PDA

View Full Version : New Fox sports article


Texizgreat
04-13-2006, 11:36 PM
http://msn.foxsports.com/nfl/story/5483606

not a bad break down of the AFC south

GP
04-13-2006, 11:55 PM
Nice find. Thanks for the article link.

Texansbacker
04-14-2006, 12:12 AM
Real good read, thanks for the link Texi. The Texans have had an awesome offseason! Definitely filled some holes with solid veterans and up and comers. Hope it pans out!

Scooter
04-14-2006, 12:19 AM
So, Bush it is. Comparisons to Marshall Faulk, Barry Sanders, and Gale Sayers seem to be coming from everywhere. Bush is a special talent, but those are some of the greatest players of all-time. The Texans cannot practically think that Bush offers more than those players.

As an interesting exercise, look at how those players' teams fared in their first five years after the NFL draft. Those three players were the second, third, and fourth overall selection of the draft, meaning they came to equally un-talented teams:

Faulk: 32-48
Sanders: 40-40
Sayers: 29-38-3

These numbers are somewhat shocking and should make Texans' fans keep their expectations in check. During these five-year periods, these three great backs made a combined 12 Pro Bowls, so their production was clearly not the problem. The simple truth is that a running back is only so valuable.

what many here have been saying ... especially when we've already got a good one :hmmm:

sorry, i couldnt resist.

SAMURAITEXAN
04-14-2006, 12:27 AM
Oh man, this is good. thanks Texizgreat:ok:

bdiddy
04-14-2006, 12:34 AM
This article is obviously written by someone that has only a limited knowledge of the Texans.

Cowart is an immediate upgrade as a 4-3 MLB.

Our receiving corp is MUCH improved. (Moulds and Walter vs. Gaffney and Bradford, this is not even close, no matter what the article says)

Flanangan is an immediate upgrade at center and allows McKinney to shift to his more natural position.

I found the article to be pretty negative, and conclusory.

Typical East Coast, Yankee view of the expansion Texans.

GP
04-14-2006, 12:39 AM
what many here have been saying ... especially when we've already got a good one :hmmm:

sorry, i couldnt resist.

Goes without saying that I am a DD fan, but I will be happy if we choose Bush. The guy exudes leadership and we could do a lot worse than Bush, especially since Kubiak's style of ball involves multiple quality running backs.

IMO, we would statistically have a better shot at getting good (and being good for a longer period of time) by trading out and grabbing extra pick(s) and D'Brickashaw Ferguson. That's been my first love, but now I am growing more intrigued by the prospect of having a chance at a true game-breaker that other teams must account for every down he's on the field.

Bobo
04-14-2006, 12:42 AM
This article is obviously written by someone that has only a limited knowledge of the Texans.

Cowart is an immediate upgrade as a 4-3 MLB.

Our receiving corp is MUCH improved. (Moulds and Walter vs. Gaffney and Bradford, this is not even close, no matter what the article says)

Flanangan is an immediate upgrade at center and allows McKinney to shift to his more natural position.

I found the article to be pretty negative, and conclusory.

Typical East Coast, Yankee view of the expansion Texans.

How can you say that Walter is any good when he's only caught 30 passes in 3 years? If you look at the numbers, then Gaffney and Bradford ARE better since both of these guys have been more productive than Walter. Flanagan is old and beaten up. As for McKinney, he hasn't been all that great in his current position -- what makes you think he'll be better simply by switching places in the same offensive line? Meanwhile, Cowart has bounced around from team to team the last few years and his sack production as well as other numbers aren't very good either. I don't think the assessment was negative -- I see it as realistic and true. On the other hand, I see your assessment as unrealistic and painting an overly rosy picture.

Bobo
04-14-2006, 12:49 AM
Goes without saying that I am a DD fan, but I will be happy if we choose Bush. The guy exudes leadership and we could do a lot worse than Bush, especially since Kubiak's style of ball involves multiple quality running backs.

IMO, we would statistically have a better shot at getting good (and being good for a longer period of time) by trading out and grabbing extra pick(s) and D'Brickashaw Ferguson. That's been my first love, but now I am growing more intrigued by the prospect of having a chance at a true game-breaker that other teams must account for every down he's on the field.

I don't see Bush as exemplifying any leadership whatsoever. I do see him, however, as a wasted pick. RBs are a dime a dozen (see the Colts and Edgerring James) and quite often flop bigtime once they get into the pros. I would hate to see the Texans waste a top pick like this on a RB especially when they already have a good one and have so many needs elsewhere. This is why I am losing my excitement for the Texans. They are acting like this is fantasy football and trying to draft the top ball handler around when everybody in the NFL knows the key to winning consistently in this league is line play on both ends. When I see obviously boneheaded moves like this being pulled on a consistent basis, it just shows me that this team just plain doesn't know what it's doing and can't even grasp the basics of the NFL.

gtexan02
04-14-2006, 01:49 AM
I don't see Bush as exemplifying any leadership whatsoever. I do see him, however, as a wasted pick. RBs are a dime a dozen (see the Colts and Edgerring James) and quite often flop bigtime once they get into the pros. I would hate to see the Texans waste a top pick like this on a RB especially when they already have a good one and have so many needs elsewhere. This is why I am losing my excitement for the Texans. They are acting like this is fantasy football and trying to draft the top ball handler around when everybody in the NFL knows the key to winning consistently in this league is line play on both ends. When I see obviously boneheaded moves like this being pulled on a consistent basis, it just shows me that this team just plain doesn't know what it's doing and can't even grasp the basics of the NFL.


Right, thanks for that Bobo. Consisent line play on both ends is a proven commodity in the NFL, you're right. But why waste two 1st round picks in a row on DL? We drafted TJ last year, arguably the highest rated DT available, and signed Weaver and Kalu (plus we have Payne, Smith, Peek, and Babin). I'd say our DL is pretty much set. As for OL, I agree, this should be our first priority. But, as it has been posted time and time again on this board, Denver's zone blocking style doesnt require the prototypical OLman. For this reason, we can draft a 2nd or 3rd round guy and have him fit in much better than the top rated LT in the draft. As a result, to help our OL, the best thing we can do is draft someone who the defense will have to watch out for and thus blitz less often. RB is that guy, whether or not you want to believe it or not. I find it hard to believe that EVERY scout could be wrong about this one player, who has been rated as #1 for almost two years now.

Oh and another thing, RBs are NOT a dime a dozen. If they were, every team would have a strong running game. If they were so common, S. Alexander, LT, and Edge wouldn't be getting those HUGE contracts. Teams like the Cardinals would be able to run the ball, and RBs wouldn't be drafted so high (there were 3 RBs taken in the top 10 last year) Every player in the NFL is at least midly talented, I will agree, and with a truly awesome line, pretty much any NFL caliber athlete should be able to gain 1000 yards, but the truly elite RBs come around only so often

Scooter
04-14-2006, 01:52 AM
Goes without saying that I am a DD fan, but I will be happy if we choose Bush. The guy exudes leadership and we could do a lot worse than Bush, especially since Kubiak's style of ball involves multiple quality running backs.

i've got a more coherant arguement for a later date, but to say kubiak's style involves multiple backs is extremely inaccurate, or atleast very premature. in a decade with denver, kubiak has only split carries between backs twice ... 2001, & 2005 (01 being their 2nd lowest rushing total of his tenure at just over 1500 total yards). last year was a fluke in denver because of their players, it is NOT their routine.

Bobo
04-14-2006, 01:59 AM
Right, thanks for that Bobo. Consisent line play on both ends is a proven commodity in the NFL, you're right. But why waste two 1st round picks in a row on DL? We drafted TJ last year, arguably the highest rated DT available, and signed Weaver and Kalu (plus we have Payne, Smith, Peek, and Babin). I'd say our DL is pretty much set. As for OL, I agree, this should be our first priority. But, as it has been posted time and time again on this board, Denver's zone blocking style doesnt require the prototypical OLman. For this reason, we can draft a 2nd or 3rd round guy and have him fit in much better than the top rated LT in the draft. As a result, to help our OL, the best thing we can do is draft someone who the defense will have to watch out for and thus blitz less often. RB is that guy, whether or not you want to believe it or not. I find it hard to believe that EVERY scout could be wrong about this one player, who has been rated as #1 for almost two years now.

A.) The DL failed miserably against the run last year. It also failed to get any kind of consistent pass rush going either. It still needs lots of help. B.) Weaver has a history of being injured and certainly doesn't pressure the QB. He isn't the answer. C.) The Texans were totally unable to even block three pass rushers, let alone four. Fact is, opposing Ds didn't have to blitz to put pressure on Carr. D.) As far as the scouts go, I wouldn't put a lot of trust in them. I am sure the scouts thought Akili Smith and Ryan Leaf were can't miss prospects, as I am sure was the case for Cedrick Benson, Archie Griffin, Lawrence Phillips and Curtis Enis. Fact is, we don't need a RB. We already have a good one. We don't need a QB either -- we've already got a good one. What the Texans do need is a heckuva lot of help on the OL and on defense. Until they get that together, they'd better throw their entire draft at those problem areas. Everytime they draft a guy who will even touch the ball, I will wince and shake my head in total and utter disbelief. It reminds me of a guy who already has a decent weedeater but goes out and buys a better one while his lawnmower sits in the garage, broken and unusable.

