know he in fact is averaging more than that (around 83 yards per game and 4 yards per carry) but that is because he gets injured every year.

The reason that it is that impressive is for two different reasons. Number one teams that play the Texans can load up the box because Houston doesnt run any long routes because of its porous offensive line. Therefore DD is gaining 80 some odd yards a game against 8 in the box consistently... secondly Houston's offensive line is weak, run blocking, pass blocking whatever... think how solid Davis would be with an average offensive line. Davis is a good back

tulexan
12-09-2005, 05:26 PM
The reason that it is that impressive is for two different reasons. Number one teams that play the Texans can load up the box because Houston doesnt run any long routes because of its porous offensive line. Therefore DD is gaining 80 some odd yards a game against 8 in the box consistently... secondly Houston's offensive line is weak, run blocking, pass blocking whatever... think how solid Davis would be with an average offensive line. Davis is a good back


I'm sorry but I don't see the loading up the box like some are claiming. The only loading that I see is on Andre Johnson.

infantrycak
12-09-2005, 05:57 PM
I'm sorry but I don't see the loading up the box like some are claiming. The only loading that I see is on Andre Johnson.

Last year they loaded more against AJ--this year they load more against DD. Teams take try to take away what is working best.

Wolf
12-09-2005, 06:21 PM
He's constantly made something out of nothing and to me that's more important than a speedy back who needs a gaping hole (Which you don't get often with this Oline) to run through to get a 99 yard td (Enters Sarcasm).

hey Tony Dorsett did it with 10 men on the field :neener:

Grid
12-09-2005, 08:02 PM
That top 50 list shows me that you have just as good a chance of getting a top tier NFL player with the 20th pick as you do with the 1st pick.. which makes me beleive even more so that trading down and getting extra picks..and grabbing someone in the 3-25 range would be better for the team in the long run.

im done with this arguement (at least in this thread).. it has degraded into the same thing parroted over and over... there are only so many times you can repeat yourself.

I will say that if we DO draft Bush.. I wont be disappointed.. Bush and DD will be a nice one-two punch.. and Bush will give the team a little more press coverage as well.. but im not gonna be ecstatic about it either. I think we can better spend our pick, and our money, improving the Oline.....for once.

MorKnolle
12-09-2005, 08:38 PM
how much would you like this: Carr drops back, oh no there is pressure (which will happen with or without dbrick), he scrambles right and dumps it off the Bush in the flat. Bush makes a move on the defender and bam, 50 yard touchdown. thats the kind of thing he brings to the table, amazing talent. DD in that same scenario might get 4 or 5 yards


Bush is not going to turn dump off passes into 50 yard TDs more than maybe once a year. That kind of thing just doesn't happen in the NFL.


you act like bush is just another RB, this guy is a game changer. a running back with true elite speed, Portis, tatum bell, warrick dunn, and only Portis is built like a real RB. how rare are good pass blocking left tackles? so rare that you use the #1 or a top 5 pick on one that hasnt been that great against college kids and is rather undersized and has trouble keeping on weight and isnt a very good run blocker...


FYI, Clinton Portis is listed at 5-11 212 lbs. Tatum Bell is 5-11 213 lbs. I, along with many others on here, have long been advocates of drafting Eric Winston (or one of the other OL that don't have weight issues) over Ferguson.

I think stevo is right. You shouldn't look at Reggie Bush as just a RB. He is much more than a RB he is a legitimate playmaker on offense. If it were between Dominack Davis and LenDale White, DeAngelo Williams, or Laurence Maroney, I would choose Davis because although they might be potentially better RBs, we have a RB right now. Those guys can't do what Reggie Bush can, which is be used all over the field. I think our potential as an offense with Carr, Johnson, Davis, and Bush would be limitless. We would have a ground game that would rank second to none and a big time receiver with Andre. Plus we could move Reggie into the slot or out wide and take some of the pressure off of Andre on some plays.

