PDA

View Full Version : Should we compare Reggie to Faulk??


Frank_The_Tank
04-15-2006, 02:01 AM
Same pro day 40 time 4.3, almost the same size Reggie Bush 5'10.5 201 Faulk 5'11.75 204. Were you people also aware that in the 12 years Faulk has been in the league, he has only been able to stay healthy enough to finnish a complete 16 game season 4 times. Ladamion Tomilinson who is 20 lbs heavier has already matched that number in just 5 seasons. Brian Westbrook, another comparison to Bush has never completed a season without a injury. Dan Wilkinson, the #1 overall the year Faulk was taken, has completed 9 complete 16 game season, in comparison to Faulk? DE Willie McGinist, also taken in the same draft 4th pick has been healthy for 8 complete 16 game seasons.
I still think that reggie is going to have a good career but the kid is going to have problem because of his size. Trung Canidate, Cedric Benson, Michael Bennet, these are the only 3 running backs under 210 lbs taken in the 1st round in the last five years and all 3 have had major injuries. Canidate is a free agent, and Bennet was just released by the Vikings. Can a 200 lb running back survive in the 2006 season, I really don't know, I guess we will see.....

Frank_The_Tank
04-15-2006, 02:08 AM
I am not trying to nock Reggie, I am just saying that history does not lie. I think Mario and or Vince would contribute more for this team over their careers than Reggie Could. But I also would like to note that Faulk also led the Colts to the AFC championship in his second season. He was also traded after his 5th year by the Colts, to allow a larger back, Edge, take the number one spot.

kbourda
04-15-2006, 02:12 AM
I am not trying to nock Reggie, I am just saying that history does not lie. I think Mario and or Vince would contribute more for this team over their careers than Reggie Could. But I also would like to note that Faulk also led the Colts to the AFC championship in his second season. He was also traded after his 5th year by the Colts, to allow a larger back, Edge, take the number one spot.

No doubt, RB's get hit a bunch. I imagine the thinking would be limit the touches and minimize the poundings as a result.

Frank_The_Tank
04-15-2006, 02:32 AM
That would have to be the key for him to be worth the money. I was watching both Mike Strahan and Warren Sapp talking about Bush and they said they hope he tries that bounce it outside because NFL Defenses will eat him up. They also made comments about how weak his competition was in the PAC 10 which could be a reason his highlite film was so great. (NOTE: THEY SAID IT NOT ME SO DONT ATTACK ME PLEASE) All you ever hear from the T.V. analyist, most who never even played pro football, and they talk as if Reggie was the next great thing since sliced bread, but when you listen to Rod Woodson, Mike Strahan, and Warren Sapp they act as if they think Reggie is a joke????? I think that Reggie will be a great if we play him about 23 snaps a game. If, and when, he has to run between the tackles I hope he hits the whole so dang fast he is in the safties grill before the line backers can get to him because Jerry Porter, Ray Lewis, Brian Urlacher, those guys are going to bring alot of pop.

kbourda
04-15-2006, 02:35 AM
Honestly, I feel the PAC-10 is all hype and no substance. But then again that's just me talking. I know some of you will call me crazy and maybe some worse things. But that's the way I see it. At the same time, I take nothing away from the talent that comes out of there. Well, for the most part.

thunderkyss
04-15-2006, 02:39 AM
the main reason I don't like the argument that Reggie is the next Faulk, is for all we know, we already have the next Faulk...... only bigger, and stronger, in DD. Look at the stats of the first three years of their carreers. Sure, DD is slower, & he can't take it to the house from 80 yards out........ at least he hasn't done it yet.

three years, total yards…….. Marshall 4372
Three years, total yards…….. Domanick 4471

Rushing yards
Marshall 1282yds/yr1 1079yds/yr2 587yds/yr3
Domanick 1031yds/yr1 1188yds/yr2 976yds/yr3

Avg YPC:
Marshall 4.1 yr1 3.7 yr2 3 yr3
Domanick 4.3 yr1 3.9 yr2 4.2 yr3

Longest run:
Marshall: 52 yrds 40 yrds 43 yrds
Domanick: 51yrds 44yrds 44yrds

TDs:
Marshall: 11 11 7 total 29
Domanick: 8 13 2 total 23


20+ yrd runs...
in his first 3 years, Marshall had 19 runs over 20 yrds, Domanick had 13

Recieving you say??
three years...
Marshall: 1425 yards, with only two reception going for more than 40 yards.
Domanick: 1276 yards with no receptions going for more than 40yards.