Bobo
04-14-2006, 02:04 AM
Oh and another thing, RBs are NOT a dime a dozen. If they were, every team would have a strong running game. If they were so common, S. Alexander, LT, and Edge wouldn't be getting those HUGE contracts. Teams like the Cardinals would be able to run the ball, and RBs wouldn't be drafted so high (there were 3 RBs taken in the top 10 last year) Every player in the NFL is at least midly talented, I will agree, and with a truly awesome line, pretty much any NFL caliber athlete should be able to gain 1000 yards, but the truly elite RBs come around only so often

A.) If every team had a good offensive line, then every team would have a strong running game. The running game does not depend on the rusher, but on the OL. B.) If you will recall, Seattle was looking to trade Shaun Alexander a while back but couldn't get a good enough deal for him. That should tell you something about how little the NFL really values RBs. C.) The OL makes the "truly elite" RBs, not vice versa.

MightyTExan
04-14-2006, 08:31 AM
Didn't Denver want to draft DD when came out of college? It's already been said, but I think DD will do better with Bush becasue he won't be overused. I know this isn't the draft forum, but Vernon Davis is my pick from this years draft and I thnk that's someone we need.

nunusguy
04-14-2006, 08:36 AM
Good article from Foxsports website there Tex.
While some may be inclined to say its negative in some respects, hey, you
go 2-14 you are going to get some negative comments. For example, their
remarks about Cowart are probably true in that his best years are behine him.
But we didn't need an upgrade at MLB so much as we needed to fill a void, so
that was a necessary pickup if only stopgap for a year or two. And they were
balanced and fair about their remarks about Weaver in that they spoke of his
youth and upside. And Weaver may very well be like TJ, our #1 last year, in that both have a good chance to excel with the new 4-3.

the wonger need food
04-14-2006, 09:36 AM
How can you say that Walter is any good when he's only caught 30 passes in 3 years?

The truth is, we don't really know. On the plus side he's played in a real NFL offense under legitimate NFL coaches... so he's got that going for him.

GP
04-14-2006, 10:14 AM
i've got a more coherant arguement for a later date, but to say kubiak's style involves multiple backs is extremely inaccurate, or atleast very premature. in a decade with denver, kubiak has only split carries between backs twice ... 2001, & 2005 (01 being their 2nd lowest rushing total of his tenure at just over 1500 total yards). last year was a fluke in denver because of their players, it is NOT their routine.

It's not inaccurate. Denver carries at least three strong RBs at all times because they want to have the ability to wear down defenses with fresh legs throughout the latter stages of a game, as well as to have "change-of-pace" backs to confuse defensive players who are having to corral a shifty guy on a few plays, then chase down a speed guy on some plays, then gang tackle a power guy on some plays...it just works. That's not a rumor. It's a fact.

It's not as if they somehow wound up with three good RBs every season and then had a war amongst them that took all season to find out who their star RB would be...they purposefully flood their RB roster spots with guys that legitimately can start for other teams.

They key here is not total rushing yards...it's having the depth at RB so you can switch gears on a defense at any moment in a game...as well as to have the depth if one RB goes down.

Kaiser Toro
04-14-2006, 10:27 AM
It's not inaccurate. Denver carries at least three strong RBs at all times because they want to have the ability to wear down defenses with fresh legs throughout the latter stages of a game, as well as to have "change-of-pace" backs to confuse defensive players who are having to corral a shifty guy on a few plays, then chase down a speed guy on some plays, then gang tackle a power guy on some plays...it just works. That's not a rumor. It's a fact.

It's not as if they somehow wound up with three good RBs every season and then had a war amongst them that took all season to find out who their star RB would be...they purposefully flood their RB roster spots with guys that legitimately can start for other teams.

They key here is not total rushing yards...it's having the depth at RB so you can switch gears on a defense at any moment in a game...as well as to have the depth if one RB goes down.

Can you define this fact through percentage of carries? Other than last year and 2001 there was one main back and in the second backs best year they had 19% of the total carries.

Denver has done a good job drafting value, bringing in perceived washed up vets and having a terrific O line. The numbers do not say that Kubiak is a two or three back system type guy.

If we take Bush we must move Davis in my opinion.

GP
04-14-2006, 11:00 AM
Can you define this fact through percentage of carries? Other than last year and 2001 there was one main back and in the second backs best year they had 19% of the total carries.

Denver has done a good job drafting value, bringing in perceived washed up vets and having a terrific O line. The numbers do not say that Kubiak is a two or three back system type guy.

If we take Bush we must move Davis in my opinion.

If you listen to talk radio, or if you watch NFL TV shows, you will see all the analysts agree and discuss at length the FACT that Denver has established themselves in the past few years as a team dedicated to carrying more quality RBs than any other team has. Sorry I can't back that up with real proof because I can't for the life of me begin to point to which shows and on what dates and times those coments had been made...but I know I'm not making this up. Most times I do provide links and I even go out and research other posters' claims to see if their claims are factual, so give a little grace here and trust that I'm not making it up.

Secondly, we don't have to move Davis. For all of Capers' faults as an in-game coach, he did pretty well in the area of selecting players who are true team players and whom he knew would be solid in situations like this. Davis got his money AND his chance with us. I don't see hime demanding a trade, or demanding a contract re-negotiation with us. He's going to want to move to the next level: getting a ring and a trophy. And gives him a chance to do that. Davis is not like most star RBs...the guy is secure in his manhood (unlike Jammal Lewis or Travis Henry) and he wants to win a championship. So I doubt we're going to see WWIII from Davis if Bush is on our team. With Wells being allowed to shop around, it's just clear that we're drafting Bush. Otherwise, we'd have retained Wells because Morency is not capable yet of taking this team's RB spot if Davis gets hurt. And Davis has been prone to injury lately. Is that not a fact? You would be comfortable, am I correct, with us passing on a stud RB and then chancing our season on Davis staying healthy all season long....with Wells gone to Buffalo (potentially) and Morency the new go-to guy at RB? Not I.

I want a backfield of Davis/Cook/Norris/Bush so that we can sprint Bush out to WR and really create a headache for defensive coordinators.

But if we trade out and get "Brick and extra pick(s)...I'm certainly cool with that, as well. We better grab Wells or another decent backup for Davis, though, if that's the case.

Texans_Chick
04-14-2006, 11:08 AM
Thanks for the article. This quote is interesting:

The first overall pick is sometimes considered a curse because of the massive bonus paid out to an unproven player. Recent history questions this assumption. From 1996-2004, all but one of the teams with the first overall pick have made the playoffs within four years. That one team, of course, is the Texans.

Kaiser Toro
04-14-2006, 11:11 AM
Thanks for the article. This quote is interesting:

C'mon TC I have been saying that for as long as I have been on the board and have been dinged often for that observation.

infantrycak
04-14-2006, 11:16 AM
C'mon TC I have been saying that for as long as I have been on the board and have been dinged often for that observation.

Nah, you've been dinged for saying the first sentence and leaving the rest out. :cool:

Kaiser Toro
04-14-2006, 11:19 AM
Nah, you've been dinged for saying the first sentence and leaving the rest out. :cool:

Why do you always turn in it into a Carr/VY thread? :)

Apoch
04-14-2006, 11:20 AM
It's not inaccurate. Denver carries at least three strong RBs at all times because they want to have the ability to wear down defenses with fresh legs throughout the latter stages of a game, as well as to have "change-of-pace" backs to confuse defensive players who are having to corral a shifty guy on a few plays, then chase down a speed guy on some plays, then gang tackle a power guy on some plays...it just works. That's not a rumor. It's a fact.

It's not as if they somehow wound up with three good RBs every season and then had a war amongst them that took all season to find out who their star RB would be...they purposefully flood their RB roster spots with guys that legitimately can start for other teams.

They key here is not total rushing yards...it's having the depth at RB so you can switch gears on a defense at any moment in a game...as well as to have the depth if one RB goes down.

Absolutely wrong. As a long time Denver fan I feel very qualified to say that the Broncos have only brought on these types of players/strategies in recent years, and even then it isn't their style. You don't see "change of pace" backs or "3rd down" backs in Denver's system. You won't even see the shotgun formation unless it is 3rd and 8+ yards. Yes they do always have an influx of young talent into the backfield, but what team doesn't?

In truth Denver has always relied on ONE RB to carry the load week-in and week-out. The first guy was Terrell Davis, and he never split carries with anyone. Derek Louville was his backup during the Superbowl years, but all he would do is spell Davis when they worked him too hard. If the Broncos were ever up 10 in the fourth with 8 minutes to go, you could bet your bottom dollar it was going to be Davis, Davis, Davis until the gun sounded.

The idea didn't change when Davis was injured a few years later. In his very first game Olandis Gary carried the ball 32 times. He didn't share carries with any other backup. No, Denver gave him the rock and let him go. Next year? Mike Anderson? Same thing. He was given the starting job and no one shared it.

The first real "3rd down" anything was Quentin Griffin, and even he wasn't labelled a "3rd down" guy, but was considered Anderson's backup. If they happened to bring him in on 3rd down, great, but otherwise he would come in when Anderson was gassing.