How does adding Bush suddenly make us the best running team in the NFL? The Broncos have Bell (who is as fast as Bush) and Anderson (power RB who is somewhat fast as well) plus a great OL, the Falcons have Dunn (who is as fast as Bush) and Duckett (power RB), a good OL, and oh yeah Michael Vick who puts up another 700 rushing yards each year, the Chiefs have Priest Holmes and Larry Johnson and a great OL... do I need to continue? How does drafting Bush and maybe a 2nd round caliber OL suddenly make us the best running team in the NFL? Am I the only one that doesn't see that happening?

Andre Johnson is faster, possibly quicker, and certainly stronger than Bush


Andre is probably as fast straight line speed as Bush, probably not quite as quick, but definitely stronger and better at breaking through tackles. I doubt Bush runs much, if any, better of a 40 time, but we'll have to wait and see.

Pace is a great tackle but the rams Oline isnt the best in the league..therefore tackles arent important? isnt the best = total crap, we had like 7 sacks on them. didnt say a tackle wasnt important, just that a good tackle wont suddenly make the line good like u said it would.


FYI we had two sacks on them in the first half when Pace was playing and neither was his fault, we had five sacks in the second half after they pulled him from the game. Pace owned Dwight Freeney when they played the Colts.

I am going to try this one more time, with a different approach.

Remember a guy named Barry Sanders? His team sucked. Year after everloving year, despite that Barry, behind a ****ty line and as the only offensive option on the team, continually dominated league rushing categories, year after everloving year. Barry wowed everyone time and again and was a regular on the highlight reels.

Is Reggie Bush better than Barry Sanders was? Never mind the inherent chances you take in the draft, obviously we are taking a chance on whoever we draft, so never mind anticipated product versus proven product. The question simply is: Is Reggie Bush better than Barry Sanders was?

Answer me that, and then I will tell you this: I don't want a Barry Sanders on a ****ty team that year after year struggles to barely make the playoffs. I don't want to pay Reggie Bush 50 ****ing million dollars to come be a one-man highlight reel for the Houston Texans, when we could use that pick to make a legitimate advance all across the board, trade it and acquire 2-3 1st and 2nd round picks for this or next year's draft and use it to bolster the rest of our team. I want to improve other positions, since we do after all have that nagging issue of having to field twenty-two players plus subs. I especially, and here is the real, most important kicker, don't want to draft Reggie Bush when we have a perfectly good 1,000-1,200 yds/season back already on our roster.

The ****ing end. We are a 1-11 team with a perfectly good RB and we have other, far more pressing concerns to address this offseason than forking out a quarter of our cap for a primo back who still, at the end of the day, will not be able to block for himself or tackle anyone on defense. Until he learns to fly, I am flat-out not interested.

I am tired of debating this, and instead of calling you an *****, I will simply rest my case on this difference of opinions. You have stated your thoughts, and I mine. Time will prove the victor.

Excellent post, I agree with you.

Hervoyel
12-10-2005, 12:13 AM
This thread has turned into an 11 page mess and probably has hours at best left to live. Four games left in the season until we even find out if we're going to get the draft pick necessary to select him and already we see any conversation about this turn ugly in short order.

When I think about what cleaning up Reggie Bush threads is going to be like two months from now it makes me want to take a long, three or four month nap and pretend this board doesn't exist.

Grid
12-10-2005, 04:01 AM
its gonna be a hoot :). Ill try and keep my personal ranting to a minimum.

If we do get the #1 overall pick though... you can bet that we are gonna have hundreds of people making their first post to talk about how we gotta take Bush.

What you really need to be afraid of is if we end up with the #2-4 pick. That is gonna trigger alot of "What we could do to get Reggie Bush" threads.

"If we traded Andre Johnson and our #2 this year to the 49ers for the #1 overall, we could get Reggie Bush, then.. if we traded Davis and our #1 next year to the Packers, we could get Matt Lienart.. then if we traded Carr and our 2 #3s and #2 next year to the Ravens, we can get Dbrick.. then we trade Dunta Robinson and our #4 this year, and #3 next year to the Eagles for T.O. and their #1.. draft (insert CB here) and we would could win TWO superbowls this year. Its so easy... ive already done it on Madden.. why dont the Texans listen to their fans? We could be the best team in the NFL if they would just make these trades"

ArlingtonTexan
12-10-2005, 10:08 AM
its gonna be a hoot :). Ill try and keep my personal ranting to a minimum.