Before this season, I've heard people compare Domonick Davis to Emmitt Smith, and Marshall Faulk. The only real knock on him, is that he's missed a few games.


games played:
Marshall 16 yr1 16 yr2 13 yr3 45 total
Domanick 14 yr1 15 yr2 11 yr3 40 total

Domanick only missed 5 more games than Marshall did his first three years. He has more rushing yards, 150 yards less recieving.

If Reggie Bush is so great, because he is going to be the next Marshall Faulk, why do we need two Marshall Faulks??

kbourda
04-15-2006, 02:43 AM
the main reason I don't like the argument that Reggie is the next Faulk, is for all we know, we already have the next Faulk...... only bigger, and stronger, in DD. Look at the stats of the first three years of their carreers. Sure, DD is slower, & he can't take it to the house from 80 yards out........ at least he hasn't done it yet.

three years, total yards…….. Marshall 4372
Three years, total yards…….. Domanick 4471

Rushing yards
Marshall 1282yds/yr1 1079yds/yr2 587yds/yr3
Domanick 1031yds/yr1 1188yds/yr2 976yds/yr3

Avg YPC:
Marshall 4.1 yr1 3.7 yr2 3 yr3
Domanick 4.3 yr1 3.9 yr2 4.2 yr3

Longest run:
Marshall: 52 yrds 40 yrds 43 yrds
Domanick: 51yrds 44yrds 44yrds

TDs:
Marshall: 11 11 7 total 29
Domanick: 8 13 2 total 23


20+ yrd runs...
in his first 3 years, Marshall had 19 runs over 20 yrds, Domanick had 13

Recieving you say??
three years...
Marshall: 1425 yards, with only two reception going for more than 40 yards.
Domanick: 1276 yards with no receptions going for more than 40yards.

Before this season, I've heard people compare Domonick Davis to Emmitt Smith, and Marshall Faulk. The only real knock on him, is that he's missed a few games.


games played:
Marshall 16 yr1 16 yr2 13 yr3 45 total
Domanick 14 yr1 15 yr11 11 yr3 40 total

Domanick only missed 5 more games than Marshall did his first three years. He has more rushing yards, 150 yards less recieving.

If Reggie Bush is so great, because he is going to be the next Marshall Faulk, why do we need two Marshall Faulks??


While I would never confuse DD with Faulk, numbers don't lie. Good job, once again.

thunderkyss
04-15-2006, 02:51 AM
While I would never confuse DD with Faulk, numbers don't lie. Good job, once again.

That's because the Faulk we remember is the Faulk who won the MVP or what ever. He was the same guy that won Superbowls, & did the 1000/1000 thing.
We don't remember what he did when he came into the league..... Tiki Barber, Shaun Alexander, Edgerrin James. DD has them all beat at the three year mark.... totally kills them, and most RBs in this league in all purpose yards. Except for a few........ special backs.


But he was a 4th round pick, so he'll never be anything.... at least that's what some people will think.

Even if the guy is over 30% of our offense.

And that's with bad coaching, and a poor offensive line.

Frank_The_Tank
04-15-2006, 03:00 AM
WOW great post thunderkyss, that bows my mind that they matched up so well. I would have never guessed. Looking at that, you have got to be asking yourself what are the texans thinking bringing in another running back?????? If recent history pretty much guarentees you are going to have injury problems with Bush, I dont see why we waste 60 million on the guy. If people say he is going to be the next Marshall Faulk, all you have to say is we already have the next Marshall faulk, D.D. has already proven he is just as good as Faulk in their first three seasons.

thunderkyss
04-15-2006, 03:07 AM
WOW great post thunderkyss, that bows my mind that they matched up so well. I would have never guessed. Looking at that, you have got to be asking yourself what are the texans thinking bringing in another running back?????? If recent history pretty much guarentees you are going to have injury problems with Bush, I dont see why we waste 60 million on the guy. If people say he is going to be the next Marshall Faulk, all you have to say is we already have the next Marshall faulk, D.D. has already proven he is just as good as Faulk in their first three seasons.