Clinton Portis? Yeah they started out with the plan of giving him 10 carries a game, but before 4 weeks had passed they gave him the job outright over Anderson, and Anderson became a fullback. Once again, one starting RB, no commitee.

Later, once Portis left, Anderson had the job again, but was injured in preseason. So the job was given to Griffin. Tatum Bell was only the backup that year, and was having injury problems, so when Griffin got injured the job was given (in full) to Reuben Droughns. In his first game he carried the ball 30 times as well (for 190 yards). Droughns never shared the job, although he was benched at times for fumbling (and then Bell got all the carries).

The point of all this is that up until last year ONE Denver RB got all the carries. Last year was their first ever attempt under Shanahan at a RB by commitee design. What does this mean? It means that Shanahan and Kubiak have a system, but they are flexible enough to see what players are good at and adjust to what they have. the "AnderBell" combo of last year worked well in Denver, and the "DaviBush" combo should be just as effective in Houston. Davis will garner most of the carries and will be more likely to have 20 total. Bush will get 10-15 touches total and will (for all intents and purposes) back up Davis.

infantrycak
04-14-2006, 11:31 AM
Why do you always turn in it into a Carr/VY thread? :)

I just can't condone the way in which you are abusing the wrongfully accused victim of the liberal media in your avatar. It compells me to troll you.

Folks, if you don't know the background on this discussion, don't bother responding--it will end up being wrong.

GP
04-14-2006, 11:39 AM
Absolutely wrong. As a long time Denver fan I feel very qualified to say that the Broncos have only brought on these types of players/strategies in recent years, and even then it isn't their style. You don't see "change of pace" backs or "3rd down" backs in Denver's system. You won't even see the shotgun formation unless it is 3rd and 8+ yards. Yes they do always have an influx of young talent into the backfield, but what team doesn't?

In truth Denver has always relied on ONE RB to carry the load week-in and week-out. The first guy was Terrell Davis, and he never split carries with anyone. Derek Louville was his backup during the Superbowl years, but all he would do is spell Davis when they worked him too hard. If the Broncos were ever up 10 in the fourth with 8 minutes to go, you could bet your bottom dollar it was going to be Davis, Davis, Davis until the gun sounded.

The idea didn't change when Davis was injured a few years later. In his very first game Olandis Gary carried the ball 32 times. He didn't share carries with any other backup. No, Denver gave him the rock and let him go. Next year? Mike Anderson? Same thing. He was given the starting job and no one shared it.

The first real "3rd down" anything was Quentin Griffin, and even he wasn't labelled a "3rd down" guy, but was considered Anderson's backup. If they happened to bring him in on 3rd down, great, but otherwise he would come in when Anderson was gassing.

Clinton Portis? Yeah they started out with the plan of giving him 10 carries a game, but before 4 weeks had passed they gave him the job outright over Anderson, and Anderson became a fullback. Once again, one starting RB, no commitee.

Later, once Portis left, Anderson had the job again, but was injured in preseason. So the job was given to Griffin. Tatum Bell was only the backup that year, and was having injury problems, so when Griffin got injured the job was given (in full) to Reuben Droughns. In his first game he carried the ball 30 times as well (for 190 yards). Droughns never shared the job, although he was benched at times for fumbling (and then Bell got all the carries).

The point of all this is that up until last year ONE Denver RB got all the carries. Last year was their first ever attempt under Shanahan at a RB by commitee design. What does this mean? It means that Shanahan and Kubiak have a system, but they are flexible enough to see what players are good at and adjust to what they have. the "AnderBell" combo of last year worked well in Denver, and the "DaviBush" combo should be just as effective in Houston. Davis will garner most of the carries and will be more likely to have 20 total. Bush will get 10-15 touches total and will (for all intents and purposes) back up Davis.

One guy didn't get ALL the carries. That Broncos team, unlike any other NFL team, was able to (A) Retain quality RBs, (B) At a moment's notice plug one of them into the scheme, and (C) Keep on truckin' like nothing was wrong.

Zone blocking paved the way for that. And we have already employed a similar blocking scheme that's helped Davis make a cut and go. Thus, Kubiak is salivating at the chance to have a backfield of Davis, Bush, and Morency. Three guys who he can instantly plug into the scheme and know that he's got an above-average RB at any moment in any game regardless of injuries, fumble problems, etc.. that plague on of the three guys.

Look across the league and tell me what other NFL teams, over the course of the past 5-7 years, has held as many quality RBs on their team as Denver has? Portis went to Skins to be "the man." Anderson went to Ravens to be "the man." Shanahan did an excellent job of keeping quality RBs on his team for a long time (longer than you'd anticipate with the size of their egos) and it paid dividends. His team had fresh legs late in the game. His team had quality RBs to help carry the load when a guy went down, etc. Look at the Arizona Cardinals...name me their RBs. But most fans can name the RBs from the Broncos more readily.

I respect that you're a broncos fan, but as a guy who is NOT a fan of your team...I can tell you that your team has had a heckuva' lot better RBs at the #3 spot than most teams have had at the #1 spot.

Kaiser Toro
04-14-2006, 11:47 AM
One guy didn't get ALL the carries. That Broncos team, unlike any other NFL team, was able to (A) Retain quality RBs, (B) At a moment's notice plug one of them into the scheme, and (C) Keep on truckin' like nothing was wrong.

Zone blocking paved the way for that. And we have already employed a similar blocking scheme that's helped Davis make a cut and go. Thus, Kubiak is salivating at the chance to have a backfield of Davis, Bush, and Morency. Three guys who he can instantly plug into the scheme and know that he's got an above-average RB at any moment in any game regardless of injuries, fumble problems, etc.. that plague on of the three guys.

Look across the league and tell me what other NFL teams, over the course of the past 5-7 years, has held as many quality RBs on their team as Denver has? Portis went to Skins to be "the man." Anderson went to Ravens to be "the man." Shanahan did an excellent job of keeping quality RBs on his team for a long time (longer than you'd anticipate with the size of their egos) and it paid dividends. His team had fresh legs late in the game. His team had quality RBs to help carry the load when a guy went down, etc. Look at the Arizona Cardinals...name me their RBs. But most fans can name the RBs from the Broncos more readily.

I respect that you're a broncos fan, but as a guy who is NOT a fan of your team...I can tell you that your team has had a heckuva' lot better RBs at the #3 spot than most teams have had at the #1 spot.

They did not carry three backs that digested 12 million in cap as we would do if we have Bush, Davis and Morency.

Apoch
04-14-2006, 12:52 PM
One guy didn't get ALL the carries. That Broncos team, unlike any other NFL team, was able to (A) Retain quality RBs, (B) At a moment's notice plug one of them into the scheme, and (C) Keep on truckin' like nothing was wrong.

Zone blocking paved the way for that. And we have already employed a similar blocking scheme that's helped Davis make a cut and go. Thus, Kubiak is salivating at the chance to have a backfield of Davis, Bush, and Morency. Three guys who he can instantly plug into the scheme and know that he's got an above-average RB at any moment in any game regardless of injuries, fumble problems, etc.. that plague on of the three guys.

Look across the league and tell me what other NFL teams, over the course of the past 5-7 years, has held as many quality RBs on their team as Denver has? Portis went to Skins to be "the man." Anderson went to Ravens to be "the man." Shanahan did an excellent job of keeping quality RBs on his team for a long time (longer than you'd anticipate with the size of their egos) and it paid dividends. His team had fresh legs late in the game. His team had quality RBs to help carry the load when a guy went down, etc. Look at the Arizona Cardinals...name me their RBs. But most fans can name the RBs from the Broncos more readily.

I respect that you're a broncos fan, but as a guy who is NOT a fan of your team...I can tell you that your team has had a heckuva' lot better RBs at the #3 spot than most teams have had at the #1 spot.

I think you are arguing a point I was never trying to make. In all the things you said I agree with you.

Yes the Broncos retain quality RBs, probably even better than most teams can imagine. The majority of their RBs have been day 2 selections or FA castoffs. That means they do a pretty good job of finding RBs that fit their system.

Yes they plug those reserves in at a minutes notice, and keep on trucking like nothing was wrong. That was part of the point I was trying to make. They plug them in, not switch-switch-switch. Denver always relies on one starter to handle the load despite how much depth and specialization they have. They don't switch to the powerback late in the 4th, and they generally don't like shotgun formations with a "3rd down back." All their RBs could be starters in their system and are not caddy-cornered to a specific role. That is what I meant in my post where I said...

"The point of all this is that up until last year ONE Denver RB got all the carries. Last year was their first ever attempt under Shanahan at a RB by commitee design. What does this mean? It means that Shanahan and Kubiak have a system, but they are flexible enough to see what players are good at and adjust to what they have."

Heck, you even agreed with me in an earlier post...

Can you define this fact through percentage of carries? Other than last year and 2001 there was one main back and in the second backs best year they had 19% of the total carries.

Denver has done a good job drafting value, bringing in perceived washed up vets and having a terrific O line. The numbers do not say that Kubiak is a two or three back system type guy.

EDIT: You didn't agree with me... that was Kaiser Toro. Apologies...