If we do get the #1 overall pick though... you can bet that we are gonna have hundreds of people making their first post to talk about how we gotta take Bush.

What you really need to be afraid of is if we end up with the #2-4 pick. That is gonna trigger alot of "What we could do to get Reggie Bush" threads.

"If we traded Andre Johnson and our #2 this year to the 49ers for the #1 overall, we could get Reggie Bush, then.. if we traded Davis and our #1 next year to the Packers, we could get Matt Lienart.. then if we traded Carr and our 2 #3s and #2 next year to the Ravens, we can get Dbrick.. then we trade Dunta Robinson and our #4 this year, and #3 next year to the Eagles for T.O. and their #1.. draft (insert CB here) and we would could win TWO superbowls this year. Its so easy... ive already done it on Madden.. why dont the Texans listen to their fans? We could be the best team in the NFL if they would just make these trades"

You are sooo right on this. I have headache just thinking about it.

touttail
12-10-2005, 10:15 AM
Double D is one tough cookie.

Per the Chronicle, he will be one of only 15 RBs to rush for 1000 yds. in their first 3 seasons.

Bobby 119C:brickwall

HJam72
12-10-2005, 10:33 AM
Double D is one tough cookie.

Per the Chronicle, he will be one of only 15 RBs to rush for 1000 yds. in their first 3 seasons.

Bobby 119C:brickwall

So what? That's almost half the RBs in the NFL. :rolleyes: :)

Big B Texan Fan
12-10-2005, 10:40 AM
Double D is one tough cookie.

Per the Chronicle, he will be one of only 15 RBs to rush for 1000 yds. in their first 3 seasons.

Bobby 119C:brickwall
I think he's tough too but it's one thing to earn those 1000+ and another when the defense let's you have it because they're focussed on rattlin' Carr

tulexan
12-10-2005, 11:30 AM
its gonna be a hoot :). Ill try and keep my personal ranting to a minimum.

If we do get the #1 overall pick though... you can bet that we are gonna have hundreds of people making their first post to talk about how we gotta take Bush.

What you really need to be afraid of is if we end up with the #2-4 pick. That is gonna trigger alot of "What we could do to get Reggie Bush" threads.

"If we traded Andre Johnson and our #2 this year to the 49ers for the #1 overall, we could get Reggie Bush, then.. if we traded Davis and our #1 next year to the Packers, we could get Matt Lienart.. then if we traded Carr and our 2 #3s and #2 next year to the Ravens, we can get Dbrick.. then we trade Dunta Robinson and our #4 this year, and #3 next year to the Eagles for T.O. and their #1.. draft (insert CB here) and we would could win TWO superbowls this year. Its so easy... ive already done it on Madden.. why dont the Texans listen to their fans? We could be the best team in the NFL if they would just make these trades"

I think that if we had the second pick and the niners had the first we would still have a shot at getting bush without doing anything. The niners are on the verge of getting out of cap hell and have even more holes than we do. They have a defensive minded coach in mike nolan and just paid alex smith a giant contract and are about to pay julian peterson a big contract. I could see them trading down a few picks to a team that needs a quarterback and filling their needs through multiple picks.

eriadoc
12-10-2005, 12:12 PM
So what? That's almost half the RBs in the NFL. :rolleyes: :)

That's one of 15 all-time. Not one of 15 current NFL RBs.

By the way, 1000 yards was a standard back in the 14-game era. It averaged out to 71.43 yards per game. That average, over two more games, adds up to 1143 yards. Someone was commenting on it earlier in the thread, so I thought I'd throw that out there for them.

eriadoc
12-10-2005, 12:14 PM
I think he's tough too but it's one thing to earn those 1000+ and another when the defense let's you have it because they're focussed on rattlin' Carr

I get a kick out of how people (in general) discount what DD has done here, in this manner, from one side of their mouth and then glorify what other backs have done, as if they "earn" their yards while teams are "focused" on stopping them.