& in the NFL, on a team that was just as pitiful as the Colts were when Faulk came into the league.


Reggie still has to prove that he can do what DD has.

BeerFan
04-15-2006, 03:15 AM
up until the three year mark, yeah. i'd call it a draw. but faulk was with the colts at that time, so none of this accounts for the explosion when he joined the rams. THAT is production DD does not have the capacity to match. he's not the home run threat and he doesnt have the athleticism. don't get me wrong, im a huge Davis fan. just pointing that out.

so basically the answer is that Davis is as good as Faulk during the early years. a poor man's Faulk. i'll take that anyday. even better yet would be a rich man's Faulk lined up on his side.

thunderkyss
04-15-2006, 03:27 AM
that explosion had nothing to do with Kurt Warner?? Isaac Bruce, Tory Holt?? Ricky Proehl??

You know....... David Carr?? Andre Johnson, Eric Moulds, Keving Mathis?? well no Mathis is our Azhakim. Walter/Armstrong can be Ricky Proehl.

And DD is extremely athletic.... IMHO, he might not have the speed, but if David can get him close to the 50, he's a threat to score every time. Especially with a little zone blocking.

Johnny Utah
04-15-2006, 06:14 AM
Were you people also aware that in the 12 years Faulk has been in the league, he has only been able to stay healthy enough to finnish a complete 16 game season 4 times.

Only counting his prime years from rookie year to 2002
He had 16 games played 5 times. 94, 95, 97, 98, 99
14 games played 3 times. 00, 01, 02
13 games played 1 time. 96

During Faulk's first 9 years he has missed 9 games.

Dominick Davis has missed 8 games in his first 3 years. Which in a similar 9 year stretch would translate into 24 games missed.

Johnny Utah
04-15-2006, 06:34 AM
A couple of problems when comparing DD stats to Faulk's during his first 3 years in the league. Those were some of Faulk's three worst seasons in the NFL if you don't look at his recent production due to the decline in his game because of age.

Faulk Rushing

1994 314 1282 4.1
1995 289 1078 3.7
1996 198 587 3.0
1997 264 1054 4.0
1998 324 1319 4.1
1999 253 1381 5.5
2000 253 1359 5.4
2001 260 1382 5.3
2002 212 953 4.5

Faulk receiving:

1994 52 522 10.0
1995 56 475 8.5
1996 56 428 7.6
1997 47 471 10.0
1998 86 908 10.6
1999 87 1048 12.0
2000 81 830 10.2
2001 83 765 9.2
2002 80 537 6.7

Faulk was terribly misused in Indy, primarily in the passing game. Faulk has the receiving skill to run deep patterns and deep outs. Limiting him to short dump off passes limits his playmaking skills. Later on in his career with the Rams they moved him more to the slot and look at how his receiving numbers jumped.

Now you can argue that DD has only been limited to dump off receptions also, but there is no doubt in my mind that is the limit of his game. You can not move DD into the slot and expect him to succed. IMO, DD will never have the break away ability to average over 5 yards a carry like Faulk did either.

If the Texans use Bush properly then I believe he'll have the game to put up Faulk-like MVP numbers like he did during 99-01.

bdiddy
04-15-2006, 08:25 AM
the main reason I don't like the argument that Reggie is the next Faulk, is for all we know, we already have the next Faulk...... only bigger, and stronger, in DD. Look at the stats of the first three years of their carreers. Sure, DD is slower, & he can't take it to the house from 80 yards out........ at least he hasn't done it yet.

three years, total yards…….. Marshall 4372
Three years, total yards…….. Domanick 4471

Rushing yards
Marshall 1282yds/yr1 1079yds/yr2 587yds/yr3
Domanick 1031yds/yr1 1188yds/yr2 976yds/yr3

Avg YPC:
Marshall 4.1 yr1 3.7 yr2 3 yr3
Domanick 4.3 yr1 3.9 yr2 4.2 yr3

Longest run:
Marshall: 52 yrds 40 yrds 43 yrds
Domanick: 51yrds 44yrds 44yrds

TDs:
Marshall: 11 11 7 total 29
Domanick: 8 13 2 total 23


20+ yrd runs...
in his first 3 years, Marshall had 19 runs over 20 yrds, Domanick had 13

Recieving you say??
three years...
Marshall: 1425 yards, with only two reception going for more than 40 yards.
Domanick: 1276 yards with no receptions going for more than 40yards.