Denver's running game is fantastic, the best in the NFL over the past 10 years, and it doesn't show signs of stopping. People in Houston should be overjoyed at the advent of that system. It is the one single constant that has allowed Denver over only one losing season over the past decade and the best overall record. Davis, Bush, and Morency along with stellar O-line play will give Houston something they can be proud of. Johnson, Moulds, Carr, and Putzier will make the Texans offense prolific, and Mathis will just be icing on the 30+ points per game cake.

Lots of teams can, and have, scored that many points, but in Denver it equals instant success. Denver has only lost 4 games under Shanahan when they score 30+ points, and they are 67-5 (I may be one or two games off with that) when they have a 100 yard rusher. Expect the same in Houston.

Thanks for the Bronco respect, but I am a bigtime Texans follower too. I have loved the Texans as my second team since they became a team. The recent connections with the Broncos (preseasons), my years spent living in Texas (Corpus Christi, loved it), and their favorable Madden statistics ( :cool: ) have only made that love stronger.


EDIT: ...oh and as for Cardinal RBs I can only name five off the top of my head: Thomas Jones, Shipp (Marcellus I think), Emmitt Smith, JJ Arrington, and Garrison Hearst (and Hearst hasn't played for them for several years).

MorKnolle
04-14-2006, 12:52 PM
I don't see Bush as exemplifying any leadership whatsoever. I do see him, however, as a wasted pick. RBs are a dime a dozen (see the Colts and Edgerring James) and quite often flop bigtime once they get into the pros. I would hate to see the Texans waste a top pick like this on a RB especially when they already have a good one and have so many needs elsewhere. This is why I am losing my excitement for the Texans. They are acting like this is fantasy football and trying to draft the top ball handler around when everybody in the NFL knows the key to winning consistently in this league is line play on both ends. When I see obviously boneheaded moves like this being pulled on a consistent basis, it just shows me that this team just plain doesn't know what it's doing and can't even grasp the basics of the NFL.

If you know so much more than the FO people then maybe you should get a job in their personnel department. I don't agree with some of their moves either and I would also prefer Mario Williams, but this coaching staff has a far better track record than what the last one showed while they were here so I am going to trust their decisions until I am given significant reason not to. If Kubiak thinks drafting Bush is best for our team, so be it and I will eagerly await to see what Kubiak can do with Bush in our offense. If he thinks drafting Mario is best for the team, then I'm that much happier for it and will definitely be thrilled to see what he can do for our defense.

Malloy
04-14-2006, 01:02 PM
If we take Bush we must move Davis in my opinion.


Interesting, but did we not just give him a new contract?

Drafting Bush, selling DD and using Morency/Bush could be interesting.

And no, I'm not a DD hater....

bad
04-14-2006, 01:16 PM
I just can't condone the way in which you are abusing the wrongfully accused victim of the liberal media in your avatar. It compells me to troll you.... Yeah, what's up with that? The man is obviously a Saint.

http://www.peteykins.com/sparklepony/DelayPope.jpg :pigfly:

Or not.

http://www.sourball.com/whitehouse/cp/mugshot.jpg

MorKnolle
04-14-2006, 01:36 PM
One guy didn't get ALL the carries. That Broncos team, unlike any other NFL team, was able to (A) Retain quality RBs, (B) At a moment's notice plug one of them into the scheme, and (C) Keep on truckin' like nothing was wrong.

Zone blocking paved the way for that. And we have already employed a similar blocking scheme that's helped Davis make a cut and go. Thus, Kubiak is salivating at the chance to have a backfield of Davis, Bush, and Morency. Three guys who he can instantly plug into the scheme and know that he's got an above-average RB at any moment in any game regardless of injuries, fumble problems, etc.. that plague on of the three guys.

Look across the league and tell me what other NFL teams, over the course of the past 5-7 years, has held as many quality RBs on their team as Denver has? Portis went to Skins to be "the man." Anderson went to Ravens to be "the man." Shanahan did an excellent job of keeping quality RBs on his team for a long time (longer than you'd anticipate with the size of their egos) and it paid dividends. His team had fresh legs late in the game. His team had quality RBs to help carry the load when a guy went down, etc. Look at the Arizona Cardinals...name me their RBs. But most fans can name the RBs from the Broncos more readily.

I respect that you're a broncos fan, but as a guy who is NOT a fan of your team...I can tell you that your team has had a heckuva' lot better RBs at the #3 spot than most teams have had at the #1 spot.

OK, reading thru this argument has piqued my curiosity on the matter, so without taking sides before hand here is a look at their RB situation in recent history:

Pre-Mike Shanahan/Gary Kubiak:
1991: 12-4 (Dan Reeves, 8th in league in rushing)
Leading Rusher: Gaston Green - 261 carries, 1037 yards (4.0 avg.), 4 TD (58.8% of carries, 60.7% of yards)
2nd Leading Rusher: Greg Lewis - 99 carries, 376 yards (3.8 avg.), 4 TD (22.2% of carries, 22.0% of yards)
3td Leading Rusher: Steve Sewell - 50 carries, 211 yards (4.2 avg.), 2 TD (11.3% of carries, 12.4% of yards)
Total Rushing (RBs only): 444 carries, 1707 yards (3.8 avg.), 10 TD
(John Elway added 55 carries for 255 yards and 6 TD)
1992: 8-8 (Dan Reeves, 25th in league in rushing)
Leading Rusher: Gaston Green - 161 carries, 648 yards (4.0 avg.), 2 TD (48.2% of carries, 50.2% of yards)
2nd Leading Rusher: Reggie Rivers - 74 carries, 282 yards (3.8 avg.), 3 TD (22.2% of carries, 21.8% of yards)
3rd Leading Rusher: Greg Lewis - 73 carries, 268 yards (3.7 avg.), 4 TD (21.9% of carries, 20.8% of yards)
Total Rushing (RBs only): 334 carries, 1291 yards, (3.9 avg.), 9 TD
(John Elway added 34 carries for 94 yards and 2 TD)
1993: 9-7 (Wade Phillips, 18th in league in rushing)
Leading Rusher: Rod Bernstine - 223 carries, 816 yards (3.7 avg.), 4 TD (60.4% of carries, 62.2% of yards)
2nd Leading Rusher: Robert Delpino - 131 carries, 445 yards (3.4 avg.), 8 TD (35.5% of carries, 33.9% of yards)
3rd Leading Rusher: Reggie Rivers - 15 carries, 50 yards (3.3 avg.), 1 TD (4.1% of carries, 3.8% of yards)
Total Rushing (RBs only): 369 carries, 1311 yards (3.6 avg.), 13 TD
(John Elway added 44 carries for 153 yards)
1994: 7-9 (Wade Phillips, 23rd in league in rushing)
Leading Rusher: Leonard Russell - 190 carries, 620 yards (3.3 avg.), 9 TD (62.1% or carries, 64.4% of yards)
2nd Leading Rusher: Derrick Clark - 56 carries, 168 yards (3.0 avg.), 3 TD (18.3% of carries, 17.5% of yards)
3rd Leading Rusher: Rod Bernstine - 17 carries, 91 yards (5.4 avg.), 0 TD (5.6% of carries, 9.5% of yards)
Total Rushing (RBs only): 306 carries, 962 yards (3.1 avg.), 14 TD
(John Elway added 58 carries for 235 yards and 4 TD)

Mike Shanahan/Gary Kubiak era:
1995: 8-8 (5th in league in rushing)
Leading Rusher: Terrell Davis - 237 carries, 1117 yards (4.7 avg.), 7 TD (70.7% of carries, 73.1% of yards)
2nd Leading Rusher: Aaron Craver - 73 carries, 333 yards (4.6 avg.), 5 TD (21.8% of carries, 21.8% of yards)
3rd Leading Rusher: Rod Bernstine - 23 carries, 76 yards (3.3 avg.), 1 TD (6.9% of carries, 5.0% of yards)
Total Rushing (RBs only): 335 carries, 1528 yards (4.6 avg.), 13 TD
(John Elway added 41 carries for 176 yards and 1 TD)
1996: 13-3 (1st in league in rushing)
Leading Rusher: Terrell Davis - 345 carries, 1538 yards (4.5 avg.), 13 TD (75.8% of carries, 75.5% of yards)
2nd Leading Rusher: Vaughn Hebron - 49 carries, 262 yards (5.3 avg.), 0 TD (10.8% of carries, 12.9% of yards)
3rd Leading Rusher: Aaron Craver - 59 carries, 232 yards (3.9 avg.), 2 TD (13.0% of carries, 11.4% of yards)
Total Rushing (RBs only): 455 carries, 2038 yards, (4.5 avg.), 15 TD
(John Elway added 50 carries for 249 yards and 4 TD)
1997: 12-4 (4th in league in rushing, won Super Bowl)
Leading Rusher: Terrell Davis - 369 carries, 1750 yards (4.7 avg.), 15 TD (81.6% of carries, 82.2% of yards)
2nd Leading Rusher: Vaughn Hebron - 49 carries, 222 yards (4.5 avg.), 1 TD (10.8% of carries, 10.4% of yards)
3rd Leading Rusher: Derek Loville - 25 carries, 124 yards (5.0 avg.), 1 TD (5.5% of carries, 5.8% of yards)
Total Rushing (RBs only): 452 carries, 2130 yards (4.7 avg.), 17 TD
(John Elway added 50 carries for 218 yards and 1 TD)
1998: 14-2 (2nd in league in rushing, won Super Bowl)
Leading Rusher: Terrell Davis - 392 carries, 2008 yards (5.1 avg.), 21 TD (85.6% of carries, 90.7% of yards)
2nd Leading Rusher: Derek Loville - 53 carries, 161 yards (3.0 avg.), 2 TD (11.6% of carries, 7.3% of yards)
3rd Leading Rusher: Vaughn Hebron - 9 carries, 31 yards (3.4 avg.), 1 TD (2.0% of carries, 1.4% of yards)
Total Rushing (RBs only): 458 carries, 2213 yards (4.8 avg.), 24 TD
(John Elway added 37 carries for 94 yards and 1 TD)
1999: 6-10 (12th in league in rushing, Elway retired)
Leading Rusher: Olandis Gary - 276 carries, 1159 yards (4.2 avg.), 7 TD (67.6% of carries, 69.4% of yards)
2nd Leading Rusher: Terrell Davis - 67 carries, 211 yards (3.1 avg.), 2 TD (16.4% of carries, 12.6% of yards)
3rd Leading Rusher: Derek Loville - 40 carries, 203 yards (5.1 avg.), 1 TD (9.8% of carries, 12.2% of yards)
Total Rushing (RBs only): 408 carries, 1669 yards (4.1 avg.), 11 TD
(Brian Griese added 46 carries for 138 yards and 2 TD)
2000: 11-5 (2nd in league in rushing)
Leading Rusher: Mike Anderson - 297 carries, 1487 yards (5.0 avg.), 15 TD (65.0% of carries, 72.2% of yards)
2nd Leading Rusher: Terrell Davis - 78 carries, 282 yards (3.6 avg.), 2 TD (17.1% of carries, 13.7% of yards)
3rd Leading Rusher: Karon Coleman - 54 carries, 183 yards (3.4 avg.), 1 TD (11.8% of carries, 8.9% of yards)
Total Rushing (RBs only): 457 carries, 2058 yards (4.5 avg.), 18 TD
(Brian Griese added 29 carries for 102 yards and 1 TD)
2001: 8-8 (10th in league in rushing)
Leading Rusher: Terrell Davis - 167 carries, 701 yards (4.2 avg.), 0 TD (41.1% of carries, 43.0% of yards)
2nd Leading Rusher: Mike Anderson - 175 carries, 678 yards (3.9 avg.), 4 TD (43.1% of carries, 41.6% of yards)
3rd Leading Rusher: Olandis Gary - 57 carries, 228 yards (4.0 avg.), 1 TD (14.0% of carries, 14.0% of yards)
Total Rushing (RBs only): 406 carries, 1628 yards (4.0 avg.), 5 TD
(Brian Griese added 50 carries for 173 yards and 1 TD)
2002: 9-7 (5th in league in rushing)
Leading Rusher: Clinton Portis - 273 carries, 1508 yards (5.5 avg.), 15 TD (68.5% of carries, 73.5% of yards)
2nd Leading Rusher: Mike Anderson - 84 carries, 386 yards (4.6 avg.), 2 TD (21.1% of carries, 18.8% of yards)
3rd Leading Rusher: Olandis Gary - 37 carries, 147 yards (4.0 avg.), 1 TD (9.3% of carries, 7.2% of yards)
Total Rushing (RBs only): 398 carries, 2052 yards (5.2 avg.), 19 TD
(Brian Griese added 37 carries for 107 yards and 1 TD)
2003: 10-6 (2nd in league in rushing)
Leading Rusher: Clinton Portis - 290 carries, 1591 yards (5.5 avg.), 14 TD (61.4% of carries, 71.1% of yards)
2nd Leading Rusher: Quentin Griffin - 94 carries, 345 yards (3.7 avg.), 0 TD (19.9% of carries, 15.4% of yards)
3rd Leading Rusher: Mike Anderson - 70 carries, 257 yards (3.7 avg.), 3 TD (14.8% of carries, 11.5% of yards)
Total Rushing (RBs only): 472 carries, 2238 yards (4.7 avg.), 17 TD
(Jake Plummer added 37 carries for 205 yards and 3 TD)
2004: 10-6 (4th in league in rushing)
Leading Rusher: Reuben Droughns - 275 carries, 1240 yards (4.5 avg.), 6 TD (59.9% of carries, 60.2% of yards)
2nd Leading Rusher: Tatum Bell - 75 carries, 396 yards (5.3 avg.), 3 TD (16.3% of carries, 19.2% of yards)
3rd Leading Rusher: Quentin Griffin - 85 carries, 311 yards (3.7 avg.), 2 TD (18.5% of carries, 15.1% of yards)
Total Rushing (RBs only): 459 carries, 2060 yards (4.5 avg.), 12 TD
(Jake Plummer added 62 carries for 202 yards and 1 TD)
2005: 13-3 (2nd in league in rushing)
Leading Rusher: Mike Anderson - 239 carries, 1014 yards (4.2 avg.), 12 TD (50.4% of carries, 45.4% of yards)
2nd Leading Rusher: Tatum Bell - 173 carries, 921 yards (5.3 avg.), 8 TD (36.5% of carries, 41.2% of yards)
3rd Leading Rusher: Ron Dayne - 53 carries, 270 yards (5.1 avg.), 1 TD (11.1% of carries, 12.1% of yards)
Total Rushing (RBs only): 474 carries, 2235 yards (4.7 avg.), 22 TD
(Jake Plummer added 46 carries for 151 yards and 2 TD)

Meloy
04-14-2006, 01:39 PM
They did not carry three backs that digested 12 million in cap as we would do if we have Bush, Davis and Morency.
Ahh. But what if those 3 give you 2500 combined yards in a season? and say maybe 20 touchdowns?and increased those on the season ticket waiting list? and increased your sponsor based by say $50 million a year?

Kaiser Toro
04-14-2006, 01:40 PM
Interesting, but did we not just give him a new contract?

Drafting Bush, selling DD and using Morency/Bush could be interesting.

And no, I'm not a DD hater....

We did and I do not hate DD either. This is part of my never ending evangelical crusade to allocate money in the right spots. For me Bush is synonymous with over allocation of funds in my life as a tax payer and a fan. At least Reggie will be fun to watch.

Bobo
04-14-2006, 01:41 PM
Ahh. But what if those 3 give you 2500 combined yards in a season? and say maybe 20 touchdowns?and increased those on the season ticket waiting list? and increased your sponsor based by say $50 million a year?

And what if the OL continues to be bad at the expense of carrying three RBs? That's like going out and buying three weedwhackers while your lawn mower sits in the garage, broken and unused.

Kaiser Toro
04-14-2006, 01:44 PM
Ahh. But what if those 3 give you 2500 combined yards in a season? and say maybe 20 touchdowns?and increased those on the season ticket waiting list? and increased your sponsor based by say $50 million a year?

There is a ying and ynag factor with that total investment on the offense. An arguement could be made that the defense does not have the cash spent to prevent the incremental yards that the backfield will incur for that investment.

Slam dunk argument? Nope, but it is a theory if you buy into the idea that you get what you pay for.

Bobo
04-14-2006, 01:46 PM
If you know so much more than the FO people then maybe you should get a job in their personnel department. I don't agree with some of their moves either and I would also prefer Mario Williams, but this coaching staff has a far better track record than what the last one showed while they were here so I am going to trust their decisions until I am given significant reason not to. If Kubiak thinks drafting Bush is best for our team, so be it and I will eagerly await to see what Kubiak can do with Bush in our offense. If he thinks drafting Mario is best for the team, then I'm that much happier for it and will definitely be thrilled to see what he can do for our defense.

A.) The last coaching staff here took a team from its infancy to within the cusp of .500 in just three years. That's a pretty darn good track record if you ask me. The current coaching staff has no track record at all, seeing that the head coach is as green as grass and has as much NFL head coaching experience as I have. The assistants are just as green as he is. B.) As far as I'm concerned, Kubiak has already given me significant reasons to question his decisions -- so much so that I doubt his leadership and don't expect to be cheering much for this team in future years.

Malloy
04-14-2006, 01:50 PM
We did and I do not hate DD either. This is part of my never ending evangelical crusade to allocate money in the right spots. For me Bush is synonymous with over allocation of funds in my life as a tax payer and a fan. At least Reggie will be fun to watch.

Cap issues (along with me privately being grumpy that these people make so much money) are real issues.

The DD move you suggest would solve some of that $-issue, but the question is whether or not Bush/Morency would be able to pick it up in their "first" year.

If we draft Bush, and it sure does smell like that right now, I'm with you, he'll be fun to watch, we can then both whine about the $-issues in the off-season ;)

Kaiser Toro
04-14-2006, 01:53 PM
Cap issues (along with me privately being grumpy that these people make so much money) are real issues.

The DD move you suggest would solve some of that $-issue, but the question is whether or not Bush/Morency would be able to pick it up in their "first" year.

If we draft Bush, and it sure does smell like that right now, I'm with you, he'll be fun to watch, we can then both whine about the $-issues in the off-season ;)

Totally agree brutha. Chomping at the bit for some Texan football. :texflag:

Mr. White
04-14-2006, 02:00 PM
A.) The last coaching staff here took a team from its infancy to within the cusp of .500 in just three years. That's a pretty darn good track record if you ask me. The current coaching staff has no track record at all, seeing that the head coach is as green as grass and has as much NFL head coaching experience as I have. The assistants are just as green as he is. B.) As far as I'm concerned, Kubiak has already given me significant reasons to question his decisions -- so much so that I doubt his leadership and don't expect to be cheering much for this team in future years.


Capers was a Head Coach for 8 seasons. Only one (1996) yielded a winning record. He never won more than 7 games any other season. He was a loser. He was a loser when Casserly hired him and he's even more of a loser now.

***edit***
To his apologists....he's a damn good DC. I'll give you that much.

cuppacoffee
04-14-2006, 02:13 PM
A.) The last coaching staff here took a team from its infancy to within the cusp of .500 in just three years. That's a pretty darn good track record if you ask me. The current coaching staff has no track record at all, seeing that the head coach is as green as grass and has as much NFL head coaching experience as I have. The assistants are just as green as he is. B.) As far as I'm concerned, Kubiak has already given me significant reasons to question his decisions -- so much so that I doubt his leadership and don't expect to be cheering much for this team in future years.

I havent heard much cheering from you up to this point, only jeering. :crying:

I am willing, unlike some posters, to admit that I do not know as much about pro-football as the professional coaches and general managers.

You don't expect to "be cheering much for this team in future years".. gee, I know I am going to miss you. :rolleyes:

I fully intend to remain a poster on this board and also intend to cheer the Texans in the future, regardless of whether they make moves I agree with.

Your satisfaction with the previous staff tells it all.

:coffee:

MorKnolle
04-14-2006, 04:32 PM
OK, a follow up to my previous post on the Broncos past rushing history now that I have a few minutes to type it up:

Over 11 seasons under Shanahan/Kubiak, the Broncos leading rusher each year averaged an overall of getting 66.1% of the teams total carries, their 2nd leading rusher averaged getting 20.5% of their total carries, and their 3rd leading rusher has averaged getting 10.5% of their total carries, which does not overly look like a true 2 RB or RB by committee system.

The Broncos' leading rusher had over 70% of the carries in 4 out of the 11 seasons they've been in Denver (all of those were Terrell Davis), including seasons of 85.6% (1998) and 81.6% (1997), incidentally winning the Super Bowl both years. In those four seasons, the Broncos had a combined record of 47-17 (.734 winning percentage), made the playoffs in 3 seasons, won 2 Super Bowls, their RBs averaged 4.7 yards per carry, and they averaged ranking 4th in the league in rushing. In those 4 seasons, the leading rusher averaged getting 78.4% of their total carries, while the 2nd leading rusher averaged 13.8% of their total carries, and their 3rd leading rusher averaged 6.9% of their total carries (definitely not considered a 2 RB scheme).

The Broncos leading rusher had between 60 and 70% of their carries in 4 out of 11 seasons, during that time they had a combined record of 36-28 (.563), made the playoffs 2 times, their RBs averaged 4.6 yards per carry, and they averaged ranking 5th in the league in rushing. In those 4 seasons, the leading rusher averaged getting 65.6% of their total carries, the 2nd leading rusher averaged 18.6% of their total carries, and the 3rd leading rusher averaged 11.4% of their total carries (not really a 2 RB scheme).

The Broncos leading rusher had between 50 and 60% of their carries in 2 out of 11 seasons (the last two seasons), in which the Broncos had a combined record of 23-9 (.719), made the playoffs both years, their RBs averaged 4.6 yards per carry, and they averaged ranking 3rd in the league in rushing. In those 2 seasons, their leading rusher averaged getting 55.2% of their total carries, the 2nd leading rusher averaged 26.4% of their total carries, and their 3rd leading rusher averaged 14.8% of their total carries (getting closer to a 2 RB scheme, but still not really).

The Broncos only had 1 season in 11 years where their leading rusher had less than 50% of their carries (2001), in which they went 8-8 (.500), missed the playoffs, their RBs averaged 4.0 yards per carry, and they were ranked 10th in the league in rushing. Their leading rusher (in terms of rushing yards) had 41.1% of their carries, their 2nd leading rusher had 43.1% of their total carries, and their 3rd leading rusher had 14.0% of their total carries (this would definitely be considered a 2 RB scheme).

In the 4 seasons before Shanahan/Kubiak arrived, the Broncos averaged ranking 19th in the league in rushing, their RBs averaged 3.6 yards per carry, and they had a combined record of 36-28 (.563) and only made the playoffs twice. As an FYI, their leading rusher averaged getting 57.3% of their carries during those 4 years, their 2nd leading rusher averaged getting 24.6% of their carries, and their 3rd leading rusher averaged 11.4% of their total carries.

From this info, I wouldn't really say the Broncos ran a 2 RB scheme other than for a year or two, and it's not really clear whether the Broncos had more success when their main RB got a larger portion of their carries in terms of rushing yards, average yards per carry, or winning percentage, although they did win those 2 Super Bowls when Terrell Davis dominated their running game. It is, however, clear that Shanahan/Kubiak drastically improved the Broncos running game and their overall success from the previous few seasons, and hopefully Kubiak will bring that type of success here.

Apoch
04-14-2006, 10:59 PM
OK, a follow up to my previous post on the Broncos past rushing history now that I have a few minutes to type it up:

Over 11 seasons under Shanahan/Kubiak, the Broncos leading rusher each year averaged an overall of getting 66.1% of the teams total carries, their 2nd leading rusher averaged getting 20.5% of their total carries, and their 3rd leading rusher has averaged getting 10.5% of their total carries, which does not overly look like a true 2 RB or RB by committee system.

......

From this info, I wouldn't really say the Broncos ran a 2 RB scheme other than for a year or two, and it's not really clear whether the Broncos had more success when their main RB got a larger portion of their carries in terms of rushing yards, average yards per carry, or winning percentage, although they did win those 2 Super Bowls when Terrell Davis dominated their running game. It is, however, clear that Shanahan/Kubiak drastically improved the Broncos running game and their overall success from the previous few seasons, and hopefully Kubiak will bring that type of success here.

I wanted to quote your whole message, but I didn't want to have that whole thing repeated, so I cut out the middle. Everything you said is true and I agree with your conclusions, however I would add something to it. In several of the years where the carry percentage was more spread out there were many injuries and switches of the starting job.

For example, you said...

2001: 8-8 (10th in league in rushing)
Leading Rusher: Terrell Davis - 167 carries, 701 yards (4.2 avg.), 0 TD (41.1% of carries, 43.0% of yards)
2nd Leading Rusher: Mike Anderson - 175 carries, 678 yards (3.9 avg.), 4 TD (43.1% of carries, 41.6% of yards)
3rd Leading Rusher: Olandis Gary - 57 carries, 228 yards (4.0 avg.), 1 TD (14.0% of carries, 14.0% of yards)
Total Rushing (RBs only): 406 carries, 1628 yards (4.0 avg.), 5 TD
(Brian Griese added 50 carries for 173 yards and 1 TD)


Terrell Davis only played 7 games that year. He then broke his kneecap and sat out the rest of the year. This kind of thing happened consistently between '99 and '04. If those injuries hadn't happened I'm sure we would see carry percentages more like those of the Superbowl years.

Bobo
04-14-2006, 11:05 PM
I havent heard much cheering from you up to this point, only jeering. :crying:

I am willing, unlike some posters, to admit that I do not know as much about pro-football as the professional coaches and general managers.

You don't expect to "be cheering much for this team in future years".. gee, I know I am going to miss you. :rolleyes:

I fully intend to remain a poster on this board and also intend to cheer the Texans in the future, regardless of whether they make moves I agree with.

Your satisfaction with the previous staff tells it all.

:coffee:

It doesn't take much to know what this team needs, and it isn't a TE or a RB or a WR. Everybody and their sister knows this team needs a lot of help defensively and in the OL -- except apparently this coaching staff. As far as who misses who, all I know is a lot of so-called "fans" were missing at mid-season this past year and I wouldn't be surprised to see the same thing this coming season. As far as cheering for teams that are bound and determined to end back in the cellar by making boneheaded moves, well, here. Take the Kool-Aid. I politely decline.

thunderkyss
04-15-2006, 01:13 AM
Right, thanks for that Bobo. Consisent line play on both ends is a proven commodity in the NFL, you're right. But why waste two 1st round picks in a row on DL? We drafted TJ last year, arguably the highest rated DT available, and signed Weaver and Kalu (plus we have Payne, Smith, Peek, and Babin). I'd say our DL is pretty much set.
Not that they are a model for us to follow, but Dallas used two #1 picks last Year on defensive line..... DeMarcus Ware(DE/OLB), and Marcuse Spears(DT). When they already had Ferguson, Laroi Glover, Greg Ellis. I understand they were going from a 4-3, to a 3-4, where we are going the other way, but when you're last in the league(or darn close) against the run, and your last in the league(or darn close), you gotta do what you gotta do.

As for OL, I agree, this should be our first priority. But, as it has been posted time and time again on this board, Denver's zone blocking style doesnt require the prototypical OLman. For this reason, we can draft a 2nd or 3rd round guy and have him fit in much better than the top rated LT in the draft. As a result, to help our OL, the best thing we can do is draft someone who the defense will have to watch out for and thus blitz less often. RB is that guy, whether or not you want to believe it or not. I find it hard to believe that EVERY scout could be wrong about this one player, who has been rated as #1 for almost two years now. I thought Matt was rated as #1 last year. & I don't believe a runningback is a consideration when the D decides to blitz. If the team has a runnigback to worry about, the blitz goes through the RB... that's all. The blitz is still coming....... Even a guy like Marshall Faulk isn't going to get the ball if the D can consistently make the QB make bad decisions. If they hurry the throw, if they get him throwing off his back foot, if they got him throwing across his body. It happened.......... it happened to the real life Marshall Faulk...... I remember everybody asking, "why don't they just give the ball to Faulk" the answer, was because they couldn't. People used to try to spy Faulk, keep him under lock and key......... then they figured out the answer, was the QB......

No need to watch Reggie Wayne, or Marvin Harrison....... Edgerin James, just get to Peyton.....

Oh and another thing, RBs are NOT a dime a dozen. If they were, every team would have a strong running game. If they were so common, S. Alexander, LT, and Edge wouldn't be getting those HUGE contracts. Teams like the Cardinals would be able to run the ball, and RBs wouldn't be drafted so high (there were 3 RBs taken in the top 10 last year) Every player in the NFL is at least midly talented, I will agree, and with a truly awesome line, pretty much any NFL caliber athlete should be able to gain 1000 yards, but the truly elite RBs come around only so often

3 players last year........ all made an impact, and all had decent rookie years..... Carnell looks somewhat like a superstar.

2004
Stephen Jackson, Jullius Jones, Tatem Bell, all played big roles in their teams offense... in the NFL.

2003
Willis McGahee, Larry Johnson, Domanick Davis...... pretty productive guys..

2002
T.J. Ducket, Clinton Portis, Brian Westbrook(3rd Round),

2001
LT, Duece McAllister, Rudi Johnson(4th Round),

2000
Jamal Lewis, Shaun Alexander, Reuben Droughns, Mike Anderson(6th Round)

1999
Edgerin James, Ricky Williams, Olandis Gary(4th round),

1998
Fred Taylor, Ahman Green, Michael Pittman(hey, he was starting at the begining of 2005)


8 years, at least 3 Quality guys each year.......... that's 24 guys.... 24 guys... that's darn near a dime a dozen....... top of the draft, middle, the bottom......

Bobo
04-15-2006, 01:51 AM
3 players last year........ all made an impact, and all had decent rookie years..... Carnell looks somewhat like a superstar.

2004
Stephen Jackson, Jullius Jones, Tatem Bell, all played big roles in their teams offense... in the NFL.

2003
Willis McGahee, Larry Johnson, Domanick Davis...... pretty productive guys..

2002
T.J. Ducket, Clinton Portis, Brian Westbrook(3rd Round),

2001
LT, Duece McAllister, Rudi Johnson(4th Round),

2000
Jamal Lewis, Shaun Alexander, Reuben Droughns, Mike Anderson(6th Round)

1999
Edgerin James, Ricky Williams, Olandis Gary(4th round),

1998
Fred Taylor, Ahman Green, Michael Pittman(hey, he was starting at the begining of 2005)


8 years, at least 3 Quality guys each year.......... that's 24 guys.... 24 guys... that's darn near a dime a dozen....... top of the draft, middle, the bottom......

No mention of J.R. Arrington or Cedrick Benson, as well as the all-time sure-fire can't miss folks like Lawrence Phillips, Archie Griffin, Kiyanna Carter, Trung Canidate, Blair Thomas and Curtis Enis.

thunderkyss
04-15-2006, 02:09 AM
The Broncos only had 1 season in 11 years where their leading rusher had less than 50% of their carries (2001), in which they went 8-8 (.500), missed the playoffs, their RBs averaged 4.0 yards per carry, and they were ranked 10th in the league in rushing. Their leading rusher (in terms of rushing yards) had 41.1% of their carries, their 2nd leading rusher had 43.1% of their total carries, and their 3rd leading rusher had 14.0% of their total carries (this would definitely be considered a 2 RB scheme).

not really. This looks more like a team trying to find their guy.


In the 4 seasons before Shanahan/Kubiak arrived, the Broncos averaged ranking 19th in the league in rushing, their RBs averaged 3.6 yards per carry, and they had a combined record of 36-28 (.563) and only made the playoffs twice. As an FYI, their leading rusher averaged getting 57.3% of their carries during those 4 years, their 2nd leading rusher averaged getting 24.6% of their carries, and their 3rd leading rusher averaged 11.4% of their total carries.

From this info, I wouldn't really say the Broncos ran a 2 RB scheme other than for a year or two, and it's not really clear whether the Broncos had more success when their main RB got a larger portion of their carries in terms of rushing yards, average yards per carry, or winning percentage, although they did win those 2 Super Bowls when Terrell Davis dominated their running game. It is, however, clear that Shanahan/Kubiak drastically improved the Broncos running game and their overall success from the previous few seasons, and hopefully Kubiak will bring that type of success here.

I like that idea, but the better our system, the less stellar the pieces will have to be. Denver is known for their "plug & play" running game. It doesn't matter who you put back there, they are going to be studs.....

They didn't get this "reputation" by stockpiling great runningbacks. It is the system. IMHO, only Terrell Davis, and Clinton Portis were better than the system........ Clinton Portis, I don't think came into his own, till he struggled early in Washington.

But as has been mentioned, and been over looked, All of Denver's guys were second day picks, including Terrell Davis, the 196th pick of the 1995 draft. Clinton Portis is the only guy taken by Denver on the first day, and he was drafted in the third round. And, I don't know how far back you can go, but Denver has always been drafting RBs late on the second day for quite some time now.

This doesn't make me think we'll be passing on Bush, as much as it makes me think we'll move DD, which I don't like....... I'd rather loose Carr.....


but you already know that.

BigDTexansFan
04-15-2006, 10:30 AM
Goes without saying that I am a DD fan, but I will be happy if we choose Bush. The guy exudes leadership and we could do a lot worse than Bush, especially since Kubiak's style of ball involves multiple quality running backs.

IMO, we would statistically have a better shot at getting good (and being good for a longer period of time) by trading out and grabbing extra pick(s) and D'Brickashaw Ferguson. That's been my first love, but now I am growing more intrigued by the prospect of having a chance at a true game-breaker that other teams must account for every down he's on the field.


That is what cost the Trojans the Rose Bowl, they took Bush out left in Lendale White and Longhorns knew it was a run on 4th down. IF they had left Bush in, could be a run, an option pass or a QB sneak...Longhorns never could have defended all the options putting Bush onfield, I think will be same for most NFL defenses. Are they (Texans) throwing deep, pass to TE, pass to Bush or Davis or are Bush and Davis running it.

You can see where addition of TE, WR and Bush make our offense a lot more explosive and harder to cover, and with offense that moves chains. OUR defense gets to rest instead of being worn out in 4th quarter and losing leads, they will be fresh and ready to go in 4th quarter to seal the deal

Look at this one fact, we were 2-14 and lost 6-7 games because we couldn't hold lead in 4th quarter. With an improved offensive scheme and players to execute it we are already better and with a defensive change better suited to our players, we stand to improve on both sides of ball.

Divisionally Titans lost most of experience on offensive line, Colts lost a big weapon when Edge left (it will show up in games). Jags are going to be tough, but we have always played them tough. We face some tough teams, but I think since we not wasting time with scrimmages with other teams. We can put in gameplan and work on improving and I think next year NFL comes hat in hand to ask if we would mind having a Monday Night date


:fans:

BigDTexansFan
04-15-2006, 10:41 AM
their email says "Whom would you like to bother. when sent this is emssage you get

THANK YOU!
Thanks for taking your hard-earned seconds and getting in touch with us. We'll do our best to respond to your comment/question/insult, but don't be offended if we take our sweet time to do so.


I think we can tell them where to put their FOOTBALL:redtowel:

Apoch
04-15-2006, 10:47 AM
not really. This looks more like a team trying to find their guy.



I like that idea, but the better our system, the less stellar the pieces will have to be. Denver is known for their "plug & play" running game. It doesn't matter who you put back there, they are going to be studs.....

They didn't get this "reputation" by stockpiling great runningbacks. It is the system. IMHO, only Terrell Davis, and Clinton Portis were better than the system........ Clinton Portis, I don't think came into his own, till he struggled early in Washington.

But as has been mentioned, and been over looked, All of Denver's guys were second day picks, including Terrell Davis, the 196th pick of the 1995 draft. Clinton Portis is the only guy taken by Denver on the first day, and he was drafted in the third round. And, I don't know how far back you can go, but Denver has always been drafting RBs late on the second day for quite some time now.

This doesn't make me think we'll be passing on Bush, as much as it makes me think we'll move DD, which I don't like....... I'd rather loose Carr.....


but you already know that.

Your assessments don't really tell the whole tale. Yes the system keeps going without major talent, but the major talents are what make the system Superbowl worthy. Davis and Portis were the only ones who really made Denver's offense "scary." Once again, the system is productive on its own, but it needs talent to bring the offense to a new, unstoppable level.

Davis is the type of back who will make the system effective. His receiving ability will give the offense options, and his all round good play will keep the full arsenal of runs (which include about 6 total lol) available.

Bush however, has the rare burst and explosion that is comparable to Portis. He can make the offense deadly... especially in multiple WR sets. That gives you a whole new dimension. 3rd and 6 becomes a legitimate running down. Screen plays become "money" plays. The singleback/3 WR set can be a 4 WR shotgun at any moment (or vice versa). Having both will be a great asset as it will take Bush time to learn the whole system. In that time the coaching staff can ease him in, and the Texans can use his strengths to their best ability his rookie year.

Oh, and most Denver fans agree that Clinton Portis came into his own his sophomore year.... more specifically this game:

Portis Runs Wild (http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=609&videoID=167)



Performance for the ages right there...

run-david-run
04-15-2006, 10:52 AM
Cap issues (along with me privately being grumpy that these people make so much money) are real issues.

The DD move you suggest would solve some of that $-issue, but the question is whether or not Bush/Morency would be able to pick it up in their "first" year.

If we draft Bush, and it sure does smell like that right now, I'm with you, he'll be fun to watch, we can then both whine about the $-issues in the off-season ;)
Not so much. Move DD. incur an $7-8 millon cap penalty. DD is here for at least one more season, guaranteed.

Also, anyone notice in the article where it said Reggie was "certain" to be better then DD? Anyone else found that strange?

MorKnolle
04-15-2006, 11:45 AM
I wanted to quote your whole message, but I didn't want to have that whole thing repeated, so I cut out the middle. Everything you said is true and I agree with your conclusions, however I would add something to it. In several of the years where the carry percentage was more spread out there were many injuries and switches of the starting job.

For example, you said...

Terrell Davis only played 7 games that year. He then broke his kneecap and sat out the rest of the year. This kind of thing happened consistently between '99 and '04. If those injuries hadn't happened I'm sure we would see carry percentages more like those of the Superbowl years.

Excellent point, the 2005 season was reallly the only one that they intended to run a 2 RB system, the other seasons that the carries were pretty well spread out were generally due to injuries.

Your assessments don't really tell the whole tale. Yes the system keeps going without major talent, but the major talents are what make the system Superbowl worthy. Davis and Portis were the only ones who really made Denver's offense "scary." Once again, the system is productive on its own, but it needs talent to bring the offense to a new, unstoppable level.

Davis is the type of back who will make the system effective. His receiving ability will give the offense options, and his all round good play will keep the full arsenal of runs (which include about 6 total lol) available.

Bush however, has the rare burst and explosion that is comparable to Portis. He can make the offense deadly... especially in multiple WR sets. That gives you a whole new dimension. 3rd and 6 becomes a legitimate running down. Screen plays become "money" plays. The singleback/3 WR set can be a 4 WR shotgun at any moment (or vice versa). Having both will be a great asset as it will take Bush time to learn the whole system. In that time the coaching staff can ease him in, and the Texans can use his strengths to their best ability his rookie year.

Oh, and most Denver fans agree that Clinton Portis came into his own his sophomore year.... more specifically this game:

Portis Runs Wild (http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=609&videoID=167)

Performance for the ages right there...

I agree, Domanick Davis is a solid RB and would be able to produce quite well in the Broncos system (probably get 1200 rushing yards, 400 receiving yards and 8-10 total TDs a year as the main RB), but Bush has that Clinton Portis type of special ability that should add that wow and scary factor to our offense (should be able to put up 1500 rushing yards and 500 receiving yards as our main RB).

Texansbacker
04-15-2006, 04:23 PM
Your assessments don't really tell the whole tale. Yes the system keeps going without major talent, but the major talents are what make the system Superbowl worthy. Davis and Portis were the only ones who really made Denver's offense "scary." Once again, the system is productive on its own, but it needs talent to bring the offense to a new, unstoppable level.

Davis is the type of back who will make the system effective. His receiving ability will give the offense options, and his all round good play will keep the full arsenal of runs (which include about 6 total lol) available.

Bush however, has the rare burst and explosion that is comparable to Portis. He can make the offense deadly... especially in multiple WR sets. That gives you a whole new dimension. 3rd and 6 becomes a legitimate running down. Screen plays become "money" plays. The singleback/3 WR set can be a 4 WR shotgun at any moment (or vice versa). Having both will be a great asset as it will take Bush time to learn the whole system. In that time the coaching staff can ease him in, and the Texans can use his strengths to their best ability his rookie year.

Oh, and most Denver fans agree that Clinton Portis came into his own his sophomore year.... more specifically this game:

Portis Runs Wild (http://www.denverbroncos.com/page.php?id=609&videoID=167)



Performance for the ages right there...


Nice link Apoch, thanks. Pretty exciting and the only problem with DDavis (besides staying healthy) is that he gets caught from behind too often. He does run strong and is fun to watch, solid......spectacular when he runs over people but that was more so during his rookie season when DD really punished some guys.

thunderkyss
04-15-2006, 08:24 PM
I agree, Domanick Davis is a solid RB and would be able to produce quite well in the Broncos system (probably get 1200 rushing yards, 400 receiving yards and 8-10 total TDs a year as the main RB), but Bush has that Clinton Portis type of special ability that should add that wow and scary factor to our offense (should be able to put up 1500 rushing yards and 500 receiving yards as our main RB).

Domanick Davis..... 2004
1188 rushing yards(kinda like 1200 rushing yards)
588 recieving yards(kinda like 400 recieving yards)

he scored 8 rushing touchdowns his rookie season & 13 his sophomore season.

& that's with the Houston Texans...... the worse offensive line in the league.

Improve the Offensive Line play, and he'll get you 1500/500......... there's no reason to believe he won't.

Tejaspro
04-16-2006, 12:30 AM
A.) The DL failed miserably against the run last year. It also failed to get any kind of consistent pass rush going either. It still needs lots of help. B.) Weaver has a history of being injured and certainly doesn't pressure the QB. He isn't the answer. C.) The Texans were totally unable to even block three pass rushers, let alone four. Fact is, opposing Ds didn't have to blitz to put pressure on Carr. D.) As far as the scouts go, I wouldn't put a lot of trust in them. I am sure the scouts thought Akili Smith and Ryan Leaf were can't miss prospects, as I am sure was the case for Cedrick Benson, Archie Griffin, Lawrence Phillips and Curtis Enis. Fact is, we don't need a RB. We already have a good one. We don't need a QB either -- we've already got a good one. What the Texans do need is a heckuva lot of help on the OL and on defense. Until they get that together, they'd better throw their entire draft at those problem areas. Everytime they draft a guy who will even touch the ball, I will wince and shake my head in total and utter disbelief. It reminds me of a guy who already has a decent weedeater but goes out and buys a better one while his lawnmower sits in the garage, broken and unusable.

Bobo,

You've got to be the most optomistic person that posts on these message boards.

You must be a Steelers fan, or are they too much of a loser for you?

But, I don't blame you. After reading your posts, I've come to the conclusion that you are right, and there is no hope for any ray of sunshine within the Texans organization.

You have convinced me. The Texans have got to be worse next year. We've let all our best players sign with other teams, and have replaced them with manequins. And forget about the draft. We don't draft high enough to get any kind of an impact player. (that is of course, unless we draft Bush) But then he'll just be a bust and never play an effective down in the NFL. Gosh, I'm really disappointed in the whole offseason mess. Maybe we could draft Vince Young, but then, alas, he would turn out to be just another pretty face with no talent. I'm getting depressed.

In fact, I'm giving up football. It's no use, because there is just no way to improve. I agree that Capers was the greatest, and if he stayed around and had won only one game next year, it would have been an improvement, and if he won no games the next year then we could all celebrate and become Oiler fans. There's no way for them to disappoint us.

Fairwell Texans fans... go ahead, get your hearts broken... but you've all been warned. Right, Bobo?

MorKnolle
04-16-2006, 03:18 PM
Domanick Davis..... 2004
1188 rushing yards(kinda like 1200 rushing yards)
588 recieving yards(kinda like 400 recieving yards)

he scored 8 rushing touchdowns his rookie season & 13 his sophomore season.

& that's with the Houston Texans...... the worse offensive line in the league.

Improve the Offensive Line play, and he'll get you 1500/500......... there's no reason to believe he won't.

The Broncos system is different from the system we were running before. The Broncos system doesn't overly utilize throwing to the RB, the most receiving yards by any RB in a single season under Shanahan/Kubiak was 369 (Aaron Craver in 1995), and they only had a 300 yard receiver among their RBs 5 times in 11 years (Clinton Portis in 2002 and 2003, Terrell Davis in 1995 and 1996, and Aaron Craver in 1995), so I don't expect Domanick to get 500 receiving yards in their system, nor do I expect him to remain healthy enough to rack up 1500 rushing yards in a season.