News flash - teams focus on stopping DD.

touttail
12-10-2005, 03:43 PM
So what? That's almost half the RBs in the NFL. :rolleyes: :)


That's all time, not just for this season!

Bobby 119C:brickwall

run-david-run
12-10-2005, 03:49 PM
That's all time, not just for this season!

Bobby 119C:brickwall
lol. some people have their tinted glasses on and cant see past reggie bush. bottom line, you have a guy who has proven that, even behind a crappy line can get you 1770 total yds and 13 TD's. HE IS NOT THE PROBLEM!!!!

tulexan
12-10-2005, 04:29 PM
your right he isn't the problem, but we have the chance to add a very explosive offensive playmaker who could really improve our offense. we don't have to get rid of dominack davis, they can both coexist on this team and lengthen each other's careers.

phan1
12-10-2005, 09:49 PM
DD is a good, solid back. Not much breakaway speed, but really quick and runs hard every time. Now the one thing I really don't like about DD is that he cannot block. He pretty much blocks about as well as the rest of our Oline, which is not very good. That is really the only knock on DD. He really needs to learn how to pick up the blitz in order for Carr to put some drives together. The dump offs to DD do not make up for his inability to block, because it prevents Carr from being able to go down the field.

Big B Texan Fan
12-10-2005, 10:41 PM
I get a kick out of how people (in general) discount what DD has done here, in this manner, from one side of their mouth and then glorify what other backs have done, as if they "earn" their yards while teams are "focused" on stopping them.

News flash - teams focus on stopping DD.
Do you even watch the games.

Look, what I mean is that teams will let us have the run because they feel as though they can stop us before we get to the red zone (we're actually pretty good in the red zone but we have trouble getting there). Knida like when a defense gives up the dump passes and the 5 yard out patterns because they'll give that up all day. As long as they feel comfortable that they can keep us in front of them (which isn't very hard because we hardly throw down field).

I guess in retro-spect my comment about him not "earning" his yards was a wee bit harsh because to be a RB in the league is tough.....but.....teams will let us have it.

And as far as "the news flash" teams don't have a choice to focus on stopping him because he's the majority of our offense. That's a given, like I said, the way they focus on him is to just keep him in front of them.

Grid
12-11-2005, 12:46 AM
DD isnt the problem.. he has played well DESPITE being our only weapon.

Give carr some protection... get our passing game working.. and then DD wont have the entire defense focused on stopping him. If he is a "good" RB now.. he will be a great RB when he gets some help.

HJam72
12-11-2005, 02:13 AM
That's all time, not just for this season!

Bobby 119C:brickwall

Can't you people see the sarcasm smilie? I was joking.

I like DD and I'm not one of the Bush wanters, but I have to agree about the blocking.

Caz
12-11-2005, 09:56 AM
A 1,000+ yard rusher on a 1-11 team. It just goes to show how misleading stats can be most of the time.

DD's potential is why I don't think they'll draft Bush. Too much money would be tied up with one position, and we have way too many holes to fill at the moment that are much more pressing concerns.

This is the most intelligent thing I have seen in a while. DD is a restricted FA this year if I am not mistaken and thats the only reason I think they might draft Bush. But I agree with you.

But according to everyone else:

Let's draft Reggie Bush, still have no pass protection, still have no Defense, still have no compliment WR to go with AJ, and pay Reggie 4 times the amount of money DD would get and still be in last place. DD is not Reggie but he is not the problem people. If they don't trade down and stock pile picks you all need new management.

Coach C.
12-11-2005, 09:59 AM
Caz, DD signed a 4 or 5 year extention so he is no longer a RFA. He is with the team for the long run or until we cut or trade him depending on management. I think we keep the kid and let him turn into the player he could soon become.

Caz
12-11-2005, 10:04 AM
Caz, DD signed a 4 or 5 year extention so he is no longer a RFA. He is with the team for the long run or until we cut or trade him depending on management. I think we keep the kid and let him turn into the player he could soon become.
Thanks coach I didn't know that DD signed an extension. With that said it just make my arguement stronger. Build your team around DD, Carr, and AJ. IMO the Texans will win the next 2 maybe 3 out of there last 4 and not get the number 1 pick anyway. If they are drafting Reggie Bush with that pick then winning out would be the best thing to happen to them.