Before this season, I've heard people compare Domonick Davis to Emmitt Smith, and Marshall Faulk. The only real knock on him, is that he's missed a few games.


games played:
Marshall 16 yr1 16 yr2 13 yr3 45 total
Domanick 14 yr1 15 yr2 11 yr3 40 total

Domanick only missed 5 more games than Marshall did his first three years. He has more rushing yards, 150 yards less recieving.

If Reggie Bush is so great, because he is going to be the next Marshall Faulk, why do we need two Marshall Faulks??

Tell me where I can get some of the stuff you are smoking, it must be good if you think DD is anywhere close to being in Marshall Faulk's league.

You, yourself said that Faulk ran a 4.3 - Davis would be lucky to break 4.55. Davis has had MANY more injuries per years in the league than Faulk. Faulk changes games, Davis is a nice back when healthy. Its like comparing a Mercedes to a Chevy. There is nothing wrong with a Chevy, it is nice and sturdy (when the transmission is not going out), but still most would agree that a Mercedes is a more high end car.

HJam72
04-15-2006, 08:30 AM
During Faulk's first 9 years he has missed 9 games.

Dominick Davis has missed 8 games in his first 3 years.

That means DD will only miss 1 game in the next 6 years!!! :redtowel:

rmartin65
04-15-2006, 09:12 AM
Keving Mathis?? well no Mathis is our Azhakim.
Jerome Mathis?

kastofsna
04-15-2006, 12:20 PM
here's an attempt to fit the numbers to your argument. numbers don't tell the whole story. davis isn't in faulk's league. as said before, davis is a good, solid back. i'd say at best he'll be a robert smith-type back. good for 3-4 yards per carry, with the occasional 30-yarder. nothing flashy.

Frank_The_Tank
04-15-2006, 01:46 PM
I think D.D. has just as much talent as M. Faulk. You can argue until you are blue in the face but the facts are facts. In his 12 year career Faulk has averaged 1023 yrds a season 8 rushing TD's a season and of 192 games he has only started 156 that means he has been out for 36 games, that mean he has been out over 2 years of that 12 year season. Domanik Davis has missed 12 games over the last three season but he is averaging 1065 yards a season and 7.6 TD a season. After Faulks first three years he only averaged 982 yards. Oh and Domanich Davis longest rushes rushes of 51 44 44 in his first three years Faulk had longest of 52 40 43. Do not even say that Domanick does not have the ability of Faulk, 40 times don't mean crap, D.D., Chad Johnson, Terrel Ownes, (all 4.57 40 comming into the NFL) have proven that point. Just my opinion but if we trade off Domanick to lets say Indy, I bet you we would see (St.Louis)-Faulk type numbers. I mean look what happend to Faulk when he left Indy!

Vinny
04-15-2006, 01:48 PM
I think D.D. has just as much talent as M. Faulk. When should I stop laughing at this remark?

beerlover
04-15-2006, 01:59 PM
Davis also has chronic knee inflamation that requires draining after games and the reason why he cannot remain healthy for an entire season. as far as I know Reggie Bush has no lingering physical or chronic health concerns that would limit his availablity to see game action.

That being said I would love the Texans to smartly trade down, aquire more picks & defensive help then add one of the other top RB's DeAngleo Williams or Laurence Maroney (outside chance he could be there @ #33). :cool:

Huge
04-15-2006, 02:01 PM
Tell me where I can get some of the stuff you are smoking, it must be good if you think DD is anywhere close to being in Marshall Faulk's league.

You, yourself said that Faulk ran a 4.3 - Davis would be lucky to break 4.55. Davis has had MANY more injuries per years in the league than Faulk. Faulk changes games, Davis is a nice back when healthy. Its like comparing a Mercedes to a Chevy. There is nothing wrong with a Chevy, it is nice and sturdy (when the transmission is not going out), but still most would agree that a Mercedes is a more high end car.
Emmitt Smith and Walter Payton would be lucky to break a 4.5 forty. How did they end up #1 and #2 on the All-Time rushing list?

here's an attempt to fit the numbers to your argument. numbers don't tell the whole story. davis isn't in faulk's league. as said before, davis is a good, solid back. i'd say at best he'll be a robert smith-type back. good for 3-4 yards per carry, with the occasional 30-yarder. nothing flashy.
Who cares about flashy if the production's the same?

BTW, Robert Smith averaged 4.8 YPC for his career. Or maybe you were thinking of a different RB?

Frank_The_Tank
04-15-2006, 02:04 PM
When should I stop laughing at this remark?

Laugh all you want, does not bother me. I have my own opinion, and I think that if any one should be laughing it should be me. How can you prove that going into their fourth season Faulk was playing any better than Davis???

bdiddy
04-15-2006, 02:06 PM
Emmitt Smith and Walter Payton would be lucky to break a 4.5 forty. How did they end up #1 and #2 on the All-Time rushing list?


Who cares about flashy if the production's the same?

BTW, Robert Smith averaged 4.8 YPC for his career. Or maybe you were thinking of a different RB?

Walter Payton played 20 years ago when 4.5 would have put him in the top 5 fast guys in the league.

Emmitt Smith ran behind the best offensive line in football for the vast majority of his career.

Vinny
04-15-2006, 02:07 PM
Laugh all you want, does not bother me. I have my own opinion, and I think that if any one should be laughing it should be me. How can you prove that going into their fourth season Faulk was playing any better than Davis???Post this on any unbiased message board and most people will just laugh at the comparison, but hey, whatever floats your boat man.

Vinny
04-15-2006, 02:10 PM
Walter Payton played 20 years ago when 4.5 would have put him in the top 5 fast guys in the league.

Emmitt Smith ran behind the best offensive line in football for the vast majority of his career.Pure speed is severly overrated, but it sure doesn't hurt you. Payton and Smith weren't great because of anything other than their own talents, playing physical, and their ability to slow down defenders who have to use good form to make a tackle since they both had great ability to make people miss in short space.

Frank_The_Tank
04-15-2006, 02:15 PM
Post this on any unbiased message board and most people will just laugh at the comparison, but hey, whatever floats your boat man.

You are saying you are unbiased, now that is funny. That makes people laugh.

thunderkyss
04-15-2006, 02:24 PM
A couple of problems when comparing DD stats to Faulk's during his first 3 years in the league. Those were some of Faulk's three worst seasons in the NFL if you don't look at his recent production due to the decline in his game because of age.

Faulk was terribly misused in Indy, primarily in the passing game. Faulk has the receiving skill to run deep patterns and deep outs. Limiting him to short dump off passes limits his playmaking skills. Later on in his career with the Rams they moved him more to the slot and look at how his receiving numbers jumped.

Now you can argue that DD has only been limited to dump off receptions also, but there is no doubt in my mind that is the limit of his game. You can not move DD into the slot and expect him to succed. IMO, DD will never have the break away ability to average over 5 yards a carry like Faulk did either.

If the Texans use Bush properly then I believe he'll have the game to put up Faulk-like MVP numbers like he did during 99-01.

Great post......... however, when we talk about DD, you're correct, that he isn't exactly like Marshall Faulk. He'll never be used to run a deep out. But that's Okay....... I don't believe that is a necessary criteria fro a runningback. However I think DD can easily put up 2000 all purpose yards in a single season. Especially with an improved run blocking scheme.

Think more of Terrell Davis........ the zone blocking will get DD to the second level, and he will punish corners and safeties... he'll also stay healthier, if he isn't trying to run through Defensive Tackles who make it into the backfield. a

Tell me where I can get some of the stuff you are smoking, it must be good if you think DD is anywhere close to being in Marshall Faulk's league.

You, yourself said that Faulk ran a 4.3 - Davis would be lucky to break 4.55. Davis has had MANY more injuries per years in the league than Faulk. Faulk changes games, Davis is a nice back when healthy. Its like comparing a Mercedes to a Chevy. There is nothing wrong with a Chevy, it is nice and sturdy (when the transmission is not going out), but still most would agree that a Mercedes is a more high end car.
I have no clue what kinda 40 time Faulk or DD ran........ I know Faulk is faster, but I don't keep up with stats like that. Once they are on the field, and you can see what they can do, what's the point. & when that Mercedes gets totalled, you've lost more money, and your chevy.

Jerome Mathis?
Well who the heck is Kevin Mathis?? :redtowel:

here's an attempt to fit the numbers to your argument. numbers don't tell the whole story. davis isn't in faulk's league. as said before, davis is a good, solid back. i'd say at best he'll be a robert smith-type back. good for 3-4 yards per carry, with the occasional 30-yarder. nothing flashy.
I see....

I thought we were trying to win football games...

You want window dressing.

When should I stop laughing at this remark?

Now Vinny....... you know Marshall doesn't have a monopoly on Talent. DD may never have an 80 yard reception(which I think Marshall has on screens), but DD will get the job done. He's shown us he has talent(he's starting 3 years running in a very competitive NFL) and he is a hard worker. He's a stand up good characther guy.

DD might not have the ability to juke & jive like Faulk, but hes got a style I would say is a cross between Faulk & Emmitt Smith.

Do you think Domanicks numbers would improve with a good zone blocking system?? if so, what kind of numbers would you project?? rushing & passing.

Who else has numbers comparable to those projections in the NFL??

thunderkyss
04-15-2006, 02:28 PM
Emmitt Smith ran behind the best offensive line in football for the vast majority of his career.

so you're saying we should draft D'Brick??

Vinny
04-15-2006, 02:30 PM
You are saying you are unbiased, now that is funny. That makes people laugh.I have been here for half a decade and proven I am...but you just laugh all you need too. It's fine with me. I have a pretty good eye for talent thankyouverymuch.

Huge
04-15-2006, 02:33 PM
Walter Payton played 20 years ago when 4.5 would have put him in the top 5 fast guys in the league.

Emmitt Smith ran behind the best offensive line in football for the vast majority of his career.
If Payton's 4.5 would've put him in the top 5 in the league 20 years ago, how far ahead were guys like Tony Dorsett?

If you believe Payton was successful because he had an edge on most players because of his speed, you should stop posting.

Do you remember the RBs that backed up Emmitt Smith? I can...barely. But that's because I've been following the Cowboys for quite some time. It would just seem to me that the RBs playing behind Emmitt would've surely made a name for themselves by racking up such huge numbers while playing behind such a talented OL. But that's not the case. Why is that?

Frank_The_Tank
04-15-2006, 02:35 PM
Terrel Davis, 5'11 208 about the same size as Bush, just a tad bit bigger, only lasted 4 years with a great O-Line and a Hall of Fame QB. Just think, Domanick Davis is one year shy of matching Terril Davis career.

thunderkyss
04-15-2006, 02:48 PM
Terrel Davis, 5'11 208 about the same size as Bush, just a tad bit bigger, only lasted 4 years with a great O-Line and a Hall of Fame QB. Just think, Domanick Davis is one year shy of matching Terril Davis career.

Frank......... no offense, but I think you may be going a little too far with this......

Personally, I don't think it's "good taste" to bring up Terrell's unfortunately short career in a discussion like this.

I haven't looked at the numbers, but I doubt DDs rushing numbers compare in any way to Terrells. And don't use the argument that TD was the same size as Bush, it hurts our case......... & I really thought TD was bigger.

But there are all kinds of guys who get hurt for whatever reason....... Jamal Anderson, was huge, IMHO DDs size......... and he & TD suffered the same fate.

I love your entusiasm, but TDs injury in no way reflect his game, his durability, or his place in NFL history.

YodAa
04-15-2006, 02:55 PM
u said reggie will probably get hurt just as much as Faulk did cause of similar size but why don't you show us the injury record of both from their college years?

Frank_The_Tank
04-15-2006, 02:58 PM
You are right I will get back on topic, and I was a huge fan of Terrel Davis.

Frank_The_Tank
04-15-2006, 03:00 PM
Oh and Terrel Davis was 5'11 210 about the same size as bush, only 10 lbs heavier

Frank_The_Tank
04-15-2006, 03:03 PM
My main point of this topic was to show that we have a established running back who will get the job done for the Texans. If you say we need Reggie Bush because he is like Marshall Faulk, I think we already have a back as good as Marshall Faulk.

TreWardTxn
04-15-2006, 03:08 PM
Davis played at 5'10'' 210, no where near Bush's size, and he didn't look a thing like him in pads. Jamal Anderson was listed at 5'11'' 237, and I don't remember thinking he was that tall when standing next to other players on field or in interviews.

I've said it before, size does not matter as much as style of running and physicality, primo NFL running backs must be physical.

bad
04-15-2006, 03:17 PM
I think we already have a back as good as Marshall Faulk.On April 29th, that statement will become true. As of now, it's false.

I've seen Bush compared to Faulk. Now here's Faulk compared to Davis. Before we start comparing Davis to Bush, let's see where it all started going wrong.

Ah yes. Comparing Davis to Faulk. Let's wait until Davis sets an NFL single season touchdown scoring record, becomes the most dangerous all-around offensive threat in the league for a few years and oh yeah, plays a full season without injury.

Faulk will end up in Canton. I'm grateful we have Davis, but he's no Faulk.

Frank_The_Tank
04-15-2006, 08:08 PM
As of right now I can argue that Domanick Davis is on path to being just as good as Marshall Faulk, the stats prove it. If given the chance to play with some talent around him, Domanick Davis will be an AFC Pro-Bowl Running Back. Domanick has shown that he can be a consistant 1000 yrd rusher. IF we bring in Bush, and ship off Davis (which will happen do not kid yourself, if we draft Bush, Domanick is going to be pissed and demand a trade, I personally hope that he goes to Indy!) we will see him move on to produce for other teams. There are many guys who come in the league and just wish they could have 1/2 the success as Domanick. You all act like you are Texans fans but you have no respect for the guys who have produced. You all ride the Carr bandwagon and he has done nothing. He was not a Rookie of the Year, Domanick has delivered every year and now that we have a coach who brings in a offense that can elevate Dom to Superstardom you guys sell out? That is how I see it!

kastofsna
04-15-2006, 08:13 PM
after the money that will be invested in bush, davis won't be traded. the cap will be killed. he'll probably get more carries early on anyhow.

Frank_The_Tank
04-15-2006, 08:20 PM
No team is going to pay 65 million dollars to a player and watch him run the pall 13 times a game and catch it 4 times a game. If we draft Bush he is going to be expected to start. It is not like a QB who can sit and learn like Rivers, this guy will be expected to handle 75% of the carries at least. If you think Domanick Davis is going to sit around and let this coach do it to him then you are crazy, he will be gone by next year if we draft Bush. I think we should just pass on Bush, just my opinion. I would rather pass on Bush then give up on Domanick, a proven NFL running back!

thunderkyss
04-15-2006, 08:42 PM
u said reggie will probably get hurt just as much as Faulk did cause of similar size but why don't you show us the injury record of both from their college years?

Ricky Williams carried the load for UT........

look at how many games he played his first three years.
Oh and Terrel Davis was 5'11 210 about the same size as bush, only 10 lbs heavier

Ten pounds is a lot for little guys like that...... DD is 5'10" & 230lbs or something like that...... guys that are 5'11" to 6'1" should be in the 215-225 range.
Guys that are under 5'11" that way over 210 are generally "big guys"
A 6'3" 210lbs guy isn't really a big guy....... he's kinda small.


On April 29th, that statement will become true. As of now, it's false.

I've seen Bush compared to Faulk. Now here's Faulk compared to Davis. Before we start comparing Davis to Bush, let's see where it all started going wrong.

Ah yes. Comparing Davis to Faulk. Let's wait until Davis sets an NFL single season touchdown scoring record, becomes the most dangerous all-around offensive threat in the league for a few years and oh yeah, plays a full season without injury.

Faulk will end up in Canton. I'm grateful we have Davis, but he's no Faulk.
To be fair, before we start comparing Reggie to Faulk, let's wait until Bush sets an NFL single season touchdown scoring record, become the most dangerous all-around offensive threat in the league for a few years, and oh yeah, take a freak'n snap in the big-boy league.


As of right now I can argue that Domanick Davis is on path to being just as good as Marshall Faulk, the stats prove it. If given the chance to play with some talent around him, Domanick Davis will be an AFC Pro-Bowl Running Back. Domanick has shown that he can be a consistant 1000 yrd rusher. IF we bring in Bush, and ship off Davis (which will happen do not kid yourself, if we draft Bush, Domanick is going to be pissed and demand a trade, I personally hope that he goes to Indy!) we will see him move on to produce for other teams. There are many guys who come in the league and just wish they could have 1/2 the success as Domanick. You all act like you are Texans fans but you have no respect for the guys who have produced. You all ride the Carr bandwagon and he has done nothing. He was not a Rookie of the Year, Domanick has delivered every year and now that we have a coach who brings in a offense that can elevate Dom to Superstardom you guys sell out? That is how I see it!

well......... yeah......

that's pretty much the way i see it too....... except I don't think it'll be DD that initiates the trade...... don't forget, Reggie may very well bust. If he does have a good season however, they'll be looking to move DD, and they know they'll get more for DD than the California boy.

DD doesn't have enough flash for the guys in Houston........ too...... blue Collar.

after the money that will be invested in bush, davis won't be traded. the cap will be killed. he'll probably get more carries early on anyhow.

I agree, he'll be here for one more season......

HTfan
04-16-2006, 12:18 AM
Anyone got any stats on how we've ranked in team rushing overall in the last three years? Also wondering how faulk's teams compares with DD's teams in that respect too.

MasterC25
04-16-2006, 12:25 AM
Honestly, I feel the PAC-10 is all hype and no substance. But then again that's just me talking. I know some of you will call me crazy and maybe some worse things. But that's the way I see it. At the same time, I take nothing away from the talent that comes out of there. Well, for the most part.

If the Pac-10 is all hype and no substance then what is Big 12. The most overrated conference in college football

ToroFan
04-16-2006, 01:47 AM
If the Pac-10 is all hype and no substance then what is Big 12. The most overrated conference in college football

Big 12 Overrated?

Let's see...

OU - Beat #12 Oregon in the Holiday
Texas - Beat #1 USC
Tech - Lost to #8 Alabama by 3
Iowa St - Lost to #11 TCU by 3
Missouri - Beat South Carolina
Nebraska - Beat Michigan
Kansas - Beat Houston
Colorado - Lost to #19 Clemson by 9

So judging by that it seems that in the bowl season the Big 12 was 5-3. The 3 losses came to teams that were ranked higher than them, 2 of which were 3point losses and the other was a 9 point loss. None of the losses were blowouts.

The Big 12 conference champion took down the Pac-10 champion and the Big 10 co-champion.

How is the Big 12 overrated again in comparison to the Pac-10?

kastofsna
04-16-2006, 01:56 AM
it's pretty safe to say both conferences are very overrated.

ToroFan
04-16-2006, 02:06 AM
it's pretty safe to say both conferences are very overrated.

How was the Big 12 overrated? and which conference wasn't overrated then?

Frank_The_Tank
04-16-2006, 02:46 AM
If the Pac-10 is all hype and no substance then what is Big 12. The most overrated conference in college football



BIG 12 had 4 teams ranked in the top 20 in Def the PAC 10 not did not have one in the top 35 in fact a large number of those ten were not even in the top 100 so please get off it. Why is this even a topic on this thread, people just cant let it go, look just drop your fear/hate for Vince Young in the other threads, this is a anti BUSH-Bash/YOUNG-bash Thread.

LikeABoss
04-16-2006, 02:57 AM
and Bennet was just released by the Vikings.

Michael Bennet was NOT released by the Vikings, he was a unrestricted free agent that happily decided to sign with the Saints over the Indianapolis Colts and Miami Dolphins:)

http://www.nola.com/saints/t-p/index.ssf?/base/sports-2/114464974694290.xml

kastofsna
04-16-2006, 11:15 AM
How was the Big 12 overrated? and which conference wasn't overrated then?
because both are very top-heavy conferences. they don't have the depth like the ACC, SEC, big 10.

ToroFan
04-16-2006, 12:29 PM
because both are very top-heavy conferences. they don't have the depth like the ACC, SEC, big 10.

How were those other conferences head and shoulders above the Big 12 in terms of depth? The Big 12 had 8 out of its 12 teams in a bowl game, and finished with a 5-3 mark?

Bowl Records
SEC - 3-3
Big X - 3-4
ACC - 5-3

Although A&M, Baylor, Ok State, and Kansas State were down this year, they aren't worse than the bottom teams of the other conferences you mentioned ACC (Duke, UNC, Wake Forest), Big X (Illinois, Indiana, Michigan State, Purdue), or SEC (Kentucky, Ole Miss, Miss St, Arkansas)

So what's the basis for the depth argument?