Wolf
12-11-2005, 10:10 AM
September 16, 2005
Running with Dynamite
by Keith Weiland
HoustonProFootball.com

Note: This is second in a series of college prospect profiles in preparation for the 2006 NFL Draft next April. This week, we take a look at the top five prospects at running back.

The Texans appear able to ignore the running backs atop the 2006 draft class following two key transactions in the offseason. By drafting Vernand Morency and signing Domanick Davis to a multi-million dollar contract extension, the Texans figure to be spending their top picks elsewhere when they are on the clock.

So keeping the perspective that the FieldTurf isn’t always greener on the other side might be easier said than done when evaluating next year’s rookie running backs. With the anticipated eligibility declarations of a few juniors, this class is highlighted by the dynamic play of the premier prospects, players that can run and catch, as well as contribute to the return game in several cases. Some of them have drawn comparisons to the elite all-purpose yardage backs in the NFL, offensive studs such as Marshall Faulk and, ahem, even Davis.

Reggie Bush is one of those juniors, the ultimate offensive weapon for college football’s most dominant team. Laurence Maroney of Minnesota can bust through the line and has the breakaway speed to take it all the way. Returning from injury, DeAngelo Williams is out to prove he still has enough shakes to bake a defense. When you look to Tennessee’s Gerald Riggs, Jr., the size-speed combo is only the second thing you see after recognizing the genes of his father, a former Pro Bowler himself. And Seminoles running back Leon Washington speed-reads holes to break through to the second level and beyond.

Five more running backs to keep an eye on:

Jospeh Addai, LSU
Mike Bell, Arizona
Wali Lundy, Virginia
DonTrell Moore, New Mexico
LenDale White, Southern Cal

http://www.houstonprofootball.com/draft/2006/2006RBPreview.html

MorKnolle
12-11-2005, 10:19 AM
I think that if we had the second pick and the niners had the first we would still have a shot at getting bush without doing anything. The niners are on the verge of getting out of cap hell and have even more holes than we do. They have a defensive minded coach in mike nolan and just paid alex smith a giant contract and are about to pay julian peterson a big contract. I could see them trading down a few picks to a team that needs a quarterback and filling their needs through multiple picks.

Don't count on this, I see the 49ers being one of the major players in the Reggie Bush "sweepstakes" whether they have the #1 pick naturally or trade up to get him.

Coach C.
12-11-2005, 10:21 AM
Mork I agree they have to start building their team around A. Smith and bottomline they have no playmakers. They will likely worry about defense in the 3 and later rounds.

Wolf
12-11-2005, 10:23 AM
Don't count on this, I see the 49ers being one of the major players in the Reggie Bush "sweepstakes" whether they have the #1 pick naturally or trade up to get him.

yeah and the storylines with this draft.
Bush gets reunited with his former high school teammate Alex Smith?
Leinhart get reunited with Norm Chow in Tennessee?

TEXANS84
12-12-2005, 11:49 AM
**Updated**

Davis now tracking for 1200 yards:
http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6437

Davis is also short 1000 by 24 yards.

Napa Auto Parts
12-29-2005, 09:32 PM
Current Domanick Davis stats:

Attempts: 208
Yards: 837
TD: 2
Rec: 32
Yards 287
TD Rec: 3
Fumbles: 1

Projected end of the year stats:

Attempts: 277
Yards: 1,116
TD: 3
Rec: 43
Yards: 383
TD Rec: 4
Fumbles: 1

You gotta give the guy some credit, he's done a heck of a job protecting the football this year. Only one fumble in 12 games where as he lost 4 fumbles in the first two games last year.

http://sports.espn.go.com/nfl/players/profile?statsId=6437



1200 if he ever stayed healthy a full season and besides DD got his payday already he doesnt care. how many games has he missed in the last 2 years.:twocents: